Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07132021 - BOS Complete Min PKtCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1025 ESCOBAR STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 DIANE BURGIS, CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, VICE CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA , 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF , 4TH DISTRICT MONICA NINO, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 655-2075 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. To slow the spread of COVID-19, the Health Officer’s Shelter Order of September 14, 2020, prevents public gatherings (Health Officer Order). In lieu of a public gathering, the Board of Supervisors meeting will be accessible via television and live-streaming to all members of the public as permitted by the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20. Board meetings are televised live on Comcast Cable 27, ATT/U-Verse Channel 99, and WAVE Channel 32, and can be seen live online at www.contracosta.ca.gov. PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA MAY CALL IN DURING THE MEETING BY DIALING 888-251-2949 FOLLOWED BY THE ACCESS CODE 1672589#. To indicate you wish to speak on an agenda item, please push "#2" on your phone. All telephone callers will be limited to two (2) minutes apiece. The Board Chair may reduce the amount of time allotted per telephone caller at the beginning of each item or public comment period depending on the number of calls and the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. A lunch break or closed session may be called at the discretion of the Board Chair. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible on line at www.contracosta.ca.gov. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES July 13, 2021            9:00 A.M. Convene, call to order and opening ceremonies. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) Agency Negotiators : Monica Nino. Employee Organizations and Unrepresented Employees: Public Employees Union, Local 1; AFSCME Locals 512 and 2700; California Nurses Assn.; SEIU Locals 1021 and 2015; District Attorney Investigators’ Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters I.A.F.F., Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; Prof. & Tech. Engineers IFPTE, Local 21; Teamsters Local 856; and all unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP (MDL 2804) 1. Rosanna Pagsuyuin, et al. v. Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. MSC19-000382. Inspirational Thought- "Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." ~Adlai Stevenson II, former governor of Illinois Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:Monica Nino, County Administrator Mary Ann Mason, County Counsel  There were no announcements from closed session.   CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.150 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PR.1 PRESENTATION of the People Who Make a Difference Awards 2021, acknowledging those who have significantly contributed towards reducing substance abuse in Contra Costa communities. (Fatima Matal Sol, Health Services Department)       District 1 Youth Leadership Individual Syed Ali; District 2 Youth Leadership Individual Ankia Gupta; District 2 Youth Leadership Indvidual the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse (NCAPDA Youth Ambassodors; District 3 Non Volunteer Group Diablo Valley Ranch; District 5 Discovery House Non-Volunteer group, Nikki Francisco; District 5 Volunteer Group Discovery House.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover DISCUSSION ITEMS   D.1 RECEIVE UPDATE and provide direction to staff regarding Juvenile Justice Programs, Facilities and Mandates in Contra Costa County. (Esa Ehmen-Krause, Chief Probation Officer) (Continued from June 22, 2021)       Speakers Melvin Willis, Richmond ACCE; Tanisha Walker, Dr. Lonnie Bristow, Senior Tutors from Rossmoor; Jane Currant, Richmond; No Name Given; Reverant Julius, Executive Director of Getting Out of Dodge; Name unknown; Danny.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.2 HEARING to consider approving the Pantages Residential Development Project, a 277-lot development in the Discovery Bay area, including approving a General Plan Amendment, rezoning ordinance, and development plan; and consider approving an addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report. (County File Nos. CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDDP19-3024) (Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC, Applicant - C&D Discovery Bay LLC and Waterfront Lots LLC, Property Owners) (Jennifer Cruz, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Name not given; Name not given. Written commentary received from Dave Johnson, Discovery Bay (attached). ADOPTED the recommendations; and revised Condition of Approval 68 g to change 'Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements) and maintenance: TDBCSD. to now read "Ownership (subject to conservation covenmants/easements) and mainenance: TDBCSD or alternative beings below."    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.3 HEARING to consider approving the Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project at the Keller Canyon Landfill in the unincorporated Pittsburg area, including approval of a land use permit and amending the existing Keller Canyon Landfill land use permit to allow the construction and operation of a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline, and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration, as recommended by the County Planning Commission. (Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC - Applicant, Keller Canyon Landfill Company - Owner) (Aruna Bhat, Stanley Muraoka, and David Brockbank, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Bob Dwell, Walnut Creek. ADOPTED the recommendations with an amendment to Condition of Approval 68 G to insert the phrase "or alternative beings below" for clarity; ADDED a Condition of Approval as follows: Applicant shall deliver within 60 days of approval of the Land Use Permit a signed and negotiated Community Benefits Agreement requiring Ameresco to pay $50,000 per year to the County while the Ameresco gas processing project and pipeline is operational. Funds shall be deposited in the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund and disbursed by the County to fund projects benefitting the community according to the protocols in place for that Fund. The first payment shall be made one year from the date the project becomes commercially operational. Payments after the first annual payment shall increase each year by the change in the consumer price index.   D.4 HEARING to consider approving the Tassajara Parks Residential Project, a 125-unit residential development in the Tassajara Valley area, including approval of a General Plan amendment, rezoning ordinance, vesting tentative map, development plan, and development agreement ordinance; consider approving a change to the urban limit line to include the Project’s 30-acre residential development area; consider certifying the project environmental impact report and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act; and consider approving a preservation agreement with the City of San Ramon and the East Bay Regional Park District (FT Land LLC, Applicant; FT Land LLC, Meach LLC, BI Land LLC, and TH Land LLC, Owners) (Sean Tully and Will Nelson, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers in support: Vice Mayor of San Ramon, Scott Perkins; Taylor Johnson; Danville; Mike Anderson, Danvile; Chris Hoffman, San Ramon; Brian Holtz, Chief of Planning, East Bay Park District; former city councilmember of San Ramon; Rachel Schumaker, Assistant Business Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director, San Ramon City Council; Bob Doyle; Tom Lawson, Business Manager, Plumbers and Steamfitters UA Local 159; Joe Gorton, City Manager, San Ramon; Beverly Lane, East Bay Park District; Seth Adams, Land Conservation Director, Save Mt. Diablo; Speakers in opposition: Kevin Liu; Sue McKenny, San Ramon; Kim McKnight, Danville; Carol Weed; Ilsa; Jim Blickenstaff, Sierra Club; Susie; Dave, Water Division, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); Karen Rosenberg; Richard Fischer, Tassajara Valley; Gretchen Logue, co-founder of the Tassajara Valley Preservation Association, Joe Calabrigo, Town Manager, Danville; Corrine Fisher; Linda, Alamo Creek; Donna Gerber, former Supervisor of District 3; Zaynab Jawaid, Danville; Sandee Wiedemann. APPROVED staff recommendations with the following additional Conditions of Approval or amendments to a Condition of Approval: 1. A building permit will not be requested by the applicant or issued by the County during any water shortage emergency declared by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Board of Directors that requires customer demand reductions of 20% or more pursuent to EBMUD's policy 9.03 or equivalent; 2. Amending COA #44 to add that a) all new residences shall be constructed to be exclusively electric and shall not have natural gas plumbing or appliances, and b) that all new residences shall be constructed with rooftop solar panels, battery storage, and all wiring and equipment necessary for electric vehicle charging; 3. Amending COA #43 The Development Agreement, Section 3.02 Contribution to Contra Costta Livable Communities Trust Fund: The $2.5M LCTF Contribution , and all CPI increases to said contribution, which payment sall be made within five days after the recordation of the Project's first final map; 4. DELETE the COA that prohibits woodburning fire places in favor of natural gas ones; 5. Prior to recordation of the first final map, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, restrictive covenant or similar instrument reflecting that no urban land uses shall be undertaken on the project site outside the Urban Limit LIne (ULL). 6. The Development Agreement will be edited to align and be consistent with the new and amended Conditions of Approval. The Applicant states for the record acceptance of these changes and additions.   D.5 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    Items C.31 and C.37 were removed from consent to allow for commentary and subsequently adopted as presented.   D.6 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    There were no requests to speak at public comment today.   D.7 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   ADJOURN in memory of Richard Rainey Former Sheriff-Coroner, Assemblyman and State Senator    Adjourned today's meeting at 5:25 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a cooperative agreement between the County and the State of California, Department of Transportation, to receive federal funding in the amount of $3,383,000 for the construction of the Bailey Road and State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project, Bay Point area. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 2 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/203 ratifying the prior decision of the Public Works Director, or designee, to fully close a portion of Canyon Lake Drive from Reservoir Street to the terminus on July 4, 2021 from 2:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m., for the purpose of restricting access and parking for public safety on the 4th of July, Port Costa area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the use of $140,000 of the Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefits Fund for the Byron Airport General Plan Amendment project, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis. (100% Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefit Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 4 APPROVE and ADOPT the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for County Airports, AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Public Works Director, or designee, to sign and submit the DBE Program for County Airports document to the Federal Aviation Administration for acceptance. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Gordon Campbell and Mark Shea for a south-facing T-hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective June 15, 2021 in the monthly amount of $350, Pacheco area. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 6 As the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a license agreement with Wild and Radish, LLC, authorizing the District to install and maintain rain gauge equipment at 680 Marin Road, El Sobrante, effective July 13, 2021, as recommended by the Chief Engineer. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 7 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Mead & Hunt, Inc. to extend the term from June 30, 2021 to September 30, 2021 with no increase to the payment limit to perform additional sampling and testing work pursuant to State Regional Water Board Order WQ 2019-0005-DWQ . (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts   C. 8 Acting as the governing board of the Wiedemann Ranch Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/03 approving the annexation of the Magee Preserve Development into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD, and Magee Preserve Development Plan of Control, and consider any written objections thereto as required under Public Resources code section 26581, as recommended by the GHAD General Manager. (100% GHAD; no fiscal impact to County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 Acting as the governing board of the Wendt Ranch Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), ADOPT Wendt Ranch GHAD Resolution No. 2021/02 to accept petition with draft Plan of Control for Annexation of the Somerset development into the existing Wendt Ranch (“GHAD”); and FIX a Public Hearing for August 3, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. via teleconference to consider the proposed annexation of territory into the existing Wendt Ranch GHAD and the draft Somerset Plan of Control, and hear any written objections thereto. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 10 DENY claims filed by Jacqui Biggins, Daniel Ortega, Clarence Edward Smith, Diane and Marvin Wilson, A.G., a minor, D.G., a minor, and J.B., a minor; DENY amended claims of Charles Royce Pierce, Geico as subrogee of Charles Pierce, and Hosea Washington Jr.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 11 APPROVE Board meeting minutes for May 2021, as on file with the Office of the Clerk of the Board.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 12 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/210 recognizing the 75th Anniversary of Bay Alarm, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 13 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/215 declaring the week of July 18-24, 2021, as Probation, Pretrial and Community Supervision Officers' week in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the County Probation Officer.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Ordinances   C. 14 INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2021-06, designating a 2004 Freightliner FL60, 1996 Freightliner FL60, 2020 Ford F-450, 2006 Ford F650, three 2018 Ford Interceptor utility vehicles and two 2018 Ford Edges as Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team Vehicles; WAIVE reading; and FIX July 27, 2021, for adoption, as recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 15 APPOINT Eric Freitag to the Walnut Creek Local Committee Seat on the Advisory Council on Aging for a term ending on September 30, 2021, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 APPOINT Rhoda Butler to the District 3 Alternate seat on the First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission for a term ending on August 16, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 17 APPOINT Samantha Moy to the District 3 Alternate seat on the Sustainability Commission for a term ending March 31, 2025, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 18 APPOINT Erin Clancy-Mathias to the Appointee 5 seat on the Knightsen Town Advisory Council for a term ending on December 31, 2024, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 APPOINT LaTonia Peoples-Stokes to the District 3 seat on the Economic Opportunity Council for a term    C. 19 APPOINT LaTonia Peoples-Stokes to the District 3 seat on the Economic Opportunity Council for a term ending on June 30, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis, and DECLARE a vacancy in the Private/Non-Profit Alternate seat for a term ending June 30, 2023 and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 ACCEPT the resignation of Ronald Mullin, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 4 seat on the Assessment Appeals Board for a term ending on September 5, 2021, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 ACCEPT the resignation of Bruce Hahn, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 4 Alternate seat on the Assessment Appeals Board for a term ending September 3, 2021, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, advancements, and voluntary resignations as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, and by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 APPOINT Timothy Jeffries to Workforce & Labor Seat # 3, and REAPPOINT Thomas Hansen to the Workforce & Labor Seat # 1 on the Workforce Development Board (WDB) for terms ending on June 30, 2025, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 24 APPOINT Rhoda Butler to Member At-Large Seat #3 of the Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA) for a term ending on September 30, 2021, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 ACCEPT resignation from Raymond O'Brien, DECLARE a vacancy in the Seat #3 on the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee for a term ending on August 12, 2022, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 DECLARE a vacancy in the Hazardous Materials Commission Labor Seat #1 held by Henry Alcaraz for a term ending December 31, 2022 and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 ACCEPT the resignation of Katie Lewis, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 1 Member at Large seat on the Mental Health Commission for a term ending on June 30, 2023, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPOINT, in lieu of election, Dennis Chebotarev to the General Member #3 seat on the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees for a term ending June 30, 2023, as recommended by the Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 29 Sheriff's Office (0300)/Plant Acquisition (0111): APPROVE Fiscal Year 2020/21 Appropriation Adjustment No. 5058 in the amount of $2,890,000 to transfer appropriations from the Office of the Sheriff Custody Services Bureau (0300) to Public Works Plant Acquisition Detention Facilities (0111) for budgeted Safety & Modernization projects. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 30 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25769 to add one Information System Programmer and Analyst I position in the Department of Conservation and Development. (100% Land Development Funds).       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25770 to add one Sergeant (represented), two Deputy Sheriff- 40 Hour (represented), and two Sheriff's Ranger (represented) positions to the Office of the Sheriff. (100% General Fund)       Speakers: xxxx, Patricia Aguilar, ACCE Bay Point;Elsie Mills; Written commentary received from: Ali Saidi, Reimagine Public Safety Contra Costa Campaign; Jan Warren; Lisa Kirk (attached).    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25760 to cancel one Site Supervisor I-Project position (represented) and add one EHS Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt position (unrepresented) in the Employment and Human Services Department-Community Services Bureau. (100% Federal Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25765 add one Library Assistant-Journey Level (represented) position and one Librarian (represented) position to the Library Department. (100% City of Walnut Creek)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution Nos. 25766, 25777, and 25778 add one Clerk-Experienced Level (represented) position and four part-time (20/40) Clerk-Experienced Level (represented) positions to the Library Department. (100% Cities of Brentwood and Walnut Creek)         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25774 to add one Account Clerk Supervisor position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25768 to ADD one (1) Animal Services Utility Worker (BJWE) (represented) position in the Animal Services Department. (100% City Fee Revenue)       Written commentary received from Lisa Kirk (attached).   Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 37 ADOPT Resolution 2021/211 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee to apply for and accept a grant from the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs FY 2021 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies Grant in an initial amount of $1,400,000 for the Office of the Sheriff to purchase 700 body worn cameras for deployment by all sworn staff of the agency, for the period of October 1, 2021 through the end of the grant period. (100% Federal)       Speakers: Elsa Stevens; Abbey; Catherine Walley; Gigi Crowder; Harry; Claudia Jimenez; Raul Velasquez. Written commentary received from:    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract with the California Department of Social Services in the amount of $4,869,906 to provide childcare and development programs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids [CalWORKs] Stage 2) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (22% Federal, 78% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a grant agreement with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., dba Heluna Health, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $143,834 to provide COVID-19 and respiratory viral panel testing for the Community Sentinel Surveillance Project for the period December 2, 2020 through July 31, 2021. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/217 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract to accept funding from the California Department of Education in an amount not to exceed $27,500 to fund pre-kindergarten and family literacy program support services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Veterans Services Officer, or designee, to execute an agreement amendment    C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Veterans Services Officer, or designee, to execute an agreement amendment with California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet), to increase the payment limit by $18,885 to a new amount payable to the County not to exceed $254,945 to provide mental health outreach and support services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment for the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program with the California Department of Community Services and Development, extending the term to June 30, 2022, with no change to payment limit of $125,000. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the City of San Pablo, to pay the County an amount not to exceed to $30,500 to provide congregate meal services for the County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to apply for and accept funding under the Youth Programs and Facilities Grant Program from the Board of State and Community Corrections to upgrade the facility and enhance evidenced-based programming and job tech opportunities for youth at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall for the period of June 10, 2021, through June 1, 2024. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the City of Richmond, for its Community Services Department, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $10,000 to provide congregate meal services for the County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract with California Department of Social Services, in the amount of $3,855,946, for general child care and development program services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (35% Federal, 65% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract renewal with California Department of Education with a payment limit of $11,092,780 for State Preschool services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue agreement in an amount not to exceed $4,287,288 from the California Department of Social Services for alternative payment childcare programs operated by the County, with a term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (39% State, 61% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Contra Costa ARC, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 to provide wrap-around services including community-based, mental health treatment, case management and crisis intervention services for children in East County, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,147,514 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,147,514. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc., to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children in East County, with no change in the original payment limit of $338,844 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $338,844. (50% Federal Financial Participation, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $340,907 to provide coordination and support services to county’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $85,227. (34% Federal Title III-C (1) of the Older Americans Act of 1965; 26% Federal Title III-C (2) of the Older Americans Act of 1965; 40% Meals on Wheels)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with We Care Services for Children, to modify the billing rates for the contract and automatice extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 to provide mental health services for high risk, delayed or seriously emotional disturbed children in Central County with no change in the original payment limit of $1,049,589 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,049,589. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Richmond Elementary School, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $272,640, to provide State Preschool services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with    C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with West Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, to modify the billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed children in West County, with no change in the payment limit of $1,783,741 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Orantes, LLC dba Tiny Toes Preschool, in an amount not to exceed $302,227.60, to provide childcare services, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (45% Federal, 55% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Lincoln, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19, for residential and school-based mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed students and their families in East Contra Costa County, with no change in the payment limit of $5,018,518 for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $2,509,259. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 40% Mental Health Realignment; 8% Antioch/Pittsburg Unified School grant; 2% The Tides Foundation grant)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet, a nonprofit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,499,760 to provide Early Head Start program enhancement and CalWORKs initiative services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (66% Federal, 34% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with La Cheim School, Inc., to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for school-based and residential treatment program services, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,316,538 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,315,538. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with COCOKIDS, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $365,740 to provide Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Program Enhancement services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Health for Asian Americans, to modify the billing rates due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health, wraparound, and outpatient treatment services for children in West Contra Costa County, with no change in the payment limit of $907,061 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $907,061. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California in an amount not to exceed $400,267 to provide Early Head Start Program Enhancement and State General Childcare Development services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Seneca Family of Agencies, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for school and community-based mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children, with no change in the payment limit of $5,920,758 for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,962,879. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 40% County Realignment; 2% Martinez/Walnut Creek Unified School District Grants; 8% Employment and Human Services Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California, a non-profit corporation of California, in an amount not to exceed $2,275,735 to provide childcare services at Fairgrounds and Lone Tree Children’s Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (73% State; 27% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc., to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 to provide mental health services, case management and therapeutic behavioral services for seriously emotionally disturbed youth and dependents with no change in the original payment limit of $2,482,828 or term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,241,414. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 25% Mental Health Realignment, 25% Employment and Human Services Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, in an amount not to exceed $2,174,996, to provide State preschool, pre-kindergarten literacy, general childcare and development programs, Head Start, Early Head Start, and Early Head Start Childcare Partnership services at Kids' Castle, East Leland, and Belshaw Children's Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (18% Federal, 82% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas), to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for community based mental health services for children and their families in West County, with no change in the payment limit of $204,933 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $204,933. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with ECG Management Consultants, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $380,000 to provide consultation and technical assistance in reviewing compensation, benefits, productivity levels and performance for physicians at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period June 15, 2021 through June 14, 2022. (50% Hospital Enterprise Fund I; 50% Federal and State emergency funding)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Early Childhood Mental Health Program, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 to provide specialized mental health services including in-home behavioral health services to children and their families in West County, with no change in the original payment limit of $3,522,402 or term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,761,201. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Acclaim Mobility, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide non-emergency medical transportation services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Options for Families and Youth, Incorporated, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for therapeutic behavioral services and outpatient mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children and youth, and their families, with no change in the payment limit of $736,749 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $736,749. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Fred Finch Youth Center, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for school and community based mental health services to adolescent children and their families, with no change in the payment limit of $695,088 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $695,088. (49% Federal Medi-Cal, 49% Mental Health Realignment; 2% Mt. Diablo Unified School District)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with YWCA Contra Costa/Sacramento, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Works)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for bids for the 2021 On-Call Boiler Repair Services Contract(s) for boiler maintenance and repair services at various County facilities, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Men and Women of Purpose in an amount not to exceed $222,188 for the provision of services to adults transition from incarceration for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% AB 109 Public Safety Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Youth Homes Incorporated, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for residential treatment and therapeutic behavioral services for county-referred seriously emotionally disturbed children, with no change in the payment limit of $2,096,386 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 76 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Toyon Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide consultation and technical assistance with regard to the disproportionate share calculations for Third Party Social Security Income reimbursement recovery and Medicare ratio reviews for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2026. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with California Center for Behavioral Health, to increase the payment limit by $75,000 to a new payment limit of $225,000 to provide additional psychiatric services for Medi-Cal members for the period June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2022. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for bids for the 2021 On-Call Polyurea Coating Services Contract(s) for polyurea coating installation and maintenance services at various County facilities, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento, to modify the billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 to provide mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents with no change in the original payment limit of $282,794 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $282,794. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with HCI Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $800,000 to provide fire sprinkler and alarm services at various County facilities, for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2024, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 81 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Judith McIntyre, MFT, in an amount not to exceed $254,000 to provide Medi-Cal specialty mental health services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% State Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 82 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Sysco Food Services in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to provide poultry products, equipment and supplies as needed within the three County detention facilities for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 83 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children in East and West Contra Costa County, with no change in the payment limit of $419,871 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $419,871. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 84 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 to provide fire sprinkler and alarm services at various County facilities, for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2024, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 85 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD (dba NCE) to extend the term from March 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022 for on-call pavement engineering and pavement management services, with no change to the payment limit of $300,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 86 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Harmonic Solutions, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $1,190,142 to provide methadone maintenance treatment services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (50% Federal Drug Medi-Cal; 50% Drug Medi-Cal Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 87 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Alternative Family Services, Inc., to modify the billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care services to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed youth and their families, with no change in the original payment limit of $653,267 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $653,267. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 88 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. (dba GameTime), effective July 13, 2021, to extend the term from July 31, 2021 through July 31, 2022, to provide playground repairs at various County sites, with no change to the payment limit of $1,200,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 89 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with All Health Services, Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to provide temporary medical staffing services at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers, and Detention Facilities for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 90 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $299,236 to provide substance abuse prevention and treatment services in West Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 91 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Paradise Adolescent Homes, Inc., to modify the billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 to provide short term residential therapeutic program for seriously emotionally disturbed youth, with no change in the original payment limit of $110,000 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $110,000. (50% Federal Medi-Cal, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 92 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., to extend the term from June 30, 2021 through December 31, 2021, to provide on-call landscaping services, with no change to the payment limit of $1,200,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 93 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa ARC, in an amount not to exceed $266,152 to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Works)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 94 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with WestCare California, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,924,519 to provide substance use disorder prevention, treatment and detoxification services for Contra Costa County residents in West County for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (35% Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Block Grant; 65% Federal Medi-Cal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 95 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with    C. 95 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for school and community based mental health services, with no change in the original payment limit of $2,864,928 for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,357,464. (47% Federal Medi-Cal; 47% Mental Health Realignment; 6% Pittsburg Unified School District)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 96 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf its Nelson Lab, in an amount not to exceed $8,190 to provide analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral concentration in wastewater samples for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Federal ELC Expansion Grant)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 97 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, an amendment to a purchase order with The Home Depot Pro (formally SupplyWorks), to extend the term from June 30, 2021 through September 30, 2021 for building materials and janitorial supplies, with no change to the payment limit of $2,000,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 98 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with St. Helena Hospital (dba Adventist Health St. Helena), in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to provide inpatient psychiatric hospital services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a six-month automatic extension in an amount of $25,000 through December 31, 2022. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 99 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for Therapeutic Behavioral Services for children and youth, with no change in the original payment limit of $140,234 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $140,234. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.100 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Trace3, LLC Inc., a limited liability company, and a third-party lease agreement with Key Government Finance, Inc., in an amount to exceed $268,998 to provide professional services, consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Information Technology Unit for the period April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.101 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Public Health Foundation Enterprises Inc., in an amount not to exceed $6,776,679 to provide coordinated entry, outreach, shelter, transitional and permanent supportive housing for homeless youth and adults in Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (35% Federal; 58% State; 4% Local grants; 3% County General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.102 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to submit to the California Department of Community Services and Development Contra Costa County's 2022-2023 Community Action Plan to ameliorate poverty and increase self-sufficiency efforts for impacted County residents.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.103 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Center for Psychotherapy, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health, case management and crisis intervention services, with no change in the original payment limit of $344,740 for the period January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $344,740. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.104 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Sharjo, Inc. (dba ServiceMaster Restoration Services), to extend the term from March 31, 2021 through August 31, 2021, to provide on-call restoration services, with no change to the payment limit of $1,500,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.105 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Minh Nguyen, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $436,000 to a new payment limit of $760,000, to provide additional pulmonary critical care services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, and Health Centers with no change in the original term of June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.106 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, in an amount not to exceed $600,000 to develop the County's Facilities Master Plan at various County Facilities, for the period July 13, 2021 through July 13, 2023, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.107 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with A Better Way, Inc., to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health services to children, adolescents, and their families, with no change in the original payment limit of $580,467 for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $290,234. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% Employment and Human Services Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.108 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Public Health Foundation Enterprise, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,948,057 to provide coordinated entry, outreach, referral and engagement services to the County's homeless populataion for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (27% Federal; 33% State; 40% Local grants)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.109 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with EKB Podiatry, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $760,000 to provide podiatry services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2024. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.110 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Behavior Consultants, LLC., in an amount not to exceed $1,380,000 to provide applied behavioral analysis services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2023. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.111 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Lincoln, to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to mental health and multi-dimensional family therapy service delivery disruptions caused by COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,886,585 for the period March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $754,634. (34% Federal Medi-Cal; 66% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.112 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $5,919,828 to provide methadone maintenance treatment services to County residents for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (50% Federal Drug Medi-Cal; 50% State Drug Medi-Cal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.113 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) in an amount not to exceed $751,605 for the CCCOE to continue providing educational services to inmates for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% AB 109 Public Safety Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.114 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with JVTCM Care, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $275,268 to provide augmented board and care services for CCRMC and Health Center patients for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2022. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.115 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Options for Families and Youth, Inc., to modify the billing rates of the contract and automatic extension due to service disruptions caused by COVID-19 for mental health and functional family therapy services for youth who have had serious contact with the Juvenile Justice System, with no change in the payment limit of $2,352,813 for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,176,406. (40% Federal Medi-Cal; 8% Probation Mentally Ill Offenders Crime Reduction Grant; 47% Mental Health Realignment; 5% Probation Non-Mentally Ill Offenders Crime Reduction Flex Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.116 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with East Bay Audiologists, a Professional Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,180,000 to provide audiology evaluation services including fitting, dispensing and procurement of hearing aids for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers patients for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.117 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Probation Officer, or designee, to execute an Interagency Agreement with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) in an amount not to exceed $193,931 for the CCCOE to continue to provide assistance to individuals as they transition from the County’s adult detention facilities for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.118 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Probation Officer, or designee, to execute Interagency Agreements with the Cities of Richmond, Pittsburg and San Ramon, for an aggregate amount not to exceed $473,313 ($157,771 each) for the City Police Departments to provide Mental Health Evaluation Team police services for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State Public Safety Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.119 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with St. Helena Hospital (dba Adventist Health Vallejo), in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to provide inpatient psychiatric hospital services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.120 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Meals on Wheels Diablo Region, in an amount not to exceed $510,000 to provide home-delivered meals and services for the County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $127,500. (100% Title III C-2 of the Older Americans Act of 1965)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.121 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with the Resource Development Associates Inc. in an amount not to exceed $219,550 to support the work of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council by providing committee consulting services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% State Revenue)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.122 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Thomas Paige, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $60,000 to a new payment limit of $450,000 to provide additional hours of dermatology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers with no change in the original term October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.123 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a    C.123 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with Praxair Distribution, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $160,000 to a new payment limit of $400,000 for the purchase of oxygen, compressed medical air, nitrogen and carbon dioxide for use at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers with no change in the term June 1, 2019 through April 13, 2024. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.124 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Department, a purchase order with Philips Holding USA, Inc, in an amount not to exceed $168,975 for the purchase of Philips IntelliSpace ECG & Tracemaster Software Upgrade and Support for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2025. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.125 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels, in an amount not to exceed $227,857 to provide home-delivered meals for County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022 in an amount not to exceed $56,964. (100% Title III-C 2 of the Older Americans Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.126 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with R.E.A.C.H. Project, in an amount not to exceed $1,274,284 to provide drug abuse prevention and treatment services for youth and adults in East County for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (80% Drug Medi-Cal, 15% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Set-Aside grants, 5% Probation Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.127 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $240,000 to provide non-emergency taxicab transportation services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers’ patients for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.128 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Ever Well Health Systems, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $375,585 to provide residential and mental health services to adults for the period December 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.129 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Food Service Partners, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for the purchase of meals for patients and staff at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.130 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a purchase order with    C.130 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a purchase order with Qiagen, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $500,000 for purchase for tuberculosis diagnostic screening tests and molecular extraction kits for the Contra Costa Public Health laboratory for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.131 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a purchase order with VWR International, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for purchase of general laboratory supplies for the Contra Costa Public Health laboratory for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.132 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a purchase order with Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for purchase of general laboratory testing supplies for the Contra Costa Public Health laboratory for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.133 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Behavioral Treatment & Analysis, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 to provide applied behavioral analysis services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.134 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Thomas B. Hargrave, III, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,575,000 to provide gastroenterology services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2024. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.135 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with The Contra Costa Clubhouses, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,290,630 to provide community-based mental health support services for adults, including the operation of Putnam Peer Connection Centers and the Service Provider Individualized Recovery Intensive Training program, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (78% Mental Health Services Act; 22% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.136 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), in the amount of $2,000,000 to provide temporary medical staffing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.137 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective July 1, 2021, with AtHoc Inc., increasing the payment limit by $754,956 to an amount not to exceed $4,554,956 and extending the contract termination date from June 30, 2021 to a new termination date of June 30, 2022, for the provision of proprietary software maintenance for the County's Community Warning System. (100% Fee Revenue)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C.138 ACCEPT the April 2021 Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.139 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College), to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers to electrocardiogram, medical assistant externship and phlebotomist students for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. (Nonfinancial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.140 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District extending the term of the existing emergency ambulance agreement for Emergency Response Area IV through August 31, 2021. (Nonfinancial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.141 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999, and most recently approved by the Board on May 11, 2021, regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.142 AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director to submit a comment letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the Draft Plan Bay Area 2050. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.143 APPROVE amended list of designated positions for the Conflict of Interest Code for the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, as recommended by County Counsel.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.144 AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a subordination agreement with Merchants Capital Corp., as lender, and Contra Costa County Housing Corporation, as borrower, to subordinate a regulatory agreement recorded by the County in 2003 against property commonly known as Emerson Arms, located at 326 Ward Street, Martinez, upon the payment in full of a CDBG loan made by the County in 2003, and take related actions. (100% Federal funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.145 APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, including the List of Designated Positions, as recommended by County Counsel.         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.146 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy, to provide supervised field instruction to occupational therapy students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2026. (Nonfinancial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.147 ACCEPT a report on efforts to intervene in and prevent human trafficking and the commercial sexual exploitation of children, as well as, the operation of Children & Family Justice Centers, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.148 ACCEPT a report on youth housing, employment, education and well-being services and the Independent Living Skills Program as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.149 ACCEPT the canvass of votes for the June 29, 2021 Elections for County Service Areas P-6, Zone 3007 (Richmond unincorporated area) and Zone 213 (Bay Point unincorporated area), as recommended by the Clerk-Recorder.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.150 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/218 authorizing the issuance and sale of the Pittsburg Unified School District 2021 General Obligation Bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $51,000,000 on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code, as recommended by the County Administrator. (No County fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 or to clerkoftheboard@cob.cccounty.us. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 655-2000. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, First Floor. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, California. Subscribe to receive to the weekly Board Agenda by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000 or using the County's on line subscription feature at the County’s Internet Web Page, where agendas and supporting information may also be viewed: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets quarterly on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00 a.m. at the Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Candace Andersen) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the first Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets quarterly on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m.. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Sustainability Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. Airports Committee September 8, 2021 11:00 a.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee July 26, 2021 9:00 a.m.See above Finance Committee August 3, 2021 cancelled 9:00 a.m.See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee September 13, 2021 10:30 a.m.See above Internal Operations Committee August 9, 2021 10:30 a.m.See above Legislation Committee August 9, 2021 1:00 p.m.See above Public Protection Committee July 26, 2021 10:30 a.m.See above Sustainability Committee July 26, 2021 1:00 p.m.See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee August 9, 2021 9:00 a.m.See above AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): Presentation of the “People Who Make a Difference Awards 2021" acknowledging those who have significantly contributed towards reducing substance abuse in Contra Costa communities. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: Once a year the Alcohol and other Drugs Advisory Board of Contra Costa County acknowledges both volunteer and non-volunteer individuals and groups that have significantly contributed towards reducing alcohol and other drugs in Contra Costa communities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Fatima Matal Sol, 925-348-3279 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Fatima Matal Sol PR.1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:People Who Make a Difference Awards 2021 CLERK'S ADDENDUM District 1 Youth Leadership Individual Syed Ali; District 2 Youth Leadership Individual Ankia Gupta; District 2 Youth Leadership Indvidual the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse (NCAPDA Youth Ambassodors; District 3 Non Volunteer Group Diablo Valley Ranch; District 5 Discovery House Non-Volunteer group, Nikki Francisco; District 5 Volunteer Group Discovery House. ATTACHMENTS Brochure The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and The Alcohol & Other Drugs Advisory Board present: Join us on Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 9 a.m. for the announcement of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board’s People Who Make A Dierence Awards at the Board of Supervisors chamber in Martinez The meeting will be broadcasted on CCTV and can also be accessed on the BOS webpage. To watch the meeting live, visit: www.contracosta.ca.gov/7289/Meeting-Agendas, where you can also obtain a call-in number and access code. Once a year the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board acknowledges both volunteer and non-volunteer individuals and groups who have signicantly contributed toward reducing substance use in our communities. The mission of the Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board is to assess family and community needs regarding prevention and treatment of alcohol and other drug-related problems. Resultant ndings and recommendations are forwarded to the Health Services Department and the Board of Supervisors. The Board also serves as an advocate for these ndings and recommendations to the communities that we serve.. Behavioral Health Division Alcohol & Other Drugs Services Fatima Matal Sol, Program Chief 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 101 Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: (925) 335-3307 Fax: (925) 335-3318 “People Who Make A Dierence” Awards 2021 VOLUNTEER GROUP District V - Supervisor Federal Glover Discovery House Alumni Association Before the pandemic, the Discovery House Alumni Association worked tirelessly to assist those who are struggling with a substance use disorder. Throughout the course of the pandemic fellowship, generosity and compassion drove the alumni to donate electronic devices so that the clients could attend essential clinical services through a virtual platform. Because clients were unable to attend external self-help groups in person, the alumni moved its Friday community support meetings to online platforms to maintain the much-needed social support. The devices allowed the clients to participate in all self-help groups which are fundamental for people in treatment. The alumni have donated time, clothing, food and assisted with transition from Discovery House. Without the donation of tablet devices to the program, clients without cell phones were not able to join all clinical activities and maintain their sobriety. The clients at Discovery House have expressed their gratitude for the alumni and discussed how their support has been critical during the pandemic. NON-VOLUNTEER GROUP District V - Supervisor Federal Glover Nikki Francisco Nikki joined Support4Recovery (S4R) about 4 years ago, and since then she has worked tirelessly to remove the stigma of addiction. Her compassion for those who suer with addiction and their families is unparalleled. Nikki is responsible for coordinating the county’s housing grants for recovery residences. From the start of the project and up to the present time, she has placed more than 150 men and women in sober living housing with the goal of keeping people in treatment longer. When clients complete residential treatment, they transition to a recovery residence and step down to outpatient treatment, thereby extending periods in remission. Nikki check-in with clients on an ongoing basis by building self-responsibility and providing support. She is well known by all counselors in Alcohol and Other Drugs (AODS) programs and by the many clients whose lives have been impacted by her work. YOUTH LEADERSHIP INDIVIDUAL District I – Supervisor John Gioia Syed Ali Syed’s interest in improving social norms toward substance use in his school community and his genuine dedication to Discovering the Reality of Our Community (DROC) has boosted participation in DROC by engaging young people. On top of his school responsibilities, Syed’s ideas to rally his peers for virtual events helped to foster a sense of community among youth during were innovative, especially when the pandemic hit the hardest. He was one of the students to step up collaborations with other organizations to spread knowledge and encourage engagement in all virtual prevention initiatives. Without a doubt, Syed Ali exemplies the meaning of youth leadership. YOUTH LEADERSHIP INDIVIDUAL District II - Supervisor Candace Andersen Anika Gupta Anika is the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse’s (NCAPDA) longest-tenured youth ambassador, having joined more than three years ago. She has been an exceptional representative for NCAPDA through a variety of outreach programs. As the secretary of the coalition, she has maintained the records of the organization and took the lead in assembling 360 Narcan overdose rescue kits for distribution in the community. Anika’s stellar achievement is the development of a Youth Corner website where she provides educational information geared to youth. Education is key to prevention and since the launch of this website and blog, there have been 364 visits to Anika’s Youth Corner, and 215 of those visits occurred without the support of the NCAPDA or MEDS Coalition. Anika’s goal is to positively impact youth and prevent prescription drug misuse and abuse. YOUTH LEADERSHIP INDIVIDUAL District II - Supervisor Candace Andersen National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse (NCAPDA) Youth Ambassadors The NCAPDA Youth Ambassadors team consists of high school students who have worked extensively to prevent prescription drug misuse and abuse and prevent overdose deaths through community education among their teen peers and adults. A few of their accomplishments include the development of various videos highlighting interviews in the Zindagi Radio “Voices” program and participation in workshops in the Teens Tackling Tobacco Conference. Together, they created the Youth Blog which is the newest addition to the work of the NCAPDA and MEDS coalitions. The Ambassadors have been extremely eective at reaching out to the South Asian American community in Contra Costa and across the Bay Area. NON-VOLUNTEER GROUP District III– Supervisor Diane Burgis Diablo Valley Ranch (DVR) DVR has one of the most impressive reputations in the recovery community. Over the last 12 months of the pandemic, DVR implemented safety protocols that allowed the program to continue in-person services for an average of 30 clients per month. Program sta selessly went above and beyond to provide Contra Costa residents with the support they needed, and in the face of its single COVID-19 outbreak, the sta managed to put the clients rst, despite their own fears. DVR provided treatment to over 300 clients during the pandemic and worked extremely hard to further their recovery journey after leaving DVR. On top of COVID-19, DVR also experienced the 2020 re season and PG&E outages, but was able to keep treatment running with minimal disruption. Day in and day out, DVR sta champion the values of quality, responsibility and resilience. CONGRATULATIONS! RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE UPDATE and provide direction to staff regarding Juvenile Justice Programs, Facilities and Mandates in Contra Costa County from Chief Probation Officer Esa Ehmen-Krause, FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Presentation only. BACKGROUND: As requested by your Board during the April 2021 Budget Hearings, this is an update to the Board on juvenile justice matters overseen by the Probation Department, including a facilities update, an overview of Senate Bills 823 and 92 as they pertain to realignment of the state Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and the local plan developed for youth offenders in Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Deborah Caldwell (925)313-4188 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.1 To:Board of Supervisors From: Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Juvenile Justice Update from the Chief Probation Officer CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers Melvin Willis, Richmond ACCE; Tanisha Walker, Dr. Lonnie Bristow, Senior Tutors from Rossmoor; Jane Currant, Richmond; No Name Given; Reverant Julius, Executive Director of Getting Out of Dodge; Name unknown; Danny. ATTACHMENTS Juvenile Justice Update PowerPoint Overview ✓Juvenile Facilities’ Update ✓Senate Bill 823 ✓Senate Bill 92 ✓Local Division of Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan Juvenile Probation in Contra Costa 1095 1210 1295 1082 774 650 509 416 680 790 842 665 434 230 167 415 420 453 417 340 420 342 R² = 0.858 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Po p u l a t i o n Year Juvenile Supervision: Annual Supervision Population 8-year lookback Total Population Misdemeanor Felony Expon. (Total Population) Juvenile Hall, Population Trend 49 44 45 56 48 51 45 35 43 43 34 31 25 24 28 32 30 30 28 29 29 28 24 24 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Juvenile Hall Population (monthly average) -Detention Units 2-year Look Back Juvenile Hall: Detention Units Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 (n= 26) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 YOUTH AGE 25, 96% 1, 4% GENDER Male Female 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 African American Hispanic Caucasian Other Non-Asian RACE Juvenile Hall: Detention Units Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 (n= 26) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Detention Housing Units: City of Residence Juvenile Hall: Youthful Offender Treatment Program Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 (n= 18) 11 5 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Black Hispanic Caucasian YOTP Youth: Ethnicity 6 7 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16 17 18 YOTP Youth: Age 0 1 2 3 4 YOTP Youth: City of Residence Juvenile Hall: Detention Units Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 (n= 26) 9 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DETENTION HOUSING UNITS: Primary Intake Offense Juvenile Hall: Youthful Offender Treatment Program Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 2 4 1 1 2 5 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (F) PC 211, Robbery (F) PC 211/212.5(c ), Second Degree Robbery (F) PC 211/212.5(c )/664, Attempted Second Degree Robbery (F) PC 211/664, Attempted Robbery (F) PC 215(a), Carjacking (F) PC 245(a)(4), Assault Likely to Produce GBI (F) PC 245(b), Assault with Semiautomatic Firearm (F) PC 459/460(a), First Degree Burglary YOTP Youth: Underlying/Primary Sustained Offense Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility “The Ranch” ➢Proximity/location ➢Age of facility ➢Necessary updates & repairs OAYRF, Population Trend 28 23 23 23 29 29 31 36 37 32 23 21 19 16 13 14 14 17 18 17 15 19 20 17 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 OAYRF Population Monthly Average: June 2019 -Present Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 (n= 14) 2 2 2 5 3 0 2 4 6 14 15 16 17 18 Age 9 4 1 0 5 10 Black Hispanic Filipino Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity 3 2 1 1 6 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Antioch Bay Point Brentwood Concord Richmond San Ramon City of Residence Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility Population Snapshot June 1, 2021 (n= 14) 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Committing Offense Facility Costs $- $200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $1,600.00 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 Per Diem Juvenile Hall OAYRF Bixler Road, Byron John A. Davis Juvenile Hall ➢Built in 2005 ➢290 Beds* ➢Detention Units ➢Treatment Programs Glacier Drive, Martinez Main Elements of SB 823 7/1/21: Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) no longer accepting committments* Establish the Office of Youth and Community Restoration (OYCR) Realignment Block Grant (WIC 1990-1995) Funding at full implementation: $208.8 million Local planning process Replacement of Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System (JCPSS) *limited exclusions Office of Youth and Community Restoration (OYCR) (WIC 2200) Housed within Health and Human Services Agency effective 7/1/21*, responsibilities include: •Oversight of juvenile justice data and reporting •Identify policy recommendations and best practices for positive youth outcomes •Provide technical assistance to Counties •Receives County plan to serve realigned population starting in FY 22/23 •Office of the Ombudsman Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant (WIC 1990 & 1991) Funding formula for FYs 21/22 thru 23/24 as follows: 30% -DJJ population as of December 2018, June 2019, and December 2019 50% -local population who have committed certain violent and felony crimes as reported annually 20% -distribution of youth age 10-17 At full implementation funding will be $208.8 million Minimum allocation set at $250,000 per county Distribution formula recalculated by 1/1/24 for FY 24/25 Contra Costa County: Annual DJJ Admissions 22 17 13 15 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DJJ ADMISSIONS DJJ Realignment Planning Subcommittee (WIC 1995) Every county to create a subcommittee within the JJCC as a requirement to receive block grant funding Subcommittee chaired by the Chief Probation Officer Members must include: DA’s office Public Defender’s office Dept of Social Services (EHSD) Office of Education Court No fewer than THREE additional community members defined as individuals who have experience providing community-based youth services, youth justice advocates with expertise and knowledge of the juvenile justice system, or have been directly involved in the juvenile justice system DJJ Realignment Planning Subcommittee Weekly meetings for seven months (October –May) Chaired by Chief Probation Officer and Co-Chaired by Community Based Organization representative Membership met all statutory requirements Consistent community participation and engagement Project Management by Impact Justice Technical Assistance providers Fresh Lifelines for Youth Ceres Policy Research University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute Council for Juvenile Justice Administrators Interim plan approved by subcommittee in April Local Realignment Plan (WIC 1995) Requirements of the local plan include: Description of target realignment population to be served by block grant Numbers by age and other characteristics Description of facilities, programs, placements, services and service providers, supervision, and other responses Description of how grant funds will be applied to address a range of programming needs Detailed facility plan Plan to incentivize retaining youth in juvenile system (vs adult system) Description of regional arrangements Description of how data will be collected on youth served and outcomes June 30, 2023: DJJ anticipated final closure Secure Youth Treatment Facilities Eligibility similar to DJJ Statewide consistency in baseline terms Probation to determine specific programming Probation develops individualized rehabilitative plans Move to a less restrictive program may be authorized by the court Main Elements of SB 92 Current Youth at DJJ (n= 19) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 AGE AT TIME OF ADMISSION 56%33% 5% 6% ETHNICITY Hispanic Black White Pacific Islander Non-Asian Current Youth at DJJ (n= 19) 3 4 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 Primary Offense Average Length of Stay: Average Length of Stay for ALL youth released in 2019 Releases: Average Length of Stay (2019) Aggravated Assault 21.7 months Arson 21.2 months Assault w/ Intent 42.2 months Burglary 1st Degree 38.6 months Carjacking 29.7 months Extortion/Kidnapping 40.6 months Manslaughter (inc vehicular)41.6 months Murder 1st Degree 47.0 months Murder 2nd Degree 32.8 months Rape (Forceible) 45.5 months Robbery (Enhanced)25.2 months Robbery (Other)25.1 months Sex Offenses (Other)30.7 months Program Requirements Secure Youth Treatment Facilities must: Be a secure facility that is operated, utilized or accessed by the county of commitment to provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education for this population; May be a stand-alone facility, or a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility that is configured and programmed to serve the realigned population. Program Requirements (continued) Facility must comply with applicable regulations Legislation specifies that standards (to be finalized by 7/1/23) must specify how facility will serve or separate youth who may also be detained or committed to that facility or to some portion of the facility. Until new standards are developed (if determined necessary), existing Title 15 and 24 regulations apply Counties proposing to operate a secure youth treatment facility must submit a description to Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Beginning 7/1/22 BSCC will conduct biennial inspections Programming & Services Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART) Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Substance Abuse (CBI-SA) Choices Skill of the Week Advanced Practice The Council Victim Empathy Class (VEC) Thinking for a Change Gang Intervention Interactive Journaling Free Your Mind Mental Toughness Emotion Regulation Career Technical Education Post-Secondary Educational Opportunities Progress Reviews At least every six months Court may reduce baseline term by up to six months Baseline term cannot be extended for disciplinary infractions or in-custody behaviors Court may order youth into less restrictive placement Less restrictive placement considered part of baseline term Less Restrictive Programs Can be custodial or non-custodial program Court must determine youth has made progress in rehabilitation plan and that placement in a less secure program is consistent with the goals of rehabilitation and public safety If court determines youth is failing to comply with placement, youth may be ordered back to secure program for remainder of baseline term Discharge Discharge Hearing at Conclusion of Baseline Term Court shall order a period of probation supervision, and determine “reasonable conditions” suitable to meet youth’s needs and facilitate successful reentry Subject to maximum confinement time, court may order up to one additional year of confinement with finding of substantial risk of imminent harm if youth is released Questions? Esa Ehmen-Krause, MPA Chief Probation Officer Contra Costa County Probation Department 50 Douglas Drive Suite 201 Martinez, CA 94553 (925)313-4188 Esa.ehmen@prob.cccounty.us RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Pantages Residential Development Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. APPROVE an addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report. 3. ADOPT the CEQA findings for the Project. 4. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project. 5. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. 6. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.2 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Pantages Residential Subdivision Project (277 Lots) in the Discovery Bay area (District III) RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 7. ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/212, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Water (WA), Open Space (OS), Public/Semi-Public (PS) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR) (County File #CDGP19-0002). 8. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-17, rezoning the subject property from Planned Unit District (P-1), Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE), and General Agriculture (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (-UE) (County File #CDRZ19-3252). 9. APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #CDDP19-3024) along with the associated Tree Permit. 10. APPROVE the findings in support of the Project. 11. APPROVE the Project conditions of approval. 12. APPROVE the Pantages Bay Residential Subdivision Project. 13. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map for the Project, and that no appeal of this approval was filed. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the necessary application deposits and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover all additional costs associated with the application process. BACKGROUND: On December 3, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pantages Bays Project near Discovery Bay. The Project consisted of the following primary features; widening of Kellogg Creek for the creation of waterfront lots; 292 single-family residential lots (116 waterfront lots and 176 non-waterfront lots); construction of a Sheriffs' Marine Patrol Substation adjacent to the waterway; creation of two open space areas; and creation of a public trail from the project entrance through the open space area to the water's edge. Subsequently, a modification to the Pantages Bays project was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 5, 2015. The modified project included the same number of residential units and the same design features. However, the revised project provided improved roadway circulation, improved layout of the waterfront lots, significant modifications to the shoring walls to improve their long-term durability, and a reduction of the public trail footprint through the Open Space areas. An Addendum (2015 Addendum) to the Pantages Bays EIR was prepared for the modified project and certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2015. Since then, the applicant has been working on obtaining state and federal regulatory permits but has encountered difficulties in securing the required permits. Based on the difficulties with obtaining state and federal regulatory permits for certain portions of the project, the applicant opted to submit a new, redesigned project to the Department of Conservation and Development. The new project would subdivide the same site into 277 residential lots, which is 15 lots less than the original 2013 approval. New Pantages Project The new project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify the current General Plan map for the project site. The proposed GPA includes Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR) designations. Also proposed are a rezoning of the property to a new Planned Unit Zoning District (P-1), and to the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE) Zoning District, a subdivision of the project site into 277 single-family residential lots (with 18 common area parcels), and a new final development plan for the Pantages project. The proposed rezoning ordinance will also rezone lands that are no longer part of the project area back to their original general agricultural (A-2) zoning. The project also involves the removal of 23 code-protected trees. The new project involves siting of the residential land uses in a manner that avoids impacts to the northern wetland complex and Kellogg Creek, and includes a trail network, clubhouse area, two internal lakes within the project site, and public roads. The project has a reduced development footprint when compared to the 2013 project (161.5 acres vs. 171.2 acres), resulting in reduced project impacts. Of the 277 units, a total of 41.55 units are required to be set aside as affordable (15 percent of the project units). Eighty percent of the required affordable units (33 units) would be affordable to Moderate income households and twenty percent of the required affordable units (8 units) would be affordable to low income households. An in-lieu fee will be paid for the remaining 0.55 units. Project Components Residential Elements The project includes 277 single-family residential housing units. These units would not have deep water or waterfront access to Kellogg Creek. The project now includes the creation of two new manmade lakes within the project site (Lake South and Lake North). The residential lots will range from 6,000 – 12,000 square feet. Lots on the northern portion of the project site are generally 60’ wide by 100’ deep and lots on the southern portion of the project site are generally 60’ wide by 110’ deep lots. Site access would be from Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. Roads and sidewalks will be constructed to County standards. Trail Network The project includes two public trail systems providing 5,200 linear feet of trails and walkways. The trails and walkways include an internal pedestrian trail adjacent to Lake South, and a multi-purpose trail around the site providing views of Kellogg Creek, the adjacent wetlands, and Lake North. The internal pedestrian trail around Lake South would connect to Point of Timber Road and passive park areas throughout the project site. This trail would also provide maintenance and emergency access. Clubhouse The proposed project includes a clubhouse to provide residents with amenities such as exercise facilities, meeting rooms, and a viewing area of the wetlands and Kellogg Creek. The clubhouse would be located at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road adjacent to Kellogg Creek. This location would accommodate the clubhouse along with parking, guest parking, and active outdoor spaces to accommodate recreational uses. Internal Lakes The proposed project would include construction of two lakes within the project site, Lake South and Lake North. Lake South, approximately 23 acres in size, would be surrounded by residential units on three sides, along with open space walkways that will provide view corridors. The northern edge of three sides, along with open space walkways that will provide view corridors. The northern edge of Lake South will be adjacent to the extension of Point of Timber Road, providing views of the entire lake from the trail and road. Lake South includes five bio-retention areas along its perimeter. Lake North would encompass approximately 7 acres and would be located in an upland area among the seasonal wetlands and emergent marsh in the northern part of the project site. Impacts To Wetlands and Kellogg Creek The proposed project avoids or minimizes impacts to aquatic resources including wetland complexes and Kellogg Creek. Approximately 5.29 acres of wetland impacts were evaluated in the 2013 project and approximately 5.55 acres of wetland impacts were evaluated in the 2015 project. The previous projects also required dredging to create bays and coves, that would have resulted in impacts to a 10.75 area along Kellogg Creek to facilitate deep water access. The project would preserve on-site wetland features, would be set back from Kellogg Creek by approximately 70 feet, and would not increase in boat activity on the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta due to the elimination of bays and coves that would have provided deep water access. Grading The cut and fill amounts would not exceed the cut and fill amounts analyzed in the original 2013 project. Dirt excavated from the internal lakes would be used to raise the overall site to the same levels approved with the 2013 project, which raised portions of the project site out of the 100-year floodplain. Cut material would be balanced on-site, however, if needed, up to 90,000 additional cubic yards of fill material may need to be imported annually during construction. Haul trucks would access the project site from Highway 4, approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site, then proceed onto Bixler Road, and then turn right onto Point of Timber Road to enter the project site. The proposed project would no longer require a shoring wall, as the project would be set back from Kellogg Creek. Furthermore, the use of any type of pile driving equipment is not anticipated to be needed. Environmental Review The Department of Conservation and Development previously prepared an EIR for the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project, a prior version of the currently proposed project. The Board of Supervisors certified the Pantages Bays EIR on December 3, 2013. The Board also adopted a previous addendum to the EIR on October 6, 2015. An Addendum has been prepared for the proposed Project. As stated in the Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR, the changes proposed in the revised Project are not substantial and the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken do not require major revisions to the existing EIR. No new information has been identified that shows new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Accordingly, a new subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required. As illustrated in the Addendum, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 EIR and would have similar construction-related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines). County Planning Commission The project was scheduled before the County Planning Commission (CPC) on April 28, 2021. The CPC opened the hearing and received testimony from neighbors regarding clarification of access to the opened the hearing and received testimony from neighbors regarding clarification of access to the subject property, impacts to shoreline, concern with higher density, impacts to wildlife, community benefits, additional fire district services, and setbacks. These concerns were addressed by staff and the applicant at the hearing. The CPC voted to approve (6-0) the vesting tentative map (County File #CDSD19-9527) based on staff's recommendations, including modifications to conditions of approval #29, 38, and 73, the addition of condition of approval #139, and recommended approval of the remaining components of the project to the Board of Supervisors. The changes to condition of approvals include the removal of language related to the shoring wall and removal of language referencing the bank stabilization for Kellogg Creek, removal of the reference to turbidity barriers, since these elements are no longer part of the project and removal of language to clarify the required setbacks. The added condition of approval required the applicant to enter into an agreement with the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to annex in to the Community Facilities District. Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with applicable goal and policies of the General Plan and also with the intent of the SH, OS, WA, PR General Plan designations and the P-1 Zoning district and the project avoids impacts to the norther wetland complex and Kellogg Creek compared to the previously approved project. The project includes 277 residential lots, which will provide 41.55 inclusionary housing units, and community benefits that include preservation of onsite wetland resource, pedestrian access to the wetlands, and supplemental funding to support park maintenance in the Discovery Bay area. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and final development, based on the attached findings and conditions of approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: In the event that the proposed project is not approved, the applicant will not obtain approval of the required General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan entitlements needed to allow development of the proposed 277-lot subdivision project in the Discovery Bay area. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The project involves a 277-lot subdivision. Pursuant to Condition of Approval #8, the applicant shall pay the required fee established by the Board of Supervisors per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the area. Therefore, the recommendation supports one or more of the following children's outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Name not given; Name not given. Written commentary received from Dave Johnson, Discovery Bay (attached). ADOPTED the recommendations; and revised Condition of Approval 68 g to change 'Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements) and maintenance: TDBCSD. to now read "Ownership (subject to conservation covenmants/easements) and mainenance: TDBCSD or alternative beings below." AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/212 Project Findings Conditions of Approval COAs-SD19-9527 Ordinance 2021-17 Pantages Bays Residential Development EIR Addendum Pantages Bays Residential Development -EIR MMRP Maps County Planning Commission Staff Report Project Plans PowerPoint Presentation-Pantages Bays Residential Development MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/212 Signed Ordinance No. 2021-17 Correspondence Received THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/212 IN THE MATTER OF Approving a General Plan Amendment (County File #CDGP19-0002) for the Pantages Residential Subdivision Project (277 Lots) WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on July 13, 2021, to consider the Pantages Residential Subdivision Project, proposed for the Discovery Bay area. The Project includes the certification of an addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the Project, a General Plan Amendment (County File #CDGP19-0002), a rezoning ordinance (County File #CDRZ19-3252), and a preliminary and final development plan (County File #CDDP19-3024). WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment for the Project reclassifies land from Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Water (WA), Open Space (OS), Public/Semi-Public (PS) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). WHEREAS, a resolution is required under Government Code Section 65356 to amend a general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves as follows: The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment findings:1. No change to the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed. No extension of urban services beyond the ULL is proposed. The subject site is located entirely within the ULL, and therefore may be designated for “urban” or “non-urban” development, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designations, Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Water (WA) are all allowed. a. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designations are SH, Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Public/Semi-Public (PS), OS, and WA. The proposed designations are SH, OS, WA, and PR. SH and SM are urban designations, while the rest are non-urban. The proposed GPA condenses and simplifies the land use plan, reducing the area dedicated to urban uses by 26.2 acres while expanding the OS acreage by 25 acres. The reduced acreage dedicated to urban uses is consistent with, and supports, the 65/35 Standard. b. The current iteration of the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program was established by county voters through adoption of Measure J-2004. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of the Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. c. The County General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing land use in the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map and involves reorganizing the land use plan for a previously approved project. The development footprint would shrink, and the unit count would decrease from 292 single-family homes to 277. Open space would increase by 25 acres and there would be less overall disturbance to the natural environmental when compared to the previous plan. The proposed change d. would be less overall disturbance to the natural environmental when compared to the previous plan. The proposed change is consistent and compatible with the General Plan’s policies for the Discovery Bay area as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. In no way does amending the project’s land use plan interfere with the County’s ability to otherwise implement the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed GPA is in the public interest. The Bay Area suffers from a severe housing shortage. The previous plan for 292 single-family homes was unable to obtain approval from various State and federal agencies because of certain environmental impacts that would occur. The proposed plan for 277 single-family homes avoids many of those impacts and has a higher likelihood of being constructed, thus adding to the housing stock and helping to alleviate the housing shortage. e. The project includes the following additional components that also are in the public interest: It provides 41.55 inclusionary housing units, which includes construction of 8 Lower Income Housing Units and 33 Moderate Income Housing Units, and payment of an in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional unit (0.55 unit). The previous approval did not include affordable units. It preserves all onsite wetland resources, including 19.77 acres associated with the emergent marsh and seasonal wetlands in the area north of the residential development. It provides public pedestrian access in proximity to the onsite wetlands and Kellogg Creek by way of 5,200 linear feet of new trails meandering through new parks near the wetlands and along the preserved Kellogg Creek. The trails will accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist use on an approximately 10-foot wide, all-weather compacted crushed granite surface that will double as emergency vehicle access. The wetland, park, and trail experiences will be enhanced with educational signage that documents and discusses the types of plant and animal species inhabiting the environmental resource areas. It provides supplemental funding to support park maintenance in the Discovery Bay area. f. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and is the first amendment to such element for 2021. 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment (County File #CDGP19-0002) to reclassify the Land Use Designation of the subject property from Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Water (WA), Open Space (OS), Public/Semi-Public (PS) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR), and ADOPTS the General Plan Amendment, County File #CDGP19-0002, as the first General Plan amendment for calendar year 2021, as permitted by State Planning Law. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: PROJECT FINDINGS FOR TREVOR SMITH, PANTAGES AT DISCOVERY BAY LLC (APPLICANT) AND C&D DISCOVERY BAY LLC AND WATERFRONT LOTS LLC (OWNERS): COUNTY FILES: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19- 3024 A. CEQA FINDINGS 1. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an addendum to an earlier EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified document, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: A) The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. B) The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. C) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was approved, shows any of the following.  The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 2 of 13 significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:  any conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR; or  only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. PROJECT AND EIR FINDINGS Certification of Addendum The Commission finds that the Addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum prior to approving the project; and the Addendum reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. Impact Conclusions and Mitigation Measures There are no substantial changes proposed by the project or in the circumstances in which the project would be undertaken that require major revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 Pantages EIR and would have similar construction-related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines), but at a reduced scale. Most mitigation measures from the 2013 Pantages EIR would remain in effect and would continue to mitigate the project. The project and changes in best practices 2013 resulted in updated mitigation measures for Biological Resources (Section 2.4) and Transportation and Traffic (Section 2.15). Additionally, the project has reduced or eliminated certain impacts, such that mitigation is no longer required. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR (Section 15162, subdivision (b)(3), State CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project does not require major revisions to the Pantages Bays Project EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the project have occurred since certification of the EIR. The previous analysis completed for the project Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 3 of 13 remains adequate under CEQA. However, the project Applicant will remain obligated to comply with all applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained within the 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum, unless appropriately added, modified, or removed to reflect the environmental review in this addendum. The Mitigation, Monitoring Reporting Program [MMRP] is is hereby adopted by the Commission, and is incorporated into these findings. The mitigation measures will feasibly reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels, and will reduce some less-than-significant impacts as well. In adopting these mitigation measures, the Commission intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified by the EIR. The various documents and other materials constitute the record upon which the Commission bases these findings and the approvals contained herein. These findings cite specific pieces of evidence, but none of the Commission’s findings are based solely on those pieces of evidence. These findings are adopted based upon the entire record, and the Commission intends to rely upon all supporting evidence in the record for each of its findings. The location and custodian of the documents and materials that comprise the record is Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, 94553, telephone (925) 655-2705. B. General Plan Amendment 1. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the County Urban Limit Line. Project Finding: No change to the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed. No extension of urban services beyond the ULL is proposed. The subject site is located entirely within the ULL, and therefore may be designated for “urban” or “non-urban” development, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designations, Single-Family Residential- High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Water (WA) are all allowed. 2. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 4 of 13 reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designations are SH, Single-Family Residential- Medium Density (SM), Public/Semi-Public (PS), OS, and WA. The proposed designations are SH, OS, WA, and PR. SH and SM are urban designations, while the rest are non-urban. The proposed GPA condenses and simplifies the land use plan, reducing the area dedicated to urban uses by 26.2 acres while expanding the OS acreage by 25 acres. The reduced acreage dedicated to urban uses is consistent with, and supports, the 65/35 Standard. 3. Required Finding: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program. Project Finding: The current iteration of the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program was established by county voters through adoption of Measure J-2004. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of the Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. 4. Required Finding: Following adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the General Plan will remain internally consistent, as required under Government Code Section 65300.5. Project Finding: The County General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing land use in the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map and involves reorganizing the land use plan for a previously approved project. The development footprint would shrink, and the unit count would decrease from 292 single-family homes to 277. Open space would increase by 25 acres and there would be less overall disturbance to the natural environmental when compared to the previous plan. The proposed change is consistent and compatible with the General Plan’s policies for the Discovery Bay area as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. In no way does amending the project’s land use plan interfere with the County’s ability to otherwise implement the General Plan. Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 5 of 13 5. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a). Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed GPA is in the public interest. The Bay Area suffers from a severe housing shortage. The previous plan for 292 single-family homes was unable to obtain approval from various State and federal agencies because of certain environmental impacts that would occur. The proposed plan for 277 single-family homes avoids many of those impacts and has a higher likelihood of being constructed, thus adding to the housing stock and helping to alleviate the housing shortage. The project includes the following additional components that also are in the public interest: • It provides 41.55 inclusionary housing units, which includes construction of 8 Lower Income Housing Units and 33 Moderate Income Housing Units, and payment of an in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional unit (0.55 unit). The previous approval did not include affordable units. • It preserves all onsite wetland resources, including 19.77 acres associated with the emergent marsh and seasonal wetlands in the area north of the residential development. • It provides public pedestrian access in proximity to the onsite wetlands and Kellogg Creek by way of 5,200 linear feet of new trails meandering through new parks near the wetlands and along the preserved Kellogg Creek. The trails will accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist use on an approximately 10-foot wide, all-weather compacted crushed granite surface that will double as emergency vehicle access. The wetland, park, and trail experiences will be enhanced with educational signage that documents and discusses the types of plant and animal species inhabiting the environmental resource areas. • It provides supplemental funding to support park maintenance in the Discovery Bay area. 6. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment would not exceed the limit on such amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b). Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 6 of 13 per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and is the first amendment to such element for 2021. C. Growth Management Findings 1. Traffic: The property site is located at the terminus of Point of Timber Road, a publicly maintained road, and Wilde Drive, a maintained road stubbed to the property from the adjacent Ravenswood subdivision. The main access to the project site will be from Point of Timber with secondary access from Wilde Drive. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in 2013 and identified several streets and intersections in the region that will be directly or cumulatively impacted by this development. The mitigation measures per the EIR include construction or participation in the funding of these improvements either directly or through payment of fees to established regional area of benefit fee accounts or, in the absence thereof, County managed roadway deficiency trust accounts. Below is a summary of the impacts. • Under the Existing Plus Project conditions, the addition of project traffic is not projected to cause any significant impacts. Under Cumulative conditions, the addition of Project traffic is projected to cause potentially significant impacts at 11 intersections and significant and unavoidable at two roadway sections (Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road). • Holoway Drive/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Balfour Road/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from acceptable LOS D to LOS E, which is considered a potentially significant impact. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 7 of 13 • Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS B to unacceptable LOS D, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • State Route 4/Byron Highway (south intersection) – Based on the HCM method, this signalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Based on the CCTALOS method, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative conditions and LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the AM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase delay by less than five seconds, but would increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • State Route 4/Newport Drive – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 8 of 13 increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road – Based on the HCM method, this signalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Based on the CCTALOS method, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The addition of project trips would increase delay by more than five seconds and increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds during the PM peak hour, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • All 11 of these impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigations. • Service along Vasco Road, south of Camino Diablo would not meet the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority’s Multimodal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO) target LOS D in either the northbound or southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hour under either cumulative condition. Service along Marsh Creek Road, west of SR4, would not meet the MTSO target LOS D in either the eastbound or westbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour under either cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the LOS along both these two roadway segments. And, even though the project will pay its fair share of regional roadway fees, since there is no plan to provide additional capacity on this roadway section, the impacts to these two road segments would remain significant and unavoidable, and required adoption of a Statement of Overriding Conditions, which was previously prepared and adopted for the 2013 EIR. 2. Water: Water would be supplied to the project by the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD). The TDBCSD prepared a Water Master Plan (Water Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 9 of 13 MP) in January of 2012, that identifies projected growth, including the Pantages Bays Project, through 2020, and the water supply and service improvements required to serve them. The improvements and programs in the Water MP would be implemented through a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded by financial mechanisms approved by the TDBCSD. The Pantages Bays Project would be required to pay its fair share towards the improvements identified in the Water MP. To assure that the development does not outpace infrastructure the applicant is required to submit a Can & Will Serve letter from TDBCSD to the County prior to filing of the Final Map (Condition of Approval #49). Also, prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD that the necessary improvements to serve the project are constructed and operational (Condition of Approval #49). The Project requires approval from LAFCO for sphere of influence amendments and corresponding annexation into the TDBCSD service for water services. 3. Sanitary Sewer: Wastewater collection and treatment services would be provided to the project by the TDBCSD. The Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is undergoing a phased expansion to provide adequate service and capacity to both existing and proposed developments in the Town of Discovery Bay. The TDBCSD has prepared a Wastewater Master Plan (Wastewater MP) in October, 2011, that identifies projected growth, including the Pantages Bays Project. Similar to the Water MP, the Wastewater MP includes recommended improvements to meet the District’s projected wastewater demands through 2020. The improvements would be implemented through a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funded by financial mechanisms approved by the TDBSCD. The plan would include new capacity fee to charge new development for its fair share of wastewater treatment upgrades that are necessary to serve both the existing community and new development. The Pantages Bays Project would be required to pay their fair share towards the improvements identified in the Wastewater MP CIP. To assure that the development does not outpace infrastructure the applicant is required to submit a Can & Will Serve letter from TDBCSD to the County prior to filing of the Final Map (Condition of Approval #49). Also, prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD that the necessary improvements to serve the project are constructed and operational (Condition of Approval #49). Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 10 of 13 The Project would require approval from LAFCO for sphere of influence amendments and corresponding annexation into the TDBCSD service boundary for sewer services. 4. Fire Protection: According to County General Plan, Fire Protection Policies, the Fire Department shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station, and new development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. The Project is within 0.5 miles of Fire Station 59 at 1801 Bixler Road and the project will pay its fair share of fire protection services. In addition, all of the proposed homes will be sprinklered. 5. Public Protection: Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Delta Station of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, located at 220 O’Hara Avenue within the City of Oakley. The Delta Station provides police services to the following three areas (Lt. M. Burton 2010-Pantages Bays DEIR, June 2012): • Beat 31: Unincorporated areas of Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley • Beat 32: Discovery Bay • Beat 33: Bethel Island, Knightsen and Byron The applicant is conditioned to establish a police services district prior to recording of the Final Map which augments police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. That requirement is typical for new residential development in unincorporated areas of the County. 6. Parks and Recreation: The County General Plan Growth Management Element requires new development to provide 3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000 people. Pursuant to the County’s dedication requirements. The project would increase the amount of land designated for open space, and parks and recreational land uses by 63.3 and 14.8 additional acres, respectively, compared to the project evaluated in the Pantages 2013 Pantages EIR. Additionally, the applicant will be Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 11 of 13 paying a park impact fee of $ 6,616 per dwelling unit and dedication fee of 3,142 per dwelling unit. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The County Floodplain ordinance requires that a Floodplain Permit be obtained for all planned improvements on lands subject to inundation by the 100-year flood. As noted above, the project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps and therefore is required to comply with the County Floodplain Ordinance. Flood control design for this Project will be based on the 100-year base flood event assuming State projections for sea level rise by 2100. D. Rezoning Findings 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Project Finding: The site is currently zoned P-1, Planned Unit Development that was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 3, 2013 and subsequently on October 6, 2015. The Project modifies the configuration of the previously approved development that reduces the number of residential units from 292 to 277 that necessitates the modification of the boundaries of the P-1 zoning. The new configuration will be consistent with the new General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent district. Project Finding: The Project is a residential P-1 Planned Unit Development compatible with and substantially based generally on the standards contained under the R-6 residential zoning district, and it includes open space areas with recreational public trail uses. The Project is consistent with the adjacent residential developments to the west, east and south which are single-family residential neighborhoods of comparable residential densities and are zoned P- 1 as well. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 12 of 13 Project Finding: The Project use will provide new housing that assist in meeting the housing supply needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project will provide 41.55 inclusionary housing units. E. Tentative Map Findings 1. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general plan required by law. Project Finding: The Project will provide 277 residential units, and common and open space areas. The Project is consistent with the new General Plan land use designations of Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR) for the project site. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the respective Goals and Policies of the County’s General Plan. 2. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The Project will comply with the collect and convey regulations, storm drainage facilities, and design standards for private roads. Additionally, compliance with the California Building Code and all applicable County Ordinances is required for grading of the property and construction of residential buildings. F. Findings of Approval of P-1 Zoning District and Final Development Plan 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding: The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within 2 ½ years off the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 13 of 13 Project Finding: The project includes a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the project site to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). The project provides 277 residential units and common areas, including open space areas with two public trail systems. Overall, the project is consistent with these new land use designations and the respective Goals and Policies of the County’s General Plan. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: The surrounding area consists of residences and the project to provide 277 residential units is consistent with the area. Residences will consist of one or two-story elements and have setbacks similar to the surrounding properties in the area. The design of the residences will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Overall, the project is similar to the single-family development established in the surrounding area and the previous residential project approved for the project site. 4. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding: The previous 292 residential development approved for the site included a Final Development Plan to establish a P-1. The project was not developed due to regulatory permitting difficulties. The project is to allow 277 residential units that is consistent with the surrounding area. G. Tree Permit Findings Required Finding: The County Planning Commission is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied: 1. Reasonable development of the property will require the removal of 23 trees will be necessary to construct the project. Replanting of trees is required, including a restitution for the replanted trees. All feasible efforts have been made to retain the maximum number of trees, as well as, to preserve those trees, which are exceptional due to their visual prominence on the site. 2. Development of this project cannot be reasonably accommodated on other parts of the property due to the size of the project site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREVOR SMITH, PANTAGES AT DISCOVERY BAY LLC (APPLICANT) AND C&D DISCOVERY BAY LLC AND WATERFRONT LOTS LLC (OWNERS): COUNTY FILES: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19- 3024 Project Approval 1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports/letters received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) and/or referenced in the Pantages Bays Addendum dated December 2020 and November 2014, the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report dated July 2013 or the Conditions of Approval below, including the following: A. Vesting Tentative Map received on February 25, 2020 and 2020 Pantages Design Standards received on November 6, 2020. B. Tree Reports: HortScience October 2006 & August 2007. C. Biology: Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages, Gibson & Skordal 2006 / Evaluation of potential California red-legged frog, Miriam Green Associates 2010. / Evaluation of giant garter snake, Miriam Green Associates 2010. / Results of special-status species, Miriam Green Associates 2003. / Response to CDFG Comments, Miriam Green Associates August 31, 2012. / Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods [fairy shrimp] Wet Season Survey Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC May 2003. / Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Pantages Property, EcoAnalysts, Inc. August 4, 2003. / Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report, Stillwater Sciences May 2007. / Bank Habitat Plan, Sheet 7 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October 2009. / Modified Table 8 Quantity (feet) and quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June 2010. / Modified Table 9 Quantity (feet) and quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June 2010. / Response to CDFG Comments, Stillwater Sciences September 26, 2012. / Zetner Planning and Ecology prepared a Biological Resources Technical Report dated August 2020. / Impacts to federally protected reptiles and amphibians were analyzed in a separate memorandum prepared by Eric C. Hansen dated June 11, 2020. D. Geology: Engeo, updated geotechnical report 2014, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO 1999. / Geotechnical Exploration Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 2 of 54 Pantages, ENGEO June 23, 2004. / Geotechnical Exploration Pantages Bays ENGEO September 22, 2006 (revised October 27, 2006). / Summary of Potential Settlement, ENGEO 2011. / Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO January 26, 2005. / Updated Engeo Geotechnical Report dated February 13, 2020. E. Hydrology: Stormwater Control Plan C.3 Report prepared by MacKay & Somps dated February 24, 2020. / Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Memorandum prepared by MacKay & Somps dated February 24, 2020. F. Wetlands Delineation Plan Sheet 10 of 13 on Pantages Bays Plans Modified September 2014. / Jurisdictional Delineation Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC December 2002 and verified by Army Corp letter dated June 4, 2003. / Supplemental Delineation Request-Pantages Project, Gibson & Skordal, LLC October 11, 2006. / Army Corps letter dated January 7, 2009, verifying Jurisdictional Delineation Map Pantages Properties May 2008. 2. This subdivision is approved contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors actions; A. Approval of the proposed modified General Plan amendment from SH, SM, PS, OS and WA to a modified configuration of those same land use designations with the deletion of PS and SM and the addition of PR (County File #GP19-0002). B. Approval of the proposed modified Rezoning from P-1, UE to a modified configuration of that same zoning designation (County File #RZ19-3252) If either, the general plan amendment or the rezoning application is not approved, then this approval shall be null and void. 3. This approval allows for a maximum of 277 residential lots. Application Fees 4. The applications submitted were subject to an initial deposit of $8,500 for the General Plan Amendment, $32,635 for the rezoning, $35,928 for the subdivision, and $3,000 for the final development plan. The applications are subject to time Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 3 of 54 and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to an application for a grading or building permit, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2019/553, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the Department of Conservation and Development may seek a court judgement against the applicant and will charge interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of judgement. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. Indemnification 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, of annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Compliance Report 6. At least 45 days prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) for review and approval. The report shall identify all conditions of approval that are administered by the CDD. The report shall document the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all relevant conditions. Copies of the permit conditions may be obtained from the CDD. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable conditions of this report prior to filing the Final Map. Project Phasing / Filing of Multiple Subdivision Maps 7. The filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps must conform with Sections 66456.1 & 66463.1 of the Subdivision Map Act and is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Division and the Public Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 4 of 54 Works Department. Contra Costa County has the authority to impose reasonable conditions relating to the filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps, and the conditions of approval for this subdivision permit shall apply to each subdivision phase. If multiple subdivision maps will be filed, the conditions of approval for this permit must be satisfied for each phase prior to recordation of individual maps, and a separate compliance review application will be required for each subdivision phase to determine the status of the conditions of approval for that phase. Child Care 8. Prior to the issuance of building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Impact Fee 9. Prior to submittal of a building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay the applicable park impact fee as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Dedication Fee 10. Prior to submittal of a building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay the applicable park dedication fee as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services District 11. Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to Augment Police Services: Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 5 of 54 Mitigation Measures Air Quality 12. Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such use. That prohibition includes outdoor wood burning fireplaces, ovens or similar wood burning features. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1) 13. To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated with grading and new construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures for all phases of construction:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the on-site complaint and enforcement manager (COA#44) regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 6 of 54 also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2a) 14. To reduce health risks from TACs during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project:  Minimize the idling time of diesel-p o we r e d construction equipment to two minutes;  Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing emissions includes the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment projects, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available;  Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM; and  Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB's more recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines . (Mitigation Measure AQ-2b) Biology Special-Status Plants 15. Prior to site disturbance a pre-construction survey for the Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the plant's blooming period (June to October). The survey shall be conducted in the area of the project site south of Point of Timber Road. If Delta button celery is not found, no further mitigation is needed. If Delta button celery is found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts on Delta button celery. The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation Measure BIO-A) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 7 of 54 16. Prior to site disturbance pre-construction special-status plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall occur during the season that provides an adequate opportunity to identify occurrences of any special-status plants. If no special-status plants are found, no further mitigation is needed. If a special-status plant or plants are found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts to the identified special-status plant. The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation Measure BIO-A) Landscape Trees 17. To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 23 trees on the project site, the following mitigation ratios shall be followed subject to the approval or modification of the Department of Conservation and Development: a 3:1 in kind replacement or replacement by native trees for non-native trees removed, or 6:1 for other native tree species that are planted to replace the two walnut trees. The Applicant comply with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD): • Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. Proposed trees to be replanted on the residential lots shall be identified on the final landscape plan. • Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size. • Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize landscape maintenance cost. • Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance Requirements: The plan shall comply with the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape (or with the County Ordinance if one is adopted) and with the Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to intersections with public roads. The landscape architect shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards and reporting requirements. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 8 of 54 • To assure the long-term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of landscaping. Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the CDD. Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall submit a letter to CDD that the landscaping is in good health. (Mitigation Measure BI0-1) 18. The trees identified on the final landscape plan as trees to be planted on a residential lot shall be planted prior to final inspection for each lot. 19. Tree removal shall occur only with an approved grading or building permit. Western pond turtle 20. Within 5 days of initiating construction activities, a qualified biologist (knowledgeable and experienced in western pond turtle identification) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all areas in these locations that will or could be impacted by construction activities. Any western pond turtles or eggs observed within the construction zone shall be allowed to leave the area on their own accord or they shall be relocated by the qualified biologist to a suitable area outside of the construction zone. A survey report detailing the survey results shall be prepared and submitted to the biological permitting agencies prior to the start of construction. After the preconstruction survey and prior to construction activities, an exclusion fence shall be placed between the development and the bank habitat and the emergent marsh habitat such that a western pond turtle could not move from these habitats into the development area. A qualified biologist shall be present during trenching activities associated with the exclusion fence installation. The exclusion fencing will be standard silt fencing, approximately 42 inches in height that will be trenched 6 inches into the soil. The soil will then be compacted against both sides of the fence to prevent wildlife from gaining access underneath. The stakes will be placed on the inside of the fence facing the development. No gaps or holes are permitted in the fencing system, except for pedestrian and vehicle entry points. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 9 of 54 The entry/exit points may be constructed in the fencing system for equipment and personnel, but the qualified biologist must ensure no wildlife is capable of entering the fenced off site via the gate. The gate structure must be flush to the ground with no holes or gaps (i.e., plywood gates with silt fencing flaps). The fence will be inspected occasionally by a qualified biologist for holes, gaps, or access points, which shall be repaired upon discovery. The area inside the fence will also be inspected for trapped wildlife prior to the initiation of construction each day. If wildlife is discovered, the fence shall be opened and monitored until the wildlife has left the fenced area on its own accord and no work shall occur during this period. If the wildlife does not leave on its own accord, CDFW will be contacted before work may continue. (Mitigation Measure BIO-6) Tree nesting birds/raptors 21. If construction related work would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season for raptors or other bird species listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (typically February 1 through September 15), a pre-construction survey of the project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region) within 7 days prior to the commencement of construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. The intent of the survey shall be to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the construction zone within approximately 250 feet. The surveys shall be timed such that the last survey is concluded no more than one week prior to initiation of construction. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional pre-construction survey shall be conducted such that no more than one week will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly or indirectly affected by the project, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones (generally 250 for raptors and 50 for passerines) and types of construction activities restricted within them should be determined through consultation with the CDFW depending on the species, taking into account factors such as the following:  Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 10 of 54  Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and  Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds. The buffer zone around an active nest shall be established in the field with orange construction fencing or another appropriate barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas of special-status bird species to ensure that no impacts on these nests occur. (Mitigation Measure BIO-8) Swainson's hawk 22. The loss of potential foraging hawk habitat shall be mitigated in consultation with the CDFW following the recommendations provided below. The CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that projects within 1 mile of an active nest provide: • One acre of Habitat Management (HM) land (at least 10 percent of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90 percent of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or • One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on-the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). Prior to site disturbance to ensure that no impacts occur to nesting Swainson’s hawk, preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted in conformance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000). If an active nest is found within 0.25 miles of the project site, project-related disturbance sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-September 15) and/or in consultation with the CDFW. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 11 of 54 If Swainson’s hawk are found nesting on the project site, a qualified biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site. The size of this nondisturbance boundary shall be determined by the biologist in the field and in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be based upon the location of the nesting tree, the bird’s tolerance of noise, and the type of disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations). Once the young have fledged from the nest, the buffer can be removed, and all project activities can commence. Western burrowing owl 23. Any necessary resource agency permits related to western burrowing owl shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to ground disturbance activities. Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012. Below we provide a summary of the survey methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that would be applicable to the project site. These surveys would meet the standards of care required by CEQA for conducting surveys. a. Initiating Survey. An initial take avoidance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities will trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. b. Number of visits and timing. Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one Visit after June 15. c. Survey method. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7 meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey. d. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor's ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is > 20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 12 of 54 detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are > 20° C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75%. e. Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities. f. Avoiding burrowing owls. A primary goal is to design and implement projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Avoidance measures may include but not be limited to: • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1through August 31. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). • Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February. g. Minimizing Impacts. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. A qualified biologist shall conduct site- specific monitoring to inform the project proponent of buffer requirements. See Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance. h. Permanent Impacts. Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat loss. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 13 of 54 i. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and burrowing owl habitat. (Mitigation Measure BI0-10) Impacts to other nesting birds See revised Mitigation Measure BIO-8 Cultural Resources 24. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional (historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined appropriate and approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. At the County's discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County's discretion, the professional may work under contract with the County. (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) 25. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 14 of 54 • The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and • If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: • The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; • The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American; • The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided 1n Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; • The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) Geology 26. The project applicant shall design structures and foundations to withstand expected seismic sources in accordance with the current version of the California Building Code, as adopted by the County. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1a) 27. At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit updated improvement plans for the project for review by the County's Peer Review Geologist and review and approval by CDD. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1b) 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit an updated geology, soils and foundation report meeting the requirements of Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 15 of 54 the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 94-4.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of CDD. The report shall address the specific approach to grading and development indicated by the final subdivision map and improvement plans, and shall provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the stability of the residential lots. The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria: a. Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions, b. Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley seismic zone), and c. Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1c) 29. During the construction of subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services and issue a grading completion report. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1d) 30. At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water quality, a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (MacKay & Somps 2020) was prepared for the project and submitted to the County's Public Works Department in order to comply with County water quality requirements. Engineered linear bioretention facilities (adjacent to the south lake) are the selected storm water runoff treatment for this project, which are area-based storm water treatment facilities. (Mitigation Measure GE0- 2) 31. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the results of the study will guide design of concrete and Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 16 of 54 ferrous materials that are in contact with the ground. (Mitigation Measure GE0-3) Deed Requirement for Geology, Soil, and Foundation Report 32. Concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. Global Climate Change 33. The County shall ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green building techniques in the design of proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project. Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green Building Code or equivalent green building standards. (Mitigation Measure Cum-GCC-1a) 34. The applicant shall incorporate the following measures within the proposed project: • Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants in combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment; • Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways, driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements; • To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets, adhesives, sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low concentration of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs); • The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e. non CFC-based refrigerants); • Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants would be ventilated through the building at a faster rate; • The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low­ flow or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use; Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 17 of 54 • Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single-family homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops; and • The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment. • In each garage an electric outlet shall be installed and dedicated for use in recharging electric vehicles. (Mitigation Measure CUM GCC­1b) Hazardous Materials 35. Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from the paint disposal area and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. If soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). (Mitigation Measure HAZ­1a ) The project site shall be inspected by an environmental professional, appointed by the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b) 36. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall submit proof to the County that all asbestos-containing materials have been removed at the existing residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a) 37. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall submit proof to the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the existing former residences on the project site, in compliance with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b) Hydrology 38. During grading activities, a qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) on the project team shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 18 of 54 quality in Kellogg Creek. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed, to accurately assess water quality degradation. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1a) 39. At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: www.co.contracosta.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Additionally, the Title 10 Ordinance (1010) of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances requires the project sponsor to obtain a permit for drainage activities for creek improvements to Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek, if necessary. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1b) 40. To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage, and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes, and contractor bid documents shall include the following specifications: 1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance materials and refueling purposes. 2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving waters. If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed beneath the engine block and hydraulic systems. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1c) 41. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells on the project site. The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the decommissioned wells for approval. (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) 42. Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet. (Mitigation Measure HYD-3a) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 19 of 54 43. Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation of 12.1 feet including the EVAs. (Mitigation Measure HYD-3b) Noise and Vibration 44. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: • New Year's Day (State and Federal) • Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) • Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) • Lincoln's Birthday (State) • Cesar Chavez Day (State) • Memorial Day (State and Federal) • Independence Day (State and Federal) • Labor Day (State and Federal) • Columbus Day (State and Federal) • Veterans Day (State and Federal) • Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) • Day after Thanksgiving (State) • Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/ California Holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml At least 10 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 20 of 54 An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints. At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for each major phase of construction, the Applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to CDD. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1a) 45. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, the A pplicant shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation plan to the CDD for the review and approval. The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during particular phases of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are noise-related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan shall be required as part the grading permit application. The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model Community Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60dBA for stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals. Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 21 of 54 • Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities. • List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound level estimates for each phase. • Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The barriers can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they have a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot. Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully overlapping 1 x redwood boards (1 ½-inch-thick total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8 feet tall, but this would be refined as part of the construction noise control plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and location of the barriers are the actual construction practices, including equipment to be used and the location and duration of noisier activities. The topography will also need to be considered in the final determination of barrier heights and effectiveness. • Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set by Contra Costa County. • Locate stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable and/or enclose noise sources. • The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment and construction tools as feasible. • Provide intake silencers and "resident-type" exhaust mufflers on vehicles and equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1b) 46. At least 14 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall construct temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions. Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1c) Parks and Recreation 47. Improvement plans shall include two 90-degree parking stalls located at the end of "A" Court designated for handicap accessibility in order to provide for vehicular access for the disabled adjacent to the public trails within the project open space. Signage at the project entry shall provide notice as to the location of the ADA parking stalls. The CC&Rs for the homeowners association shall confirm Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 22 of 54 the requirements with respect to project signage and for permanent retention of the ADA parking stalls at the “A” Court. The final location of the two parking stalls, and the form and text of the applicable signage, public trail easement and CC&Rs with respect to this condition, shall be approved by CDD prior to filing of the Final Map. Public Utilities (Water & Sewer) 48. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that the TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of any required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are constructed and operational. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1) 49. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of RWQCB. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are constructed and operational, and that any source control measures are being implemented consistent with the requirements of RWQCB. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-2) Transportation 50. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane. This improvement is included in the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-1) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 23 of 54 51. The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) 52. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program. In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5. This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact thereon. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1) 53. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2) 54. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 24 of 54 This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less- than-significant. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3) 55. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4) 56. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. In lieu of the cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds that the best option is to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described: The Applicant shall install a traffic signal and add left-turn lanes at all four intersection approaches for mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road for CUM TRA-5 per Condition of Approval # 101. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5) 57. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 25 of 54 58. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 10 percent and 11 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program. In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5. This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact thereon. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7) 59. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach. The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any funding program. The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8) 60. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 percent and 6 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 26 of 54 operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program. In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5. This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact thereon. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9) 61. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of several improvements at this intersection in the 2013 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10) 62. The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11) Visual/Lighting 63. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the review and approval by CDD. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize motion detection systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property. Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses. (Mitigation Measure VIS-1) Street Names 64. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and private) shall be submitted for review by CDD, Graphics Section (Phone #674-7810). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be certified by CDD without the approved street names. Street names of historic Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 27 of 54 significance to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber will be used if available, subject to review and approval of CDD. Architectural Design of Production Model Homes/Fencing Plan 65. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit floor plans and elevations (showing building height) for the models of the production homes for the review and approval of CDD. The models of the production homes shall comply with the design standards indicated in COA #73 below. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall also submit a fencing plan for the whole of the Pantages project for the review and approval of CDD. Homeowners Association 66. Prior to filing the Final Map, a homeowners association shall be formed for the ownership and maintenance (through homeowners assessments) of all common areas including lakes, common landscaping, clubhouse, and clubhouse parcel except as specified in these Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures. Examples of exceptions to ownership and maintenance by the homeowners association include the public roadway network (Parcel I). See Condition #67 below for details on ownership and maintenance. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) 67. At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit the CC&Rs for the Pantages project for the review and approval of CDD. Prior to submitting the CC&Rs to CDD for review and approval, the applicant shall work with the Lakeshore Homeowners Association for review and comment of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall include information for the future property owners that the streets, trails, and northern parks to be constructed from the entrance of the Pantages lots through the Open Space to near the water's edge along Kellogg Creek, as well as the sidewalks and streets within Pantages, and ADA parking stalls on “A” Court, shall be available to the public. The CC&Rs shall also confirm that rights of access to that effect are included on the recorded Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) and accepted on behalf of the public by the County (and/or other public agency approved by CDD such as the TDBCSD). Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 28 of 54 The Police, Fire District, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), TDBCSD, and other public agencies (e.g., Mosquito Abatement District) right of ingress, egress and use of all roads within the Pantages project shall be provided for and confirmed in the CC&Rs. The offers of dedication to the public shall so provide, and a note to that effect shall be included on the face page of the Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD), as provided for in Condition #72 below. The CC&Rs shall confirm that maintenance of the lakes, common landscaping, open space, public trails and parks, clubhouse, and the typical police service district assessment shall be paid for by Pantages homeowners through assessments (for example, TDBCSD landscaping and lighting district assessments, police service district tax bill assessment, homeowners association assessments). The CC&Rs shall confirm that each homeowner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the back retaining wall on the lakes lots, if there is one and the slope between that wall and the lake edge. The CC&Rs shall further confirm that any storm water drainage improvements associated with the slope, retaining wall, and lake shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The CC&Rs shall include the Pantages Design Standards described below in Condition #s 73 through 76. The CC&Rs shall confirm they are enforceable in all respects by CDD, and that CDD must confirm compliance with them prior to issuance of a building permit for the construction of a new home and accessory structures, or subsequent alterations. There is no requirement that the CC&Rs include design review by the homeowners association. There shall be a recorded deed disclosure for each of the approved lots confirming the foregoing as well, with the form and content reviewed and approved by CDD. The recorded deed disclosure shall include reference to the Design Standards. Ownership, Maintenance, and Financial Responsibility for Project Parcels 68. The non-residential parcels below shall be recorded on the Final Map. These parcels shall be owned and maintained as provided below. The financial responsibility for that maintenance will likely be provided as described below. Necessary easements related the parcels are described below. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 29 of 54 A. Parcel “A” (approximately 0.87 acres) is the parcel that will include a clubhouse and parking lot. The clubhouse will be available for use by the property owners within the Pantages subdivision. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. B. Parcels “B,” “D,” “E,” “F,” “G,” “J,” “M,” “Q,” and “R” are open space (approximately 12.68 acres), Kellogg Creek setback area and trail (10.78 acres), and paseos adjacent to the south lake. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners' property tax bill assessments through a landscaping and lighting district formed prior to recordation of Final Map. Public Access Easements (PAE) over Parcels “B,” “D,” “J,” and “Q” (Open Spaces) shall be maintained by a public maintenance entity (i.e. TDBCSD, East Bay Regional Park District, the County, etc.), subject to the establishment of a maintenance entity (e.g. Mello Roos District) for the maintenance of parks and trails in the project area established prior to filing the Final Map. The Pantages HOA or other maintenance entity shall be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed retaining wall along the frontage of Parcel B and “B” Street. The retaining wall shall be structurally designed to support the proposed public road. Sanitary sewer easement over Parcel R will be conveyed to TDBCSD. C. Parcel “H” is the south lake and related open space (approximately 23.23 acres). Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. D. Parcel “I” is the public roadway network and associated right-of-way (approximately 15.94 acres). Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Contra Costa County following acceptance of the improvements. E. Parcel “K” is flexible recreational space (approximately 1.20 acres) adjacent to Parcel “A” will be is available for use by the property owners within the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 30 of 54 Pantages subdivision. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. F. Parcels “L,” “N,” and “O” are the three public park locations along the residential uses northern edge (approximately 4.06 acres) and Public Access Easements (PAE) will be located over these parcels. Ownership shall be maintained by a public maintenance entity (i.e. TDBCSD, East Bay Regional Park District, the County, etc.), subject to the establishment of a maintenance entity (e.g.. Mello Roos District) prior to recordation of Final Map. G. Parcel “P” is the wetland complex and open space (approximately 53.97 acres) located north of Parcels “L,” N,” and “O”. Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements) and maintenance: TDBCSD. Maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners tax bill assessments likely through a landscaping and lighting district formed prior to recording Final Map. An alternative to TDBCSD ownership and maintenance would be RD 800, with funding by Pantages homeowners through a Proposition 218 assessment, and with the vote completed by RD 800 and owner and the assessments finalized prior to filing the Final Map. Alternatively, though not preferred, would be ownership (with conservation covenants/easements) by the Pantages homeowners association, with maintenance by an approved conservancy organization, and funding through the association and/or an endowment. H. Parcel “S” is the north lake (approximately 6.84 acres). Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. Construction and Demolition Debris 69. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or demolition permit(s), the developer shall submit a "Debris Recovery Plan" demonstrating how they intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating from the demolition of existing building and/or the construction of new buildings. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 31 of 54 At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of the first residential unit not including models, the developer shall submit a completed "Debris Recovery Report" documenting actual debris recovery efforts including the quantities of recovered and landfilled materials) that resulted from the project. LAFCO Boundary Reorganization/RD 800 De-Annexation and TDBCSD Annexation 70. At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site is annexed, through a LAFCO boundary reorganization to TDBCSD. At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site has been de-annexed from RD 800. Fire District Conditions 71. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide CDD confirmation from the Fire District that their standards have been met. Refer to the letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) to CDD (May 15, 2014, November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005; September 15, 2004), and the letter from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24, 2005 for Fire District’s conditions. Access for Sheriff, Fire District, EMTs, RD 800. TDBCSD and Other Public Agencies for Use of Project Roads 72. Police, Fire District, and EMTs ingress, egress and use of all roads, sidewalks and EVAs within the Pantages Bays project shall be confirmed in the CC&Rs as provided for in Condition #67 above. That right includes but is not limited to routine and other patrols by the Sheriff. The applicant shall on the face page of the Final Map and deed disclosures for each of the homes (and/or by other recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the County (and other applicable agencies) such rights of full access. The same rights of access shall be provided in the CC&RS and the Final Map note and/or other recorded instrument) to RD 800 (due to its responsibilities for waterways, and related slope and back retaining wall easements), as well as TDBCSD (due to its responsibilities for sewer and water facilities within Pantages Bays and likely Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 32 of 54 ownership and maintenance of Open Space and Park Parcels). Other public agencies as determined necessary by CDD will be provided the same access (for example, the Mosquito Abatement District). Design Standards, Final Architecture, View Corridors, and Common Area Landscape Plans 73. Compliance with the Pantages Bays Design Standards (See 2020 Pantages Design Standards) shall be required for construction of new homes, or any subsequent building footprint alteration. The Design Standards include minimum setbacks for the lots, as well as height and fencing restrictions. CDD shall review proposed architectural plans for new house construction or subsequent building footprint alteration to confirm compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. The design of the new homes shall vary in architecture, roof and pitch designs, setbacks, and height. Any future amendments to the Design Standards shall require CDD review and approval. The Design Standards shall be included in the CC&Rs. The Design Standards shall be enforceable by CDD. The architecture elevations and street landscape for the production homes shall provide articulation along the streetscape on straight roads sufficient to avoid a visually linear appearance. As provided for in the Design Standards, there shall be a single-story home with a maximum height of 25 feet (or at applicant's election a two-story home with the second story (maximum 33 feet) limited to the front half of the home) on lots 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, and 136, subject to review and approval of CDD. The applicant shall record this building height restriction on each of these six lots prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, in a form and content reviewed and approved by CDD. In addition, the side yard setback on both sides of these six lots shall be a minimum of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side. The standard 5-foot side yard setback on each other lot that adjoins Ravenswood shall be next to the 10-foot setback on the adjoining lot, so that the combined setback between those homes will always be minimum 15 feet. The maximum height on each other lot adjoining Ravenswood shall be 33 feet. 74. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure for lots 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, and 136 that states Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 33 of 54 these lots are only permitted to have one story homes (maximum 25 feet in height) or two-story element limited to the front half of the home (maximum 33 feet in height), and that each of these lots shall have a side yard setback of 10 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots. 75. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure for lots 121 through 157 (all the lots adjoining Ravenswood Subdivision) that the maximum height of the house shall not exceed 33 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots. 76. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure that requires the rear lot fences for the lots that back up to the Kellogg Creek and the main lake shall be open view fencing consistent with the applicant's wetland consultant. 77. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure for each of the homes that informs them that there are public trails in the development and that public pedestrians and bicyclists may use project streets and sidewalks. 78. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a sign for the subdivision or for the public trails, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for the review and approval of the proposed design of the sign(s). Future Clubhouse and Flexible Recreation Area 79. A development plan application including plans for the design of the building and/or structures, parking area, landscaping, and improvements shall be submitted for the future clubhouse on Parcel A and the flexible recreational space on Parcel K. The submittal shall be accompanied by the appropriate deposit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Grade Elevations and Rear Yard Fencing Design Across from Ravenswood 80. The final design of retaining walls and wood fence/lattice between Pantages and Ravenswood shall be reviewed and approved by CDD at least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits to confirm compliance with the Pantages Design Standards. This rear yard fencing requirement in the Design Standards is enforceable by CDD. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 34 of 54 The Applicant has agreed to work in good faith with adjoining homeowners in Ravenswood to replace their existing rear yard fence with a new common fence consistent with the specifications above and in the Design Standards. Subject to the approval of the adjoining Ravenswood homeowner(s), applicant at its cost will remove the existing fence and construct the new common fence. If the necessary homeowner approval is not secured following good efforts as reviewed and accepted by CDD, then applicant shall construct within its rear property line a wood fence (with any necessary retaining wall or kickboard) that meets the design specifications set forth in the Design Standards. Reduction in Highest Waterfront Pad Elevations 81. For aesthetic purposes relatively high pad elevations on waterfront lots along Kellogg Creek will be reduced at the final grading plan to the extent reasonable, and still address complying with the projected sea level rise, as well as accommodate storm water flows/outlets and gravity sewer to the TDBCSD pump station that will be constructed for the project, subject to review and approval of CDD. Lakeshore Boundary Grading Alternative and Off-Site Dirt Hauling 82. The Lakeshore Homeowners Association Board of Directors (Lakeshore HOA and Lakeshore Board) has expressed interest in modifying the proposed grading plan between Lakeshore residential lots and the adjoining Pantages residential lots to place engineered fill on the intervening strip owned by the Lakeshore HOA. Such a grading plan change would require cooperation between the applicant and Lakeshore Board, and potentially adjoining Lakeshore homeowners. Grading easements and/or Jot line adjustments will likely be required. Any grading revision in this location, along with any associated lot line adjustments and common fencing arrangements shall be subject to review and comment by Public Works and CDD review and approval as part of the final grading plan. The applicant's engineers anticipate the grading operation will be a balanced cut and fill, however there is a potential to import up to 90,000 cubic yards per year. If the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced, then applicant shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan (which will include the pavement analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Public Works Condition #116) for submittal to CDD for its review and approval. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 35 of 54 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 83. This project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 822-4.402 of the County Ordinance Code, a residential development of 277 for- sale units shall require at least fifteen percent of the for-sale units to be developed and sold as affordable units. The applicant is required to construct 41.55 inclusionary housing units for the project. The Applicant/Owner/Developer (Applicant) has submitted a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan (PIHP) on February 3, 2021, which proposes to construct and sell eight (8) Lower Income Housing Units and thirty-three (33) Moderate Income Housing Units and to pay the in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional unit (0.55 unit) to comply with the County’s Inclusionary Ordinance requirements. Any proposed changes to the PIHP are subject to the review and approval of the Assistant Deputy Director, Housing and Community Improvement Division, in the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). Special Circumstances and Conditions 84. This development has unique circumstances reflected in its Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan. The Developer (Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC) and County explicitly acknowledge these unique circumstances by preparing and accepting a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan as a binding commitment to later submit one or more Final Inclusionary Housing Plans, which is an exception to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the authority of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to grant. This should not be considered a precedent for any other development project. No homebuilder has entered into a contract with the Developer, so there are no specifics regarding the inclusionary units which would typically be included in an Inclusionary Housing Plan at this stage. As a result, the Developer has submitted a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan to memorialize the approach to be taken to finalize the Inclusionary Housing Plan. Phasing 85. The Applicant has indicated that this is to be a phased subdivision. The inclusionary units will be developed in a proportionate amount to all units developed in each phase of the subdivision. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 36 of 54 The Applicant is anticipating that the subdivision will be built out in four (4) phases with up to approximately 70 lots being developed per phase. In this case, up to 10 inclusionary units will be built in each of the four phases, with an additional inclusionary unit built in the first phase to reach the total of 41 inclusionary units. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that an Inclusionary Housing Agreement (Agreement) be executed and recorded prior to a building permit (including grading) or Final Map, whichever comes first. Due to the unique circumstances of this project, it is anticipated that a new Agreement with the developer/builder or amendment to the Agreement, whichever deemed appropriate by DCD, shall be executed and recorded for each subsequent phase of the development to include a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan and all information as required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that is not specified in the PIHP. The Applicant’s provision of the details that includes but is not limited to the type, size (including number of bedrooms), number of units in each phase of development, unit mix of market rate and inclusionary units, and lot locations of the inclusionary units will be deferred to prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the phased development (including grading permits and demolition permits). The Applicant will be required to submit a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan for each phase of the development. Phasing and other details regarding the number of market units and affordable units in each phase will be delineated in the Final Inclusionary Housing Plan and subsequently in one or more Inclusionary Housing Agreements (i.e., one Agreement per phase). For-Sale Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee 86. Prior to recordation of the first phased Final Map or issuance of a building permit (including grading permits and demolition permits) for any portion of the residential development, the For-Sale Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee of $24,200.22 shall be paid in full for the remaining fraction of required inclusionary units (0.55 of a unit). This in-lieu fee is non-refundable and non-transferrable. Final Inclusionary Housing Plan 87. Prior to the issuance of a building permit (including grading permits and demolition permits) for any portion of each phase of the residential Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 37 of 54 development, the Applicant shall submit a compliance review application for the execution of an Agreement and a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan for the review and approval of the Assistant Deputy Director of the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. The Final Inclusionary Housing Plan shall provide the following information along with any information required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for review and approval: A. A brief description of the residential development, including the number of market rate units and inclusionary units proposed, and the basis for the calculation of the number of units; B. The unit mix, location, structure type, and size (including number of bedrooms) of the market rate and inclusionary units. A site plan depicting the location of the inclusionary units shall be provided; C. The household income levels of the inclusionary units, which must be proportionate to the overall requirement D. Number of units in the phase of development. There may be more than one Final Inclusionary Housing Plan based on the development of the homes on the site, and thus ultimately more than one Agreement. 88. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development, or marketing of the inclusionary units, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall submit with their compliance review application a timeline and schedule for the development and marketing of the inclusionary units for each phase for the review and approval of the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. For-Sale Inclusionary Housing (Inclusionary Housing Agreement) 89. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map or the issuance of a building permit (including grading permits) for any portion of the residential development, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall submit a compliance review application and request to begin the process for DCD to prepare and execute an Agreement for the PIHP (form to be provided by the County, substantially based on the approved Conditions) with the County pursuant to Chapter 822-4 to ensure that the proportionate amount of the thirty-three (33) of the approved Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 38 of 54 units are affordable to and occupied by a “Moderate Income Household” and eight (8) of the approved units are affordable to and occupied by a “Lower Income Household” are incorporated and developed in each phase of the development. The Agreement for the PIHP shall include and address all information as required by Section 822-4.416 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to Chapter 822-4.402(b), the forty-one (41) inclusionary units in this development will be sold and occupied by lower income households and moderate-income households as referenced above. The inclusionary units shall be deed restricted so that if the home is sold within three (3) years, it must be sold at an affordable sales price to a lower income household or moderate- income household, depending on the lot designation upon initial sale. The forty- one (41) inclusionary units shall be deed restricted in order to ensure the continued affordability of this unit for at least three (3) years in accordance with Chapter 822-4 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The inclusionary unit shall be developed with the standards and restrictions in accordance with Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance Code. Restrictions For purposes of this condition, the following definitions apply: A. Inclusionary Unit - means a for-sale unit that is required to be sold at an affordable sales price to the households specified in Section 822-4.402 under the terms and conditions of Section 822-4.410(b). B. Lower Income Households - Households whose income does not exceed the lower income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. C. Moderate Income Households – Households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income for Contra Costa County as adjusted for family size as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code. D. Affordable Sales Price - means a sales price at which a lower income household, or a moderate-income households can afford to purchase an Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 39 of 54 inclusionary unit, calculated using the cost formula herein for lower income households and moderate income households, and taking into account reasonable down payment, actual household size, and other ownership housing costs described in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6920. The affordable housing cost is calculated by DCD using the following formula: for lower income households, a product of forty (40) percent of seventy (70) percent of area median income adjusted for family size; and for moderate income households, a product of forty (40) percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of area median income adjusted for family size. Affordable Sales Price shall not exceed the market price, which may be determined by an independent appraisal. a. Sale price calculations will take into account unit size and family size. b. The sales price calculation shall also take into account Anticipated Financing so that Housing Costs do not exceed the limits. “Anticipated Financing” means private mortgage financing at current interest rates and terms. Anticipated Financing may include approved public agency down payments or second mortgage grants and loans. “Housing Costs” include mortgage principal and interest, property insurance, property taxes, homeownership association dues, and expected utility costs. General 90. The following are general terms for the for-sale inclusionary units. A. The Applicant hereby represents, warrants, and covenants that it will cause the Agreements to be recorded in the real property records of Contra Costa County, California, and in such other places as the County may reasonably request. The Applicant shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection with any such recording. The recording of the Agreements shall occur after the acceptance of the document by the County and prior to the recordation of a Final Map or the issuance a building permit, whichever occurs first, for the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 40 of 54 PIHP Agreement; and prior to the issuance of a building permit for each subsequent Agreement for each phase of development. B. The County will provide to the Applicant income certification forms to be completed by the potential homebuyers. The income levels of all lower income household and moderate-income household applicants for units in the project shall be certified prior to sale and initial occupancy. The owner’s occupancy of the inclusionary units shall be initially certified by the Applicant (or subsequent holder of the Agreement(s)) and annually thereafter by the Homeowner, and records shall be submitted to the County over the term of the period of affordability. C. For-Sale Inclusionary Unit Restrictions. a. The initial sale of a for-sale inclusionary unit shall occur only to a household that meets the following criteria: i. The household has not owned a residence within the previous three years; and ii. The household has no more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars in assets. This amount excludes assets reserved for a down payment and closing costs, assets in retirement savings accounts, and assets in medical savings accounts. b. The initial purchaser of a for-sale inclusionary unit must agree to occupy the dwelling unit as the principal residence for at least three years. c. A for-sale inclusionary unit may be resold after the initial sale to an above- moderate income purchaser and at a market price, provided that the sale results in a recapture by the county of a financial interest in the unit equal to the sum of: i. The difference between the initial affordable sales price and the appraised market value of the unit at the time of the initial sale; and ii. The county's proportionate share of any appreciation since the time of the initial sale. Appreciation is the difference between the resale price to the above-moderate income purchaser and the appraised market value at the time of the initial sale. The county's proportionate share of appreciation is equal to the percentage by which the initial affordable sales price was less than the appraised market value at the time of the initial sale. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 41 of 54 D. The 41 inclusionary units in the project shall be available for sale to members of the general public who are income eligible. The Applicant shall not give preference to any particular class or group of persons in owning the units, except to the extent that the units are required to be sold to lower income households and moderate-income households. There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, source of income (e.g., SSI), age (except for lawful senior housing), ancestry, or disability, in the sale of any unit in the project nor shall the Applicant or any person claiming under or through the Applicant, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of owners of any unit or in connection with employment of persons for the construction of the project. E. In addition to any other marketing efforts, the lower income units and moderate-income units shall be marketed through local non-profit, social service, faith-based, and other organizations that have potential clients or constituents. The Applicant shall translate marketing materials into Spanish and Chinese. A copy of the translated marketing materials and marketing plan shall be submitted to DCD for review prior to the marketing of the inclusionary units for each phase of development. Marketing may also include publicity through local television and radio stations as well as local newspapers including the East Bay Times, Classified Flea Market, El Mensajero, Thoi Bao Magazine, Berkeley/Richmond/San Francisco Posts (Post News Group), Korea Times, El Mundo, Hankook Ilbo, and the Sing Tao Daily. F. Upon violation of any of the provisions of the Agreement by the Applicant, the County may give written notice to the Applicant specifying the nature of the violation. If the violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the County within a reasonable period of time, not longer than thirty (30) days after the date the notice is deemed received, or within such further time as the County determines is necessary to correct the violation, the County may declare a default under this Agreement. Upon declaration of a default or if the County determines that the Applicant has made any misrepresentation in connection with receiving any benefits under this Agreement, the County may apply to a Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 42 of 54 court of competent jurisdiction for such relief at law or in equity as may be appropriate. Development Standards 91. The inclusionary units are subject to the standards of Section 822-4.412 of the County Ordinance. a. Inclusionary units must be dispersed throughout the residential development and have the same access to all on-site amenities that are available to market rate units. b. The construction quality and exterior design of inclusionary units must be comparable to the market rate units. However, inclusionary units may be smaller in size, developed on smaller lots, and have alternative interior finishes. c. The average number of bedrooms for all inclusionary units must be equivalent to the average number of bedrooms for market rate units within the same residential development. 92. All inclusionary units in each phase of the development must be constructed and occupied prior to or concurrently with the market rate units within the same residential development. Reporting and Compliance Review 93. Prior to the initial occupancy of each inclusionary unit, the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Conservation and Development, for review and approval, a compliance review application and fee accompanied by forms and documentation that demonstrates the owners of the inclusionary units are qualified as a lower income household or a moderate-income household. To comply with the provisions for enforcing the construction and occupancy standards of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, a hold shall be placed on the final inspection of the building permits issued for the development until the documentation has been deemed adequate by the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. 94. Prior to the sale of any portion of the development, recordation of a Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide to DCD the name of the owner or designee who is responsible for Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 43 of 54 permit compliance with this entitlement and their contact information (i.e., local mailing address, email addresses, and telephone number) until the development has been completed. Should the contact subsequently change (e.g., new designee or owner), within 30 days of the change, the Applicant shall issue a letter to DCD with the name of the new party who has been assigned permit compliance responsibility and their contact information. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 44 of 54 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION SD19-9527/DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP19-3024 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan/(vesting) tentative map submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on February 25, 2020. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP. General Requirements: 95. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on February 25, 2020. 96. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Any necessary traffic signing, and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (Bixler Road/Point of Timber Road/Wilde Drive/On-site Public): 97. The Applicant shall construct curb, minimum 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and trans-verse drainage, street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation, and pavement transitions at the pubic portions of Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. 98. The Applicant shall construct the on-site road system to County public road standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 45 of 54 right-of-way. A reduction to the vertical gradient standards shall be allowed to reduce the minimum curb grade to 0.75% in conformance with existing adjacent improvements. 99. The Applicant shall install safety-related improvements on all streets (including traffic signs and striping), as approved by the Public Works Department. 100. The Applicant shall install speed bumps per County standards or incorporate other traffic calming measures along “A” Street, “B” Street, and Point of Timber Road as reviewed and approved by Public Works. 101. The Applicant shall construct the following improvements at the Point of Timber/Bixler Road intersection; pavement transitions for adding left-turn lanes at all four intersection approaches, traffic signing and striping, and traffic signals as reviewed and approved by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Lane and deceleration transitions shall be based on a design speed of 50 miles per hour. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 102. The Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights-of-way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 103. The Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department that legal access to the property is available from Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. Encroachment Permit 104. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of improvements within the right-of- way of Point of Timber Road, Bixler Road and Wilde Drive. Sight Distance: 105. The Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersections of the on-site roadways for a design speed of 35 miles per hour. Any new landscaping, signs, Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 46 of 54 fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at the driveways shall be setback to ensure that the sight lines are clear. Lot Line Adjustment: 106. The Applicant shall complete and record the proposed Lot Line Adjustment with the East Contra Costa Irrigation District parcel at the northeast corner of the subject property. AOB Reimbursements: 107. The applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact Public Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or reimbursements against the area of benefit fees. Road Dedications: 108. The Property Owner shall convey to the Public, by Offer of Dedication, the right- of-way encumbering all Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads and bicycle and pedestrian trails. These facilities will NOT be accepted by the County for maintenance. Street Lights: 109. The Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Landscaping: 110. All landscaping to be maintained by the property owner shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 47 of 54 Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian Access 111. The Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps. 112. All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Adequate easements shall be established to accommodate a minimum 4-foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed. Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA): 113. All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access, including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20 vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department. Parking: 114. All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access, including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20 vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department. Utilities/Undergrounding: 115. All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access, including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20 vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department. Construction: 116. The Applicant shall provide a pavement analysis for those roads along the proposed haul route or any alternate route(s) that are proposed to be utilized by the hauling operation. This study shall analyze the existing pavement conditions and determine what impact the hauling operation will have over the life of the project. The study shall provide recommendations to mitigate identified impacts. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 48 of 54 The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing the recommended repairs. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a bonded road improvement agreement to assure the roadway repairs. Maintenance of Facilities: 117. The maintenance obligation and financing of all common and open space areas, private roadways, private street lights, public and private trails and landscaped areas, EVA’s, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage facilities shall be included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. All agreements between Reclamation District 800, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District and the developer, along with the CC&Rs, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the CDD and Public Works Department at least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map for the first phase. The County will not accept these properties or facilities for ownership or maintenance. 118. The Applicant shall establish a maintenance entity (i.e. Mello Roos District) for the maintenance of parks, public landscaped areas, and trails in the project area and Discovery Bay parks, maintained landscape areas, and recreation facilities. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 119. The Applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwaters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Hold Harmless 120. The property owner shall be aware that the creek banks on the site are potentially unstable. The property owner shall execute a recordable agreement with the County which states that the developer and the property owner and the future property owner(s) will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of damage to the on-site and off-site improvements as a result of creek-bank failure or erosion. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 49 of 54 Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 121. The Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 122. The Applicant shall design and construct all proposed grading, dredging, excavation and improvements are in compliance with all Federal, State and Local regulatory permitting and design requirements. These agencies may include, but not be limited to: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Services, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Reclamation District #800, and Contra Costa County Flood Control District. 123. The Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 124. Private storm drain easements, conforming to the width specified in Section 914- 14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be dedicated over all proposed storm drains traversing residential lots or other portions of the property outside the “common area.” 125. The Applicant shall enter into a License Agreement for Maintenance Purposes or provide a private Storm Drain Easement, to be transferred to the maintenance entity (HOA or CSD) upon its formation, with the County to maintain the proposed drainage line connecting Lake South and Lake North shown on the vesting tentative map within the future County right-of-way reviewed and approved by Public Works. 126. The Applicant shall ensure that Lake South, Lake North, the drainage system connecting the lakes, and the proposed pump systems shown on the vesting tentative map over parcels B, D, E, F, G, H, W, and S are included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. The County will not accept these properties or facilities for ownership or maintenance. Floodplain Management: 127. The project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 50 of 54 the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) Co Ord Code 82-28 as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 128. The property lies within the limits of Urban Level of Flood Protection area (i.e. urban/urbanizing Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley), a map certified by the Conservation and Development Director and on file with the Department of Conservation and Development. The applicant needs to furnish documentation whether the project is or is not in the applicable geographical area per Government Code Sections 65865.5, 65962, and 66474.5. Specifically, documentation to evaluate if (1) it is located within an area with a potential flood depth above 3.0 feet from sources of flooding other than localized conditions that may occur anywhere in the community, and (2) within a watershed with a contributing area of more than 10 square miles. If all the criteria required by the Government Code sections are met, then the applicant must provide urban level of flood protection. Applicant must also submit documentation for this urban level of flood protection, providing 200- year base flood protection. This Urban Level of Flood Protection is a state requirement, separate from and in addition to the National Flood Insurance Program requirements also covered in the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance. 129. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (C-LOMR-F) from FEMA concurring that the proposed grading and site improvements, when completed, will be satisfactory for FEMA to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map and eliminate the residential lots from the Special Flood Hazard designation. 130. After completion of fill operations and installation of storm drain improvements, the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application with FEMA to finalize the FIRM revision process. The FEMA LOMR-F must be obtained prior to issuance of building permits on the residential units. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 131. The Applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 51 of 54 State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Central Valley - Region IV). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention area) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permit. - Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES Permit. - Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. - Shallow roadside and on-site swales. - Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot specific IMPs to buyers. - Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by Public Works. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: 132. The Applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be deemed consistent with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the final map. To the extent required by the NPDES Permit, the Final Stormwater Control Plan and the O+M Plan will be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 52 of 54 become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and O+M Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and the O+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant. 133. Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP and compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014). 134. Stormwater management facilities shall be subject to inspection by Public Works Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of stormwater management facilities shall be borne by the applicant. 135. Prior to filing of the final map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility for, and related to, operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities, and grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities. 136. Prior to filing of the final map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities by property owners. 137. Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District. 138. All treatment BMP/IMPs constructed within each phase of the proposed development shall be designed and sized to treat, at a minimum, stormwater generated from each phase constructed. 139. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall provide evidence to CDD that the applicant and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District have entered into an agreement to annex into the Community Facilities District (CFD 2020-1). Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 53 of 54 ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, AND REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. A. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period, in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Department of Conservation and Development within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District and Reclamation District 800. C. The Applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority/ Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation (ECCRFFA/RTDIM),East County Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and other mitigation fees required herein to be deposited the County Road Trust account. Payment is required prior to issuance of a building permit. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 BOS, July 13, 2021 Page 54 of 54 Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of improvement plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the County approval, and the project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may significantly increase the time and applicant’s costs associated with approval of the application. G. This project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as February 25, 2020, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Department of Conservation and Development. These fees are in addition to any other development fees, which may specified in the conditions of approval. H. Future property owners shall be aware of the pre-annexation agreement between the applicant and the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TODBCSD), which includes payment of several fees to be paid at the time of approval from the TODBCSD for a building permit. I. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the following agencies: - Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division - East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District ORDINANCE NO._____________ (Re-Zoning Land in the __________________________ Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Page ________________ of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. _____________________ .) FROM: Land Use District ______________ (_________________________________________________________) TO: Land Use District ______________ (_________________________________________________________) and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the __________________________________ , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ________________by the following vote: Supervisor SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION I: Aye No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. C. Andersen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D. Burgis ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. K. Mitchoff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F.D. Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors __________________________________________________ Chairman of the Board By__________________________________, Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ19-3252 - Trevor Smith, Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC 2021 - 17 Discovery Bay M-28 & N-28 RZ19-3252 A-2P-1P-1 -UE A-2P-1P-1 -UE (General Agriculture)(Planned Unit) Planned Unit -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District 2021 - 17 P-1 P-1 P-1 A-3 F-1 P-1 A-40 A-3 F-1 A-3 M-12 F-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 -UE P-1 -UE P-1 -UE P-1 M-12 P-1 P-1 -U E P-1 (General Agriculture)(Planned Unit) Planned Unit -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District P-1-UE to P-1-UE P-1 to P-1 P-1-UE to P-1 P-1 to P-1-UE P-1 to A-2 A-2 to P-1 ADDENDUM TO THE PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (State Clearinghouse #2007-052130) Prepared By: Circlepoint 200 Webster St #200 Oakland, CA 94607 Prepared For: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 County File Numbers: GP19-0002, RZ19-3252, SD19-9527, DP19-03024 December 2020 Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 2 Page Intentionally Left Blank Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 1 Project Description PURPOSE The purpose of this addendum is to evaluate the environmental effects of proposed changes to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project (project). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was certified by Contra Costa County (County) in 2013 1 (2013 Pantages EIR), and an addendum to the EIR was prepared by the County in 2015 2 (2015 Pantages Addendum). This document addresses project modifications proposed by the project Applicant in 2019 to determine if new significant impacts would occur that would necessitate preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2013 PANTAGES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County approximately 16 miles west of Stockton, 4.5 miles southeast of Brentwood, and 19 miles north of Livermore. The approximately 171- acre project site is undeveloped except for a few dilapidated structures. The project site is located west of the original Discovery Bay subdivisions at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road (Figure 1). The project described in the 2013 Pantages EIR consisted of plans to construct 292 detached single- family residential units within the Discovery Bay community. The 2013 Pantages EIR also included a Sheriff Marine Patrol Substation, roadways and pedestrian facilities, and necessary utilities. Of the 292 residential units, 116 waterfront units included docks with deep water access to Kellogg Creek.3 The remaining 176 residential lots were located within the project site with no deep water access. In addition to residential development, the EIR project description included the widening of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project site, including a portion of Pantages Island northeast of the residential development, would have preserved emergent marsh in the northern portion of the project site and on Pantages Island, and would have created new seasonal wetlands. Bays and coves would have been excavated along Kellogg Creek to create waterfront lots and provide deep water access to residents. The 2013 project received approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. 2015 PANTAGES ADDENDUM After certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, the Applicant filed an application with the County to modify the approved General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. This application proposed reconfiguring the 292 proposed residential units to modify proposed bays along Kellogg Creek. These modifications would have required widening of the west bank of Kellogg Creek and removal of some of the wetlands in the northern part of the project site. Construction of the shoring wall along Kellogg Creek would have impacted waters of the United States as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The following project modifications were also proposed:  replacement of cement deep soil mixing shoring wall construction with the sheet pile shoring wall construction method  maximum bay depth of 33 feet and a minimum bay depth of –11 feet for boat keel clearance  new cut and fill amounts: 1,305,461 cubic yards of excavated soil and 1,344,237 cubic yards of fill  reconfiguration of streets, bays, and coves of the site plan 1 State Clearinghouse: #2007052130; County file numbers: GP99-0008, RZ04-3146, SD06-9010, DP04-3062 2 County file numbers: CDDP 19-03024 3 Kellogg Creek is a creek that branches off from the Indian Slough tributary and makes up the eastern border of the project site Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 2  reduction of waterfront lots to 105 (from 116); increase of non-waterfront lots to 187 (from 176) The 2015 Pantages Addendum evaluated this modified version of the project against conditions established in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2015 Pantages Addendum concluded that the 2015 modified project changes would not result in impacts previously unevaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR and would not warrant supplemental environmental review. PROJECT CHANGES ADDRESSED IN THIS ADDENDUM In 2019, the Applicant filed a new application with the County for additional modification to its approved General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. The proposed project modifications include a reconfiguration of the residential land uses to avoid impacts to the northern wetland complex and Kellogg Creek, reduction of residential lots from 292 to 277, expansion of the trail network and clubhouse area, and addition of two internal lakes within the project site (Figure 2). These key components are briefly described in Table 1 and in further detail below in Section 2.1 through Section 2.16. Project Components Project Feature 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Modified Project Bays and Coves Yes Yes No Widening of Kellogg Creek Yes Yes No Deep Water Access Yes Yes No Internal Lakes No No Yes Clubhouse No Yes Yes Sheriff’s Patrol Substation Yes Yes No Number of Housing Units 292 292 277 Impervious Surface (acres) 17.4 18.4 13.4 Trail Length (linear feet) 3,840 3,200 5,200 Table 3 summarizes the project site’s existing land use designations outlined in the Contra Cost County General Plan 2005-2020 (General Plan), the land uses proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the land uses proposed in the 2015 Pantages Addendum, and the new land use acreages proposed by the 2019 modified project. As shown in Figure 3, the General Plan includes designations for Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM) (3.0-4.9 DU/AC), Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH) (5.0- 7.2 DU/AC), Public/Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Water (WA) at the project site. However, consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR, project modifications would require a General Plan amendment to accommodate proposed land uses. In 2013, ABAG released the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which projects each community’s share of the region’s future growth and housing demand based on forecasts from San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2015-2023. Table 2 identifies the projected housing needs for unincorporated areas of the County by income level through 2023. The total projected RHNA for unincorporated areas of the County is 1,367 units, divided among the defined income groups. The greatest need is in the low income category. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 3 Unincorporated Contra Costa County RHNA for 2015-2023 Income Level RHNA Allocation Percent of Total Number of Units Needed Very Low 374 83 Low 218 16 Moderate 243 47 Above Moderate 532 0 Total 1,367 33 Source: ABAG Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2013 As discussed previously, the greatest need is in the very low income category, where 83 percent of the allotted units for the unincorporated County remains. Of the 277 units, a total of 41 units will be set aside as affordable. Based on unit count, and per the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the 41 affordable units represent 15 percent of the 277 units in the project. Eighty percent of the 41 affordable units (33 total) would be affordable to Moderate income households and twenty percent of the 41 affordable units (8 total) would be affordable to low income households. The unit mix of the affordable units will be determined once a homebuilder determines the market rate unit mix and prior to issuance of a building permit or first Final Map approval, whichever occurs first. The 41 affordable units would satisfy a portion of the County’s RHNA. As discussed in the Construction Methods section below, construction of the modified project would be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 for construction of the southern portion of the project site, and Phase 2 for construction north of Point of Timber Road, where affordable units would be within the northern block of lots and the lots along the projects western boundary. The affordable units would be delivered in a proportionate amount of all units delivered in each phase of construction, for a total of 41 affordable units. The details of the type, size, design, and lot location to be deferred to the recordation of the first Final Map or the issuance of a building permit for the project, whichever comes first. Required terms will include, but will not be limited to, pacing of the construction of affordable units to exceed or equal the pace of constructing market rate units. The modified project would decrease the total footprint of the project improvements relative to the 2013 Pantages EIR. The most substantial changes include a reduction of medium-density residential units and land designated for water, and an increase of high-density residential units and parks and open spaces. The total project modifications acreage (161.5 acres) is smaller than the project envisioned in the 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum (171.2 acres each). Net Acreage by Land Use Type Land Use Designation General Plan 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Project Modifications Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM) 42.3 46.3 42.3 0 Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH) 45.5 34.0 45.5 58.4 Water (WA) 37.6 46.8 37.6 25.0 Public/Semi-Public (PS) 2.6 0.9 2.6 0 Parks and Recreation (PR) 0 0 0 14.8 Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 4 Land Use Designation General Plan 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Project Modifications Open Space (OS) 43.2 43.2 43.2 63.3 Total Site Acreage 171.2 171.2 171.2 161.5 Residential Elements As shown in Figure 1, the project site is surrounded by residential land uses. The Ravenswood and Village neighborhoods border the west side of the project site, Discovery Bay to the east and south, and undeveloped open space borders the north. As shown in Figure 2, the modified project would include 277 single-family residential housing units. These units would no longer have deep water or waterfront access to Kellogg Creek, and would now include two lakes within the project site (Lake South and Lake North – described in Section 2.9). Regarding site access, the modified project no longer proposes gated points of entry and would have points of entry on Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. Roads and sidewalks within the residential portion of the modified project would create 13.4 acres of impervious surfaces. The 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum proposed 292 residential units with deep water access for all waterfront units and would have had only one gated point of entry at Point of Timber Road. Road and sidewalks for in the 2013 Pantages EIR created 17.4 acres of impervious surfaces, while the 2015 Pantages Addendum proposed 18.4 acres of impervious surfaces. Trail Network The modified project would now include two trail systems providing 5,200 linear feet of walkways: an internal pedestrian trail adjacent to Lake South, and a multi-purpose trail around the site perimeter providing views of Kellogg Creek, adjacent wetlands, and Lake North (Figure 2). The internal pedestrian trail around Lake South would connect to Point of Timber Road and passive park areas throughout the project site. This trail would also provide maintenance and emergency access. The outer multi-purpose trail system would provide access to views of Kellogg Creek, viewing areas of Lake North, and of the wetland features on the northern portion of the project site. The 2013 Pantages EIR included public pedestrian and bicycle access to the open space areas via a 3,840-foot-long public trail/emergency vehicle access road to be constructed through the emergent marsh and proposed wetland mitigation/open space area. The 2015 Pantages Addendum proposed 3,200 linear feet of pedestrian trail and eliminated the emergency vehicle access along the trail. Clubhouse The modified project would include a clubhouse to provide residents with amenities such as exercise facilities, meeting rooms, and a viewing area of the wetlands and Kellogg Creek. The clubhouse would be located at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road adjacent to Kellogg Creek. This location would accommodate the clubhouse along with parking, guest parking, and active outdoor spaces to accommodate recreational uses. The 2015 Pantages Addendum included a much smaller clubhouse and the 2013 Pantages EIR did not include a clubhouse project component. Internal Lakes The modified project would include construction of two lakes within the project site, Lake South and Lake North. Lake South, approximately 23 acres in size, would be surrounded by residential units on three sides, along with open space paseos that will provide view corridors; and the northern edge of the lake will be adjacent to the extension of Point of Timber Road, providing views of the entire lake from the trail and road. Lake South includes 5 bio-retention areas along its perimeter. Lake North would encompass approximately 7 acres and would be located in an upland area among the seasonal wetlands Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 5 and emergent marsh in the northern part of the project site. The 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum projects did not include internal lakes. IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND KELLOGG CREEK The modified project avoids or minimizes aquatic resources including wetland complexes and Kellogg Creek. As modified, the project would preserve on-site wetland features, would be set back from Kellogg Creek by approximately 70 feet, and would not increase in boat activity on the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta due to the elimination of bays and coves that would have provided deep water access. The 2013 Pantages EIR evaluated approximately 5.29 acres of wetland impacts and the 2015 Pantages Addendum evaluated approximately 5.55 acres of wetland impacts. These previous projects also required dredging to create bays and coves, that would have resulted in 5,800-6,100 linear feet of impacts or impacts to a 10.75-acrea area along Kellogg Creek to facilitate deep water access. CONSTRUCTION METHOD Construction of the modified project would be conducted in two phases; Phase 1 for construction of the southern portion of the project site, which would include construction activities associated with both lakes and the residential units surrounding Lake South, and Phase 2 for construction of the residential units primarily located north of Point of Timber Road. The modified project would no longer require a shoring wall, as the project would be set back from Kellogg Creek. Furthermore, the use of any type of pile driving equipment is not anticipated to be needed. Grading As shown in Table 4,the cut and fill amounts required with the reconfigured site plan would not exceed the cut and fill amounts analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Dirt excavated from the internal lakes would be used to raise the overall site elevation to same levels approved with the 2013 project, which raised portions of the project site out of the 100-year floodplain. Cut material would be balanced on-site; however, there is a potential need to import fill material up to 90,000 cubic yards per year of fill material, if necessary. Haul trucks would access the project site from Highway 4, approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site, then proceed onto Bixler Road, and then turn right onto Point of Timber Road to enter the project site. However, as included in the Conditions of Approval number 79, if the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced, then the Applicant shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan that would include the pavement analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Conditions of Approval number 102 for submittal to the County for its review and approval. Grading Balance 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Modified Project Cut 1,130,000 cubic yards 1,305,461 cubic yards 775,000 cubic yards Fill 1,250,000 cubic yards 1,344,237 cubic yards 913,000 cubic yards MODIFICATION APPROVAL The County Planning Commission must approve the modified project vesting tentative map. A change in the existing General Plan Amendment map to reflect the revised locations for SH residential designation, OS, PR, and the WA designations would require Board of Supervisors approval. OTHER CHANGES SINCE 2013 PANTAGES EIR APPROVAL Since the project was approved in 2013, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved a permit for the Town of Discovery Bay (Town) to increase its wastewater discharge Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 6 flows into Old River. The increase is necessary to accommodate anticipated new development and the project. The RWQCB permit would allow wastewater discharge from new development to take place prior to construction of certain wastewater infrastructure improvements required by the discharge permit. Additionally, the 2013 Pantages EIR identified several traffic mitigation measures that would require the Applicant to financially contribute towards proposed road improvement projects throughout the region. At that time, some of these road improvement projects were being considered within the proposed update of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East County. Since the EIR certification, the 2013 East County Regional Area of Benefit Transportation Mitigation Fee Update was completed and the new fee ordinance was adopted. The changes to the 2013 Pantages EIR mitigation measures were updated accordingly in this addendum. PENDING PROJECT APPROVALS Pending project approvals and permits include:  Annexation into the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District  De-annexation from Reclamation District (RD) 800 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR USE OF AN ADDENDUM Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an addendum to an earlier EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified document, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: A) The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. B) The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. C) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was approved, shows any of the following.  The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 7 Additionally, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:  any conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR; or,  only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental effect (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) that would require further environmental review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Answering a question with a “no” response does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental resource category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the Final EIR prepared for this project. Likewise, these environmental resource categories may be answered with a “no” in the checklist since the modified project description does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the certified 2013 Pantages EIR. The purpose of this addendum is to evaluate the potential for a “changed condition” that may result in a changed environmental effect that would require further environmental review beyond what was analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR using the 2013 CEQA Statute and Guidelines. Because the 2015 Pantages Addendum did not identify new impacts or mitigation measures associated with the project, a comparison of the 2019 modified project against the 2013 Pantages EIR represents a comprehensive evaluation to determine if new significant impacts would occur. As such, the 2015 Pantages Addendum is not discussed further. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES A) Do the proposed changes involve new impacts not previously identified? Pursuant to Section 15162, subdivision (a)(1), of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether changes represented by the modified project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the EIR, or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. B) New circumstances involving new impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162, subdivision (a)(2), of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. C) New information requirement requiring new analysis or verification? Pursuant to Section 15162, subdivision (a)(3)(A-D), of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2013 Pantages EIR was certified as complete, would result in any of the actions described above in Section 4.C. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 8 If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review finds that the conclusions of the Final EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required. D) Final EIR mitigation measures implemented or address impacts This column indicates whether the mitigation measures in the Final EIR would apply to the proposed changes evaluated in this EIR Addendum in order to minimize and reduce impacts. FINDINGS There are no substantial changes proposed by the modified project or in the circumstances in which the project would be undertaken that require major revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 Pantages EIR and would have similar construction- related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines), but at a reduced scale. Most mitigation measures from the 2013 Pantages EIR would remain in effect and would continue to mitigate proposed project modifications. Project modifications and changes in best practices 2013 resulted in updated mitigation measures for Biological Resources (Section 2.4) and Transportation and Traffic (Section 2.15). Additionally, project modifications have reduced or eliminated certain impacts, such that mitigation is no longer required. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR (Section 15162, subdivision (b)(3), State CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project does not require major revisions to the Pantages Bays Project EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the project have occurred since certification of the EIR. The previous analysis completed for the project remains adequate under CEQA. However, the project Applicant will remain obligated to comply with all applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained within the 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum, unless appropriately added, modified, or removed to reflect the environmental review in this addendum. The County may approve the modified project, as presented, based on this addendum. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 9 Figure 1 Project Site Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 10 Figure 2 Site Plan Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 11 Figure 3 Land Use Designations Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 12 Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No No No No mitigation required b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No No No No mitigation required c) Substantially degrade the existing character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? No No No No mitigation required d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not impact views from a scenic highway as there are no state-designated scenic highways within proximity of the project site.4 While the residential development analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR may have altered views of scenic vistas, including the Diablo Range, Kellogg Creek, and associated waterways of the Delta estuary systems, such views were already partially obstructed by adjacent development or were not visible in several locations around the project site due to intervening topography.5 The proposed project modifications would have a similar effect on scenic resources and vistas as determined in the 2013 project. Furthermore, no new scenic resources or vistas have been identified in the project area since certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR. Therefore, consistent with the project analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR, development of the modified project would not significantly impact scenic resources or scenic vistas. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not degrade the existing visual character of the surrounding area. As described in the EIR, the project area consisted of mostly single-family medium and high-density residential land uses. The residential development component proposed as part of the project analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR resembled the visual character of the surrounding 4 Caltrans. 2020. Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed: May 12, 2020. 5 Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan Open Space Element. Last Revised: 2010. Available: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30919/Ch9-Open-Space-Element?bidId=. Accessed: May 15, 2020. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 13 development. Similar to the conclusions in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the modified project would remain visually compatible with the type and intensity of surrounding development. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant impacts pertaining to the visual character or quality. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would result in new sources of light and glare from the residential development and associated vehicular traffic. Preparation of a lighting plan for the site, Mitigation Measure VIS-1, was required to mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would still introduce new sources of light and glare from residential development and vehicular traffic. The lighting plan outlined in Mitigation Measure VIS-1 in the 2013 Pantages EIR, would also apply to the modified project to reduce potential impacts associated with new sources of residential light and glare. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for aesthetics includes development projects that would affect scenic resources within the County. The General Plan EIR noted three primary areas where scenic quality could be cumulatively degraded:  development of vacant areas would reduce natural open space and would change the County’s character.  new development that is obtrusive, inconsistent with surrounding development or which is placed on a location of unique scenic value.  development of hillsides, ridges, and the Bay and Delta shoreline. The 2013 project included the development of the shoreline along Kellogg Creek, which resulting in a requirement for the applicant to enhance creek bank habitat on Pantages Island. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not have a considerable contribution to a cumulative aesthetics impact with the enhancement of creek bank habitat. The modified project would reduce cumulative impacts on visual quality because it would eliminate the widening of Kellogg Creek and would also retain open space in the northern portion of the project site, as opposed to the 2013 project which would have excavated the northern portion of the project site to create bays and coves. Furthermore, the modified project would remain consistent with the type and intensity of surrounding suburban development. As such, the modified project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic resource impacts would not be considerable. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially damage existing scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area, or create a new permanent source of light or glare. Overall, the modified project would slightly reduce visual impacts relative to the 2013 project by avoiding Kellogg Creek and retaining open space in the northern portion of the project site. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 14 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No No No No mitigation required b) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No No No No mitigation required c) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No No mitigation required d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No No No No mitigation required e) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site did not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, or land under Williamson Act contract. Although the project site was not actively used for agricultural production or timber harvesting, the site was zoned as General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3), which required that the applicant submit a rezoning request in order to implement the 2013 project. Subsequent to certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, the project site was rezoned as a Planned Unit District (P-1) interspersed with the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District, which is consistent Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 15 with residential development.6 As such, the proposed uses associated with the modified project are consistent with the County’s zoning map. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District authorizes all uses designated under P-1 but prohibits farm animals, and as such, the modified project would be consistent with both land use designations. Furthermore, the modified project footprint would remain within the area of effect analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for agricultural and forest resources is the entire County. None of the land within the County is used for timber harvesting; therefore, the 2013 project, in combination with the other development within the County would not result in cumulative impacts to forest resources. The modified project would not change this conclusion, as land within the County is still not used for timber harvesting. The General Plan identified a cumulatively significant trend of conversion of agricultural land uses to urban development. The General Plan EIR noted that build-out of the General Plan would result in the loss of agricultural land throughout the County. However, the County adopted overriding considerations as part of the adoption of the General Plan, as the County must designate a certain amount of land for residential uses, as required by State Law, and as the economic welfare of the County and its continued ability to provide for the employment needs of its residents is contingent upon this conversion of land uses. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that conversion of the site from agricultural use to non-agricultural use would represent a considerable contribution towards this cumulative impact that is unavoidable. The modified project would eliminate this cumulative impact because the project site is no longer zoned as A-2 and A-3 and would comply with both the P-1 and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District land use designations. DETERMINATION When compared to the 2013 project, the modified project would not substantially change the impacts to agricultural and forest resources within the project site. Overall, the modified project would eliminate the impact to agricultural resources as it would no longer require the rezoning of farmland to urban development. Accordingly, the County finds the following: A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. 6 Contra Costa County. 2020. CCMAP. Available: https://ccmap.cccounty.us/Html5/index.html?viewer=CCMAP. Accessed: May 15, 2020. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 16 AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Would the project result in a community risk due to an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 people in a million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index, or increased PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) if the project is within 1,000 feet from a source? No No No No mitigation required b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No No No No mitigation required c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No No No No mitigation required d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No No No No mitigation required e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No No No Yes f) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that project operation would have a less-than-significant impact from increased community cancer/non-cancer risk as there were no sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) or particulate matter that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) within 1,000 feet of the project site. The modified project would introduce residents in the same location as the 2013 project Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 17 and as such, would not introduce sensitive receptors to an increased risk resulting from a stationary source, consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project-related traffic may increase localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. However, the highest estimated CO concentrations over an 8-hour period with project implementation was predicted to be 3.6 parts per million (ppm), well below the California ambient standard of 9.0 ppm. The modified project would include 15 fewer residential lots than the 2013 project, and as such, result in fewer motor vehicle trips and associated mobile emissions. The modified project would contribute to CO concentrations to a lesser extent than the 2013 project, and impacts would remain less than significant. Odors associated with construction of the 2013 project had the potential to be generated during architectural coating activities; however, the construction activities are required to comply with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8, Rule 3, which outlines regulations to minimize odor impacts. Furthermore, land uses surrounding the site were found to not constitute a significant odor source. The modified project would be consistent with findings made within the 2013 Pantages EIR and would be required to comply with applicable BAAQMD regulations to minimize odor impacts. The project as analyzed under the 2013 Pantages EIR was consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ regional population forecast and was therefore found to be consistent with applicable air quality plans, which are based upon regional forecasts for growth in population and employment. Furthermore, the 2013 project would have complied with the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) by adhering to transportation control measures (TCM) to improve bicycle and pedestrian access. The CAP was updated in 2017 with new TCM, including TCM TR9, which encourages planning for bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities. The modified project would introduce fewer residents than the 2013 project, well within the Association of Bay Area Governments’ current regional growth forecast, and thus would not conflict with any applicable air quality plan. The modified project would also retain project features to improve multi-modal access, including trails for pedestrians and bicyclists providing access to open space areas, consistent with the CAP. Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with findings made in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project would result in an increase of reactive organic gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would have been applied to the 2013 project to prohibit the installation of wood-burning fireplaces and stoves, reducing ROG emissions during operation of the project below the BAAQMD’s applicable threshold. Because the modified project would include fewer residential lots than the 2013 project, operational emissions from energy and water use by residents would be reduced. The modified project would also no longer include deep-water access, resulting in a reduction in emissions from motorboats used by residents of the project site. The impact from increase in criteria air pollutants would be incrementally reduced, but Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would still be implemented to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. In analyzing TAC emission impacts during construction, the 2013 Pantages EIR found that the use of diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would generate temporary emission of dust and diesel particulate that could adversely affect existing and planned residential sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. However, criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the 2013 project would not have exceeded BAAQMD’s applicable thresholds. The 2013 Pantages EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b to further reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, namely nitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM, and implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices to reduce TAC emissions from diesel exhaust. The modified project would involve Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 18 less intensive construction activity than the 2013 project due to the elimination of bays and coves and the construction of fewer residential units, and thus, lower levels of criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions from diesel-powered equipment. Therefore, the overall scale and duration of construction activity would not exceed what was assumed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-2a and AQ-2b would be required to reduce criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions to a less-than-significant level. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for air quality includes development within BAAQMD jurisdiction. The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality. The County adopted overriding considerations, citing, in part, the need to balance competing goals such as the need to provide opportunities for jobs and housing, with the goal of preserving open space and agriculture. In balancing the competing goals, the County found that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that a project would have a significant cumulative impact on air quality as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that any project with a significant individual air quality impact would also have a significant cumulative impact. The 2013 project was found to exceed the BAAQMD-recommended operational threshold of significance for ROG, but implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce ROG emissions well below the BAAQMD significant threshold. As previously discussed, the modified project would remain consistent with the findings from the 2013 Pantages EIR and maintain emissions below applicable air quality thresholds. As such, the modified project would not considerably contribute to a cumulative air quality impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts to air quality in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would have a reduced impact on air quality compared to the 2013 project due to the reduction in housing units which would result in fewer residents and motor vehicle trips. The modified project would also eliminate the construction of bays and coves and the widening of Kellogg Creek and as such, would require less construction equipment, resulting in fewer construction emissions. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 19 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No No No No mitigation required b) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No No No No mitigation required c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No Yes d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No No No Yes e) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No Yes Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Zentner Planning and Ecology completed a Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B) to verify the Biological Resources Analysis Report (Monk and Associates 2010) prepared for the 2013 project and assess the project modifications. Zentner Planning and Associates updated several mitigation measures to reflect current practices, which are provided in strikethrough and underline in their corresponding sections. Additionally, impacts to federally protected reptiles and amphibians were analyzed in a separate Memorandum prepared by Eric C. Hansen (Appendix C). Wildlife Corridors The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded the project would not interfere with the pathway or corridor of migratory or resident species because the project site does not overlap a wildlife movement corridor. As the modified project is in the same location as the 2013 project, the conclusion in the 2013 Pantages EIR remains the same, and the modified project would not interfere with the pathway or corridor of migratory or resident species. Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site was not located within the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) inventory area and would not conflict with any HCP/NCCP. Consistent with the 2013 project, the modified project would not conflict with an HCP/NCCP as the location of the project has not changed from the 2013 Pantages EIR. Waters of the United States The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that construction activities associated with the 2013 project, including widening of Kellogg Creek, would significantly impact waters of the United States and waters of the State. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12, which required permits from the USACE and the RWQCB and compensatory mitigation, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would remove water access, eliminate proposed bays and coves, and avoid widening Kellogg Creek, which would avoid modifications to waters of the United States and/or State. Furthermore, reconfiguration of the stormwater drainage system to discharge stormwater to the emergent marsh instead of Kellogg Creek would eliminate all fill into waters of the United States and/or State (see Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). The USACE confirmed these findings during an Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 21 agency meeting held on November 14, 2019.7 As such, the modified project would avoid modifying or filling waters of the United States and/or state and Mitigation Measure BIO-12 is no longer required. Special-Status Wildlife Species Appendix B evaluated special-status species that could be impacted by the project, including those not previously considered in the 2013 Pantages EIR that are now known to occur in the project region. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would impact the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp and that incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to this species to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would reconfigure the project layout to preserve wetland features that provide vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. As such, the modified project would not impact vernal pool fairy shrimp and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is no longer required. Western Pond Turtle The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project could significantly impact western pond turtles and included Mitigation Measure BIO-6 to reduce impacts to this species. The widening and excavation of Kellogg Creek is no longer required as part of the project modifications, and the modified project would therefore avoid potential western pond turtle basking and nesting habitat. However, construction activities could still impact western pond turtle in the unlikely event that individuals travel through the construction area. As identified in the 2013 Pantages EIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (revised below to reflect current best practices) would apply reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level for the modified project. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Western Pond Turtle The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the project construction areas. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-status species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Within 5 days of initiating construction activities, a qualified biologist (knowledgeable and experienced in western pond turtle identification) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all 7 Madrone Ecological Consulting. 2019. Memo: Summary of November 14, 2019 Agency Meeting to Discuss the Pantages Project. Sacramento, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 22 areas in these locations that will or could be impacted by construction activities. Any western pond turtles or eggs observed within the construction zone shall be allowed to leave the area on their own accord or they shall be relocated by the qualified biologist to a suitable area outside of the construction zone. A survey report detailing the survey results shall be prepared and submitted to the biological permitting agencies prior to the start of construction. After the preconstruction survey and prior to construction activities, an exclusion fence shall be placed between the development and the bank habitat and the emergent marsh habitat such that a western pond turtle could not move from these habitats into the development area. A qualified biologist shall be present during trenching activities associated with the exclusion fence installation. The exclusion fencing will be standard silt fencing, approximately 42 inches in height that will be trenched 6 inches into the soil. The soil will then be compacted against both sides of the fence to prevent wildlife from gaining access underneath. The stakes will be placed on the inside of the fence facing the development. No gaps or holes are permitted in the fencing system, except for pedestrian and vehicle entry points. The entry/exit points may be constructed in the fencing system for equipment and personnel, but the qualified biologist must ensure no wildlife is capable of entering the fenced off site via the gate. The gate structure must be flush to the ground with no holes or gaps (i.e., plywood gates with silt fencing flaps). The fence will be inspected occasionally by a qualified biologist for holes, gaps, or access points, which shall be repaired upon discovery. The area inside the fence will also be inspected for trapped wildlife prior to the initiation of construction each day. If wildlife is discovered, the fence shall be opened and monitored until the wildlife has left the fenced area on its own accord and no work shall occur during this period. If the wildlife does not leave on its own accord, CDFW will be contacted before work may continue. Giant Garter Snake As described in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the giant garter snake has not been observed on the project site although emergent marsh and the vegetated edges of Kellogg Creek and East Contra Costa Irrigation District Dredge Cut provides suitable habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 was included in the 2013 Pantages EIR to reduce impacts to this species to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would avoid widening and excavation of Kellogg Creek and associated bank habitats, thereby avoiding giant garter snake habitat and eliminating potential impacts to this species.8 As such, the project would not impact giant garter snake and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is no longer required. Fish Several special-status fish occur in the project region, including steelhead salmon, Central Valley Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, longfin smelt, Delta smelt, green sturgeon, and Sacramento splittail. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that construction-related turbidity could significantly impact various fish species in the project area, and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 was implemented to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would avoid widening and excavation of Kellogg Creek, and would therefore avoid special-status fish habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 is no longer required. 8 Hansen, Eric C. 2020. Memo: Pantages at Discovery Bay: Threatened and Endangered Reptile and Amphibian Reevaluation. Sacramento, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 23 California Red-Legged Frog The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project would impact California red-legged frog, a federally- threatened species and a California species of special concern. The project site included suitable California red-legged frog habitat around an emergent marsh that would have been impacted by the 2013 project. The 2013 Pantages EIR included Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to reduce impacts to this species. The modified project site layout avoids the emergency marsh and includes a buffer between marsh habitat and the planned development, thereby avoiding suitable California red-legged frog habitat and eliminating potential impacts to this species.9 Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is no longer required. Swainson’s Hawk The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site includes suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 was included to reduce impacts to this species. The modified project site still contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 (updated below to reflect current best practices) is still required. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s Hawk To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios: • Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat2 (this is a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization. An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity. • With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The loss of potential foraging hawk habitat shall be mitigated in consultation with the CDFW following the recommendations provided below. The CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that projects within 1 mile of an active nest provide: o One acre of Habitat Management (HM) land (at least 10 percent of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90 percent of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or o One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on-the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). Prior to site disturbance tTo ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting Swainson’s hawk, preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted no more than on month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site 9 Hansen, Eric C. 2020. Memo: Pantages at Discovery Bay: Threatened and Endangered Reptile and Amphibian Reevaluation. Sacramento, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 24 are occupied in conformance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000). If an active nest is found on or adjacent to within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994) and/or in consultation with the CDFW. If Swainson’s hawk are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site. The size of this nondisturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified raptor biologist in the field and in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be based upon the location of the nesting tree, the bird’s tolerance of noise, and the type of other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations). Once the young have fledged from the nest, the buffer can be removed, and all project activities can commence. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest buffer could be vacated. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). Western Burrowing Owl The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl was found at the project site, and Mitigation Measure BIO-10 was required to reduce impacts to this species. Given that the modified project would occur on the same project site as the 2013 project, the modified project would result in a potentially significant impact to western burrowing owl and Mitigation Measure BIO- 10 is still required. Other Nesting Birds and Raptors The project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of nesting raptors and birds including white-tailed kites, northern harriers, red shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, loggerhead shrike, and tricolored blackbird. Mitigation Measures BIO-8 and BIO-11 were implemented to reduce impacts to these species. The modified project would still affect suitable nesting and foraging habitat for nesting raptors and other nesting birds and mitigation would still be required.10 Mitigation Measure BIO-11 has been condensed into Mitigation Measure BIO-8 for the modified project and the revised Mitigation Measure BIO-8 is provided below. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree Nesting Birds If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28). In an abundance of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of the tree to be removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no birds are nesting. 10 The existing mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval (COA; Contra Costa County 2013) for all nesting birds except Swainson’s hawk, have been consolidated below and updated to reflect current practices. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 25 If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those trees slated for removal. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest tree. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If construction related work would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season for raptors or other bird species listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (typically February 1 through September 15), a pre-construction survey of the project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region) within 7 days prior to the commencement of construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. The intent of the survey shall be to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the construction zone within approximately 250 feet. The surveys shall be timed such that the last survey is concluded no more than one week prior to initiation of construction. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional pre-construction survey shall be conducted such that no more than one week will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly or indirectly affected by the project, a no- disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones (generally 250 for raptors and 50 for passerines) and types of construction activities restricted within them should be determined through consultation with the CDFW depending on the species, taking into account factors such as the following: • Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; • Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and • Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds. The buffer zone around an active nest shall be established in the field with orange construction fencing or another appropriate barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 26 those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas of special-status bird species to ensure that no impacts on these nests occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-11 A nesting survey shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction work if this work would commence between March 15 and August 31. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike or tricolored blackbird, are identified nesting within the area of affect, a 100-foot non-disturbance radius around the nest must be fenced. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist. Similarly, the qualified ornithologist could modify the size of the buffer based upon site conditions and the bird’s apparent acclimation to human activities. If common (that is, not special-status) passerine birds (that is, perching birds such as northern mockingbirds) are identified nesting in the trees proposed for removal, tree removal would have to be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the project site. Typically, most passerine birds can be expected to complete nesting by August 1, with young attaining sufficient flight skills by this date that are sufficient for young to avoid project construction zones. Unless otherwise prescribed for special-status bird species, upon completion of nesting no further protection or mitigation measures would be warranted for nesting birds. Song Sparrow - Modesto Population The song sparrow (Modesto population) is a California species of special concern that was not previously evaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR because it was not observed on the project site. However, the site survey conducted for the modified project concluded that emergent marsh and bank habitat on the project site represent potentially suitable habitat for this species. The modified project would not impact emergent marsh and bank habitat and includes a substantial buffer between these habitats and the areas proposed for development. However, if project activities are planned for within 50 feet of the emergent marsh and bank habitat during nesting season, the preconstruction nesting bird survey and buffer zones required by the revised Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would avoid impacts to this species. Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would significantly impact trees protected under the Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance, as many would be removed to widen Kellogg Creek. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would replace native and non-native trees, reduced the impact to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would involve reconfiguration of the layout of the project and would no longer widen Kellogg Creek, which would reduce the number of trees requiring removal.11 However, several trees would still require removal to implement the modified project, and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would continue to apply to mitigate tree loss. However, the number of trees to be removed by the modified project has been significantly reduced as compared to the 2013 project. 11 Zentner Planning & Ecology. 2020. Pantages Modified Project: Biological Report for Peer Review by Rincon. August 2020. Oakland, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 27 Natural Communities Development of the 2013 project would significantly impact bank habitat 12, as it proposed removal of approximately half of the existing bank habitat within the project area along Kellogg Creek, the East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Dredge Cut, Old Kellogg Creek, and Pantages Island in order to widen Kellogg Creek, create new bays and coves, and develop waterfront homes. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 reduced this impact by requiring permits and approved mitigation measures by USACE, the RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board. Proposed modifications to the project would no longer require the widening of Kellogg Creek or removal of low, moderate, or high quality bank habitat. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would no longer be required, and the impact would be less than significant. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project would have the potential to impact the iodine bush scrub, determined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to be a sensitive natural community. However, the iodine bush scrub habitats on the property are highly disturbed and contain very few other native plants with an understory dominated by invasive grass species, for both the 2013 project and the modified project. As such, this impact would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project, in combination with other regional land use development, could result in cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts. Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-11 would offset the project’s impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources such that the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be considerable. The modified project would have a smaller area of disturbance, thereby reducing the magnitude of impact on vegetation and wildlife resources. In addition, the revised Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-10 would still be required to reduce project-level impacts to vegetation and wildlife. Thus, the modified project would not considerably contribute to a cumulative vegetation and wildlife impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project, in combination with other regional land use development, could cumulatively impact wetlands, bank habitat, and waters of the United States. The modified project would now avoid wetlands, bank habitat, and waters of the United States, and as such, would not contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts to biological resources in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. 12 For the purposes of this Addendum, bank habitat is the habitat located on the banks of Kellogg Creek, the ECCID Dredge Cut, and Old Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat was characterized by the type of vegetation or lack of vegetation covering the banks. These habitat types were then categorized as low, moderate, or high quality based on the extent of cover they provide fish (Stillwater Sciences 2006). Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 28 CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? No No No Yes b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5of the State CEQA Guidelines? No No No Yes c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No No No Yes d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Site surveys and archival research conducted for the 2013 Pantages EIR did not identify archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site. Additionally, the project site did not contain structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). After certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, a cultural resource was identified in the northeast corner of the project site along Kellogg Creek. The modified project would be within the original limits of disturbance evaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR and would have a smaller overall construction footprint. Notably, the modified project layout would avoid the cultural resource site identified at the northeast corner of the project site. The original cultural resource surveys, research, and impacts identified in the 2013 Pantages EIR remain valid because the project modifications do not expand the project footprint into previously unevaluated areas. Although cultural surveys and research conducted for the 2013 Pantages EIR did not identify archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site, there remains the possibility that the modified project could encounter unidentified cultural resources during construction. In the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would still apply to halt work and consult with a qualified professional if an unrecorded cultural resource is uncovered. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes developments within the County that could potentially affect archaeological or historical resources. Development associated with the General Plan Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 29 buildout could result in potentially significant impacts to known and unknown historical and archeological resources. As such, development of the project site, in combination with planned projects in the General Plan EIR, would result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative cultural resources impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR noted that no known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources were identified on the project site, and therefore the project would not contribute to this cumulative impact. In the event that undiscovered cultural resources were unearthed during construction, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would ensure proper identification and treatment. The modified project would be in the same location as the 2013 project and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would be applied in the event an undiscovered cultural resource is encountered. The modified project would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource; directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or geologic feature; or disturb any human remains from what was previously analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in reduced cultural resource impacts due to the smaller footprint and avoidance of a known cultural resource. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No No No No mitigation required i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 30 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No No No Yes iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No No No Yes iv) Landslides? No No No No mitigation required b) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No No No No mitigation required c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No No No Yes d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No No No Yes e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project site was not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and would not subject people or structures to landslides because the project site is generally flat and there is no history of landslides in the vicinity of the Town. Accordingly, the 2013 Pantages EIR determined no impacts would occur regarding fault rupture and landslides. Consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the existing topography of the land has not changed, and no new fault rupture or landslide impacts would occur. The 2013 project would have connected with municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems and did not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to soil capability of supporting wastewater systems. The modified project would not alter these plans to connect proposed residences to municipal wastewater and treatment systems. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site could experience groundshaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or expansive soil effects. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and GEO-3 required consistency with building codes and implementation of monitoring plans to reduce this impact Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 31 to a less-than-significant level. The project site’s underlying soil would still be prone to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and expansion, and therefore could still potentially expose people and structures to these adverse effects as a result of these conditions. As such, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-3 would still be required. Development of the project site could result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil because construction would increase the amount of exposed surfaces and increased sedimentation in receiving water bodies. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Soil erosion and topsoil loss during operation would be reduced for the modified project because the area of disturbance would be slightly smaller and less excavation would be required due to the elimination of bays and coves proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. However, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would still be applied to the modified project to further reduce construction period and long-term erosion and sedimentation. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR notes that buildout would increase the potential for new development in areas subject to seismic shaking, liquefaction, ground failure and land sliding, thereby increasing the associated risks to persons and property. However, geologic impacts are site specific and relate to the type of building and building foundation proposed, as well as the soil composition and slope on the site. Therefore, implementation of the modified project, in addition to other planned projects in the County would not considerably contribute to a cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to geology in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in slightly reduced geology and soils impacts because the smaller project footprint would encounter fewer hazards. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No No No Yes Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 32 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would increase per capita CO2 emissions beyond BAAQMD thresholds and contribute to regional and global increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2013 project included Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and 1b, which outline energy efficiency measures to reduce project emissions; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The modified project includes development of fewer residential units compared to the 2013 project, thereby reducing the amount of GHG emissions from on-site sources and motor vehicle trips. Regulatory changes such as motor vehicle fuel economy standards and energy efficiency standards have improved since certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, which would further reduce GHG emissions generated by residents. While total GHG emissions would be lower than the 2013 project, the emission intensity would not substantially change, and emissions levels would still exceed BAAQMD’s emissions threshold and the State of California’s adopted GHG emissions reduction targets such that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and 1b, consistent with the 2013 project. There are no additional cumulative impacts for GHG emission as GHG emissions are inherently cumulative. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts to greenhouse gas emissions in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in slightly reduced GHG impacts due to the smaller footprint and reduced number of proposed residences. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 33 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No No No No mitigation required b) For a protect located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No No mitigation required c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No No mitigation required d) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No No No No mitigation required e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No No No No mitigation required f) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 34 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No No No Yes h) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site (1) does not contain hazardous material sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, (2) is not located within an airport land use plan, airport, or private airstrip that would impact safety or represent a hazard, and (3) is not a high-risk zone for wildland fires. These conditions have not changed since 2013 and are not analyzed further.13,14 The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not affect emergency response plans because the project is designed to comply with County standards for emergency vehicle access. The modified project would now allow emergency vehicle access on residential streets rather than through the open space, as originally proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive would serve as the emergency vehicle access roads and would be extended to access residences throughout the project site. As such, the project would provide adequate emergency access to the entire project site. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that project construction could mobilize hazardous materials including asbestos and lead. The modified project would continue to require demolition, grading, and construction activities that could potentially cause a release of these hazardous materials such as arsenic, asbestos, and lead based paint. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, as proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR, would ensure hazardous materials would be removed prior to construction and would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR could involve the release of hazardous materials in proximity to a school; the project site is located within a 0.25 mile from Timber Point Elementary School. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that potentially hazardous materials would be properly handled to reduce exposure risks to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would 13 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOS E&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed: May 12, 2020. 14 Calfire. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Last Revised: 2009. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed: May 12, 2020. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 35 not change the location of the project site and would not change the determination in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, this impact would remain less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR identified a potentially cumulative impact related to risk of accidental release of hazardous materials associated with heavy industry and other land uses requiring the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials. The General Plan EIR also notes that new residential and commercial development would increase the number of people in proximity to these uses thereby increasing their risk of exposure. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws specifically to ensure that they do not result in a gradual increase to toxins in the environment. Implementation of these policies occurs as part of the development review and construction permitting process and was found to not result in cumulative hazardous materials impacts. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No No No No mitigation required b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 36 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No No No No mitigation required d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? No No No No mitigation required e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No No No No mitigation required f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? No No No Yes g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No No No No mitigation required h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No No No No mitigation required i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 37 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? j) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Hydrology associated with implementation of the project has changed substantially from the 2013 project. The 2013 project included bays and coves along Kellogg Creek to allow deep water access. The modified project would remove direct access to Kellogg Creek and eliminate the construction of bays and coves but would add two internal lakes. The modified project would also include a stormwater drainage system designed to accommodate typical stormwater generated on the project site, and would have an elevation exceeding the minimum elevation for a 300-year base flood event. Groundwater The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that groundwater recharge was not feasible at the project site due to the low permeability of the site’s clay soils, and therefore, the addition of impervious surfaces associated with the project was not expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge. The modified project would similarly avoid depletion or interference with groundwater supplies. The amount of impervious surface introduced at the project site would decrease from 17.4 acres proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR to 13.4 acres. Therefore, due to the low permeability of the site’s clay soils and the reduction of impervious surfaces, the modified project would not significantly affect groundwater recharge at the project site, consistent with the findings made in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Stormwater The 2013 project included a storm water drainage and treatment system and would not require connection to an existing or planned water drainage system, and therefore not contribute to or exceed the existing system’s capacity. The project’s proposed drainage system was designed to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the County’s C.3 requirements. Adherence to drainage system plan and applicable regulations would reduce operational impacts associated with the 2013 project to a less-than-significant level. All surface water runoff from the project site under the modified project would continue to drain into the approved storm water drainage and treatment system, which would collect runoff from drainage areas into a series of bioretention facilities designed to accommodate stormwater runoff generated within the project site. Although project modifications would involve reconfiguration of the storm water drainage and treatment system, the modified project would still meet NPDES requirements and would be designed to accommodate local system capacity. Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with findings made in the 2013 Pantages EIR, and potential impacts resulting from stormwater runoff would remain less-than-significant. Erosion and Water Quality The 2013 Pantages EIR identified potential erosion and water quality impacts from construction-related activities, such as excavation and widening of Kellogg Creek. The modified project would have a smaller construction footprint and would no longer affect Kellogg Creek, which would reduce erosion associated with construction activities around Kellogg Creek. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, 1b, and 1c, which proposes to monitor water quality, prevent pollution from construction, and ensure Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 38 compliance with the SWPPP, would still apply to minimize water quality degradation or erosion. In addition, two abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as conduits for hazardous waste and pollutants and impact groundwater, as pollutants may seep into groundwater via the well sites. Consistent with the 2013 project, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would be applied to the modified project to survey existing groundwater wells to avoid groundwater contamination. Flooding The project site is located within a 100-year flood zone that is not protected by an outside levee. However, the 2013 project met the minimum elevation required to protect against a 300-year base flood event with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b, which included grading plans for minimum floor elevations for residential units and street level elevations to minimize flooding impacts. Potential flooding from failure of a levee or dam was also considered less than significant, as the nearest reservoir, Los Vaqueros, was designed to ensure it could withstand a maximum credible earthquake and can reduce the level of inundation in the event of an emergency. Under the modified project, soil excavated from the construction of the lakes would be used to raise the project site. Although the project site would be raised, Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would still be implemented to further reduce flood risks. Tsunami, Seiches, and Mudflows The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project site would not likely be affected by a tsunami, seiches, or mudflow due to the topography and geography of the project site. There is no evidence of tsunami and seiches sources near the project site and the project site is nearly flat and would not be subject to mudflows. The geography and topography of the site have not changed such that it would alter the project’s susceptibility to tsunamis, seiches, or mudflow. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR notes that an increase in urban runoff due to urban development would release pollutants and sediments into the Delta, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water quality. The 2013 project, with implementation of General Plan policies, was determined to not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to water quality as point sources of pollutants would be identified and controlled. The modified project will be consistent with determinations made in the 2013 Pantages EIR by complying with applicable developmental review and construction permitting processes. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that, with adherence to applicable General Plan policies, the 2013 project would not considerably contribute to a cumulative flooding and sea level rise impact because the project was designed with building pad elevations to account for floods and future sea level rise. The modified project would be consistent with determinations made in the 2013 Pantages EIR and would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water quality in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts due to the smaller construction footprint and elimination of deep water access to Kellogg Creek. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 39 B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No No No No mitigation required b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No No No No mitigation required c) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would continue the pattern of residential development that exists to the east, west, and south of the vacant project site. The modified project would continue this pattern by developing a residential community consistent with the character and intensity of the surrounding area. Therefore, the modified project would not physically divide an existing community. The 2013 Pantages EIR proposed a General Plan Amendment from the current land use designation to Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM), Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH), Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS). The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project was within the urban limit line and would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The modified project would also require a General Plan Amendment and, as outlined in Table 3, proposes new acreages of the following land use designations: SH, WA, OS, and PR. Since certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, the General Plan Land Use Element has not changed. As a result, project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2013 Pantages EIR and no new impacts would occur. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 40 As discussed in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, the project site is located outside the inventory area of the HCP/NCCP. The modified project would not extend beyond the area of impacts considered in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The project would not conflict with applicable HCP/NCCP. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR noted that implementation of the County’s urban limit line would result in a change in land use patterns within the County. Namely, its implementation would result in a concentration of growth within areas designated for urban development and a preservation of the agricultural core for purely agricultural uses. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not contribute to this cumulative land use impact as the project site is located within an area intended for future development. The modified project would not change this determination because it would remain in the same location. DETERMINATION The modified project would not affect land use and planning within the project site. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstance s Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No No No No mitigation required b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site because it is not classified or designated within a mineral resource zone and does not have a history of mining. The project modifications do not expand into previously unevaluated areas and would not encounter new mineral resources. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 41 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the 2013 project in combination with other projects in the area would have no potential to impact state-designated regionally significant mineral resources and there would be no cumulative impact related to mineral resources. The modified project would not change the location of the project, and as such, would have no cumulative impact on mineral resources. DETERMINATION The modified project would not affect mineral resources within the project site. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. NOISE AND VIBRATION Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No No mitigation required b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No No mitigation required c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 42 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No No No No mitigation required e) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No No No No mitigation required f) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Construction Construction equipment for the project could generate temporary noise for the duration of construction. The 2013 Pantages EIR assessed potential vibration effects and determined that project construction would not include any components that would generate excessive groundborne vibration. The modified project would not use equipment that would generate excessive groundborne vibration levels, consistent with the 2013 project. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that site preparation, foundation work, framing, and interior work on new residences would generate noise, as would extensive excavation and dredging to create bay, coves, and waterways. Noise levels from construction equipment were estimated at distances of 50 feet from residences along the western property line and 300 feet from residences to the east in Discovery Bay. The assessment found a temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels due to construction as noise levels would exceed 75 dBA at 50 feet (decreases by 6 dBA per doubling distance). This was considered a significant impact in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR identified Mitigation Measures NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI-1c to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by restricting the timing of construction activity, preparing and implementing a detailed construction noise mitigation plan, and erecting temporary noise barrier on the project site. The modified project would no longer require the construction of bays, coves, and waterways, eliminating several sources of construction noise. However, the modified project would use equipment to excavate lakes similar to those in the 2013 project to excavate bays and coves. It is anticipated excavation of lakes and construction of residences would generate temporary noise levels exceeding 75 dBA at residences next to the project site. The impact of the modified project would be reduced compared to the 2013 project, but Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1c would still be required to further reduce noise. Operation The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of an airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The modified project would introduce Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 43 new residents at the same location as the 2013 project, and therefore potential impacts from aircraft noise would be less-than-significant. The 2013 Pantages EIR considered noise and vibration effects from operation and construction of the project. Once operational, residential developments associated with the 2013 project were anticipated to increase noise levels as a result of increased traffic and watercrafts but would not exceed 5 dBA and as such, would result in a less-than-significant impact on sensitive receptors. The modified project would introduce fewer residents, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and a slightly reduced impact from traffic noise. The modified project would eliminate deep water access, which would result in a substantial decrease in the noise generated by boat. As described in the 2013 Pantages EIR, potential boating accidents may require emergency air-lift services from a Medivac helicopter within the project site. This substantial increase in on-site noise was found to be temporary and sporadic and would not result in permanent changes to the ambient noise levels. The modified project would not include water access and therefore would not require emergency helicopter services, resulting in a lower level of ambient noise than the 2013 project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would result in increased ambient noise levels related to roadway traffic and construction, as well as airport activity, industrial activity, and the extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) services. The project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport, industrial site, or BART extension, and would not contribute noise in these areas. The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the main contribution of noise would be from local roadways. Roadway noise associated with build out of the 2013 project would not exceed the five dBA threshold required to be considerable contribution a cumulative noise impact. The modified project would reduce the number of residential units, thus resulting in reduced noise levels. As such, the modified project is considered consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR and would not result in a considerable contribution to increases in roadway noise. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to noise and vibration in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in reduced noise and vibration impacts because heavy construction equipment required to excavate bays and coves and would no longer be required. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 44 POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No No No No mitigation required b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of the replacement housing elsewhere? No No No No mitigation required c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not displace existing housing or residents because the project site is vacant. The project site remains vacant and no new housing has been built since certification of 2013 Pantages EIR. The project, as analyzed under the 2013 Pantages EIR, would have directly increased the population through development of 292 residential units. However, the population generated by the project was within population forecasts for the County as a whole, as outlined in the General Plan Land Use and Housing Element.15 The modified project would reduce the number of total housing units relative to the 2013 project and would remain consistent with growth anticipated in County population forecasts. Of the 277 units proposed for the modified project, a total of 41 units will be set aside as affordable. Thus, the project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2013 Pantages EIR and no new impacts would occur. Development of the 2013 project was determined to have the potential to indirectly increase growth due to extension of municipal services and roads to a previously undeveloped area, which can often induce growth in adjacent areas. However, the project is an infill development and adjacent lands are either developed with residential uses or located outside the urban limit line, which would prohibit further development. The modified project is consistent with determination made for the 2013 project, because the modified project is in the same location as the 2013 project and as such would not trigger growth in adjacent areas. 15 Contra Costa County. 2014. Contra Costa County General Plan. Last Revised: 2010. Available: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan. Accessed: May 20. 2020 Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 45 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR stated that build-out of the General Plan could result in up to 145,206 new residents in the County by the end of the planning period (2020). The General Plan and adoption of the urban limit line identified an intended pattern of residential development that included urban development of the area surrounding the Town. The General Plan EIR also noted that adoption of the General Plan would concentrate population in urban areas and would preclude development and extension of urban services and facilities outside of the urban limit line. As such, the General Plan EIR did not identify a significant impact related to population growth and therefore a considerable contribution to a cumulative population and housing impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially change the impacts on population and housing within the project site. The modified project would result in reduced impacts to population and housing due to the reduction in residential units. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:? No No No No mitigation required i) Fire protection? No No No No mitigation required ii) Police protection? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 46 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? iii) Schools? No No No No mitigation required iv) Parks? No No No No mitigation required v) Other public facilities? No No No No mitigation required b) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No No No No mitigation required c) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the 2013 project would generate a small increase in demand for fire protection, emergency services, police services, school services, and public facilities. Fire Services The East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ECCCFPD) serves the project area. The increase in population proposed by the 2013 project did to not directly trigger the need for additional ECCCFPD staff, equipment, or facilities. The modified project would introduce fewer residents, and consequently, less demand for fire protection and emergency services than what was anticipated under the 2013 Pantages EIR. Police Services The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office serves the project area. The 2013 project included 116 docks with deep water access that would require additional marine patrol and proposed a marine patrol substation as part of the project to address this need. The modified project would remove the docks and deep water access, eliminating the need for additional marine patrol. In addition, the modified project would decrease the number of housing units and reduce project-related demand for police services concluded in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the existing police staff, equipment, and facilities would be able to provide adequate police services to the project, but the addition of one part-time sheriff deputy would enhance police services on the project site and in the surrounding area. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to form a police services district through the special tax to augment police services. Thus, forming the police services district would reduce potential impacts to police services. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 47 School Facilities Discovery Bay Elementary School, Timber Point Elementary School, Excelsior Middle School, and Liberty High School serve the project area. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that these nearby schools would have adequate capacity to serve additional students introduced by the 2013 project, and that the applicant would be required to pay applicable school impact fees per Senate Bill 50. The project modifications would result in fewer residents than proposed in 2013 and would still adhere to the Senate Bill 50 school impact fees. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new impacts related to school facilities. Community Facilities The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project had the potential to increase demand for library services and health facilities; however, these impacts were considered less than significant. The modified project would reduce the number of residents, reducing demand for community facilities. Park Resources The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that sufficient park resources were available for the 2013 project residents. The 2013 project would have provided of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, consistent with the County’s parkland requirement, and included Mitigation Measure PS-1 to provide approximately 2.6 acres of public recreational trail available for use by the new residents and public. The modified project would increase the amount of land designated for open space, and parks and recreational land uses by 63.3 and 14.8 additional acres, respectively, compared to the project evaluated in the Pantages 2013 Pantages EIR. As such, Mitigation Measure PS-1 would no longer be necessary as project modifications would introduce a new trail network originally prescribed by this measure. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Fire and Police Services The cumulative impact for emergency services includes any proposed development within the service districts of the County Sheriff’s Office Delta Station and the ECCFPD that, in combination with the project, may generate the need for new facilities, equipment, and staffing to maintain acceptable service ratios. Implementation of the 2013 project, in combination with other nearby projects, would increase demands for police and fire services and would result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact. The modified project would result in fewer residents, slightly decreasing the demand for police and fire services. As such, the modified project would continue to have a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact identified in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Parks and Recreation The cumulative impact to parks and recreation includes any proposed development that could affect parks and recreational facilities within the Town. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not have a considerable contribution to a cumulative parks and recreation impacts because it provided public trails and would have contributed applicable park mitigation fees. The modified project would implement a larger trail system while continuing to pay applicable park mitigation fees, thereby reducing the projects contribution to this cumulative impact. Schools The cumulative impact to schools includes any proposed development within the Byron Union School District and the Liberty Union High School District. The 2013 project, in combination with other residential projects in the vicinity, would generate new students and would be required to pay development impact fees to both school districts, consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 50. As Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 48 such, the project was determined to not have a considerable contribution to cumulative school impacts. The modified project would decrease the total amount of residential units, thereby reducing the number of students, and would continue to pay applicable school impact fees. Therefore, the project would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION Project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2013 Pantages EIR and no new impacts would occur. When compared to the 2013 project, the modified project would result in less public service and recreation impacts due to the reduced number of residences. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No No No No mitigation required b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No No No No mitigation required c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No No No No mitigation required d) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No No No No mitigation required e) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of No No No Yes Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 49 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? f) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not involve activities that would affect air traffic patterns. The 2013 Pantages EIR also determined that the project would not include hazardous design features, as designated traveling speeds, pedestrian buffers, and compliance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual would provide adequate safety measures. The proposed modifications would not affect air traffic patterns or include hazardous design features as the project location has not changed from the 2013 project, and these topics are not discussed further. The 2013 project included an emergency vehicle access road within the project site as well as a 20-foot- wide pedestrian/emergency vehicle access trail. As such, the project was determined to provide adequate emergency access to the project site. Emergency vehicle access through the proposed open space and emergent marsh is no longer necessary for the modified project due to reconfigured street alignments. Project modifications allow for emergency vehicle access vehicles to access residences along Point of Timber Road as well at Wilde Drive. As such, the modified project would provide adequate emergency access. The project evaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR did not include plans for transit services but did support pedestrian and bicycle access. Implementation of bicycle paths associated with design of the modified project would be consistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with the conclusions in the 2013 Pantages EIR and provide adequate multi-modal access for residents. The 2013 project included one point of entry at Point of Timber Road. The modified Project includes two points of entry at both Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive, thereby increasing traffic on Wilde Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 50 Drive.16 However, considering the existing level of traffic on Wilde Drive in addition to traffic generated by the modified project, total traffic volumes on Wilde Drive are expected to remain within an appropriate level for a residential street, and the impact would be less than significant. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen level of service (LOS) at SR4/Byron Highway and Vasco Road. Impacts to SR4/Byron Highway were determined to be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which would add an additional left-turn lane. The impacts at Vasco Road were determined to be significant and unavoidable for the 2013 project, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2. Implementation of the modified project would increase traffic volumes on rural roads to a lesser extent than the 2013 project, as the modified project proposes fewer residential lots. Project modifications would not alter the County’s projected population such that it would exceed traffic volumes projected under the 2013 Pantages EIR, as fewer residences would generate fewer daily trips. A trip generation assessment was completed in April 2020 (Table 5) and found that the modified project would result in 170 fewer daily trips than the 2013 project due to the decrease in residences. Mitigation Measures TRA- 1 through TRA-3 (listed below) would continue to reduce traffic impacts; however, impacts to Vasco Road would remain significant and unavoidable. Trip Generation Summary Scenario (Dwelling Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Approved Project 292 2,790 55 164 219 186 109 295 Proposed Project 277 2,620 51 154 205 173 101 274 Net Change in Project Trips -170 -4 -10 -14 -13 -8 -21 Source: Fehr and Peers, 2020 If import of fill materials is required for the modified project, additional truck trips may occur during construction, which may increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways. Haul trucks would access the project site using Highway 4, approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site. Trucks would proceed onto Bixler Road, and then turn right onto Point of Timber Road to enter the project site. However, additional truck trips would only last the duration of construction. The 2013 Pantages EIR identified several traffic mitigation measures that would require the applicant to financially contribute towards proposed road improvement projects throughout the region. At that time, some of these road improvement projects were being considered within the proposed update of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East County. Since the 2013 Pantages EIR certification, the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit Transportation Mitigation Fee Update was completed, and the new fee ordinance was adopted. Some mitigation measures in the 2013 Pantages EIR were updated accordingly in this addendum and are listed below; those not listed would still apply in their original format. The changes to the mitigation measures are shown in the following format: additions are underlined; deletions are shown in strikethrough. While such traffic mitigation measures were clarified 16 Fehr and Peers. 2020. Final Memorandum: Pantages Trip Generation and Site Plan Assessment Update. Last Revised: April 27, 2020. Walnut Creek, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 51 to account for the new information, no proposed project changes would alter the traffic impact findings from the 2013 Pantages EIR. Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane. This improvement is included in the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA- 2 (Option 1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not be shifted under this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed. A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program. If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 52 Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOBAOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach. The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of several improvements at this intersection in the 2013 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impact area for traffic and transportation includes the forecasted growth in the County and was modeled using the CCTA Decennial Travel Demand Model, which reflects land use assumptions from the Association of Bay Area Governments, with forecasts out to the year 2035. However, the Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 53 General Plan EIR determined that the addition of trips under the cumulative scenario would degrade already deficient operations, and would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would result in significant increases in traffic volumes at various locations near the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1 through CUM TRA-11, which would install traffic signals and turn lanes at the impacted areas, would reduce the impacts at most intersections, but the traffic impact along Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road would remain significant and unavoidable. The modified project would slightly reduce traffic volumes as a result of fewer residences and Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1 through CUM-TRA-11 would still be implemented to reduce impacts, but the modified project would still result in traffic impacts along Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road that are significant and unavoidable. As described above, many of the intersections analyzed already operate at unacceptable LOS and implementation of the modified project degrades already deficient operations. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to transportation and traffic in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in slightly reduced transportation and traffic impacts due to the reduced amount of daily vehicle trips introduced by the project. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No Yes b) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 54 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? c) Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No No No No mitigation required d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No No No Yes e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No No No Yes f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No No No Yes g) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that stormwater would be detained and treated by on-site bio- swales before release into local waterways in compliance with the County’s C.3 requirements. As discussed in Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, project modifications include on-site stormwater treatment in bioretention facilities, and as such, would also comply with the County’s C.3 requirements. The 2013 Pantages EIR identified significant effects associated with the project’s water supply demands. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 addressed the potential for the project to outpace available water distribution by providing documentation to the County that sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. As part of this measure and as a condition of approval, the County would require the project to incorporate indoor and outdoor water conservation measures to reduce consumption, thereby reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would have a slightly lower water supply demand because of the reduction in housing units, but Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and the County water conservation measures would still be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 55 The 2013 Pantages EIR also identified significant wastewater treatment impacts because the existing wastewater treatment facility did not have the capacity to serve the project. The 2013 Pantages EIR referenced the Town’s Wastewater Master Plan, which outlined improvements required to accommodate the increase in wastewater capacity due to the Town’s projected growth. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 was created to demonstrate that sufficient funding for the construction of capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater Master Plan have been identified and secured. With adherence to Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 and implementation of the improvements outlined in the Wastewater Master Plan, the Town would have sufficient capacity to serve the project. The modified project slightly decreases the amount of wastewater generated from the project due to the reduced number of housing units, but would not significantly reduce wastewater generation such that mitigation would be no longer required. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would still be required minimize this impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that Potrero Hills Landfill had capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the project. As a condition of approval to the 2013 Pantages EIR, a Debris Recovery Plan would be submitted prior to issuance of the building or demolition permit. Therefore, the project was determined to comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste. As the modified project proposes a reduced number of residential units and would adhere to the established Debris Recovery Plan, the impact to solid waste would be slightly less than the 2013 project and the Potrero Hills Landfill would have capacity to handle solid waste generated by project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impact for public utilities includes the project area and Town. The General Plan EIR noted that future development would cause an increase in long-term water demand that could not be accommodated by existing water agency plans in high growth areas. The General Plan EIR also noted that future development may not have access to adequate quantities or quality of domestic water supply. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that implementation of the 2013 project would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on water supply. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 reduced this impact and would continue to apply to the modified project. The 2013 project, in combination with other projects in the area, could result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative wastewater treatment capacity impact. As determined in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the project would require implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 to ensure improvements to the Town’s wastewater treatment capacity are applied prior to project construction. The modified project would result in fewer project residents and would generate less wastewater but would still require Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 to ensure there would not be a considerable contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially change the impacts to utilities and services within the project site and no new impacts would occur. The modified project would slightly reduce utility and service system impacts due to the reduction in residences. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 56 CEQA – Required Discussion SIGNIFCANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CHANGES IN LAND USE WHICH WOULD COMMIT FUTURE GENERATIONS The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the project would not affect future uses at the project site and in the project vicinity because the land use designation of A-2 and A-3 only applies to the specific parcels in which the project is located. The modified project is in the same location as the 2013 project and would not affect future specific uses at the project site as it would still only apply to the specific parcels on which the project is located. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the use of fossil fuels required for construction and operation of the project and change in use from undeveloped agricultural land to urban development would result in irreversible changes. The modified project would still require the development of undeveloped land and the use of fossil fuels during construction and operation and would lead to irreversible changes consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR determination. CONSUMPTION OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would result in irreversible commitment to the use of nonrenewable resources as construction and operation would require the use of nonrenewable resources such as electricity, natural gas, and petroleum projects. The use of these resources would be typical of the level of investments typically required for a residential development of this size. The modified project would still result in the consumption of nonrenewable resources as it would still require the use of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products, but would have a slightly smaller impact than the 2013 project as the modified project would have fewer residential units and would no longer require excavating bays and coves. GROWTH INDUCEMENT ECONOMIC, POPULATION, AND HOUSING GROWTH As discussed in Section 2.18 Population and Housing, the 2013 Pantages EIR determined that population growth resulting from the project would be within regional growth projections. The modified project would result in fewer residential units than the 2013 project and thus would still be within County growth projections. The 2013 project would have resulted in a short-term increase in construction related job growth in the East Contra Costa County area, but would be temporary and was not anticipated to induce indirect growth in the region. The modified project would still induce temporary growth in the area due to construction, but would not relocate construction workers to the project area, as workers are expected to be drawn from the existing construction labor force because construction occurs throughout the County and surrounding cities. REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES TO GROWTH OR EXCEED CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would require approval from Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission for the Discovery Bay Community Services District to serve the entire site as only a portion of the project site is within the service district. The modified project site is in the same location as the 2013 project, and as such, would still require Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission approval. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 57 PRECEDENT SETTING ACTION As discussed in Section 2.10 Land Use and Planning, the 2013 project required both a General Plan amendment and rezoning before implementation of the project. The modified project would still require rezoning of the project site to P-1and would require a General Plan amendment to change the configuration of the land use designations on the project site. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 58 This Page Intentionally Left Blank An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development was prepared and certified by the Board of Supervisors on December 3, 2013. The EIR can be found on the website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4730/Pantages-Residential- Subdivision-Project. 4-1 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA‐required  component of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process for the project.  The  results of the environmental analyses, including proposed mitigation measures, are  documented in the draft EIR.  CEQA requires that agencies adopting EIRs take affirmative steps to determine that  approved mitigation measures are implemented subsequent to project approval.   As part of the CEQA environmental review procedures, Section 21081.6 requires a  public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure efficacy and  enforceability of any mitigation measures applied to the proposed project.  The lead  agency must adopt an MMRP for mitigation measures incorporated into the project  or proposed as conditions of approval.  The MMRP must be designed to ensure  compliance during project implementation.  As stated in Section 21081.6 (a) (1):  The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes  made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate  or avoid significant effects on the environment.  The reporting or monitoring  program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.   For those changes which have been required to incorporated into the project at the  request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over  natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the  lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or  monitoring program.  Table 4‐1 below is the MMRP.  The table lists each of the mitigation measures  proposed from the draft EIR and specifies the agency responsible for  implementation of the mitigation measure and the time period for the mitigation  measure. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-2 Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Air Quality     Impact AQ‐1: Project  development that  includes wood burning  stoves would result in a  net increase of Reactive  Organic Gases (ROG), a  criteria pollutant for  which the project region is  non‐attainment in an  applicable federal or state  ambient air quality  standard.  Mitigation Measure AQ‐1:  Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not  be permitted.  Only natural gas fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted.   Project plans shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves and  shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such use.  Project Applicant During project  design  Impact AQ‐2:  The project  would not expose  sensitive receptors to  criteria air pollutants  during project  construction but could  expose sensitive receptors  to toxic air contaminants.    Mitigation Measure AQ‐2a: To reduce the air quality impacts of PM  associated with grading and new construction, the project applicant  shall incorporate the following mitigation measures for all phases of  construction:    All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,  graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two  times per day.   All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐ site shall be covered.   All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be  removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once  per day.  The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  Project Applicant All phases of  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-3 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact AQ‐2 Continued  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per  hour (mph).   All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be  completed as soon as possible.  Building pads shall be laid as soon  as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.   Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off  when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes  (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title  13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).  Clear  signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access  points.   All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned  in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment  shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be  running in proper condition prior to operation.   Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person  to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints.  This  person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.   The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure  compliance with applicable regulations.      Mitigation Measure AQ‐2b:  To reduce health risks from TACs during  project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the  following mitigation measures into the project:   Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment  to two minutes;   Develop a plan demonstrating that the off‐road equipment (more  than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project   Project Applicant During  Construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-4 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact AQ‐2 Continued (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a  project wide fleet‐average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45  percent PM reduction compacted to the most recent ARB fleet  average.  Acceptable option for reducing emissions include the use  of late model engines, low‐emission diesel projects, alternative  fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐treatment projects, add‐on  devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such  become available;   Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and  generators be equipped with best available technology for emission  reductions of NOx and PM; and   Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more  recent certification standard for off‐road heavy duty diesel engines      Impact CUM AQ‐1:   Development of the  project in conjunction  with other development  in the region would result  in a net increase of  reactive organic gases  (ROG).  See Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 Project Applicant During project  design  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-5 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Biological Resources     Impact BIO‐A:  Although  multiple surveys  confirmed the non‐ presence of special‐status  species on the site, due to  the presence of suitable  habitat, development of  the project could have  significant impacts on the  Delta button celery, a  state listed species,  and/or other special‐ status plants if they were  to re‐establish themselves  between the last survey  periods and the time of  site development.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐A:   Special‐Status Plants   a. A pre‐construction survey for the Delta button celery (Eryngium  racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the  plant’s blooming period (June to October), prior to site  development.  The survey shall be conducted in the area of the  project site south of Point of Timber Road.  If Delta button celery is  not found, no further mitigation is needed.  If Delta button celery is  found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative  measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or  other suitable measures, including monitoring and reporting, that  would reasonably reduce the potential impacts on Delta button  celery.  The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of  these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game  and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols.  b. Pre‐construction special‐status plant surveys shall be conducted by  a qualified biologist prior to site development.  Pre‐construction  surveys shall occur during the season that provides an adequate  opportunity to identify occurrences of any special‐status plants.  If  no special‐status plants are found, no further mitigation is needed.   If a special‐status plant or plants are found, a qualified biologist  shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant  relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures,  including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce  the potential impacts to the identified special‐status plant.  The  qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these  measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and  efforts shall be consistent with related protocols.          Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-6 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐1:   Development of the  project would have a  significant impact on  trees.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐1:   Landscape Trees.   To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 23 trees on the  project site, the project includes landscaping with approximately 770  trees that would be planted along the project roadways and at the  project site entry as part of the proposed landscaping.  This is an  approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio following mitigation ratios shall be  implemented subject to the approval or modification of the Department  of Conservation and Development: a 3:1 in kind replacement or  replacement by native trees for non‐native trees removed, or 6:1 for  other native tree species that are planted to replace the two walnut  trees. Comply with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and  initial protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the  Department of Conservation and Development, Community  Development Division (CDD):  a. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a  grading permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a  licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for review and  approval by CDD. The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord  with the preliminary landscape plan, Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project  Plans dated October 2009.   b. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15‐ gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5‐gallon size.  c. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to  minimize landscape maintenance cost.        Department of  Conservation and  Development  During project  design and prior  to issuance of  grading permits  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-7 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐1 Continued d. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction  Ordinance Requirements: The landscape plan shall contain  sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the  reporting requirements and standards of the Water Conservation  Landscaping in New Developments ordinance (Chapter 82‐26) as  amended, and the Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance  (Chapter 82‐18).  The latter ordinance applies to intersections with  public roads.  The landscape architect shall certify that the plan  complies with the ordinance improvement standards and reporting  requirements.  e. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant  shall post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus  20%.  The term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the  installation of landscaping.  Prior to the acceptance of the bond by  the County a qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of  the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the CDD.  Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall submit a  letter to the CDD that the landscaping is in good health.      Impact BIO‐2:   Development of the  project would have a  significant impact on bank  habitat.  Mitigation Measure BIO‐2:  Creek Bank Habitat  a. Prior to removal or reconstruction of bank habitat along Kellogg  Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks within the project site  and at Pantages Island, the applicant shall contact the CDFG, the  Corps, the RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and determine if  permits are warranted for the activities pursuant to the regulations  that are in effect. Proof of permits (for example, a Section 404  permit, Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or an absence of  requirements for such permits from these resource agencies shall  be provided to CDD.     Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to, during,  and post  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-8 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐2 Continued b. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed  by the CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board.  The applicant  has provided a report to Contra Costa County describing how the  applicant will mitigate impacts to bank habitats, and these stated  mitigations, described below, shall become a condition of project  approval.   c. Specifically, the applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of 9,720  lineal feet of excavated low and moderate quality bank habitat by:  (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and moderate  low quality bank habitat, both on site and off site, to high quality  bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water  habitat) on Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the  ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek  between Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of  1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping  or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip‐rap with  willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of  Pantages Island and the North Cove  to near the end of Kellogg  Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal  feet which exceeds removal of lineal footage by 1,340 lineal feet.  d. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on‐site  and off‐site, approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including (1)  shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat (high  quality bank habitat) on the westerly, northerly, and southerly sides  of Pantages Island the ECCID portion of the project site; and the  creek bank ECCID easement area west of the project site from the  Pantages property line to the bridge, and Kellogg Creek between  Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) moderate quality bank  habitat along Kellogg Creek on the easterly side of Pantages Island  and the northerly side of the north cove to the northeasterly end of  the project site. ;         Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-9 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐2 Continued e. The creek bank and revegetation design that creates moderate  quality habitat following excavation will include the following:  i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between  mean low water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to  provide additional stabilization and some shaded riverine  aquatic habitat.   ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at  approximately MHW to support larger riparian trees such as  Fremont cottonwood.  iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with  riparian trees and grasses.   iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench  shall be planted on 15‐foot centers to ensure adequate bank  coverage.   v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes,  and Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for  revegetation.  vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or  arborist annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that  mortality does not exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is  greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees after 5  years, the project proponent shall be responsible for replanting  and monitoring the trees for an additional 3‐year period.  vii. During the 5‐year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring  shall also be conducted.  In the event that an increase in the  distribution or density of invasive plants is documented (for  example, water hyacinth or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive  weed management and eradication program shall be  developed and implemented.        Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-10 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐2 Continued viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial  instrument shall be established to pay for any remedial work  that might need to occur.  ix. Once vegetation has become established, the upper bank  should provide overhanging vegetation cover for fish during  most tidal elevations.  However, the placement of riprap  without natural habitat features (e.g., large woody debris)  along most of the lower bank would create minimal in‐water  habitat for fish.  Given incorporation of both high quality and  low quality habitat features, this design is characterized as  being overall of moderate value.  To improve the overall  habitat value of the bank, installation of tree species along the  lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes in the rip‐ rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes  allow trees to grow along rip‐rap banks without harming the  integrity of the bank.  An alternative bank stabilization method  other than rip‐rap, which provides the same or better overall  quality of the habitat and provides sufficient protection against  wave action, may also be considered.   f. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID  Dredge Cut/Intake Channel, to the Lakeshore/Lake bridge, along the  westerly, northerly, and southerly sides of Pantages Island, in the  section of Old Kellogg Creek at the southwestern end of the project  site and along the east and west sides of Kellogg Creek between  Newport Drive and State Route 4, shall be restored to high quality  habitat by creating a slope setback.   g. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material  from approximately MLW to the top of the bank.           Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-11 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐2 Continued i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established  to create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank.   ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in‐water resting  and hiding places for fish.  iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with  native riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine  aquatic habitat.  iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored  by a qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5‐year period.   If there is greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and  shrubs after 5 years, the applicant shall be responsible for  replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3‐year  period.   v. During the 5‐year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring  shall also be conducted.  In the event that an increase in the  distribution or density of invasive plants is documented (for  example, water hyacinth or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive  weed management and eradication program shall be developed  and implemented.   vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial  instrument shall be established to pay for any remedial work  that might need to occur.  h. Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the  westerly, northerly, and southerly perimeter of Pantages Island  shall be restored to high‐quality habitat by implementing the  setback design as described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake  Channel.  This design shall be established around most of the island,  except for bank habitat adjacent to Kellogg Creek.  Bank habitat  along Kellogg Creek shall be stabilized with riprap to prevent       Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-12 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐2 Continued erosion due to wave action from existing and future boater activity.   Therefore, this area of Pantages Island will be designed to provide  moderate‐quality bank habitat as prescribed above.  Also to address  wave action, moderate quality habitat shall be created along the  northerly side of the North Cove.      Impact BIO‐3:   Development of the  project would have a  significant impact on  vernal pool fairy shrimp.   (Significant)  Mitigation Measure BIO‐3:  Vernal pool fairy shrimp.  a. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp  the applicant shall implement one of the following measures:  i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a  ratio determined during negotiations with USFWS during  Section 7 Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS;  ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio  determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7  Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS; or  iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies  and in agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent  shall make a financial contribution to the Conservancy, to  offset the project’s impact to the vernal pool fairy shrimp.  The  financial contribution to the Conservancy or the amount of  mitigation land that shall be purchased via fee title shall be  determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7  consultation between the Corps and the USFWS.  b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy  shrimp were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction  (e.g., financial contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of  the Biological Opinion outlining the mitigation requirements and  incidental take statement from USFWS, shall be provided to CDD      Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-13 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐3 Continued c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion  issued for the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy  shrimp egg bank shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A)   permitted biologist and redeposited in appropriate seasonal  mitigation wetlands that shall be created within the wetland  mitigation preserve onsite.      Impact BIO‐4:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  impact on the California  red‐legged frog.   (Significant)  Mitigation Measure BIO‐4:  California red‐legged frog.   a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer  habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat  impacted, 1 acre of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite  or acquired offsite in a suitable location) or mitigation may be as  required by the USFWS during consultation initiated by the Corps  with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.  b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of  land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with  permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in  agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a  financial contribution to the Conservancy.  c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated  in permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for  this project shall be completed as stated in the  permits/authorizations.  Copies of all survey reports and monitoring  reports required by USFWS in the conditions of the Biological  Opinion shall be submitted to CDD.  d. CCD shall receive copies of all agency agreements/ authorizations  related to this species, and shall not issue a grading or building  permit until all agency agreements/ permits relating to the  California red‐legged frog have been obtained for this project and  mitigation has been implemented.     Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to, during,  and post  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-14 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐5:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  impact on the giant garter  snake. (Significant)  Mitigation Measure BIO‐5:  Giant garter snake.   a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland  habitat (that is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland  habitat impacted, 1 acre of compensatory habitat shall be  preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a suitable location) or  mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during consultation  initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.   b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of  land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with  permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in  agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent may make  a financial contribution to the Conservancy.  Any mitigation and  subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/  authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project  shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations.   c. CDD shall receive copies of all agency agreements/authorizations  related to this species, and shall not issue a grading permit or  building permit until all agency agreements/permits relating to the  giant garter snake have been obtained and mitigation for this  species has been implemented.  Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to, during,  and post  construction  Impact BIO‐6:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  impact on the western  pond turtle.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐6.  Western pond turtle.  The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in  Kellogg Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh  to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the project  construction areas.  a. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is  not protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act.   Thus, the resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific  mitigation guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s  impact to the western pond turtle.  Mitigation for this special‐status   Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of building or  grading permit   Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-15 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐6 Continued species is determined on a project by project basis.  It is likely that  any mitigation implemented for the California red‐legged frog and  the giant garter snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s  impact on the western pond turtle.  The mitigation measure for  impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation ratio  (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would  be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic  habitat and a surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would  be as worked out by the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the  time applications for permits/authorizations from these two  agencies are submitted.  Replacement habitat can be acquired via  fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation  bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory  agencies and in  agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant  may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.  Within 5 days of initiating construction activities, a qualified  biologist (knowledgeable and experienced in western pond turtle  identification) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all areas in  these locations that will or could be impacted by construction  activities. Any western pond turtles or eggs observed within the  construction zone shall be allowed to leave the area on their own  accord or they shall be relocated by the qualified biologist to a  suitable area outside of the construction zone. A survey report  detailing the survey results shall be prepared and submitted to the  biological permitting agencies prior to the start of construction.  After the preconstruction survey and prior to construction activities,  an exclusion fence shall be placed between the development and  the bank habitat and the emergent marsh habitat such that a  western pond turtle could not move from these habitats into the  development area. A qualified biologist shall be present during  trenching activities associated with the exclusion fence installation.      Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-16 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing The exclusion fencing will be standard silt fencing, approximately 42  inches in height that will be trenched 6 inches into the soil. The soil  will then be compacted against both sides of the fence to prevent  wildlife from gaining access underneath. The stakes will be placed  on the inside of the fence facing the development. No gaps or holes  are permitted in the fencing system, except for pedestrian and  vehicle entry points.  The entry/exit points may be constructed in the fencing system for  equipment and personnel, but the qualified biologist must ensure  no wildlife is capable of entering the fenced off site via the gate.  The gate structure must be flush to the ground with no holes or  gaps (i.e., plywood gates with silt fencing flaps).  The fence will be inspected occasionally by a qualified biologist for  holes, gaps, or access points, which shall be repaired upon  discovery. The area inside the fence will also be inspected for  trapped wildlife prior to the initiation of construction each day. If  wildlife is discovered, the fence shall be opened and monitored  until the wildlife has left the fenced area on its own accord and no  work shall occur during this period. If the wildlife does not leave on  its own accord, CDFW will be contacted before work may continue.  Impact BIO‐7:   Development of the  project would have  potentially significant  impact on federal and/or  state listed fish species  and fish species  designated by the State of  California as Species of  Special Concern.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐7: Federal and/or State listed fish species and  California species of special concern fish.    a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and  California “species of special concern” during construction and  dredging of the two interior bays, a levee shall be maintained  between the area to be excavated and the Kellogg Creek channel.   b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and  siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in  take of federal and/or state listed fish and California “species of  special concern.”  Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of permits and  throughout pre‐ construction and  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-17 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work  in the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of  this equipment will localize sediment movement and protect fish  from entrainment and the effects of increased turbidity.  Impact BIO‐7 Continued d. All in‐water work shall be conducted between August 1 and  November 30 to minimize the potential for take of threatened and  endangered fish species.  By conducting work within this time  period, the project will avoid most critical spawning, migratory, and  dispersal periods for listed fish species.  e. Long‐term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed  bank habitat mitigation to re‐create and replace impacted bank  habitat is implemented by the applicant.      Impact BIO‐8:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  impact on tree nesting  raptors.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐8:  Tree nesting raptors.  a. If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting  season (that is, between September 2 and February 28). In an  abundance of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of the tree  to be removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled  removal to ensure no birds are nesting.  b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1  and September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be  conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or  any proposed tree removal work.  The raptor nesting surveys shall  include examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere of  influence of the proposed project, and not just of those trees slated  for removal.  c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of  the nest tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing  (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 300‐foot radius  around the nest tree shall be staked with bright orange lath or other  suitable staking.   Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of demolition  permits and  through pre‐ construction and  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-18 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be  demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the project site.  The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist  conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting  raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor   Impact BIO‐8 Continued biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room  to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors.  This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest  tree.  e. No construction or earth‐moving activity shall occur within the  established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor  biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and  have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction  zones.  This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier  than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a  qualified raptor biologist.  If construction related work would commence anytime during the  nesting/breeding season for raptors or other bird species listed in  the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (typically February 1 through  September 15), a pre‐construction survey of the project vicinity for  nesting birds shall be conducted. This survey shall be conducted by  a qualified biologist (experienced with the nesting behavior of bird  species of the region) within 7 days prior to the commencement of  construction activities that would occur during the  nesting/breeding season. The intent of the survey shall be to  determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the  construction zone within approximately 250 feet. The surveys shall  be timed such that the last survey is concluded no more than one  week prior to initiation of construction. If ground disturbance  activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional pre‐     Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-19 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing construction survey shall be conducted such that no more than one  week will have elapsed between the last survey and the  commencement of ground disturbance activities.  If active nests are found in areas that could be directly or indirectly  affected by the project, a no‐disturbance buffer zone shall be  created around active nests during the breeding season or until a  qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size  of the buffer zones (generally 250 for raptors and 50 for passerines)  and types of construction activities restricted within them should  be determined through consultation with the CDFW depending on  the species, taking into account factors such as the following:   Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the  time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during  the construction activity;   Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the  construction site and the nest; and   Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting  birds.  The buffer zone around an active nest shall be established in the  field with orange construction fencing or another appropriate  barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the  sensitivity of nest areas. The qualified biologist shall serve as a  construction monitor during those periods when construction  activities would occur near active nest areas of special‐status bird  species to ensure that no impacts on these nests occur.  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-20 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐9:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  impact on the Swainson’s  hawk.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐9:  Swainson’s hawk.  a.   To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to  Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one  of the following scenarios:  i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat (this is a 1:1 impact to  mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation  organization.  An operating endowment shall be provided to the  conservation organization to manage any preserved lands in  perpetuity.   ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and  in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a  financial contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with  approximately 135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging  habitat.  The loss of potential foraging hawk habitat shall be mitigated in  consultation with the CDFW following the recommendations  provided below. The CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for  Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley  of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that projects within 1 mile of  an active nest provide:   One acre of Habitat Management (HM) land (at least 10  percent of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee  title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the  active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90  percent of the HM lands protected by a conservation  easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural  lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging  habitat for Swainson’s hawk) for each acre of development  authorized (1:1 ratio); or   Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of permits and  throughout pre‐ construction and  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-21 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing  One‐half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements  shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation  easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for  the active management of the habitat for prey production  on‐the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized  (0.5:1 ratio).  b. Prior to site disturbance tTo ensure that no impacts occur to any  nesting Swainson’s hawk, preconstruction nesting surveys shall be  conducted no more than on month prior to construction to establish  whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site  are occupied in conformance with the Recommended Timing and  Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s  Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee,  2000).  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-22 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐9 Continued c. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to within 0.25 miles of the  project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code  2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project‐related disturbance at  active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced or  eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1‐ September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994) and/or in consultation with  the CDFW.  d. If Swainson’s hawk are found nesting on the project site, a qualified  raptor biologist shall establish a non‐disturbance boundary around  the nesting site. The size of this nondisturbance boundary shall be  determined by the qualified raptor biologist in the field and in  consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be based upon the  location of the nesting tree, the bird’s tolerance of noise, and the  type of other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations). Once the young  have fledged from the nest, the buffer can be removed, and all  project activities can commence.  e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified  raptor biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non‐ disturbance boundary/nest buffer could be vacated.  f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of  this tree shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation  measure prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure  BIO‐1.  Tree planting is proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that  is, planting: removal).  Replacement nest trees shall be native  species (such as oaks or cottonwoods).      Impact BIO‐10:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  adverse effect on the  western burrowing owl.    Mitigation Measure BIO‐10:  Western burrowing owl.  Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the  methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing  Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012.  Below we provide a summary of  the survey methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing  Owl Mitigation that would be applicable to the project site. These  Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of permits and  throughout pre‐ construction,  during and post‐ construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-23 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing surveys would meet the standards of care required by CEQA for  conducting surveys.  Impact BIO‐10 Continued a. Initiating Survey.  An initial take avoidance survey shall be  conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground  disturbance activities.  Burrowing owls may re‐colonize a site after  only a few days.  Time lapses between project activities will trigger  subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a  final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.   b. Number of visits and timing.  Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least  one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum  of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15  and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15.    c. Survey method.  Conduct surveys by walking straight‐line transects  spaced 7 meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height  and density.  At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m,  scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using  binoculars.  During walking surveys, record all potential burrows  used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or  more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or  decoration.  Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so  observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting  the survey.        Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-24 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing d. Weather conditions.  Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability  to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys  when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense  fog.  Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when  ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud  cover is <75%.    e. Time of day.  Daily timing of surveys varies according to the  literature, latitude, and survey method.  However, surveys between  morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset  until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection  probabilities.   Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-25 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐10 Continued f. Avoiding burrowing owls.  A primary goal is to design and  implement projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative  impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing  owls, nests, or eggs.  Avoidance measures may include but not be  limited to:   Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period,  from February 1 through August 31.   Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non‐breeding  season by migratory or non‐migratory resident burrowing owls.   Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging  a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking,  cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development.   Develop and implement a worker awareness program to  increase the on‐site worker's recognition of and commitment  to burrowing owl protection.    Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment  and other machinery does not collapse burrows.   Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning  nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or  suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls,  designated use areas).   Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the  months of January and February.               Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-26 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐10 Continued g. Minimizing Impacts.  If burrowing owls and their habitat can be  protected in place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of  buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project  activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. A  qualified biologist shall conduct site‐specific monitoring to inform  the project proponent of buffer requirements.  See Staff Report on  Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance.  h. Permanent Impacts.  Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl  Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of  permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat loss.        Impact BIO‐11:   Development of the  project would have a  potentially significant  impact on other protected  nesting birds.    Mitigation BIO‐11:  Impacts to other nesting birds.  a. A nesting survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to  tree removal and/or breaking ground (surveys should be conducted  a minimum of 3 separate days during the 14 days prior to  disturbance) prior to commencing with construction work if this  work would commence between February 1 and September 1.  If a  lapse in project‐related work of 15 days or longer occurs, another  focused survey consistent with related protocols and if required,  consultation with CDFG shall occur before project work can be  reinitiated.  b. If special‐status birds, such as loggerhead shrike, tri‐colored  blackbird, and/or California black rail, are identified nesting within  the area of affect, the project sponsor shall contact CDFG regarding  appropriate buffer sizes and shall fence off a non‐ disturbance  radius around the nest according to this measure.      (See BIO‐8)      Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of permits and  throughout pre‐ construction and  during  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-27 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12.  Impacts  to Waters of the United  States and/or State.  Mitigation Measure BIO‐12:  Impacts to waters of the United States  and/or State   Authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Central  Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (for example,  an Individual Permit and a Certification of Water Quality) shall be  obtained prior to filling any waters of the U.S./State on the project site.  A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation  Plan for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated  November 15, 2006).  According to this mitigation plan, minimization of  indirect impacts would be accomplished by grading home pads to drain  toward streets and away from open space areas, landscaping with native  plants, construction on bioswales, maintaining natural buffers between  the development and the preserved marsh habitat within the open  space areas, and using native plantings as landscaping buffers between  development and open space preserve areas.  An exception is at the  Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no  buffer.  The location of the EVA was chosen so that the road crossed the  marsh at its narrowest point.  In most other cases, there is a minimum of  50 feet between the edge of the residential development and the  preserved marsh.  At some locations, grading would encroach into the  50 foot width; however, the graded area would be planted with native  vegetation and maintained naturally (no irrigation) such that it functions  as a buffer.  The open space preserve area shall be separated from     Project Applicant Prior to  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-28 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12 Continued adjacent development or recreational areas with permanent fencing  that protects the open space preserve from unauthorized use while  providing a visual connection to the open space.  Residential fences  would be tubular steel or some other form of permanent, visually open,  fencing where houses back up to the open space preserve. Past  mitigation efforts from other development projects have shown that  with open fencing, protected areas are kept free from dumping of trash  by homeowners as the community has more connection and feels more  stewardship of the open space.  In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks  with educational signage will be developed to reduce human‐induced  impacts.  Impacts to waters of the United States/State will also be minimized by  implementing the following measures:  a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices  consistent with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)  prepared for the project to protect the emergent marsh and  wetland mitigation area, including installing orange construction  fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other protective measures.    b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to  monitor the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters.  c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation  wetlands shall be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands  permanently affected by project activities.  If possible, wetlands  shall be created on‐site and shall resemble those wetlands affected  by the project (known as in‐kind replacement).  d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for  each square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be  enhanced/created) or as otherwise specified in permitting  conditions imposed by the Corps and RWQCB.        Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-29 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12 Continued e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components  listed here:   Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland on‐ site;   Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on‐site;   Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet  of bank habitat on‐site and off‐site, including Shaded Riverine  Aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat.  The off‐site  mitigation includes the ECCID Dredge Cut from the Pantages  property line to the bridge, linking Lakeshore/ Lakes  neighborhoods and the RD 800 Kellogg Creek Banks from  Newport Drive to State Route 4;    Creation of approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on‐ site;   Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and   Implementation of a comprehensive long‐term storm water  management plan designed to protect water quality.  The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project will consist of  two major efforts.  First will be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat  in the uplands adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second will be the  creation and enhancement of bank habitat within the project area.  Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)  Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat  a. A minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and  0.30 acre of marsh shall be created within the 44‐acre preserve  area. Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in  the 12.58‐acre upland area in the northwest corner of the site.  The       Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-30 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12 Continued expansion of the marsh shall be accomplished either on the eastern  side of the existing marsh on the new peninsula created by the  opening of the northern bay or along the western side of the  existing marsh.  This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created  wetlands to impacted wetlands).    b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal  wetlands within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of  the proposed wetland soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would  not be suitable soils).  c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space  preserve.  d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on  the existing topography within the uplands, soil composition, and  ground water depths, and the created seasonal wetlands shall be  excavated to a depth necessary to accumulate seasonal (winter)  groundwater and/or to any clay layer that will perch rainfall.   e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal  wetlands to be impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands  for seed source.  These topsoils would contain a seed bank of the  impacted pool plant species which would germinate with fall/winter  hydration of the re‐created pools.  f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to  accommodate the addition of topsoil.   g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing  another wetland compensation plan that is approved for the project  by both the Corps and the RWQCB.  Creek Bank Habitat   Overall, the project will result in the loss of approximately 9,720 linear  feet of the 10,120 linear feet of existing habitat along the project site.   The applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of excavated low and  moderate quality bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet       Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-31 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12 Continued of the existing low and moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite  and offsite, to high quality bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat  and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island,  East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Property on the south side of  the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek  between Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903  lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level  bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip‐rap with willows  between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of Pantages Island,  and the northerly side of the North Cove to the end of Kellogg Creek.  Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet.  Open Space Preservation  The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat would  be located within a 44‐acre permanently preserved area.  Open Space  Parcel “C” and the marsh habitat on Pantages Island (Open Space Parcel  “D”) would also be permanently preserved through conservation  easements or covenants.  It is envisioned that ownership of the open  space preserve areas will be transferred to the Town of Discovery Bay  Community Services District (TDBCSD) for preservation in perpetuity, or  some other public agency deemed approved by CDD.  The TDBCSD  would also function as the Preserve Manager and conduct the long‐term  monitoring and maintenance of the preserve areas in perpetuity.  On the  adjoining Ravenswood project, ownership of an open space parcel with  seasonal wetlands controlled by a conservation easement has been  conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose pursuant to Corps Permit  No. 199400928.  TDBCSD will therefore be able to ensure consistent and  coordinated management of the two conservation areas.   In addition, the approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and  created bank habitat would be preserved in perpetuity.  The lineal  footage within the project site will be included as part of Water Parcel  “F”, as modified to include that creek bank and shoring walls.  It is       Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-32 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12 Continued envisioned that Parcel “F” as modified and the enhanced bank habitat  on ECCID property and Pantages Island will be transferred to  Reclamation District 800 (RD800).  RD 800 already owns the mitigation  Kellogg Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4.  RD 800 will  own and be responsible by conservation covenants to monitor and  maintain these bank habitats in perpetuity. Funding for maintenance of  the permanently preserved open space conservation area will be  provided through annual assessments of home owners in Pantages Bays  that are secured through a TDBCSD landscape and lighting district or a  binding, permanent agreement completed prior to filing the Final Map.   With respect to the creek bank conservation areas owned by RD 800,  the assessment will be created by a Proposition 218 vote undertaken  prior to the filing of the Final Map.  This funding and monitoring is separate from the compensatory  mitigation monitoring for the created wetlands is outlined in the  Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation  Plan for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated  November 15, 2006).  Alternative long‐term mitigation monitoring  acceptable to permitting agencies may also be considered.  A 5‐year monitoring program will be established to monitor the progress  of the wetland mitigation toward an established goal.  At the end of  each monitoring year, an annual report will be submitted to the Corps,  RWQCB and Contra Costa County.  This report will document the  hydrological and vegetative condition of the mitigation wetlands, and  will recommend remedial measures as necessary to correct deficiencies.  Aside from the minimum replacement ratio and in perpetuity  protection, various regulatory agencies may provide additional  conditions and stipulations for permits.  Permits for impacts to waters of  the U.S. will be required by the Corps.  Similarly, permits for impacts to  waters of the state will be required by both the RWQCB and CDFG prior  to the impacts occurring.  These agencies will likely impose their own       Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-33 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO‐12 Continued mitigation requirements.  Any other conditions that are stipulated for  impacts to waters of the U.S. or state by the Corps, RWQCB, and/or  CDFG shall also become conditions of project approval.      Impact CUM BIO‐1:  Cumulative Impacts to  Vegetation and Wildlife  Resources  The mitigation measures prescribed above would offset cumulative  impacts to special‐status species, wetlands, trees, and plant  communities/wildlife habitats to levels regarded as less than significant.   Mitigation that includes creation and enhancement of impacted “waters  of the U.S.,” stream channels, and bank habitat would offset this  cumulative impact to levels regarded as less than significant.  Department of  Conservation and  Development and Project  Applicant  Prior to issuance  of building  permits, prior to  construction,  during, and post‐ construction  Cultural Resources     Impact CUL‐1:   Construction of the  project could potentially  cause a substantial  adverse change in the  significance of a historical  resource as defined in  Section 15064.5.  Mitigation Measure CUL‐1:  Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section  15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological or  paleontological resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing  activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and  the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional  (historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined  appropriate and approved by the County) to assess the significance of  the find.  If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County  and the consulting professional shall determine the appropriate  avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.   In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting  professional to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall  determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the  nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.  If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data  recovery, shall be instituted.  Work may proceed on other parts of the  project site while mitigation for cultural resources is carried out.  All  significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the discretion of the   Department of  Conservation and  Development  When demolition  and site clearing  activities are  complete, and  during grading  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-34 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUL‐1 Continued consulting professional, be subject to scientific analysis, professional  museum curation, and documentation according to current professional  standards. At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the  consulting professional shall be paid for by the applicant and at the  County’s discretion, the professional may work under contract with the  County.        Impact CUL‐2:   Construction of the  project could potentially  cause a substantial  adverse change in the  significance of an  unknown archaeological  resource pursuant to  Section 15064.5.    Mitigation Measure CUL‐2:  Implementation of Mitigation Measure  CUL‐1 would reduce impacts from changes in the significance of an  archaeological resource to a less‐than‐significant level.  Department of  Conservation and  Development  When demolition  and site clearing  activities are  complete, and  during grading  Impact CUL‐3:   Construction of the  project potentially could  directly or indirectly  destroy a unique  paleontological resource  on site or unique geologic  feature.    Mitigation Measure CUL‐3:  Implementation of Mitigation Measure  CUL‐1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources or a unique  geologic feature to a less‐than‐significant level.  Department of  Conservation and  Development  When demolition  and site clearing  activities are  complete, and  during grading  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-35 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUL‐4:   Construction of the  project could potentially  disturb human remains,  including those interred  outside of formal  cemeteries.   Mitigation Measure CUL‐4:  In the event of the accidental discovery or  recognition of any human remains in any location other than a  dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:   1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or  any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human  remains until:   The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered  must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the  cause of death is required, and    If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:  •  The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage  Commission within 24 hours;  •  The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify  the person or persons it believes to be the most likely  descended from the deceased Native American;  •  The most likely descendent may make recommendations  to the landowner or the person responsible for the  excavation work for means of treating or disposing of,  with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any  associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources  Code Section 5097.98; or  Department of  Conservation and  Development  During site  clearing, grading,  or construction  activities; if  necessary        Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-36 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUL‐4 Continued 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his  authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human  remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the  property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:   The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify  a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed  to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being  notified by the Commission;   The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or   The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the  recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the  Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide  measures acceptable to the landowner.        Energy     There are no significant impacts to energy        Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-37 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Geology and Soils     Impact GEO‐1:   Implementation of the  project could expose  people and developments  to adverse effects from  strong seismic ground  shaking and seismic  related ground failure  including liquefaction and  lateral spreading.    Mitigation Measure GEO‐1a: The project applicant shall design  structures and foundations to withstand expected seismic sources in  accordance with the current version of the California Building Code, as  adopted by the County.  County Building Official Prior to issuance  of a building  permit and  during  construction   Mitigation Measure GEO‐1b: At least 60 days prior to recording the  Final Map the applicant shall submit updated improvement plans for the  project for review by the County’s Peer Review Geologist and review and  approval by the Zoning Administrator.  For the purposes of geologic  review, the plans shall provide detailed information on the bank  stabilization wall system being proposed along the waterfront  residential lots.  Project Applicant 60 days prior to  recording the  Final Map   Mitigation Measure GEO‐1c: Prior to the issuance of building permits,  the applicant shall submit an updated geology, soils and foundation  report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section  944.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and  approval of the Zoning Administrator.  The report shall address the  specific approach to grading and development indicated by the Final  Subdivision Map and Improvement Plans, and shall provide technical  data and engineering analysis that addresses the stability of the  residential lots.     The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following  performance criteria:   Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions,   Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo‐static conditions, and which  takes into account the potential for a seismic source in the site  vicinity (Great Valley seismic zone) and    Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down.  Project Applicant Prior to issuance  of building  permits  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-38 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact GEO‐1 Continued Mitigation Measure GEO‐1d: During the construction of subdivision  improvements, the project geotechnical engineer shall provide  observation and testing services and issue a grading/shoring wall  completion report.  The report shall provide documentation on the bank  stabilization wall depths and appropriate testing of fill compaction to  determine the effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in  preventing lateral spreading failures toward the Kellogg Creek channel.  Project Geotechnical  Engineer  During the  construction of  subdivision  improvements  Impact GEO‐2:  Development of the  project site could result in  substantial soil erosion or  the loss of topsoil.    Mitigation Measure GEO‐2: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water  Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the  Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and  Development.  The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the  State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of  Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the  Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of  the County and the RWQCB.  The County has SWPPP resources available  on its website: http://www.co.contra‐ costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.   With regard to long‐term control of sedimentation and protection of  water quality, a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk  Consulting 2006) was prepared for the project and submitted to the  County’s Public Works Department in order to comply with County  water quality requirements.  Engineered linear bioretention facilities  (dry swales) are the selected stormwater runoff treatment for this  project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities.  Project Applicant Prior to  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-39 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact GEO‐3:  The  project could expose  structures to substantial  adverse effects related to  expansive and corrosive  soils on the project site.    Mitigation Measure GEO‐3: At least 30 days prior to recordation of the  final map, the project applicant shall submit a plan for monitoring  corrosivity of pads and road beds.  The plan shall demonstrate how the  results of the study will guide design of concrete and ferrous materials  that are in contact with the ground.  Project Applicant 30 days prior to  recordation of  the final map  Global Climate Change     Impact CUM GCC‐1: The  project would generate  GHG emissions in excess  of the BAAQMD threshold  of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e  per service population per  year and would have a  considerable contribution  on global climate change.  Mitigation Measure CUM GCC‐1a: The County shall ensure that the  project applicant(s) employs green building techniques in the design of  proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project.  Specifically,  structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green Building  Code or equivalent green building standards.  Mitigation Measure CUM‐GCC‐1b: The applicant has agreed to  incorporate the following measures within the proposed project:   Project landscaping shall include water‐efficient native and adaptive  plants in combination with high‐efficiency irrigation equipment;   Recycled content shall be included in project building materials,  including the use of pre‐consumer fly‐ash in the concrete for project  walkways, driveways, roadways, and non‐plant landscape elements;   To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets,  adhesives, sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have  a low concentration of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs);      Contra Costa County Prior to  construction and  during project  design  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-40 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM GCC‐1  Continued   The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within  each single family home shall use environmentally responsible  refrigerants (i.e. non CFC‐based refrigerants);   Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high‐ efficiency systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as  potential pollutants would be ventilated through the building at a  faster rate;   The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including  low‐flow or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use;    Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest  Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single  family homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and  countertops; and   The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and  lighting fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration  equipment.              Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-41 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Impact HAZ‐1: The project  could potentially cause  the release of hazardous  materials into the  environment during  demolition, grading, and  construction activities.  Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1a:  Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil  samples shall be collected from the paint disposal area, by a qualified  professional, and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and  volatile organic compounds.  Soil samples shall be compared to the  Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the California  Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region.  If soil  samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and remediated  under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division  (CCEHD).    Mitigation Measure HAZ1b:  The project site shall be inspected by an  environmental professional who specializes in hazardous materials and  contamination, appointed by CDD, and paid for by the applicant, during  demolition and preliminary grading activities.  In the event that  previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination  shall be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the  oversight of CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs.  Project Applicant Prior to issuance  of grading  permits, during  demolition, and  preliminary  grading activities  Impact HAZ‐2 The project  could potentially release  hazardous materials  during demolition of the  existing residence.  Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2a:  Prior to the issuance of a demolition  permit, the applicant shall submit proof to the County that all asbestos‐ containing materials have been removed at the existing residence  located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance with state  regulations.  Project Applicant Prior to issuance  of a demolition  permit  Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2b:  Prior to the issuance of a demolition  permit, the applicant shall submit proof to the County that all lead‐ based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the existing former  residences on the project site, in compliance with state regulations.  Project Applicant Prior to issuance  of a demolition  permit  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-42 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact HAZ‐3 Project  demolition and  construction activities  could expose individuals  at the Timber Point  Elementary School to  hazardous emissions or  materials.  See Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1, HAZ‐2a, and HAZ‐2b Project Applicant Prior to issuance  of grading  permits, during  demolition, and  preliminary  grading activities  Hydrology and Water Quality  Impact HYD‐1:  Construction activities  would alter the existing  drainage patterns  resulting in erosion,  sedimentation, and  contamination of storm  water runoff which could  degrade water quality in  adjacent water bodies.  Mitigation Measure HYD‐1a: A qualified hydrologist on the project team  shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in  Kellogg Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether  adjustments to their position or depth are required.  Monitoring shall be  more frequent, as needed, to accurately assess water quality  degradation.  Qualified Hydrologist Weekly  monitoring  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-43 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact HYD‐1 Continued Mitigation Measure HYD‐1b: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water  Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the  Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and  Development.  The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the  State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of  Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the  Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of  the County and the RWQCB.  The County has SWPPP resources available  on its website: http://www.co.contra‐ costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.  Additionally, the Title 10  Ordinance (1010) of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances  requires the project sponsor to obtain a permit for drainage activities for  creek improvements to Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek.  Project Applicant and  Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to the  issuance of a  grading permit   Mitigation Measure HYD ‐1c:  To prevent pollution of receiving waters  due to equipment fueling, storage, and maintenance, the contractor  shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow.  Final plan notes, and  contractor bid documents shall include the following specifications:  1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of  maintenance materials, and refueling purposes.   2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any  contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the  receiving waters.   If heavy‐duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is  not protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be  placed beneath the engine block and hydraulic systems.  Contractor During  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-44 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact HYD‐2:  Abandoned groundwater  wells on the project site  could act as direct  conduits to groundwater  for hazardous waste.  Mitigation Measure HYD‐2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the  project applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental  Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and  abandoned groundwater wells on the project site.  The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned  under permit from CCEHD.  CCEHD shall inspect the decommissioned  wells for approval.    Project Applicant Prior to issuance  of grading  permits  Impact HYD‐3: The project  site is located within areas  of projected tidal  inundation due to sea  level rise, which would  place people and  structures within a flood  hazard associated with  long‐term sea level rise.    Mitigation Measure HYD‐3a: The final map and improvement plans,  including grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished floor  elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet.    Project Applicant During project  design  Mitigation Measure HYD‐3b:  The final map and improvement plans,  including grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished street level  elevation of 12.1 feet.    Project Applicant During project  design  Land Use and Planning     There are no significant impacts to land use planning  Mineral Resources     There are no significant impacts to mineral resources  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-45 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Noise     Impact NOI‐1:  Project  construction would cause  a substantial temporary  increase in ambient noise  levels.  Mitigation Measure NOI‐1a:  All noise generating construction activities  shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through  Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the  calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal  government as listed below:     New Year’s Day (State and Federal)   Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)   Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal)   Lincoln’s Birthday (State)   Cesar Chavez Day (State)   Memorial Day (State and Federal)   Independence Day (State and Federal)   Labor Day (State and Federal)   Columbus Day (State and Federal)   Veterans Day (State and Federal)   Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)   Day after Thanksgiving (State)   Christmas Day (State and Federal)  For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays  occur, please visit the following websites:   Federal Holidays:  http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp   California Holidays:  http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm   Project Applicant During  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-46 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact NOI‐1 Continued An on‐site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to  respond to and track complaints.  The manager will be responsible for  responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and for  coordinating with the adjacent land uses.  The manager will determine  the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team  to implement effective measures (considered technically and  economically feasible) warranted to correct the problem.  The telephone  number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and  provided to neighbors in a notification letter.  The manager will be  trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all  construction hours to respond to complaints.  At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction  activities for each major phase of construction the applicant shall  prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence.  The  notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and  occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the  project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.  The notice  shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number  and area of responsibility.  The person responsible for maintaining the  list shall be included.  The list shall be kept current at all times and shall  consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective  action in their area of responsibility.  The names of individuals  responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction  traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24‐hour emergency  number, shall be expressly identified in the notice.  The notice shall be  re‐issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to  the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.      Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-47 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact NOI‐1 Continued Mitigation Measure NOI‐1b:  The project applicant shall prepare a  detailed construction noise mitigation plan for review and approval by  the County.  The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying  neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during  particular phases of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied,  and who to call if there are noise‐related complaints.  Submission of this  construction noise mitigation plan shall be required as part the building  permit application.    The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model  Community Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and  60 dBA for stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals.    Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:   Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities.    List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase  and sound level estimates for each phase.   Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers.   The barriers can be constructed out of wood or other materials as  long as they have a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5  pounds per square foot.   Possible materials include 1‐1/8‐inch‐thick  plywood or fully overlapping 1x redwood boards (1‐1/2‐inch‐thick  total).  The barriers would likely be 6 to 8 feet tall but this would be  refined as part of the construction noise control plan.  Issues to  consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and  location of the barriers are the actual construction practices,  including equipment to be used and the location and duration of  noisier activities.  The topography will also need to be considered in  the final determination of barrier heights and effectiveness.    Project Applicant Prior to  construction and  during  construction  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-48 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact NOI‐1 Continued  Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations.   The project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of  the week set by Contra Costa County.   Location of stationary equipment as far from residents as is  practicable and/or enclose noise sources.   The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or  hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered  equipment and construction tools as feasible.   Provide intake silencers and "resident‐type" exhaust mufflers on  vehicles and equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact  tools as feasible.   The method for construction of the shoring walls will be sheet pile  shoring wall that for installation will use a variable moment  driver/hammer, or similar vibratory method approved by CDD.       Mitigation Measure NOI‐1c: The project applicant shall construct  temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring  the existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West  subdivisions.  Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range  of 5 to 10 dBA.      Population and Housing     There are no significant impacts to population and housing  Public Services and Recreation  Impact PS‐1: The project  would be required to  provide 2.6 acres of  parkland to meet the  Mitigation Measure PS‐1:  The project applicant shall, on the face of the  Final Map (and/or other recorded instrument approved by CDD),  dedicate approximately 2.6 acres of public trails to the public (a 20‐foot  emergency vehicle access (EVA) with at least eight feet paved in the  Project Applicant   Concurrent with  the recording of  the map  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-49 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing County’s parkland  dedication requirement.  middle, an eight‐foot sidewalk leading from Point of Timer Road to the  public trails through the preserved open space, and a passive recreation  location at the end of the trail ‐beyond the marine patrol substation) for  ingress, egress, and use by pedestrians and bicyclists.  The right of public  access shall confirm that dogs are not permitted on the EVA/trails due to  proximity to creek banks, emergent marsh and seasonal wetlands (this  provision includes members of the public with dogs and Pantages Bays  homeowners).  It shall confirm that access is limited from dawn to dusk.   The applicant shall provide a water fountain at the end of the trail,  beyond the marine patrol substation, for public use with tables and  seating next to the open water.  At the end of the trail, historical kiosks  and signage (related to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber) and  educational (related to the environment and its protection; notice the  dogs not permitted), and benches along the trails, all in a number,  design and content subject to the review and approval of CDD.  The  public trails through the open space area also serve as an EVA and must  comply with Fire Department standards.  In combination with the  dedication of the public trail the project shall pay a park dedication fee  of $1351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits.    Signage shall be provided at the two project entries for public  pedestrians and bicyclists (Point of Timber and Wilde Drive) and the trail  heads at the end of “A” street and “B” street.  The signs confirm public  access to the EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads within Pantages  Bays.  The signage shall also specify the limitations on such use (e.g. no  dogs on EVA/public trails: dogs must be on leash on roads and sidewalks;  public pedestrian and bicyclist access permitted only from dawn to  dusk).  The signs and their content are subject to the review and  approval of CDD.  Impact PS‐1 Continued As provided in Condition of Approval number 69, it is anticipated the  TDBCSD will own and maintain Open Space Parcel “C” which includes the  EVA/trails and seating at the end of the trail.  Through landscaping and  lighting district assessment (or other binding, permanent agreement      Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-50 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing approved by CDD) the future Pantages Bays residents shall pay for the  maintenance of the EVA/trail and seating end point for their use and  that of the public.  The right of public access to roads and sidewalks shall  confirm that it does not include public vehicular use (unless by invited  guest), and that dogs are permitted with the public and residents of  Pantages only if on leash.  Access to the EVA/trails, roadways and  waterways within Pantages Bays is also granted to public agencies such  as TDBCSD, RD 800, Fire District, Sheriff’s Office.   It is anticipated that these offers of dedication of public access for  pedestrian and bicyclists will be accepted on behalf of the public by the  County (and/or by another public agency approved by CDD). These  rights of public access and the right of enforcement by members of the  public and the County (or by another public agency) shall be confirmed  in the CC&R’s. ( Mitigation Measure PS‐1)  Public Utilities     Impact UTIL‐1:  Per the  requirements of Title 22  of the California  Waterworks Standards,  the Town of Discovery Bay  Community Services  District does not currently  have sufficient legal water  supply capacity to serve  the project.  Mitigation Measure UTIL‐1:  Prior to final map recordation, the  applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve  letter and verification from other governmental authorities, such as the  California Department of Public Health), demonstrating to the  satisfaction of CDD that the TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient  financing for the construction of any required improvements outlined in  the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project.   Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall  provide documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve  the project are constructed and operational. This shall be a deed  disclosure on each deed.  Project Applicant Prior to filing of  an application  Impact UTIL‐2: Town of  Discovery Bay Community  Services District does not  currently have sufficient  Mitigation Measure UTIL‐2:  Prior to final map recordation, the  applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve  letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CDD that the TDBCSD  has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any  Project Applicant Prior to filing of  an application  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-51 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing wastewater treatment  capacity to serve the  project.    capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP  and necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the  requirements of the RWQCB.    Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall  provide documentation to the CDD that said improvements needed to  serve the project are constructed and operational, and that any source  control measures are being implemented consistent with the  requirements of the RWQCB.  Impact CUM UTIL‐1: The  project, in combination  with other reasonably  foreseeable projects,  would have a considerable  contribution to long‐term  water supplies within the  project area.    Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL‐1: The project applicant shall implement  Mitigation Measure UTIL‐1.  Project Applicant Prior to final map  recordation  Impact CUM UTIL‐2: The  project, in combination  with other reasonably  foreseeable projects,  would have a considerable  contribution to long‐term  wastewater treatment  within the project area.    Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL‐2: The project applicant shall implement  Mitigation Measure UTIL‐2.  Project Applicant Prior to final map  recordation  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-52 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Transportation and Circulation  Impact TRA‐1:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the SR4/Byron Highway  (south intersection)  signalized intersection.  Mitigation Measure TRA‐1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding  a second northbound to westbound left‐turn lane from Byron Highway  onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane. This improvement is included  in the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB)  Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in  the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation  Program, although funding has not been identified. If this improvement  is not included in a County fee program or other funding program at the  time of project approvals, the project applicant shall be responsible for  their fair share of the improvement The project applicant shall pay the  required fee prior to the issuance of building permits.    Project Applicant Prior to the  issuance of  building permits  Impact TRA‐2:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions on  Vasco Road.  Mitigation Measure TRA ‐2: The project applicant shall pay regional  roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing  Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways.  Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA ‐2 would require the project  applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways  and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of  building permits.  Project Applicant Prior to  construction  Impact TRA‐3:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes on nearby  rural roads, and create  conflicts with the farm  equipment that share  these roads during the  peak summer months.  Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA ‐2 would require the  project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing  roadways and/or construct new facilities in the project area.    Project Applicant Prior to  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-53 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA‐1:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of Byer  Road/Byron Highway (No.  6).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Byer Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved  by installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane.  This  improvement is not identified in any funding program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be  required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road  Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of  building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to  intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative  conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program.   In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future  improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to  fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point  of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐5.  This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit  due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact  thereon.  If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time  of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards  the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund  #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.  This trust fund shall  fund improvements to intersections identified as operating  unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee  program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15, the project applicant would be  required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for this  improvement.  Project Applicant    Impact CUM TRA‐2:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐2 (Option 1): Mitigation of the  unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and  Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by  installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and  providing left‐turn pockets on all approaches.  Traffic turning left from  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-54 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing the unsignalized  intersections of Holway  Drive/Byron Highway (No.  7) and Camino Diablo  Road/Byron Highway (No.  23).  eastbound Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left  again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the  signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection.  This  mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent railroad crossing  west of the intersection to provide the required left turn pocket on the  eastbound approach.   This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County  Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The  project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-55 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA‐2  Continued  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐2 (Option 2): As an alternative to  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐2 (Option 1), mitigation of the  unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and  Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by  installing traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a  northbound left‐turn lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway  intersection.  Traffic would not be shifted under this mitigation, and a  left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the Camino Diablo  Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed.    A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified  in any funding program.  Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino  Diablo Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program.    If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the  time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share  towards the cost of these improvements to the County’s Road Trust  account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.  This  trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as  operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified  in a fee program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15, the project applicant  would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14 percent of  the total costs for this improvement.  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Impact CUM TRA‐3:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of Sellers  Avenue/Balfour Road (No.  9).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐3: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be  achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all  four intersection approaches.  This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County  AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project  applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOBAOB fee. Implementation  of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less‐than‐ significant.    Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-56 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA‐4:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of Point of  Timber Road/Byron  Highway (No. 12).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐4: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can  be achieved by installing a traffic signal.    This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County  AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project  applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Impact CUM TRA‐5:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of Point of  Timber Road/Bixler Road  (No. 13).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐5: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection can be  achieved by installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four  intersection approaches.  This improvement is not identified in any  funding program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be  required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs to  the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement  upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund  improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably  under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program.   In lieu of the cash contribution towards this future improvement, the  County finds that the best option is to require the applicant to fully fund  and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of  Timber/Bixler Road as described:  The Applicant shall install a traffic signal and add left‐turn lanes at all  four intersection approaches for mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road for CUM TRA‐5 per  Condition of Approval # 101.  If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time  of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-57 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund  #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.  This trust fund shall  fund improvements to intersections identified as operating  unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee  program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15, the project applicant would be  required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs for  this improvement.  Impact CUM TRA‐6:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of Point of  Marsh Creek Road/Sellers  Avenue (No. 16).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐6: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be  achieved by installing a traffic signal.    This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County  AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project  applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee.  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Impact CUM TRA‐7:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of Point of  Marsh Creek Road/Bixler  Road (No. 18).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐7: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection can be  achieved by installing a traffic signal.  This improvement is not identified  in any funding program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be  required to contribute between 10  percent and 11 percent of the total  costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this  improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall  fund improvements to intersections identified as operating  unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB  fee program.   In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future  improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to  fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point  of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐5.  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-58 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit  due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact  thereon.  If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time  of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards  the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund  #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.  This trust fund shall  fund improvements to intersections identified as operating  unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee  program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15, the project applicant would be  required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for  this improvement.  Impact CUM TRA‐8  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the signalized intersection  of SR4/Byron Highway  (south) (No. 19).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐8: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be  achieved by adding a second left‐turn lane on the Byron Highway  approach and a second through lane on the southeast‐bound SR4  approach.      Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Impact CUM TRA‐8  Continued  The second left‐turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement  is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update  project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital  Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not  been identified. The second through lane on the southeast‐bound SR4  approach is not identified in any funding program.   If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time  of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share  towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust  account (Fund #8192) The project applicant shall pay the required fee      Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-59 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund  improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably  under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As  indicated in Table 4.16‐17, the project applicant would be required to  contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this  improvement.  Impact CUM TRA‐9:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the unsignalized  intersection of  SR4/Newport Drive (No.  21).  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐9: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive intersection can be achieved by  installing a traffic signal.  This improvement is not identified in any  funding program.    As indicated in Table 4.16‐15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be  required to contribute between 4 percent and 6 percent of the total  costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this  improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall  fund improvements to intersections identified as operating  unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB  fee program.   In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future  improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to  fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point  of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐5.  This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit  due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact  thereon.  If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time  of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards  the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund  #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.  This trust fund shall  fund improvements to intersections identified as operating  unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-60 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing program.  As indicated in Table 4.16‐15, the project applicant would be  required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the total costs for  this improvement.  Impact CUM TRA‐10:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions at  the signalized intersection  of Camino Diablo  Road/Vasco Road (No.  22).    Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐10: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic  conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be  achieved by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is  included as one of several improvements at this intersection in the 2013  ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update  project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB  AOB fee.  Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Impact CUM TRA‐11:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions  along Vasco Road.  Mitigation Measure CUM TRA‐11: The project applicant shall pay  regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and  Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing  roadways.    Project Applicant During project  design and prior  to issuance of  building permits  Impact CUM TRA‐12:  Implementation of the  project would increase  traffic volumes and  worsen LOS conditions  along Marsh Creek Road.  Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA ‐2 would require the project  applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways  and/or construct new facilities in the project area.  However, as there  are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of  Marsh Creek Road, the impact would remain significant and  unavoidable.  Project Applicant Prior to  construction  Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-61 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Visual Resources and Aesthetics  Impact VIS‐1: The project  would create new sources  of light and glare which  could adversely affect day  or nighttime views in the  area.    Mitigation Measure VIS‐1:  The project applicant shall prepare a lighting  plan for the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.  Exterior  lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall  utilize motion detection systems where applicable.  In general, the light  footprint of individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of  each property.  Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all  buildings shall also comply with the standard California Building Code  (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral  spreading of light to surrounding uses.  Project Applicant and  Department of  Conservation and  Development  Prior to issuance  of grading or  building permits  Source: Circlepoint, 2013.      ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE11 22 PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 1" = 8 0 0 ' STA. POS T 9 0 D FM.PCL.09-250-015 1432.13 ND 1320 18 U.S . 4 ND R=42' 178.24 R=20 22.04 55 . 3 2 33 0 E 16 5 ' 250' 16 5 ' 23 21 .95Ac. 33 0 E CL25'R/W TO B.B.I.D. 430 D 207 1/30/23 CL25'R/W TO B.B.I.D. 430 D 182 1/30/23 CL33' R/W TO B.B.I.D. 430 D 192 1/30/23 N8 8 ^ 5 9 ' 2 7 " W 16 2 9 . 5 1 95 4 . 0 1 PO I N T OF TI M B E R RO A D 17 10 11 12 23 24 25 26 27 13 14 37 16 39 33 29 W ND 13 2 0 . 0 U.S. 5 ND N 2640 N01^01'09"E 25.46Ac U.S. 6 w 13 2 0 . 0 95 4 . 4 6 DESIGNATED REMAINDER 220 N01^01'44"E 655.73 655.73650.96 40 ' R / W 67 5 . 5 0 650.75 655.73 67 5 . 5 0 67 5 . 5 0 N8 8 ^ 5 9 ' 2 7 " W N8 8 ^ 5 8 ' 1 6 " W "A" 653.82 67 5 . 5 0 655.70 N8 8 ^ 5 8 ' 1 6 " W 655.732 BIXLER ROAD 19 29 33 2517 HI G H W A Y ST A T E HI G H W A Y BO R D E N 1.366Ac. N8 8 ^ 1 3 ' 5 0 " W 230' 27 8 ' 175 230 US POST OFF 3 DED TO Co. 1499.40 10' 3N0^1'47"E N8 9 ^ 1 6 ' 3 2 " W 13 2 2 . 6 5 405 "C" U.S. 8 5280 1494.25S0^1'37"W 1 3 1595.15185.66340.86370.89 80'R/W N8 9 ^ 5 7 ' 3 7 " E 18 7 7 . 9 5 "A""B""C" 10.88Ac 12 7 7 . 9 6 12 7 7 . 9 7 12 7 7 . 9 7 46.80Ac "D" U.S.A. T O W E R L I N E R / W P.G.& E . T O W E R L I N E R / W 870.91 340.86 340.86 25 0 18 0 50 ' 2 1375.51 30'R/W 12 7 8 13 2 3 . 8 2 "D" 45.47Ac N0^59'07"E 32.11 26 35 4 P B 4 176 PM 14 2- 1- 3- 9-20-72 11-30-90 12-30-98 21 2 "B""C""D" 2616.24 2 U.S. 7 60 ' R / W 13 2 0 . 0 E 2613.83 IRR I G A T I O N CAN A L 7.0Ac 35 TO PCL. 09-230-001 TR7686 MB418-26 03-23-00 N8 9 ^ 0 ' 5 3 " W 77 2 . 6 47 TR8456 MB446-43 08-29-02 31 303 3 1 NEWPORT DRIVE 22 3 . 1 8 18 4 . 3 6 186.16 156.34 30' Access Easement 38.82 10 5 4 . 7 9 N8 9 ^ 3 ' 1 0 " W N8 9 ^ 8 ' 9 " W 10 1 1 3629.32 10.0Ac 9.07Ac 39.848Ac 60 61 62 220 N-28 8/13/12 FM 115/23 4-8-99 POR SECS 26 & 35 T 1 N R 3 E MD&M 24 PM 19 149 PM 47 TR 8710 MB 485-01 10/27/05 20 21 04 40 4.21Ac 6.62Ac 10 4 3 . 6 3 59 1 . 3 0 45 2 . 3 3 45 2 . 6 5 39,40 14.84Ac 326.60Ac .926Ac 9.82Ac9.84Ac9.84Ac9.76Ac 57.29Ac 87 0 . 0 0 ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE11 23 06 07 08 41 A A A 30 0 20.0 33 4 . 7 7 N88^58'33"W 420.0 N88^57'59"W 34 4 . 2 4 53 5 . 0 N88^58'33"W N0 1 ^ 0 6 ' E 53 5 . 0 R=20 22.04 55.32 850.00 N0 1 ^ 0 1 ' 4 5 " E 11 2 0 . 0 2 S 30 0 19 9 . 9 8 1729.86 N65^ 0 5 ' W 1016 . 3 6 E S1 ^ 0 0 ' W 20 4 8 . 0 2 1320.0 S ND ND 13 2 0 . 0 ND W 64 3 . 5 0 NN57^ 5 2 ' E 66.0 S64^ 2 9 ' E 124. 0 8 N77^29 ' E 341.88 N3 2 ^ 5 8 ' W 19 9 . 9 8 N50 ^ 3 3 ' W 279 . 3 8 N89^00'W 203.50 N3 7 ^ 3 4 ' 3 0 " E N42 ^ 4 0 ' W N.D . ND S71^ 4 1 ' W 36.3 0 S19^12'E 27.72 S82^W 100.82 30 4 . 2 6 S1 4 ^ 1 8 ' W S3 0 ^ 4 7 ' E 11 1 . 5 4 S8 0 ^ 5 3 ' E 43 . 5 6 N8 8 ^ 4 3 ' E 41 . 5 8 579.5 1319. 3 4 T O T A L ND A 5.16Ac. 5.070Ac. 43.82Ac.40.16Ac. "A" POINT OF BI X L E R TIMBER ROAD R=42 178.24 ST A . P O S T 90 D CAN A L CA N A L CANA L CANAL SEE PAGE 27 SEE PAG E 2 8 SEE PAGE 37 RO A D SEE PAGE 27 MAIN CANAL CANAL U.S. 1 U.S . 3 U.S . 2 135PM37 149PM18 1- 2- 3- 10-13-81 9-15-88 11-01-90 9 PB 24 16 22 230 FM. 115/21 230 1"=400' 23 EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIG DIST PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 420 "E"24 "G" "Q" "J""I" "R" "D" "P" 48 42 33 25 "L" "M" 47 40 TR 8023 09-04-01 POR TR 8023A- 2002- "S" "N"34 .222Ac. .385Ac. 3.462Ac. 1.011Ac. .40Ac. A 41 TR 8429 09-07-01 WY GR A N D "A" MB 433-44 MB 433-32 A B- 2002-POR TR 8430 B C 42 TR 8430 MB 436-17 10-25-01 35 10.407Ac. LAKESHORE CIRCLE 37 PVT ST ESKLAHORE C I R CL E 43 TR 8428 MB 436-10 10-24-01 10-26-01 MB 436-22 TR 8431 44 CC C 38 "A" 10.62Ac. C- 2002-POR TR 8431 B B B B B B B MB 433-32 (LAKESHORE 1) MB 436-17 (LAKESHORE 4) MB 436-22 (LAKESHORE 5) 27 21 20 "A" "B" 45 TR 8432 MB 442-41 05-20-02 46 TR 8433 04-23-02 MB 442-6 LAKE & PUMP STA. .191Ac. 41.40109. 4 2 84. 2 7 50.78 7.40 R=184.04R=1 8 4 . 0 4 62.41 489. 3 6 R=51 4 . 8 7 R=29.68 39.64 R=444.84 33.26 R=25.32 41.22 10 1 . 1 6 R= 5 0 9 . 6 0 20 7 . 5 0 R= 3 4 3 . 4 2 R=17.23 17.04 R=44.95 92.026.56262.66 N86^46'19"W 323.12 N88^59'27"W 86 . 1 5 16 311.24 S87^23'39"E R=548 . 4 4 289.2 480 . 9 0 226.19 N89^34'20"W 24 4 . 5 4 N1 ^ 0 ' 2 7 " E 127.95 N74^34 ' 1 5 " W 585.33 N88^59'27"W 41. 7 9 17 3 . 2 3 R= 1 8 2 . 4 1 58.28 361.15 R=4 4 2 . 0 5 66 4 . 3 3 45.15 54 1 . 7 2 20 8 . 0 2 455.39 N85^17'38"W 77 . 0 7 10.34 61.8719.68 19 9 . 0 2 29.95 41.35 R= 6 4 . 7 6 88 . 2 6 20 70.07 42.44 11 3 . 6 0 77 . 0 7 10.34 R=64.99 44.72 19.68 68 . 5 6 21 6 . 8 1 N1 ^ 2 8 ' E 19.68 R=44.95 159.60 31.64 99 . 1 8 101.92 25.10 88.47 10 7 . 7 0 R=64.99N1 ^ 0 ' 3 3 " E 100.1 4 R=47 4 . 8 6 83 9 . 7 5 27 2 . 0 4 N4 ^ 5 9 ' 4 5 " E R= 7 5 3 . 7 3 R=64.99 R=64.99 19.68 TO PG 40 (OASIS DR.) 50' RDWY/UTILITY EASE. 45 46 80 .131Ac. .241Ac. 28.5 81.5 28.5 40.38 40.38 160.0 80 13 1 28.86 13 1 97PM50 51 55FM PG 27 FM PG 27 POR S 1/2 SEC 23 T1N R3E MDB&M 2.315Ac. 20.768Ac. 48 03/18/08 SM WA SH SM WA AC OS SH OS PR SM SM DR WA PS PR PR OS COSH DR PR PR ML DRPR SH OS SM PS OS ML OS OS ML PS OS PS SMPR PS PS WA SM WA Map Created 03/24/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Developm ent, GIS Group 30 M uir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,0 00 2,0 00500 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Pantages BaysGeneral PlanAmendment(GP19-0002) SM WA SH SM WA OS SH OS PR SM DR WA PS PR PR OS COSH DR PR PR ML AC DRPR SH OS SM OS PSML OS OS ML OS PS PR PS SM PR WA WA Current General Plan Proposed General Plan SITE SITE Project Site Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SM (Single Family - Medium) SH (Single Family - High) ML (Multiple Family - Low) CO (Com mercial) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) P-1 F-1 P-1, -UE A-3A-2 M-12 A-40 A-4A-3 A-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1P-1 P-1 P-1 F-1F-1 P-1, -UE P-1, -UEM-12 Map Created 03/23/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Developm ent, GIS Group 30 M uir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,0 00 2,0 00500 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Pantages BaysRezone(RZ19-3252) P-1 F-1 P-1, -UE A-3A-2 M-12 A-40 A-4 A-3 F-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1, -UE P-1, -UE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning SITE SITE Project Site Parcels Zoning M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) F-1 (Water Recreational) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) A-40 (Exclusive Agriculture) P-1 (Planned Unit) P-1 -UE (Urban Farm - Animal Exclusion Overlay) 0.6 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.6 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.280 1:18,056 Aerial Photograph Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, April 28, 2021 – 6:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Project Title: Pantages Residential Subdivision Project (277 Lots) County File(s): Applicant: Owners: Trevor Smith, Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC C&D Discovery Bay LLC and Waterfront Lots LLC General Plan/Zoning: General Plan: Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Water (WA), Open Space (OS), Public/Semi-Public (PS) Zoning: Planned Unit District (P-1), Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE) Site Address/Location of Point of Timber Road and bounded on the east and south by the original Discovery Bay community, to the west by Ravenswood and Lakeshore (Village II) in Discovery Bay West and to the north/northeast by waterways and undeveloped land. APNs: 004-010-006; 004-032-005, -006, -007, -062; 011-220- 010, -017, -018; 011-230-006, -007 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: An Addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the Project Planner: Jennifer Cruz, Principal Planner (925) 655-2867 Jennifer.Cruz@dcd.cccounty.us Staff Recommendation: Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 2 of 17 I. PROJECT SUMMARY The project includes a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. The project also includes a reconfiguration of the residential land uses to avoid impacts to the northern wetland complex and Kellogg Creek, reduction of residential lots from 292 (previously approved in 2013 and 2015) to 277, trail network, clubhouse area and flexible recreational area, and two internal lakes within the project site, and public roads. Approximately 23 trees will be removed and 41.55 inclusionary units will also be provided. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission: 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Pantages Residential Subdivision Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. FIND that the Addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2007-052130) was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the County Planning Commission before Project approval and reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. 3. CERTIFY the Addendum prepared for the Pantages Residential Subdivision Project. 4. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project. 5. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the County Planning Commission is based. 6. APPROVE the vesting tentative map for the Project (County File #CDSD19- 9527). 7. APPROVE the findings in support of the Project. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 3 of 17 8. APPROVE the Project conditions of approval. 9. APPROVE the Pantages Residential Subdivision Project. 10. RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: a. CERTIFY the Addendum to the Pantages EIR prepared for the Pantages Bay Residential Subdivision Project and take other related CEQA actions. b. APPROVE the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #CDGP19- 0002) to re-designate the project site to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). c. APPROVE the proposed Rezoning (County File #CDRZ19-3252) to Planned Unit District (P-1), Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE). d. APPROVE the Final Development Plan (County File #CDDP19-3024) along with the associated Tree Permit. e. APPROVE the Pantages Bay Residential Subdivision Project. f. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Conservation and Development to draft and execute the Pantages Subdivision Inclusionary Housing Developer Agreements pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements to form, and conditions of approval. g. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. III. BACKGROUND On December 3, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved and certified the Pantages EIR for the Pantages Project, which consisted of the following features; widening of Kellogg Creek with the creation of waterfront lots; 292 single-family homes (116 waterfront lots and 176 non-waterfront lots); construction of a Sheriffs' Marine Patrol Substation on the project site next to the water; creation of two open space areas; public trail from the project entrance through the open space area to the water's edge. A modification to the 2013 approval was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2015. The modifications included the same number of homes and the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 4 of 17 same design features. However, the new design provided an improved roadway circulation and waterfront layout, significantly improve the long-term durability of the shoring walls at the rear of the waterfront lots and significantly reduce the public trail development footprint through the Open Space area. The cement shoring wall would be replaced with sheet pile shoring wall. The roadway circulation would be improved through the addition of interior lots and the elimination of one of the bays. Some waterfront lots would be converted to internal lots. Although the total number of residential lots remained, the number of waterfront lots was reduced by 11 to 105 and the number of interior lots was increased by 11 to 187. An Addendum (2015 Addendum) to the Pantages EIR was prepared for the modified project and certified by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2015. The applicant has been working on obtaining state and federal regulatory permits but has encountered difficulties to secure the permits. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a project to subdivide the project site into 277 residential lots that is less impactful. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The project site has several General Plan land use designations, which includes Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Public/Semi-Public (PS). B. Zoning: The project site is located in a Planned Unit District (P-1), Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE). C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance: The Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) prepared an EIR certified on December 3, 2013. A previous Addendum was prepared and certified on October 6, 2015. An Addendum was also prepared for the proposed project. As stated in the attached Addendum to the Pantages EIR there are no substantial changes proposed by the revised project or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated in the Addendum, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 EIR and would have similar construction-related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines). Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 5 of 17 V. PROJECT SITE The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County approximately 16 miles west of Stockton, 4.5 miles southeast of Brentwood, and 19 miles north of Livermore. A straight, artificial channel of Kellogg Creek runs along the eastern edge of the property between the site and the Discovery Bay development to the east. The East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Dredger Cut, which connects to Kellogg Creek Slough runs adjacent to the northern property line. The approximately 161-acre project site is undeveloped except for a few dilapidated structures. The project site is located west of the original Discovery Bay subdivisions at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road. Most of the topography is almost completely flat except for shallow depressions that host seasonal wetlands, a relatively deep depression in the north that contains emergent marsh, and areas of disturbance. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the project site to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR), a rezoning of the property to a modified configuration of a Planned Unit District (P-1) and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE), a subdivision of the project site into 277 single-family residential lots and 18 Common Area Parcels, and a final development plan for the Pantages Residential Project. Approximately 23 trees will be removed for the project. The proposed project includes a reconfiguration of the residential land uses to avoid impacts to the northern wetland complex and Kellogg Creek, trail network, clubhouse area, two internal lakes within the project site, and public roads. The project would decrease the total footprint of the project improvements relative to the 2013 project. The total project acreage (161.5 acres) is smaller than the project approved in the 2013 and 2015 project (171.2 acres each). The key components are briefly described in Table 1 and in further detail below. Table 1 Project Components Project Feature 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Modified Project Bays and Coves Yes Yes No Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 6 of 17 Project Feature 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Modified Project Widening of Kellogg Creek Yes Yes No Deep Water Access Yes Yes No Internal Lakes No No Yes Clubhouse No Yes Yes Sheriff’s Patrol Substation Yes Yes No Number of Housing Units 292 292 277 Impervious Surface (acres) 17.4 18.4 13.4 Trail Length (linear feet) 3,840 3,200 5,200 Of the 277 units, a total of 41.55 units will be set aside as affordable, 15 percent of the project. Eighty percent of the 41 affordable units (33 total) would be affordable to Moderate income households and twenty percent of the 41 affordable units (8 total) would be affordable to low income households. An in-lieu fee will be paid for the remaining 0.55 units. Table 2 Net Acreage by Land Use Type Land Use Designation General Plan 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Project Modifications Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM) 42.3 46.3 42.3 0 Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH) 45.5 34.0 45.5 58.4 Water (WA) 37.6 46.8 37.6 25.0 Public/Semi-Public (PS) 2.6 0.9 2.6 0 Parks and Recreation (PR) 0 0 0 14.8 Open Space (OS) 43.2 43.2 43.2 63.3 Total Site Acreage 171.2 171.2 171.2 161.5 Residential Elements The project includes 277 single-family residential housing units. These units would not have deep water or waterfront access to Kellogg Creek, and would now include two lakes within the project site (Lake South and Lake North. The proposed lots range from 6,000 – 12,000 square feet. Lots on the northern portion of the project Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 7 of 17 site are generally 60’ wide by 100’ deep lots. Lots on the southern portion of the project site are generally 60’ wide by 110’ deep lots. Site access would have points of entry on Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. Roads and sidewalks within the residential portion of the project would create 13.4 acres of impervious surfaces. The 2013 and 2015 projects were approved for 292 residential units with deep water access for all waterfront units and would have had only one gated point of entry at Point of Timber Road. Trail Network The project includes two public trail systems providing 5,200 linear feet of walkways: an internal pedestrian trail adjacent to Lake South, and a multi-purpose trail around the site perimeter providing views of Kellogg Creek, adjacent wetlands, and Lake North. The internal pedestrian trail around Lake South would connect to Point of Timber Road and passive park areas throughout the project site. This trail would also provide maintenance and emergency access. The outer multi-purpose trail system would provide access to views of Kellogg Creek, viewing areas of Lake North, and of the wetland features on the northern portion of the project site. The 2013 project included public pedestrian and bicycle access to the open space areas via a 3,840-foot-long public trail/emergency vehicle access road to be constructed through the emergent marsh and proposed wetland mitigation/open space area. The 2015 project included 3,200 linear feet of pedestrian trail and eliminated the emergency vehicle access along the trail. Clubhouse The proposed project includes a clubhouse to provide residents with amenities such as exercise facilities, meeting rooms, and a viewing area of the wetlands and Kellogg Creek. The clubhouse would be located at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road adjacent to Kellogg Creek. This location would accommodate the clubhouse along with parking, guest parking, and active outdoor spaces to accommodate recreational uses. The 2015 project included a much smaller clubhouse and the 2013 project did not include a clubhouse project component. Internal Lakes The proposed project would include construction of two lakes within the project site, Lake South and Lake North. Lake South, approximately 23 acres in size, would be surrounded by residential units on three sides, along with open space paseos that will provide view corridors; and the northern edge of the lake will be adjacent to the extension of Point of Timber Road, providing views of the entire lake from Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 8 of 17 the trail and road. Lake South includes five bio-retention areas along its perimeter. Lake North would encompass approximately 7 acres and would be located in an upland area among the seasonal wetlands and emergent marsh in the northern part of the project site. The 2013 and 2015 projects did not include internal lakes. Impacts To Wetlands and Kellogg Creek The proposed project avoids or minimizes aquatic resources including wetland complexes and Kellogg Creek. The project would preserve on-site wetland features, would be set back from Kellogg Creek by approximately 70 feet, and would not increase in boat activity on the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta due to the elimination of bays and coves that would have provided deep water access. The 2013 project evaluated approximately 5.29 acres of wetland impacts and the 2015 project evaluated approximately 5.55 acres of wetland impacts. These previous projects also required dredging to create bays and coves, that would have resulted in 5,800-6,100 linear feet of impacts or impacts to a 10.75-acrea area along Kellogg Creek to facilitate deep water access. Grading As shown in 0 below, the cut and fill amounts required with the reconfigured site plan would not exceed the cut and fill amounts analyzed in the 2013 project. Dirt excavated from the internal lakes would be used to raise the overall site elevation to same levels approved with the 2013 project, which raised portions of the project site out of the 100-year floodplain. Cut material would be balanced on-site; however, there is a potential need to import fill material up to 90,000 cubic yards per year of fill material, if necessary. Haul trucks would access the project site from Highway 4, approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site, then proceed onto Bixler Road, and then turn right onto Point of Timber Road to enter the project site. Table 4 Grading Balance EIR Addendum Project Cut yards yards yards Fill yards 1,344,237 cubic yards yards Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 9 of 17 The proposed project would no longer require a shoring wall, as the project would be set back from Kellogg Creek. Furthermore, the use of any type of pile driving equipment is not anticipated to be needed. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division: In a memo dated December 5, 2019, the Division provided comments requiring County Geologist to review since the project is in an area within a liquefaction zone. B. Conservation and Development, Advance Planning: In a memo dated January 14, 2020, staff indicated that the project must demonstrate public benefits to justify the general plan amendment. C. Conservation and Development, Transportation Planning: In a memo dated December 20, 2019, staff provided comments requiring a traffic study, Class II bicycle lanes extension on Point of Timber Road within the project area, and vehicle and bicycle parking spaces should be provided for the clubhouse and the adjacent recreational space consistent with the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance. D. Conservation and Development, Housing Program: In a memo dated April 7, 2021, staff provided their conditions of approval. E. Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District: In a memo, dated December 6, 2019, the District provided comments on measures to prevent breeding, harboring, or maintaining vectors or other nuisances. F. Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD): In a memo dated December 6, 2019, the TDBCSD indicated no comments. G. Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO): In a memo dated December 11, 2019, LAFCO providing comments indicating that the project site is not within the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District’s sphere of influence (SOI) or service boundary. A SOI amendment and annexation will be needed if the project needs wastewater and/or water services. H. California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS): In a memo dated December 17, 2019, CHRIS provided comments indicating a record four studies Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 10 of 17 conducted covering approximately 80% of the project area, the project area containing an archaeological site, recommendation to contact Native American tribe, the project area containing a historic site, and the project area containing a building or structure 45 years or older. I. Public Works Department, Flood Control and Water Conservation District: In a memo dated February 3, 2020, the District provided comments on the proposed project related to grading, maintenance of interior lake, and including the maintenance of Kellogg Creek with the maintenance plan of the proposed interior lake. J. Contra Costa Health Services, Environmental Health Division: In a letter dated October 1, 2018, the Division provided their requirements for the proposed project. K. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: In a letter dated October 10, 2018, the Fire District provided their requirements for the proposed project. L. County Geologist: In a letter dated April 20, 2020, the County Geologist reviewed and provided recommendations on the proposed project. M. Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division: In a memo dated March 18, 2021, the Department provided their conditions of approval. No comments were received from the following agencies: Department of Conservation and Development, Grading Section; Public Works Department, Traffic Division, Byron Elementary, Liberty High School, Reclamation District #800, California Fish and Wildlife, Region 5 Water Quality Control Board, Irrigation District, Delta Protection Commission, Delta Stewardship Council, and the United States Army Corp. VIII. CEQA REVIEW As stated in the attached Addendum to the Pantages EIR there are no substantial changes proposed by the 277 residential unit subdivision project or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated in the Addendum, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 EIR and would Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 11 of 17 have similar construction-related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines). IX. STAFF ANALYSIS A. General Plan Consistency: The project site has several General Plan land use designations, which includes Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Public/Semi-Public (PS). The project includes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the project site to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). The project is consistent with the following general plan policies. 1. Maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Standard (Measure C-1990) General Plan Policy Consideration:  General Plan policy #3-p, Land Use Element – The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designations are SH, Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Public/Semi-Public (PS), OS, and WA. The proposed designations are SH, OS, WA, and PR. SH and SM are urban designations, while the rest are non-urban. The proposed GPA condenses and simplifies the land use plan, reducing the area dedicated to urban uses by 26.2 acres while expanding the OS acreage by 25 acres. The reduced acreage dedicated to urban uses is consistent with, and supports, the 65/35 Standard. 2. Potential Loss of Prime or Productive Agricultural Lands General Plan Policy Considerations: Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 12 of 17  General Plan policy #3-11, Land Use Element: “Urban uses shall be expanded only within the Urban Limit Line where conflicts with the agricultural economy will be minimal.”  General Plan policy #3-14, Land Use Element: “Protect prime productive agricultural land from inappropriate subdivisions.” In the previous approval the County determined that the project site was not useful for viable agricultural production and because of its proximity to existing residential development with Discovery Bay was appropriate for residential use. The proposed project to the General Plan designations does not change that conclusion. 3. Growth Management Standards Consideration The following growth management standards were met by the previously approved project. The proposed project still complies with these standards. General Plan Policy Considerations:  General Plan Policy #3-5, Land Use Element: “New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, provided growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with growth management.”  General Plan Policy #4-1, Growth Management Program Element: “New development shall not be approved in unincorporated areas unless the applicant can provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic level of service and performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3, or a funding mechanism has been established which will provide the infrastructure to meet the standards or as is stated in other portions of this Growth Management Element.” Traffic Level of Service As more fully described in the Transportation/Traffic section of the EIR, implementation of the project would increase traffic and worsen level of service standards at several intersections. However, the project shall pay its fair share of Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 13 of 17 the improvements necessary to not exceed the County’s traffic level of service standards in the General Plan (standards as detailed in the Growth Management Element and Transportation/Circulation Element). Furthermore, the current project would result in slightly reduced transportation and traffic impacts due to the reduced amount of daily vehicle trips introduced by the project. Other Growth Management Standards In regard to the other Growth Management standards, the project’s impact on public services was evaluated in the EIR. As noted in the EIR, the project would lead to the construction of 277 single-family residences with a projected population increase of approximately 831 people within the Discovery Bay community less than the amount projected for the previous modified project. The anticipated number of residents would have a minor impact on the public services. The analysis in the EIR provides sufficient information to determine that the project as proposed can meet the public services performance standards contained in both the Growth Management and Public Facilities/Service elements to the General Plan. The public entities, which are expected to serve the key public services to the project site, include: Water – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (after annexation) Sewer – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (after annexation) Schools – Byron Union School District and Liberty Union School District Regional Recreation – East Bay Regional Park District Local Parks – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District Fire – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Police – Contra Costa Sheriff’s Department. The project is also consistent with the following Housing Goal and Policy of the County’s Housing Element.  GOAL 1: Maintain and improve the quality of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods in Contra Costa County. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 14 of 17  GOAL 3: Increase the supply of housing with a priority on the development of affordable housing, including housing affordable to extremely-low income households.  Policy 3.1: Support the development of additional affordable housing by non-profit and for-profit developers through financial assistance and/or regulatory incentives such as density bonus or flexible development standards through planned unit development.  Policy 3.3: Increase the supply of affordable housing and encourage the development of mixed-income housing through the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.  GOAL 6: Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the County’s share of regional housing needs. A 292 residential unit project was previously approved for the project site in 2013 and 2015. However, obtaining state and federal regulatory permits became difficult for the applicant. The current project proposes 277 residential units and now includes 41.55 inclusionary units, which includes 33 moderate income units and eight (8) lower income units. Overall, the project would be consistent with the residential character of the surrounding area and contribute towards the regional housing need for the County and provide needed housing units for the region. B. Zoning Compliance: The project site is currently zoned Planned Unit District (P- 1) and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE). The project involves a modified configuration of the Planned Unit District (P-1), Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE) boundaries. The P-1 zoning district allows flexibility with respect to use, building types, lot size, and open space, while ensuring the project complies with the County’s General Plan and requirements of the County’s Ordinance. The design standards are identified in Condition #73 and requires a variation in design of the new residences subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Division. Furthermore, additional design standards are included in Condition #73 related to the lots that would be adjacent to the Ravenswood subdivision to the west. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 15 of 17 The 2013 project and 2015 modified project were approved to allow rezoning of the project sit to P-1. The current project involves less residential units than what was previously approved but will remain consistent with the established neighborhood providing additional housing stock to the area. C. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications that will create and/or redevelop impervious surface area exceeding 10,000 square feet in compliance with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The applicant has provided a preliminary SWCP and site exhibit. Site drainage will be routed to IMPs situated around Lake South prior to discharging into the lake. Provision C.10, Trash Load Reduction, of the County’s NPDES permits requires control of trash in local waterways. To prevent or remove trash loads from municipal storm drain systems, trash capture devices shall be installed in catch basins (excludes those located within a bioretention/stormwater treatment facility). Devices and location must meet the County’s NPDES permits and approved by Public Works Department. D. Drainage: Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm water to an adequate natural watercourse. The vesting tentative map includes the proposed drainage infrastructure and layout designed to County standards. The proposed drainage infrastructure includes storm drain lines, inlets/catch basins, pump stations, an interior lake (Lake South), and a secondary lake with an overflow spillway located in a marsh to the north (Lake North). The hydrology and hydraulic report submitted analyzes the 10-year and 100-year storm events for the on-site stormwater collection system and the water surface elevation (WSE) of Lake South. Based on the analysis, the on-site drainage and lake appear adequate. The vesting tentative map notes storm drain easements (SDE) over parcels B, D, E, F, G, H, W, and S (Lakes and Open Spaces) to County. The County will not take Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 16 of 17 the maintenance responsibility of these areas as they pertain to the private lakes and pump systems. Either a CSD or the Pantages HOA or other maintenance entity shall, as a condition of approval, maintain the proposed private lakes and pump systems in perpetuity. As the lakes provide no regional drainage benefit and will be constructed for the purpose of fill material for the subdivision, neither Contra Costa County nor the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District will be responsible for the maintenance of the private lakes. The adjacent Lakeshores subdivision formed an HOA and CC&Rs for the maintenance of the interior lakes constructed with that development. In addition, the drainage line connecting Lake North and Lake South shall be privately maintained by a CSD or the Pantages HOA. A private Maintenance or Storm Drain Easement, to be transferred to the maintenance entity upon its formation, with the County to maintain said line within the future County right-of-way should be reserved. The easement, as approved by Public Works, will allow the maintenance entity access to its drainage infrastructure between Lake South and Lake North. E. Traffic and Circulation: The project site is located at the terminus of Point of Timber Road, a publicly maintained road, and Wilde Drive, a maintained road stubbed to the property from the adjacent Ravenswood subdivision. Main access will be from Point of Timber with secondary access from Wilde Drive. All on-site streets shall meet Public Works standards as to width, alignment and pavement structural section for public roadways. Interior trails, if intended to serve as emergency access, should be designed to these same vehicular standards as well. The previous subdivision was granted a reduction to the vertical gradient standards for a minimum curb grade of 0.75%. The applicant has requested the same allowance for a reduced minimum curb grade of 0.75% under this project. Thus, the Public Works Department authorizes the reduction of the minimum uniform grade of 0.75% pursuant to the County’s Ordinance Chapter 98-6.004. F. Trees: Approximately 23 trees will be removed for the project (previously 80 trees were proposed for removal). A condition of approval (COA) #17 requires replanting of trees as follows: 3:1 in kind replacement or replacement by native trees for non-native trees removed, or 6:1 for other native tree species that are planted to replace the two walnut trees. G. Lighting District Annexation: The project site should be annexed into the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for the Countywide Street Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 17 of 17 Light Financing. X. CONCLUSION The proposed project is consistent with applicable goal and policies of the General Plan and also with the intent of the SH, OS, WA, PR General Plan designations and the P-1 Zoning district and the project has less impacts compared to the previously approved project. Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission approve the Vesting Tentative Map and recommend approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, rezoning, and final development to the Board of Supervisors, based on the attached findings and conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Findings 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Ordinance Map 4. Maps (Parcel Pages, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial Photograph) 5. Addendum 6. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 7. Agency Comments 8. Plans and Design Standards 9. Powerpoint Presentation PROJECT FINDINGS FOR TREVOR SMITH, PANTAGES AT DISCOVERY BAY LLC (APPLICANT) AND C&D DISCOVERY BAY LLC AND WATERFRONT LOTS LLC (OWNERS): COUNTY FILES: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19- 3024 A. CEQA FINDINGS 1. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an addendum to an earlier EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified document, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: A) The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. B) The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. C) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was approved, shows any of the following.  The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 2 of 14 significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:  any conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR; or  only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. PROJECT AND EIR FINDINGS Certification of Addendum The Commission finds that the Addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum prior to approving the project; and the Addendum reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. Impact Conclusions and Mitigation Measures There are no substantial changes proposed by the project or in the circumstances in which the project would be undertaken that require major revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 Pantages EIR and would have similar construction-related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines), but at a reduced scale. Most mitigation measures from the 2013 Pantages EIR would remain in effect and would continue to mitigate the project. The project and changes in best practices 2013 resulted in updated mitigation measures for Biological Resources (Section 2.4) and Transportation and Traffic (Section 2.15). Additionally, the project has reduced or eliminated certain impacts, such that mitigation is no longer required. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR (Section 15162, subdivision (b)(3), State CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project does not require major revisions to the Pantages Bays Project EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the project have Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 3 of 14 occurred since certification of the EIR. The previous analysis completed for the project remains adequate under CEQA. However, the project Applicant will remain obligated to comply with all applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained within the 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum, unless appropriately added, modified, or removed to reflect the environmental review in this addendum. The Mitigation, Monitoring Reporting Program [MMRP] is is hereby adopted by the Commission, and is incorporated into these findings. The mitigation measures will feasibly reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels, and will reduce some less-than-significant impacts as well. In adopting these mitigation measures, the Commission intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified by the EIR. The various documents and other materials constitute the record upon which the Commission bases these findings and the approvals contained herein. These findings cite specific pieces of evidence, but none of the Commission’s findings are based solely on those pieces of evidence. These findings are adopted based upon the entire record, and the Commission intends to rely upon all supporting evidence in the record for each of its findings. The location and custodian of the documents and materials that comprise the record is Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, 94553, telephone (925) 655-2705. B. General Plan Amendment 1. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment will not violate the County Urban Limit Line. Project Finding: No change to the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) is proposed. No extension of urban services beyond the ULL is proposed. The subject site is located entirely within the ULL, and therefore may be designated for “urban” or “non-urban” development, as defined in the 2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan. The proposed land use designations, Single-Family Residential- High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Water (WA) are all allowed. 2. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) will not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (the “65/35 Standard”), Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 4 of 14 established by county voters through adoption of Measure C-1990 and reaffirmed through adoption of Measure L-2006. Under the 65/35 Standard, no more than 35 percent of the land in the county may be designated for development with urban uses and at least 65 percent of the land must be designated for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, etc. The subject site’s existing land use designations are SH, Single-Family Residential- Medium Density (SM), Public/Semi-Public (PS), OS, and WA. The proposed designations are SH, OS, WA, and PR. SH and SM are urban designations, while the rest are non-urban. The proposed GPA condenses and simplifies the land use plan, reducing the area dedicated to urban uses by 26.2 acres while expanding the OS acreage by 25 acres. The reduced acreage dedicated to urban uses is consistent with, and supports, the 65/35 Standard. 3. Required Finding: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program. Project Finding: The current iteration of the Contra Costa County Growth Management Program was established by county voters through adoption of Measure J-2004. The project complies with the objectives and requirements of the Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. 4. Required Finding: Following adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the General Plan will remain internally consistent, as required under Government Code Section 65300.5. Project Finding: The County General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies governing land use in the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed GPA affects only the Land Use Element Map and involves reorganizing the land use plan for a previously approved project. The development footprint would shrink, and the unit count would decrease from 292 single-family homes to 277. Open space would increase by 25 acres and there would be less overall disturbance to the natural environmental when compared to the previous plan. The proposed change is consistent and compatible with the General Plan’s policies for the Discovery Bay area as well as the overarching goals and policies of the General Plan related to land use, growth management, transportation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety. In no way does amending the project’s land use plan interfere with the County’s ability to otherwise implement the General Plan. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 5 of 14 Adoption of the proposed GPA will not result in an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. 5. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, as required under Government Code Section 65358(a). Project Finding: Adoption of the proposed GPA is in the public interest. The Bay Area suffers from a severe housing shortage. The previous plan for 292 single-family homes was unable to obtain approval from various State and federal agencies because of certain environmental impacts that would occur. The proposed plan for 277 single-family homes avoids many of those impacts and has a higher likelihood of being constructed, thus adding to the housing stock and helping to alleviate the housing shortage. The project includes the following additional components that also are in the public interest: • It provides 41.55 inclusionary housing units, which includes construction of 8 Lower Income Housing Units and 33 Moderate Income Housing Units, and payment of an in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional unit (0.55 unit). The previous approval did not include affordable units. • It preserves all onsite wetland resources, including 19.77 acres associated with the emergent marsh and seasonal wetlands in the area north of the residential development. • It provides public pedestrian access in proximity to the onsite wetlands and Kellogg Creek by way of 5,200 linear feet of new trails meandering through new parks near the wetlands and along the preserved Kellogg Creek. The trails will accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist use on an approximately 10-foot wide, all-weather compacted crushed granite surface that will double as emergency vehicle access. The wetland, park, and trail experiences will be enhanced with educational signage that documents and discusses the types of plant and animal species inhabiting the environmental resource areas. • It provides supplemental funding to support park maintenance in the Discovery Bay area. 6. Required Finding: Adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment would not exceed the limit on such amendments specified under Government Code Section 65358(b). Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 6 of 14 Project Finding: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed GPA affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and is the first amendment to such element for 2021. C. Growth Management Findings 1. Traffic: The property site is located at the terminus of Point of Timber Road, a publicly maintained road, and Wilde Drive, a maintained road stubbed to the property from the adjacent Ravenswood subdivision. The main access to the project site will be from Point of Timber with secondary access from Wilde Drive. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in 2013 and identified several streets and intersections in the region that will be directly or cumulatively impacted by this development. The mitigation measures per the EIR include construction or participation in the funding of these improvements either directly or through payment of fees to established regional area of benefit fee accounts or, in the absence thereof, County managed roadway deficiency trust accounts. Below is a summary of the impacts. • Under the Existing Plus Project conditions, the addition of project traffic is not projected to cause any significant impacts. Under Cumulative conditions, the addition of Project traffic is projected to cause potentially significant impacts at 11 intersections and significant and unavoidable at two roadway sections (Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road). • Holoway Drive/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Balfour Road/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 7 of 14 conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from acceptable LOS D to LOS E, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS B to unacceptable LOS D, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • State Route 4/Byron Highway (south intersection) – Based on the HCM method, this signalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Based on the CCTALOS method, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative conditions and LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the AM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase delay by less than five seconds, but would increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is considered a potentially significant impact. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 8 of 14 • State Route 4/Newport Drive – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road – Based on the HCM method, this signalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Based on the CCTALOS method, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The addition of project trips would increase delay by more than five seconds and increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway – This unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would increase intersection delay by more than five seconds during the PM peak hour, which is considered a potentially significant impact. • All 11 of these impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigations. • Service along Vasco Road, south of Camino Diablo would not meet the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority’s Multimodal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO) target LOS D in either the northbound or southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hour under either cumulative condition. Service along Marsh Creek Road, west of SR4, would not meet the MTSO target LOS D in either the eastbound or westbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour under either cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the LOS along both these two roadway segments. And, even though the project will pay its fair share of regional roadway fees, since there is no plan to provide additional capacity on this roadway section, the impacts to these two road segments would remain significant and unavoidable, and required adoption of a Statement of Overriding Conditions, which was previously prepared and adopted for the 2013 EIR. 2. Water: Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 9 of 14 Water would be supplied to the project by the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD). The TDBCSD prepared a Water Master Plan (Water MP) in January of 2012, that identifies projected growth, including the Pantages Bays Project, through 2020, and the water supply and service improvements required to serve them. The improvements and programs in the Water MP would be implemented through a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded by financial mechanisms approved by the TDBCSD. The Pantages Bays Project would be required to pay its fair share towards the improvements identified in the Water MP. To assure that the development does not outpace infrastructure the applicant is required to submit a Can & Will Serve letter from TDBCSD to the County prior to filing of the Final Map (Condition of Approval #49). Also, prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD that the necessary improvements to serve the project are constructed and operational (Condition of Approval #49). The Project requires approval from LAFCO for sphere of influence amendments and corresponding annexation into the TDBCSD service for water services. 3. Sanitary Sewer: Wastewater collection and treatment services would be provided to the project by the TDBCSD. The Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant is undergoing a phased expansion to provide adequate service and capacity to both existing and proposed developments in the Town of Discovery Bay. The TDBCSD has prepared a Wastewater Master Plan (Wastewater MP) in October, 2011, that identifies projected growth, including the Pantages Bays Project. Similar to the Water MP, the Wastewater MP includes recommended improvements to meet the District’s projected wastewater demands through 2020. The improvements would be implemented through a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funded by financial mechanisms approved by the TDBSCD. The plan would include new capacity fee to charge new development for its fair share of wastewater treatment upgrades that are necessary to serve both the existing community and new development. The Pantages Bays Project would be required to pay their fair share towards the improvements identified in the Wastewater MP CIP. To assure that the development does not outpace infrastructure the applicant is required to submit a Can & Will Serve letter from TDBCSD to the County prior to filing of the Final Map (Condition of Approval #49). Also, prior Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 10 of 14 to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD that the necessary improvements to serve the project are constructed and operational (Condition of Approval #49). The Project would require approval from LAFCO for sphere of influence amendments and corresponding annexation into the TDBCSD service boundary for sewer services. 4. Fire Protection: According to County General Plan, Fire Protection Policies, the Fire Department shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the nearest fire station, and new development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. The Project is within 0.5 miles of Fire Station 59 at 1801 Bixler Road and the project will pay its fair share of fire protection services. In addition, all of the proposed homes will be sprinklered. 5. Public Protection: Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Delta Station of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, located at 220 O’Hara Avenue within the City of Oakley. The Delta Station provides police services to the following three areas (Lt. M. Burton 2010-Pantages Bays DEIR, June 2012): • Beat 31: Unincorporated areas of Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley • Beat 32: Discovery Bay • Beat 33: Bethel Island, Knightsen and Byron The applicant is conditioned to establish a police services district prior to recording of the Final Map which augments police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. That requirement is typical for new residential development in unincorporated areas of the County. 6. Parks and Recreation: The County General Plan Growth Management Element requires new development to provide 3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000 people. Pursuant to the County’s dedication requirements. The project would increase Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 11 of 14 the amount of land designated for open space, and parks and recreational land uses by 63.3 and 14.8 additional acres, respectively, compared to the project evaluated in the Pantages 2013 Pantages EIR. Additionally, the applicant will be paying a park impact fee of $ 6,616 per dwelling unit and dedication fee of 3,142 per dwelling unit. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The County Floodplain ordinance requires that a Floodplain Permit be obtained for all planned improvements on lands subject to inundation by the 100-year flood. As noted above, the project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps and therefore is required to comply with the County Floodplain Ordinance. Flood control design for this Project will be based on the 100-year base flood event assuming State projections for sea level rise by 2100. D. Rezoning Findings 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the general plan. Project Finding: The site is currently zoned P-1, Planned Unit Development that was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 3, 2013 and subsequently on October 6, 2015. The Project modifies the configuration of the previously approved development that reduces the number of residential units from 292 to 277 that necessitates the modification of the boundaries of the P-1 zoning. The new configuration will be consistent with the new General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent district. Project Finding: The Project is a residential P-1 Planned Unit Development compatible with and substantially based generally on the standards contained under the R-6 residential zoning district, and it includes open space areas with recreational public trail uses. The Project is consistent with the adjacent residential developments to the west, east and south which are single-family Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 12 of 14 residential neighborhoods of comparable residential densities and are zoned P- 1 as well. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: The Project use will provide new housing that assist in meeting the housing supply needs identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project will provide 41.55 inclusionary housing units. E. Tentative Map Findings 1. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general plan required by law. Project Finding: The Project will provide 277 residential units, and common and open space areas. The Project is consistent with the new General Plan land use designations of Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR) for the project site. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the respective Goals and Policies of the County’s General Plan. 2. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The Project will comply with the collect and convey regulations, storm drainage facilities, and design standards for private roads. Additionally, compliance with the California Building Code and all applicable County Ordinances is required for grading of the property and construction of residential buildings. F. Findings of Approval of P-1 Zoning District and Final Development Plan 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 13 of 14 Project Finding: The applicant has indicated that they intend to commence construction within 2 ½ years off the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Project Finding: The project includes a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the project site to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR). The project provides 277 residential units and common areas, including open space areas with two public trail systems. Overall, the project is consistent with these new land use designations and the respective Goals and Policies of the County’s General Plan. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: The surrounding area consists of residences and the project to provide 277 residential units is consistent with the area. Residences will consist of one or two-story elements and have setbacks similar to the surrounding properties in the area. The design of the residences will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Overall, the project is similar to the single-family development established in the surrounding area and the previous residential project approved for the project site. 4. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Project Finding: The previous 292 residential development approved for the site included a Final Development Plan to establish a P-1. The project was not developed due to regulatory permitting difficulties. The project is to allow 277 residential units that is consistent with the surrounding area. G. Tree Permit Findings Required Finding: The County Planning Commission is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied: Pantages Subdivision Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 14 of 14 1. Reasonable development of the property will require the removal of 23 trees will be necessary to construct the project. Replanting of trees is required, including a restitution for the replanted trees. All feasible efforts have been made to retain the maximum number of trees, as well as, to preserve those trees, which are exceptional due to their visual prominence on the site. 2. Development of this project cannot be reasonably accommodated on other parts of the property due to the size of the project site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREVOR SMITH, PANTAGES AT DISCOVERY BAY LLC (APPLICANT) AND C&D DISCOVERY BAY LLC AND WATERFRONT LOTS LLC (OWNERS): COUNTY FILES: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19- 3024 Project Approval 1. This approval is based on the exhibits/reports/letters received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) and/or referenced in the Pantages Bays Addendum dated December 2020 and November 2014, the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report dated July 2013 or the Conditions of Approval below, including the following: A. Vesting Tentative Map received on February 25, 2020 and 2020 Pantages Design Standards received on November 6, 2020. B. Tree Reports: HortScience October 2006 & August 2007. C. Biology: Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages, Gibson & Skordal 2006 / Evaluation of potential California red-legged frog, Miriam Green Associates 2010. / Evaluation of giant garter snake, Miriam Green Associates 2010. / Results of special-status species, Miriam Green Associates 2003. / Response to CDFG Comments, Miriam Green Associates August 31, 2012. / Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods [fairy shrimp] Wet Season Survey Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC May 2003. / Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Pantages Property, EcoAnalysts, Inc. August 4, 2003. / Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report, Stillwater Sciences May 2007. / Bank Habitat Plan, Sheet 7 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October 2009. / Modified Table 8 Quantity (feet) and quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June 2010. / Modified Table 9 Quantity (feet) and quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June 2010. / Response to CDFG Comments, Stillwater Sciences September 26, 2012. / Zetner Planning and Ecology prepared a Biological Resources Technical Report dated August 2020. / Impacts to federally protected reptiles and amphibians were analyzed in a separate memorandum prepared by Eric C. Hansen dated June 11, 2020. D. Geology: Engeo, updated geotechnical report 2014, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO 1999. / Geotechnical Exploration Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 2 of 58 Pantages, ENGEO June 23, 2004. / Geotechnical Exploration Pantages Bays ENGEO September 22, 2006 (revised October 27, 2006). / Summary of Potential Settlement, ENGEO 2011. / Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO January 26, 2005. / Updated Engeo Geotechnical Report dated February 13, 2020. E. Hydrology: Stormwater Control Plan C.3 Report prepared by MacKay & Somps dated February 24, 2020. / Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Memorandum prepared by MacKay & Somps dated February 24, 2020. F. Wetlands Delineation Plan Sheet 10 of 13 on Pantages Bays Plans Modified September 2014. / Jurisdictional Delineation Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC December 2002 and verified by Army Corp letter dated June 4, 2003. / Supplemental Delineation Request-Pantages Project, Gibson & Skordal, LLC October 11, 2006. / Army Corps letter dated January 7, 2009, verifying Jurisdictional Delineation Map Pantages Properties May 2008. 2. This subdivision is approved contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors actions; A. Approval of the proposed modified General Plan amendment from SH, SM, PS, OS and WA to a modified configuration of those same land use designations with the deletion of PS and SM and the addition of PR (County File #GP19-0002). B. Approval of the proposed modified Rezoning from P-1, UE to a modified configuration of that same zoning designation (County File #RZ19-3252) If either, the general plan amendment or the rezoning application is not approved, then this approval shall be null and void. 3. This approval allows for a maximum of 277 residential lots. Application Fees 4. The applications submitted were subject to an initial deposit of $8,500 for the General Plan Amendment, $32,635 for the rezoning, $35,928 for the subdivision, and $3,000 for the final development plan. The applications are subject to time Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 3 of 58 and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to an application for a grading or building permit, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2019/553, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the Department of Conservation and Development may seek a court judgement against the applicant and will charge interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of judgement. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. Indemnification 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, of annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Compliance Report 6. At least 45 days prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) for review and approval. The report shall identify all conditions of approval that are administered by the CDD. The report shall document the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all relevant conditions. Copies of the permit conditions may be obtained from the CDD. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable conditions of this report prior to filing the Final Map. Project Phasing / Filing of Multiple Subdivision Maps 7. The filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps must conform with Sections 66456.1 & 66463.1 of the Subdivision Map Act and is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Division and the Public Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 4 of 58 Works Department. Contra Costa County has the authority to impose reasonable conditions relating to the filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps, and the conditions of approval for this subdivision permit shall apply to each subdivision phase. If multiple subdivision maps will be filed, the conditions of approval for this permit must be satisfied for each phase prior to recordation of individual maps, and a separate compliance review application will be required for each subdivision phase to determine the status of the conditions of approval for that phase. Child Care 8. Prior to the issuance of building permit for a new residence, the developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Impact Fee 9. Prior to submittal of a building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay the applicable park impact fee as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Dedication Fee 10. Prior to submittal of a building permit for a new residence, the applicant shall pay the applicable park dedication fee as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services District 11. Election for Establishment of a Police Services District to Augment Police Services: Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 5 of 58 Mitigation Measures The following conditions are the mitigation measures identified in EIR and subsequent Addendum. Some of the mitigation measures are no longer needed because of the project and therefore, have been deleted from the conditions of approval. Air Quality 12. Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such use. That prohibition includes outdoor wood burning fireplaces, ovens or similar wood burning features. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1) 13. To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated with grading and new construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures for all phases of construction:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 6 of 58  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the on-site complaint and enforcement manager (COA#44) regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2a) 14. To reduce health risks from TACs during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project:  Minimize the idling time of diesel-p o we r e d construction equipment to two minutes;  Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing emissions includes the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment projects, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available;  Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM; and  Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB's more recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines . (Mitigation Measure AQ-2b) Biology Special-Status Plants 15. Prior to site disturbance a pre-construction survey for the Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the plant's blooming period (June to October). The survey shall be conducted in the area of the project site south of Point of Timber Road. If Delta button celery is not found, no further mitigation is needed. If Delta button celery is found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including monitoring Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 7 of 58 and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts on Delta button celery. The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation Measure BIO-A) 16. Prior to site disturbance pre-construction special-status plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall occur during the season that provides an adequate opportunity to identify occurrences of any special-status plants. If no special-status plants are found, no further mitigation is needed. If a special-status plant or plants are found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts to the identified special-status plant. The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation Measure BIO-A) Landscape Trees 17. To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 23 trees on the project site, the project includes landscaping with approximately 1,019 trees that would be planted along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the proposed landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio following mitigation ratios shall be followed subject to the approval or modification of the Department of Conservation and Development: a 3:1 in kind replacement or replacement by native trees for non-native trees removed, or 6:1 for other native tree species that are planted to replace the two walnut trees. The Applicant comply with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD): • Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. Proposed trees to be replanted on the residential lots shall be identified on the final landscape plan. • Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size. • Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize landscape maintenance cost. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 8 of 58 • Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance Requirements: The plan shall comply with the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape (or with the County Ordinance if one is adopted) and with the Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to intersections with public roads. The landscape architect shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards and reporting requirements. • To assure the long-term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of landscaping. Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the CDD. Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall submit a letter to CDD that the landscaping is in good health. (Mitigation Measure BI0-1) 18. The trees identified on the final landscape plan as trees to be planted on a residential lot shall be planted prior to final inspection for each lot. 19. Tree removal shall occur only with an approved grading or building permit. Western pond turtle 20. The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the project construction areas. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-status species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 9 of 58 habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Within 5 days of initiating construction activities, a qualified biologist (knowledgeable and experienced in western pond turtle identification) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all areas in these locations that will or could be impacted by construction activities. Any western pond turtles or eggs observed within the construction zone shall be allowed to leave the area on their own accord or they shall be relocated by the qualified biologist to a suitable area outside of the construction zone. A survey report detailing the survey results shall be prepared and submitted to the biological permitting agencies prior to the start of construction. After the preconstruction survey and prior to construction activities, an exclusion fence shall be placed between the development and the bank habitat and the emergent marsh habitat such that a western pond turtle could not move from these habitats into the development area. A qualified biologist shall be present during trenching activities associated with the exclusion fence installation. The exclusion fencing will be standard silt fencing, approximately 42 inches in height that will be trenched 6 inches into the soil. The soil will then be compacted against both sides of the fence to prevent wildlife from gaining access underneath. The stakes will be placed on the inside of the fence facing the development. No gaps or holes are permitted in the fencing system, except for pedestrian and vehicle entry points. The entry/exit points may be constructed in the fencing system for equipment and personnel, but the qualified biologist must ensure no wildlife is capable of entering the fenced off site via the gate. The gate structure must be flush to the ground with no holes or gaps (i.e., plywood gates with silt fencing flaps). The fence will be inspected occasionally by a qualified biologist for holes, gaps, or access points, which shall be repaired upon discovery. The area inside the fence will also be inspected for trapped wildlife prior to the initiation of construction each day. If wildlife is discovered, the fence shall be opened and monitored until the wildlife has left the fenced area on its own accord and no work shall occur Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 10 of 58 during this period. If the wildlife does not leave on its own accord, CDFW will be contacted before work may continue. (Mitigation Measure BIO-6) Tree nesting birds/raptors 21. If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28). In an abundance of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of the tree to be removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no birds are nesting. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those trees slated for removal. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest tree. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If construction related work would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season for raptors or other bird species listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (typically February 1 through September 15), a pre-construction survey of the project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region) within 7 days prior to the commencement of construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 11 of 58 The intent of the survey shall be to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the construction zone within approximately 250 feet. The surveys shall be timed such that the last survey is concluded no more than one week prior to initiation of construction. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional pre-construction survey shall be conducted such that no more than one week will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly or indirectly affected by the project, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones (generally 250 for raptors and 50 for passerines) and types of construction activities restricted within them should be determined through consultation with the CDFW depending on the species, taking into account factors such as the following: g. Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; h. Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and i. Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds. The buffer zone around an active nest shall be established in the field with orange construction fencing or another appropriate barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas of special-status bird species to ensure that no impacts on these nests occur. (Mitigation Measure BIO-8) Swainson's hawk 22. To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios: iv. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat2 (this is a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization. An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 12 of 58 v. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The loss of potential foraging hawk habitat shall be mitigated in consultation with the CDFW following the recommendations provided below. The CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that projects within 1 mile of an active nest provide: • One acre of Habitat Management (HM) land (at least 10 percent of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90 percent of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or • One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on-the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). Prior to site disturbance tTo ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting Swainson’s hawk, preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted no more than on month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied in conformance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000). If an active nest is found on or adjacent to within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994) and/or in consultation with the CDFW. If Swainson’s hawk are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site. The Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 13 of 58 size of this nondisturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified raptor biologist in the field and in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be based upon the location of the nesting tree, the bird’s tolerance of noise, and the type of other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations). Once the young have fledged from the nest, the buffer can be removed, and all project activities can commence. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest buffer could be vacated. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). (Mitigation Measure BIO-9) Western burrowing owl 23. Any necessary resource agency permits related to western burrowing owl shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to ground disturbance activities. Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012. Below we provide a summary of the survey methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that would be applicable to the project site. These surveys would meet the standards of care required by CEQA for conducting surveys. a. Initiating Survey. An initial take avoidance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities will trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. b. Number of visits and timing. Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one Visit after June 15. c. Survey method. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7 meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 14 of 58 presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey. d. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor's ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is > 20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are > 20° C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75%. e. Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities. f. Avoiding burrowing owls. A primary goal is to design and implement projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Avoidance measures may include but not be limited to: • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1through August 31. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). • Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February. g. Minimizing Impacts. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. A qualified biologist shall conduct site- specific monitoring to inform the project proponent of buffer Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 15 of 58 requirements. See Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance. h. Permanent Impacts. Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat loss. i. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and burrowing owl habitat. (Mitigation Measure BI0-10) Impacts to other nesting birds See revised Mitigation Measure BIO-8 Cultural Resources 24. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional (historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined appropriate and approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. At the County's discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County's discretion, the professional may work under contract with the County. (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 16 of 58 25. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: • The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and • If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: • The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; • The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American; • The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided 1n Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; • The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) Geology 26. The project applicant shall design structures and foundations to withstand expected seismic sources in accordance with the current version of the California Building Code, as adopted by the County. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1a) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 17 of 58 27. At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit updated improvement plans for the project for review by the County's Peer Review Geologist and review and approval by CDD. For the purposes of geologic review, the plans shall provide detailed information on the bank stabilization wall system being proposed along the waterfront residential lots. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1b) 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit an updated geology, soils and foundation report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 94-4.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of CDD. The report shall address the specific approach to grading and development indicated by the final subdivision map and improvement plans, and shall provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the stability of the residential lots. The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria: a. Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions, b. Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley seismic zone), and c. Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1c) 29. During the construction of subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services and issue a grading/shoring wall completion report. The report shall provide documentation on the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate testing of fill compaction to determine the effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in preventing lateral spreading failures toward the Kellogg Creek channel. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1d ) 30. At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 18 of 58 With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water quality, a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (MacKay & Somps 2020) was prepared for the project and submitted to the County's Public Works Department in order to comply with County water quality requirements. Engineered linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected storm water runoff treatment for this project, which are area-based storm water treatment facilities. (Mitigation Measure GE0- 2) 31. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the results of the study will guide design of concrete and ferrous materials that are in contact with the ground. (Mitigation Measure GE0-3) Deed Requirement for Geology, Soil, and Foundation Report 32. Concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant shall record a statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. Global Climate Change 33. The County shall ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green building techniques in the design of proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project. Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green Building Code or equivalent green building standards. (Mitigation Measure Cum-GCC-1a) 34. The applicant shall incorporate the following measures within the proposed project: • Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants in combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment; • Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways, driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements; Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 19 of 58 • To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets, adhesives, sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low concentration of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs); • The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e. non CFC-based refrigerants); • Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants would be ventilated through the building at a faster rate; • The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low­ flow or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use; • Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single-family homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops; and • The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment. • In each garage an electric outlet shall be installed and dedicated for use in recharging electric vehicles. (Mitigation Measure CUM GCC­1b) Hazardous Materials 35. Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from the paint disposal area and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. If soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). (Mitigation Measure HAZ­1a ) The project site shall be inspected by an environmental professional, appointed by the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b) 36. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall submit proof to the County that all asbestos-containing materials have been removed at the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 20 of 58 existing residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a) 37. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall submit proof to the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the existing former residences on the project site, in compliance with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b) Hydrology 38. During construction, a qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) on the project team shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed, to accurately assess water quality degradation. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1a) 39. At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: www.co.contracosta.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Additionally, the Title 10 Ordinance (1010) of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances requires the project sponsor to obtain a permit for drainage activities for creek improvements to Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1b) 40. To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage, and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes, and contractor bid documents shall include the following specifications: 1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance materials and refueling purposes. 2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving waters. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 21 of 58 If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed beneath the engine block and hydraulic systems. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1c) 41. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells on the project site. The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the decommissioned wells for approval. (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) 42. Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet. (Mitigation Measure HYD-3a) 43. Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation of 12.1 feet including the EVAs. (Mitigation Measure HYD-3b) Noise and Vibration 44. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: • New Year's Day (State and Federal) • Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) • Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) • Lincoln's Birthday (State) • Cesar Chavez Day (State) • Memorial Day (State and Federal) • Independence Day (State and Federal) • Labor Day (State and Federal) • Columbus Day (State and Federal) • Veterans Day (State and Federal) • Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) • Day after Thanksgiving (State) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 22 of 58 • Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/ California Holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml At least 10 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems. An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints. At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for each major phase of construction, the Applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to CDD. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1a) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 23 of 58 45. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, the A pplicant shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation plan to the CDD for the review and approval. The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during particular phases of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are noise-related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan shall be required as part the grading permit application. The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model Community Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60dBA for stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals. Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: • Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities. • List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound level estimates for each phase. • Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The barriers can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they have a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot. Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully overlapping 1 x redwood boards (1 ½-inch-thick total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8 feet tall, but this would be refined as part of the construction noise control plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and location of the barriers are the actual construction practices, including equipment to be used and the location and duration of noisier activities. The topography will also need to be considered in the final determination of barrier heights and effectiveness. • Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set by Contra Costa County. • Locate stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable and/or enclose noise sources. • The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment and construction tools as feasible. • Provide intake silencers and "resident-type" exhaust mufflers on vehicles and equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 24 of 58 • The method for construction of the shoring walls will be sheet pile shoring wall that for installation will use a variable moment driver/hammer, or similar vibratory method approved by CDD. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1b) 46. At least 14 days prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall construct temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions. Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1c) Parks and Recreation 47. Improvement plans shall include two 90-degree parking stalls located at the end of "A" Court designated for handicap accessibility in order to provide for vehicular access for the disabled adjacent to the public trails within the project open space. Signage at the project entry shall provide notice as to the location of the ADA parking stalls. The CC&Rs for the homeowners association shall confirm the requirements with respect to project signage and for permanent retention of the ADA parking stalls at the “A” Court. The final location of the two parking stalls, and the form and text of the applicable signage, public trail easement and CC&Rs with respect to this condition, shall be approved by CDD prior to filing of the Final Map. Public Utilities (Water & Sewer) 48. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that the TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of any required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are constructed and operational. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1) 49. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 25 of 58 necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of RWQCB. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are constructed and operational, and that any source control measures are being implemented consistent with the requirements of RWQCB. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-2) Transportation 50. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane. This improvement is included in the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-1) 51. The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-2) 52. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 26 of 58 In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5. This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact thereon. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1) If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County's Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement, the Applicant shall prepare an engineer's estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1) 53. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2) 54. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOBAOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 27 of 58 would reduce this impact to less-than-significant. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3) 55. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4) 56. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. In lieu of the cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds that the best option is to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described: The Applicant shall install a traffic signal and add left-turn lanes at all four intersection approaches for mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road for CUM TRA-5 per Condition of Approval # 101 (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5) If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County's Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 28 of 58 determine the cost of the improvement, the Applicant shall prepare an engineer's estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5) 57. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6) 58. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 10 percent and 11 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program. In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5. This alternative construction project would be of greater overall benefit due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact thereon. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7) If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County's Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 10 and 11percent of the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement, the Applicant shall prepare an engineer's estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 29 of 58 Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7) 59. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach. The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this improvement. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8) 60. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 percent and 6 percent of the total costs to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in an AOB fee program. In lieu of the nominal cash contribution towards this future improvement, the County finds it preferable to require the applicant to fully fund and install the signal and intersection improvements at Point of Timber/Bixler Road as described in Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5. This alternative construction project would Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 30 of 58 be of greater overall benefit due to its closer proximity to the subdivision and its greater impact thereon. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9) If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County's Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement, the Applicant shall prepare an engineer's estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9) 61. Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of several improvements at this intersection in the 2013 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10) 62. The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11) Visual/Lighting 63. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the review and approval by CDD. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize motion detection systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property. Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses. (Mitigation Measure VIS-1) Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 31 of 58 Street Names 64. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and private) shall be submitted for review by CDD, Graphics Section (Phone #674-7810). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be certified by CDD without the approved street names. Street names of historic significance to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber will be used if available, subject to review and approval of CDD. Architectural Design of Production Model Homes/Fencing Plan 65. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit floor plans and elevations (showing building height) for the models of the production homes for the review and approval of CDD. The models of the production homes shall comply with the design standards indicated in COA #73 below. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall also submit a fencing plan for the whole of the Pantages project for the review and approval of CDD. Homeowners Association 66. Prior to filing the Final Map, a homeowners association shall be formed for the ownership and maintenance (through homeowners assessments) of all common areas including lakes, common landscaping, clubhouse, and clubhouse parcel except as specified in these Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures. Examples of exceptions to ownership and maintenance by the homeowners association include the public roadway network (Parcel I). See Condition #67 below for details on ownership and maintenance. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) 67. At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit the CC&Rs for the Pantages project for the review and approval of CDD. Prior to submitting the CC&Rs to CDD for review and approval, the applicant shall work with the Lakeshore Homeowners Association for review and comment of the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall include information for the future property owners that the streets, trails, and northern parks to be constructed from the entrance of the Pantages lots through the Open Space to near the water's edge along Kellogg Creek, as well as the sidewalks and streets within Pantages, and ADA parking Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 32 of 58 stalls on “A” Court, shall be available to the public. The CC&Rs shall also confirm that rights of access to that effect are included on the recorded Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) and accepted on behalf of the public by the County (and/or other public agency approved by CDD such as the TDBCSD). The Police, Fire District, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), TDBCSD, and other public agencies (e.g., Mosquito Abatement District) right of ingress, egress and use of all roads within the Pantages project shall be provided for and confirmed in the CC&Rs. The offers of dedication to the public shall so provide, and a note to that effect shall be included on the face page of the Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD), as provided for in Condition #72 below. The CC&Rs shall confirm that maintenance of the lakes, common landscaping, open space, public trails and parks, clubhouse, and the typical police service district assessment shall be paid for by Pantages homeowners through assessments (for example, TDBCSD landscaping and lighting district assessments, police service district tax bill assessment, homeowners association assessments). The CC&Rs shall confirm that each homeowner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the back retaining wall on the lakes lots, if there is one and the slope between that wall and the lake edge. The CC&Rs shall further confirm that any storm water drainage improvements associated with the slope, retaining wall, and lake shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The CC&Rs shall include the Pantages Design Standards described below in Condition #s 73 through 76. The CC&Rs shall confirm they are enforceable in all respects by CDD, and that CDD must confirm compliance with them prior to issuance of a building permit for the construction of a new home and accessory structures, or subsequent alterations. There is no requirement that the CC&Rs include design review by the homeowners association. There shall be a recorded deed disclosure for each of the approved lots confirming the foregoing as well, with the form and content reviewed and approved by CDD. The recorded deed disclosure shall include reference to the Design Standards. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 33 of 58 Ownership, Maintenance, and Financial Responsibility for Project Parcels 68. The non-residential parcels below shall be recorded on the Final Map. These parcels shall be owned and maintained as provided below. The financial responsibility for that maintenance will likely be provided as described below. Necessary easements related the parcels are described below. A. Parcel “A” (approximately 0.87 acres) is the parcel that will include a clubhouse and parking lot. The clubhouse will be available for use by the property owners within the Pantages subdivision. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. B. Parcels “B,” “D,” “E,” “F,” “G,” “J,” “M,” “Q,” and “R” are open space (approximately 12.68 acres), Kellogg Creek setback area and trail (10.78 acres), and paseos adjacent to the south lake. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners' property tax bill assessments through a landscaping and lighting district formed prior to recordation of Final Map. Public Access Easements (PAE) over Parcels “B,” “D,” “J,” and “Q” (Open Spaces) shall be maintained by a public maintenance entity (i.e. TDBCSD, East Bay Regional Park District, the County, etc.), subject to the establishment of a maintenance entity (e.g. Mello Roos District) for the maintenance of parks and trails in the project area established prior to filing the Final Map. The Pantages HOA or other maintenance entity shall be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed retaining wall along the frontage of Parcel B and “B” Street. The retaining wall shall be structurally designed to support the proposed public road. Sanitary sewer easement over Parcel R will be conveyed to TDBCSD. C. Parcel “H” is the south lake and related open space (approximately 23.23 acres). Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 34 of 58 D. Parcel “I” is the public roadway network and associated right-of-way (approximately 15.94 acres). Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Contra Costa County following acceptance of the improvements. E. Parcel “K” is flexible recreational space (approximately 1.20 acres) adjacent to Parcel “A” will be is available for use by the property owners within the Pantages subdivision. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. F. Parcels “L,” “N,” and “O” are the three public park locations along the residential uses northern edge (approximately 4.06 acres) and Public Access Easements (PAE) will be located over these parcels. Ownership shall be maintained by a public maintenance entity (i.e. TDBCSD, East Bay Regional Park District, the County, etc.), subject to the establishment of a maintenance entity (e.g.. Mello Roos District) prior to recordation of Final Map. G. Parcel “P” is the wetland complex and open space (approximately 53.97 acres) located north of Parcels “L,” N,” and “O”. Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements) and maintenance: TDBCSD. Maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners tax bill assessments likely through a landscaping and lighting district formed prior to recording Final Map. An alternative to TDBCSD ownership and maintenance would be RD 800, with funding by Pantages homeowners through a Proposition 218 assessment, and with the vote completed by RD 800 and owner and the assessments finalized prior to filing the Final Map. Alternatively, though not preferred, would be ownership (with conservation covenants/easements) by the Pantages homeowners association, with maintenance by an approved conservancy organization, and funding through the association and/or an endowment. H. Parcel “S” is the north lake (approximately 6.84 acres). Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages homeowners association with funding from homeowners’ assessments. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 35 of 58 Construction and Demolition Debris 69. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or demolition permit(s), the developer shall submit a "Debris Recovery Plan" demonstrating how they intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating from the demolition of existing building and/or the construction of new buildings. At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of the first residential unit not including models, the developer shall submit a completed "Debris Recovery Report" documenting actual debris recovery efforts including the quantities of recovered and landfilled materials) that resulted from the project. LAFCO Boundary Reorganization/RD 800 De-Annexation and TDBCSD Annexation 70. At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site is annexed, through a LAFCO boundary reorganization to TDBCSD. At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site has been de-annexed from RD 800. Fire District Conditions 71. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide CDD confirmation from the Fire District that their standards have been met. Refer to the letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) to CDD (May 15, 2014, November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005; September 15, 2004), and the letter from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24, 2005 for Fire District’s conditions. Access for Sheriff, Fire District, EMTs, RD 800. TDBCSD and Other Public Agencies for Use of Project Roads 72. Police, Fire District, and EMTs ingress, egress and use of all roads, sidewalks and EVAs within the Pantages Bays project shall be confirmed in the CC&Rs as provided for in Condition #67 above. That right includes but is not limited to routine and other patrols by the Sheriff. The applicant shall on the face page of Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 36 of 58 the Final Map and deed disclosures for each of the homes (and/or by other recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the County (and other applicable agencies) such rights of full access. The same rights of access shall be provided in the CC&RS and the Final Map note and/or other recorded instrument) to RD 800 (due to its responsibilities for waterways, and related slope and back retaining wall easements), as well as TDBCSD (due to its responsibilities for sewer and water facilities within Pantages Bays and likely ownership and maintenance of Open Space and Park Parcels). Other public agencies as determined necessary by CDD will be provided the same access (for example, the Mosquito Abatement District). Design Standards, Final Architecture, View Corridors, and Common Area Landscape Plans 73. Compliance with the Pantages Bays Design Standards (See 2020 Pantages Design Standards) shall be required for construction of new homes, or any subsequent building footprint alteration. The Design Standards include minimum setbacks for the lots, as well as height and fencing restrictions. CDD shall review proposed architectural plans for new house construction or subsequent building footprint alteration to confirm compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. The design of the new homes shall vary in architecture, roof and pitch designs, setbacks, and height. Any future amendments to the Design Standards shall require CDD review and approval. The Design Standards shall be included in the CC&Rs. The Design Standards shall be enforceable by CDD. The architecture elevations and street landscape for the production homes shall provide articulation along the streetscape on straight roads sufficient to avoid a visually linear appearance. As provided for in the Design Standards, there shall be a single-story home with a maximum height of 25 feet (or at applicant's election a two-story home with the second story (maximum 33 feet) limited to the front half of the home) on lots 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, and 136, subject to review and approval of CDD. The applicant shall record this building height restriction on each of these six lots prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, in a form and content reviewed and approved by CDD. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 37 of 58 In addition, the side yard setback on both sides of these six lots shall be minimum 10 feet, instead of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side as provided for all other minimum 60-foot-wide lots. The standard 5-foot side yard setback on each other lot that adjoins Ravenswood shall be next to the 10-foot setback on the adjoining lot, so that the combined setback between those homes will always be minimum 15 feet. The maximum height on each other lot adjoining Ravenswood shall be 33 feet. 74. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure for lots 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, and 136 that states these lots are only permitted to have one story homes (maximum 25 feet in height) or two-story element limited to the front half of the home (maximum 33 feet in height), and that each of these lots shall have a side yard setback of 10 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots. 75. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure for lots 121 through 157 (all the lots adjoining Ravenswood Subdivision) that the maximum height of the house shall not exceed 33 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots. 76. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure that requires the rear lot fences for the lots that back up to the Kellogg Creek and the main lake shall be open view fencing consistent with the applicant's wetland consultant. 77. Prior to filing the Final Map, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for review and approval a deed disclosure for each of the homes that informs them that there are public trails in the development and that public pedestrians and bicyclists may use project streets and sidewalks. 78. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a sign for the subdivision or for the public trails, the Applicant shall submit to CDD for the review and approval of the proposed design of the sign(s). Future Clubhouse and Flexible Recreation Area 79. A development plan application including plans for the design of the building and/or structures, parking area, landscaping, and improvements shall be submitted for the future clubhouse on Parcel A and the flexible recreational space Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 38 of 58 on Parcel K. The submittal shall be accompanied by the appropriate deposit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Grade Elevations and Rear Yard Fencing Design Across from Ravenswood 80. The final design of retaining walls and wood fence/lattice between Pantages and Ravenswood shall be reviewed and approved by CDD at least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits to confirm compliance with the Pantages Design Standards. This rear yard fencing requirement in the Design Standards is enforceable by CDD. The Applicant has agreed to work in good faith with adjoining homeowners in Ravenswood to replace their existing rear yard fence with a new common fence consistent with the specifications above and in the Design Standards. Subject to the approval of the adjoining Ravenswood homeowner(s), applicant at its cost will remove the existing fence and construct the new common fence. If the necessary homeowner approval is not secured following good efforts as reviewed and accepted by CDD, then applicant shall construct within its rear property line a wood fence (with any necessary retaining wall or kickboard) that meets the design specifications set forth in the Design Standards. Reduction in Highest Waterfront Pad Elevations 81. For aesthetic purposes relatively high pad elevations on waterfront lots along Kellogg Creek will be reduced at the final grading plan to the extent reasonable, and still address complying with the projected sea level rise, as well as accommodate storm water flows/outlets and gravity sewer to the TDBCSD pump station that will be constructed for the project, subject to review and approval of CDD. Lakeshore Boundary Grading Alternative and Off-Site Dirt Hauling 82. The Lakeshore Homeowners Association Board of Directors (Lakeshore HOA and Lakeshore Board) has expressed interest in modifying the proposed grading plan between Lakeshore residential lots and the adjoining Pantages residential lots to place engineered fill on the intervening strip owned by the Lakeshore HOA. Such a grading plan change would require cooperation between the applicant and Lakeshore Board, and potentially adjoining Lakeshore homeowners. Grading Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 39 of 58 easements and/or Jot line adjustments will likely be required. Any grading revision in this location, along with any associated lot line adjustments and common fencing arrangements shall be subject to review and comment by Public Works and CDD review and approval as part of the final grading plan. The applicant's engineers anticipate the grading operation will be a balanced cut and fill, however there is a potential to import up to 90,000 cubic yards per year. If the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced, then applicant shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan (which will include the pavement analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Public Works Condition #116) for submittal to CDD for its review and approval. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 83. This project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 822-4.402 of the County Ordinance Code, a residential development of 277 for- sale units shall require at least fifteen percent of the for-sale units to be developed and sold as affordable units. The applicant is required to construct 41.55 inclusionary housing units for the project. The Applicant/Owner/Developer (Applicant) has submitted a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan (PIHP) on February 3, 2021, which proposes to construct and sell eight (8) Lower Income Housing Units and thirty-three (33) Moderate Income Housing Units and to pay the in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional unit (0.55 unit) to comply with the County’s Inclusionary Ordinance requirements. Any proposed changes to the PIHP are subject to the review and approval of the Assistant Deputy Director, Housing and Community Improvement Division, in the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). Special Circumstances and Conditions 84. This development has unique circumstances reflected in its Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan. The Developer (Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC) and County explicitly acknowledge these unique circumstances by preparing and accepting a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan as a binding commitment to later submit one or more Final Inclusionary Housing Plans, which is an exception to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the authority of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to grant. This should not be considered a precedent for any other development project. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 40 of 58 No homebuilder has entered into a contract with the Developer, so there are no specifics regarding the inclusionary units which would typically be included in an Inclusionary Housing Plan at this stage. As a result, the Developer has submitted a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan to memorialize the approach to be taken to finalize the Inclusionary Housing Plan. Phasing 85. The Applicant has indicated that this is to be a phased subdivision. The inclusionary units will be developed in a proportionate amount to all units developed in each phase of the subdivision. The Applicant is anticipating that the subdivision will be built out in four (4) phases with up to approximately 70 lots being developed per phase. In this case, up to 10 inclusionary units will be built in each of the four phases, with an additional inclusionary unit built in the first phase to reach the total of 41 inclusionary units. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that an Inclusionary Housing Agreement (Agreement) be executed and recorded prior to a building permit (including grading) or Final Map, whichever comes first. Due to the unique circumstances of this project, it is anticipated that a new Agreement with the developer/builder or amendment to the Agreement, whichever deemed appropriate by DCD, shall be executed and recorded for each subsequent phase of the development to include a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan and all information as required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that is not specified in the PIHP. The Applicant’s provision of the details that includes but is not limited to the type, size (including number of bedrooms), number of units in each phase of development, unit mix of market rate and inclusionary units, and lot locations of the inclusionary units will be deferred to prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the phased development (including grading permits and demolition permits). The Applicant will be required to submit a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan for each phase of the development. Phasing and other details regarding the number of market units and affordable units in each phase will be delineated in the Final Inclusionary Housing Plan and subsequently in one or more Inclusionary Housing Agreements (i.e., one Agreement per phase). Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 41 of 58 For-Sale Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee 86. Prior to recordation of the first phased Final Map or issuance of a building permit (including grading permits and demolition permits) for any portion of the residential development, the For-Sale Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee of $24,200.22 shall be paid in full for the remaining fraction of required inclusionary units (0.55 of a unit). This in-lieu fee is non-refundable and non-transferrable. Final Inclusionary Housing Plan 87. Prior to the issuance of a building permit (including grading permits and demolition permits) for any portion of each phase of the residential development, the Applicant shall submit a compliance review application for the execution of an Agreement and a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan for the review and approval of the Assistant Deputy Director of the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. The Final Inclusionary Housing Plan shall provide the following information along with any information required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for review and approval: A. A brief description of the residential development, including the number of market rate units and inclusionary units proposed, and the basis for the calculation of the number of units; B. The unit mix, location, structure type, and size (including number of bedrooms) of the market rate and inclusionary units. A site plan depicting the location of the inclusionary units shall be provided; C. The household income levels of the inclusionary units, which must be proportionate to the overall requirement D. Number of units in the phase of development. There may be more than one Final Inclusionary Housing Plan based on the development of the homes on the site, and thus ultimately more than one Agreement. 88. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development, or marketing of the inclusionary units, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall submit with their compliance review application a timeline and schedule for the development and marketing of the inclusionary units for each phase for the Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 42 of 58 review and approval of the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. For-Sale Inclusionary Housing (Inclusionary Housing Agreement) 89. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map or the issuance of a building permit (including grading permits) for any portion of the residential development, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall submit a compliance review application and request to begin the process for DCD to prepare and execute an Agreement for the PIHP (form to be provided by the County, substantially based on the approved Conditions) with the County pursuant to Chapter 822-4 to ensure that the proportionate amount of the thirty-three (33) of the approved units are affordable to and occupied by a “Moderate Income Household” and eight (8) of the approved units are affordable to and occupied by a “Lower Income Household” are incorporated and developed in each phase of the development. The Agreement for the PIHP shall include and address all information as required by Section 822-4.416 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to Chapter 822-4.402(b), the forty-one (41) inclusionary units in this development will be sold and occupied by lower income households and moderate-income households as referenced above. The inclusionary units shall be deed restricted so that if the home is sold within three (3) years, it must be sold at an affordable sales price to a lower income household or moderate- income household, depending on the lot designation upon initial sale. The forty- one (41) inclusionary units shall be deed restricted in order to ensure the continued affordability of this unit for at least three (3) years in accordance with Chapter 822-4 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The inclusionary unit shall be developed with the standards and restrictions in accordance with Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance Code. Restrictions For purposes of this condition, the following definitions apply: A. Inclusionary Unit - means a for-sale unit that is required to be sold at an affordable sales price to the households specified in Section 822-4.402 under the terms and conditions of Section 822-4.410(b). Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 43 of 58 B. Lower Income Households - Households whose income does not exceed the lower income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. C. Moderate Income Households – Households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income for Contra Costa County as adjusted for family size as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code. D. Affordable Sales Price - means a sales price at which a lower income household, or a moderate-income households can afford to purchase an inclusionary unit, calculated using the cost formula herein for lower income households and moderate income households, and taking into account reasonable down payment, actual household size, and other ownership housing costs described in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6920. The affordable housing cost is calculated by DCD using the following formula: for lower income households, a product of forty (40) percent of seventy (70) percent of area median income adjusted for family size; and for moderate income households, a product of forty (40) percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of area median income adjusted for family size. Affordable Sales Price shall not exceed the market price, which may be determined by an independent appraisal. a. Sale price calculations will take into account unit size and family size. b. The sales price calculation shall also take into account Anticipated Financing so that Housing Costs do not exceed the limits. “Anticipated Financing” means private mortgage financing at current interest rates and terms. Anticipated Financing may include approved public agency down payments or second mortgage grants and loans. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 44 of 58 “Housing Costs” include mortgage principal and interest, property insurance, property taxes, homeownership association dues, and expected utility costs. General 90. The following are general terms for the for-sale inclusionary units. A. The Applicant hereby represents, warrants, and covenants that it will cause the Agreements to be recorded in the real property records of Contra Costa County, California, and in such other places as the County may reasonably request. The Applicant shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection with any such recording. The recording of the Agreements shall occur after the acceptance of the document by the County and prior to the recordation of a Final Map or the issuance a building permit, whichever occurs first, for the PIHP Agreement; and prior to the issuance of a building permit for each subsequent Agreement for each phase of development. B. The County will provide to the Applicant income certification forms to be completed by the potential homebuyers. The income levels of all lower income household and moderate-income household applicants for units in the project shall be certified prior to sale and initial occupancy. The owner’s occupancy of the inclusionary units shall be initially certified by the Applicant (or subsequent holder of the Agreement(s)) and annually thereafter by the Homeowner, and records shall be submitted to the County over the term of the period of affordability. C. For-Sale Inclusionary Unit Restrictions. a. The initial sale of a for-sale inclusionary unit shall occur only to a household that meets the following criteria: i. The household has not owned a residence within the previous three years; and ii. The household has no more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars in assets. This amount excludes assets reserved for a down payment and closing costs, assets in retirement savings accounts, and assets in medical savings accounts. b. The initial purchaser of a for-sale inclusionary unit must agree to occupy the dwelling unit as the principal residence for at least three years. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 45 of 58 c. A for-sale inclusionary unit may be resold after the initial sale to an above- moderate income purchaser and at a market price, provided that the sale results in a recapture by the county of a financial interest in the unit equal to the sum of: i. The difference between the initial affordable sales price and the appraised market value of the unit at the time of the initial sale; and ii. The county's proportionate share of any appreciation since the time of the initial sale. Appreciation is the difference between the resale price to the above-moderate income purchaser and the appraised market value at the time of the initial sale. The county's proportionate share of appreciation is equal to the percentage by which the initial affordable sales price was less than the appraised market value at the time of the initial sale. D. The 41 inclusionary units in the project shall be available for sale to members of the general public who are income eligible. The Applicant shall not give preference to any particular class or group of persons in owning the units, except to the extent that the units are required to be sold to lower income households and moderate-income households. There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, source of income (e.g., SSI), age (except for lawful senior housing), ancestry, or disability, in the sale of any unit in the project nor shall the Applicant or any person claiming under or through the Applicant, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of owners of any unit or in connection with employment of persons for the construction of the project. E. In addition to any other marketing efforts, the lower income units and moderate-income units shall be marketed through local non-profit, social service, faith-based, and other organizations that have potential clients or constituents. The Applicant shall translate marketing materials into Spanish and Chinese. A copy of the translated marketing materials and marketing plan shall be submitted to DCD for review prior to the marketing of the inclusionary units for each phase of development. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 46 of 58 Marketing may also include publicity through local television and radio stations as well as local newspapers including the East Bay Times, Classified Flea Market, El Mensajero, Thoi Bao Magazine, Berkeley/Richmond/San Francisco Posts (Post News Group), Korea Times, El Mundo, Hankook Ilbo, and the Sing Tao Daily. F. Upon violation of any of the provisions of the Agreement by the Applicant, the County may give written notice to the Applicant specifying the nature of the violation. If the violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the County within a reasonable period of time, not longer than thirty (30) days after the date the notice is deemed received, or within such further time as the County determines is necessary to correct the violation, the County may declare a default under this Agreement. Upon declaration of a default or if the County determines that the Applicant has made any misrepresentation in connection with receiving any benefits under this Agreement, the County may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for such relief at law or in equity as may be appropriate. Development Standards 91. The inclusionary units are subject to the standards of Section 822-4.412 of the County Ordinance. a. Inclusionary units must be dispersed throughout the residential development and have the same access to all on-site amenities that are available to market rate units. b. The construction quality and exterior design of inclusionary units must be comparable to the market rate units. However, inclusionary units may be smaller in size, developed on smaller lots, and have alternative interior finishes. c. The average number of bedrooms for all inclusionary units must be equivalent to the average number of bedrooms for market rate units within the same residential development. 92. All inclusionary units in each phase of the development must be constructed and occupied prior to or concurrently with the market rate units within the same residential development. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 47 of 58 Reporting and Compliance Review 93. Prior to the initial occupancy of each inclusionary unit, the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Conservation and Development, for review and approval, a compliance review application and fee accompanied by forms and documentation that demonstrates the owners of the inclusionary units are qualified as a lower income household or a moderate-income household. To comply with the provisions for enforcing the construction and occupancy standards of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, a hold shall be placed on the final inspection of the building permits issued for the development until the documentation has been deemed adequate by the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. 94. Prior to the sale of any portion of the development, recordation of a Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide to DCD the name of the owner or designee who is responsible for permit compliance with this entitlement and their contact information (i.e., local mailing address, email addresses, and telephone number) until the development has been completed. Should the contact subsequently change (e.g., new designee or owner), within 30 days of the change, the Applicant shall issue a letter to DCD with the name of the new party who has been assigned permit compliance responsibility and their contact information. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 48 of 58 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION SD19-9527/DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP19-3024 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan/(vesting) tentative map submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on February 25, 2020. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP. General Requirements: 95. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on February 25, 2020. 96. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Any necessary traffic signing, and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (Bixler Road/Point of Timber Road/Wilde Drive/On-site Public): 97. The Applicant shall construct curb, minimum 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and trans-verse drainage, street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation, and pavement transitions at the pubic portions of Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. 98. The Applicant shall construct the on-site road system to County public road standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 49 of 58 right-of-way. A reduction to the vertical gradient standards shall be allowed to reduce the minimum curb grade to 0.75% in conformance with existing adjacent improvements. 99. The Applicant shall install safety-related improvements on all streets (including traffic signs and striping), as approved by the Public Works Department. 100. The Applicant shall install speed bumps per County standards or incorporate other traffic calming measures along “A” Street, “B” Street, and Point of Timber Road as reviewed and approved by Public Works. 101. The Applicant shall construct the following improvements at the Point of Timber/Bixler Road intersection; pavement transitions for adding left-turn lanes at all four intersection approaches, traffic signing and striping, and traffic signals as reviewed and approved by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Lane and deceleration transitions shall be based on a design speed of 50 miles per hour. Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access 102. The Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights-of-way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 103. The Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department that legal access to the property is available from Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. Encroachment Permit 104. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of improvements within the right-of- way of Point of Timber Road, Bixler Road and Wilde Drive. Sight Distance: 105. The Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersections of the on-site roadways for a design speed of 35 miles per hour. Any new landscaping, signs, Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 50 of 58 fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at the driveways shall be setback to ensure that the sight lines are clear. Lot Line Adjustment: 106. The Applicant shall complete and record the proposed Lot Line Adjustment with the East Contra Costa Irrigation District parcel at the northeast corner of the subject property. AOB Reimbursements: 107. The applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact Public Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or reimbursements against the area of benefit fees. Road Dedications: 108. The Property Owner shall convey to the Public, by Offer of Dedication, the right- of-way encumbering all Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads and bicycle and pedestrian trails. These facilities will NOT be accepted by the County for maintenance. Street Lights: 109. The Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Landscaping: 110. All landscaping to be maintained by the property owner shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 51 of 58 Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian Access 111. The Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps. 112. All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Adequate easements shall be established to accommodate a minimum 4-foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed. Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA): 113. All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access, including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20 vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department. Parking: 114. All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access, including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20 vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department. Utilities/Undergrounding: 115. All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access, including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20 vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department. Construction: 116. The Applicant shall provide a pavement analysis for those roads along the proposed haul route or any alternate route(s) that are proposed to be utilized by the hauling operation. This study shall analyze the existing pavement conditions and determine what impact the hauling operation will have over the life of the project. The study shall provide recommendations to mitigate identified impacts. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 52 of 58 The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing the recommended repairs. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a bonded road improvement agreement to assure the roadway repairs. Maintenance of Facilities: 117. The maintenance obligation and financing of all common and open space areas, private roadways, private street lights, public and private trails and landscaped areas, EVA’s, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage facilities shall be included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. All agreements between Reclamation District 800, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District and the developer, along with the CC&Rs, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the CDD and Public Works Department at least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map for the first phase. The County will not accept these properties or facilities for ownership or maintenance. 118. The Applicant shall establish a maintenance entity (i.e. Mello Roos District) for the maintenance of parks, public landscaped areas, and trails in the project area and Discovery Bay parks, maintained landscape areas, and recreation facilities. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 119. The Applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwaters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Hold Harmless 120. The property owner shall be aware that the creek banks on the site are potentially unstable. The property owner shall execute a recordable agreement with the County which states that the developer and the property owner and the future property owner(s) will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of damage to the on-site and off-site improvements as a result of creek-bank failure or erosion. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 53 of 58 Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 121. The Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 122. The Applicant shall design and construct all proposed grading, dredging, excavation and improvements are in compliance with all Federal, State and Local regulatory permitting and design requirements. These agencies may include, but not be limited to: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Services, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Reclamation District #800, and Contra Costa County Flood Control District. 123. The Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 124. Private storm drain easements, conforming to the width specified in Section 914- 14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be dedicated over all proposed storm drains traversing residential lots or other portions of the property outside the “common area.” 125. The Applicant shall enter into a License Agreement for Maintenance Purposes or provide a private Storm Drain Easement, to be transferred to the maintenance entity (HOA or CSD) upon its formation, with the County to maintain the proposed drainage line connecting Lake South and Lake North shown on the vesting tentative map within the future County right-of-way reviewed and approved by Public Works. 126. The Applicant shall ensure that Lake South, Lake North, the drainage system connecting the lakes, and the proposed pump systems shown on the vesting tentative map over parcels B, D, E, F, G, H, W, and S are included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. The County will not accept these properties or facilities for ownership or maintenance. Floodplain Management: 127. The project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 54 of 58 the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) Co Ord Code 82-28 as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. 128. The property lies within the limits of Urban Level of Flood Protection area (i.e. urban/urbanizing Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley), a map certified by the Conservation and Development Director and on file with the Department of Conservation and Development. The applicant needs to furnish documentation whether the project is or is not in the applicable geographical area per Government Code Sections 65865.5, 65962, and 66474.5. Specifically, documentation to evaluate if (1) it is located within an area with a potential flood depth above 3.0 feet from sources of flooding other than localized conditions that may occur anywhere in the community, and (2) within a watershed with a contributing area of more than 10 square miles. If all the criteria required by the Government Code sections are met, then the applicant must provide urban level of flood protection. Applicant must also submit documentation for this urban level of flood protection, providing 200- year base flood protection. This Urban Level of Flood Protection is a state requirement, separate from and in addition to the National Flood Insurance Program requirements also covered in the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance. 129. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (C-LOMR-F) from FEMA concurring that the proposed grading and site improvements, when completed, will be satisfactory for FEMA to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map and eliminate the residential lots from the Special Flood Hazard designation. 130. After completion of fill operations and installation of storm drain improvements, the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application with FEMA to finalize the FIRM revision process. The FEMA LOMR-F must be obtained prior to issuance of building permits on the residential units. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 131. The Applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 55 of 58 State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Central Valley - Region IV). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. - Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention area) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permit. - Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES Permit. - Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. - Shallow roadside and on-site swales. - Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. - Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot specific IMPs to buyers. - Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by Public Works. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: 132. The Applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be deemed consistent with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the final map. To the extent required by the NPDES Permit, the Final Stormwater Control Plan and the O+M Plan will be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 56 of 58 become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and O+M Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and the O+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant. 133. Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP and compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014). 134. Stormwater management facilities shall be subject to inspection by Public Works Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of stormwater management facilities shall be borne by the applicant. 135. Prior to filing of the final map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility for, and related to, operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities, and grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities. 136. Prior to filing of the final map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities by property owners. 137. Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District. 138. All treatment BMP/IMPs constructed within each phase of the proposed development shall be designed and sized to treat, at a minimum, stormwater generated from each phase constructed. Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 57 of 58 ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO INFORM THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, AND REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. A. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period, in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Department of Conservation and Development within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District and Reclamation District 800. C. The Applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority/ Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation (ECCRFFA/RTDIM),East County Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and other mitigation fees required herein to be deposited the County Road Trust account. Payment is required prior to issuance of a building permit. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Pantages Residential Project County Files: #CDGP19-0002, CDRZ19-3252, CDSD19-9527, CDDP19-3024 CPC, April 28, 2021 Page 58 of 58 Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of improvement plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the County approval, and the project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may significantly increase the time and applicant’s costs associated with approval of the application. G. This project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as February 25, 2020, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Department of Conservation and Development. These fees are in addition to any other development fees, which may specified in the conditions of approval. H. Future property owners shall be aware of the pre-annexation agreement between the applicant and the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TODBCSD), which includes payment of several fees to be paid at the time of approval from the TODBCSD for a building permit. I. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the following agencies: - Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division - East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 4/20/21 ORDINANCE NO ._____________ (Re-Zoning Lan d in the __________________________ Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Page ________________ of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended by re-zonin g the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. _____________________ .) FROM: Land Use District ______________ (_________________________________________________________) TO: Land Use District ______________ (_________________________________________________________) and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map according ly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passa ge shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the __________________________________ , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED o n ________________by the following vote: Supervisor SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION I: Aye No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. C. Andersen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D. Bu rg is ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. K. Mitchoff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F.D. Glove r ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors __________________________________________________ Chairman of the Board By__________________________________, Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO ._____________ RZ19-3252 - Trevor Smith, Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC Discovery Bay M-28 & N-28 RZ19-3252A-2P-1P-1P-1 -UE P-1A-2P-1 -UEP-1 (General Agriculture)(Planned Unit)(Planned Unit) Planned Unit -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District P-1 P-1 P-1 A-3 F-1 P-1 A-40 A-3 F-1 A-3 M-12 F-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 -UE P-1 -UE P-1 -UE P-1 M-12 P-1 P-1 -UE P-1 (Planned Unit)(General Agriculture)(Planned Unit -Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) Planned Unit P-1-UE to P -1-UE P-1 to P-1 P-1-UE to P -1 P-1 to P-1-UE P-1 to A-2 A-2 to P-1 ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE11 22 PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 1" = 8 0 0 ' STA. POS T 9 0 D FM.PCL.09-250-015 1432.13 ND 1320 18 U.S . 4 ND R=42' 178.24 R=20 22.04 55 . 3 2 33 0 E 16 5 ' 250' 16 5 ' 23 21 .95Ac. 33 0 E CL25'R/W TO B.B.I.D. 430 D 207 1/30/23 CL25'R/W TO B.B.I.D. 430 D 182 1/30/23 CL33' R/W TO B.B.I.D. 430 D 192 1/30/23 N8 8 ^ 5 9 ' 2 7 " W 16 2 9 . 5 1 95 4 . 0 1 PO I N T OF TI M B E R RO A D 17 10 11 12 23 24 25 26 27 13 14 37 16 39 33 29 W ND 13 2 0 . 0 U.S. 5 ND N 2640 N01^01'09"E 25.46Ac U.S. 6 w 13 2 0 . 0 95 4 . 4 6 DESIGNATED REMAINDER 220 N01^01'44"E 655.73 655.73650.96 40 ' R / W 67 5 . 5 0 650.75 655.73 67 5 . 5 0 67 5 . 5 0 N8 8 ^ 5 9 ' 2 7 " W N8 8 ^ 5 8 ' 1 6 " W "A" 653.82 67 5 . 5 0 655.70 N8 8 ^ 5 8 ' 1 6 " W 655.732 BIXLER ROAD 19 29 33 2517 HI G H W A Y ST A T E HI G H W A Y BO R D E N 1.366Ac. N8 8 ^ 1 3 ' 5 0 " W 230' 27 8 ' 175 230 US POST OFF 3 DED TO Co. 1499.40 10' 3N0^1'47"E N8 9 ^ 1 6 ' 3 2 " W 13 2 2 . 6 5 405 "C" U.S. 8 5280 1494.25S0^1'37"W 1 3 1595.15185.66340.86370.89 80'R/W N8 9 ^ 5 7 ' 3 7 " E 18 7 7 . 9 5 "A""B""C" 10.88Ac 12 7 7 . 9 6 12 7 7 . 9 7 12 7 7 . 9 7 46.80Ac "D" U.S.A. T O W E R L I N E R / W P.G.& E . T O W E R L I N E R / W 870.91 340.86 340.86 25 0 18 0 50 ' 2 1375.51 30'R/W 12 7 8 13 2 3 . 8 2 "D" 45.47Ac N0^59'07"E 32.11 26 35 4 P B 4 176 PM 14 2- 1- 3- 9-20-72 11-30-90 12-30-98 21 2 "B""C""D" 2616.24 2 U.S. 7 60 ' R / W 13 2 0 . 0 E 2613.83 IRR I G A T I O N CAN A L 7.0Ac 35 TO PCL. 09-230-001 TR7686 MB418-26 03-23-00 N8 9 ^ 0 ' 5 3 " W 77 2 . 6 47 TR8456 MB446-43 08-29-02 31 303 3 1 NEWPORT DRIVE 22 3 . 1 8 18 4 . 3 6 186.16 156.34 30' Access Easement 38.82 10 5 4 . 7 9 N8 9 ^ 3 ' 1 0 " W N8 9 ^ 8 ' 9 " W 10 1 1 3629.32 10.0Ac 9.07Ac 39.848Ac 60 61 62 220 N-28 8/13/12 FM 115/23 4-8-99 POR SECS 26 & 35 T 1 N R 3 E MD&M 24 PM 19 149 PM 47 TR 8710 MB 485-01 10/27/05 20 21 04 40 4.21Ac 6.62Ac 10 4 3 . 6 3 59 1 . 3 0 45 2 . 3 3 45 2 . 6 5 39,40 14.84Ac 326.60Ac .926Ac 9.82Ac9.84Ac9.84Ac9.76Ac 57.29Ac 87 0 . 0 0 ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE11 23 06 07 08 41 A A A 30 0 20.0 33 4 . 7 7 N88^58'33"W 420.0 N88^57'59"W 34 4 . 2 4 53 5 . 0 N88^58'33"W N0 1 ^ 0 6 ' E 53 5 . 0 R=20 22.04 55.32 850.00 N0 1 ^ 0 1 ' 4 5 " E 11 2 0 . 0 2 S 30 0 19 9 . 9 8 1729.86 N65^ 0 5 ' W 1016 . 3 6 E S1 ^ 0 0 ' W 20 4 8 . 0 2 1320.0 S ND ND 13 2 0 . 0 ND W 64 3 . 5 0 NN57^ 5 2 ' E 66.0 S64^ 2 9 ' E 124. 0 8 N77^29 ' E 341.88 N3 2 ^ 5 8 ' W 19 9 . 9 8 N50 ^ 3 3 ' W 279 . 3 8 N89^00'W 203.50 N3 7 ^ 3 4 ' 3 0 " E N42 ^ 4 0 ' W N.D . ND S71^ 4 1 ' W 36.3 0 S19^12'E 27.72 S82^W 100.82 30 4 . 2 6 S1 4 ^ 1 8 ' W S3 0 ^ 4 7 ' E 11 1 . 5 4 S8 0 ^ 5 3 ' E 43 . 5 6 N8 8 ^ 4 3 ' E 41 . 5 8 579.5 1319. 3 4 T O T A L ND A 5.16Ac. 5.070Ac. 43.82Ac.40.16Ac. "A" POINT OF BI X L E R TIMBER ROAD R=42 178.24 ST A . P O S T 90 D CAN A L CA N A L CANA L CANAL SEE PAGE 27 SEE PAG E 2 8 SEE PAGE 37 RO A D SEE PAGE 27 MAIN CANAL CANAL U.S. 1 U.S . 3 U.S . 2 135PM37 149PM18 1- 2- 3- 10-13-81 9-15-88 11-01-90 9 PB 24 16 22 230 FM. 115/21 230 1"=400' 23 EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIG DIST PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 420 "E"24 "G" "Q" "J""I" "R" "D" "P" 48 42 33 25 "L" "M" 47 40 TR 8023 09-04-01 POR TR 8023A- 2002- "S" "N"34 .222Ac. .385Ac. 3.462Ac. 1.011Ac. .40Ac. A 41 TR 8429 09-07-01 WY GR A N D "A" MB 433-44 MB 433-32 A B- 2002-POR TR 8430 B C 42 TR 8430 MB 436-17 10-25-01 35 10.407Ac. LAKESHORE CIRCLE 37 PVT ST ESKLAHORE C I R CL E 43 TR 8428 MB 436-10 10-24-01 10-26-01 MB 436-22 TR 8431 44 CC C 38 "A" 10.62Ac. C- 2002-POR TR 8431 B B B B B B B MB 433-32 (LAKESHORE 1) MB 436-17 (LAKESHORE 4) MB 436-22 (LAKESHORE 5) 27 21 20 "A" "B" 45 TR 8432 MB 442-41 05-20-02 46 TR 8433 04-23-02 MB 442-6 LAKE & PUMP STA. .191Ac. 41.40109. 4 2 84. 2 7 50.78 7.40 R=184.04R=1 8 4 . 0 4 62.41 489. 3 6 R=51 4 . 8 7 R=29.68 39.64 R=444.84 33.26 R=25.32 41.22 10 1 . 1 6 R= 5 0 9 . 6 0 20 7 . 5 0 R= 3 4 3 . 4 2 R=17.23 17.04 R=44.95 92.026.56262.66 N86^46'19"W 323.12 N88^59'27"W 86 . 1 5 16 311.24 S87^23'39"E R=548 . 4 4 289.2 480 . 9 0 226.19 N89^34'20"W 24 4 . 5 4 N1 ^ 0 ' 2 7 " E 127.95 N74^34 ' 1 5 " W 585.33 N88^59'27"W 41. 7 9 17 3 . 2 3 R= 1 8 2 . 4 1 58.28 361.15 R=4 4 2 . 0 5 66 4 . 3 3 45.15 54 1 . 7 2 20 8 . 0 2 455.39 N85^17'38"W 77 . 0 7 10.34 61.8719.68 19 9 . 0 2 29.95 41.35 R= 6 4 . 7 6 88 . 2 6 20 70.07 42.44 11 3 . 6 0 77 . 0 7 10.34 R=64.99 44.72 19.68 68 . 5 6 21 6 . 8 1 N1 ^ 2 8 ' E 19.68 R=44.95 159.60 31.64 99 . 1 8 101.92 25.10 88.47 10 7 . 7 0 R=64.99N1 ^ 0 ' 3 3 " E 100.1 4 R=47 4 . 8 6 83 9 . 7 5 27 2 . 0 4 N4 ^ 5 9 ' 4 5 " E R= 7 5 3 . 7 3 R=64.99 R=64.99 19.68 TO PG 40 (OASIS DR.) 50' RDWY/UTILITY EASE. 45 46 80 .131Ac. .241Ac. 28.5 81.5 28.5 40.38 40.38 160.0 80 13 1 28.86 13 1 97PM50 51 55FM PG 27 FM PG 27 POR S 1/2 SEC 23 T1N R3E MDB&M 2.315Ac. 20.768Ac. 48 03/18/08 SM WA SH SM WA AC OS SH OS PR SM SM DR WA PS PR PR OS COSH DR PR PR ML DRPR SH OS SM PS OS ML OS OS ML PS OS PS SMPR PS PS WA SM WA Map Created 03/24/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Developm ent, GIS Group 30 M uir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,0 00 2,0 00500 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Pantages BaysGeneral PlanAmendment(GP19-0002) SM WA SH SM WA OS SH OS PR SM DR WA PS PR PR OS COSH DR PR PR ML AC DRPR SH OS SM OS PSML OS OS ML OS PS PR PS SM PR WA WA Current General Plan Proposed General Plan SITE SITE Project Site Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SM (Single Family - Medium) SH (Single Family - High) ML (Multiple Family - Low) CO (Com mercial) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) P-1 F-1 P-1, -UE A-3A-2 M-12 A-40 A-4A-3 A-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1P-1 P-1 P-1 F-1F-1 P-1, -UE P-1, -UEM-12 Map Created 03/23/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Developm ent, GIS Group 30 M uir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,0 00 2,0 00500 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It m ay be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Pantages BaysRezone(RZ19-3252) P-1 F-1 P-1, -UE A-3A-2 M-12 A-40 A-4 A-3 F-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1, -UE P-1, -UE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning SITE SITE Project Site Parcels Zoning M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) F-1 (Water Recreational) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) A-40 (Exclusive Agriculture) P-1 (Planned Unit) P-1 -UE (Urban Farm - Animal Exclusion Overlay) 0.6 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.6 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.280 1:18,056 Aerial Photograph Board of Supervisors' Districts City Limits Unincorporated World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations ADDENDUM TO THE PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (State Clearinghouse #2007-052130) Prepared By: Circlepoint 200 Webster St #200 Oakland, CA 94607 Prepared For: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 County File Numbers: GP19-0002, RZ19-3252, SD19-9527, DP19-03024 December 2020 Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 2 Page Intentionally Left Blank Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 1 Project Description PURPOSE The purpose of this addendum is to evaluate the environmental effects of proposed changes to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project (project). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was certified by Contra Costa County (County) in 2013 1 (2013 Pantages EIR), and an addendum to the EIR was prepared by the County in 2015 2 (2015 Pantages Addendum). This document addresses project modifications proposed by the project Applicant in 2019 to determine if new significant impacts would occur that would necessitate preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2013 PANTAGES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County approximately 16 miles west of Stockton, 4.5 miles southeast of Brentwood, and 19 miles north of Livermore. The approximately 171- acre project site is undeveloped except for a few dilapidated structures. The project site is located west of the original Discovery Bay subdivisions at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road (Figure 1). The project described in the 2013 Pantages EIR consisted of plans to construct 292 detached single- family residential units within the Discovery Bay community. The 2013 Pantages EIR also included a Sheriff Marine Patrol Substation, roadways and pedestrian facilities, and necessary utilities. Of the 292 residential units, 116 waterfront units included docks with deep water access to Kellogg Creek.3 The remaining 176 residential lots were located within the project site with no deep water access. In addition to residential development, the EIR project description included the widening of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project site, including a portion of Pantages Island northeast of the residential development, would have preserved emergent marsh in the northern portion of the project site and on Pantages Island, and would have created new seasonal wetlands. Bays and coves would have been excavated along Kellogg Creek to create waterfront lots and provide deep water access to residents. The 2013 project received approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. 2015 PANTAGES ADDENDUM After certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, the Applicant filed an application with the County to modify the approved General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. This application proposed reconfiguring the 292 proposed residential units to modify proposed bays along Kellogg Creek. These modifications would have required widening of the west bank of Kellogg Creek and removal of some of the wetlands in the northern part of the project site. Construction of the shoring wall along Kellogg Creek would have impacted waters of the United States as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The following project modifications were also proposed:  replacement of cement deep soil mixing shoring wall construction with the sheet pile shoring wall construction method  maximum bay depth of 33 feet and a minimum bay depth of –11 feet for boat keel clearance  new cut and fill amounts: 1,305,461 cubic yards of excavated soil and 1,344,237 cubic yards of fill  reconfiguration of streets, bays, and coves of the site plan 1 State Clearinghouse: #2007052130; County file numbers: GP99-0008, RZ04-3146, SD06-9010, DP04-3062 2 County file numbers: CDDP 19-03024 3 Kellogg Creek is a creek that branches off from the Indian Slough tributary and makes up the eastern border of the project site Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 2  reduction of waterfront lots to 105 (from 116); increase of non-waterfront lots to 187 (from 176) The 2015 Pantages Addendum evaluated this modified version of the project against conditions established in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2015 Pantages Addendum concluded that the 2015 modified project changes would not result in impacts previously unevaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR and would not warrant supplemental environmental review. PROJECT CHANGES ADDRESSED IN THIS ADDENDUM In 2019, the Applicant filed a new application with the County for additional modification to its approved General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and Final Development Plan. The proposed project modifications include a reconfiguration of the residential land uses to avoid impacts to the northern wetland complex and Kellogg Creek, reduction of residential lots from 292 to 277, expansion of the trail network and clubhouse area, and addition of two internal lakes within the project site (Figure 2). These key components are briefly described in Table 1 and in further detail below in Section 2.1 through Section 2.16. Project Components Project Feature 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Modified Project Bays and Coves Yes Yes No Widening of Kellogg Creek Yes Yes No Deep Water Access Yes Yes No Internal Lakes No No Yes Clubhouse No Yes Yes Sheriff’s Patrol Substation Yes Yes No Number of Housing Units 292 292 277 Impervious Surface (acres) 17.4 18.4 13.4 Trail Length (linear feet) 3,840 3,200 5,200 Table 3 summarizes the project site’s existing land use designations outlined in the Contra Cost County General Plan 2005-2020 (General Plan), the land uses proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the land uses proposed in the 2015 Pantages Addendum, and the new land use acreages proposed by the 2019 modified project. As shown in Figure 3, the General Plan includes designations for Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM) (3.0-4.9 DU/AC), Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH) (5.0- 7.2 DU/AC), Public/Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Water (WA) at the project site. However, consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR, project modifications would require a General Plan amendment to accommodate proposed land uses. In 2013, ABAG released the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which projects each community’s share of the region’s future growth and housing demand based on forecasts from San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2015-2023. Table 2 identifies the projected housing needs for unincorporated areas of the County by income level through 2023. The total projected RHNA for unincorporated areas of the County is 1,367 units, divided among the defined income groups. The greatest need is in the low income category. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 3 Unincorporated Contra Costa County RHNA for 2015-2023 Income Level RHNA Allocation Percent of Total Number of Units Needed Very Low 374 83 Low 218 16 Moderate 243 47 Above Moderate 532 0 Total 1,367 33 Source: ABAG Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2013 As discussed previously, the greatest need is in the very low income category, where 83 percent of the allotted units for the unincorporated County remains. Of the 277 units, a total of 41 units will be set aside as affordable. Based on unit count, and per the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the 41 affordable units represent 15 percent of the 277 units in the project. Eighty percent of the 41 affordable units (33 total) would be affordable to Moderate income households and twenty percent of the 41 affordable units (8 total) would be affordable to low income households. The unit mix of the affordable units will be determined once a homebuilder determines the market rate unit mix and prior to issuance of a building permit or first Final Map approval, whichever occurs first. The 41 affordable units would satisfy a portion of the County’s RHNA. As discussed in the Construction Methods section below, construction of the modified project would be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 for construction of the southern portion of the project site, and Phase 2 for construction north of Point of Timber Road, where affordable units would be within the northern block of lots and the lots along the projects western boundary. The affordable units would be delivered in a proportionate amount of all units delivered in each phase of construction, for a total of 41 affordable units. The details of the type, size, design, and lot location to be deferred to the recordation of the first Final Map or the issuance of a building permit for the project, whichever comes first. Required terms will include, but will not be limited to, pacing of the construction of affordable units to exceed or equal the pace of constructing market rate units. The modified project would decrease the total footprint of the project improvements relative to the 2013 Pantages EIR. The most substantial changes include a reduction of medium-density residential units and land designated for water, and an increase of high-density residential units and parks and open spaces. The total project modifications acreage (161.5 acres) is smaller than the project envisioned in the 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum (171.2 acres each). Net Acreage by Land Use Type Land Use Designation General Plan 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Project Modifications Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM) 42.3 46.3 42.3 0 Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH) 45.5 34.0 45.5 58.4 Water (WA) 37.6 46.8 37.6 25.0 Public/Semi-Public (PS) 2.6 0.9 2.6 0 Parks and Recreation (PR) 0 0 0 14.8 Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 4 Land Use Designation General Plan 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Project Modifications Open Space (OS) 43.2 43.2 43.2 63.3 Total Site Acreage 171.2 171.2 171.2 161.5 Residential Elements As shown in Figure 1, the project site is surrounded by residential land uses. The Ravenswood and Village neighborhoods border the west side of the project site, Discovery Bay to the east and south, and undeveloped open space borders the north. As shown in Figure 2, the modified project would include 277 single-family residential housing units. These units would no longer have deep water or waterfront access to Kellogg Creek, and would now include two lakes within the project site (Lake South and Lake North – described in Section 2.9). Regarding site access, the modified project no longer proposes gated points of entry and would have points of entry on Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. Roads and sidewalks within the residential portion of the modified project would create 13.4 acres of impervious surfaces. The 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum proposed 292 residential units with deep water access for all waterfront units and would have had only one gated point of entry at Point of Timber Road. Road and sidewalks for in the 2013 Pantages EIR created 17.4 acres of impervious surfaces, while the 2015 Pantages Addendum proposed 18.4 acres of impervious surfaces. Trail Network The modified project would now include two trail systems providing 5,200 linear feet of walkways: an internal pedestrian trail adjacent to Lake South, and a multi-purpose trail around the site perimeter providing views of Kellogg Creek, adjacent wetlands, and Lake North (Figure 2). The internal pedestrian trail around Lake South would connect to Point of Timber Road and passive park areas throughout the project site. This trail would also provide maintenance and emergency access. The outer multi-purpose trail system would provide access to views of Kellogg Creek, viewing areas of Lake North, and of the wetland features on the northern portion of the project site. The 2013 Pantages EIR included public pedestrian and bicycle access to the open space areas via a 3,840-foot-long public trail/emergency vehicle access road to be constructed through the emergent marsh and proposed wetland mitigation/open space area. The 2015 Pantages Addendum proposed 3,200 linear feet of pedestrian trail and eliminated the emergency vehicle access along the trail. Clubhouse The modified project would include a clubhouse to provide residents with amenities such as exercise facilities, meeting rooms, and a viewing area of the wetlands and Kellogg Creek. The clubhouse would be located at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road adjacent to Kellogg Creek. This location would accommodate the clubhouse along with parking, guest parking, and active outdoor spaces to accommodate recreational uses. The 2015 Pantages Addendum included a much smaller clubhouse and the 2013 Pantages EIR did not include a clubhouse project component. Internal Lakes The modified project would include construction of two lakes within the project site, Lake South and Lake North. Lake South, approximately 23 acres in size, would be surrounded by residential units on three sides, along with open space paseos that will provide view corridors; and the northern edge of the lake will be adjacent to the extension of Point of Timber Road, providing views of the entire lake from the trail and road. Lake South includes 5 bio-retention areas along its perimeter. Lake North would encompass approximately 7 acres and would be located in an upland area among the seasonal wetlands Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 5 and emergent marsh in the northern part of the project site. The 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum projects did not include internal lakes. IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND KELLOGG CREEK The modified project avoids or minimizes aquatic resources including wetland complexes and Kellogg Creek. As modified, the project would preserve on-site wetland features, would be set back from Kellogg Creek by approximately 70 feet, and would not increase in boat activity on the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta due to the elimination of bays and coves that would have provided deep water access. The 2013 Pantages EIR evaluated approximately 5.29 acres of wetland impacts and the 2015 Pantages Addendum evaluated approximately 5.55 acres of wetland impacts. These previous projects also required dredging to create bays and coves, that would have resulted in 5,800-6,100 linear feet of impacts or impacts to a 10.75-acrea area along Kellogg Creek to facilitate deep water access. CONSTRUCTION METHOD Construction of the modified project would be conducted in two phases; Phase 1 for construction of the southern portion of the project site, which would include construction activities associated with both lakes and the residential units surrounding Lake South, and Phase 2 for construction of the residential units primarily located north of Point of Timber Road. The modified project would no longer require a shoring wall, as the project would be set back from Kellogg Creek. Furthermore, the use of any type of pile driving equipment is not anticipated to be needed. Grading As shown in Table 4,the cut and fill amounts required with the reconfigured site plan would not exceed the cut and fill amounts analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Dirt excavated from the internal lakes would be used to raise the overall site elevation to same levels approved with the 2013 project, which raised portions of the project site out of the 100-year floodplain. Cut material would be balanced on-site; however, there is a potential need to import fill material up to 90,000 cubic yards per year of fill material, if necessary. Haul trucks would access the project site from Highway 4, approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site, then proceed onto Bixler Road, and then turn right onto Point of Timber Road to enter the project site. However, as included in the Conditions of Approval number 79, if the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced, then the Applicant shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan that would include the pavement analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Conditions of Approval number 102 for submittal to the County for its review and approval. Grading Balance 2013 Pantages EIR 2015 Pantages Addendum 2019 Modified Project Cut 1,130,000 cubic yards 1,305,461 cubic yards 775,000 cubic yards Fill 1,250,000 cubic yards 1,344,237 cubic yards 913,000 cubic yards MODIFICATION APPROVAL The County Planning Commission must approve the modified project vesting tentative map. A change in the existing General Plan Amendment map to reflect the revised locations for SH residential designation, OS, PR, and the WA designations would require Board of Supervisors approval. OTHER CHANGES SINCE 2013 PANTAGES EIR APPROVAL Since the project was approved in 2013, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved a permit for the Town of Discovery Bay (Town) to increase its wastewater discharge Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 6 flows into Old River. The increase is necessary to accommodate anticipated new development and the project. The RWQCB permit would allow wastewater discharge from new development to take place prior to construction of certain wastewater infrastructure improvements required by the discharge permit. Additionally, the 2013 Pantages EIR identified several traffic mitigation measures that would require the Applicant to financially contribute towards proposed road improvement projects throughout the region. At that time, some of these road improvement projects were being considered within the proposed update of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East County. Since the EIR certification, the 2013 East County Regional Area of Benefit Transportation Mitigation Fee Update was completed and the new fee ordinance was adopted. The changes to the 2013 Pantages EIR mitigation measures were updated accordingly in this addendum. PENDING PROJECT APPROVALS Pending project approvals and permits include:  Annexation into the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District  De-annexation from Reclamation District (RD) 800 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR USE OF AN ADDENDUM Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an addendum to an earlier EIR shall be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified document, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: A) The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. B) The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those that would require major revisions of the 2013 Pantages EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. C) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was approved, shows any of the following.  The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 7 Additionally, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:  any conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR; or,  only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental effect (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) that would require further environmental review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Answering a question with a “no” response does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental resource category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the Final EIR prepared for this project. Likewise, these environmental resource categories may be answered with a “no” in the checklist since the modified project description does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the certified 2013 Pantages EIR. The purpose of this addendum is to evaluate the potential for a “changed condition” that may result in a changed environmental effect that would require further environmental review beyond what was analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR using the 2013 CEQA Statute and Guidelines. Because the 2015 Pantages Addendum did not identify new impacts or mitigation measures associated with the project, a comparison of the 2019 modified project against the 2013 Pantages EIR represents a comprehensive evaluation to determine if new significant impacts would occur. As such, the 2015 Pantages Addendum is not discussed further. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES A) Do the proposed changes involve new impacts not previously identified? Pursuant to Section 15162, subdivision (a)(1), of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether changes represented by the modified project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the EIR, or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. B) New circumstances involving new impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162, subdivision (a)(2), of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. C) New information requirement requiring new analysis or verification? Pursuant to Section 15162, subdivision (a)(3)(A-D), of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2013 Pantages EIR was certified as complete, would result in any of the actions described above in Section 4.C. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 8 If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review finds that the conclusions of the Final EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required. D) Final EIR mitigation measures implemented or address impacts This column indicates whether the mitigation measures in the Final EIR would apply to the proposed changes evaluated in this EIR Addendum in order to minimize and reduce impacts. FINDINGS There are no substantial changes proposed by the modified project or in the circumstances in which the project would be undertaken that require major revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR, due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As illustrated herein, the project is consistent with the findings of the 2013 Pantages EIR and would have similar construction- related and operational effects (Section 15162, subdivision (a), State CEQA Guidelines), but at a reduced scale. Most mitigation measures from the 2013 Pantages EIR would remain in effect and would continue to mitigate proposed project modifications. Project modifications and changes in best practices 2013 resulted in updated mitigation measures for Biological Resources (Section 2.4) and Transportation and Traffic (Section 2.15). Additionally, project modifications have reduced or eliminated certain impacts, such that mitigation is no longer required. The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR (Section 15162, subdivision (b)(3), State CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project does not require major revisions to the Pantages Bays Project EIR. No new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the project have occurred since certification of the EIR. The previous analysis completed for the project remains adequate under CEQA. However, the project Applicant will remain obligated to comply with all applicable mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained within the 2013 Pantages EIR and 2015 Pantages Addendum, unless appropriately added, modified, or removed to reflect the environmental review in this addendum. The County may approve the modified project, as presented, based on this addendum. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 9 Figure 1 Project Site Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 10 Figure 2 Site Plan Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 11 Figure 3 Land Use Designations Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 12 Environmental Analysis AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No No No No mitigation required b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No No No No mitigation required c) Substantially degrade the existing character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? No No No No mitigation required d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not impact views from a scenic highway as there are no state-designated scenic highways within proximity of the project site.4 While the residential development analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR may have altered views of scenic vistas, including the Diablo Range, Kellogg Creek, and associated waterways of the Delta estuary systems, such views were already partially obstructed by adjacent development or were not visible in several locations around the project site due to intervening topography.5 The proposed project modifications would have a similar effect on scenic resources and vistas as determined in the 2013 project. Furthermore, no new scenic resources or vistas have been identified in the project area since certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR. Therefore, consistent with the project analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR, development of the modified project would not significantly impact scenic resources or scenic vistas. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not degrade the existing visual character of the surrounding area. As described in the EIR, the project area consisted of mostly single-family medium and high-density residential land uses. The residential development component proposed as part of the project analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR resembled the visual character of the surrounding 4 Caltrans. 2020. Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed: May 12, 2020. 5 Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan Open Space Element. Last Revised: 2010. Available: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30919/Ch9-Open-Space-Element?bidId=. Accessed: May 15, 2020. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 13 development. Similar to the conclusions in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the modified project would remain visually compatible with the type and intensity of surrounding development. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant impacts pertaining to the visual character or quality. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would result in new sources of light and glare from the residential development and associated vehicular traffic. Preparation of a lighting plan for the site, Mitigation Measure VIS-1, was required to mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would still introduce new sources of light and glare from residential development and vehicular traffic. The lighting plan outlined in Mitigation Measure VIS-1 in the 2013 Pantages EIR, would also apply to the modified project to reduce potential impacts associated with new sources of residential light and glare. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for aesthetics includes development projects that would affect scenic resources within the County. The General Plan EIR noted three primary areas where scenic quality could be cumulatively degraded:  development of vacant areas would reduce natural open space and would change the County’s character.  new development that is obtrusive, inconsistent with surrounding development or which is placed on a location of unique scenic value.  development of hillsides, ridges, and the Bay and Delta shoreline. The 2013 project included the development of the shoreline along Kellogg Creek, which resulting in a requirement for the applicant to enhance creek bank habitat on Pantages Island. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not have a considerable contribution to a cumulative aesthetics impact with the enhancement of creek bank habitat. The modified project would reduce cumulative impacts on visual quality because it would eliminate the widening of Kellogg Creek and would also retain open space in the northern portion of the project site, as opposed to the 2013 project which would have excavated the northern portion of the project site to create bays and coves. Furthermore, the modified project would remain consistent with the type and intensity of surrounding suburban development. As such, the modified project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic resource impacts would not be considerable. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially damage existing scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area, or create a new permanent source of light or glare. Overall, the modified project would slightly reduce visual impacts relative to the 2013 project by avoiding Kellogg Creek and retaining open space in the northern portion of the project site. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 14 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No No No No mitigation required b) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No No No No mitigation required c) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No No No No mitigation required d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No No No No mitigation required e) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site did not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, or land under Williamson Act contract. Although the project site was not actively used for agricultural production or timber harvesting, the site was zoned as General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3), which required that the applicant submit a rezoning request in order to implement the 2013 project. Subsequent to certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, the project site was rezoned as a Planned Unit District (P-1) interspersed with the Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District, which is consistent Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 15 with residential development.6 As such, the proposed uses associated with the modified project are consistent with the County’s zoning map. The Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District authorizes all uses designated under P-1 but prohibits farm animals, and as such, the modified project would be consistent with both land use designations. Furthermore, the modified project footprint would remain within the area of effect analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for agricultural and forest resources is the entire County. None of the land within the County is used for timber harvesting; therefore, the 2013 project, in combination with the other development within the County would not result in cumulative impacts to forest resources. The modified project would not change this conclusion, as land within the County is still not used for timber harvesting. The General Plan identified a cumulatively significant trend of conversion of agricultural land uses to urban development. The General Plan EIR noted that build-out of the General Plan would result in the loss of agricultural land throughout the County. However, the County adopted overriding considerations as part of the adoption of the General Plan, as the County must designate a certain amount of land for residential uses, as required by State Law, and as the economic welfare of the County and its continued ability to provide for the employment needs of its residents is contingent upon this conversion of land uses. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that conversion of the site from agricultural use to non-agricultural use would represent a considerable contribution towards this cumulative impact that is unavoidable. The modified project would eliminate this cumulative impact because the project site is no longer zoned as A-2 and A-3 and would comply with both the P-1 and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District land use designations. DETERMINATION When compared to the 2013 project, the modified project would not substantially change the impacts to agricultural and forest resources within the project site. Overall, the modified project would eliminate the impact to agricultural resources as it would no longer require the rezoning of farmland to urban development. Accordingly, the County finds the following: A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. 6 Contra Costa County. 2020. CCMAP. Available: https://ccmap.cccounty.us/Html5/index.html?viewer=CCMAP. Accessed: May 15, 2020. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 16 AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Would the project result in a community risk due to an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 people in a million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index, or increased PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) if the project is within 1,000 feet from a source? No No No No mitigation required b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No No No No mitigation required c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No No No No mitigation required d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No No No No mitigation required e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No No No Yes f) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that project operation would have a less-than-significant impact from increased community cancer/non-cancer risk as there were no sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) or particulate matter that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) within 1,000 feet of the project site. The modified project would introduce residents in the same location as the 2013 project Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 17 and as such, would not introduce sensitive receptors to an increased risk resulting from a stationary source, consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project-related traffic may increase localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. However, the highest estimated CO concentrations over an 8-hour period with project implementation was predicted to be 3.6 parts per million (ppm), well below the California ambient standard of 9.0 ppm. The modified project would include 15 fewer residential lots than the 2013 project, and as such, result in fewer motor vehicle trips and associated mobile emissions. The modified project would contribute to CO concentrations to a lesser extent than the 2013 project, and impacts would remain less than significant. Odors associated with construction of the 2013 project had the potential to be generated during architectural coating activities; however, the construction activities are required to comply with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8, Rule 3, which outlines regulations to minimize odor impacts. Furthermore, land uses surrounding the site were found to not constitute a significant odor source. The modified project would be consistent with findings made within the 2013 Pantages EIR and would be required to comply with applicable BAAQMD regulations to minimize odor impacts. The project as analyzed under the 2013 Pantages EIR was consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ regional population forecast and was therefore found to be consistent with applicable air quality plans, which are based upon regional forecasts for growth in population and employment. Furthermore, the 2013 project would have complied with the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) by adhering to transportation control measures (TCM) to improve bicycle and pedestrian access. The CAP was updated in 2017 with new TCM, including TCM TR9, which encourages planning for bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities. The modified project would introduce fewer residents than the 2013 project, well within the Association of Bay Area Governments’ current regional growth forecast, and thus would not conflict with any applicable air quality plan. The modified project would also retain project features to improve multi-modal access, including trails for pedestrians and bicyclists providing access to open space areas, consistent with the CAP. Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with findings made in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project would result in an increase of reactive organic gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would have been applied to the 2013 project to prohibit the installation of wood-burning fireplaces and stoves, reducing ROG emissions during operation of the project below the BAAQMD’s applicable threshold. Because the modified project would include fewer residential lots than the 2013 project, operational emissions from energy and water use by residents would be reduced. The modified project would also no longer include deep-water access, resulting in a reduction in emissions from motorboats used by residents of the project site. The impact from increase in criteria air pollutants would be incrementally reduced, but Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would still be implemented to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. In analyzing TAC emission impacts during construction, the 2013 Pantages EIR found that the use of diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would generate temporary emission of dust and diesel particulate that could adversely affect existing and planned residential sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. However, criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction of the 2013 project would not have exceeded BAAQMD’s applicable thresholds. The 2013 Pantages EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b to further reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, namely nitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM, and implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices to reduce TAC emissions from diesel exhaust. The modified project would involve Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 18 less intensive construction activity than the 2013 project due to the elimination of bays and coves and the construction of fewer residential units, and thus, lower levels of criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions from diesel-powered equipment. Therefore, the overall scale and duration of construction activity would not exceed what was assumed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-2a and AQ-2b would be required to reduce criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions to a less-than-significant level. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for air quality includes development within BAAQMD jurisdiction. The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality. The County adopted overriding considerations, citing, in part, the need to balance competing goals such as the need to provide opportunities for jobs and housing, with the goal of preserving open space and agriculture. In balancing the competing goals, the County found that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that a project would have a significant cumulative impact on air quality as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that any project with a significant individual air quality impact would also have a significant cumulative impact. The 2013 project was found to exceed the BAAQMD-recommended operational threshold of significance for ROG, but implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce ROG emissions well below the BAAQMD significant threshold. As previously discussed, the modified project would remain consistent with the findings from the 2013 Pantages EIR and maintain emissions below applicable air quality thresholds. As such, the modified project would not considerably contribute to a cumulative air quality impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts to air quality in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would have a reduced impact on air quality compared to the 2013 project due to the reduction in housing units which would result in fewer residents and motor vehicle trips. The modified project would also eliminate the construction of bays and coves and the widening of Kellogg Creek and as such, would require less construction equipment, resulting in fewer construction emissions. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 19 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No No No No mitigation required b) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No No No No mitigation required c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No Yes d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No No No Yes e) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No No No Yes Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Zentner Planning and Ecology completed a Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B) to verify the Biological Resources Analysis Report (Monk and Associates 2010) prepared for the 2013 project and assess the project modifications. Zentner Planning and Associates updated several mitigation measures to reflect current practices, which are provided in strikethrough and underline in their corresponding sections. Additionally, impacts to federally protected reptiles and amphibians were analyzed in a separate Memorandum prepared by Eric C. Hansen (Appendix C). Wildlife Corridors The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded the project would not interfere with the pathway or corridor of migratory or resident species because the project site does not overlap a wildlife movement corridor. As the modified project is in the same location as the 2013 project, the conclusion in the 2013 Pantages EIR remains the same, and the modified project would not interfere with the pathway or corridor of migratory or resident species. Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site was not located within the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) inventory area and would not conflict with any HCP/NCCP. Consistent with the 2013 project, the modified project would not conflict with an HCP/NCCP as the location of the project has not changed from the 2013 Pantages EIR. Waters of the United States The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that construction activities associated with the 2013 project, including widening of Kellogg Creek, would significantly impact waters of the United States and waters of the State. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12, which required permits from the USACE and the RWQCB and compensatory mitigation, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would remove water access, eliminate proposed bays and coves, and avoid widening Kellogg Creek, which would avoid modifications to waters of the United States and/or State. Furthermore, reconfiguration of the stormwater drainage system to discharge stormwater to the emergent marsh instead of Kellogg Creek would eliminate all fill into waters of the United States and/or State (see Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). The USACE confirmed these findings during an Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 21 agency meeting held on November 14, 2019.7 As such, the modified project would avoid modifying or filling waters of the United States and/or state and Mitigation Measure BIO-12 is no longer required. Special-Status Wildlife Species Appendix B evaluated special-status species that could be impacted by the project, including those not previously considered in the 2013 Pantages EIR that are now known to occur in the project region. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would impact the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp and that incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to this species to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would reconfigure the project layout to preserve wetland features that provide vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. As such, the modified project would not impact vernal pool fairy shrimp and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 is no longer required. Western Pond Turtle The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project could significantly impact western pond turtles and included Mitigation Measure BIO-6 to reduce impacts to this species. The widening and excavation of Kellogg Creek is no longer required as part of the project modifications, and the modified project would therefore avoid potential western pond turtle basking and nesting habitat. However, construction activities could still impact western pond turtle in the unlikely event that individuals travel through the construction area. As identified in the 2013 Pantages EIR, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (revised below to reflect current best practices) would apply reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level for the modified project. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Western Pond Turtle The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the project construction areas. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-status species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Within 5 days of initiating construction activities, a qualified biologist (knowledgeable and experienced in western pond turtle identification) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all 7 Madrone Ecological Consulting. 2019. Memo: Summary of November 14, 2019 Agency Meeting to Discuss the Pantages Project. Sacramento, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 22 areas in these locations that will or could be impacted by construction activities. Any western pond turtles or eggs observed within the construction zone shall be allowed to leave the area on their own accord or they shall be relocated by the qualified biologist to a suitable area outside of the construction zone. A survey report detailing the survey results shall be prepared and submitted to the biological permitting agencies prior to the start of construction. After the preconstruction survey and prior to construction activities, an exclusion fence shall be placed between the development and the bank habitat and the emergent marsh habitat such that a western pond turtle could not move from these habitats into the development area. A qualified biologist shall be present during trenching activities associated with the exclusion fence installation. The exclusion fencing will be standard silt fencing, approximately 42 inches in height that will be trenched 6 inches into the soil. The soil will then be compacted against both sides of the fence to prevent wildlife from gaining access underneath. The stakes will be placed on the inside of the fence facing the development. No gaps or holes are permitted in the fencing system, except for pedestrian and vehicle entry points. The entry/exit points may be constructed in the fencing system for equipment and personnel, but the qualified biologist must ensure no wildlife is capable of entering the fenced off site via the gate. The gate structure must be flush to the ground with no holes or gaps (i.e., plywood gates with silt fencing flaps). The fence will be inspected occasionally by a qualified biologist for holes, gaps, or access points, which shall be repaired upon discovery. The area inside the fence will also be inspected for trapped wildlife prior to the initiation of construction each day. If wildlife is discovered, the fence shall be opened and monitored until the wildlife has left the fenced area on its own accord and no work shall occur during this period. If the wildlife does not leave on its own accord, CDFW will be contacted before work may continue. Giant Garter Snake As described in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the giant garter snake has not been observed on the project site although emergent marsh and the vegetated edges of Kellogg Creek and East Contra Costa Irrigation District Dredge Cut provides suitable habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 was included in the 2013 Pantages EIR to reduce impacts to this species to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would avoid widening and excavation of Kellogg Creek and associated bank habitats, thereby avoiding giant garter snake habitat and eliminating potential impacts to this species.8 As such, the project would not impact giant garter snake and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is no longer required. Fish Several special-status fish occur in the project region, including steelhead salmon, Central Valley Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, longfin smelt, Delta smelt, green sturgeon, and Sacramento splittail. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that construction-related turbidity could significantly impact various fish species in the project area, and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 was implemented to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would avoid widening and excavation of Kellogg Creek, and would therefore avoid special-status fish habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 is no longer required. 8 Hansen, Eric C. 2020. Memo: Pantages at Discovery Bay: Threatened and Endangered Reptile and Amphibian Reevaluation. Sacramento, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 23 California Red-Legged Frog The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project would impact California red-legged frog, a federally- threatened species and a California species of special concern. The project site included suitable California red-legged frog habitat around an emergent marsh that would have been impacted by the 2013 project. The 2013 Pantages EIR included Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to reduce impacts to this species. The modified project site layout avoids the emergency marsh and includes a buffer between marsh habitat and the planned development, thereby avoiding suitable California red-legged frog habitat and eliminating potential impacts to this species.9 Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is no longer required. Swainson’s Hawk The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site includes suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 was included to reduce impacts to this species. The modified project site still contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 (updated below to reflect current best practices) is still required. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s Hawk To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios: • Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat2 (this is a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization. An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity. • With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The loss of potential foraging hawk habitat shall be mitigated in consultation with the CDFW following the recommendations provided below. The CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) recommends that projects within 1 mile of an active nest provide: o One acre of Habitat Management (HM) land (at least 10 percent of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90 percent of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or o One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on-the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). Prior to site disturbance tTo ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting Swainson’s hawk, preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted no more than on month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site 9 Hansen, Eric C. 2020. Memo: Pantages at Discovery Bay: Threatened and Endangered Reptile and Amphibian Reevaluation. Sacramento, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 24 are occupied in conformance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000). If an active nest is found on or adjacent to within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994) and/or in consultation with the CDFW. If Swainson’s hawk are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site. The size of this nondisturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified raptor biologist in the field and in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be based upon the location of the nesting tree, the bird’s tolerance of noise, and the type of other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations). Once the young have fledged from the nest, the buffer can be removed, and all project activities can commence. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest buffer could be vacated. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). Western Burrowing Owl The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl was found at the project site, and Mitigation Measure BIO-10 was required to reduce impacts to this species. Given that the modified project would occur on the same project site as the 2013 project, the modified project would result in a potentially significant impact to western burrowing owl and Mitigation Measure BIO- 10 is still required. Other Nesting Birds and Raptors The project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of nesting raptors and birds including white-tailed kites, northern harriers, red shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, loggerhead shrike, and tricolored blackbird. Mitigation Measures BIO-8 and BIO-11 were implemented to reduce impacts to these species. The modified project would still affect suitable nesting and foraging habitat for nesting raptors and other nesting birds and mitigation would still be required.10 Mitigation Measure BIO-11 has been condensed into Mitigation Measure BIO-8 for the modified project and the revised Mitigation Measure BIO-8 is provided below. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree Nesting Birds If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28). In an abundance of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of the tree to be removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no birds are nesting. 10 The existing mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval (COA; Contra Costa County 2013) for all nesting birds except Swainson’s hawk, have been consolidated below and updated to reflect current practices. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 25 If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those trees slated for removal. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest tree. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If construction related work would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season for raptors or other bird species listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (typically February 1 through September 15), a pre-construction survey of the project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region) within 7 days prior to the commencement of construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. The intent of the survey shall be to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the construction zone within approximately 250 feet. The surveys shall be timed such that the last survey is concluded no more than one week prior to initiation of construction. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional pre-construction survey shall be conducted such that no more than one week will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly or indirectly affected by the project, a no- disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones (generally 250 for raptors and 50 for passerines) and types of construction activities restricted within them should be determined through consultation with the CDFW depending on the species, taking into account factors such as the following: • Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; • Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and • Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds. The buffer zone around an active nest shall be established in the field with orange construction fencing or another appropriate barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 26 those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas of special-status bird species to ensure that no impacts on these nests occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-11 A nesting survey shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction work if this work would commence between March 15 and August 31. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike or tricolored blackbird, are identified nesting within the area of affect, a 100-foot non-disturbance radius around the nest must be fenced. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist. Similarly, the qualified ornithologist could modify the size of the buffer based upon site conditions and the bird’s apparent acclimation to human activities. If common (that is, not special-status) passerine birds (that is, perching birds such as northern mockingbirds) are identified nesting in the trees proposed for removal, tree removal would have to be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the project site. Typically, most passerine birds can be expected to complete nesting by August 1, with young attaining sufficient flight skills by this date that are sufficient for young to avoid project construction zones. Unless otherwise prescribed for special-status bird species, upon completion of nesting no further protection or mitigation measures would be warranted for nesting birds. Song Sparrow - Modesto Population The song sparrow (Modesto population) is a California species of special concern that was not previously evaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR because it was not observed on the project site. However, the site survey conducted for the modified project concluded that emergent marsh and bank habitat on the project site represent potentially suitable habitat for this species. The modified project would not impact emergent marsh and bank habitat and includes a substantial buffer between these habitats and the areas proposed for development. However, if project activities are planned for within 50 feet of the emergent marsh and bank habitat during nesting season, the preconstruction nesting bird survey and buffer zones required by the revised Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would avoid impacts to this species. Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would significantly impact trees protected under the Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance, as many would be removed to widen Kellogg Creek. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would replace native and non-native trees, reduced the impact to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would involve reconfiguration of the layout of the project and would no longer widen Kellogg Creek, which would reduce the number of trees requiring removal.11 However, several trees would still require removal to implement the modified project, and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would continue to apply to mitigate tree loss. However, the number of trees to be removed by the modified project has been significantly reduced as compared to the 2013 project. 11 Zentner Planning & Ecology. 2020. Pantages Modified Project: Biological Report for Peer Review by Rincon. August 2020. Oakland, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 27 Natural Communities Development of the 2013 project would significantly impact bank habitat 12, as it proposed removal of approximately half of the existing bank habitat within the project area along Kellogg Creek, the East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Dredge Cut, Old Kellogg Creek, and Pantages Island in order to widen Kellogg Creek, create new bays and coves, and develop waterfront homes. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 reduced this impact by requiring permits and approved mitigation measures by USACE, the RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board. Proposed modifications to the project would no longer require the widening of Kellogg Creek or removal of low, moderate, or high quality bank habitat. As a result, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would no longer be required, and the impact would be less than significant. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project would have the potential to impact the iodine bush scrub, determined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to be a sensitive natural community. However, the iodine bush scrub habitats on the property are highly disturbed and contain very few other native plants with an understory dominated by invasive grass species, for both the 2013 project and the modified project. As such, this impact would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project, in combination with other regional land use development, could result in cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts. Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-11 would offset the project’s impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources such that the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be considerable. The modified project would have a smaller area of disturbance, thereby reducing the magnitude of impact on vegetation and wildlife resources. In addition, the revised Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-10 would still be required to reduce project-level impacts to vegetation and wildlife. Thus, the modified project would not considerably contribute to a cumulative vegetation and wildlife impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project, in combination with other regional land use development, could cumulatively impact wetlands, bank habitat, and waters of the United States. The modified project would now avoid wetlands, bank habitat, and waters of the United States, and as such, would not contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts to biological resources in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. 12 For the purposes of this Addendum, bank habitat is the habitat located on the banks of Kellogg Creek, the ECCID Dredge Cut, and Old Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat was characterized by the type of vegetation or lack of vegetation covering the banks. These habitat types were then categorized as low, moderate, or high quality based on the extent of cover they provide fish (Stillwater Sciences 2006). Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 28 CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? No No No Yes b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5of the State CEQA Guidelines? No No No Yes c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No No No Yes d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Site surveys and archival research conducted for the 2013 Pantages EIR did not identify archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site. Additionally, the project site did not contain structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). After certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, a cultural resource was identified in the northeast corner of the project site along Kellogg Creek. The modified project would be within the original limits of disturbance evaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR and would have a smaller overall construction footprint. Notably, the modified project layout would avoid the cultural resource site identified at the northeast corner of the project site. The original cultural resource surveys, research, and impacts identified in the 2013 Pantages EIR remain valid because the project modifications do not expand the project footprint into previously unevaluated areas. Although cultural surveys and research conducted for the 2013 Pantages EIR did not identify archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site, there remains the possibility that the modified project could encounter unidentified cultural resources during construction. In the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources are discovered, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would still apply to halt work and consult with a qualified professional if an unrecorded cultural resource is uncovered. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes developments within the County that could potentially affect archaeological or historical resources. Development associated with the General Plan Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 29 buildout could result in potentially significant impacts to known and unknown historical and archeological resources. As such, development of the project site, in combination with planned projects in the General Plan EIR, would result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative cultural resources impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR noted that no known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources were identified on the project site, and therefore the project would not contribute to this cumulative impact. In the event that undiscovered cultural resources were unearthed during construction, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would ensure proper identification and treatment. The modified project would be in the same location as the 2013 project and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would be applied in the event an undiscovered cultural resource is encountered. The modified project would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource; directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or geologic feature; or disturb any human remains from what was previously analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in reduced cultural resource impacts due to the smaller footprint and avoidance of a known cultural resource. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No No No No mitigation required i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 30 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No No No Yes iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No No No Yes iv) Landslides? No No No No mitigation required b) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No No No No mitigation required c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No No No Yes d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No No No Yes e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project site was not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and would not subject people or structures to landslides because the project site is generally flat and there is no history of landslides in the vicinity of the Town. Accordingly, the 2013 Pantages EIR determined no impacts would occur regarding fault rupture and landslides. Consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the existing topography of the land has not changed, and no new fault rupture or landslide impacts would occur. The 2013 project would have connected with municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems and did not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to soil capability of supporting wastewater systems. The modified project would not alter these plans to connect proposed residences to municipal wastewater and treatment systems. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site could experience groundshaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or expansive soil effects. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and GEO-3 required consistency with building codes and implementation of monitoring plans to reduce this impact Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 31 to a less-than-significant level. The project site’s underlying soil would still be prone to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and expansion, and therefore could still potentially expose people and structures to these adverse effects as a result of these conditions. As such, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-3 would still be required. Development of the project site could result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil because construction would increase the amount of exposed surfaces and increased sedimentation in receiving water bodies. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Soil erosion and topsoil loss during operation would be reduced for the modified project because the area of disturbance would be slightly smaller and less excavation would be required due to the elimination of bays and coves proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. However, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would still be applied to the modified project to further reduce construction period and long-term erosion and sedimentation. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR notes that buildout would increase the potential for new development in areas subject to seismic shaking, liquefaction, ground failure and land sliding, thereby increasing the associated risks to persons and property. However, geologic impacts are site specific and relate to the type of building and building foundation proposed, as well as the soil composition and slope on the site. Therefore, implementation of the modified project, in addition to other planned projects in the County would not considerably contribute to a cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to geology in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in slightly reduced geology and soils impacts because the smaller project footprint would encounter fewer hazards. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No No No Yes Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 32 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would increase per capita CO2 emissions beyond BAAQMD thresholds and contribute to regional and global increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2013 project included Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and 1b, which outline energy efficiency measures to reduce project emissions; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The modified project includes development of fewer residential units compared to the 2013 project, thereby reducing the amount of GHG emissions from on-site sources and motor vehicle trips. Regulatory changes such as motor vehicle fuel economy standards and energy efficiency standards have improved since certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, which would further reduce GHG emissions generated by residents. While total GHG emissions would be lower than the 2013 project, the emission intensity would not substantially change, and emissions levels would still exceed BAAQMD’s emissions threshold and the State of California’s adopted GHG emissions reduction targets such that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and 1b, consistent with the 2013 project. There are no additional cumulative impacts for GHG emission as GHG emissions are inherently cumulative. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts to greenhouse gas emissions in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in slightly reduced GHG impacts due to the smaller footprint and reduced number of proposed residences. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 33 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No No No No mitigation required b) For a protect located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No No mitigation required c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No No No No mitigation required d) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No No No No mitigation required e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No No No No mitigation required f) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 34 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No No No Yes h) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site (1) does not contain hazardous material sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, (2) is not located within an airport land use plan, airport, or private airstrip that would impact safety or represent a hazard, and (3) is not a high-risk zone for wildland fires. These conditions have not changed since 2013 and are not analyzed further.13,14 The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not affect emergency response plans because the project is designed to comply with County standards for emergency vehicle access. The modified project would now allow emergency vehicle access on residential streets rather than through the open space, as originally proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive would serve as the emergency vehicle access roads and would be extended to access residences throughout the project site. As such, the project would provide adequate emergency access to the entire project site. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that project construction could mobilize hazardous materials including asbestos and lead. The modified project would continue to require demolition, grading, and construction activities that could potentially cause a release of these hazardous materials such as arsenic, asbestos, and lead based paint. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, as proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR, would ensure hazardous materials would be removed prior to construction and would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project analyzed in the 2013 Pantages EIR could involve the release of hazardous materials in proximity to a school; the project site is located within a 0.25 mile from Timber Point Elementary School. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that potentially hazardous materials would be properly handled to reduce exposure risks to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would 13 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOS E&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed: May 12, 2020. 14 Calfire. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Last Revised: 2009. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed: May 12, 2020. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 35 not change the location of the project site and would not change the determination in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, this impact would remain less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR identified a potentially cumulative impact related to risk of accidental release of hazardous materials associated with heavy industry and other land uses requiring the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials. The General Plan EIR also notes that new residential and commercial development would increase the number of people in proximity to these uses thereby increasing their risk of exposure. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws specifically to ensure that they do not result in a gradual increase to toxins in the environment. Implementation of these policies occurs as part of the development review and construction permitting process and was found to not result in cumulative hazardous materials impacts. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No No No No mitigation required b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 36 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No No No No mitigation required d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? No No No No mitigation required e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No No No No mitigation required f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? No No No Yes g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No No No No mitigation required h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No No No No mitigation required i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 37 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? j) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Hydrology associated with implementation of the project has changed substantially from the 2013 project. The 2013 project included bays and coves along Kellogg Creek to allow deep water access. The modified project would remove direct access to Kellogg Creek and eliminate the construction of bays and coves but would add two internal lakes. The modified project would also include a stormwater drainage system designed to accommodate typical stormwater generated on the project site, and would have an elevation exceeding the minimum elevation for a 300-year base flood event. Groundwater The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that groundwater recharge was not feasible at the project site due to the low permeability of the site’s clay soils, and therefore, the addition of impervious surfaces associated with the project was not expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge. The modified project would similarly avoid depletion or interference with groundwater supplies. The amount of impervious surface introduced at the project site would decrease from 17.4 acres proposed in the 2013 Pantages EIR to 13.4 acres. Therefore, due to the low permeability of the site’s clay soils and the reduction of impervious surfaces, the modified project would not significantly affect groundwater recharge at the project site, consistent with the findings made in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Stormwater The 2013 project included a storm water drainage and treatment system and would not require connection to an existing or planned water drainage system, and therefore not contribute to or exceed the existing system’s capacity. The project’s proposed drainage system was designed to comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the County’s C.3 requirements. Adherence to drainage system plan and applicable regulations would reduce operational impacts associated with the 2013 project to a less-than-significant level. All surface water runoff from the project site under the modified project would continue to drain into the approved storm water drainage and treatment system, which would collect runoff from drainage areas into a series of bioretention facilities designed to accommodate stormwater runoff generated within the project site. Although project modifications would involve reconfiguration of the storm water drainage and treatment system, the modified project would still meet NPDES requirements and would be designed to accommodate local system capacity. Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with findings made in the 2013 Pantages EIR, and potential impacts resulting from stormwater runoff would remain less-than-significant. Erosion and Water Quality The 2013 Pantages EIR identified potential erosion and water quality impacts from construction-related activities, such as excavation and widening of Kellogg Creek. The modified project would have a smaller construction footprint and would no longer affect Kellogg Creek, which would reduce erosion associated with construction activities around Kellogg Creek. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, 1b, and 1c, which proposes to monitor water quality, prevent pollution from construction, and ensure Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 38 compliance with the SWPPP, would still apply to minimize water quality degradation or erosion. In addition, two abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as conduits for hazardous waste and pollutants and impact groundwater, as pollutants may seep into groundwater via the well sites. Consistent with the 2013 project, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would be applied to the modified project to survey existing groundwater wells to avoid groundwater contamination. Flooding The project site is located within a 100-year flood zone that is not protected by an outside levee. However, the 2013 project met the minimum elevation required to protect against a 300-year base flood event with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b, which included grading plans for minimum floor elevations for residential units and street level elevations to minimize flooding impacts. Potential flooding from failure of a levee or dam was also considered less than significant, as the nearest reservoir, Los Vaqueros, was designed to ensure it could withstand a maximum credible earthquake and can reduce the level of inundation in the event of an emergency. Under the modified project, soil excavated from the construction of the lakes would be used to raise the project site. Although the project site would be raised, Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would still be implemented to further reduce flood risks. Tsunami, Seiches, and Mudflows The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project site would not likely be affected by a tsunami, seiches, or mudflow due to the topography and geography of the project site. There is no evidence of tsunami and seiches sources near the project site and the project site is nearly flat and would not be subject to mudflows. The geography and topography of the site have not changed such that it would alter the project’s susceptibility to tsunamis, seiches, or mudflow. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR notes that an increase in urban runoff due to urban development would release pollutants and sediments into the Delta, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water quality. The 2013 project, with implementation of General Plan policies, was determined to not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to water quality as point sources of pollutants would be identified and controlled. The modified project will be consistent with determinations made in the 2013 Pantages EIR by complying with applicable developmental review and construction permitting processes. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that, with adherence to applicable General Plan policies, the 2013 project would not considerably contribute to a cumulative flooding and sea level rise impact because the project was designed with building pad elevations to account for floods and future sea level rise. The modified project would be consistent with determinations made in the 2013 Pantages EIR and would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water quality in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts due to the smaller construction footprint and elimination of deep water access to Kellogg Creek. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 39 B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No No No No mitigation required b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No No No No mitigation required c) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would continue the pattern of residential development that exists to the east, west, and south of the vacant project site. The modified project would continue this pattern by developing a residential community consistent with the character and intensity of the surrounding area. Therefore, the modified project would not physically divide an existing community. The 2013 Pantages EIR proposed a General Plan Amendment from the current land use designation to Single-Family Residential – Medium-Density (SM), Single-Family Residential – High-Density (SH), Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS). The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project was within the urban limit line and would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The modified project would also require a General Plan Amendment and, as outlined in Table 3, proposes new acreages of the following land use designations: SH, WA, OS, and PR. Since certification of the 2013 Pantages EIR, the General Plan Land Use Element has not changed. As a result, project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2013 Pantages EIR and no new impacts would occur. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 40 As discussed in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, the project site is located outside the inventory area of the HCP/NCCP. The modified project would not extend beyond the area of impacts considered in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The project would not conflict with applicable HCP/NCCP. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR noted that implementation of the County’s urban limit line would result in a change in land use patterns within the County. Namely, its implementation would result in a concentration of growth within areas designated for urban development and a preservation of the agricultural core for purely agricultural uses. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not contribute to this cumulative land use impact as the project site is located within an area intended for future development. The modified project would not change this determination because it would remain in the same location. DETERMINATION The modified project would not affect land use and planning within the project site. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstance s Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No No No No mitigation required b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project site because it is not classified or designated within a mineral resource zone and does not have a history of mining. The project modifications do not expand into previously unevaluated areas and would not encounter new mineral resources. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 41 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the 2013 project in combination with other projects in the area would have no potential to impact state-designated regionally significant mineral resources and there would be no cumulative impact related to mineral resources. The modified project would not change the location of the project, and as such, would have no cumulative impact on mineral resources. DETERMINATION The modified project would not affect mineral resources within the project site. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. NOISE AND VIBRATION Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No No mitigation required b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No No No No mitigation required c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 42 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No No No No mitigation required e) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No No No No mitigation required f) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No No No Yes DISCUSSION Construction Construction equipment for the project could generate temporary noise for the duration of construction. The 2013 Pantages EIR assessed potential vibration effects and determined that project construction would not include any components that would generate excessive groundborne vibration. The modified project would not use equipment that would generate excessive groundborne vibration levels, consistent with the 2013 project. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that site preparation, foundation work, framing, and interior work on new residences would generate noise, as would extensive excavation and dredging to create bay, coves, and waterways. Noise levels from construction equipment were estimated at distances of 50 feet from residences along the western property line and 300 feet from residences to the east in Discovery Bay. The assessment found a temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels due to construction as noise levels would exceed 75 dBA at 50 feet (decreases by 6 dBA per doubling distance). This was considered a significant impact in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR identified Mitigation Measures NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI-1c to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by restricting the timing of construction activity, preparing and implementing a detailed construction noise mitigation plan, and erecting temporary noise barrier on the project site. The modified project would no longer require the construction of bays, coves, and waterways, eliminating several sources of construction noise. However, the modified project would use equipment to excavate lakes similar to those in the 2013 project to excavate bays and coves. It is anticipated excavation of lakes and construction of residences would generate temporary noise levels exceeding 75 dBA at residences next to the project site. The impact of the modified project would be reduced compared to the 2013 project, but Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1c would still be required to further reduce noise. Operation The 2013 Pantages EIR determined the project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of an airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The modified project would introduce Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 43 new residents at the same location as the 2013 project, and therefore potential impacts from aircraft noise would be less-than-significant. The 2013 Pantages EIR considered noise and vibration effects from operation and construction of the project. Once operational, residential developments associated with the 2013 project were anticipated to increase noise levels as a result of increased traffic and watercrafts but would not exceed 5 dBA and as such, would result in a less-than-significant impact on sensitive receptors. The modified project would introduce fewer residents, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and a slightly reduced impact from traffic noise. The modified project would eliminate deep water access, which would result in a substantial decrease in the noise generated by boat. As described in the 2013 Pantages EIR, potential boating accidents may require emergency air-lift services from a Medivac helicopter within the project site. This substantial increase in on-site noise was found to be temporary and sporadic and would not result in permanent changes to the ambient noise levels. The modified project would not include water access and therefore would not require emergency helicopter services, resulting in a lower level of ambient noise than the 2013 project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would result in increased ambient noise levels related to roadway traffic and construction, as well as airport activity, industrial activity, and the extension of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) services. The project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport, industrial site, or BART extension, and would not contribute noise in these areas. The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the main contribution of noise would be from local roadways. Roadway noise associated with build out of the 2013 project would not exceed the five dBA threshold required to be considerable contribution a cumulative noise impact. The modified project would reduce the number of residential units, thus resulting in reduced noise levels. As such, the modified project is considered consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR and would not result in a considerable contribution to increases in roadway noise. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to noise and vibration in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in reduced noise and vibration impacts because heavy construction equipment required to excavate bays and coves and would no longer be required. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 44 POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No No No No mitigation required b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of the replacement housing elsewhere? No No No No mitigation required c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not displace existing housing or residents because the project site is vacant. The project site remains vacant and no new housing has been built since certification of 2013 Pantages EIR. The project, as analyzed under the 2013 Pantages EIR, would have directly increased the population through development of 292 residential units. However, the population generated by the project was within population forecasts for the County as a whole, as outlined in the General Plan Land Use and Housing Element.15 The modified project would reduce the number of total housing units relative to the 2013 project and would remain consistent with growth anticipated in County population forecasts. Of the 277 units proposed for the modified project, a total of 41 units will be set aside as affordable. Thus, the project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2013 Pantages EIR and no new impacts would occur. Development of the 2013 project was determined to have the potential to indirectly increase growth due to extension of municipal services and roads to a previously undeveloped area, which can often induce growth in adjacent areas. However, the project is an infill development and adjacent lands are either developed with residential uses or located outside the urban limit line, which would prohibit further development. The modified project is consistent with determination made for the 2013 project, because the modified project is in the same location as the 2013 project and as such would not trigger growth in adjacent areas. 15 Contra Costa County. 2014. Contra Costa County General Plan. Last Revised: 2010. Available: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4732/General-Plan. Accessed: May 20. 2020 Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 45 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan EIR stated that build-out of the General Plan could result in up to 145,206 new residents in the County by the end of the planning period (2020). The General Plan and adoption of the urban limit line identified an intended pattern of residential development that included urban development of the area surrounding the Town. The General Plan EIR also noted that adoption of the General Plan would concentrate population in urban areas and would preclude development and extension of urban services and facilities outside of the urban limit line. As such, the General Plan EIR did not identify a significant impact related to population growth and therefore a considerable contribution to a cumulative population and housing impact. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially change the impacts on population and housing within the project site. The modified project would result in reduced impacts to population and housing due to the reduction in residential units. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:? No No No No mitigation required i) Fire protection? No No No No mitigation required ii) Police protection? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 46 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? iii) Schools? No No No No mitigation required iv) Parks? No No No No mitigation required v) Other public facilities? No No No No mitigation required b) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No No No No mitigation required c) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the 2013 project would generate a small increase in demand for fire protection, emergency services, police services, school services, and public facilities. Fire Services The East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ECCCFPD) serves the project area. The increase in population proposed by the 2013 project did to not directly trigger the need for additional ECCCFPD staff, equipment, or facilities. The modified project would introduce fewer residents, and consequently, less demand for fire protection and emergency services than what was anticipated under the 2013 Pantages EIR. Police Services The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office serves the project area. The 2013 project included 116 docks with deep water access that would require additional marine patrol and proposed a marine patrol substation as part of the project to address this need. The modified project would remove the docks and deep water access, eliminating the need for additional marine patrol. In addition, the modified project would decrease the number of housing units and reduce project-related demand for police services concluded in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the existing police staff, equipment, and facilities would be able to provide adequate police services to the project, but the addition of one part-time sheriff deputy would enhance police services on the project site and in the surrounding area. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to form a police services district through the special tax to augment police services. Thus, forming the police services district would reduce potential impacts to police services. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 47 School Facilities Discovery Bay Elementary School, Timber Point Elementary School, Excelsior Middle School, and Liberty High School serve the project area. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that these nearby schools would have adequate capacity to serve additional students introduced by the 2013 project, and that the applicant would be required to pay applicable school impact fees per Senate Bill 50. The project modifications would result in fewer residents than proposed in 2013 and would still adhere to the Senate Bill 50 school impact fees. Therefore, the modified project would not result in new impacts related to school facilities. Community Facilities The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project had the potential to increase demand for library services and health facilities; however, these impacts were considered less than significant. The modified project would reduce the number of residents, reducing demand for community facilities. Park Resources The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that sufficient park resources were available for the 2013 project residents. The 2013 project would have provided of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, consistent with the County’s parkland requirement, and included Mitigation Measure PS-1 to provide approximately 2.6 acres of public recreational trail available for use by the new residents and public. The modified project would increase the amount of land designated for open space, and parks and recreational land uses by 63.3 and 14.8 additional acres, respectively, compared to the project evaluated in the Pantages 2013 Pantages EIR. As such, Mitigation Measure PS-1 would no longer be necessary as project modifications would introduce a new trail network originally prescribed by this measure. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Fire and Police Services The cumulative impact for emergency services includes any proposed development within the service districts of the County Sheriff’s Office Delta Station and the ECCFPD that, in combination with the project, may generate the need for new facilities, equipment, and staffing to maintain acceptable service ratios. Implementation of the 2013 project, in combination with other nearby projects, would increase demands for police and fire services and would result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact. The modified project would result in fewer residents, slightly decreasing the demand for police and fire services. As such, the modified project would continue to have a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact identified in the 2013 Pantages EIR. Parks and Recreation The cumulative impact to parks and recreation includes any proposed development that could affect parks and recreational facilities within the Town. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not have a considerable contribution to a cumulative parks and recreation impacts because it provided public trails and would have contributed applicable park mitigation fees. The modified project would implement a larger trail system while continuing to pay applicable park mitigation fees, thereby reducing the projects contribution to this cumulative impact. Schools The cumulative impact to schools includes any proposed development within the Byron Union School District and the Liberty Union High School District. The 2013 project, in combination with other residential projects in the vicinity, would generate new students and would be required to pay development impact fees to both school districts, consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 50. As Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 48 such, the project was determined to not have a considerable contribution to cumulative school impacts. The modified project would decrease the total amount of residential units, thereby reducing the number of students, and would continue to pay applicable school impact fees. Therefore, the project would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. DETERMINATION Project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the 2013 Pantages EIR and no new impacts would occur. When compared to the 2013 project, the modified project would result in less public service and recreation impacts due to the reduced number of residences. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No No No No mitigation required b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No No No No mitigation required c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No No No No mitigation required d) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No No No No mitigation required e) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of No No No Yes Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 49 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? f) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No No No Yes DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would not involve activities that would affect air traffic patterns. The 2013 Pantages EIR also determined that the project would not include hazardous design features, as designated traveling speeds, pedestrian buffers, and compliance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual would provide adequate safety measures. The proposed modifications would not affect air traffic patterns or include hazardous design features as the project location has not changed from the 2013 project, and these topics are not discussed further. The 2013 project included an emergency vehicle access road within the project site as well as a 20-foot- wide pedestrian/emergency vehicle access trail. As such, the project was determined to provide adequate emergency access to the project site. Emergency vehicle access through the proposed open space and emergent marsh is no longer necessary for the modified project due to reconfigured street alignments. Project modifications allow for emergency vehicle access vehicles to access residences along Point of Timber Road as well at Wilde Drive. As such, the modified project would provide adequate emergency access. The project evaluated in the 2013 Pantages EIR did not include plans for transit services but did support pedestrian and bicycle access. Implementation of bicycle paths associated with design of the modified project would be consistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with the conclusions in the 2013 Pantages EIR and provide adequate multi-modal access for residents. The 2013 project included one point of entry at Point of Timber Road. The modified Project includes two points of entry at both Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive, thereby increasing traffic on Wilde Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 50 Drive.16 However, considering the existing level of traffic on Wilde Drive in addition to traffic generated by the modified project, total traffic volumes on Wilde Drive are expected to remain within an appropriate level for a residential street, and the impact would be less than significant. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen level of service (LOS) at SR4/Byron Highway and Vasco Road. Impacts to SR4/Byron Highway were determined to be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which would add an additional left-turn lane. The impacts at Vasco Road were determined to be significant and unavoidable for the 2013 project, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2. Implementation of the modified project would increase traffic volumes on rural roads to a lesser extent than the 2013 project, as the modified project proposes fewer residential lots. Project modifications would not alter the County’s projected population such that it would exceed traffic volumes projected under the 2013 Pantages EIR, as fewer residences would generate fewer daily trips. A trip generation assessment was completed in April 2020 (Table 5) and found that the modified project would result in 170 fewer daily trips than the 2013 project due to the decrease in residences. Mitigation Measures TRA- 1 through TRA-3 (listed below) would continue to reduce traffic impacts; however, impacts to Vasco Road would remain significant and unavoidable. Trip Generation Summary Scenario (Dwelling Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Approved Project 292 2,790 55 164 219 186 109 295 Proposed Project 277 2,620 51 154 205 173 101 274 Net Change in Project Trips -170 -4 -10 -14 -13 -8 -21 Source: Fehr and Peers, 2020 If import of fill materials is required for the modified project, additional truck trips may occur during construction, which may increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways. Haul trucks would access the project site using Highway 4, approximately 1.5 miles away from the project site. Trucks would proceed onto Bixler Road, and then turn right onto Point of Timber Road to enter the project site. However, additional truck trips would only last the duration of construction. The 2013 Pantages EIR identified several traffic mitigation measures that would require the applicant to financially contribute towards proposed road improvement projects throughout the region. At that time, some of these road improvement projects were being considered within the proposed update of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East County. Since the 2013 Pantages EIR certification, the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit Transportation Mitigation Fee Update was completed, and the new fee ordinance was adopted. Some mitigation measures in the 2013 Pantages EIR were updated accordingly in this addendum and are listed below; those not listed would still apply in their original format. The changes to the mitigation measures are shown in the following format: additions are underlined; deletions are shown in strikethrough. While such traffic mitigation measures were clarified 16 Fehr and Peers. 2020. Final Memorandum: Pantages Trip Generation and Site Plan Assessment Update. Last Revised: April 27, 2020. Walnut Creek, CA. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 51 to account for the new information, no proposed project changes would alter the traffic impact findings from the 2013 Pantages EIR. Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane. This improvement is included in the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA- 2 (Option 1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not be shifted under this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed. A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program. If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 52 Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOBAOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach. The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of several improvements at this intersection in the 2013 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impact area for traffic and transportation includes the forecasted growth in the County and was modeled using the CCTA Decennial Travel Demand Model, which reflects land use assumptions from the Association of Bay Area Governments, with forecasts out to the year 2035. However, the Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 53 General Plan EIR determined that the addition of trips under the cumulative scenario would degrade already deficient operations, and would not considerably contribute to this cumulative impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would result in significant increases in traffic volumes at various locations near the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1 through CUM TRA-11, which would install traffic signals and turn lanes at the impacted areas, would reduce the impacts at most intersections, but the traffic impact along Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road would remain significant and unavoidable. The modified project would slightly reduce traffic volumes as a result of fewer residences and Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1 through CUM-TRA-11 would still be implemented to reduce impacts, but the modified project would still result in traffic impacts along Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road that are significant and unavoidable. As described above, many of the intersections analyzed already operate at unacceptable LOS and implementation of the modified project degrades already deficient operations. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impacts related to transportation and traffic in the 2013 Pantages EIR. The modified project would result in slightly reduced transportation and traffic impacts due to the reduced amount of daily vehicle trips introduced by the project. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? Would the Project: a) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No Yes b) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? No No No No mitigation required Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 54 Issues and Supporting Information Sources New Impacts Not Previously Identified? New Circumstances Involving New Impacts? New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Final EIR Mitigation Measures Implemented or Address Impacts? c) Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No No No No mitigation required d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No No No Yes e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No No No Yes f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No No No Yes g) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No No No No mitigation required DISCUSSION The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that stormwater would be detained and treated by on-site bio- swales before release into local waterways in compliance with the County’s C.3 requirements. As discussed in Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, project modifications include on-site stormwater treatment in bioretention facilities, and as such, would also comply with the County’s C.3 requirements. The 2013 Pantages EIR identified significant effects associated with the project’s water supply demands. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 addressed the potential for the project to outpace available water distribution by providing documentation to the County that sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. As part of this measure and as a condition of approval, the County would require the project to incorporate indoor and outdoor water conservation measures to reduce consumption, thereby reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. The modified project would have a slightly lower water supply demand because of the reduction in housing units, but Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and the County water conservation measures would still be required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 55 The 2013 Pantages EIR also identified significant wastewater treatment impacts because the existing wastewater treatment facility did not have the capacity to serve the project. The 2013 Pantages EIR referenced the Town’s Wastewater Master Plan, which outlined improvements required to accommodate the increase in wastewater capacity due to the Town’s projected growth. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 was created to demonstrate that sufficient funding for the construction of capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater Master Plan have been identified and secured. With adherence to Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 and implementation of the improvements outlined in the Wastewater Master Plan, the Town would have sufficient capacity to serve the project. The modified project slightly decreases the amount of wastewater generated from the project due to the reduced number of housing units, but would not significantly reduce wastewater generation such that mitigation would be no longer required. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 would still be required minimize this impact. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that Potrero Hills Landfill had capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the project. As a condition of approval to the 2013 Pantages EIR, a Debris Recovery Plan would be submitted prior to issuance of the building or demolition permit. Therefore, the project was determined to comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste. As the modified project proposes a reduced number of residential units and would adhere to the established Debris Recovery Plan, the impact to solid waste would be slightly less than the 2013 project and the Potrero Hills Landfill would have capacity to handle solid waste generated by project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impact for public utilities includes the project area and Town. The General Plan EIR noted that future development would cause an increase in long-term water demand that could not be accommodated by existing water agency plans in high growth areas. The General Plan EIR also noted that future development may not have access to adequate quantities or quality of domestic water supply. The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that implementation of the 2013 project would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on water supply. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 reduced this impact and would continue to apply to the modified project. The 2013 project, in combination with other projects in the area, could result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative wastewater treatment capacity impact. As determined in the 2013 Pantages EIR, the project would require implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 to ensure improvements to the Town’s wastewater treatment capacity are applied prior to project construction. The modified project would result in fewer project residents and would generate less wastewater but would still require Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 to ensure there would not be a considerable contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts. DETERMINATION The modified project would not substantially change the impacts to utilities and services within the project site and no new impacts would occur. The modified project would slightly reduce utility and service system impacts due to the reduction in residences. Accordingly, the County finds the following. A) Substantial changes in the project and project circumstances resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would not occur. B) New information of substantial importance with respect to this environmental resource resulting in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects has not been identified. C) None of the proposed project changes would significantly affect this environmental resource Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 56 CEQA – Required Discussion SIGNIFCANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CHANGES IN LAND USE WHICH WOULD COMMIT FUTURE GENERATIONS The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the project would not affect future uses at the project site and in the project vicinity because the land use designation of A-2 and A-3 only applies to the specific parcels in which the project is located. The modified project is in the same location as the 2013 project and would not affect future specific uses at the project site as it would still only apply to the specific parcels on which the project is located. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS The 2013 Pantages EIR concluded that the use of fossil fuels required for construction and operation of the project and change in use from undeveloped agricultural land to urban development would result in irreversible changes. The modified project would still require the development of undeveloped land and the use of fossil fuels during construction and operation and would lead to irreversible changes consistent with the 2013 Pantages EIR determination. CONSUMPTION OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would result in irreversible commitment to the use of nonrenewable resources as construction and operation would require the use of nonrenewable resources such as electricity, natural gas, and petroleum projects. The use of these resources would be typical of the level of investments typically required for a residential development of this size. The modified project would still result in the consumption of nonrenewable resources as it would still require the use of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products, but would have a slightly smaller impact than the 2013 project as the modified project would have fewer residential units and would no longer require excavating bays and coves. GROWTH INDUCEMENT ECONOMIC, POPULATION, AND HOUSING GROWTH As discussed in Section 2.18 Population and Housing, the 2013 Pantages EIR determined that population growth resulting from the project would be within regional growth projections. The modified project would result in fewer residential units than the 2013 project and thus would still be within County growth projections. The 2013 project would have resulted in a short-term increase in construction related job growth in the East Contra Costa County area, but would be temporary and was not anticipated to induce indirect growth in the region. The modified project would still induce temporary growth in the area due to construction, but would not relocate construction workers to the project area, as workers are expected to be drawn from the existing construction labor force because construction occurs throughout the County and surrounding cities. REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES TO GROWTH OR EXCEED CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES The 2013 Pantages EIR determined that the project would require approval from Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission for the Discovery Bay Community Services District to serve the entire site as only a portion of the project site is within the service district. The modified project site is in the same location as the 2013 project, and as such, would still require Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission approval. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 57 PRECEDENT SETTING ACTION As discussed in Section 2.10 Land Use and Planning, the 2013 project required both a General Plan amendment and rezoning before implementation of the project. The modified project would still require rezoning of the project site to P-1and would require a General Plan amendment to change the configuration of the land use designations on the project site. Addendum to the Pantages Bays EIR December 2020 58 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 4-1 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA-required component of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process for the project. The results of the environmental analyses, including proposed mitigation measures, are documented in the draft EIR. CEQA requires that agencies adopting EIRs take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented subsequent to project approval. As part of the CEQA environmental review procedures, Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure efficacy and enforceability of any mitigation measures applied to the proposed project. The lead agency must adopt an MMRP for mitigation measures incorporated into the project or proposed as conditions of approval. The MMRP must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. As stated in Section 21081.6 (a) (1): The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required to incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. Table 4-1 below is the MMRP. The table lists each of the mitigation measures proposed from the draft EIR and specifies the agency responsible for implementation of the mitigation measure and the time period for the mitigation measure. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-2 Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes wood burning stoves would result in a net increase of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment in an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such use. Project Applicant During project design Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants during project construction but could expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated with grading and new construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures for all phases of construction: ▪ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ▪ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. ▪ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. Project Applicant All phases of construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-3 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact AQ-2 Continued ▪ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). ▪ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ▪ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. ▪ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: To reduce health risks from TACs during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project: ▪ Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes; ▪ Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project Project Applicant During Construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-4 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact AQ-2 Continued (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compacted to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment projects, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available; ▪ Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM; and ▪ Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in conjunction with other development in the region would result in a net increase of reactive organic gases (ROG). See Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Project Applicant During project design Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-5 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Biological Resources Impact BIO-A: Although multiple surveys confirmed the non- presence of special-status species on the site, due to the presence of suitable habitat, development of the project could have significant impacts on the Delta button celery, a state listed species, and/or other special- status plants if they were to re-establish themselves between the last survey periods and the time of site development. Mitigation Measure BIO-A: Special-Status Plants a. A pre-construction survey for the Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the plant’s blooming period (June to October), prior to site development. The survey shall be conducted in the area of the project site south of Point of Timber Road. If Delta button celery is not found, no further mitigation is needed. If Delta button celery is found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts on Delta button celery. The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. b. Pre-construction special-status plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to site development. Pre-construction surveys shall occur during the season that provides an adequate opportunity to identify occurrences of any special-status plants. If no special-status plants are found, no further mitigation is needed. If a special-status plant or plants are found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts to the identified special-status plant. The qualified biologist shall coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-6 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would have a significant impact on trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Landscape Trees. To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 23 trees on the project site, the project includes landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would be planted along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the proposed landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio following mitigation ratios shall be implemented subject to the approval or modification of the Department of Conservation and Development: a 3:1 in kind replacement or replacement by native trees for non-native trees removed, or 6:1 for other native tree species that are planted to replace the two walnut trees. Comply with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD): a. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by CDD. The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary landscape plan, Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009. b. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15- gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size. c. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize landscape maintenance cost. Department of Conservation and Development During project design and prior to issuance of grading permits Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-7 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-1 Continued d. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance Requirements: The landscape plan shall contain sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the reporting requirements and standards of the Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments ordinance (Chapter 82-26) as amended, and the Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to intersections with public roads. The landscape architect shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards and reporting requirements. e. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of landscaping. Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the CDD. Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall submit a letter to the CDD that the landscaping is in good health. Impact BIO-2: Development of the project would have a significant impact on bank habitat. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Creek Bank Habitat a. Prior to removal or reconstruction of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks within the project site and at Pantages Island, the applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and determine if permits are warranted for the activities pursuant to the regulations that are in effect. Proof of permits (for example, a Section 404 permit, Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or an absence of requirements for such permits from these resource agencies shall be provided to CDD. Department of Conservation and Development Prior to, during, and post construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-8 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-2 Continued b. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed by the CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board. The applicant has provided a report to Contra Costa County describing how the applicant will mitigate impacts to bank habitats, and these stated mitigations, described below, shall become a condition of project approval. c. Specifically, the applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of 9,720 lineal feet of excavated low and moderate quality bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and moderate low quality bank habitat, both on site and off site, to high quality bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of Pantages Island and the North Cove to near the end of Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet which exceeds removal of lineal footage by 1,340 lineal feet. d. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on-site and off-site, approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including (1) shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat) on the westerly, northerly, and southerly sides of Pantages Island the ECCID portion of the project site; and the creek bank ECCID easement area west of the project site from the Pantages property line to the bridge, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) moderate quality bank habitat along Kellogg Creek on the easterly side of Pantages Island and the northerly side of the north cove to the northeasterly end of the project site. ; Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-9 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-2 Continued e. The creek bank and revegetation design that creates moderate quality habitat following excavation will include the following: i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between mean low water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to provide additional stabilization and some shaded riverine aquatic habitat. ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at approximately MHW to support larger riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood. iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with riparian trees and grasses. iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench shall be planted on 15-foot centers to ensure adequate bank coverage. v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes, and Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for revegetation. vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or arborist annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees after 5 years, the project proponent shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-year period. vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall also be conducted. In the event that an increase in the distribution or density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and eradication program shall be developed and implemented. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-10 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-2 Continued viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur. ix. Once vegetation has become established, the upper bank should provide overhanging vegetation cover for fish during most tidal elevations. However, the placement of riprap without natural habitat features (e.g., large woody debris) along most of the lower bank would create minimal in-water habitat for fish. Given incorporation of both high quality and low quality habitat features, this design is characterized as being overall of moderate value. To improve the overall habitat value of the bank, installation of tree species along the lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes in the rip- rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks without harming the integrity of the bank. An alternative bank stabilization method other than rip-rap, which provides the same or better overall quality of the habitat and provides sufficient protection against wave action, may also be considered. f. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel, to the Lakeshore/Lake bridge, along the westerly, northerly, and southerly sides of Pantages Island, in the section of Old Kellogg Creek at the southwestern end of the project site and along the east and west sides of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4, shall be restored to high quality habitat by creating a slope setback. g. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material from approximately MLW to the top of the bank. Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-11 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-2 Continued i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established to create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank. ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in-water resting and hiding places for fish. iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with native riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic habitat. iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored by a qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there is greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and shrubs after 5 years, the applicant shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-year period. v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall also be conducted. In the event that an increase in the distribution or density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and eradication program shall be developed and implemented. vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur. h. Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the westerly, northerly, and southerly perimeter of Pantages Island shall be restored to high-quality habitat by implementing the setback design as described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel. This design shall be established around most of the island, except for bank habitat adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be stabilized with riprap to prevent Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-12 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-2 Continued erosion due to wave action from existing and future boater activity. Therefore, this area of Pantages Island will be designed to provide moderate-quality bank habitat as prescribed above. Also to address wave action, moderate quality habitat shall be created along the northerly side of the North Cove. Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would have a significant impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp. (Significant) Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Vernal pool fairy shrimp. a. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp the applicant shall implement one of the following measures: i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a ratio determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS; ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS; or iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent shall make a financial contribution to the Conservancy, to offset the project’s impact to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial contribution to the Conservancy or the amount of mitigation land that shall be purchased via fee title shall be determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 consultation between the Corps and the USFWS. b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy shrimp were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g., financial contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of the Biological Opinion outlining the mitigation requirements and incidental take statement from USFWS, shall be provided to CDD Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-13 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-3 Continued c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion issued for the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg bank shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and redeposited in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that shall be created within the wetland mitigation preserve onsite. Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact on the California red-legged frog. (Significant) Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog. a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1 acre of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA. b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. Copies of all survey reports and monitoring reports required by USFWS in the conditions of the Biological Opinion shall be submitted to CDD. d. CCD shall receive copies of all agency agreements/ authorizations related to this species, and shall not issue a grading or building permit until all agency agreements/ permits relating to the California red-legged frog have been obtained for this project and mitigation has been implemented. Department of Conservation and Development Prior to, during, and post construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-14 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact on the giant garter snake. (Significant) Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Giant garter snake. a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland habitat (that is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat impacted, 1 acre of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA. b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. c. CDD shall receive copies of all agency agreements/authorizations related to this species, and shall not issue a grading permit or building permit until all agency agreements/permits relating to the giant garter snake have been obtained and mitigation for this species has been implemented. Department of Conservation and Development Prior to, during, and post construction Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact on the western pond turtle. Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Western pond turtle. The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the project construction areas. a. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-status Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of building or grading permit Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-15 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-6 Continued species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Within 5 days of initiating construction activities, a qualified biologist (knowledgeable and experienced in western pond turtle identification) shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all areas in these locations that will or could be impacted by construction activities. Any western pond turtles or eggs observed within the construction zone shall be allowed to leave the area on their own accord or they shall be relocated by the qualified biologist to a suitable area outside of the construction zone. A survey report detailing the survey results shall be prepared and submitted to the biological permitting agencies prior to the start of construction. After the preconstruction survey and prior to construction activities, an exclusion fence shall be placed between the development and the bank habitat and the emergent marsh habitat such that a western pond turtle could not move from these habitats into the development area. A qualified biologist shall be present during trenching activities associated with the exclusion fence installation. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-16 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing The exclusion fencing will be standard silt fencing, approximately 42 inches in height that will be trenched 6 inches into the soil. The soil will then be compacted against both sides of the fence to prevent wildlife from gaining access underneath. The stakes will be placed on the inside of the fence facing the development. No gaps or holes are permitted in the fencing system, except for pedestrian and vehicle entry points. The entry/exit points may be constructed in the fencing system for equipment and personnel, but the qualified biologist must ensure no wildlife is capable of entering the fenced off site via the gate. The gate structure must be flush to the ground with no holes or gaps (i.e., plywood gates with silt fencing flaps). The fence will be inspected occasionally by a qualified biologist for holes, gaps, or access points, which shall be repaired upon discovery. The area inside the fence will also be inspected for trapped wildlife prior to the initiation of construction each day. If wildlife is discovered, the fence shall be opened and monitored until the wildlife has left the fenced area on its own accord and no work shall occur during this period. If the wildlife does not leave on its own accord, CDFW will be contacted before work may continue. Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would have potentially significant impact on federal and/or state listed fish species and fish species designated by the State of California as Species of Special Concern. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Federal and/or State listed fish species and California species of special concern fish. a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern” during construction and dredging of the two interior bays, a levee shall be maintained between the area to be excavated and the Kellogg Creek channel. b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in take of federal and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern.” Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of permits and throughout pre- construction and construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-17 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work in the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this equipment will localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrainment and the effects of increased turbidity. Impact BIO-7 Continued d. All in-water work shall be conducted between August 1 and November 30 to minimize the potential for take of threatened and endangered fish species. By conducting work within this time period, the project will avoid most critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed fish species. e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed bank habitat mitigation to re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is implemented by the applicant. Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact on tree nesting raptors. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree nesting raptors. a. If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28). In an abundance of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of the tree to be removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no birds are nesting. b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those trees slated for removal. c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of demolition permits and through pre- construction and construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-18 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor Impact BIO-8 Continued biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest tree. e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If construction related work would commence anytime during the nesting/breeding season for raptors or other bird species listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (typically February 1 through September 15), a pre-construction survey of the project vicinity for nesting birds shall be conducted. This survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (experienced with the nesting behavior of bird species of the region) within 7 days prior to the commencement of construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. The intent of the survey shall be to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the construction zone within approximately 250 feet. The surveys shall be timed such that the last survey is concluded no more than one week prior to initiation of construction. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional pre- Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-19 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing construction survey shall be conducted such that no more than one week will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly or indirectly affected by the project, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones (generally 250 for raptors and 50 for passerines) and types of construction activities restricted within them should be determined through consultation with the CDFW depending on the species, taking into account factors such as the following: • Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; • Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and • Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds. The buffer zone around an active nest shall be established in the field with orange construction fencing or another appropriate barrier and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas of special-status bird species to ensure that no impacts on these nests occur. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-20 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact on the Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s hawk. a. To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios: i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat (this is a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization. An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity. ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. b. Prior to site disturbance tTo ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting Swainson’s hawk, preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted no more than on month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied in conformance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000). Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of permits and throughout pre- construction and construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-21 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-9 Continued c. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1- September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994) and/or in consultation with the CDFW. d. If Swainson’s hawk are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site. The size of this nondisturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified raptor biologist in the field and in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be based upon the location of the nesting tree, the bird’s tolerance of noise, and the type of other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations). Once the young have fledged from the nest, the buffer can be removed, and all project activities can commence. e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non- disturbance boundary/nest buffer could be vacated. f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would have a potentially significant adverse effect on the western burrowing owl. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Western burrowing owl. Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012. Below we provide a summary of the survey methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that would be applicable to the project site. These Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of permits and throughout pre- construction, during and post- construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-22 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing surveys would meet the standards of care required by CEQA for conducting surveys. Impact BIO-10 Continued a. Initiating Survey. An initial take avoidance survey shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities will trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. b. Number of visits and timing. Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least one visit after June 15. c. Survey method. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7 meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey. Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-23 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing d. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75%. e. Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-24 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-10 Continued f. Avoiding burrowing owls. A primary goal is to design and implement projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Avoidance measures may include but not be limited to: ▪ Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through August 31. ▪ Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. ▪ Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. ▪ Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. ▪ Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. ▪ Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). ▪ Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February. Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-25 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-10 Continued g. Minimizing Impacts. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. A qualified biologist shall conduct site-specific monitoring to inform the project proponent of buffer requirements. See Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance. h. Permanent Impacts. Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat loss. Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would have a potentially significant impact on other protected nesting birds. Mitigation BIO-11: Impacts to other nesting birds. a. A nesting survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to tree removal and/or breaking ground (surveys should be conducted a minimum of 3 separate days during the 14 days prior to disturbance) prior to commencing with construction work if this work would commence between February 1 and September 1. If a lapse in project-related work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey consistent with related protocols and if required, consultation with CDFG shall occur before project work can be reinitiated. b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike, tri-colored blackbird, and/or California black rail, are identified nesting within the area of affect, the project sponsor shall contact CDFG regarding appropriate buffer sizes and shall fence off a non- disturbance radius around the nest according to this measure. (See BIO-8) Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of permits and throughout pre- construction and during construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-26 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12. Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State. Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Impacts to waters of the United States and/or State Authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) (for example, an Individual Permit and a Certification of Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any waters of the U.S./State on the project site. A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006). According to this mitigation plan, minimization of indirect impacts would be accomplished by grading home pads to drain toward streets and away from open space areas, landscaping with native plants, construction on bioswales, maintaining natural buffers between the development and the preserved marsh habitat within the open space areas, and using native plantings as landscaping buffers between development and open space preserve areas. An exception is at the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no buffer. The location of the EVA was chosen so that the road crossed the marsh at its narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a minimum of 50 feet between the edge of the residential development and the preserved marsh. At some locations, grading would encroach into the 50 foot width; however, the graded area would be planted with native vegetation and maintained naturally (no irrigation) such that it functions as a buffer. The open space preserve area shall be separated from Project Applicant Prior to construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-27 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12 Continued adjacent development or recreational areas with permanent fencing that protects the open space preserve from unauthorized use while providing a visual connection to the open space. Residential fences would be tubular steel or some other form of permanent, visually open, fencing where houses back up to the open space preserve. Past mitigation efforts from other development projects have shown that with open fencing, protected areas are kept free from dumping of trash by homeowners as the community has more connection and feels more stewardship of the open space. In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with educational signage will be developed to reduce human-induced impacts. Impacts to waters of the United States/State will also be minimized by implementing the following measures: a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices consistent with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project to protect the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area, including installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other protective measures. b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters. c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation wetlands shall be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands permanently affected by project activities. If possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and shall resemble those wetlands affected by the project (known as in-kind replacement). d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for each square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be enhanced/created) or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions imposed by the Corps and RWQCB. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-28 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12 Continued e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components listed here: ▪ Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland on- site; ▪ Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on-site; ▪ Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet of bank habitat on-site and off-site, including Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat. The off-site mitigation includes the ECCID Dredge Cut from the Pantages property line to the bridge, linking Lakeshore/ Lakes neighborhoods and the RD 800 Kellogg Creek Banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4; ▪ Creation of approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on- site; ▪ Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and ▪ Implementation of a comprehensive long-term storm water management plan designed to protect water quality. The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project will consist of two major efforts. First will be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the uplands adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second will be the creation and enhancement of bank habitat within the project area. Creation (Compensatory Mitigation) Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat a. A minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and 0.30 acre of marsh shall be created within the 44-acre preserve area. Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in the 12.58-acre upland area in the northwest corner of the site. The Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-29 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12 Continued expansion of the marsh shall be accomplished either on the eastern side of the existing marsh on the new peninsula created by the opening of the northern bay or along the western side of the existing marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created wetlands to impacted wetlands). b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal wetlands within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of the proposed wetland soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would not be suitable soils). c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space preserve. d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on the existing topography within the uplands, soil composition, and ground water depths, and the created seasonal wetlands shall be excavated to a depth necessary to accumulate seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay layer that will perch rainfall. e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal wetlands to be impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands for seed source. These topsoils would contain a seed bank of the impacted pool plant species which would germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re-created pools. f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to accommodate the addition of topsoil. g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing another wetland compensation plan that is approved for the project by both the Corps and the RWQCB. Creek Bank Habitat Overall, the project will result in the loss of approximately 9,720 linear feet of the 10,120 linear feet of existing habitat along the project site. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of excavated low and moderate quality bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-30 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12 Continued of the existing low and moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island, East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the North Cove to the end of Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet. Open Space Preservation The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat would be located within a 44-acre permanently preserved area. Open Space Parcel “C” and the marsh habitat on Pantages Island (Open Space Parcel “D”) would also be permanently preserved through conservation easements or covenants. It is envisioned that ownership of the open space preserve areas will be transferred to the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD) for preservation in perpetuity, or some other public agency deemed approved by CDD. The TDBCSD would also function as the Preserve Manager and conduct the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the preserve areas in perpetuity. On the adjoining Ravenswood project, ownership of an open space parcel with seasonal wetlands controlled by a conservation easement has been conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose pursuant to Corps Permit No. 199400928. TDBCSD will therefore be able to ensure consistent and coordinated management of the two conservation areas. In addition, the approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and created bank habitat would be preserved in perpetuity. The lineal footage within the project site will be included as part of Water Parcel “F”, as modified to include that creek bank and shoring walls. It is Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-31 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12 Continued envisioned that Parcel “F” as modified and the enhanced bank habitat on ECCID property and Pantages Island will be transferred to Reclamation District 800 (RD800). RD 800 already owns the mitigation Kellogg Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4. RD 800 will own and be responsible by conservation covenants to monitor and maintain these bank habitats in perpetuity. Funding for maintenance of the permanently preserved open space conservation area will be provided through annual assessments of home owners in Pantages Bays that are secured through a TDBCSD landscape and lighting district or a binding, permanent agreement completed prior to filing the Final Map. With respect to the creek bank conservation areas owned by RD 800, the assessment will be created by a Proposition 218 vote undertaken prior to the filing of the Final Map. This funding and monitoring is separate from the compensatory mitigation monitoring for the created wetlands is outlined in the Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006). Alternative long-term mitigation monitoring acceptable to permitting agencies may also be considered. A 5-year monitoring program will be established to monitor the progress of the wetland mitigation toward an established goal. At the end of each monitoring year, an annual report will be submitted to the Corps, RWQCB and Contra Costa County. This report will document the hydrological and vegetative condition of the mitigation wetlands, and will recommend remedial measures as necessary to correct deficiencies. Aside from the minimum replacement ratio and in perpetuity protection, various regulatory agencies may provide additional conditions and stipulations for permits. Permits for impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required by the Corps. Similarly, permits for impacts to waters of the state will be required by both the RWQCB and CDFG prior to the impacts occurring. These agencies will likely impose their own Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-32 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact BIO-12 Continued mitigation requirements. Any other conditions that are stipulated for impacts to waters of the U.S. or state by the Corps, RWQCB, and/or CDFG shall also become conditions of project approval. Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources The mitigation measures prescribed above would offset cumulative impacts to special-status species, wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife habitats to levels regarded as less than significant. Mitigation that includes creation and enhancement of impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and bank habitat would offset this cumulative impact to levels regarded as less than significant. Department of Conservation and Development and Project Applicant Prior to issuance of building permits, prior to construction, during, and post- construction Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional (historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined appropriate and approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the discretion of the Department of Conservation and Development When demolition and site clearing activities are complete, and during grading Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-33 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUL-1 Continued consulting professional, be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County’s discretion, the professional may work under contract with the County. Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an unknown archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts from changes in the significance of an archaeological resource to a less-than-significant level. Department of Conservation and Development When demolition and site clearing activities are complete, and during grading Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature to a less-than-significant level. Department of Conservation and Development When demolition and site clearing activities are complete, and during grading Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-34 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could potentially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: ▪ The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and ▪ If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: • The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; • The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American; • The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or Department of Conservation and Development During site clearing, grading, or construction activities; if necessary Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-35 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUL-4 Continued 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: ▪ The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; ▪ The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or ▪ The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Energy There are no significant impacts to energy Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-36 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could expose people and developments to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic related ground failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading. Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The project applicant shall design structures and foundations to withstand expected seismic sources in accordance with the current version of the California Building Code, as adopted by the County. County Building Official Prior to issuance of a building permit and during construction Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: At least 60 days prior to recording the Final Map the applicant shall submit updated improvement plans for the project for review by the County’s Peer Review Geologist and review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. For the purposes of geologic review, the plans shall provide detailed information on the bank stabilization wall system being proposed along the waterfront residential lots. Project Applicant 60 days prior to recording the Final Map Mitigation Measure GEO-1c: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an updated geology, soils and foundation report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 944.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall address the specific approach to grading and development indicated by the Final Subdivision Map and Improvement Plans, and shall provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the stability of the residential lots. ▪ The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria: ▪ Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions, ▪ Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley seismic zone) and ▪ Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down. Project Applicant Prior to issuance of building permits Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-37 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact GEO-1 Continued Mitigation Measure GEO-1d: During the construction of subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services and issue a grading/shoring wall completion report. The report shall provide documentation on the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate testing of fill compaction to determine the effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in preventing lateral spreading failures toward the Kellogg Creek channel. Project Geotechnical Engineer During the construction of subdivision improvements Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water quality, a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was prepared for the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works Department in order to comply with County water quality requirements. Engineered linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected stormwater runoff treatment for this project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities. Project Applicant Prior to construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-38 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures to substantial adverse effects related to expansive and corrosive soils on the project site. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: At least 30 days prior to recordation of the final map, the project applicant shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the results of the study will guide design of concrete and ferrous materials that are in contact with the ground. Project Applicant 30 days prior to recordation of the final map Global Climate Change Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year and would have a considerable contribution on global climate change. Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1a: The County shall ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green building techniques in the design of proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project. Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green Building Code or equivalent green building standards. Mitigation Measure CUM-GCC-1b: The applicant has agreed to incorporate the following measures within the proposed project: ▪ Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants in combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment; ▪ Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways, driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements; ▪ To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets, adhesives, sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low concentration of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs); Contra Costa County Prior to construction and during project design Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-39 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM GCC-1 Continued ▪ The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e. non CFC-based refrigerants); ▪ Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high- efficiency systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants would be ventilated through the building at a faster rate; ▪ The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low-flow or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use; ▪ Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single family homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops; and ▪ The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-40 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the release of hazardous materials into the environment during demolition, grading, and construction activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from the paint disposal area, by a qualified professional, and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. If soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). Mitigation Measure HAZ1b: The project site shall be inspected by an environmental professional who specializes in hazardous materials and contamination, appointed by CDD, and paid for by the applicant, during demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs. Project Applicant Prior to issuance of grading permits, during demolition, and preliminary grading activities Impact HAZ-2 The project could potentially release hazardous materials during demolition of the existing residence. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to the County that all asbestos- containing materials have been removed at the existing residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance with state regulations. Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a demolition permit Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to the County that all lead- based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the existing former residences on the project site, in compliance with state regulations. Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a demolition permit Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-41 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact HAZ-3 Project demolition and construction activities could expose individuals at the Timber Point Elementary School to hazardous emissions or materials. See Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b Project Applicant Prior to issuance of grading permits, during demolition, and preliminary grading activities Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the existing drainage patterns resulting in erosion, sedimentation, and contamination of storm water runoff which could degrade water quality in adjacent water bodies. Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: A qualified hydrologist on the project team shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed, to accurately assess water quality degradation. Qualified Hydrologist Weekly monitoring Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-42 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact HYD-1 Continued Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Additionally, the Title 10 Ordinance (1010) of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances requires the project sponsor to obtain a permit for drainage activities for creek improvements to Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek. Project Applicant and Department of Conservation and Development Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Mitigation Measure HYD -1c: To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage, and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes, and contractor bid documents shall include the following specifications: 1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance materials, and refueling purposes. 2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving waters. If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed beneath the engine block and hydraulic systems. Contractor During construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-43 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact HYD-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as direct conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste. Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells on the project site. The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the decommissioned wells for approval. Project Applicant Prior to issuance of grading permits Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas of projected tidal inundation due to sea level rise, which would place people and structures within a flood hazard associated with long-term sea level rise. Mitigation Measure HYD-3a: The final map and improvement plans, including grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet. Project Applicant During project design Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: The final map and improvement plans, including grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation of 12.1 feet. Project Applicant During project design Land Use and Planning There are no significant impacts to land use planning Mineral Resources There are no significant impacts to mineral resources Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-44 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Noise Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: ▪ New Year’s Day (State and Federal) ▪ Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) ▪ Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal) ▪ Lincoln’s Birthday (State) ▪ Cesar Chavez Day (State) ▪ Memorial Day (State and Federal) ▪ Independence Day (State and Federal) ▪ Labor Day (State and Federal) ▪ Columbus Day (State and Federal) ▪ Veterans Day (State and Federal) ▪ Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) ▪ Day after Thanksgiving (State) ▪ Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: ▪ Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp ▪ California Holidays: http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm Project Applicant During construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-45 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact NOI-1 Continued An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints. At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-46 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact NOI-1 Continued Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: The project applicant shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation plan for review and approval by the County. The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during particular phases of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are noise-related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan shall be required as part the building permit application. The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model Community Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60 dBA for stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals. Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: ▪ Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities. ▪ List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound level estimates for each phase. ▪ Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The barriers can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they have a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot. Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully overlapping 1x redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8 feet tall but this would be refined as part of the construction noise control plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and location of the barriers are the actual construction practices, including equipment to be used and the location and duration of noisier activities. The topography will also need to be considered in the final determination of barrier heights and effectiveness. Project Applicant Prior to construction and during construction Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-47 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact NOI-1 Continued ▪ Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set by Contra Costa County. ▪ Location of stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable and/or enclose noise sources. ▪ The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment and construction tools as feasible. ▪ Provide intake silencers and "resident-type" exhaust mufflers on vehicles and equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible. ▪ The method for construction of the shoring walls will be sheet pile shoring wall that for installation will use a variable moment driver/hammer, or similar vibratory method approved by CDD. Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: The project applicant shall construct temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions. Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA. Population and Housing There are no significant impacts to population and housing Public Services and Recreation Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland to meet the Mitigation Measure PS-1: The project applicant shall, on the face of the Final Map (and/or other recorded instrument approved by CDD), dedicate approximately 2.6 acres of public trails to the public (a 20-foot emergency vehicle access (EVA) with at least eight feet paved in the Project Applicant Concurrent with the recording of the map Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-48 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing County’s parkland dedication requirement. middle, an eight-foot sidewalk leading from Point of Timer Road to the public trails through the preserved open space, and a passive recreation location at the end of the trail -beyond the marine patrol substation) for ingress, egress, and use by pedestrians and bicyclists. The right of public access shall confirm that dogs are not permitted on the EVA/trails due to proximity to creek banks, emergent marsh and seasonal wetlands (this provision includes members of the public with dogs and Pantages Bays homeowners). It shall confirm that access is limited from dawn to dusk. The applicant shall provide a water fountain at the end of the trail, beyond the marine patrol substation, for public use with tables and seating next to the open water. At the end of the trail, historical kiosks and signage (related to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber) and educational (related to the environment and its protection; notice the dogs not permitted), and benches along the trails, all in a number, design and content subject to the review and approval of CDD. The public trails through the open space area also serve as an EVA and must comply with Fire Department standards. In combination with the dedication of the public trail the project shall pay a park dedication fee of $1351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits. Signage shall be provided at the two project entries for public pedestrians and bicyclists (Point of Timber and Wilde Drive) and the trail heads at the end of “A” street and “B” street. The signs confirm public access to the EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads within Pantages Bays. The signage shall also specify the limitations on such use (e.g. no dogs on EVA/public trails: dogs must be on leash on roads and sidewalks; public pedestrian and bicyclist access permitted only from dawn to dusk). The signs and their content are subject to the review and approval of CDD. Impact PS-1 Continued As provided in Condition of Approval number 69, it is anticipated the TDBCSD will own and maintain Open Space Parcel “C” which includes the EVA/trails and seating at the end of the trail. Through landscaping and lighting district assessment (or other binding, permanent agreement Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-49 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing approved by CDD) the future Pantages Bays residents shall pay for the maintenance of the EVA/trail and seating end point for their use and that of the public. The right of public access to roads and sidewalks shall confirm that it does not include public vehicular use (unless by invited guest), and that dogs are permitted with the public and residents of Pantages only if on leash. Access to the EVA/trails, roadways and waterways within Pantages Bays is also granted to public agencies such as TDBCSD, RD 800, Fire District, Sheriff’s Office. It is anticipated that these offers of dedication of public access for pedestrian and bicyclists will be accepted on behalf of the public by the County (and/or by another public agency approved by CDD). These rights of public access and the right of enforcement by members of the public and the County (or by another public agency) shall be confirmed in the CC&R’s. ( Mitigation Measure PS-1) Public Utilities Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Waterworks Standards, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does not currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to serve the project. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter and verification from other governmental authorities, such as the California Department of Public Health), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that the TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of any required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are constructed and operational. This shall be a deed disclosure on each deed. Project Applicant Prior to filing of an application Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does not currently have sufficient Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CDD that the TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any Project Applicant Prior to filing of an application Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-50 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of the RWQCB. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are constructed and operational, and that any source control measures are being implemented consistent with the requirements of the RWQCB. Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term water supplies within the project area. Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1: The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. Project Applicant Prior to final map recordation Impact CUM UTIL-2: The project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term wastewater treatment within the project area. Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2: The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-2. Project Applicant Prior to final map recordation Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-51 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Transportation and Circulation Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized intersection. Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane. This improvement is included in the 2018 East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of building permits Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions on Vasco Road. Mitigation Measure TRA -2: The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of building permits. Project Applicant Prior to construction Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes on nearby rural roads, and create conflicts with the farm equipment that share these roads during the peak summer months. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct new facilities in the project area. Project Applicant Prior to construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-52 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer Road/Byron Highway (No. 6). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Project Applicant Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-53 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA-2 Continued Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not be shifted under this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed. A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program. If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOBAOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less-than- significant. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-54 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-55 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Impact CUM TRA-8 Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach. (Cont’d next page) Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-56 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA-8 Continued The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is included in the 2018 ECRAOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) The project applicant shall pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the total costs for this improvement. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Pantages Bays Project Final EIR 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-57 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22). Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of several improvements at this intersection in the 2013 ECRAOB Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required 2018 ECRAOB AOB fee. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Vasco Road. Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11: The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. Project Applicant During project design and prior to issuance of building permits Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Marsh Creek Road. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct new facilities in the project area. However, as there are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of Marsh Creek Road, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Project Applicant Prior to construction Pantages Bays Project 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (updated for 2020 Addendum) Final EIR 4-58 Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible Agency Timing Visual Resources and Aesthetics Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of light and glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Mitigation Measure VIS-1: The project applicant shall prepare a lighting plan for the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize motion detection systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property. Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses. Project Applicant and Department of Conservation and Development Prior to issuance of grading or building permits Source: Circlepoint, 2013. Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 1 4/7/2021 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 81. This project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 822- 4.402 of the County Ordinance Code, a residential development of 277 for-sale units shall require at least fifteen percent of the for-sale units to be developed and sold as affordable units. The applicant is required to construct 41.55 inclusionary housing units for the project. The Applicant/Owner/Developer (Applicant) has submitted a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan (PIHP) on February 3, 2021, which proposes to construct and sell eight (8) Lower Income Housing Units and thirty-three (33) Moderate Income Housing Units and to pay the in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional unit (0.55 unit) to comply with the County’s Inclusionary Ordinance requirements. Any proposed changes to the PIHP are subject to the review and approval of the Assistant Deputy Director, Housing and Community Improvement Division, in the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). Special Circumstances and Conditions 82. This development has unique circumstances reflected in its Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan. The Developer (Pantages at Discovery Bay LLC) and County explicitly acknowledge these unique circumstances by preparing and accepting a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan as a binding commitment to later submit one or more Final Inclusionary Housing Plans, which is an exception to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the authority of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to grant. This should not be considered a precedent for any other development project. No homebuilder has entered into a contract with the Developer, so there are no specifics regarding the inclusionary units which would typically be included in an Inclusionary Housing Plan at this stage. As a result, the Developer has submitted a Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Plan to memorialize the approach to be taken to finalize the Inclusionary Housing Plan. Phasing 83. The Applicant has indicated that this is to be a phased subdivision. The inclusionary units will be developed in a proportionate amount to all units developed in each phase of the subdivision. The Applicant is anticipating that the subdivision will be built out in four (4) phases with up to approximately 70 lots being developed per phase. In this case, up to 10 Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 2 inclusionary units will be built in each of the four phases, with an additional inclusionary unit built in the first phase to reach the total of 41 inclusionary units. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that an Inclusionary Housing Agreement (Agreement) be executed and recorded prior to a building permit (including grading) or Final Map, whichever comes first. Due to the unique circumstances of this project, it is anticipated that a new Agreement with the developer/builder or amendment to the Agreement, whichever deemed appropriate by DCD, shall be executed and recorded for each subsequent phase of the development to include a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan and all information as required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that is not specified in the PIHP. The Applicant’s provision of the details that includes but is not limited to the type, size (including number of bedrooms), number of units in each phase of development, unit mix of market rate and inclusionary units, and lot locations of the inclusionary units will be deferred to prior to the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the phased development (including grading permits and demolition permits). The Applicant will be required to submit a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan for each phase of the development. Phasing and other details regarding the number of market units and affordable units in each phase will be delineated in the Final Inclusionary Housing Plan and subsequently in one or more Inclusionary Housing Agreements (i.e., one Agreement per phase). For-Sale Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee 84. Prior to recordation of the first phased Final Map or issuance of a building permit (including grading permits and demolition permits) for any portion of the residential development, the For-Sale Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee of $24,200.22 shall be paid in full for the remaining fraction of required inclusionary units (0.55 of a unit). This in- lieu fee is non-refundable and non-transferrable. Final Inclusionary Housing Plan 85. Prior to the issuance of a building permit (including grading permits and demolition permits) for any portion of each phase of the residential development, the Applicant shall submit a compliance review application for the execution of an Agreement and a Final Inclusionary Housing Plan for the review and approval of the Assistant Deputy Director of the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. The Final Inclusionary Housing Plan shall provide the following information along with any information required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for review and approval: Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 3 A. A brief description of the residential development, including the number of market rate units and inclusionary units proposed, and the basis for the calculation of the number of units; B. The unit mix, location, structure type, and size (including number of bedrooms) of the market rate and inclusionary units. A site plan depicting the location of the inclusionary units shall be provided; C. The household income levels of the inclusionary units, which must be proportionate to the overall requirement D. Number of units in the phase of development. There may be more than one Final Inclusionary Housing Plan based on the development of the homes on the site, and thus ultimately more than one Agreement. 86. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development, or marketing of the inclusionary units, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall submit with their compliance review application a timeline and schedule for the development and marketing of the inclusionary units for each phase for the review and approval of the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. For-Sale Inclusionary Housing (Inclusionary Housing Agreement) 87. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map or the issuance of a building permit (including grading permits) for any portion of the residential development, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall submit a compliance review application and request to begin the process for DCD to prepare and execute an Agreement for the PIHP (form to be provided by the County, substantially based on the approved Conditions) with the County pursuant to Chapter 822-4 to ensure that the proportionate amount of the thirty-three (33) of the approved units are affordable to and occupied by a “Moderate Income Household” and eight (8) of the approved units are affordable to and occupied by a “Lower Income Household” are incorporated and developed in each phase of the development. The Agreement for the PIHP shall include and address all information as required by Section 822-4.416 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to Chapter 822-4.402(b), the forty-one (41) inclusionary units in this development will be sold and occupied by lower income households and moderate income households as referenced above. The inclusionary units shall be deed restricted so that if the home is sold within three (3) years, it must be sold at an affordable sales price to a lower income household or moderate income household, depending on the lot designation upon initial sale. The forty-one (41) inclusionary units shall be deed restricted in order to ensure the continued affordability of this unit for at least three (3) years in accordance with Chapter 822-4 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 4 inclusionary unit shall be developed with the standards and restrictions in accordance with Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance Code. Restrictions For purposes of this condition, the following definitions apply: A. Inclusionary Unit - means a for-sale unit that is required to be sold at an affordable sales price to the households specified in Section 822-4.402 under the terms and conditions of Section 822-4.410(b). B. Lower Income Households - Households whose income does not exceed the lower income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. C. Moderate Income Households – Households earning up to 120 percent of the area median income for Contra Costa County as adjusted for family size as defined in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code. D. Affordable Sales Price - means a sales price at which a lower income household, or a moderate income households can afford to purchase an inclusionary unit, calculated using the cost formula herein for lower income households and moderate income households, and taking into account reasonable down payment, actual household size, and other ownership housing costs described in California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6920. The affordable housing cost is calculated by DCD using the following formula: for lower income households, a product of forty (40) percent of seventy (70) percent of area median income adjusted for family size; and for moderate income households, a product of forty (40) percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of area median income adjusted for family size. Affordable Sales Price shall not exceed the market price, which may be determined by an independent appraisal. a. Sale price calculations will take into account unit size and family size. b. The sales price calculation shall also take into account Anticipated Financing so that Housing Costs do not exceed the limits. Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 5 “Anticipated Financing” means private mortgage financing at current interest rates and terms. Anticipated Financing may include approved public agency down payments or second mortgage grants and loans. “Housing Costs” include mortgage principal and interest, property insurance, property taxes, homeownership association dues, and expected utility costs. General 88. The following are general terms for the for-sale inclusionary units. A. The Applicant hereby represents, warrants, and covenants that it will cause the Agreements to be recorded in the real property records of Contra Costa County, California, and in such other places as the County may reasonably request. The Applicant shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection with any such recording. The recording of the Agreements shall occur after the acceptance of the document by the County and prior to the recordation of a Final Map or the issuance a building permit, whichever occurs first, for the PIHP Agreement; and prior to the issuance of a building permit for each subsequent Agreement for each phase of development. B. The County will provide to the Applicant income certification forms to be completed by the potential homebuyers. The income levels of all lower income household and moderate income household applicants for units in the project shall be certified prior to sale and initial occupancy. The owner’s occupancy of the inclusionary units shall be initially certified by the Applicant (or subsequent holder of the Agreement(s)) and annually thereafter by the Homeowner, and records shall be submitted to the County over the term of the period of affordability. C. For-Sale Inclusionary Unit Restrictions. a. The initial sale of a for-sale inclusionary unit shall occur only to a household that meets the following criteria: i. The household has not owned a residence within the previous three years; and ii. The household has no more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars in assets. This amount excludes assets reserved for a down payment and closing costs, assets in retirement savings accounts, and assets in medical savings accounts. b. The initial purchaser of a for-sale inclusionary unit must agree to occupy the dwelling unit as the principal residence for at least three years. Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 6 c. A for-sale inclusionary unit may be resold after the initial sale to an above- moderate income purchaser and at a market price, provided that the sale results in a recapture by the county of a financial interest in the unit equal to the sum of: i. The difference between the initial affordable sales price and the appraised market value of the unit at the time of the initial sale; and ii. The county's proportionate share of any appreciation since the time of the initial sale. Appreciation is the difference between the resale price to the above-moderate income purchaser and the appraised market value at the time of the initial sale. The county's proportionate share of appreciation is equal to the percentage by which the initial affordable sales price was less than the appraised market value at the time of the initial sale. D. The 41 inclusionary units in the project shall be available for sale to members of the general public who are income eligible. The Applicant shall not give preference to any particular class or group of persons in owning the units, except to the extent that the units are required to be sold to lower income households and moderate income households. There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, source of income (e.g., SSI), age (except for lawful senior housing), ancestry, or disability, in the sale of any unit in the project nor shall the Applicant or any person claiming under or through the Applicant, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of owners of any unit or in connection with employment of persons for the construction of the project. E. In addition to any other marketing efforts, the lower income units and moderate income units shall be marketed through local non-profit, social service, faith-based, and other organizations that have potential clients or constituents. The Applicant shall translate marketing materials into Spanish and Chinese. A copy of the translated marketing materials and marketing plan shall be submitted to DCD for review prior to the marketing of the inclusionary units for each phase of development. Marketing may also include publicity through local television and radio stations as well as local newspapers including the East Bay Times, Classified Flea Market, El Mensajero, Thoi Bao Magazine, Berkeley/Richmond/San Francisco Posts (Post News Group), Korea Times, El Mundo, Hankook Ilbo, and the Sing Tao Daily. F. Upon violation of any of the provisions of the Agreement by the Applicant, the County may give written notice to the Applicant specifying the nature of the violation. If the violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the County within a Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 7 reasonable period of time, not longer than thirty (30) days after the date the notice is deemed received, or within such further time as the County determines is necessary to correct the violation, the County may declare a default under this Agreement. Upon declaration of a default or if the County determines that the Applicant has made any misrepresentation in connection with receiving any benefits under this Agreement, the County may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for such relief at law or in equity as may be appropriate. Development Standards 89. The inclusionary units are subject to the standards of Section 822-4.412 of the County Ordinance. a. Inclusionary units must be dispersed throughout the residential development and have the same access to all on-site amenities that are available to market rate units. b. The construction quality and exterior design of inclusionary units must be comparable to the market rate units. However, inclusionary units may be smaller in size, developed on smaller lots, and have alternative interior finishes. c. The average number of bedrooms for all inclusionary units must be equivalent to the average number of bedrooms for market rate units within the same residential development. 90. All inclusionary units in each phase of the development must be constructed and occupied prior to or concurrently with the market rate units within the same residential development. Reporting and Compliance Review 91. Prior to the initial occupancy of each inclusionary unit, the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Conservation and Development, for review and approval, a compliance review application and fee accompanied by forms and documentation that demonstrates the owners of the inclusionary units are qualified as a lower income household or a moderate income household. To comply with the provisions for enforcing the construction and occupancy standards of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, a hold shall be placed on the final inspection of the building permits issued for the development until the documentation has been deemed adequate by the Housing and Community Improvement Division of DCD. 92. Prior to the sale of any portion of the development, recordation of a Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall provide to DCD the name of the owner or designee who is responsible for permit compliance with this Pantages Bay Discovery Bay GP, RZ, DP, SD19-9527 8 entitlement and their contact information (i.e., local mailing address, email addresses, and telephone number) until the development has been completed. Should the contact subsequently change (e.g., new designee or owner), within 30 days of the change, the Applicant shall issue a letter to DCD with the name of the new party who has been assigned permit compliance responsibility and their contact information. Page 1 of 5 PANTAGES DESIGN STANDARDS Setbacks for Pantages Lots A. Each lot shall have a minimum front yard setback of 20’ from the right -of-way to the garage face. (Note: the sidewalk is within the right-of-way and shall be excluded when calculating front yard setbacks.) All porches shall have a minimum 15’ setback from the right-of-way to the porch. All side entry garages shall have a minimum 18’ setback from the right-of-way to the garage. For all 60’ corner lots, the primary setback (front yard) shall be 20’, the secondary setback shall be 10’. B. The minimum rear yard setback shall be 15’ from the house to the rear property line. C. For 60’ minimum-wide lots (Figure 1), the minimum side setbacks shall be 5’ on both sides, for a 10’ aggregate side yard setback. D. Contra Costa County Zoning Code R-6 as it may be amended shall apply for additional requirements not specified within standards. Page 2 of 5 Figure 1 60’ Minimum-Wide Lots Page 3 of 5 Lots That Back Up to Main (South) Lake and Kellogg Creek A. A 6’ high (typical) solid wood fence shall be installed along the lot side yards. An open view fence (i.e., rot iron or similar), maximum 6’ in height, may be installed along the rear of the lot. Driveways A. The maximum single driveway apron width shall be 24’. B. Two 16’-driveway aprons are permitted if a circular driveway is installed in lieu of a single driveway apron. C. For all lots, a maximum three-car garage façade is allowed to face the street. The three - car garage layout shall be either one two-car bay and single one-car bay, or three one-car bays. A two-car bay with a tandem parking space to allow 3 cars to park in the two-car bay is allowed. Special Requirements for Lots Adjacent to the Ravenswood Subdivision on the Western Boundary of Pantages A. The following numbered lots, as shown on the “Vesting Tentative Map, February 2020,” shall have a maximum single-story height of 25’: Lots 127, 128, 131, 132, 135 and 136. A home on any of these lots must be either one story or, at the option of the owner, include a two-story element in the front half of the house with a maximum height of 33’. B. Lots not listed in Item A that abut Ravenswood shall have a maximum home height of 33’ instead of the R-6 zoning standard of 35’. C. Lot pad grades shall be a maximum of 2’ higher or 2’ lower than the adjacent lot within the Ravenswood Subdivision (difference in height will be addressed by a retaining wall at the rear of the lot). D. All new fences at the end of the rear yards shall appear uniform at the top in height from yard to yard. Within the top of each new fence there shall be included 2’ of lattice. If there is a retaining wall located at the rear of a higher Pantages lot, on which the wood fence is constructed, the wall is considered part of the fence height. (In that example, if there is a 2’ retaining wall, the wood element of the fence will be comprised of 4’ of solid wood and 2’ of lattice on top, so that from the higher Pantages lot side of the retaining wall, the wood fence will appear 6’ in height and from the lower Ravenswood lot side it will appear 8’ in height). Page 4 of 5 If the Pantages lot is lower than the adjoining Ravenswood lot, then there will be the opposite effect as described above. For example, if there is a 1’ retaining wall, the wood fence element will be comprised of 4’ of solid wood and 2’ of lattice, so that from the lower Pantages lot the retaining wall/fence will appear 7’ in height and from the higher Ravenswood lot side, it will appear 6’ in height. See Figure 2 for retaining wall/wood fence with lattice work illustrations. E. If a new fence does not replace the existing fence at the rear property line of a particular adjoining Ravenswood lot because that owner declines to do so, then the new fence shall be built within the adjoining Pantages lot(s). That fence shall be of same uniform height at the top as the rest of the new fences along or on the rear property lines of those Pantages lots that adjoin Ravenswood lots. Page 5 of 5 Figure 2 Adjoining Pantages & Ravenswood Lots PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL JPARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S SEASONAL WETLAND SEASON A L W E T L A N D SEA S O N A L W E T L A N D SEASONAL W E T L A N D SE A S O N A L W E T L A N D EMERGENT MARSH 22 23 27 26 C1 GENERAL NOTES: 1. PROPERTY OWNER: C & D DISCOVERY BAY, LLC AND WATERFRONT LOTS, LLC 16795 LARK AVE, SUITE 106 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 2. APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: DEVELOPER:PANTAGES AT DISCOVERY BAY, LLC CONTACT:TREVOR SMITH 16795 LARK AVE, SUITE 106 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 PHONE: (209) 662-5098 E: TSMITH@LAZARESCOMPANIES.COM 3. CIVIL ENGINEER: MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. CONTACT:JACQUELYN BAYS 5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PHONE: (925) 225-0690 E: JBAYS@MSCE.COM 4. SOILS ENGINEER: ENGEO INCORPORATED CONTACT: STEVE HARRIS 17278 GOLDEN VALLEY PARKWAY LATHROP 95330 PHONE: (209) 835-0610 E: SHARRIS@ENGEO.COM 5. WETLAND CONSULTANT: MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING CONTACT:GINGER FODGE 8421 AUBURN BLVD., SUITE 248 CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610 PHONE: (916) 822-3230 6. ENVIROMENTAL CONSULTANT: STILLWATER SCIENCES CONTACT:SCOTT WILCOX 279 COUSTEAU PLACE, SUITE 400 DAVIS, CA 95618 PHONE: (530) 756-7550 E: SCOTT@STILLWATERSCI.COM 7. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 004-010-006-7, 004-032-005-3, 004-032-006-1, 004-032-007-9, 004-032-062-4, 011-220-010-0, 011-220-017-5, 011-220-018-3, 011-230-006-6, 011-230-007-4, 004-032-NOT ASSESSED 8. EXISTING USE: VACANT 9. PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMILY DETATCHED) 10. EXISTING ZONING: P-1, UE 11. PROPOSED ZONING: P-1 12. SITE AREA: 162.0 ACRES ± (GROSS) 13. TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED UNITS: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 295 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 277 14. WATER SUPPLY: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY 15. SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY 16. GAS AND ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 17: STORM DRAIN: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 18: TELEPHONE: AT&T 19: CABLE: COMCAST 20: FIRE PROTECTION: EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 21. FEMA FEMA'S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - MAP NUMBER 06013C0386F - PANEL 386 OF 802 (EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 16,2009) SHOWS: ZONE AE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DETERMINED. ELEVATION 10 (NAVD 88) - ELEV 7.6 (NGVD 29) ZONE A: NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED. SEE AREA AT ENTRYWAY OF POINT OF TIMBER ROAD. DEVELOPMENT AREA TO BE REMOVED FROM FLOOD PLAN BASED ON FILL. 22. ALL STREETS TO BE PUBLIC. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY) 23. STORM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED PER BAY AREA MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT AND CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER C3 GUIDEBOOK FOR TREATMENT ONLY. HYDROMODIFICATION NOT REQUIRED PER PANTAGES BAYS EIR CHAPTER 4.9. 24. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT TO BE REMOVED. 25. ALL EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS, LEACH FIELDS AND WATER WELLS TO BE ABANDONED PER COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. 26. ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED OR UNDERGROUNDED. 27. THE PROJECT WILL BE PHASED. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED ON THE LANDS SHOWN ON THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66.456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 28. UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE OWNED & MAINTAINED BY THE FOLLOWING. WATER: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY SEWER: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY STORM DRAIN: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 29.SEA LEVEL RISE MITIGATION PER PANTAGES BAYS EIR: HYD-3A: THE FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS, INCLUDING GRADING PLANS SHALL INCLUDE, AT MINIMUM, A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 14.1 FEET (NGVD29) HYD-3B: THE FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS, INCLUDING GRADING PLANS SHALL INCLUDE, AT MINIMUM, A FINISHED STREET LEVEL ELEVATION OF 12.1 FEET (NGVD29) BENCHMARK BRASS DISK STAMPED “PT 49 LS 5672 1990” NGS PID DE8501. FOUND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF POINT OF TIMBER ROAD AND BIXLER ROAD 2.3' SOUTHEAST OF A YELLOW CARSONITE WITNESS POST. NGVD29 ELEV. = 13.14' (VERTCON ADJUSTED FROM NAVD88 ELEV. = 15.5') BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING OF NORTH 88°59'27" WEST BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ON POINT OF TIMBER ROAD, AS SHOWN ON SUBDIVISION 8710, FILED IN BOOK 485, AT PAGES 1 THROUGH  15, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. LEGEND DISCOVERY BAY, CALIFORNIA COVER SHEET SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 COVER SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARY 3 PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (NORTH) 4 PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (SOUTH) 5 UTILITY PLAN (NORTH) 6 UTILITY PLAN (SOUTH) 7 STREET CROSS SECTIONS 8 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH) 9 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SOUTH) 10 PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS 11 LAKE PLAN 12 TRAILS, PARKS & OPEN SPACE 13 PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN 14 STORMWATER QUALITY PLAN W A Y 4H I G H B Y R O N H W Y POINT OF TIMBER ROAD SITE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AT SUBDIVISION 9527 B I X L E R R O A D SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE 2013 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (SUBDIVISION 9010) APPROVED SUBMITTAL SHEETS FOR THE PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SE 1/4 SECTION 22, T.1 N.,R.3E., & NE 1/4 SECTION 26, T. 1 N., R. 3E., M.D.B. & M FEBRUARY 2020 Revised VTM EXISTING 50' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO REMAIN EXISTING 125' LEVEE EASEMENT SEASONAL WETLANDS EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING PAVED ROAD TO BE REMOVED EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS FOR DETAILS SEE BELOW APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION FIBER OPTICS LINE PER 2019 POTHOLE INFORMATION TO BE RELOCATED APPROXIMATE EXISTING PG&E GAS LINE PER 2019 POTHOLE INFORMATION TO BE RELOCATED PORTION OF EXISTING ROW TO BE ABANDONED PER SITE PLAN EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) SEASONAL WETLANDS EXISTING FENCE AND STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) SEASONAL WETLANDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER N88°59'27"W 55.32' BNDY R=42.00' Δ=243°09'10" L=178.24' BNDY R=20.00' Δ=63°09'11" L=22.04' BNDY N1°00'40"E 2877.95' BNDY N89°08'08"W 69.68' BNDY N47 ° 3 7 ' 4 4 " E 1 5 1 4 . 9 7 ' B N D Y R=660.00' Δ=14°01'30" L=161.56' BNDY N16°14' 1 7 " E 1 3 2 7 . 5 4 ' B N D Y N15°40' 1 7 " E 8 5 6 . 7 4 ' B N D Y N1°00'05"E 2417.66' BNDY N6 4 ° 0 4 ' 5 9 " W 1 9 5 3 . 6 0 ' B N D Y EXISTING VEHICULAR TURN AROUND CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT AND FENCE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 66' ROADWAY EASEMENT SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS EX I S T I N G 8 0 ' EC C I D E A S E M E N T N8 8 ° 5 9 ' 5 9 " W 20 3 . 5 0 ' B N D Y N8 3 ° 3 6 ' 3 9 " E 31 4 . 5 0 ' B N D Y N8 3 ° 3 6 ' 3 9 " E 35 4 . 8 5 ' B N D Y N6 4 ° 0 8 ' 2 1 " W 12 4 . 3 1 ' B N D Y N30° 2 6 ' 2 1 " W 111. 5 4 ' B N D Y N14°38'3 9 " E129.05' B N D Y PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) N50 ° 1 2 ' 2 1 " W 209 . 8 0 ' B N D Y N6°23'21"W 50.16' BNDY N32° 3 7 ' 2 1 " W 1 8 0 . 4 0 ' B N D Y N38°13'01"E 15.63' BNDY N57°22'39"E 66.00' BNDY N7 7 ° 4 9 ' 3 9 " E 3 4 1 . 8 8 ' B N D Y N80°32'21"W 43.56' BNDY N71°08'39"E 64.51' BNDY N89°03'39"E 41.58' BNDY N0°00'00"E 106.02' BNDY N32°49'38"E 59.01' BNDY N82°20'39"E 81.03' BNDY N18°51'21"W 27.22' BNDY BNDYR=440.00'Δ=10°51'53"L=83.44' BNDYR=310.00'Δ=15°53'53"L=86.02' N16°55'45"E 43.68' BNDY N32° 4 9 ' 3 8 " E 3 8 7 . 4 7 ' B N D Y BNDYR=560.00'Δ=14°30'11"L=141.75' BNDYR=440.00'Δ=10°52'22"L=83.50' BNDYR=560.00'Δ=5°58'36"L=58.42' EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARYC2 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CALL OUTS FOR TYPE) SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.EXISTING FIBER OPTICS, ELECTRIC AND GAS LINE UTILITIES IN POINT OF TIMBER ROAD SHOWN BASED ON POTHOLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GOODFELLOW BROTHERS OCTOBER 2019 AND RECORD DRAWING INFORMATION FROM PG&E AND AT&T. EXISTING LINES ARE UNDERSTOOD TO RUN UNDER KELLOGG CREEK AND SERVE EXISTING AREAS OF DISCOVERY BAY. EXISTING LINES WILL BE RELOCATED AS SHOWN ON PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN EXISTING SERVICE. 2.ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND/OR FENCES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA TO BE REMOVED. 3.SEASONAL WETLANDS AND EMERGENT MARSH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4.BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS PER PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY DATED OCTOBER 25, 2019. FILE NUMBER 0131-623175ALA 5.ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WITHIN DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.AERIAL TOPO FLOWN BY GEOMAPS SEPTEMBER 2019 (NGVD 29). CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT. 272 225 183 82 PARCEL E 81 1 3 2 263 230 188 8483PARCEL F 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL I 155156157 PARCEL P PARCEL S SEASONAL WETLANDS EMERGENT MARSH PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS PROPOSED ROW (TYP.) PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) EX.LOT LINE (TYP.) APPRX EX EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK EXISTING 50' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (TO REMAIN) PROJECT BNDY EX 66' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT EX I S T I N G 8 0 ' E C C I D EA S E M E N T S E E E X I S T I N G CO N D I T I O N S S H E E T F O R EX T E N T S A N D D E T A I L S 60 0 0 ± S F 22 2 60 0 0 ± S F 22 9 60 0 0 ± S F 22 3 60 0 0 ± S F 22 8 60 0 0 ± S F 22 4 69 7 9 ± S F 22 6 60 0 0 ± S F 19 9 60 0 0 ± S F 21 0 63 7 3 ± S F 21 5 63 7 3 ± S F 19 4 60 0 0 ± S F 19 5 60 0 0 ± S F 21 4 60 0 0 ± S F 19 6 60 0 0 ± S F 21 3 60 0 0 ± S F 19 7 60 0 0 ± S F 21 2 60 0 0 ± S F 19 8 60 0 0 ± S F 21 1 60 0 0 ± S F 20 2 60 0 0 ± S F 20 7 60 0 0 ± S F 20 0 60 0 0 ± S F 20 9 60 0 0 ± S F 20 1 60 0 0 ± S F 20 8 69 7 9 ± S F 20 4 69 7 9 ± S F 20 5 60 0 0 ± S F 20 3 60 0 0 ± S F 20 6 69 7 9 ± S F 17 4 69 7 9 ± S F 19 3 60 0 0 ± S F 17 5 60 0 0 ± S F 19 2 60 0 0 ± S F 17 6 60 0 0 ± S F 19 1 60 0 0 ± S F 17 7 60 0 0 ± S F 19 0 60 0 0 ± S F 17 8 60 0 0 ± S F 18 9 60 0 0 ± S F 17 9 60 0 0 ± S F 18 5 60 0 0 ± S F 18 0 60 0 0 ± S F 18 7 60 0 0 ± S F 18 1 60 0 0 ± S F 18 6 60 0 0 ± S F 18 2 69 7 9 ± S F 18 4 69 7 9 ± S F 26 7 73 2 9 ± S F 26 8 60 0 0 ± S F 26 6 63 0 0 ± S F 26 9 60 0 0 ± S F 26 5 63 0 0 ± S F 27 0 60 0 0 ± S F 26 4 63 0 0 ± S F 27 1 60 0 0 ± S F 26 0 63 0 0 ± S F 27 5 60 0 0 ± S F 26 2 63 0 0 ± S F 27 3 60 0 0 ± S F 26 1 63 0 0 ± S F 27 4 69 7 9 ± S F 25 8 71 9 0 ± S F 27 7 60 0 0 ± S F 25 9 63 0 0 ± S F 27 6 60 0 0 ± S F 24 1 60 0 0 ± S F 25 2 63 7 3 ± S F 25 7 63 7 3 ± S F 23 6 60 0 0 ± S F 23 7 60 0 0 ± S F 25 6 60 0 0 ± S F 23 8 60 0 0 ± S F 25 5 60 0 0 ± S F 23 9 60 0 0 ± S F 25 4 60 0 0 ± S F 24 0 60 0 0 ± S F 25 3 60 0 0 ± S F 24 4 60 0 0 ± S F 24 9 60 0 0 ± S F 24 2 60 0 0 ± S F 25 1 60 0 0 ± S F 24 3 60 0 0 ± S F 25 0 69 7 9 ± S F 24 6 69 7 9 ± S F 24 7 60 0 0 ± S F 24 5 60 0 0 ± S F 24 8 69 7 9 ± S F 21 6 69 7 9 ± S F 23 5 60 0 0 ± S F 21 7 60 0 0 ± S F 23 4 60 0 0 ± S F 21 8 60 0 0 ± S F 23 3 60 0 0 ± S F 21 9 60 0 0 ± S F 23 2 60 0 0 ± S F 22 0 60 0 0 ± S F 23 1 60 0 0 ± S F 22 1 60 0 0 ± S F 22 7 60 0 0 ± S F 26 3 60 0 0 ± S F 23 0 60 0 0 ± S F 18 8 60 0 0 ± S F 84 60 0 0 ± S F 83 59 9 8 ± S F PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 66 0 0 ± S F 82 87 0 6 ± S F PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 81 63 0 0 ± S F 27 2 69 7 9 ± S F 22 5 69 7 9 ± S F 18 3 38000± SF PARCEL A CLUBHOUSE 66 0 0 ± S F 1 66 0 0 ± S F 2 3 PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) 62' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 62' 95 ' R=10' 16' 10 5 ' 60' R=10' 16' 95 ' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 26' 10 5 ' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60'60' 10 0 ' 60' 50' R=10' 16' 90 ' 60' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 23'R=66'49' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 23' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' R=66'49'60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' R=10' 16' 90 ' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' PA R C E L H LA K E S O U T H A N D O P E N S P A C E 60' 60' 10 0 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=66'49' 23' 10 0 ' 60' 23' R=66'49' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 10 5 ' 70' 95 ' R=10'16' 60' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 5 ' 60'54' R=492' 5' 60'70' R=492' 62' R=10' 14' 90 ' 60' 10 0 ' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 5 ' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 65' 10 0 ' R=10' 18' 81' R=548' 141'135' 15 0 ' 67' 243' 140' 52174± SF PARCEL K FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE 38424± SF PARCEL L PARK EAST 72508± SF PARCEL N PARK CENTRAL 66264± SF PARCEL O PARK WEST 90' R=66' 55' 18 0 ' R=10' 16' 169' R=20' 26' R=55' 88' R=100' 43' R=154' 287' R=200' 336' R=200' 148' 52' R=66' 55' 18 0 ' R=66'55' R=200' 143' R=200' 199' 35' R=66'104' 18 5 ' R=66' 55' R=200' 153' R=100' 94' 108'R=44' 39' 37 ' 399' 155 6539± SF 156 75 6 8 ± S F 15 7 63 0 0 ± S F 16 8 63 0 0 ± S F 16 0 63 0 0 ± S F 16 7 63 0 0 ± S F 15 9 63 0 0 ± S F 16 6 73 2 9 ± S F 15 8 66 9 9 ± S F 17 3 63 0 0 ± S F 16 5 63 0 0 ± S F 17 2 63 0 0 ± S F 16 4 63 0 0 ± S F 17 1 63 0 0 ± S F 16 3 63 0 0 ± S F 17 0 63 0 0 ± S F 16 2 63 0 0 ± S F 16 9 63 0 0 ± S F 16 1 694181± SF PARCEL I SEASONAL WETLANDS 2,350,884± SF 53.97 ± AC PARCEL P WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) 13 3 ' PORTION OF EX ROW TO BE ABANDONED R=140' 161' R=140' 161' 297804± SF PARCEL S LAKE NORTH R=115'190' R=200' 176' R=300'288' R=120'118' R=100'185' R=150'220' R=75'94' R=125'271' R=350' 315' R=110' 93' 63' R=200' 199' 30' R=55' 73' 14' 36'17' 45' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'70'72'62' LOT AREA TABLE LOT # 1-82 AREA (AC.) 0.15 MIN. DESCRIPTION 60' x 110' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA (SF.) 6,600 MIN. 121-172 60' x 105' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,300 MIN. 83-120;173-266;276 60' x 100' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,000 MIN. PARCEL AREA TABLE PARCEL # PARCEL A PARCEL E PARCEL F PARCEL H PARCEL I PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O PARCEL P PARCEL S AREA (AC.) 0.87 0.20 0.14 23.23 15.94 1.20 0.88 1.66 1.52 53.97 6.84 AREA (SF) 38,000 8,706 5,998 1,011,796 694,181 52,174 38,424 72,508 66,264 2,350,884 297,804 DESCRIPTION CLUBHOUSE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE STREET ROW FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE PARK EAST PARK CENTRAL PARK WEST WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE LAKE NORTH 60.00'60.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 60.00' 11 0 . 0 0 ' 10 5 . 0 0 ' TYPICAL LOT SETBACK DETAIL N.T.S 60'x110' LOT 60'x105' LOT 60'x100' LOT PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (NORTH)C3 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CALL OUTS FOR TYPE) NOTES: 1.APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK BASED ON FLOWN AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY BY GEOMAPS SEPTEMBER 2019 2.SEASONAL WETLANDS AND EMERGENT MARSH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3.LOT DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO NEAREST FOOT. LOT AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 4.PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS (SDE) OVER PARCELS 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H','M' AND 'S' (LAKES & OPEN SPACES) TO COUNTY. 5.PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (PAE) OVER PARCELS 'B', 'D', 'J', 'L', 'N', 'O', AND 'Q' (OPEN SPACES). 6.PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SSE) OVER PARCEL 'R' TO CSD. SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.TYPICAL LOT SETBACKS COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVES "PANTAGES BAYS DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION" 2.FRONT YARD SETBACK 20' TO GARAGE 15' TO PORCH PARCEL H 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT (EASEMENT EXTENDS 25' OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY) 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT (EASEMENT EXTENDS 25' OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY) APPRX EXISTING EDGE OF WATER KELLOGG CREEK PRO P O S E D R O W ( T Y P . ) EX SEASONAL WETLAND 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 1011796± SF PARCEL H LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE 12011± SF 50 754 1 ± S F 58 780 0 ± S F 53 780 0 ± S F 47 12011± SF 95 69 7 9 ± S F 91 11808± SF 94 12213± SF 96 7800± SF 98 15991± SF PARCEL D OPEN SPACE 7800± S F 74 12039± SF 70 12011± SF 51 12011± SF 49 737 4 ± S F 52 737 4 ± S F 48 767 9 ± S F 54 660 0 ± S F 55660 0 ± S F 56660 0 ± S F 57 660 0 ± S F 40660 0 ± S F 41660 0 ± S F 42660 0 ± S F 43660 0 ± S F 44660 0 ± S F 45 767 9 ± S F 46 11983± SF 72 7358± S F 73 66 0 0 ± S F 82 76 7 9 ± S F 75 8706± SF PARCEL E OPEN SPACE 66 0 0 ± S F 76 66 0 0 ± S F 77 66 0 0 ± S F 78 66 0 0 ± S F 79 66 0 0 ± S F 80 66 0 0 ± S F 81 7800± S F 68 7390± S F 69 66 0 0 ± S F 63 66 0 0 ± S F 64 66 0 0 ± S F 65 66 0 0 ± S F 66 66 0 0 ± S F 59 76 7 9 ± S F 67 66 0 0 ± S F 60 66 0 0 ± S F 61 66 0 0 ± S F 62 66 0 0 ± S F 17 66 0 0 ± S F 9 66 0 0 ± S F 1 66 0 0 ± S F 16 66 0 0 ± S F 8 66 0 0 ± S F 15 66 0 0 ± S F 7 66 0 0 ± S F 14 66 0 0 ± S F 6 66 0 0 ± S F 13 66 0 0 ± S F 5 66 0 0 ± S F 20 66 0 0 ± S F 12 66 0 0 ± S F 4 66 0 0 ± S F 19 66 0 0 ± S F 11 66 0 0 ± S F 3 66 0 0 ± S F 18 66 0 0 ± S F 10 66 0 0 ± S F 2 778 0 ± S F 21 20631± SF PARCEL B OPEN SPACE 660 0 ± S F 32 660 0 ± S F 24 660 0 ± S F 31 660 0 ± S F 23 660 0 ± S F 30 660 0 ± S F 22 60 0 0 ± S F 12 0 660 0 ± S F 29 9300 ± S F 37 660 0 ± S F 28 793 8 ± S F 36 660 0 ± S F 27 660 0 ± S F 34 660 0 ± S F 26 660 0 ± S F 33 660 0 ± S F 25 11484± SF PARCEL M OPEN SPACE 7374± SF 93 7374± SF 97 60 0 0 ± S F 89 60 0 0 ± S F 88 60 0 0 ± S F 87 60 0 0 ± S F 86 60 0 0 ± S F 85 60 0 0 ± S F 84 60 0 0 ± S F 90 60 0 0 ± S F 83 7800± SF 92 5998± SF PARCEL F OPEN SPACE 60 0 0 ± S F 11 7 60 0 0 ± S F 10 9 60 0 0 ± S F 10 1 60 0 0 ± S F 10 8 60 0 0 ± S F 11 5 60 0 0 ± S F 10 7 69 7 9 ± S F 99 60 0 0 ± S F 11 4 90 7 2 ± S F PA R C E L G OP E N S P A C E 60 0 0 ± S F 11 3 60 0 0 ± S F 10 5 60 0 0 ± S F 11 2 60 0 0 ± S F 10 4 60 0 0 ± S F 11 1 60 0 0 ± S F 10 3 60 0 0 ± S F 11 0 60 0 0 ± S F 10 2 76 8 2 ± S F 11 8 60 0 0 ± S F 11 6 60 0 0 ± S F 10 0 15391± SF 38 660 2 ± S F 35 12011± SF 71 71 6 6 ± S F 11 9 1547± SF PARCEL J OPEN SPACE 93 5 2 ± S F PA R C E L R OP E N S P A C E 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 53' 53' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 79' 84' 146' 45 ' 10 0 ' R=320' 114' R=430'153'R=430'81' R=320' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 45' R=348' 61' R=348' 61' R=348' 58' R=348' 74' 17 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60'77' 33' R=20' 26' R=55' 55'R=55'111' 143' 119' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 31' 208 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 6' R=55'54' R=55'24' 33'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' R=10' 16' 95 ' R=348' 15' R=10' 18'81' 65' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60'11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 70' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 130' 130' 130 ' 130 ' 130'130' 60 ' 60 ' R=158' 166' R=158' 165' R=158'165' 60 ' 60 ' 70' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 118' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70' 60' 60' R=158' 165' R=158' 165' R=158'165' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' R=10' 16' 11 0 ' 130' 112' 112 ' 11 3 ' 113' 130' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 60 ' 15 ' R=20' 15' R=45' 34' R=45' 47' R=45'47' R=45' 47' R=45' 33' R=20' 15' 16 ' 60 ' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 58' R=264'105' 37' R=264'39' 60' 60' 60' 60' 100 ' R=10' 16'110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 60' 130 ' 113 ' 113' 11 3 ' 113 ' 130 ' 60' 16' R=20' 15' R=45'33' R=45' 47' R=45'47' R=45' 47'R=45' 33' R=20' 15'16' 100 ' R=10' 16' 60' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 49 ' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70' R=292' 143' R=292' 8' 52' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70'60' 132' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' R=292' 74' 17 ' R=10' 16' 69'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 90' 90' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 90 ' 70'60'60'60'60'60'60' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60' R=10' 16' 60 ' 60 ' 130' 16 ' R=20' 15' R=45'33'113' 60 ' R=158' 168' R=45' 48' 11 3 ' 11 3 ' R=45' 47' R=45'46' R=45' 33'R=20' 15' 16 ' 113' R=158' 163' R=158' 165' 60 ' 130' 60 ' 60 ' 70'60' 10 0 ' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'50' R=10' 16' 90 ' R=10' 16' 62' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 95 ' R=10' 16' 62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62' 60' 60' 660 5 ± S F 39 10 0 ' 99 7 ' 425' 12 0 ' Δ=180°00'00"L=496.37' 12 0 ' 420' 118' 180 ' 120 ' Δ=180°00'00" L=496.37' 120 ' 360 ' 1047' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 480' Δ=180°00'00" L=496.37' EX. LOT LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS 63 0 0 ± S F 12 6 63 0 0 ± S F 13 4 65 3 9 ± S F 14 2 63 0 0 ± S F 12 7 63 0 0 ± S F 13 5 65 3 9 ± S F 14 3 63 0 0 ± S F 12 8 63 0 0 ± S F 13 6 65 3 9 ± S F 14 4 19096± SF 121 63 0 0 ± S F 12 9 63 0 0 ± S F 13 7 65 3 9 ± S F 14 5 63 4 8 ± S F 12 2 63 0 0 ± S F 13 0 63 0 0 ± S F 13 8 63 0 0 ± S F 12 3 63 0 0 ± S F 13 1 73 2 9 ± S F 13 9 63 0 0 ± S F 12 4 63 0 0 ± S F 13 2 75 8 3 ± S F 14 0 63 0 0 ± S F 12 5 63 0 0 ± S F 13 3 65 3 9 ± S F 14 1 65 3 9 ± S F 15 0 65 3 9 ± S F 15 1 65 3 9 ± S F 15 2 65 3 9 ± S F 15 3 65 3 9 ± S F 14 6 65 3 9 ± S F 15 4 65 3 9 ± S F 14 7 65 3 9 ± S F 15 5 65 3 9 ± S F 14 8 65 3 9 ± S F 15 6 6539± SF 149 75 6 8 ± S F 15 7 469,69 5 ± S F 10.78 ± A C PARCEL QOPEN S P A C E 95 ' PORTION OF EX ROW TO BE ABANDONED (EASEMENT EXTENDS 25' OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY) 10 0 ' 60 0 0 ± S F 10 6 60' 60' 63' 137' 60' POSSIBLE CSD WELL WATER SITE 72'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'72'70'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'202' PARCEL AREA TABLE PARCEL # 121 PARCEL B PARCEL D PARCEL E PARCEL F PARCEL G PARCEL H PARCEL J PARCEL M PARCEL Q PARCEL R AREA (AC.) 0.44 0.47 0.37 0.20 0.14 0.21 23.23 0.04 0.26 10.78 0.21 AREA (SF) 19,096 20,631 15,991 8,706 5,998 9,072 1,011,796 1,547 11,484 469,695 9,352 DESCRIPTION OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LOT AREA TABLE LOT # 1-82 AREA (AC.) 0.15 MIN. DESCRIPTION 60' x 110' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA (SF.) 6,600 MIN. 121-172 60' x 105' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,300 MIN. 83-120;173-266;276 60' x 100' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,000 MIN. PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (SOUTH)C4 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CALL SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK BASED ON FLOWN AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY BY GEOMAPS SEPTEMBER 2019 2.SEASONAL WETLANDS AND EMERGENT MARSH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3.LOT DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO NEAREST FOOT. LOT AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 4.PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS (SDE) OVER PARCELS 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H','M' AND 'S' (LAKES & OPEN SPACES) TO COUNTY. 5.PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (PAE) OVER PARCELS 'B', 'D', 'J', 'L', 'N', 'O', AND 'Q' (OPEN SPACES). 6.PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SSE) OVER PARCEL 'R' TO CSD. 272 225 183 82 PARCEL E 79 80 81 1 5 4 3 2 263 230 188 86858483PARCEL F 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL I 154155156157 PARCEL P PARCEL S EXISTING EMERGENT MARSH EXISTING SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS PROPOSED ROW AT BACK OF WALK (TYP.) EDGE OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) EX.ROW TO BE ABANDONED EX. LOT LINE (TYP.) APPRX KELLOGG CREEK EX EDGE OF WATER EXISTING 50' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PROJECT BNDY EX 66' P U B L I C ACCESS E A S E M E N T PARK WEST PARK CENTRAL PA R K E A S T PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE CONNECT TO EX 8" WATER STUB AT POINT OF TIMBER ROAD APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS LINE TO BE RELOCATED WITH PROJECT JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED CURB LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED SWLK (TYP.) 10' TRAIL CONNECTS TO 5' SWLK CONFORM LINE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) R=20' 31' 534' R=20' 31' 600' R=502'68' R=20' 29' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' R=56'88' 1254' R=538' 138'534' 18 5 ' 18 5 ' R=56' 88' 600'R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' R=56'88' 18 0 ' R=56'88'600' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' R=56'88' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 169' R=30' 39' R=45' 199' 900' R=20' 31' 95 ' 95 ' R=20' 31' 1121' 590' R=20' 31'R=20' 31' 11 8 8 ' R=20' 37' 561' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' 600' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' LINES TO BE RELOCATED WITHIN PROJECT JOINT TRENCH CURB LINE RADIUS AND LENGTH (TYP.) PA R C E L H LA K E S O U T H A N D O P E N S P A C E PARCEL P WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE TWO (2) ACCESSIBLE STALLS PARCEL S LAKE NORTH SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS STORM DRAIN LAKE OUTFALL AND OVERFLOW STRUCTURE. SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA B SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS OUTFALL TO NORTH LAKE (LAKE SOUTH OVERFLOW ONLY) 24" HIGH FLOW SD CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA A SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD CDS UNI T - S E E L A K E PLANS F O R D E T A I L S LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAKE P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" HIGH FLOW SD LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD OVERFLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SP I L L W A Y UTILITY PLAN (NORTH)C5 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY FACE OF CURB SIDEWALK SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE STORM DRAIN, INLET & MANHOLE WATER LINE & VALVE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER 50' WETLAND OFFSET RETAINING WALL EASEMENT LINE SEE CALL OUTS FOR TYPE STORM CDS UNIT STORM OR SANITARY SEWER PUMPS STORM DRAIN FORCEMAIN APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER 50' SETBACK FROM EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND TOE OF SLOPE (CONFORM LINE) NOTES: 1.STORM DRAIN DESIGN PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STANDARDS 2."LAKE SOUTH" TO BE DESIGNED TO RETAIN 100-YEAR STORM EVENT WITH EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TO "LAKE NORTH" VIA FORCE MAIN AND OUTFALL SHOWN. "LAKE NORTH" TO BE DESIGNED WITH A SPILLWAY TO DIRECT ANY OVERFLOW ABOVE THAT CONTAINED WITHIN THE LAKE ITSELF TOWARDS THE EXISTING EMERGENT MARSH AREA. 3.MRP PROVISION C.3 TO BE MET BY COLLECTING AND TREATING RUNOFF WITHIN ONE OF THE FIVE TYPICAL BIORETENTION FACILITIES AROUND THE LAKE. SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4.SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SHALL BE DESIGNED PER CSD STANDARDS. 5.FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CSD REQUIREMENTS 6.ALL PIPE SIZES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN. PARCEL H 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 36' 70' 36' 36' 36' 36 ' 36 ' 36 ' 36' 36' 36' 36' 36' 36 ' 36' 36 ' 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP) APPRX EXISTING EDGE OF WATER KELLOGG CREEK PRO P O S E D R O W ( T Y P . ) PRO P O S E D L O T L I N E ( T Y P . ) EX SEASONAL WETLAND SEWER LIFT STATION. CONNECT TO EX 8" SEWER AND 16" WATER STUB IN WILDE DRIVE EX. ROW TO BE ABANDONED APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS, APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS LINE TO BE RELOCATED WITH PROJECT JOINT TRENCH CONNECT TO EX FIBER OPTIC AND GAS LINES, BEGIN RELOCATION LAKE SOUTH SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS 36' CURB LINE RADIUS AND LENGTH (TYP.) CONNECT TO EX 8" WATER STUB AT POINT OF TIMBER ROAD PROJECT BOUNDARY 10 ' TR A I L 10' TRA I L 5' L/ S (T Y P . ) 5' SW L K (T Y P . ) LINES TO BE RELOCATED WITH PROJECT JOINT TRENCH R=20' 31' 590' 1121' R=20' 31' 95 ' 95 ' R=20' 31' 1053' R=45' 199'R=30' 39'153' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 1300' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 16 6 ' 16 6 ' R=30' 22' R=30' 22' R=35' 162' R=20' 31' 95 ' 11 8 8 ' R=20' 37' 561' 1254' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 17 5 ' 17 6 ' R=30' 22' R=30' 22' R=35'162' 598' R=274'149' R=310' 169' 277 ' 825 ' R=20' 31' 176 ' R=30' 22' R=35'162' R=30' 22' 176 'R=20' 31' 472 ' R=302' 232' R=338' 260' 17 ' 17 ' R=538' 138' BIORETE N T I O N A R E A A , S E E STORM W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P L A N AND LAK E P L A N F O R D E T A I L S BIORETENTION AREA B, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA C, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA D, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA E, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS SLOPE 3:1 MAX TO EX GRADE SLOPE 3:1 MAX TO EX GRADE CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS U N I T - S E E LAK E P L A N S F O R DET A I L S CDS UNI T - S E E L A K E PLANS F O R D E T A I L S CDS UNI T - S E E LAKE PL A N S F O R DETAILS STORM DRAIN LAKE OUTFALL AND OVERFLOW STRUCTURE. SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAKE P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" SD LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAKE P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW F L O W S D F M 24" SD LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM UTILITY PLAN (SOUTH)C6 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY FACE OF CURB SIDEWALK SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE STORM DRAIN, INLET & MANHOLE WATER LINE & VALVE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER 50' WETLAND OFFSET RETAINING WALL EASEMENT LINE SEE CALL OUTS FOR TYPE STORM CDS UNIT STORM OR SANITARY SEWER PUMPS STORM DRAIN FORCEMAIN APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER 50' SETBACK FROM EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND TOE OF SLOPE (CONFORM LINE) NOTES: 1.STORM DRAIN DESIGN PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STANDARDS 2."LAKE SOUTH" TO BE DESIGNED TO RETAIN 100-YEAR STORM EVENT WITH EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TO "LAKE NORTH" VIA FORCE MAIN AND OUTFALL SHOWN. "LAKE NORTH" TO BE DESIGNED WITH A SPILLWAY TO DIRECT ANY OVERFLOW ABOVE THAT CONTAINED WITHIN THE LAKE ITSELF TOWARDS THE EXISTING EMERGENT MARSH AREA. 3.MRP PROVISION C.3 TO BE MET BY COLLECTING AND TREATING RUNOFF WITHIN ONE OF THE FIVE TYPICAL BIORETENTION FACILITIES AROUND THE LAKE. SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4.SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SHALL BE DESIGNED PER CSD STANDARDS. 5.FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CSD REQUIREMENTS 6.ALL PIPE SIZES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN. PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S LAKE SOUTH FLEXIBLE SPACE PA R K EA S T PA R K CE N T R A L PARK WEST EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS CLUBHOUSE SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY EX 66' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING 80' ECCID EASEMENT SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR EXTENTS AND DETAILS PROJECT BNDY SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS LAKE NORTH STREET CROSS SECTIONS C7 NOTES: 1.TYPICAL STREET STANDARDS PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD PLANS OR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE. 2.CURB DETAILS PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STANDARD PLAN CA71. 272 225 183 82 PARCEL E 1 2 263 230 188 8483PARCEL F 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL I 156157 PARCEL P PARCEL S 272 225 183 82 PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 1 2 263 230 188 83 PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A CLUBHOUSEPARCEL K FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE PA R C E L L PA R K E A S T PARCEL N PARK CENTRAL PARCEL O PARK WEST PA R C E L H LA K E S O U T H A N D O P E N S P A C E PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 13.8 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 14.0PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 13.7PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 13.9PAD 14.1 PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.6 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.6 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.6 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.6PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2PAD 13.9PAD 13.8PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.8PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PA D 1 4 . 0 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PA D 1 3 . 9 PA D 1 4 . 0 (AT EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION) (A T E X I S T I N G GR O U N D E L E V A T I O N ) (AT EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION) (AT EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION) 0. 9 6 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 4 5 % 0. 8 0 % 0. 7 6 % 1. 1 0 % 1. 1 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0.75%0.75%1.40% 2.44%2.00% 1.25%0.75%0.75%0.75%1.10%0.75% 2.16%0.75%2.00% 0.75% 0.7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0. 7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0.7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0.7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%1.00% 0.75% 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % CONFORM 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) CONFORM 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) CONFORM 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) SE E L A K E P L A N S F O R D E T A I L S EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 6 (C O N F O R M ) HP 1 2 . 7 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 2 12 . 6 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 12.6 HP 1 2 . 6 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 13 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 2 12 . 3 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 59. 7 ' HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 9 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 HP 1 2 . 9 12 . 6 13 . 0 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 12.8 EX T C 1 1 . 4 LP 12 . 1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3: 1 PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS APPRX EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK (TYP.) 156157168160167159166158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL P WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIRES RIGHT OF ENTRY PERMISSION TO GRADE PARCEL S LAKE NORTH TOP OF LAKE ELEV = EG BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -11'± DEPTH OF LAKE NORTH = 15' +/- FROM EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION TOP OF LAKE NORTH SET AT EX GROUND ELEVATION EG/TOP O F L A K E 4.1± EG/TOP OF LAKE 5.0±B O T T O M O F L A K E E L E V = -1 1 +/- BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -11+/- BOTT O M O F LAKE ELEV = - 11 +/- B O T T O M O F L A K E E L E V = -1 1 +/- EG/TOP OF LAKE 7.6± EG/TOP OF LAKE 6.8±EG/TO P O F L A K E 6.1± EG/TO P O F L A K E 6.1± EG/TO P O F L A K E 5.3± EG / TO P O F L A K E 4. 1 ± EG/ TOP OF LAKE 3.9± EG/ TOP OF LAKE 4.0± SPILLWAY PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH)C8 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH LP 1 2 . 1 GRADE BREAK TC SPOT GRADE 0.75%SLOPE AND DIRECTION STORM DRAIN INLET SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.LOW POINT AND HIGH POINT SPOT SHOTS SHOWN ARE TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS 2.0.75% MINIMUM STREET GRADE 3.SEE LAKE PLANS FOR LAKE GRADING, DRAINAGE AND DETAILS. 4.SEE SHEET C10 FOR PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS. 5.ALL RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN. PARCEL H 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 39 PARCEL H LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D OPEN SPACE 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 767778798081 68 69 63646566 59 67 606162 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 11710910110811510799114 PARCEL G OPENSPACE 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J OPEN SPACE PARCEL R PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.4 PAD 13.9PAD 14.4 PAD 13.9PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.2 PAD 14.8 PAD 13.9 PA D 1 4 . 0 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 14.1PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 14.1PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 14.1PAD 14.1PAD 13.7PAD 14.2PAD 14.2 PA D 1 3 . 9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.0 0.75%0.75%0.75%2.00%2.00%0.75%0.80%0.75%0.85%0.80%0.80%2.00%2.00%0.77%0.75%0.75%0.75%2.00%2.00%0.75%0.90%0.75%0.75%0.75% 1. 8 7 % 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 1.63% 2.00% 0.95% 0.80% 0.98% 0.75% 2. 0 0 % 0. 8 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0.75 % 0.8 0 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 2.0 0 % 2.0 0 % 0.7 5 % 0.9 1 % 0.9 0 % 2.0 0 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 8 0 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 0 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1.00% 0.75% 0. 7 5 % 0. 9 6 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 4 5 % 0. 8 0 % 0. 7 6 % 1. 1 0 % 1. 1 0 % 0.75%2.00% HP 13.1 HP 13.1 LP 1 2 . 1 EX T C 1 0 . 4 LP 1 2 . 1 (C O N F O R M ) LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.5 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 HP 12.5 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 2 12 . 6 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 2 2.0% HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 2 12 . 6 EX T C 1 1 . 4 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 12.7 LP 12.1 12 . 8 HP 13.0 LP 1 2 . 1 (C O N F O R M ) 12 . 9 HP 13.0 HP 1 2 . 7 13 . 0 HP 1 2 . 7 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 1 HP 13.0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 9 12.9 12 . 6 0.8% LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 12.1 LP 12.1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 LP 12.1 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 8 LP 12.1 12 . 6 12 . 3 LP 1 2 . 3 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 12 . 6 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 LP 12.1 12 . 9 12.9 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 12.7 12 . 6 HP 12.6 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 2 . 8 13 . 0 HP 1 2 . 5 12 . 9 HP 1 3 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 HP 1 3 . 2 HP 1 2 . 9 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 13.0 HP 1 2 . 8 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) 3:1 3:1 3: 1 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK (TYP.) PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP.) 1716 20 1918 PARCEL Q OPEN SPACE RETAINING WALL AT BNDY (3' MAX HEIGHT) RETAINING WALL AT BNDY (3' MAX HEIGHT) RETAINING WALL AT TOP PERIMETER OF LAKE (5' MAX HEIGHT) RETAINING WALL AT EXISTING SEASONAL WETLAND (9' MAX HEIGHT) 106 43 PARCE L BOPEN S P A C E PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SOUTH)C9 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH LP 1 2 . 1 GRADE BREAK TC SPOT GRADE 0.75%SLOPE AND DIRECTION STORM DRAIN INLET NOTES: 1.LOW POINT AND HIGH POINT SPOT SHOTS SHOWN ARE TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS 2.0.75% MINIMUM STREET GRADE 3.SEE LAKE PLANS FOR LAKE GRADING, DRAINAGE AND DETAILS. 4.SEE SHEET C10 FOR PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS. 5.ALL RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN. PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONSC10 BIORETE N T I O N AREA B BIO R E T E N T I O N ARE A B BIO- RETENTION AREA E BIOR E T E N T I O N AREA D BIORETENTION AREA C PARCEL H 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 260 275 261 274 258 277 259 276 244 249 243 250 246 247 245 248 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 202 207 201 208 204 205 203 206 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 160 159 158161 126134142150127135143151128136144152129137145153130138146154 123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 BOTTOM OF LAKE AREA: 462,673 SF (10.6± AC) 2:1 2:1 2:1 2: 1 2:1 2:1 2:1 PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 82 78 79 80 81 75 76 77 74 73 70 72 71 68 69 66 67 63 64 65 59 60 6162 58 PARCEL D 54 55 56 57 50 53 47 51 49 52 48 54 46 43 44 45 40 41 42 39 PARCEL M 118 95 91 94 96 98 93 97 898887868584 90 83 92 PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 109101 108107 99 PARCEL G 113 105 112 104 111 103 110 102100 117 115 114 116 EMERGENCY LAKE SOUTH OVERFLOW STRUCTURE TO PUMP OUT 8" SDFM TO OUTFALL AT LAKE NORTH (SEE SITE PLAN FOR DETAILS) SITE SD DRAINING TO LAKE (TYP.) SEE SITE PLAN FOR DETAILS OVERFLOW SD PUMP TO OUTFALL BOTTOM O F L A K E E L E V = - 2 1 ' ± BO T T O M O F L A K E E L E V = - 2 1 ' ± BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -21'± TOP OF LAKE BANK ELEV = 4'± AREA: 721,455 SF (16.6± AC) TOP OF LAKE BANK ELEV = 4'± MAINTEN A N C E B E N C H E L E V = 7 . 0 ' ± MA I N T E N A N C E B E N C H E L E V = 7 . 0 ' ± MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEV = 7.0'±MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEV = 7.0'± MAINTEN A N C E B E N C H E L E V = 7 . 0 ' ± PA D 1 4 . 0 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 14.1 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2PAD 14.1 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 14.1PAD 14.1PAD 13.7PAD 14.2PAD 14.2 PA D 1 3 . 9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF LOT (5' RETAINING MAX) RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF LOT (5' RETAINING MAX) RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF LOT (5' RETAINING MAX) SEE GRADING PLAN SECTIONS SEE GRADING PLAN SECTIONS (TYP.)NORMAL WATER SURFACE ELEV = 1'± BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -21'± RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER PAD 13.9 RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -21'± SD OVERFLOW TO SD PUMP TO OUTFALL LOW FLOW PUMP TO BIO-RETENTION FACILITY 106 CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNI T - S E ELAKE PL A N S F O R DETAILS CDS UNI T - S E E LAKE PL A N S F O R DETAILS LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAK E P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW F L O W S D F M 24" SD LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION OUTFALL TO BIORETENTION LAKE PLANC11 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CAL OUTS FOR TYPE) SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S 5,200+ TOTAL LF OF TRAIL 5,200+ TOTAL LF OF TRAIL DEVELOPMENT AREA OPENSPACE AND PARK AREA TABLE PARCEL PARCEL B PARCEL D PARCEL E PARCEL F PARCEL G PARCEL H PARCEL J PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL M PARCEL N PARCEL O PARCEL P PARCEL Q PARCEL R PARCEL S DESCRIPTION OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE PARK EAST OPEN SPACE PARK CENTRAL PARK WEST WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE NORTH AREA (SF) 20,631± 15,991± 8,706± 5,998± 9,072± 1,011,796± 1,547± 52,174± 38,424± 11,484± 72,508± 66,264± 2,350,884± 469,695± 9,352± 297,804± AREA (AC) 0.47± 0.37± 0.20± 0.14± 0.21± 23.23± 0.04± 1.20± 0.88± 0.26± 1.66± 1.52± 53.97± 10.78± 0.21± 6.84± TRAILS, PARKS & OPEN SPACEC12 NORTHERN WETLAND OPENSPACE AREA TO REMAIN54.0±2,351,000± OPENSPACE AREA ALONG KELLOGG CREEK TO REMAIN10.8±470,000± TOTAL OPENSPACE AREA TO REMAIN64.8±2,821,000± OPENSPACE OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT AREA AREA TABLE AREA DESCRIPTION AREA (AC.)AREA (SF.) LEGEND: OPEN SPACE TO REMAIN IN IT'S NATURAL CONDITION PARK TRAIL PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S PHASE 2 EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS PHASE 1 PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN C13 NOTE: 1.PHASING SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. DEVELOPER RESERVES RIGHT TO MODIFY PHASING. PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 272 263267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 230235234233232231 227229228 226 82 PARCEL E 77 78 79 80 81 1 2 5 4 3 8 7 6 225216217218219220221222223224 199 210215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 183 188 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 168 160167 159166 158173165172164171163170162169161 89888786858483PARCEL F 151152153154155156157 95 94 96 98 93 97 92 9190 142150143144145146147 140148141149 109101108 11510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 116100106 134135136137 130138131139132133 40 41 42 43 44 33 PARCEL M 39 32 31 30 37 36 34 35 120 38 119 PARCEL R 117 118 126127128 121129122123124125 74 70 73 75 76 68 69 67 71 72 9 13 12 11 10 PARCEL D 63 64 65 66 59 60 61 62 17 16 15 14 13 20 12 19 18 PARCEL B 58 54 55 56 57 24 23 21 22 28 27 26 25 29 45 46 50 51 52 53 49 48 47 PARCEL A BIO-RETENTION B BIO-RETENTION A BIO-RETENT I O N D BIO-RET E NTION C BIO-RETENTION E 654258± SFDMA A 1011796± SFLAKE MAIN 433294± SFDMA C 297402± SFDMA E 546640± SFDMA D 741305± SFDMA B PARCEL J 60.00'60.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 60.00' 11 0 . 0 0 ' 10 5 . 0 0 ' 4280 SF 3655 SF 3430 SF ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT N.T.S 60'x110' LOT 60'x105' LOT 60'x100' LOT STORMWATER QUALITY PLANC14 LEGEND: DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA(DMA) BOUNDARY IMPERVIOUS AREA (1) BIO-RETENTION AREA NOTES: 1)SEE ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT DETAIL ABOVE FROM LOT IMPERVIOUS AREA ASSUMPTIONS. NOT SHOW IN PLAN VIEW. 2)CLUBHOUSE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED FOR THE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY MEASURES 3)DMA TREATMENT AREAS SHOWN ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. FINAL SIZE AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED WITH THE FINAL SITE DESIGN. REQUIRED TREATMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS. IMP Name: BIO RET A (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA A - ROAD/SWLK 166,026 Concrete or Asphalt 1 166,026 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA A - PERVIOUS 238,102 Landscape 0.1 23,810 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA A - LOT IMPERVIOUS 250,130 Conventional Roof 1 250,130 Factor ment Volume Total 439,966 Factor Area 0.04 1 17,599 17,600 IMP Name: BIO RET B (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA B - ROAD/SWLK 186,259 Concrete or Asphalt 1 186,259 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA B - LOT IMPERVIOUS 286,435 Conventional Roof 1 286,435 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA B - PERVIOUS 268,611 Landscape 0.1 26,861 Factor ment Volume Total 499,555 Factor Area 0.04 1 19,982 20,000 IMP Name: BIO RET C (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA C - ROAD/SWLK 81,597 Concrete or Asphalt 1 81,597 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA C - LOT IMPERVIOUS 178,115 Conventional Roof 1 178,115 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA C - PERVIOUS 173,582 Landscape 0.1 17,358 Factor ment Volume Total 277,070 Factor Area 0.04 1 11,083 11,100 IMP Name: BIO RET D (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA D - ROAD/SWLK 93,769 Concrete or Asphalt 1 93,769 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA D - LOT IMPERVIOUS 257,400 Conventional Roof 1 257,400 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA D - PERVIOUS 195,470 Landscape 0.1 19,547 Factor ment Volume Total 370,716 Factor Area 0.04 1 14,829 14,900 IMP Name: BIO RET E (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA E - ROAD/SWLK 55,402 Concrete or Asphalt 1 55,402 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA E - LOT IMPERVIOUS 113,160 Conventional Roof 1 113,160 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA E - PERVIOUS 128,840 Landscape 0.1 12,884 Factor ment Volume Total 181,446 Factor Area 0.04 1 7,258 7,300 Pantages Subdivision General Plan 2 Zoning 3 4 5 Project Components General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, Final Development Plan 277 residential lots, 18 common area parcels 23 trees to be removed Avoids impacts to the norther wetland complex and Kellogg Creek Clubhouse and flexible recreational area Two Internal Lakes (Lake North and South) Two trail systems providing 5,200 linear feet of walkways Grading (cut –775,00 cu yd, fill –913,00 cu yd) Provides 41.55 inclusionary housing units 6 Staff Recommendations Find the Addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Certify the Addendum prepared for the project Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program Approve the vesting tentative map, findings, conditions of approval for project 7 PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL JPARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S SEASONAL WETLAND SEASON A L W E T L A N D SEA S O N A L W E T L A N D SEASONAL W E T L A N D SE A S O N A L W E T L A N D EMERGENT MARSH 22 23 27 26 C1 GENERAL NOTES: 1. PROPERTY OWNER: C & D DISCOVERY BAY, LLC AND WATERFRONT LOTS, LLC 16795 LARK AVE, SUITE 106 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 2. APPLICANT/DEVELOPER: DEVELOPER:PANTAGES AT DISCOVERY BAY, LLC CONTACT:TREVOR SMITH 16795 LARK AVE, SUITE 106 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 PHONE: (209) 662-5098 E: TSMITH@LAZARESCOMPANIES.COM 3. CIVIL ENGINEER: MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. CONTACT:JACQUELYN BAYS 5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B PLEASANTON, CA 94588 PHONE: (925) 225-0690 E: JBAYS@MSCE.COM 4. SOILS ENGINEER: ENGEO INCORPORATED CONTACT: STEVE HARRIS 17278 GOLDEN VALLEY PARKWAY LATHROP 95330 PHONE: (209) 835-0610 E: SHARRIS@ENGEO.COM 5. WETLAND CONSULTANT: MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING CONTACT:GINGER FODGE 8421 AUBURN BLVD., SUITE 248 CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95610 PHONE: (916) 822-3230 6. ENVIROMENTAL CONSULTANT: STILLWATER SCIENCES CONTACT:SCOTT WILCOX 279 COUSTEAU PLACE, SUITE 400 DAVIS, CA 95618 PHONE: (530) 756-7550 E: SCOTT@STILLWATERSCI.COM 7. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 004-010-006-7, 004-032-005-3, 004-032-006-1, 004-032-007-9, 004-032-062-4, 011-220-010-0, 011-220-017-5, 011-220-018-3, 011-230-006-6, 011-230-007-4, 004-032-NOT ASSESSED 8. EXISTING USE: VACANT 9. PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMILY DETATCHED) 10. EXISTING ZONING: P-1, UE 11. PROPOSED ZONING: P-1 12. SITE AREA: 162.0 ACRES ± (GROSS) 13. TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED UNITS: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 295 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS: 277 14. WATER SUPPLY: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY 15. SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY 16. GAS AND ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 17: STORM DRAIN: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 18: TELEPHONE: AT&T 19: CABLE: COMCAST 20: FIRE PROTECTION: EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 21. FEMA FEMA'S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - MAP NUMBER 06013C0386F - PANEL 386 OF 802 (EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 16,2009) SHOWS: ZONE AE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DETERMINED. ELEVATION 10 (NAVD 88) - ELEV 7.6 (NGVD 29) ZONE A: NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED. SEE AREA AT ENTRYWAY OF POINT OF TIMBER ROAD. DEVELOPMENT AREA TO BE REMOVED FROM FLOOD PLAN BASED ON FILL. 22. ALL STREETS TO BE PUBLIC. (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY) 23. STORM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED PER BAY AREA MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT AND CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER C3 GUIDEBOOK FOR TREATMENT ONLY. HYDROMODIFICATION NOT REQUIRED PER PANTAGES BAYS EIR CHAPTER 4.9. 24. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT TO BE REMOVED. 25. ALL EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS, LEACH FIELDS AND WATER WELLS TO BE ABANDONED PER COUNTY REQUIREMENTS. 26. ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED OR UNDERGROUNDED. 27. THE PROJECT WILL BE PHASED. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED ON THE LANDS SHOWN ON THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, SECTION 66.456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 28. UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE OWNED & MAINTAINED BY THE FOLLOWING. WATER: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY SEWER: TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY STORM DRAIN: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 29.SEA LEVEL RISE MITIGATION PER PANTAGES BAYS EIR: HYD-3A: THE FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS, INCLUDING GRADING PLANS SHALL INCLUDE, AT MINIMUM, A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 14.1 FEET (NGVD29) HYD-3B: THE FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS, INCLUDING GRADING PLANS SHALL INCLUDE, AT MINIMUM, A FINISHED STREET LEVEL ELEVATION OF 12.1 FEET (NGVD29) BENCHMARK BRASS DISK STAMPED “PT 49 LS 5672 1990” NGS PID DE8501. FOUND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF POINT OF TIMBER ROAD AND BIXLER ROAD 2.3' SOUTHEAST OF A YELLOW CARSONITE WITNESS POST. NGVD29 ELEV. = 13.14' (VERTCON ADJUSTED FROM NAVD88 ELEV. = 15.5') BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING OF NORTH 88°59'27" WEST BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ON POINT OF TIMBER ROAD, AS SHOWN ON SUBDIVISION 8710, FILED IN BOOK 485, AT PAGES 1 THROUGH  15, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON. LEGEND DISCOVERY BAY, CALIFORNIA COVER SHEET SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 COVER SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARY 3 PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (NORTH) 4 PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (SOUTH) 5 UTILITY PLAN (NORTH) 6 UTILITY PLAN (SOUTH) 7 STREET CROSS SECTIONS 8 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH) 9 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SOUTH) 10 PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS 11 LAKE PLAN 12 TRAILS, PARKS & OPEN SPACE 13 PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN 14 STORMWATER QUALITY PLAN W A Y 4H I G H B Y R O N H W Y POINT OF TIMBER ROAD SITE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AT SUBDIVISION 9527 B I X L E R R O A D SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE 2013 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (SUBDIVISION 9010) APPROVED SUBMITTAL SHEETS FOR THE PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SE 1/4 SECTION 22, T.1 N.,R.3E., & NE 1/4 SECTION 26, T. 1 N., R. 3E., M.D.B. & M FEBRUARY 2020 Revised VTM EXISTING 50' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO REMAIN EXISTING 125' LEVEE EASEMENT SEASONAL WETLANDS EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING PAVED ROAD TO BE REMOVED EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS FOR DETAILS SEE BELOW APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER APPROXIMATE EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION FIBER OPTICS LINE PER 2019 POTHOLE INFORMATION TO BE RELOCATED APPROXIMATE EXISTING PG&E GAS LINE PER 2019 POTHOLE INFORMATION TO BE RELOCATED PORTION OF EXISTING ROW TO BE ABANDONED PER SITE PLAN EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) SEASONAL WETLANDS EXISTING FENCE AND STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) SEASONAL WETLANDS PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER N88°59'27"W 55.32' BNDY R=42.00' Δ=243°09'10" L=178.24' BNDY R=20.00' Δ=63°09'11" L=22.04' BNDY N1°00'40"E 2877.95' BNDY N89°08'08"W 69.68' BNDY N47 ° 3 7 ' 4 4 " E 1 5 1 4 . 9 7 ' B N D Y R=660.00' Δ=14°01'30" L=161.56' BNDY N16°14' 1 7 " E 1 3 2 7 . 5 4 ' B N D Y N15°40' 1 7 " E 8 5 6 . 7 4 ' B N D Y N1°00'05"E 2417.66' BNDY N6 4 ° 0 4 ' 5 9 " W 1 9 5 3 . 6 0 ' B N D Y EXISTING VEHICULAR TURN AROUND CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT AND FENCE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 66' ROADWAY EASEMENT SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS EX I S T I N G 8 0 ' EC C I D E A S E M E N T N8 8 ° 5 9 ' 5 9 " W 20 3 . 5 0 ' B N D Y N8 3 ° 3 6 ' 3 9 " E 31 4 . 5 0 ' B N D Y N8 3 ° 3 6 ' 3 9 " E 35 4 . 8 5 ' B N D Y N6 4 ° 0 8 ' 2 1 " W 12 4 . 3 1 ' B N D Y N30° 2 6 ' 2 1 " W 111. 5 4 ' B N D Y N14°38'3 9 " E129.05' B N D Y PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) N50 ° 1 2 ' 2 1 " W 209 . 8 0 ' B N D Y N6°23'21"W 50.16' BNDY N32° 3 7 ' 2 1 " W 1 8 0 . 4 0 ' B N D Y N38°13'01"E 15.63' BNDY N57°22'39"E 66.00' BNDY N7 7 ° 4 9 ' 3 9 " E 3 4 1 . 8 8 ' B N D Y N80°32'21"W 43.56' BNDY N71°08'39"E 64.51' BNDY N89°03'39"E 41.58' BNDY N0°00'00"E 106.02' BNDY N32°49'38"E 59.01' BNDY N82°20'39"E 81.03' BNDY N18°51'21"W 27.22' BNDY BNDYR=440.00'Δ=10°51'53"L=83.44' BNDYR=310.00'Δ=15°53'53"L=86.02' N16°55'45"E 43.68' BNDY N32° 4 9 ' 3 8 " E 3 8 7 . 4 7 ' B N D Y BNDYR=560.00'Δ=14°30'11"L=141.75' BNDYR=440.00'Δ=10°52'22"L=83.50' BNDYR=560.00'Δ=5°58'36"L=58.42' EXISTING LOT LINE (TYP.) EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARYC2 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CALL OUTS FOR TYPE) SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.EXISTING FIBER OPTICS, ELECTRIC AND GAS LINE UTILITIES IN POINT OF TIMBER ROAD SHOWN BASED ON POTHOLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GOODFELLOW BROTHERS OCTOBER 2019 AND RECORD DRAWING INFORMATION FROM PG&E AND AT&T. EXISTING LINES ARE UNDERSTOOD TO RUN UNDER KELLOGG CREEK AND SERVE EXISTING AREAS OF DISCOVERY BAY. EXISTING LINES WILL BE RELOCATED AS SHOWN ON PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN EXISTING SERVICE. 2.ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND/OR FENCES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA TO BE REMOVED. 3.SEASONAL WETLANDS AND EMERGENT MARSH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4.BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS PER PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY DATED OCTOBER 25, 2019. FILE NUMBER 0131-623175ALA 5.ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WITHIN DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.AERIAL TOPO FLOWN BY GEOMAPS SEPTEMBER 2019 (NGVD 29). CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT. 272 225 183 82 PARCEL E 81 1 3 2 263 230 188 8483PARCEL F 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL I 155156157 PARCEL P PARCEL S SEASONAL WETLANDS EMERGENT MARSH PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS PROPOSED ROW (TYP.) PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) EX.LOT LINE (TYP.) APPRX EX EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK EXISTING 50' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (TO REMAIN) PROJECT BNDY EX 66' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT EX I S T I N G 8 0 ' E C C I D EA S E M E N T S E E E X I S T I N G CO N D I T I O N S S H E E T F O R EX T E N T S A N D D E T A I L S 60 0 0 ± S F 22 2 60 0 0 ± S F 22 9 60 0 0 ± S F 22 3 60 0 0 ± S F 22 8 60 0 0 ± S F 22 4 69 7 9 ± S F 22 6 60 0 0 ± S F 19 9 60 0 0 ± S F 21 0 63 7 3 ± S F 21 5 63 7 3 ± S F 19 4 60 0 0 ± S F 19 5 60 0 0 ± S F 21 4 60 0 0 ± S F 19 6 60 0 0 ± S F 21 3 60 0 0 ± S F 19 7 60 0 0 ± S F 21 2 60 0 0 ± S F 19 8 60 0 0 ± S F 21 1 60 0 0 ± S F 20 2 60 0 0 ± S F 20 7 60 0 0 ± S F 20 0 60 0 0 ± S F 20 9 60 0 0 ± S F 20 1 60 0 0 ± S F 20 8 69 7 9 ± S F 20 4 69 7 9 ± S F 20 5 60 0 0 ± S F 20 3 60 0 0 ± S F 20 6 69 7 9 ± S F 17 4 69 7 9 ± S F 19 3 60 0 0 ± S F 17 5 60 0 0 ± S F 19 2 60 0 0 ± S F 17 6 60 0 0 ± S F 19 1 60 0 0 ± S F 17 7 60 0 0 ± S F 19 0 60 0 0 ± S F 17 8 60 0 0 ± S F 18 9 60 0 0 ± S F 17 9 60 0 0 ± S F 18 5 60 0 0 ± S F 18 0 60 0 0 ± S F 18 7 60 0 0 ± S F 18 1 60 0 0 ± S F 18 6 60 0 0 ± S F 18 2 69 7 9 ± S F 18 4 69 7 9 ± S F 26 7 73 2 9 ± S F 26 8 60 0 0 ± S F 26 6 63 0 0 ± S F 26 9 60 0 0 ± S F 26 5 63 0 0 ± S F 27 0 60 0 0 ± S F 26 4 63 0 0 ± S F 27 1 60 0 0 ± S F 26 0 63 0 0 ± S F 27 5 60 0 0 ± S F 26 2 63 0 0 ± S F 27 3 60 0 0 ± S F 26 1 63 0 0 ± S F 27 4 69 7 9 ± S F 25 8 71 9 0 ± S F 27 7 60 0 0 ± S F 25 9 63 0 0 ± S F 27 6 60 0 0 ± S F 24 1 60 0 0 ± S F 25 2 63 7 3 ± S F 25 7 63 7 3 ± S F 23 6 60 0 0 ± S F 23 7 60 0 0 ± S F 25 6 60 0 0 ± S F 23 8 60 0 0 ± S F 25 5 60 0 0 ± S F 23 9 60 0 0 ± S F 25 4 60 0 0 ± S F 24 0 60 0 0 ± S F 25 3 60 0 0 ± S F 24 4 60 0 0 ± S F 24 9 60 0 0 ± S F 24 2 60 0 0 ± S F 25 1 60 0 0 ± S F 24 3 60 0 0 ± S F 25 0 69 7 9 ± S F 24 6 69 7 9 ± S F 24 7 60 0 0 ± S F 24 5 60 0 0 ± S F 24 8 69 7 9 ± S F 21 6 69 7 9 ± S F 23 5 60 0 0 ± S F 21 7 60 0 0 ± S F 23 4 60 0 0 ± S F 21 8 60 0 0 ± S F 23 3 60 0 0 ± S F 21 9 60 0 0 ± S F 23 2 60 0 0 ± S F 22 0 60 0 0 ± S F 23 1 60 0 0 ± S F 22 1 60 0 0 ± S F 22 7 60 0 0 ± S F 26 3 60 0 0 ± S F 23 0 60 0 0 ± S F 18 8 60 0 0 ± S F 84 60 0 0 ± S F 83 59 9 8 ± S F PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 66 0 0 ± S F 82 87 0 6 ± S F PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 81 63 0 0 ± S F 27 2 69 7 9 ± S F 22 5 69 7 9 ± S F 18 3 38000± SF PARCEL A CLUBHOUSE 66 0 0 ± S F 1 66 0 0 ± S F 2 3 PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) 62' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 62' 95 ' R=10' 16' 10 5 ' 60' R=10' 16' 95 ' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 26' 10 5 ' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60'60' 10 0 ' 60' 50' R=10' 16' 90 ' 60' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 23'R=66'49' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 23' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' R=66'49'60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' R=10' 16' 90 ' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' PA R C E L H LA K E S O U T H A N D O P E N S P A C E 60' 60' 10 0 ' 70' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=66'49' 23' 10 0 ' 60' 23' R=66'49' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 10 5 ' 70' 95 ' R=10'16' 60' 60' R=10' 16' 90 ' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 10 5 ' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 10 5 ' 60'54' R=492' 5' 60'70' R=492' 62' R=10' 14' 90 ' 60' 10 0 ' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 5 ' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60' 65' 10 0 ' R=10' 18' 81' R=548' 141'135' 15 0 ' 67' 243' 140' 52174± SF PARCEL K FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE 38424± SF PARCEL L PARK EAST 72508± SF PARCEL N PARK CENTRAL 66264± SF PARCEL O PARK WEST 90' R=66' 55' 18 0 ' R=10' 16' 169' R=20' 26' R=55' 88' R=100' 43' R=154' 287' R=200' 336' R=200' 148' 52' R=66' 55' 18 0 ' R=66'55' R=200' 143' R=200' 199' 35' R=66'104' 18 5 ' R=66' 55' R=200' 153' R=100' 94' 108'R=44' 39' 37 ' 399' 155 6539± SF 156 75 6 8 ± S F 15 7 63 0 0 ± S F 16 8 63 0 0 ± S F 16 0 63 0 0 ± S F 16 7 63 0 0 ± S F 15 9 63 0 0 ± S F 16 6 73 2 9 ± S F 15 8 66 9 9 ± S F 17 3 63 0 0 ± S F 16 5 63 0 0 ± S F 17 2 63 0 0 ± S F 16 4 63 0 0 ± S F 17 1 63 0 0 ± S F 16 3 63 0 0 ± S F 17 0 63 0 0 ± S F 16 2 63 0 0 ± S F 16 9 63 0 0 ± S F 16 1 694181± SF PARCEL I SEASONAL WETLANDS 2,350,884± SF 53.97 ± AC PARCEL P WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) 13 3 ' PORTION OF EX ROW TO BE ABANDONED R=140' 161' R=140' 161' 297804± SF PARCEL S LAKE NORTH R=115'190' R=200' 176' R=300'288' R=120'118' R=100'185' R=150'220' R=75'94' R=125'271' R=350' 315' R=110' 93' 63' R=200' 199' 30' R=55' 73' 14' 36'17' 45' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'70'72'62' LOT AREA TABLE LOT # 1-82 AREA (AC.) 0.15 MIN. DESCRIPTION 60' x 110' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA (SF.) 6,600 MIN. 121-172 60' x 105' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,300 MIN. 83-120;173-266;276 60' x 100' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,000 MIN. PARCEL AREA TABLE PARCEL # PARCEL A PARCEL E PARCEL F PARCEL H PARCEL I PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O PARCEL P PARCEL S AREA (AC.) 0.87 0.20 0.14 23.23 15.94 1.20 0.88 1.66 1.52 53.97 6.84 AREA (SF) 38,000 8,706 5,998 1,011,796 694,181 52,174 38,424 72,508 66,264 2,350,884 297,804 DESCRIPTION CLUBHOUSE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE STREET ROW FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE PARK EAST PARK CENTRAL PARK WEST WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE LAKE NORTH 60.00'60.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 60.00' 11 0 . 0 0 ' 10 5 . 0 0 ' TYPICAL LOT SETBACK DETAIL N.T.S 60'x110' LOT 60'x105' LOT 60'x100' LOT PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (NORTH)C3 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CALL OUTS FOR TYPE) NOTES: 1.APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK BASED ON FLOWN AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY BY GEOMAPS SEPTEMBER 2019 2.SEASONAL WETLANDS AND EMERGENT MARSH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3.LOT DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO NEAREST FOOT. LOT AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 4.PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS (SDE) OVER PARCELS 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H','M' AND 'S' (LAKES & OPEN SPACES) TO COUNTY. 5.PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (PAE) OVER PARCELS 'B', 'D', 'J', 'L', 'N', 'O', AND 'Q' (OPEN SPACES). 6.PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SSE) OVER PARCEL 'R' TO CSD. SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.TYPICAL LOT SETBACKS COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVES "PANTAGES BAYS DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION" 2.FRONT YARD SETBACK 20' TO GARAGE 15' TO PORCH PARCEL H 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT (EASEMENT EXTENDS 25' OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY) 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT (EASEMENT EXTENDS 25' OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY) APPRX EXISTING EDGE OF WATER KELLOGG CREEK PRO P O S E D R O W ( T Y P . ) EX SEASONAL WETLAND 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 1011796± SF PARCEL H LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE 12011± SF 50 754 1 ± S F 58 780 0 ± S F 53 780 0 ± S F 47 12011± SF 95 69 7 9 ± S F 91 11808± SF 94 12213± SF 96 7800± SF 98 15991± SF PARCEL D OPEN SPACE 7800± S F 74 12039± SF 70 12011± SF 51 12011± SF 49 737 4 ± S F 52 737 4 ± S F 48 767 9 ± S F 54 660 0 ± S F 55660 0 ± S F 56660 0 ± S F 57 660 0 ± S F 40660 0 ± S F 41660 0 ± S F 42660 0 ± S F 43660 0 ± S F 44660 0 ± S F 45 767 9 ± S F 46 11983± SF 72 7358± S F 73 66 0 0 ± S F 82 76 7 9 ± S F 75 8706± SF PARCEL E OPEN SPACE 66 0 0 ± S F 76 66 0 0 ± S F 77 66 0 0 ± S F 78 66 0 0 ± S F 79 66 0 0 ± S F 80 66 0 0 ± S F 81 7800± S F 68 7390± S F 69 66 0 0 ± S F 63 66 0 0 ± S F 64 66 0 0 ± S F 65 66 0 0 ± S F 66 66 0 0 ± S F 59 76 7 9 ± S F 67 66 0 0 ± S F 60 66 0 0 ± S F 61 66 0 0 ± S F 62 66 0 0 ± S F 17 66 0 0 ± S F 9 66 0 0 ± S F 1 66 0 0 ± S F 16 66 0 0 ± S F 8 66 0 0 ± S F 15 66 0 0 ± S F 7 66 0 0 ± S F 14 66 0 0 ± S F 6 66 0 0 ± S F 13 66 0 0 ± S F 5 66 0 0 ± S F 20 66 0 0 ± S F 12 66 0 0 ± S F 4 66 0 0 ± S F 19 66 0 0 ± S F 11 66 0 0 ± S F 3 66 0 0 ± S F 18 66 0 0 ± S F 10 66 0 0 ± S F 2 778 0 ± S F 21 20631± SF PARCEL B OPEN SPACE 660 0 ± S F 32 660 0 ± S F 24 660 0 ± S F 31 660 0 ± S F 23 660 0 ± S F 30 660 0 ± S F 22 60 0 0 ± S F 12 0 660 0 ± S F 29 9300 ± S F 37 660 0 ± S F 28 793 8 ± S F 36 660 0 ± S F 27 660 0 ± S F 34 660 0 ± S F 26 660 0 ± S F 33 660 0 ± S F 25 11484± SF PARCEL M OPEN SPACE 7374± SF 93 7374± SF 97 60 0 0 ± S F 89 60 0 0 ± S F 88 60 0 0 ± S F 87 60 0 0 ± S F 86 60 0 0 ± S F 85 60 0 0 ± S F 84 60 0 0 ± S F 90 60 0 0 ± S F 83 7800± SF 92 5998± SF PARCEL F OPEN SPACE 60 0 0 ± S F 11 7 60 0 0 ± S F 10 9 60 0 0 ± S F 10 1 60 0 0 ± S F 10 8 60 0 0 ± S F 11 5 60 0 0 ± S F 10 7 69 7 9 ± S F 99 60 0 0 ± S F 11 4 90 7 2 ± S F PA R C E L G OP E N S P A C E 60 0 0 ± S F 11 3 60 0 0 ± S F 10 5 60 0 0 ± S F 11 2 60 0 0 ± S F 10 4 60 0 0 ± S F 11 1 60 0 0 ± S F 10 3 60 0 0 ± S F 11 0 60 0 0 ± S F 10 2 76 8 2 ± S F 11 8 60 0 0 ± S F 11 6 60 0 0 ± S F 10 0 15391± SF 38 660 2 ± S F 35 12011± SF 71 71 6 6 ± S F 11 9 1547± SF PARCEL J OPEN SPACE 93 5 2 ± S F PA R C E L R OP E N S P A C E 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 53' 53' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 79' 84' 146' 45 ' 10 0 ' R=320' 114' R=430'153'R=430'81' R=320' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 45' R=348' 61' R=348' 61' R=348' 58' R=348' 74' 17 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60'77' 33' R=20' 26' R=55' 55'R=55'111' 143' 119' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 31' 208 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 6' R=55'54' R=55'24' 33'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' R=10' 16' 95 ' R=348' 15' R=10' 18'81' 65' 11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 60'11 0 ' 60' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 70' 60' 10 0 ' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 130' 130' 130 ' 130 ' 130'130' 60 ' 60 ' R=158' 166' R=158' 165' R=158'165' 60 ' 60 ' 70' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 118' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70' 60' 60' R=158' 165' R=158' 165' R=158'165' 60' 60' 10 0 ' 60' R=10' 16' R=10' 16' 11 0 ' 130' 112' 112 ' 11 3 ' 113' 130' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 11 0 ' 60 ' 15 ' R=20' 15' R=45' 34' R=45' 47' R=45'47' R=45' 47' R=45' 33' R=20' 15' 16 ' 60 ' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 58' R=264'105' 37' R=264'39' 60' 60' 60' 60' 100 ' R=10' 16'110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 60' 130 ' 113 ' 113' 11 3 ' 113 ' 130 ' 60' 16' R=20' 15' R=45'33' R=45' 47' R=45'47' R=45' 47'R=45' 33' R=20' 15'16' 100 ' R=10' 16' 60' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 110 ' 49 ' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70' R=292' 143' R=292' 8' 52' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 70'60' 132' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' R=292' 74' 17 ' R=10' 16' 69'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 90' 90' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 90 ' 70'60'60'60'60'60'60' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60' R=10' 16' 60 ' 60 ' 130' 16 ' R=20' 15' R=45'33'113' 60 ' R=158' 168' R=45' 48' 11 3 ' 11 3 ' R=45' 47' R=45'46' R=45' 33'R=20' 15' 16 ' 113' R=158' 163' R=158' 165' 60 ' 130' 60 ' 60 ' 70'60' 10 0 ' 90 ' R=10' 16' 60' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 10 0 ' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60' 60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'50' R=10' 16' 90 ' R=10' 16' 62' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 10 5 ' 95 ' R=10' 16' 62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62' 60' 60' 660 5 ± S F 39 10 0 ' 99 7 ' 425' 12 0 ' Δ=180°00'00"L=496.37' 12 0 ' 420' 118' 180 ' 120 ' Δ=180°00'00" L=496.37' 120 ' 360 ' 1047' 12 0 ' 12 0 ' 480' Δ=180°00'00" L=496.37' EX. LOT LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS 63 0 0 ± S F 12 6 63 0 0 ± S F 13 4 65 3 9 ± S F 14 2 63 0 0 ± S F 12 7 63 0 0 ± S F 13 5 65 3 9 ± S F 14 3 63 0 0 ± S F 12 8 63 0 0 ± S F 13 6 65 3 9 ± S F 14 4 19096± SF 121 63 0 0 ± S F 12 9 63 0 0 ± S F 13 7 65 3 9 ± S F 14 5 63 4 8 ± S F 12 2 63 0 0 ± S F 13 0 63 0 0 ± S F 13 8 63 0 0 ± S F 12 3 63 0 0 ± S F 13 1 73 2 9 ± S F 13 9 63 0 0 ± S F 12 4 63 0 0 ± S F 13 2 75 8 3 ± S F 14 0 63 0 0 ± S F 12 5 63 0 0 ± S F 13 3 65 3 9 ± S F 14 1 65 3 9 ± S F 15 0 65 3 9 ± S F 15 1 65 3 9 ± S F 15 2 65 3 9 ± S F 15 3 65 3 9 ± S F 14 6 65 3 9 ± S F 15 4 65 3 9 ± S F 14 7 65 3 9 ± S F 15 5 65 3 9 ± S F 14 8 65 3 9 ± S F 15 6 6539± SF 149 75 6 8 ± S F 15 7 469,69 5 ± S F 10.78 ± A C PARCEL QOPEN S P A C E 95 ' PORTION OF EX ROW TO BE ABANDONED (EASEMENT EXTENDS 25' OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY) 10 0 ' 60 0 0 ± S F 10 6 60' 60' 63' 137' 60' POSSIBLE CSD WELL WATER SITE 72'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'62'72'70'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'202' PARCEL AREA TABLE PARCEL # 121 PARCEL B PARCEL D PARCEL E PARCEL F PARCEL G PARCEL H PARCEL J PARCEL M PARCEL Q PARCEL R AREA (AC.) 0.44 0.47 0.37 0.20 0.14 0.21 23.23 0.04 0.26 10.78 0.21 AREA (SF) 19,096 20,631 15,991 8,706 5,998 9,072 1,011,796 1,547 11,484 469,695 9,352 DESCRIPTION OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LOT AREA TABLE LOT # 1-82 AREA (AC.) 0.15 MIN. DESCRIPTION 60' x 110' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA (SF.) 6,600 MIN. 121-172 60' x 105' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,300 MIN. 83-120;173-266;276 60' x 100' MIN SINGLE FAMILY LOT0.14 MIN.6,000 MIN. PARCEL LAYOUT PLAN (SOUTH)C4 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CALL SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK BASED ON FLOWN AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY BY GEOMAPS SEPTEMBER 2019 2.SEASONAL WETLANDS AND EMERGENT MARSH INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MADRONE ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 3.LOT DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO NEAREST FOOT. LOT AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOWN TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 4.PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS (SDE) OVER PARCELS 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H','M' AND 'S' (LAKES & OPEN SPACES) TO COUNTY. 5.PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (PAE) OVER PARCELS 'B', 'D', 'J', 'L', 'N', 'O', AND 'Q' (OPEN SPACES). 6.PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SSE) OVER PARCEL 'R' TO CSD. 272 225 183 82 PARCEL E 79 80 81 1 5 4 3 2 263 230 188 86858483PARCEL F 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL I 154155156157 PARCEL P PARCEL S EXISTING EMERGENT MARSH EXISTING SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS PROPOSED ROW AT BACK OF WALK (TYP.) EDGE OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS AT PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) EX.ROW TO BE ABANDONED EX. LOT LINE (TYP.) APPRX KELLOGG CREEK EX EDGE OF WATER EXISTING 50' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PROJECT BNDY EX 66' P U B L I C ACCESS E A S E M E N T PARK WEST PARK CENTRAL PA R K E A S T PROPOSED LOT LINE (TYP.) FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE CONNECT TO EX 8" WATER STUB AT POINT OF TIMBER ROAD APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS LINE TO BE RELOCATED WITH PROJECT JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED CURB LINE (TYP.) PROPOSED SWLK (TYP.) 10' TRAIL CONNECTS TO 5' SWLK CONFORM LINE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) R=20' 31' 534' R=20' 31' 600' R=502'68' R=20' 29' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' R=56'88' 1254' R=538' 138'534' 18 5 ' 18 5 ' R=56' 88' 600'R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' R=56'88' 18 0 ' R=56'88'600' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' R=56'88' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 169' R=30' 39' R=45' 199' 900' R=20' 31' 95 ' 95 ' R=20' 31' 1121' 590' R=20' 31'R=20' 31' 11 8 8 ' R=20' 37' 561' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' 600' R=20' 31' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' 600' 18 0 ' R=20' 31' LINES TO BE RELOCATED WITHIN PROJECT JOINT TRENCH CURB LINE RADIUS AND LENGTH (TYP.) PA R C E L H LA K E S O U T H A N D O P E N S P A C E PARCEL P WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE TWO (2) ACCESSIBLE STALLS PARCEL S LAKE NORTH SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS STORM DRAIN LAKE OUTFALL AND OVERFLOW STRUCTURE. SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA B SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS OUTFALL TO NORTH LAKE (LAKE SOUTH OVERFLOW ONLY) 24" HIGH FLOW SD CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA A SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD CDS UNI T - S E E L A K E PLANS F O R D E T A I L S LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAKE P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" HIGH FLOW SD LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD OVERFLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SP I L L W A Y UTILITY PLAN (NORTH)C5 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY FACE OF CURB SIDEWALK SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE STORM DRAIN, INLET & MANHOLE WATER LINE & VALVE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER 50' WETLAND OFFSET RETAINING WALL EASEMENT LINE SEE CALL OUTS FOR TYPE STORM CDS UNIT STORM OR SANITARY SEWER PUMPS STORM DRAIN FORCEMAIN APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER 50' SETBACK FROM EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND TOE OF SLOPE (CONFORM LINE) NOTES: 1.STORM DRAIN DESIGN PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STANDARDS 2."LAKE SOUTH" TO BE DESIGNED TO RETAIN 100-YEAR STORM EVENT WITH EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TO "LAKE NORTH" VIA FORCE MAIN AND OUTFALL SHOWN. "LAKE NORTH" TO BE DESIGNED WITH A SPILLWAY TO DIRECT ANY OVERFLOW ABOVE THAT CONTAINED WITHIN THE LAKE ITSELF TOWARDS THE EXISTING EMERGENT MARSH AREA. 3.MRP PROVISION C.3 TO BE MET BY COLLECTING AND TREATING RUNOFF WITHIN ONE OF THE FIVE TYPICAL BIORETENTION FACILITIES AROUND THE LAKE. SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4.SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SHALL BE DESIGNED PER CSD STANDARDS. 5.FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CSD REQUIREMENTS 6.ALL PIPE SIZES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN. PARCEL H 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 36' 70' 36' 36' 36' 36 ' 36 ' 36 ' 36' 36' 36' 36' 36' 36 ' 36' 36 ' 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT 150' EXISTING RECLAMATION DISTRICT 800 LEVEE EASEMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP) APPRX EXISTING EDGE OF WATER KELLOGG CREEK PRO P O S E D R O W ( T Y P . ) PRO P O S E D L O T L I N E ( T Y P . ) EX SEASONAL WETLAND SEWER LIFT STATION. CONNECT TO EX 8" SEWER AND 16" WATER STUB IN WILDE DRIVE EX. ROW TO BE ABANDONED APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS, APPRX LOCATION OF EX PGE GAS AND ELECTRIC LINE AND AT&T FIBER OPTICS LINE TO BE RELOCATED WITH PROJECT JOINT TRENCH CONNECT TO EX FIBER OPTIC AND GAS LINES, BEGIN RELOCATION LAKE SOUTH SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS 36' CURB LINE RADIUS AND LENGTH (TYP.) CONNECT TO EX 8" WATER STUB AT POINT OF TIMBER ROAD PROJECT BOUNDARY 10 ' TR A I L 10' TRA I L 5' L/ S (T Y P . ) 5' SW L K (T Y P . ) LINES TO BE RELOCATED WITH PROJECT JOINT TRENCH R=20' 31' 590' 1121' R=20' 31' 95 ' 95 ' R=20' 31' 1053' R=45' 199'R=30' 39'153' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 1300' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 16 6 ' 16 6 ' R=30' 22' R=30' 22' R=35' 162' R=20' 31' 95 ' 11 8 8 ' R=20' 37' 561' 1254' R=20' 31' R=20' 31' 17 5 ' 17 6 ' R=30' 22' R=30' 22' R=35'162' 598' R=274'149' R=310' 169' 277 ' 825 ' R=20' 31' 176 ' R=30' 22' R=35'162' R=30' 22' 176 'R=20' 31' 472 ' R=302' 232' R=338' 260' 17 ' 17 ' R=538' 138' BIORETE N T I O N A R E A A , S E E STORM W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P L A N AND LAK E P L A N F O R D E T A I L S BIORETENTION AREA B, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA C, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA D, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS BIORETENTION AREA E, SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN AND LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS SLOPE 3:1 MAX TO EX GRADE SLOPE 3:1 MAX TO EX GRADE CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS U N I T - S E E LAK E P L A N S F O R DET A I L S CDS UNI T - S E E L A K E PLANS F O R D E T A I L S CDS UNI T - S E E LAKE PL A N S F O R DETAILS STORM DRAIN LAKE OUTFALL AND OVERFLOW STRUCTURE. SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAKE P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" SD LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAKE P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW F L O W S D F M 24" SD LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM UTILITY PLAN (SOUTH)C6 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY FACE OF CURB SIDEWALK SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE STORM DRAIN, INLET & MANHOLE WATER LINE & VALVE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER 50' WETLAND OFFSET RETAINING WALL EASEMENT LINE SEE CALL OUTS FOR TYPE STORM CDS UNIT STORM OR SANITARY SEWER PUMPS STORM DRAIN FORCEMAIN APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER 50' SETBACK FROM EDGE OF EXISTING WETLAND TOE OF SLOPE (CONFORM LINE) NOTES: 1.STORM DRAIN DESIGN PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STANDARDS 2."LAKE SOUTH" TO BE DESIGNED TO RETAIN 100-YEAR STORM EVENT WITH EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TO "LAKE NORTH" VIA FORCE MAIN AND OUTFALL SHOWN. "LAKE NORTH" TO BE DESIGNED WITH A SPILLWAY TO DIRECT ANY OVERFLOW ABOVE THAT CONTAINED WITHIN THE LAKE ITSELF TOWARDS THE EXISTING EMERGENT MARSH AREA. 3.MRP PROVISION C.3 TO BE MET BY COLLECTING AND TREATING RUNOFF WITHIN ONE OF THE FIVE TYPICAL BIORETENTION FACILITIES AROUND THE LAKE. SEE STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN FOR DETAILS. 4.SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SHALL BE DESIGNED PER CSD STANDARDS. 5.FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CSD REQUIREMENTS 6.ALL PIPE SIZES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN. PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S LAKE SOUTH FLEXIBLE SPACE PA R K EA S T PA R K CE N T R A L PARK WEST EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS CLUBHOUSE SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY EX 66' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING 80' ECCID EASEMENT SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR EXTENTS AND DETAILS PROJECT BNDY SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS LAKE NORTH STREET CROSS SECTIONS C7 NOTES: 1.TYPICAL STREET STANDARDS PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD PLANS OR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE. 2.CURB DETAILS PER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STANDARD PLAN CA71. 272 225 183 82 PARCEL E 1 2 263 230 188 8483PARCEL F 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL I 156157 PARCEL P PARCEL S 272 225 183 82 PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 1 2 263 230 188 83 PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 PARCEL A CLUBHOUSEPARCEL K FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE PA R C E L L PA R K E A S T PARCEL N PARK CENTRAL PARCEL O PARK WEST PA R C E L H LA K E S O U T H A N D O P E N S P A C E PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 13.8 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 14.0PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 13.7PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 13.9PAD 14.1 PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.6 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.6 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.6 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.6PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2PAD 13.9PAD 13.8PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.8PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PA D 1 4 . 0 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PA D 1 3 . 9 PA D 1 4 . 0 (AT EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION) (A T E X I S T I N G GR O U N D E L E V A T I O N ) (AT EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION) (AT EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION) 0. 9 6 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 4 5 % 0. 8 0 % 0. 7 6 % 1. 1 0 % 1. 1 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0.75%0.75%1.40% 2.44%2.00% 1.25%0.75%0.75%0.75%1.10%0.75% 2.16%0.75%2.00% 0.75% 0.7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0. 7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0.7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75% 0.7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%0.75%1.00% 0.75% 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % CONFORM 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) CONFORM 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) CONFORM 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) SE E L A K E P L A N S F O R D E T A I L S EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 6 (C O N F O R M ) HP 1 2 . 7 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 2 12 . 6 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 12.6 HP 1 2 . 6 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 13 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 2 12 . 3 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 59. 7 ' HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 9 HP 1 3 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 HP 1 2 . 9 12 . 6 13 . 0 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 12.8 EX T C 1 1 . 4 LP 12 . 1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3: 1 PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS PROJECT BNDY SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET FOR FULL EXTENTS AND DETAILS EX SEASONAL WETLANDS APPRX EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK (TYP.) 156157168160167159166158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 PARCEL P WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIRES RIGHT OF ENTRY PERMISSION TO GRADE PARCEL S LAKE NORTH TOP OF LAKE ELEV = EG BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -11'± DEPTH OF LAKE NORTH = 15' +/- FROM EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION TOP OF LAKE NORTH SET AT EX GROUND ELEVATION EG/TOP O F L A K E 4.1± EG/TOP OF LAKE 5.0±B O T T O M O F L A K E E L E V = -1 1 +/- BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -11+/- BOTT O M O F LAKE ELEV = - 11 +/- B O T T O M O F L A K E E L E V = -1 1 +/- EG/TOP OF LAKE 7.6± EG/TOP OF LAKE 6.8±EG/TO P O F L A K E 6.1± EG/TO P O F L A K E 6.1± EG/TO P O F L A K E 5.3± EG / TO P O F L A K E 4. 1 ± EG/ TOP OF LAKE 3.9± EG/ TOP OF LAKE 4.0± SPILLWAY PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH)C8 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH LP 1 2 . 1 GRADE BREAK TC SPOT GRADE 0.75%SLOPE AND DIRECTION STORM DRAIN INLET SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS EMERGENT MARSH EXTENTS NOTES: 1.LOW POINT AND HIGH POINT SPOT SHOTS SHOWN ARE TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS 2.0.75% MINIMUM STREET GRADE 3.SEE LAKE PLANS FOR LAKE GRADING, DRAINAGE AND DETAILS. 4.SEE SHEET C10 FOR PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS. 5.ALL RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN. PARCEL H 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 39 PARCEL H LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D OPEN SPACE 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 767778798081 68 69 63646566 59 67 606162 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 11710910110811510799114 PARCEL G OPENSPACE 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 35 71 119 PARCEL J OPEN SPACE PARCEL R PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.4 PAD 13.9PAD 14.4 PAD 13.9PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.2 PAD 14.8 PAD 13.9 PA D 1 4 . 0 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 14.1PAD 14.2PAD 14.2PAD 14.1PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 14.1PAD 14.1PAD 13.7PAD 14.2PAD 14.2 PA D 1 3 . 9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.0 0.75%0.75%0.75%2.00%2.00%0.75%0.80%0.75%0.85%0.80%0.80%2.00%2.00%0.77%0.75%0.75%0.75%2.00%2.00%0.75%0.90%0.75%0.75%0.75% 1. 8 7 % 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 1.63% 2.00% 0.95% 0.80% 0.98% 0.75% 2. 0 0 % 0. 8 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0.75 % 0.8 0 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 2.0 0 % 2.0 0 % 0.7 5 % 0.9 1 % 0.9 0 % 2.0 0 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0.7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 8 0 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 0 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 0 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1. 1 5 % 1. 1 5 % 0. 7 5 % 1.00% 0.75% 0. 7 5 % 0. 9 6 % 2. 0 0 % 2. 4 5 % 0. 8 0 % 0. 7 6 % 1. 1 0 % 1. 1 0 % 0.75%2.00% HP 13.1 HP 13.1 LP 1 2 . 1 EX T C 1 0 . 4 LP 1 2 . 1 (C O N F O R M ) LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.5 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 HP 12.5 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 2 12 . 6 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 2 2.0% HP 1 2 . 8 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 2 12 . 6 EX T C 1 1 . 4 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 12.7 LP 12.1 12 . 8 HP 13.0 LP 1 2 . 1 (C O N F O R M ) 12 . 9 HP 13.0 HP 1 2 . 7 13 . 0 HP 1 2 . 7 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 1 HP 13.0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 2 . 9 12.9 12 . 6 0.8% LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 HP 1 2 . 8 LP 12.1 LP 12.1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 LP 12.1 12 . 6 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 8 LP 12.1 12 . 6 12 . 3 LP 1 2 . 3 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 12 . 6 13 . 0 LP 1 2 . 1 LP 12.1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 LP 12.1 12 . 9 12.9 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 12.7 12 . 6 HP 12.6 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 1 2 . 8 HP 1 2 . 8 13 . 0 HP 1 2 . 5 12 . 9 HP 1 3 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 8 HP 1 3 . 0 12 . 6 HP 1 3 . 2 HP 1 2 . 9 LP 1 2 . 1 HP 1 3 . 1 LP 1 2 . 1 12 . 9 HP 1 3 . 0 HP 13.0 HP 1 2 . 8 126134142150127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) 3:1 3:1 3: 1 3:1 SLOPE TO EX GROUND (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK (TYP.) APPROXIMATE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER AT KELLOGG CREEK (TYP.) PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROJECT BOUNDARY (TYP.) 1716 20 1918 PARCEL Q OPEN SPACE RETAINING WALL AT BNDY (3' MAX HEIGHT) RETAINING WALL AT BNDY (3' MAX HEIGHT) RETAINING WALL AT TOP PERIMETER OF LAKE (5' MAX HEIGHT) RETAINING WALL AT EXISTING SEASONAL WETLAND (9' MAX HEIGHT) 106 43 PARCE L BOPEN S P A C E PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SOUTH)C9 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH LP 1 2 . 1 GRADE BREAK TC SPOT GRADE 0.75%SLOPE AND DIRECTION STORM DRAIN INLET NOTES: 1.LOW POINT AND HIGH POINT SPOT SHOTS SHOWN ARE TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS 2.0.75% MINIMUM STREET GRADE 3.SEE LAKE PLANS FOR LAKE GRADING, DRAINAGE AND DETAILS. 4.SEE SHEET C10 FOR PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONS. 5.ALL RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN. PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONSC10 BIORETE N T I O N AREA B BIO R E T E N T I O N ARE A B BIO- RETENTION AREA E BIOR E T E N T I O N AREA D BIORETENTION AREA C PARCEL H 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 260 275 261 274 258 277 259 276 244 249 243 250 246 247 245 248 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 202 207 201 208 204 205 203 206 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R 39 160 159 158161 126134142150127135143151128136144152129137145153130138146154 123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 BOTTOM OF LAKE AREA: 462,673 SF (10.6± AC) 2:1 2:1 2:1 2: 1 2:1 2:1 2:1 PA R C E L E OP E N S P A C E 82 78 79 80 81 75 76 77 74 73 70 72 71 68 69 66 67 63 64 65 59 60 6162 58 PARCEL D 54 55 56 57 50 53 47 51 49 52 48 54 46 43 44 45 40 41 42 39 PARCEL M 118 95 91 94 96 98 93 97 898887868584 90 83 92 PA R C E L F OP E N S P A C E 109101 108107 99 PARCEL G 113 105 112 104 111 103 110 102100 117 115 114 116 EMERGENCY LAKE SOUTH OVERFLOW STRUCTURE TO PUMP OUT 8" SDFM TO OUTFALL AT LAKE NORTH (SEE SITE PLAN FOR DETAILS) SITE SD DRAINING TO LAKE (TYP.) SEE SITE PLAN FOR DETAILS OVERFLOW SD PUMP TO OUTFALL BOTTOM O F L A K E E L E V = - 2 1 ' ± BO T T O M O F L A K E E L E V = - 2 1 ' ± BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -21'± TOP OF LAKE BANK ELEV = 4'± AREA: 721,455 SF (16.6± AC) TOP OF LAKE BANK ELEV = 4'± MAINTEN A N C E B E N C H E L E V = 7 . 0 ' ± MA I N T E N A N C E B E N C H E L E V = 7 . 0 ' ± MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEV = 7.0'±MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEV = 7.0'± MAINTEN A N C E B E N C H E L E V = 7 . 0 ' ± PA D 1 4 . 0 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.0 PAD 14.0 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3 PAD 13.9PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 14.1 PAD 14.2 PAD 14.2PAD 14.1 PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9PAD 13.9PAD 14.3PAD 14.3PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 14.1 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.4 PAD 14.1 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9PAD 14.3 PAD 14.3PAD 14.1PAD 14.1PAD 13.7PAD 14.2PAD 14.2 PA D 1 3 . 9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION PAD 13.9 PAD 13.9 RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF LOT (5' RETAINING MAX) RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF LOT (5' RETAINING MAX) RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF LOT (5' RETAINING MAX) SEE GRADING PLAN SECTIONS SEE GRADING PLAN SECTIONS (TYP.)NORMAL WATER SURFACE ELEV = 1'± BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -21'± RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER PAD 13.9 RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER RAISE MAINTENANCE BENCH ELEVATION TO 8'+/- TO MAINTAIN COVER BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEV = -21'± SD OVERFLOW TO SD PUMP TO OUTFALL LOW FLOW PUMP TO BIO-RETENTION FACILITY 106 CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNIT-SEE LAKE PLANS FOR DETAILS CDS UNI T - S E ELAKE PL A N S F O R DETAILS CDS UNI T - S E E LAKE PL A N S F O R DETAILS LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM 24" SD LOW FLOW S T O R M D R A I N P U M P SEE LAK E P L A N F O R D E T A I L S 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW F L O W S D F M 24" SD LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN PUMP SEE LAKE PLAN FOR DETAILS 24" SD 24" HIGH FLOW SD 8" LOW FLOW SDFM OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION OUTFALL TO BIO-RETENTION OUTFALL TO BIORETENTION LAKE PLANC11 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOT LINE APPRX. EDGE OF WATER SPOT SHOT BUILDING LINE CONTOUR FENCE BRUSH CURB EASEMENT (SEE PLAN VIEW CAL OUTS FOR TYPE) SIDEWALK OR MULTIUSE PATH SEASONAL WETLAND EXTENTS PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S 5,200+ TOTAL LF OF TRAIL 5,200+ TOTAL LF OF TRAIL DEVELOPMENT AREA OPENSPACE AND PARK AREA TABLE PARCEL PARCEL B PARCEL D PARCEL E PARCEL F PARCEL G PARCEL H PARCEL J PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL M PARCEL N PARCEL O PARCEL P PARCEL Q PARCEL R PARCEL S DESCRIPTION OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE SOUTH AND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE FLEXIBLE RECREATIONAL SPACE PARK EAST OPEN SPACE PARK CENTRAL PARK WEST WETLANDS AND OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE LAKE NORTH AREA (SF) 20,631± 15,991± 8,706± 5,998± 9,072± 1,011,796± 1,547± 52,174± 38,424± 11,484± 72,508± 66,264± 2,350,884± 469,695± 9,352± 297,804± AREA (AC) 0.47± 0.37± 0.20± 0.14± 0.21± 23.23± 0.04± 1.20± 0.88± 0.26± 1.66± 1.52± 53.97± 10.78± 0.21± 6.84± TRAILS, PARKS & OPEN SPACEC12 NORTHERN WETLAND OPENSPACE AREA TO REMAIN54.0±2,351,000± OPENSPACE AREA ALONG KELLOGG CREEK TO REMAIN10.8±470,000± TOTAL OPENSPACE AREA TO REMAIN64.8±2,821,000± OPENSPACE OUTSIDE OF DEVELOPMENT AREA AREA TABLE AREA DESCRIPTION AREA (AC.)AREA (SF.) LEGEND: OPEN SPACE TO REMAIN IN IT'S NATURAL CONDITION PARK TRAIL PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL P PARCEL Q 106 PARCEL S PHASE 2 EMERGENT MARSH SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS SEASONAL WETLANDS PHASE 1 PRELIMINARY PHASING PLAN C13 NOTE: 1.PHASING SHOWN IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. DEVELOPER RESERVES RIGHT TO MODIFY PHASING. PARCEL H 272 225 183 50 58 53 47 95 91 94 96 98 PARCEL D 74 70 51 49 52 48 54 55 56 57 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 72 73 82 75 PARCEL E 76 77 78 79 80 81 68 69 63 64 65 66 59 67 60 61 62 17 9 1 16 8 15 7 14 6 13 5 20 12 4 19 11 3 18 10 2 21 PARCEL B 32 24 31 23 30 22 120 29 37 28 36 27 34 26 33 25 PARCEL M 263 230 188 93 97 898887868584 9083 92 PARCEL F 11710910110811510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 118116100 38 267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252 257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 216 235 217 234 218 233 219 232 220 231 221 227 222 229 223 228 224 226 199 210 215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 35 71 PARCEL A 119 PARCEL J PARCEL R PARCEL K PARCEL L PARCEL N PARCEL O 39 168 160167 159166 158 173 165172 164171 163170 162169 161 126134142150 PARCEL I 127135143151128136144152 121129137145153122130138146154123131139147155124132140148156125133141149157 PARCEL Q 106 272 263267 268 266 269 265 270 264 271 260 275 262 273 261 274 258 277 259 276 241 252257 236 237 256 238 255 239 254 240 253 244 249 242 251 243 250 246 247 245 248 230235234233232231 227229228 226 82 PARCEL E 77 78 79 80 81 1 2 5 4 3 8 7 6 225216217218219220221222223224 199 210215 194 195 214 196 213 197 212 198 211 202 207 200 209 201 208 204 205 203 206 183 188 174 193 175 192 176 191 177 190 178 189 179 185 180 187 181 186 182 184 168 160167 159166 158173165172164171163170162169161 89888786858483PARCEL F 151152153154155156157 95 94 96 98 93 97 92 9190 142150143144145146147 140148141149 109101108 11510799114PARCEL G 113105112104111103110102 116100106 134135136137 130138131139132133 40 41 42 43 44 33 PARCEL M 39 32 31 30 37 36 34 35 120 38 119 PARCEL R 117 118 126127128 121129122123124125 74 70 73 75 76 68 69 67 71 72 9 13 12 11 10 PARCEL D 63 64 65 66 59 60 61 62 17 16 15 14 13 20 12 19 18 PARCEL B 58 54 55 56 57 24 23 21 22 28 27 26 25 29 45 46 50 51 52 53 49 48 47 PARCEL A BIO-RETENTION B BIO-RETENTION A BIO-RETENT I O N D BIO-RET E NTION C BIO-RETENTION E 654258± SFDMA A 1011796± SFLAKE MAIN 433294± SFDMA C 297402± SFDMA E 546640± SFDMA D 741305± SFDMA B PARCEL J 60.00'60.00' 10 0 . 0 0 ' 60.00' 11 0 . 0 0 ' 10 5 . 0 0 ' 4280 SF 3655 SF 3430 SF ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT N.T.S 60'x110' LOT 60'x105' LOT 60'x100' LOT STORMWATER QUALITY PLANC14 LEGEND: DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA(DMA) BOUNDARY IMPERVIOUS AREA (1) BIO-RETENTION AREA NOTES: 1)SEE ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS AREA PER LOT DETAIL ABOVE FROM LOT IMPERVIOUS AREA ASSUMPTIONS. NOT SHOW IN PLAN VIEW. 2)CLUBHOUSE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED FOR THE SIZING OF THE WATER QUALITY MEASURES 3)DMA TREATMENT AREAS SHOWN ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. FINAL SIZE AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED WITH THE FINAL SITE DESIGN. REQUIRED TREATMENT AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH FINAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS. IMP Name: BIO RET A (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA A - ROAD/SWLK 166,026 Concrete or Asphalt 1 166,026 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA A - PERVIOUS 238,102 Landscape 0.1 23,810 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA A - LOT IMPERVIOUS 250,130 Conventional Roof 1 250,130 Factor ment Volume Total 439,966 Factor Area 0.04 1 17,599 17,600 IMP Name: BIO RET B (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA B - ROAD/SWLK 186,259 Concrete or Asphalt 1 186,259 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA B - LOT IMPERVIOUS 286,435 Conventional Roof 1 286,435 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA B - PERVIOUS 268,611 Landscape 0.1 26,861 Factor ment Volume Total 499,555 Factor Area 0.04 1 19,982 20,000 IMP Name: BIO RET C (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA C - ROAD/SWLK 81,597 Concrete or Asphalt 1 81,597 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA C - LOT IMPERVIOUS 178,115 Conventional Roof 1 178,115 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA C - PERVIOUS 173,582 Landscape 0.1 17,358 Factor ment Volume Total 277,070 Factor Area 0.04 1 11,083 11,100 IMP Name: BIO RET D (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA D - ROAD/SWLK 93,769 Concrete or Asphalt 1 93,769 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA D - LOT IMPERVIOUS 257,400 Conventional Roof 1 257,400 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA D - PERVIOUS 195,470 Landscape 0.1 19,547 Factor ment Volume Total 370,716 Factor Area 0.04 1 14,829 14,900 IMP Name: BIO RET E (Soil Type: C) IMP Type: Bioretention Facility Soil Type: C DMA DMA Post-DMA DMA Name Area Project Runoff Area (sq ft)Surface Factor x Type Runoff Factor IMP Sizing DMA E - ROAD/SWLK 55,402 Concrete or Asphalt 1 55,402 IMP Rain Minimum Proposed DMA E - LOT IMPERVIOUS 113,160 Conventional Roof 1 113,160 Sizing Adjust-Area or Volume Area or DMA E - PERVIOUS 128,840 Landscape 0.1 12,884 Factor ment Volume Total 181,446 Factor Area 0.04 1 7,258 7,300 Pantages Subdivision Project Components The project involves a proposed redesign of a project previously approved by the Board in 2015 General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, Final Development Plan 277 residential lots, 18 common area parcels 23 trees to be removed Avoids impacts to the northern wetland complex and Kellogg Creek Clubhouse and flexible recreational area Two Internal Lakes (Lake North and South) Two trail systems providing 5,200 linear feet of walkways Grading (cut –775,00 cu yd, fill –913,00 cu yd) Provides 41.55 inclusionary housing units 2 3 General Plan 4 Zoning 5 6 7 Staff Recommendations 1.OPEN the public hearing on the Pantages Residential Development Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2.APPROVE an addendum to the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Environmental Impact Report. 3.ADOPT the CEQA findings for the Project. 4.ADOPT the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project. 5.SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. 6.DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 7.ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/212, amending the General Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Water (WA), Open Space (OS), Public/Semi-Public (PS) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Open Space (OS), Water (WA), and Parks and Recreation (PR) (County File #CDGP19-0002). 8.ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-17, rezoning the subject property from Planned Unit District (P-1), Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (UE), and General Agriculture (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Overlay (-UE) (County File #CDRZ19-3252). 9.APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #CDDP19-3024) along with the associated Tree Permit. 10.APPROVE the findings in support of the Project. 11.APPROVE the Project conditions of approval. 12.APPROVE the Pantages Bay Residential Subdivision Project. 13.ACKNOWLEDGE that the Planning Commission approved the vesting tentative map for the Project, and that no appeal of this approval was filed. 1 June McHuen From:Dave Johnson <uacl4645@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 13, 2021 10:34 AM To:Clerk of the Board Subject:Please re consider Pantages Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good Morning, My Name is Dave Johnson, I live on Otter Brook Loop in Discovery Bay, and am concerned about the proposed Pantages project and what it will mean for our community. I currently live in a home that backs where the new project will be built, our house has a value that will be decrease by this project because we will no longer live on a "prime lot" which is key because currently we have no rear neighbors. Building this project will potentially lower the value of my home. When this project was originally approved and studies were done, things were different. With all the revisions to this plan have any of the studies been updated? When this project was originally introduced there was adequate Fire Protection, since then we have lost 1 fire station. Is adding more homes to a community that already has a strained Fire Department a smart move? Three Fire stations to cover east County is not adequate and adding more homes to a strained system does not seem like a good idea, even though this may add money to add more stations. But, how long will adding more stations take. I also believe that it would add more strain to the Sheriff Department that is already spread thin to cover the area they have to cover. Has a current traffic impact been done for Point of Timber Rd? I know there has been talk about a potential Stoplight at Point of Timber and Bixler Rd, however, has a study been done on the impact of Traffic at Point of Timber Rd and Preston, which is a very busy crossing for Children going to Timber Point School. This intersection is a Four way stop sign and is roughly 125 yards for the potential Stoplight at Bixler and Point of Timber. What kind of impact will an additional 277 homes have on our schools, will it create overcrowding in some classrooms? How will it impact a small community that is quite possibly at its limits with services. The increased construction traffic will put more wear and tear on our roads, not to mention once the project is complete, how many more cars would that add to an already small community. I would ask that more considerations be done on this project, I do not believe this is a good project for our community. Thank you 2 David M. Johnson 219-730-4684cell 925-684-4866fax RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, RECEIVE public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2. FIND that the mitigated negative declaration (MND SCH #2020100267) prepared for the Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project adequately analyzes the Project’s environmental impacts, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. 3. ADOPT the mitigated negative declaration for the Project. 4. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring program for the Project. 5. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Stanley Muraoka, 925-655-2876 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project CDLP18-02022 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 6. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Street, Martinez, California, is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. 7. APPROVE the Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project. 8, APPROVE the findings in support of the Project. 9. APPROVE the Project conditions of approval. 10. APPROVE a land use permit (LP18-02022) and an amendment to the existing Keller Canyon Landfill LUP (LP89-2020) to allow for the construction and operation of a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline at the Keller Canyon Landfill. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the initial deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover any and all additional costs associated with processing the application. BACKGROUND: Project Description. Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL) is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The gas collection and control system is expanded regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of landfill gas (LFG) generated increases. As required by Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020 Condition of Approval (COA) 31.7 for Methane Recovery, KCL is required to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7, the Keller Canyon Landfill Company has contracted with Ameresco to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regulations. Ameresco owns and operates an existing landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) power plant with a peak capacity of 3.8 megawatts at the KCL. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated the LFGTE power plant to process the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel used to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. At present, the volume of LFG generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is destroyed in an existing KCL enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. Ameresco is proposing a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline (RNGPFP) that includes construction and operation of a new renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility (RNGPF) and an underground transmission pipeline. The proposed RNGPF would be constructed in the landfill area west of the LFGTE plant. The RNGPF would significantly reduce LFG flows to the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The new RNGPF would operate independently of the existing LFGTE plant and would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy. The RNGPF would process LFG to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The footprint of the new RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet (1.1. acres) on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres). The new RNGPF would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week and its operation would be overseen by two operators for 40 hours per week. Most of the equipment would be less than 10 feet in height, except for the proposed enclosed flare, and a few larger pieces of equipment that would vary in height from 25 to 35 feet. The proposed enclosed flare would be approximately 50 feet in height, similar to the two existing flares at the KCL enclosed flare facility. The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new RNGPF to a proposed PG&E metering station located near the eastern edge of KCL property, and ultimately connect with existing PG&E Line 191-1. The design of the pipeline would meet or exceed all regulatory requirements and industry standards. The RNG pipeline would start at the RNGPF located on a portion of the KCL Primary Project Area, traverse through the KCL-owned portion of the Special Buffer Area (SBA), and into the contiguous PG&E-owned utility corridor. The RNG pipeline would connect to an interconnect station to be owned and operated by Ameresco. The interconnect station would be located adjacent to a PG&E metering station described above, and both would be enclosed in an approximately 100 square foot area surrounded by a fence. The estimated total pipeline length is approximately 15,050 feet (2.9 miles). The pipeline would be buried underground with 48 inches of minimum cover and would be a four-inch diameter steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 400 pounds per square inch, which is less than 10 percent of the pipe yield strength (SMYS). The Board of Supervisors approval of the Project would include approval of a land use permit issued to Ameresco and an amendment to the existing KCL land use permit to allow for the construction and operation of a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline at the KCL. Site/Area Description. The Ameresco RNGPFP is located almost entirely on KCL property. The KCL property is approximately 2,345 acres, which consists of an active KCL landfill use area of approximately 1,596 acres and a KCL-owned portion of the SBA of approximately 750 acres located directly east of, and contiguous with, the active KCL landfill area. Along with open space, active landfill operations occur within the active KCL landfill area. Landfill activities encompass 375 acres, and the permitted landfill disposal footprint covers 244 acres. The SBA is conserved open space that serves to “buffer” or isolate the landfill from surrounding land uses and is reserved for uses consistent with open space, agriculture, and non-waste disposal landfill infrastructure as determined by Contra Costa County. The SBA includes two non-KCL parcels that are not part of the RNGPFP project. A portion of the RNG transmission pipeline would be in PG&E property east of, and contiguous to, the SBA. The PG&E property is open space land that serves as a north-south utility corridor that contains large electrical transmission lattice towers, overhead high-voltage electrical transmission lines, and an underground natural gas transmission pipeline, Line 191-1. The Ameresco RNGPFP would be located on the following KCL-owned and PG&E-owned parcels. Active KCL Landfill Area, APN 094-360-008, 094-360-019 Special Buffer Area, APN 094-360-020, 094-360-022 PG&E Utility Corridor, APN 094-080-012 Land immediately surrounding the Ameresco RNGPFP includes the above described active KCL area and SBA, and the adjoining PG&E utility corridor. The Concord Hills open space is adjacent to KCL to the south and southeast. The nearest developed non-landfill land uses are single-family residences located off the KCL property approximately 0.33 mile north-northwest of the proposed RNGPF; single-family residences located about 0.40 mile west of the proposed project site west of Bailey Road; and single-family residences and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant located east of the RNGPF and adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor. County Planning Commission. On June 23, 2021, the County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Ameresco RNGPFP Project. The City of Pittsburg and Discovery Builders each submitted written comments to staff and the CPC prior to the hearing, and each had a representative provide public testimony at the hearing. After taking all public testimony, the CPC closed the hearing. Subsequently, the CPC unanimously passed a motion to recommend approval of the Project by the Board of Supervisors. Subsequent to the CPC hearing, the Discovery Builders submitted additional comments by email. The comment letters and email are included in Attachment 7 together with staff responses to the comments. Reasonably Foreseeable Project. As discussed in the CPC staff report, the public review period for the draft MND started on October 7, 2020, and ended on December 23, 2020. Discovery Builders submitted its first comment letter 42 days after the close of the 78-day public review. Discovery Builders submitted its second letter on June 23, 2021 prior to the CPC hearing. Discovery Builders contends in its two letters that residential development of Stoneman Park is reasonably foreseeable and must be included in the MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145: “If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.” Section VII.A of the CPC staff report discusses Stoneman Park and explains that the Stoneman Park parcel is designated in the City of Pittsburg General Plan as “Park” and that it is not reasonably foreseeable that the site would be redesignated for residential development. Nevertheless, as discussed in the Final MND Section IV.10 (Summary Responses – Cumulative Impacts), Stoneman Park is included in the proposed projects in the KCL vicinity, noting that this potential residential development will require a City of Pittsburg General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and subdivision, that the planning process for the development is in its early phases, and that the timeframe for implementation is unknown. Thus, given that the timeline for Stoneman Park is unknown, it is reasonably foreseeable that RNGPGP would be constructed and operating by the time Stoneman Park is approved by the City of Pittsburg. Conditions of Approval. As discussed previously, the Keller Canyon Landfill operates under approved KCL Land Use Permit LP89-2020, and is required by COA 31.7 to explore use of landfill gas as a fuel commodity. Further, pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 20.13, the installation of a methane recovery system is required along with the construction of a gas collection system to enable utilization of landfill gas. The existing Ameresco LFGTE power plant implements the requirement to utilize landfill gas. The Ameresco power plant, as approved by Land Use Permit LP01-2115, is subject to Section 36 of the LP89-2020 permit that are specific to the construction and operation of the power plant. Following this precedent, the Ameresco RNGPFP Project proposed for approval under Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022 further implements COA 31.7. Thus, COAs specific to construction and operation of the RNGPFP would be added to the LP89-2020 permit as new Section 37. Further, Ameresco together with Keller Canyon Landfill would be responsible for complying with other Keller Canyon Landfill COAs included in the LP89-2020 permit. The Conditions of Approval for Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022, including the amended KCL Land Use Permit LP89-2020 are included in Attachment 2. Environmental Review. Pursuant to the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387), Conservation and Development staff prepared an Initial Study assessment of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Ameresco RNGPGP Project. In its preliminary review of the proposed RNGPFP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060, staff found that the RNG processing facility would be located within the active KCL landfill area adjacent to the existing Ameresco LFGTE power plant, would not generate substantial traffic on Bailey Road or other local roadways, would utilize existing excess landfill gas and would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emission, would be consistent with the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals in the County Climate Action Plan, and would implement the Renewable Energy Resource Goal 8-k and Policy 8-52 in the General Plan Conservation Element and the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Regarding the underground RNG transmission pipeline, staff found that the pipeline would not be visible, would not create any noise or odors, and would not otherwise be noticeable in operation. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, County staff prepared an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP could have a significant effect on the environment. Staff determined that application of County-required mitigation measures to reduce or preclude geotechnical risks on the project, and application of measures as appropriate to address potential construction period impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and noise, would reduce all potential significant impacts to less than significant levels. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, staff prepared a mitigated negative declaration because, although the proposed project could have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, with implementation of mitigation measures that have been agreed to by the applicant, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. As analyzed in the MND, the most likely potential pipeline failure is leakage and not catastrophic rupture. Moreover, federal, State, and PG&E requirements include design safeguards and monitoring to effectively identify any potential leakage, and to shut down the system. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND) was prepared and published for the proposed project (aee Attachment 8). The78-day public review period started on October 7, 2020, and ended on December 23, 2020. Written comments from eight commenters were received during the public review period for the draft MND. In response to some of the comments received from the City of Pittsburg and other interested parties, Ameresco voluntarily revised the proposed RNGPFP, including changing three segments of the proposed underground RNG transmission pipeline. Segment 1 is a direct tie-in of the RNG pipeline to the existing PG&E Line 191-1. This tie-in to Line 191-1 would eliminate approximately 75 percent of the RNG pipeline proposed for installation within PG&E property as described in the draft MND. The deleted portion of the RNG pipeline was proposed to run northeast across PG&E property and then north parallel to the existing PG&E Line 191-1, within 50 feet of existing residences in the City of Pittsburg, to a tie-in with the STANPAC pipeline. In Segment 2, the RNG pipeline would be moved an additional 25 feet east of the property boundary with the proposed Stoneman Park development, resulting in a total physical separation of approximately 75 feet. Potential slope stability precludes moving the pipeline further east. Segment 3 includes a revision of the RNG pipeline route where it connects to the proposed RNG processing facility, to better separate it from existing and future underground utilities. The changes do not constitute a significant revision of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b)(1), a substantial revision means a new, avoidable significant impact is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the new impact to a less than significant level. The changes to the project proposed by Ameresco are neither caused by any significant impact nor create a new significant impact. The changes are in response to public comments, but do not address a significant impact. The changes further reduce impacts that are already less than significant or ensure that identified less than significant impacts remain less than significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) states that recirculation of the MND is not required where (1) “mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures”, (2) “new project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects”, (3) “measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect“, or (4) “new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration”. The revisions to the proposed RNGPFP are consistent with Section 15073.5(c) and do not require recirculation of the MND. A Final MND has been prepared that includes the written comments received on the draft MND during the public review period, responses to the comments received, and staff-initiated text changes, including minor corrections and technical changes related to revision of segments of the proposed RNG transmission pipeline and revised and/or deleted figures (see attachment 9). Neither the comments nor the staff responses to the comments result in any substantial changes to the draft MND, and the impacts, mitigation measures, and findings of the MND are unchanged. The text changes are not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, do not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and do not alter any findings in the section. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is intended to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the MND are implemented. All mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are included in the CPC Approved Findings and COAs. Conclusion. The Ameresco RNGPFP would be consistent with the LF Landfill and OS Open Space General Plan Land Use designations. The proposed project would implement Goal 8-k and Policy 8-52 of the General Plan Conservation Element related to methane recovery. The RNGPFP would use a substantial portion of LFG currently generated by the landfill. Without the proposed project, this energy source would be wasted by combustion in the landfill flares and higher emissions of air pollutants from the landfill site would be released into the local community. The new RNG processing facility would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network, whereby it has the potential to substantially reduce overall GHG emissions of heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding area and would maintain the character of the active KCL landfill area, the SBA, and the PG&E utility corridor. Completion of the MND identified potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, and mitigation measures that have been agreed to by the applicant, such that the project will not result in any significant environmental impact. Interested persons and agencies have submitted comments to staff that have been addressed in the CPC staff report and/or the Final MND and/or in Attachment 7 herein. Findings can be adopted to approve a land use permit for the proposed project in the A-3 Heavy Agricultural, A-4 Agricultural Preserve, and A-2 General Agricultural Districts. The CPC unanimously recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022, based on the CPC Approved Findings and COAs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the recommended actions are not approved, the Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility If the recommended actions are not approved, the Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline at Keller Canyon Landfill will not be constructed. Without the proposed project, the excess landfill gas generated at Keller Canyon Landfill will be wasted by combustion in the landfill flares and higher emissions of air pollutants from the landfill site would be released into the local community. The landfill gas will not be utilized in the regional natural gas network, will not be used by heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses, and will potentially increase overall greenhouse gas emissions contrary to the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals in the County Climate Action Plan. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Project involves construction of a RNG processing facility with equipment that will cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet and a four-inch diameter 2.85 miles long pipeline. Pursuant to Condition of Approval 37.6 of the Keller Canyon Landfill Permit LP89-2020, the project is required to comply with the requirements of the Child Care Ordinance CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Bob Dwell, Walnut Creek. ADOPTED the recommendations with an amendment to Condition of Approval 68 G to insert the phrase "or alternative beings below" for clarity; ADDED a Condition of Approval as follows: Applicant shall deliver within 60 days of approval of the Land Use Permit a signed and negotiated Community Benefits Agreement requiring Ameresco to pay $50,000 per year to the County while the Ameresco gas processing project and pipeline is operational. Funds shall be deposited in the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund and disbursed by the County to fund projects benefitting the community according to the protocols in place for that Fund. The first payment shall be made one year from the date the project becomes commercially operational. Payments after the first annual payment shall increase each year by the change in the consumer price index. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1-CDLP18-02022 CPC Staff Report - June 23, 2021 Attachment 2-CDLP18-02022 Findings, COAs BOS 7.13.21 Attachment 3-Parcel Page, General Plan Map, Zoning Map Attachment 4-Project Plans Attachment 5-Photographs of Project Site Attachment 6-Agency Comments Attachment 7-Public Comments Attachment 8-November 2020 Draft MND SCH #2020100267 Attachment 9-June 2021 Final MND SCH #2020100267 Attachment 10-MMP for MND SCH #2020100267 Attachment 11- Presentation CDLP18-02022 ATTACHMENT 1 CDLP18-02022 CPC STAFF REPORT – JUNE 23, 2021 Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, June 23, 2021 – 6:30. P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC –Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project (Ameresco RNGPFP) County File: Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022, amending Land Use Permit LP89-2020, Keller Canyon Landfill Applicant/Owner: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC (Applicant), Keller Canyon Landfill Company (Owner) Zoning/General Plan: A-2, General Agricultural District; A-3 Heavy Agricultural District; A-4 Agricultural Preserve District / LF Landfill; OS Open Space Site Address/Location: Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 094-360-008, -019, -020, -022; 094-080-012) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Planner: Stan Muraoka, AICP, Principal Planner (925) 655-2876 Staff Recommendation: Recommend Approval (See section II for full recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a Land Use Permit application for a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline (RNGPFP) at the Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL), that would amend the approved KCL Land Use Permit LP 89-2020. KCL is required by permits and regulations to collect and control landfill gas (LFG) to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The proposed RNGPFP would process LFG to a sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural 2.a County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 2 of 31 gas network. The design of the RNGPFP would meet or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. The proposed project has been developed in accordance with the conditions of approval of LP89-2020. The pipeline would carry renewable natural gas (RNG) from the proposed processing facility to a connection with the existing PG&E Line 191-1 natural gas transmission pipeline located on PG&E property east of KCL. The total pipeline length would be approximately 2.85 miles. Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP would take 8 to 12 months. II.RECOMMENDATIONS Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Planning Commission: A. ADOPT Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND) for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC – Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, consisting of the draft MND and the Final MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, based on the attached Findings; and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Roa d, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. B. ADOPT a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors: 1.ADOPT Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND) for Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC – Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, finding that: there is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment; the MND, consisting of the draft MND and Final MND, reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis, t he MND is adequate and complete; and, the MND has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines; and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. 2.APPROVE proposed Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022 for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC –Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 3 of 31 3.DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. III.GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: LF Landfill designation for the portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP site within the active KCL landfill area (APNs 094-360-008, -019); OS Open Space designation for the portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP site within the Special Buffer Area (SBA) (APNs 094-360-020, -022) and the utility corridor owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (APN 094-080-012). B. Zoning: A-3 Heavy Agricultural District for the portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP site within the active KCL landfill area (APNs 094-360-008, -019); A-4 Agricultural Preserve District for the portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP site within the SBA (APNs 094-360-020, -022); A-2 General Agricultural District for the PG&E – owned utility corridor (APN 094-080-012). C. California Environmental Quality Act: A Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND) was completed for the project. A draft MND was prepared, published, and noticed on October 7, 2020, and re-noticed on November 12, 2020. The public review period for the draft MND started on October 7, 2020, and ended on December 23, 2020. The Draft MND is included as Attachment 5. Written comments were received from eight commenters during the public review period for the draft MND. A Final MND has been prepared that includes a revised project description, summary responses addressing the project description and potential impacts, the written comments received on the November 2020 re-noticed draft MND, responses to the comments received, and staff-initiated text changes including changes resulting from the preparation of responses to comments received and revised and/or deleted figures. The Final MND is included as Attachment 6. A related Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Attachment 7. D. Tribal Cultural Resources: On October 7, 2020, in accordance with Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was mailed and emailed to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d), there was a 30 day time period for the Wilton Rancheria to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. The Wilton Rancheria submitted an email on October 27, 2020, s tating County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 4 of 31 that it wished to initiate consultation. On October 27, 2020, DCD staff sent the Wilton Rancheria an email acknowledging the request for consultation, provided a website link to download the draft MND, offered to upload the draft MND and the April 21, 2020 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the proposed project into a dropbox link, and offered to meet during November 2020. On November 20, 2020, DCD received an email from the Wilton Rancheria in which it reiterated its request to initiate consultation. On November 24, 2020, DCD staff sent an email acknowledging the request for consultation and requested the Wilton Rancheria to provide dates and times for a consultation meeting. Staff also resent its October 27, 2020 email replying to the Wilton Rancheria’s October 27, 2020 request for consultation. On December 1, 2020, the Wilton Rancheria sent an email stating that it did not have a dropbox to receive documents. DCD staff sent the Wilton Rancheria an email on December 4, 2020, with a link to download the draft MND and the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. On December 14, 2020, DCD staff sent the Wilton Rancheria an email requesting that the Wilton Rancheria let staff know if it had problems downloading the documents. To date, DCD staff has not received a reply from the Wilton Rancheria regarding the downloading of the documents and has not been provided with any dates and times for consultation. E. Previous Applications: LP89-2020: A Land Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of the Keller Canyon Landfill was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 1990. LP01-2115: A Land Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a landfill gas power plant at the Keller Canyon Landfill was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 25, 2002. This Land Use Permit amended Land Use Permit LP89-2020. The approved power plant is the existing Ameresco landfill-gas-to- energy (LFGTE) power plant. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The Ameresco RNGPFP is located almost entirely on KCL property. The KCL property is approximately 2,345 acres, which consists of an active KCL landfill use area of approximately 1,596 acres and a KCL-owned portion of the SBA of approximately 750 acres located directly east of, and contiguous with, the active KCL landfill area. Along with open space, active landfill operations occur within the active KCL landfill area. Landfill activities encompass 375 acres, and the permitted landfill disposal County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 5 of 31 footprint covers 244 acres. The SBA is conserved open space that serves to “buffer” or isolate the landfill from surrounding land uses and is reserved for uses consistent with open space, agriculture, and non-waste disposal landfill infrastructure as determined by Contra Costa County. The SBA includes two non-KCL parcels that are not part of the RNGPFP project. A portion of the RNG transmission pipeline would be in PG&E property east of, and contiguous to, the SBA. The PG&E property is open space land that serves as a north- south utility corridor that contains large electrical transmission lattice towers, overhead high-voltage electrical transmission lines, and an underground natural gas transmission pipeline, Line 191-1. The Ameresco RNGPFP would be located on the following KCL-owned and PG&E- owned parcels. Location APN Active KCL Landfill Area 094-360-008 094-360-019 Special Buffer Area 094-360-020 094-360-022 PG&E Utility Corridor 094-080-012 Land immediately surrounding the Ameresco RNGPFP includes the above described active KCL area and SBA, and the adjoining PG&E utility corridor. The Concord Hills open space is adjacent to KCL to the south and southeast. The nearest developed non-landfill land uses are single-family residences located off the KCL property approximately 0.33 mile north-northwest of the proposed project site; single-family residences located about 0.40 mile west of the proposed project site west of Bailey Road; and single-family residences and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant located east of the project site and adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Ameresco owns and operates an existing landfill gas-to-energy power plant with a peak capacity of 3.8 megawatts at Keller Canyon Landfill. KCL is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The gas collection and control system are expanded County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 6 of 31 regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of LFG generated increases. As required by Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89 -2020 Condition of Approval 31.7 (Methane Recovery), KCL is required to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. LFG is a valuable source of fuel. Consistent with LP89-2020 Condition of Approval 31.7, Ameresco has contracted with the Keller Canyon Landfill Company for the right to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regulations. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a LFGTE power plant that processes the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel used to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. At present, the volume of LFG generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is destroyed in an existing KCL enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. Ameresco is proposing a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility (RNGPF) and an underground transmission pipeline. The proposed RNGPF would be constructed in the landfill area west of the LFGTE plant. Th e RNGPF would significantly reduce LFG flows to the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The new RNGPF would operate independently of the existing LFGTE plant and would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy. The RNGPF would process LFG to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The footprint of the new RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet (1.1. acres) on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres). The new RNGPF would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week and its operation would be overseen by two operators for 40 hours per week. Most of the equipment would be less than 10 feet in height and, except for the proposed enclosed flare, and a few larger pieces of equipment that would vary in height from 25 to 35 feet. The proposed enclosed flare would be approximately 50 feet in height, similar to the two existing flares at the KCL enclosed flare facility. The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new RNGPF to a proposed PG&E metering station located near the eastern edge of KCL property, and ultimately connect with existing PG&E Line 191-1. The design of the pipeline would meet or exceed all regulatory requirements and industry standards. The RNG pipeline would start at the RNGPF located on a portion of the KCL Primary Project Area, traverse through the KCL-owned portion of the SBA, and into the contiguous PG&E-owned County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 7 of 31 utility corridor. The RNG pipeline would connect to an interconnect station to be owned and operated by Ameresco. The interconnect station would be located adjacent to a PG&E metering station described above, and both would be enclosed in an approximately 100’ square area surrounded by a fence. The estimated total pipeline length is approximately 15,050’ (2.9 miles). The pipeline would be buried underground with 48 inches of minimum cover and would be a four-inch diameter steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 400 pounds per square inch, which is less than 10 percent of the pipe yield strength (SMYS). VI. AGENCY COMMENTS An Agency Comment Request packet was sent on July 25, 2018 to a number of public agencies, including: Building Inspection Division, Environmental Health Division of the Health Services Department, Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Contra Costa Water District, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, California Historical Resources Information System, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Agency comments received by staff are included in Attachment 3. Following are summaries of the agency comments and, as appropriate, staff responses to the comments. A. Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District: The Mosquito and Vector Control District returned the Agency Comment Request form on July 26, 2018, stating that the project is subject to California Health and Safety Code Section 2002 regarding maintaining a public nuisance on the property and Sections 2060 to 2067 regarding abatement of the nuisance. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District regarding the District’s requirements and permits. B. Building Inspection Division: On August 14, 2018, the Building Inspection Division returned the Agency Comment Request form with a comment that requirements of current Building Codes will be required. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Appr oval and Advisory Notes County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 8 of 31 whereby the applicant is required to submit building and grading plans to the Building Inspection Division and to comply with Division requirements. C. Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System: Northwest Information Center submitted a letter on August 20, 2018, stating that they have records of six previous cultural resource studies of the project area, that the project area includes six archaeological sites, that there are features associated with Native American resources in the area, and there is evidence of three potentially historic buildings in the area. The Center also recommended that a study of unrecorded archaeological sites be conducted, and that local Native American tribes be contacted regarding Native American resources. The MND prepared for the Ameresco RNGPFP that is discussed in Section III.C (General Information, California Environmental Quality Act) includes an assessment of cultural resources based on a records search and literature review conducted in November 2018 at the Northwest Information Center and a subsequent assessment completed by FirstCarbon Solutions for the project. The MND includes a finding that there is a possibility of accidental discovery of buried historical resources and previously undiscovered archaeological resources during project construction and mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts of accidental discoveries to less than significant levels. The MND mitigation measures for accidental discovery are included in the amended LP89-2020 Conditions of Approval. As discussed in Section III.D (General Information, Tribal Cultural Resources), a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was sent to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects in the County. DCD staff was subsequently contacted by the Wilton Rancheria on initiating consultation. Staff has made the draft MND and the April 21, 2020 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment available to the Wilton Rancheria, as well as making itself available to the Wilton Rancheria for consultation. To date, staff has not received a reply from the Wilton Rancheria regarding the documents provided, and has not been provided with any dates and times for consultation. D. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division: The Engineering Services Division submitted a letter on August 22, 2018, stating that the land use permit application was incomplete and that the applicant County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 9 of 31 needed to submit a conceptual drainage plan that shows how the RNG processing facility site will drain into the existing on-site drainage system, along with an operation and maintenance manual, and either a preliminary stormwater control plan or documentation that the project will be covered by the Keller Canyon Landfill National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. On June 10, 2021, the Engineering Services Division submitted an email, stating that the previous Public Works conditions of approval for LP89-2020 are still applicable and no additional conditions are required for the Ameresco RNGPFP. E. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District : On August 23, 2018, the Flood Control District submitted a letter stating that the project is deemed incomplete ant that hydrology and hydraulic calculations should be provided to the Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department demonstrating the adequacy of the on-site and downstream drainage system. The Flood Control District also stated that the applicant shall provide a drainage study for review and approval and an operation and maintenance manual for the on-site drainage system. As described above in Section VI.D (Agency Comments, Engineering Services Division), the Flood Control District incomplete items have been addressed. Further, The District requirements for review of drainage and the operation and maintenance manual are included in the LP89-2020 Conditions of approval. F. City of Pittsburg: An Agency Comment Request packet was sent to the City of Pittsburg on July 25, 2018. The City did not respond to the Agency Comment Request packet, but has submitted a comment letter on the dr aft MND. See Section VIII (Environmental Review). G. Contra Costa Water District: An Agency Comment Request packet was sent to the Water District on July 25, 2018. The District did not respond to the Agency Comment Request packet, but has submitted a comment letter on the draft MND. See Section VIII (Environmental Review). H. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: An Agency Comment Request packet was sent to the Department of Fish and Wildlife on July 25, 2018. To date, the Department has not submitted any comments on the Ameresco RNGPFP. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 10 of 31 I. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division: The Environmental Health Division submitted a letter on September 17, 2018, stating that: a permit was required for any well or soil boring, abandoned wells and septic tanks must be destroyed under a permit from the Division; the applicant should contact the Division to very that the onsite water and septic systems are unaffected and meet current standards; and that Keller Canyon Landfill may need to modify or update its permit. The Division also stated applicable requirements for the handling of construction and demolition materials. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is responsible for contacting the Environmental Health division regarding its requirements and permits. J. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: On November 8, 2018, the Fire Protection District returned the Agency Comment Request form, stating that the applicant must contact the state agency responsible for pipeline safety and that photo-voltaic plans must be submitted to the District for approval prior to installation. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is required to submit plans for new construction to the Fire Protection District and comply with District requirements, and that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the District. VII.PUBLIC COMMENTS In addition to Agency Comments in Section VI above, staff received a number of public comment letters. These comment letters are included in Attachment 4. Following are summaries of the public comments on the Ameresco RNGPFP and staff responses to the comments. A. Hanson Bridgett on behalf of Discovery Builders, Inc.: On February 2, 2021, Hanson Bridgett submitted a letter commenting on the draft MND. As discussed in Section III.C (General Information, California Environmental Quality Act) and in Section VIII (Environmental Review), the public review period for the draft MND started on October 7, 2020, and ended on December 23, 2020. Hanson Bridgett submitted its comment letter 42 days after the close of the 78-day public review County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 11 of 31 period. As a result, the comment letter is not included in the Final MND. Nevertheless, staff has evaluated the Hanson Bridgett letter, identified 29 comments in the letter, and have numbered the comments in the letter. As discussed in Section VIII (Environmental Review) the proposed project has been revised in response to written comments received from the City of Pittsburg and other interested parties on the draft MND regarding potential project effects. The applicant has revised the alignment of three (3) segments of the proposed RNG pipeline system. Project revisions primarily comprise of changes in the three pipeline segments, corresponding changes in pipeline operating pressure, and relocation of the metering station from PG&E property to Keller Canyon Landfill property. As a result of these revisions, several of the Hanson Bridgett comments related to potential significant impacts no longer apply and are so noted in the response. Following are staff responses to the 29 comments as numbered in the letter. Staff Response to Comment 16-1: The comment stating that the MND should be recirculated is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impacts, all of which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Even though the Project’s impacts are less than significant with mitigation, in response to the City of Pittsburg’s comment about potential impacts from the pipeline, the applicant has realigned the proposed RNG pipeline in the PG&E property. The RNG pipeline would tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191-1 thereby eliminating a wide range of potential impacts to residential neighborhoods that are described in the MND. In addition, the revised project moves the pipeline an additional 25 feet away from the proposed Stoneman Park development. Please see the Section III. Revised Project Description of the Final MND (Attachment 6 of this staff report) for a detailed description of the revised RNG pipeline alignment. Staff Response to Comment 16-2: Information regarding locations of landslide risk is provided in the Tetra Tech reports, Tetra Tech BAS, 2019. Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Ameresco Gas Processing Plant, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18-136E., and Tetra Tech BAS, 2020. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Renewable Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline, Ameresco Keller Canyon, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18-136E. These reports are background documents for the MND and are available upon request at the Department of Conservation and Development. Regarding the comment that future field studies for construction and operation County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 12 of 31 of the pipeline represents deferred mitigation, substantial field study and testing was performed and is reflected in the MND. Furthermore, it is infeasible to excavate or perform more detailed soil investigations along the pipeline route to disclose weak soil conditions until there is project approval and a specific pipeline route is selected and approved. Thus, use of data from future studies to inform appropriate engineering solutions does not constitute deferred mitigation. Regarding failure to consider future residential development such as Stoneman Park in the cumulative impact analysis, that project is speculative and not a probable future project. The Stoneman Park parcel currently is designated in the City of Pittsburg General Plan as “Park” and at this point it is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable that the site would be redesignated for residential development. Even if the analysis considered Stoneman Park, the A meresco RNGPFP would be constructed long before Stoneman Park would be constructed assuming the City decides to amend its General Plan and approve it. Accordingly, there is no possibility that the construction impacts from the two projects would combine together. Staff Response to Comment 16-3: Comment noted. Please response 16-17 below. As disclosed in the Environmental Checklist Section 16(a) (Recreation), on page 210 of the MND, the project would not create a hazard to open space areas or recreational users. Staff Response to Comment 16-4: This comment states that the project includes a “pipeline system that siphons natural gas from the Landfill.” This statement is incorrect. As stated in the Project Description, page 2 of the MND, the Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility will accept and process landfill gas produced by the KCL Gas Collection and Control System. The RNGPF will process the LFG into a renewable natural gas and transport the RNG under pressure via the proposed pipeline. Please see Section II. Revised Project Description pf the Final MND that provides additional information on the RNGPF and the maximum allowable operating pressure. The 0.33 mile and 0.40 mile distances referenced in this comment and cited in the MND correspond only to the site of the RNGPF and not the various sections of the pipeline. The MND states in the discussion of the High Consequence Area on page 164, that the pipeline would run within 50 feet of the boundary between the PG&E property and residence east of the PG&E property. This alignment has been eliminated in the Revised Project. The MND disclosed that the pipeline would run about 50 feet from the property boundary with the proposed County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 13 of 31 Stoneman Park development; however, with the Revised Project, the separation at the boundary with the proposed Stoneman Park development has been increased to 75 feet. The portion of the pipeline that was proposed to run within 50 feet of residences adjacent to the PG&E property has been eliminated from the project. As noted in response to comment 16-2, although there is an application on file for Stoneman Park, it requires several legislative approvals, including a General Plan amendment, making its ultimate approval and development speculative at this point in time. Even if Stoneman Park is approved, the MND has adequately disclosed the impacts on residences within 50 feet of the pipeline. Staff Response to Comment 16-5: Comment noted. The Lead Agency has determined that the contents, data, and conclusions of the draft MND and Final MND provide sufficient information for the general public and decision -makers to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project. A re-circulated MND is not required. Staff Response to Comment 16-6: Comprehensive geotechnical reports were prepared that identified potential soil and geology impacts associated with the proposed RNGPF and pipeline. For each potential impact identified, detailed analyses and evaluations were performed and, when required, specific mitigation measures Geology 1 through Geology 5 were prescribed in the MND to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. None of the mitigation measures prescribed is considered inadequate, or requires that alternative plans be investigated. Mitigation measures that identify “other safety measures” pertain to requirements by law such as 49 CFR Part 192. The geotechnical study for the proposed RNGPF concluded that the soil materials encountered during field exploration generally consisted of very stiff and hard lean clays and silts, and medium dense to dense clayey sands and silty sands. These soil materials are not anticipated to be susceptible to liquefaction based on the soil fines content and engineering characteristics of the soils. For completeness, a rigorous liquefaction analysis was completed on representative soils. This analysis confirmed the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. With respect to the comment that some of Mitigation Measure Geology 2 constitutes deferred mitigation, it should be noted that two methods were used to assess liquefaction potential within the proposed RNGPF site. Both engineering methods concluded the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 14 of 31 The County Peer Review Geologist considered the assessment of liquefaction prepared for the RNG processing facility to be adequate for an evaluation during the IS/MND phase; however, details regarding specific seismic parameters and selected methodology will be confirmed and documented prior to application of the building permit. To clarify, the geotechnical study for the RNGPF was prepared to evaluate project feasibility as part of the MND. Comprehensive analyses were completed for the MND assessed potential soil and geologic environmental impacts. The geotechnical study is not intended as a final design-level report as such studies are not typically prepared during the CEQA stage, but rather, at the subsequent building and grading permit stage. For example, specific details regarding liquefaction analysis as summarized in Mitigation Measure Geology 2, will be mandatory components of a design-level geotechnical report that will be prepared when final development plans are prepared and will be the basis for applying for project building and grading permits. Staff Response to Comment 16-7: Please response 16-6 above. Staff Response to Comment 16-8: Please response 16-6 above. Staff Response to Comment 16-9: Please response 16-6 above. Staff Response to Comment 16-10: The soil and geology analyses presented in the MND are based on site-specific geotechnical studies completed for the proposed RNGPF and the proposed pipeline. The geotechnical studies included detailed field investigations and extensive engineering and geologic analyses to determine appropriate design requirements and mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. Expansion tests were performed on representative soil samples collected from the low-lying areas of the proposed RNGPF site. Based on laboratory test results and the USCS visual classification, the on-site fine-grained soils are anticipated to possess a “medium” to “high” expansion potentials. With respect to future site development within the RNGPF site, significant volumes of select earth materials will be transported from pre-determined borrow site locations on the Keller Canyon Landfill property (please also see response to comment 11-5 in the Final MND regarding this issue). The select County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 15 of 31 earth materials are necessary to raise the low-lying portions of the site by as much as 50 feet in elevation to achieve the required finish grade elevations for the proposed RNGPF building pad. Earth materials transported to the site must generally consist of granular soils possessing Very low to Low expansion potentials. Prior to transporting select earth materials to the RNGPF site, routine confirmation testing of expansion potentials will be performed by the project geotechnical engineer. Consequently, the risk of adverse impacts as a result of expansive soil to the proposed RNGPF site is considered less than significant with incorporation of the described mitigation measures. Expansive soils are not anticipated to pose significant impacts to the future pipeline based on geotechnical studies completed along the pipeline route. Consequently, the risk of adverse impacts to the proposed pipeline as a result of expansive soil is considered less than significant. With respect to potential soil erosion and scour, substantive mitigation measures have been established by the geotechnical engineer at defined locations along the pipeline route. Specific mitigation measures described in the MND by the geotechnical engineer include, deepening the proposed pip eline below the potential scour depth, wherever practical. If necessary, alternate mitigation for scour protection may also include riprap, gabion baskets, and geofabric lining. Per common industry standard, selection of specific scour protection measures will be determined only upon completion of a site-specific scour assessment in accordance with State and federal regulations. Consequently, the potential for adverse impacts to the proposed pipeline as a result of erosion and or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant with incorporation of the described mitigation measures. Staff Response to Comment 16-11: Please response 16-10 above. With respect to future site development within the RNGPF site, significant volumes of select earth materials will be transported from pre-determined borrow site locations on the Keller Canyon Landfill property (please also see response to comment 11-5 in the Final MND regarding this issue). The select earth materials are necessary to raise the low-lying portions of the site by as much as 50 feet in elevation to achieve the required finish grade elevations for the proposed RNGPF building pad. Earth materials transported to the site must generally consist of granular soils possessing Very low to Low expansion potentials. This granular soil will be tested upon completion of the fill for the County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 16 of 31 corrosion potential on ferrous materials to determine if there are any additional requirements on the RNGPF design. The RNGPF is designed to mitigate the soil corrosion potential with the majority of the pipeline. Staff Response to Comment 16-12: Please see response 16-1. With the revised project, the separation between the proposed pipeline and property boundary with the Stoneman Park development has been increased from 50 feet (as cited in the MND and this comment) to 75 feet. The pipeline will be designed with full cathodic protection to protect the pipeline from corrosion . Soils readings were taken along the entirety of the proposed pipeline pathway in order to provide sound design of the cathodic protection system. Additionally, this cathodic protection system will be monitored by personnel trained to make adjustments to cathodic protection as needed to prevent corrosion based on readings taken in the field. Staff Response to Comment 16-13: The federal requirements outlined in this comment and its Attachment A are acknowledged. In addition, the requirements specified in bullet paragraphs on pages 7 and 8 of this letter are also acknowledged. The RNG pipeline system will be designed to meet all applicable federal and State requirements based on general and specific requirements of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 (49 CFR Part 192) “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards”. In addition, the pipeline will be subject to design review and approval by PG&E. The three sets of design criteria, Federal, California Public Utilities Commission and PG&E, will ensure the pipeline will be designed to meet all applicable requirements. The applicant will implement a cathodic protection monitoring program. The RNG pipeline will be tested in accordance with 49 CFR 192 upon its initial construction. Post construction, it shall be assessed on a 7- year basis via either pressure test, in-line inspection, direct assessment, or other method(s) required by law. The applicant will prepare and maintain a pipeline OM&E manual. Ameresco will monitor the pressures and flow rates of the pipeline from the control station. All of this information will be contained within the Ameresco OM&E Manual, per 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Staff Response to Comment 16-14: Please see response 16-13 above regarding cathodic protection of the proposed pipeline. All documents submitted to the County can be obtained from the County upon request. Disclosure items listed in this comment will be provided upon completion of final design for the pipeline. The RNG pipeline will be constructed across the PG&E property that includes County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 17 of 31 high voltage overhead transmission lines. During the design of the pipeline, a full Alternating Current (AC) Mitigation Study will be performed prior to designing and applying pipeline grounding systems to prevent voltage spikes during fault conditions; reduce AC current density to protect against AC induced corrosion; and to maintain AC step and touch potentials below 15 volts alternating current (Vac) to protect personnel from shock hazards. Design strategies may include, but not be limited to, fault shielding, gradient control mats, lumped grounding systems, and gradient control wire grounding systems. The requirements of this Study likely will change and require less AC mitigation due to the pipel ine route change to connect with existing PG&E Line 191-1 and removal of the piping running north parallel to the high voltage overhead transmission lines. Staff Response to Comment 16-15: Part 69 of the EPA regulations governs all handling of explosive gases and not only natural gas. The potential impact radius as set forth in Title 49 of the C.F.R. Part 192 will be utilized as it is directly applicable to natural gas. With the revised project description, the potential impact radius for the RNG pipeline has been reduced from 72 feet to 55 feet. There is no basis for expanding the potential impact radius to 2,214 feet as described in this comment. Title 40 C.F.R. section 192.903 does not require use of a 2,214-foot potential impact radius because the PIR by definition is clearly calculated based on specific design parameters as is shown in the MND. In addition, requirements of this section pertain to high pressure pipelines over SMYS of 30 percent which do not apply to the RNG pipeline which will be designed to operate at less than 10 percent SMYS. Staff Response to Comment 16-16: Full evaluation of all fault crossings and adjacencies, landslide crossings, and unstable soils was undertaken for this project and are described in page 137 of the MND, Environmental Checklist Section 7 (Geology and Soils). It was determined by the engineering geologist that external stresses would not place the pipeline in a stress condition outside or above its allowable displacement capacity. The RNG pipeline will be well marked and clearly visible, and will be placed at 4' depth. Warning tape will be installed above the pipeline to prevent accidental dig-in. Pressure fluctuation in excess of the maximum allowable operating pressure of 400psi for the proposed pipeline is not feasible as the existing PG&E Line 191-1 would likely not withstand an overpressure event of that magnitude. Staff Response to Comment 16-17: Extensive information is provided in the MND in the Project Description and in Environmental Checklist Section 9 (Hazards and County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 18 of 31 Hazardous Materials). These sections clearly describe the regulatory standards that apply to the proposed project regarding design, construction, and operation of the RNG pipeline. Staff Response to Comment 16-18: There is no fencing or new access roads proposed for the construction of the pipeline. Except where shown, the pipeline would be constructed in developed areas of the landfill or ranch roads in the Special Buffer Area. The existing roads along which the pipeline will be built will provide access for the RNGPF operator and emergency personnel in the same manner the roads are currently used for fire protection by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The pipeline route is shown on Plat 1 in Section III. Revised Project Description of the Final MND. The project has been revised to locate the PG&E metering station and Ameresco inter-connect station adjacent to a paved road on KCL property that is also accessible from PG&E property by emergency personnel. The pipeline will be placed underground and secured per federal and State regulations. Please see Section IV. Summary Responses of the Final MND for detailed discussion of the proposed placement of redwood trees as mitigation and updated visual simulations that better illustrate possible views from off-site locations, not including the Stoneman Park development. To perform detailed visual analysis of the effect of redwood trees to screen views from portions of the proposed Stoneman Park development would be speculative because it is not reasonably foreseeable that the property in question wou ld be redesignated for residential development or, even if it were, where the public vantage points from Stoneman Park ultimately would be located. Staff Response to Comment 16-19: The locations of the PG&E metering station and Ameresco inter-connect station have been moved from the north end of the PG&E property as described in the MND, to a single location on the KCL property. Please see Section III. Revised Project Description in the Final MND for details and location. To perform detailed visual analysis of the possible visibility of the metering and interconnect stations from portions of the proposed Stoneman Park development would be speculative because it is not reasonably foreseeable that the property in question would be redesignated for residential development and the details of potential future development are unknown. The MND properly focuses on the analyzing the project’s impacts on the existing environment and cumulative impacts to the existing environment that could be created by the project, past projects, and probable future projects. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 19 of 31 Staff Response to Comment 16-20: The proposed pipeline is located in the 573- acre Keller Canyon watershed. As described on page 177 of Environmental Checklist Section 10 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the MND, the pad for the RNGPF will add about 1.9 acres of developed area, which represents about 0.3 percent of the total watershed. The proposed RNG processing facility site would increase surface runoff by a maximum of approximately 1.2 percen t for the 50- year recurrence interval. All runoff from the proposed RNG processing facility would be collected and directed into the existing drainage system of the landfill. The 1.2 percent or lower increase in surface runoff would not be a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, and therefore, would have a less than significant impact on the existing landfill drainage system and would not result in on or off-site flooding. Staff Response to Comment 16-21: This comment raises concern that construction of the RNG pipeline could occur after occupancy of Stoneman Park. The construction and operation of the RNGPF and pipeline will occur eight (8) to 12 months after project approval. Operations would begin in 2022. It is unlikely that the Stoneman Park Development would be approved and occupied before the RNGPF and pipeline. Staff Response to Comment 16-22: This comment raises concern that construction of the RNGPF could occur after occupancy of Stoneman Park. The construction and operation of the RNGPF and pipeline will occur eight (8) to 12 months after project approval. Operations would begin in 2022. It is unlikely that the Stoneman Park Development would be approved and occupied before the RNGPF and pipeline. Staff Response to Comment 16-23: This comment requests that the MND be revised and recirculated to address concerns about ground borne vibration during pipeline installation in the PG&E property. The Lead Agency does not agree to this request. Detailed responses to the issue of ground borne vibration are provided in responses to the City of Pittsburg, Letter 11, responses 11 -51 through 11-54. See response to comment 16-22. Staff Response to Comment 16-24: The pipeline’s physical components and operating parameters are adequately described in the Project Description in pages 9 and 10 of the MND. The issue of leaks versus rupture is described in the bullet paragraph “Pipeline Design Standards” on pages 18 and 19 of Section IV. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 20 of 31 Summary Responses of the Final MND. The characterization of geology and soils are fully characterized in MND Environmental Checklist Section 7 (Geology and Soils). The pipeline will be buried underground and thus will have no aesthetic impacts. The issues of pipeline design and safety are addressed in the MND Environmental Checklist Sections 3 (Air Quality), 9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), and 15(a) (Public Services, Fire Protection). Staff Response to Comment 16-25: This comment states that MND must evaluate impacts of Stoneman Park, a residential development whose application is pending with the County. This is incorrect, the Stoneman Park property is located entirely within the City of Pittsburg. The application is pending with the City (application no. 1545) and not the County. The information provided by the commenter indicates that the site of the proposed Stoneman Park project is currently designated as Park by the City General Plan. Negative declarations are required to compare impacts to existing conditions, and normally would only consider impacts of potential future approvals if those approvals were a consequence of the project in question or if the development contemplated by those approvals would be completed, and thus part of the existing environment, by the time the project begins operation. There is nothing in the approval of the proposed RNGPF and pipeline project that leads to approval of the Stoneman Park project. Given that the Stoneman Park parcel appears to be designated in the City General Plan as Park, at this point it is speculative and n ot reasonably foreseeable that the site would be redesignated for residential development. Also, given the project’s construction timeline, the project will likely be operational before Stoneman Park has completed its environmental review and before Stoneman Park could be developed. Staff Response to Comment 16-26: The proposed project has been revised, including the segment of pipeline that would be located on KCL property east of the Stoneman Park development. The revised project also includes a reduction in the Potential Impact Radius from 72 feet to 55 feet. The pipeline alignment adjacent to the proposed Stoneman Park development has been shifted 25 feet further away from the property boundary, placing PIR entirely within KCL property. The pipeline would be located about 75 feet away from the property boundary. Staff Response to Comment 16-27: As noted above, the PIR for the project has been reduced increasing the separation of the pipeline from the property boundary with the Stoneman Park development. Please see detailed discussion County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 21 of 31 of the PIR and potential pipe leakage or rupture in the responses to the City of Pittsburg comment letter, response 11-36, in the Final MND. Staff Response to Comment 16-28: To perform detailed visual analysis of the proposed project’s visibility from portions of the proposed Stoneman Park development would be speculative. Even if Stoneman Park currently existed, changes in views from private residences is not an impact under CEQA. Further, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the property in question would be redesignated for residential development or where public viewpoints would be. Staff Response to Comment 16-29: Please see response 16-1 above. B. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo: On April 29, 2021, staff received a letter from Adams Broadwell stating its support for the Ameresco RNGPFP and listed a number of air quality, public health and safety, and biological resources measures agreed upon by the applicant. The measures listed in the comment letter are included in the amended LP89- 2020 Conditions of Approval. C. Pacific Gas and Electric Company: On May 20, 2021, staff received a letter from PG&E stating that it would review submitted plans for the Ameresco RNGPFP in relation to its existing gas and electric facilities within the project area, and stated a number of requirements for working in proximity to its facilities. On May 28, 2021, staff received a second letter from PG&E stating the process for review of submitted plans for the Ameresco RNGPFP. Also on May 28, 2021, staff was forwarded a letter dated May 25, 2021 from PG&E to Ameresco stating that it had completed a System Feasibility Study for the interconnection of the RNGPFP to the PG&E gas system and approves the interconnection on PG&E Line 191-1. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff conducted an Initial Study assessment of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP. Staff determined that although the proposed project could have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, with implementation of mitigation measures that County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 22 of 31 have been agreed to by the applicant, and implementation of applicant proposed control measures and consistency measures, including required conditions of approval of the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts. The identified potentially significant impacts include: • Construction period impacts to certain special status wildlife species including the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, nesting special status bird species, American badger, San Joaquin kit fox, and special status bat species; • Construction period impacts to one or more California buckeye trees, trees protected by the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, and gum plant patches; • Loss of grassland and ruderal habitat; • Potential non-compliance with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan; • Potential non-compliance related to failure to submit an Aquatic Resources Delineation to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, and as required, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and failure to obtain required permits; • Accidental discovery of buried historical resources, previously undiscovered archaeological resources, and human remains; • Geotechnical risks on the project site due to slope failure, reactivation of ancient landslides, and the potential for liquefaction, landslides, and soil creep; • Geotechnical risks due to seismic related ground shaking and ground failure; • Geotechnical risks of substantial soil erosion, and expansive and corrosive soils; • Noise during the construction period within the PG&E utility corridor; • Potential adverse impacts on Native American cultural resources; and, • Potential adverse post-wildfire impacts due to seismic related ground failure, reactivation of ancient landslides, soil erosion, liquefaction, and unstable geologic units or soil. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 23 of 31 A draft MND was prepared and published for the proposed project. The draft MND is included as Attachment 5. The78-day public review period started on October 7, 2020, and ended on December 23, 2020. A Final MND has been prepared that includes the written comments received on the draft MND during the public review period, responses to the comments received, and staff-initiated text changes, including minor corrections and technical changes related to revision of segments of the proposed RNG transmission pipeline received and revised and/or deleted figures. The proposed Ameresco RNGPFP has been revised in response to written comments received from the City of Pittsburg and other interested parties on the draft MND regarding potential project effects. The applicant has revised the alignment of three (3) segments of the proposed RNG pipeline system. Project revisions primarily comprise of changes in the three pipeline segments, corresponding changes in pipeline operating pressure, and relocation of the metering station from PG&E property to Keller Canyon Landfill property. Other elements of the proposed project evaluated in the MND related to project design, and operation remain largely unchanged. Certain assumptions about construction methods, and disturbed ground surface area would change as a result of a pipeline segment change in the PG&E and KCL properties. The text changes in the Final MND are not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, do not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and do not alter any findings in the section. The Final MND is included as Attachment 6. Written comments from eight commenters were received during the October 7, 2020 to December 23, 2020 public review period for the draft MND, including letters and emails from (1) Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, (2) Pacific Gas & Electric Company, (3) Wilton Rancheria, (4) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board; (5) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, (6) Contra Costa Water District, (7) City of Pittsburg, and (8) Contra Costa Environmental Health. The written comments have been coded by commenter and the commenter’s numbered comment, and included in the Final MND. Neither the comments nor the staff responses to the comments result in any substantial changes to the draft MND, and the impacts, mitig ation measures, and findings of the MND are unchanged. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 24 of 31 Pursuant to CEQA Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is intended to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the MND are implemented. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in Attachment 7. All mitigation measures are included in the amended LP89-2020 Conditions of Approval. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS A. General Plan Consistency: The Ameresco RNGPFP is consistent with the General Plan, as discussed below. Land Use Element: The active KCL landfill area is in the LF Landfill General Plan Land Use designation, and the SBA and the adjoining PG&E utility corridor are in the OS Open Space General Plan Land Use designation. The LF designation allows for landfill and related activities. The active KCL landfill area is in use for landfill activities and the related Ameresco LFGTE power plant, and is consistent with the LF designation. The proposed RNG processing facility would similarly be consistent with the LF designation. The OS designation includes publicly-owned open space and privately-owned properties with future development rights deeded to a public or private agency. The SBA is conserved open space that serves to “buffer” for the active KCL landfill area while the PG&E utility corridor is open space land that reserved for use as a north-south utility corridor for electrical and gas transmission lines. The uses on the SBA and the PG&E utility corridor, including the proposed underground RNG transmission pipeline, are consistent with the OS designation. Conservation Element: The Ameresco RNGPFP conforms with Section 8-8, Renewable Energy Resources, of the General Plan Conservation Element, including: Goal 8-k: To encourage the use of renewable resources where they are compatible with the maintenance of environmental quality; and Policy 8-52: Energy recovery projects, e.g., methane recovery from sewage (biomass), shall be encouraged, subject to adequate environmental protection. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 25 of 31 The Keller Canyon Landfill is a Class II waste disposal site operating in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. KCL is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas. As required by Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020 Condition of Approval 31.7 (Methane Recovery), KCL is required to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. Ameresco has contracted with the Keller Canyon Landfill Company for the right to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regu lations. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a LFGTE power plant that utilizes the LFG to produce electricity. At present, the volume of LFG generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is consumed in an enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. The Ameresco RNGPFP includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. The RNGPFP would use a substantial portion of LFG currently generated by the landfill. Without the proposed project, this energy source would be wasted by combustion in the landfill flares and higher emissions of air pollutants from the landfill site would be released into the local community. The new RNG processing facility would operate independently of the operation of the existing LFGTE plant and would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new processing facility to the existing PG&E Line 191-1 natural gas transmission pipeline network. Ameresco anticipates that the RNG produced by the proposed RNG processing facility will be utilized by vehicles fueled by natural gas. Based on data prepared by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Energy, the proposed project has the additional potential to substantially reduce overall GHG emissions of heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses. Operating trucks on RNG rather than diesel fuel typically resulted in a 93 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions; a 45 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen emissions; and more than a 90 percent reduction in total particulate matter. From the U.S. EPA Methane Outreach website, the RNG by the proposed Project when used to fuel heavy duty trucks would offset approximately 64,483 tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuels or equivalent to the reduction of 6.5 million gallons of gasoline consumption in automobiles. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 26 of 31 Transportation and Circulation Element: Figure 5-2, Roadway Network Plan, in the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element shows designated arterials and expressways that are part of the County roadway network. Bailey Road, which is adjacent to the northwest of the project site, is the nearest designated arterial. Given that the proposed project would be accessed by the existing KCL road network off of Bailey Road and does not propose any changes to any existing roads, there would not be any effect on Bailey Road. B. Zoning Compliance: As described previously in Section III.B (General Information, Zoning), the portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP site within the active KCL landfill area is in the A-3 Heavy Agricultural District, the portion of the site within the SBA is in the A-4 Agricultural Preserve district, and the PG&E – owned utility corridor is in the A-2 General Agricultural District. Pursuant to County Code Section 84-40.406, refuse disposal uses such as the KCL are allowed in the A-3 District with a land use permit per County Code Chapter 418 -4, Disposal Sites. Accordingly, Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 1990. LP89-2020 was subsequently amended by the Board of Supervisors approval of Land Use Permit LP01-2115 on June 25, 2002, to allow the Ameresco LFGTE power plant as a related landfill activity. The proposed RNG processing facility and pipeline would be another related landfill activity allowed with the proposed approval of this land use permit, and would be consistent with the allowed uses in the A-3 District. The proposed underground RNG transmission pipeline traversing through the SBA and PG&E utility corridor would be located in the A-4 District and A-2 District, respectively. Pursuant to County Code Section 84-38.406, refuse disposal uses such as the KCL are allowed in the A-2 District with a land use permit per County Code Chapter 418-4, Disposal Sites. As discussed above, the proposed RNG pipeline would be a related landfill activity allowed with the proposed approval of this land use permit, and would be consistent with the allowed uses in the A-2 District. Pursuant to County Code Section 84-42.404(15), uses described in Government Code Section 51201(e) are allowed in the A-4 District with a land use permit. Government Code Section 51201(e) describes uses that are compatible with an agricultural preserve, as determined by the County pursuant to Sections 51231, 51238, or 51238.1. Government Code Section 51238 allows gas facilities on the land. Accordingly, the proposed RNG pipeline would be allowed with the proposed approval of this land use permit, and would be consistent with the County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 27 of 31 allowed uses in the A-4 District. Required Findings for a Land Use Element: The following are the required findings for approval of this land use permit for the Ameresco RNGPFP. 1. The proposed project shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the county. Project Finding: The KCL is a Class II waste disposal site operating in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. KCL is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas (LFG) to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The gas collection and control system are expanded regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of LFG generated increases. As required by LP89-2020 COA 31.7 (Methane Recovery), KCL is required to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7, Ameresco has contracted with the Keller Canyon Landfill Company for the right to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regulations. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a LFGTE power plant that processes the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel used to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. At present, the volume of LFG generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is consumed in an enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. The Ameresco RNGPFP would significantly reduce LFG flows to the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The new RNG processing facility would operate independently of the operation of the existing LFGTE plant and would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new processing facility site to the existing PG&E natural gas transmission pipeline network east of the site. The design of the pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 28 of 31 2. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the orderly development within the County or the community. Project Finding: Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP would not require construction or improvement of any roadways in the area. There would be less than 20 inbound construction trips per day during the 8 to 12 month construction period. Access to the RNGPFP project area for construction traffic would be from the following locations: • Bailey Road and internal site roads for construction on KCL property; • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to connect to a laydown area located on KCL property; and • Through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E property. To minimize disruption of local area traffic, the applicant would implement the following construction traffic measures. 1 During construction in the east portion of the project site on PG&E property, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg alerting of the need for potential traffic and parking controls on Alta Vista Circle on days vehicles and equipment are scheduled to access the PG&E property. 2 During construction in the mid portion of the project site, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg and/or property owners to allow for vehicle access via John Henry Johnson Parkway. Construction would occur on land in the active KCL landfill area, within the Special Buffer Area (SBA), and within the PG&E-owned utility corridor. Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP at this location is consistent with the intended use of the site and with applicable General Plan policies and General Plan and zoning development standards. The RNG processing County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 29 of 31 facility and RNG transmission pipeline do not produce significant amounts of noise, glare, or vibrations. Thus, the project would not impede future use of surrounding, developable properties. 3. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Project Finding: Construction and operation of the Ameresco RNGPFP on land in the active KCL landfill area, within the SBA, and within the PG&E utility corridor, is consistent with the allowable uses of the landfill and open space properties, and thereby, would not affect property values in the area. The RNG processing facility is compatible with the existing industrial character of the KCL landfill area. The underground RNG transmission pipeline is compatible with open space and agricultural uses. 4. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan. Project Finding: The Ameresco RNGPFP is consistent with the Landfill and Open Space policies and goals of the General Plan. As discussed above, the RNG processing facility is compatible with the KCL landfill, and the underground RNG transmission pipeline is compatible with open space and agricultural uses on the SBA and PG&E utility corridor. The RNG project is also compatible with the County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) that furthers the overall goal of the General Plan to preserve the quality of life within the County. The RNGPFP is consistent with the CAP by implementing the following CAP goals: • Goal 2: Renewable Energy, Increase the Production of Renewable Energy from Small-Scale and Commercial-Scale Renewable Energy Installations o Measure RE 1: Alternative Energy Installations o Measure RE 2: Alternative Energy Facilities • Goal 3: Land Use and Transportation o Measure LUT 2: Alternative-Fuel Infrastructure, Expand the Use of Alternative Fuels in Vehicle Travel County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 30 of 31 • Goal 4: Solid Waste, Reduce Waste Disposal o Measure W 2: Landfill Management, Reduce Fugitive Methane Emissions and Other GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Landfills. The RNGPFP would facilitate County-wide GHG emission reduction goals by substantially reducing the emissions of GHG and would be in conformance with applicable County and State GHG emission reduction strategies. 5. The proposed project shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Project Finding: The Ameresco RNGPFP, as conditioned, would not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem. The Conditions of Approval of LP89-2020 as amended by this approval, require the RNGPFP to be maintained in an orderly manner for the life of the project. 6. The proposed project shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Project Finding: Approval of the land use permit would not change the established uses in the vicinity. Construction and operation of the RNG processing facility on a portion of the active KCL landfill area would extend existing water lines and install a new wastewater connection to an existing on-site septic system. Installation and operation of the underground RNG transmission pipeline would occur on dedicated open space land in the SBA and the PG&E utility corridor. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Project Finding: The active KCL landfill area has been approved for a landfill operation in Land Use Permit LP89-2020. The Ameresco LFGTE plant is consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7 (Methane Recovery) and was approved in Land Use Permit LP01-2115 that amended LP89-2020. The Ameresco RNGPG is also consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7 and further amends LP89-2020. Given the availability of LFG at the landfill, the active KL area is the appropriate location for the new RNG processing facility County Planning Commission – June 23, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 31 of 31 adjacent to the existing LFGTE plant, and within an area set aside for such use. PG&E’s existing natural gas transmission pipeline, Line 191-1, is located east of the RNG processing facility and is separated from the active KCL landfill area by the SBA. Thus, the Ameresco underground RNG transmission pipeline traverses a natural route from the RNG processing facility to Line 191-1 through the SBA and the PG&E utility corridor. Both the SBA and PG&E utility corridor are dedicated open space areas within the A-4 Agricultural Preserve land use district. After installation, the RNG pipeline alignment would be restored to its pre-construction state and the pipeline and its alignment would not be visible. Thus, the RNG pipeline is consistent with the intended open space and agricultural use of the SBA and PG&E utility corridor and would not disrupt or otherwise affect any adjacent land uses. X. CONCLUSION The Ameresco RNGPFP would be consistent with the LF Landfill and OS Open Space General Plan Land Use designations. The proposed project would implement the Goal 8-k and Policy 8-52 of the General Plan Conservation Element related to methane recovery. The RNGPFP would use a substantial portion of LFG currently generated by the landfill. Without the proposed project, this energy source would be wasted by combustion in the landfill flares and higher emissions of air pollutants from the landfill site would be released into the local community. The new RNG processing facility would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network, whereby it has the potential to substantially reduce overall GHG emissions of heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses. Findings can be adopted to approve a land use permit for the proposed project in the A-3 Heavy Agricultural, A-4 Agricultural Preserve, and A-2 General Agricultural Districts. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding area and would maintain the character of the active KCL landfill area, the SBA, and the PG&E utility corridor. Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ameresco RNGPFP Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022 by the Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENT 2 CDLP18-02022 FINDINGS COAS BOS – July 13, 2021 Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 1 of 24 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – COUNTY FILE CDLP18-02022, AMERESCO KELLER CANYON RNG LLC (APPLICANT) – KELLER CANYON LANDFILL COMPANY (OWNER) FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The two employees at the proposed renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility are projected to generate approximately one peak period peak period vehicle trip and will not significantly increase existing traffic levels in the area. The increase in traffic on Bailey Road due to the project will not significantly affect the operation of the street. 2. Water: The project site is in an area designated for industrial use, infrastructure, and facilities. An on-site water system is available for the project and will not require major modification for the RNG processing facility and pipeline project (RNGPFP). Existing water lines will be extended as needed. An existing water supply tank for landfill operations is located southeast of the RNG processing facility site, as required by Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2020-89 (LP89-2020) Condition of Approval (COA) 30.8 (On-Site Water Storage). The total capacity of the water supply tank is approximately 342,300 gallons, with approximately 235,800 gallons (about 69 percent) reserved for firefighting. Thus, the allocation of water to serve the project will not significantly affect existing water resources 3. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service at the project site is provided by an on-site septic system. Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 30.20 (On-site Septic System), a septic system with a leach field was constructed for the existing landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) power plant in 2009 under Contra Costa Environmental Health Permit 07-000- 774565. The design capacity of this system is 105 gallons per day (gpd}. The applicant will coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health on a new wastewater connection to the existing septic system to provide for a new employee restroom for the two employees at the RNG processing facility. The connection will increase the total flows to the existing septic system to approximately 45 gpd. The applicant will be required to acquire a new or amended permit from Contra Costa Environmental Health for the new connection. 4. Fire Protection: The project site is in the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD). A number of the LP89-2020 permit conditions Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 2 of 24 address the requirements of the CCCFPD for on-site fire protection water supply (COA 30.8, On-Site Water Storage), (COA 30.18, Smoking Prohibitions), equipping the landfill facilities with fire extinguishers (COA 30.13, Fire Extinguishers), and maintaining a 60-foot fire break around the perimeter of the landfill and any buildings or structures (COA 30.12, Fire Breaks). The Ameresco RNGPFP will be subject to and will be required to comply with these permit conditions. Further, project plans will be reviewed by the Fire Protection District for compliance with its requirements. Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 30.5 (Fire Protection Component), two existing fire hydrants are located within 325 feet of the RNG processing facility site for use in a fire event: One hydrant is located adjacent to the water supply tank; a second hydrant is located southwest of the water supply tank alongside the access road near the landfill maintenance building. The applicant will construct a new third fire hydrant in a location near the mid-southeastern boundary of the RNG processing facility enclosure. The precise location and specifications of the new hydrant shall be coordinated with the CCCFPD to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code. 5. Public Protection: Police protection services at Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL) are provided by the landfill operator pursuant existing LP89-2020 permit conditions, including managing KCL in a manner that prevents unauthorized access (COA 27.1, Security Objective), perimeter security fencing (COA 27.2, Security Fencing), 24-hour private security protection (COA 27.3, Security Staffing), and maintenance of security lighting (COA 27.4, Security Lighting). Implementation of the RNGPFP will not significantly impact the provision of security in KCL. 6. Parks and Recreation: The Ameresco RNGPFP project does not include any residential development. The closest public parks to the RNG processing facility are approximately 0.7 mile to 1.0 mile from the project site, including Hillsdale Park, Oak Hills Park, and Ambrose Park. Hillsdale Park and Oak Hills Park are operated by the City of Pittsburg Parks and Recreation Department. Ambrose Park is operated by the Ambrose Recreation and Park District. To the extent that the two future employees of the RNG processing facility choose to move into the Pittsburg area, there will be an incremental increase to the Pittsburg area population. Given the amount of available park space and the project’s relatively small indirect addition to the Pittsburg area population, the project will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Further, payment of Mitigation Fee as required by LP89-2020 COA 35.8 offsets general impacts of the KCL on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities and agriculture. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 3 of 24 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The RNG processing facility site is located in the northern portion of the Keller Canyon watershed, which encompasses approximately 573 acres. All of the active KCL landfill area runoff is collected and conveyed to the existing KCL terminal detention basin located approximately 750 lineal feet east of, and down slope, of the proposed RNG processing facility. The terminal detention basin greatly reduces the volume of peak runoff leaving the Keller Canyon watershed. Development of proposed RNG processing facility site will add approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres) to the Keller Canyon watershed. The drainage system for the RNG processing facility will be designed to convey storm runoff to the existing terminal detention basin. During operation, the RNG processing equipment will not generate any form of wastewater. The RNG processing facility is estimated to increase surface runoff by a maximum of approximately 1.2 percent for the 50-year recurrence interval. All runoff from the RNG processing facility will be collected and directed into the existing drainage system of the landfill. The 1.2 percent or lower increase in surface runoff is not a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, and will not result in on or off-site flooding. B. Land Use Permit Findings The following are required findings for the approval of a land use permit for the Ameresco RNGPFP. 1. The proposed project shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the county. Project Finding: The KCL is a Class II waste disposal site operating in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. KCL is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas (LFG) to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The gas collection and control system are expanded regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of LFG generated increases. As required by LP89-2020 COA 31.7 (Methane Recovery), KCL is required to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7, Ameresco has contracted with the Keller Canyon Landfill Company for the right to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regulations. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a LFGTE power plant that processes the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel used to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. At present, the volume of LFG Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 4 of 24 generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is consumed in an enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. The Ameresco RNGPFP will significantly reduce LFG flows to the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The new RNG processing facility will operate independently of the operation of the existing LFGTE plant and will significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The RNG pipeline will carry the RNG from the new processing facility site to the existing PG&E natural gas transmission pipeline network east of the site. The design of the pipeline will meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. 2. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the orderly development within the County or the community. Project Finding: Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP will not require construction or improvement of any roadways in the area. There will be less than 20 inbound construction trips per day during the 8 to 12 month construction period. Access to the RNGPFP project area for construction traffic will be from the following locations: • Bailey Road and internal site roads for construction on KCL property; • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to connect to a laydown area located on KCL property; and • Through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E property. To minimize disruption of local area traffic, the applicant will implement the following construction traffic measures. 1 During construction in the east portion of the project site on PG&E property, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg alerting of the need for potential traffic and parking controls on Alta Vista Circle on days vehicles and equipment are scheduled to access the PG&E property. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 5 of 24 2 During construction in the mid portion of the project site, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg and/or property owners to allow for vehicle access via John Henry Johnson Parkway. Construction will occur on land in the active KCL landfill area, within the Special Buffer Area (SBA), and within the PG&E-owned utility corridor. Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP at this location is consistent with the intended use of the site and with applicable General Plan policies and General Plan and zoning development standards. The RNG processing facility and RNG transmission pipeline do not produce significant amounts of noise, glare, or vibrations. Thus, the project will not impede future use of surrounding, developable properties. 3. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Project Finding: Construction and operation of the Ameresco RNGPFP on land in the active KCL landfill area, within the SBA, and within the PG&E utility corridor, is consistent with the allowable uses of the landfill and open space properties, and thereby, will not affect property values in the area. The RNG processing facility is compatible with the existing industrial character of the KCL landfill area. The underground RNG transmission pipeline is compatible with open space and agricultural uses. 4. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan. Project Finding: The Ameresco RNGPFP is consistent with the Landfill and Open Space policies and goals of the General Plan. As discussed above, the RNG processing facility is compatible with the KCL landfill, and the underground RNG transmission pipeline is compatible with open space and agricultural uses on the SBA and PG&E utility corridor. The RNG project is also compatible with the County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) that furthers the overall goal of the General Plan to preserve the quality of life within the County. The RNGPFP is consistent with the CAP by implementing the following CAP goals: • Goal 2: Renewable Energy, Increase the Production of Renewable Energy from Small-Scale and Commercial-Scale Renewable Energy Installations o Measure RE 1: Alternative Energy Installations Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 6 of 24 o Measure RE 2: Alternative Energy Facilities • Goal 3: Land Use and Transportation o Measure LUT 2: Alternative-Fuel Infrastructure, Expand the Use of Alternative Fuels in Vehicle Travel • Goal 4: Solid Waste, Reduce Waste Disposal o Measure W 2: Landfill Management, Reduce Fugitive Methane Emissions and Other GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Landfills. The RNGPFP will facilitate County-wide GHG emission reduction goals by substantially reducing the emissions of GHG and will be in conformance with applicable County and State GHG emission reduction strategies. 5. The proposed project shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Project Finding: The Ameresco RNGPFP, as conditioned, will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem. The Conditions of Approval of LP89-2020 as amended by this approval, require the RNGPFP to be maintained in an orderly manner for the life of the project. 6. The proposed project shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Project Finding: Approval of the land use permit will not change the established uses in the vicinity. Construction and operation of the RNG processing facility on a portion of the active KCL landfill area will extend existing water lines and install a new wastewater connection to an existing on-site septic system. Installation and operation of the underground RNG transmission pipeline will occur on dedicated open space land in the SBA and the PG&E utility corridor. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Project Finding: The active KCL landfill area has been approved for a landfill operation in Land Use Permit LP89-2020. The Ameresco LFGTE plant is consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7 (Methane Recovery) and was approved in Land Use Permit LP01-2115 that Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 7 of 24 amended LP89-2020. The Ameresco RNGPG is also consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7 and further amends LP89-2020. Given the availability of LFG at the landfill, the active KL area is the appropriate location for the new RNG processing facility adjacent to the existing LFGTE plant, and within an area set aside for such use. PG&E’s existing natural gas transmission pipeline, Line 191-1, is located east of the RNG processing facility and is separated from the active KCL landfill area by the SBA. Thus, the Ameresco underground RNG transmission pipeline traverses a natural route from the RNG processing facility to Line 191-1 through the SBA and the PG&E utility corridor. Both the SBA and PG&E utility corridor are dedicated open space areas within the A-4 Agricultural Preserve land use district. After installation, the RNG pipeline alignment will be restored to its pre-construction state and the pipeline and its alignment will not be visible. Thus, the RNG pipeline is consistent with the intended open space and agricultural use of the SBA and PG&E utility corridor and will not disrupt or otherwise affect any adjacent land uses. C. Environmental Findings 1. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND) was prepared for the project. The draft MND was published and noticed on October 7, 2020, and re-noticed on November 12, 2020. The public review comment period for the draft MND started on October 7, 2020, and ended on December 23, 2020. Written comments were received from eight commenters during the public review period for the draft MND. 2. A Final MND has been prepared that includes a revised project description, summary responses addressing the project description and potential impacts, the written comments received on the November 2020 re-noticed draft MND, responses to the comments received, and staff-initiated text changes including changes resulting from the preparation of responses to comments received and revised and/or deleted figures. 3. The staff responses and text changes in the Final MND are not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, do not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and does not alter any findings in the section. 4. On the basis of the whole record before it, including the draft MND and Final MND, the County Planning Commission finds that: • There is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 8 of 24 measures will have a significant effect on the environment; • The MND, consisting of the draft MND and Final MND, reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis; • The MND is adequate and complete; and • The MND has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA guidelines. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are included in the Conditions of Approval. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 9 of 24 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE CDLP18-02022 Approval of Land Use Permit CDLP18-02022 1. This Land Use Permit application is APPROVED for the construction and operation of the Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline, as described in the Land Use Permit application and documentation submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on July 24, 2018, as amended by the plans and documentation submitted on June 8, 2021. Any change from the approved plans shall require review and approval by the Board of Supervisors and may require the filing of an application to modify this Land Use Permit. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2. The Conditions of Approval of the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2020-89, Amendment 3, shall apply to the Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline. NOTE: Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2020-89, Amendment 3, is attached herein. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 10 of 24 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE APPLIED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE CDLP18-02022 The applicant shall comply with the following Conditions of Approval, which are required to implement and complete the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH 2020100267 and included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline. These Conditions of Approval are included in Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2020- 89 (LP89-2020), Amendment 3, and shall be administered as part of the LP89-2020 Permit. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3. Biology 1: HCP/NCCP Participation. The applicant shall participate in and receive take coverage under the HCP/NCCP and comply with all conditions of the take coverage. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an HCP/NCCP application and associated fee worksheet to the CDD and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) for review and approval. The temporary and permanent impacts to grassland habitats, jurisdictional waters and wetland resources shall require both temporary and permanent impact fees as defined by the current HCP/NCCP fee schedule at the time of application. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures as required by the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented to minimize impacts to covered species and jurisdictional resources. The Certificate of Coverage will be issued to the applicant to confirm the fee has been received, that other HCP/NCCP requirements have been met or will be performed and will authorize take of covered species. Participation in the HCP/NCCP will fully satisfy requirements for addressing impacts to the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander 4. Biology 2: Burrowing Owl. To avoid and minimize impacts on burrowing owls and potential burrows the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 11 of 24 burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. • Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring: This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the applicant shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the applicant shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 12 of 24 construction drawings. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. 5. Biology 3: Golden Eagle. To avoid and minimize impacts on golden eagles the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to establish whether nests of golden eagles are occupied. If nests are occupied, minimization requirements and construction monitoring will be required. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: Covered activities shall be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, although mating and egg incubation occurs late January through August, with peak activity in March through July. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be implemented, the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. • Construction Monitoring: Construction Monitoring: Construction monitoring shall focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. These measures will include consultation with USFWS and CDFW if an active nest is identified, monitoring conducted by a qualified biologist with stop work authority Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the Urban Limit Line (ULL), covered activities inside and outside of the HCP Preserve System designated in the HCP/NCCP have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. The majority of the project activities fall outside of the ULL. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 13 of 24 golden eagles are minimized through direct consultation with USFWS and CDFW on appropriate buffer zones and construction monitoring requirements, a qualified biologist will monitor all activities to ensure the buffer zone is maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. 6. Biology 4: Nesting and Migratory Birds. To avoid and minimize impacts on nesting and migratory birds and to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act pre- construction surveys shall be conducted and construction avoidance measures shall be implemented if necessary. • Preconstruction Survey: Riparian vegetation, grassland habitats and trees shall be surveyed prior to commencing with covered activities to evaluate nesting bird habitat. If work is scheduled to take place between February 1 and August 31, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days of construction, covering a radius of 500 feet for non‐listed raptors and 100 feet for non‐listed passerines at all locations. Preconstruction surveys will need to be done in phases as work along the alignment will not be occurring concurrently. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If an active bird nest is found within these buffers, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. If an active nest is present, a minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. 7. Biology 5: American Badger. To avoid and minimize impacts on American badgers the following measures shall be implemented. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 14 of 24 • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey, within the limits of proposed temporary and permanent impact in grassland and ruderal habitat, no less than 14 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect American badger. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction shall be avoided. If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using remote cameras or methodology coordinated with CDFW. If unoccupied, the qualified biologist shall collapse these dens by hand or shall request permission from CDFW to temporarily plug the burrow entrance with sandbags to prevent badgers from re-using them during construction. If occupied, the biologist shall consult with CDFW regarding best practices for encouraging the badger(s) to move to alternate dens outside the work areas. 8. Biology 6: San Joaquin Kit Fox. To avoid and minimize impacts on San Joaquin kit fox the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas that support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS within five working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 15 of 24 If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below will be implemented. • Avoidance and Minimization Requirements o If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW– approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. o Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. o If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. o If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional five consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). • Construction Monitoring: If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones shall be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. A qualified biologist shall monitor all activities to ensure exclusion zones are maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 16 of 24 access to the den by kit fox. All exclusion zones shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. 9. Biology 7: Special Status Bats. To avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats the following measures shall be implemented: • Focused Habitat Assessment: If trees along the access route or within the project site are to be removed a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if the subject trees have potential habitat. • Preconstruction Surveys: If the project does not avoid impacts to suitable habitat for special status bats, a preconstruction survey shall be required to determine whether the sites are occupied immediately prior to construction or whether they show signs of recent previous occupation. Preconstruction surveys are used to determine what avoidance and minimization requirements are triggered before construction and whether construction monitoring is necessary. Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. If occupied habitat is determined present and cannot be avoided, consultation with CDFW shall occur in order to determine the appropriate plan for eviction and compensatory mitigation. • Avoidance and Minimization: If the species is discovered or if evidence of recent prior occupation is established, construction shall be scheduled such that it minimizes impacts on special status bats. Hibernation sites with evidence of prior occupation shall be sealed before the hibernation season (November–March), and nursery sites shall be sealed before the nursery season (April–August). If the site is occupied, then the action shall occur either prior to or after the hibernation season for hibernacula and after August 15 for nursery colonies. Construction shall not take place as long as the site is occupied. 10. Biology 8: Tree Pruning Overseen by Certified Arborist. Prior to any tree pruning and subject to CDD review, the applicant shall hire a Certified arborist to oversee and/or conduct any native-tree pruning required to access, construct, and implement the Project. Proposed removal of existing pepper trees at the proposed RNG Processing Facility shall be mapped and submitted to the CDD for review. 11. Biology 9: Develop Temporary Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall develop a Temporary Restoration Plan to ensure the site is restored to pre-project conditions. This may Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 17 of 24 include measures such as topsoil preservation per station segments and reseeding with native seed mixes. The Temporary Restoration Plan will include updated mapping of current Sensitive Natural Communities, monitoring of topsoil preservation in areas that are directly impacted (California buckeye groves and Gum Plant patches) and monitoring and reporting of SNCs that are to be avoided (rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches). The Temporary Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the CDD and the ECCCHC for review and approval. 12. Biology 10: Aquatic Resources Delineation. In conjunction with Biology 1, the applicant shall submit the Aquatic Resources Delineation to the ECCCHC for review and approval, and as required, to the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. 13. Biology 11: Implement the Permit Conditions of the Aquatic Resource Agencies. Prior to commencing project construction, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Army Corps, CDFW, and/or RWQCB. Avoidance, minimization, and compensation will be determined by these agencies. The agencies will set the permit conditions, which are likely to include onsite enhancement and monitoring of seeps and drainages to ensure groundwater and surface water interruptions do not occur as a result of the project. The applicant shall be responsible to implement the permit conditions, subject to oversight by the agencies. CULTURAL RESOURCES 14. Cultural Resources 1. The following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction. 1. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. 2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 18 of 24 15. Cultural Resources 2. Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains GEOLOGY AND SOILS 16. Geology 1: To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, implementation of the following measures shall be required: A. Avoid crossing the lower elevations of the slide, where down cutting and potential regressive slope failures adjacent to canyon bottoms. B. Cross landslides where topography is relatively gentle. C. Minimize earthwork in the landslide area by orienting the pipeline crossing so that it parallels the topographic contour. D. Implement a ground movement monitoring program that shall include at least bi- annual monitoring (i.e., before and after the rainy season), and after significant earthquake in accordance with the provisions of an “Inspection and Monitoring Program.” That program shall specify the qualifications of the inspector, identify the segments if the pipeline to be inspected, and provide an inspection form that shall identify the date of the inspection; name, title and contact information for the inspector; descriptions of the features observed; recommendations of inspector for supplemental/ special geotechnical investigations or other corrective work; and indicate the entity/ staff position that is to receive the inspection for Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG, LLC (or its successor). Copies of all inspection reports shall be kept on file by the operator of the facility and shall be made available for review Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 19 of 24 by representatives of Contra Costa County (e.g., during routine mitigation monitoring by the County). E. Include an automatic shut off valve and other safety measures in the pipeline design. 17. Geology 2: To mitigate the confirm/ modify the preliminary assessment of liquefaction for the RNG processing facility, the following measures shall be implemented: A. The project geotechnical engineer shall present an updated evaluation of liquefaction potential of the sand body penetrated by boring B-102 from 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface, based on the methodology and parameters required by the CGS for projects located in the Seismic Hazard Zone (SHZ). The seismic parameters peak used in the analysis shall match those provided by SHZ Report 127; the analysis shall reference the methodology selected by the project geotechnical engineer; provide justification the parameters that were inputs into the computer model run(s); and shall clearly demonstrate the analysis is consistent with the standards required for projects in the SHZ. B. The liquefaction analysis presented in response to item 2.A above shall be submitted for review at least 30 days prior to submitting an application for a grading or building permit for the RNG processing facility. That report shall also provide final recommendations for site grading, drainage, and foundation design, including recommendations for reinforced earth, retaining walls, and foundations of proposed structures. It shall also present plan review comments of the project geotechnical engineers, and geologists, outline the recommended observation and testing services during construction. C. The report required by items 2.A and 2.B above shall be subject to review by the County Peer Review Geologist, and review/ approval by the CDD. 18. Geology 3: To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, the Geology 1 mitigation measures shall be implemented. In addition, the following measures are required: A. The project engineering geologist shall view where landslide deposits are in contact with colluvium of bedrock. This shall occur prior to placement of any bedding/ backfill in the following segments of the trench to determine if weak soil conditions are encountered that would warrant special engineering at such Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 20 of 24 interfaces (e.g., over-excavation of any soft material at the slide/ bedrock contact, and replacement with reinforced earth or other special engineering). The findings of the project engineering geologist shall be documented in the final grading report. The project engineering geologist shall view and document exposed conditions in the pipeline trench where it crosses the boundary of landslides Qls #2, Qls #3 and Qls #4. B. The project engineering geologist shall view exposed conditions in the immediate area of the trench pipeline crossing of the Kirker Pass fault. The fault is a geologic contact, so there is potential for contrasting engineering properties of the rock units on opposite sides of the fault, along with the engineering properties of the fault zone. The fault zone area is a potentially weak, marginally stable area that can be expected to include highly fractured rock, shear planes, possible gouge zone, and possible seepage zone. These are adverse conditions could influence local slope stability. The final grading report shall include mapping of the fault zone and provide an explanation of any special recommendations/ special engineering incorporated into the design. 19. Geology 4: To mitigate the potential for future headward erosion, soil creep, and shallow sloughing to undermine the pipeline, implementation of scour protection measures shall be implemented where the pipeline crosses seasonal water courses. A. Where feasible, the pipeline shall be buried below the potential scour depth. B. Scour assessment shall be performed by the project geotechnical engineer at locations specified in the project geotechnical engineer’s reports. Typical scour protection measures shall be considered for use, including structural and/ or biotechnical erosion control. The selection of the scour protection measures shall be based upon completion of the scour assessment and shall consider environmental constraints. C. During construction, the scour assessment shall be determined by the project geotechnical engineer and may include a plan view, typical section(s), and specifications for the proposed stabilization/ erosion control measures. 20. Geology 5: To mitigate the potential impact of expansive and corrosive soils, implementation of the following measures shall be required: A. For the RNG processing facility, additional soil expansion and corrosion hazard Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 21 of 24 testing shall be required for the on-site and any import earth materials by the project geotechnical engineer. The findings of the testing shall be documented in the final grading report, which shall provide specific standards and criteria for the geotechnical aspects of the RNG processing facility. B. The final grading report required by Geology 5.A shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist, and review and approval by the CDD. C. For the pipeline, a California licensed corrosion engineer shall be retained by the applicant to identify suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits and fittings. D. During pipeline construction, the corrosion potential of the on-site soils shall be verified for each encountered soil type E. Any import fill materials shall be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential. All import must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to transporting to the project site. F. The corrosion engineer shall review available information on the corrosion hazard and may require additional testing. The corrosion engineer shall document the specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations, and any monitoring recommendations, in a wet signed and stamped letter-report. That report shall be submitted to the CDD prior to placing any pipe NOISE 21. Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation and shall be included on all sets of construction drawings. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. 2. A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the property with the telephone number and person to contact regarding construction-related complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Department of Conservation and Development phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 22 of 24 3. Additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation in the PG&E utility corridor: a. Per City of Pittsburg Municipal Ordinance Section 18.82.040 Noise, no construction event or activity occurring on the PG&E property adjoining existing residential uses shall generate loud noises in excess of 65 decibels measured at the property line, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. b. Per City of Pittsburg General Plan Noise Element Policy 12-P-9, the applicant shall restrict outdoor construction activities in the PG&E utility corridor to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. c. In addition to the foregoing, the applicant shall provide notification to occupants of property directly adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor two weeks prior to, and 24-hours prior to, scheduled construction activity in the PG&E utility corridor. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 23 of 24 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. Seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the CDD within 90-days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant shall submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and comply with Division requirements. It is advisable to check with the Division prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Health Services Department Environmental Health Division regarding its requirements and permits. D. The applicant must submit building plans to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Fire Protection District. E. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Page 24 of 24 F. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District regarding its requirements and permits. G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region 11). H. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. Page i LAND USE PERMIT 2020-89 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL KELLER CANYON LANDFILL Approved by the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 24, 1990 Amended by the: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOVEMBER 1, 1994 (Amendment 1) JUNE 25, 2002 (Amendment 2) DECEMBER 16, 2014 (Permit Review Modification) SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 (Permit Review Modification) This Amendment 3 of Land Use Permit 2020-89 adds Section 37 that includes Conditions of Approval that apply to the Landfill Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline (RNGPFP). Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SHORT TITLE ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Short Title ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. RESPONSIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Ultimate Responsibility ................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Transfer of Ownership .................................................................................................. 1 2.3 Assignment of Responsibility ....................................................................................... 1 3. COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................................ 2 3.1 Compliance Objective .................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Design Standard ........................................................................................................... 2 3.3 State Minimum Standards ............................................................................................ 2 3.4 Land Use Permits ......................................................................................................... 2 3.5 Solid Waste Facilities Permit ........................................................................................ 2 3.6 Class II Landfill Requirements ..................................................................................... 2 3.7 Other Regulatory Agencies' Requirements ................................................................. 2 3.8 Utilities, Service Districts, and Government Agencies' Requirements ....................... 2 3.9 Notice Coordination ...................................................................................................... 3 3.10 Monitoring and Inspection ............................................................................................ 3 3.11 Master Chart ................................................................................................................. 3 4. VALIDITY PERIOD ..................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Validity Period ............................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Operative Date .............................................................................................................. 3 5. SERVICE AREA ......................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Area of Origin ................................................................................................................ 3 5.2 Out-of-County Wastes .................................................................................................. 4 5.3 Sub-County Service Area ............................................................................................. 4 5.4 Reciprocal Capacity Agreement .................................................................................. 4 5.5 Pre-Requisite Curbside Recycling Program ................................................................ 4 6. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTES .................................................................... 4 6.1 Eligible Wastes ............................................................................................................. 4 6.2 Designated Wastes ...................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Infectious Wastes ......................................................................................................... 5 6.4 Ineligible Wastes ........................................................................................................... 5 6.5 Emergency Use ............................................................................................................ 5 6.6 Hazardous Waste Screening and Management ......................................................... 5 6.7 Area of Origin Restrictions ........................................................................................... 5 7. LOAD INSPECTION .................................................................................................. 6 7.1 Eligible Vehicles and Loads ......................................................................................... 6 7.2 Load Covering .............................................................................................................. 6 8. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES ........................................................ 6 8.1 Eligible Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 6 8.2 Service Area Restriction ............................................................................................... 7 Page iii 8.3 Emergency Exemption ................................................................................................. 7 8.4 Reciprocal Use Exemption ........................................................................................... 7 8.5 Direct Haul .................................................................................................................... 7 8.6 Direct Haul Procedures ................................................................................................ 7 8.7 Direct Haul Reports ...................................................................................................... 9 8.8 Emergency Direct Haul ................................................................................................ 9 9. OPERATING PARAMETERS .................................................................................... 9 9.1 Hours of Operation ....................................................................................................... 9 9.2 Operating Days ........................................................................................................... 10 9.3 Maximum Daily Tonnage ........................................................................................... 10 9.4 Minimum Buffer Zone ................................................................................................. 10 9.5 Special Buffer Area ..................................................................................................... 10 9.6 Dedication of Special Buffer Area .............................................................................. 11 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION ....................................... 11 10.1 Volume Estimation ...................................................................................................... 11 10.2 Scales ......................................................................................................................... 11 10.3 Waste Characterization .............................................................................................. 11 11. ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 12 11.1 Permit Review ............................................................................................................. 12 11.2 Local Advisory Com ................................................................................................... 12 11.3 Insurance and/or Bonding .......................................................................................... 13 11.4 Notification Program ................................................................................................... 13 11.5 Development Coordinator .......................................................................................... 13 11.6 Compliance and Mitigation Monitoring Program ....................................................... 13 11.7 Pre-Annexation Notification ........................................................................................ 13 11.8 Fee and Surcharge Identification ............................................................................... 14 11.9 Interpretation of Conditions ........................................................................................ 14 11.10 Conditions Requiring Franchise ................................................................................. 14 11.11 Regulations Enforced by Other Agencies ................................................................. 14 11.12 Required Expenditures ............................................................................................... 14 11.13 Designation of Authority ............................................................................................. 15 12. RATE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 15 12.1 Rate Approval ............................................................................................................. 15 12.2 Rate Review ............................................................................................................... 15 12.3 Form and Content of Rate Review Application ......................................................... 16 12.4 Rate Application Guidelines ....................................................................................... 16 12.5 Financial Statement .................................................................................................... 16 12.6 Scope of Rates ........................................................................................................... 16 13. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT .................................................................................... 16 13.1 Franchise Compliance and Agreement ..................................................................... 16 13.2 Assignment ................................................................................................................. 17 13.3 Contents ...................................................................................................................... 17 13.4 Requirement ............................................................................................................... 17 13.5 County Discretion ....................................................................................................... 17 Page iv 14. LAND USE PERMIT PLAN CONSTITUENTS ........................................................ 17 14.1 Initial Development and Improvements Plan ............................................................. 17 14.2 Regulatory Agency Approvals .................................................................................... 18 14.3 Improvements Requirements ..................................................................................... 18 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ................................................... 19 15.1 Final Development and Improvements Plan ............................................................. 19 15.2 In approving the Development and Improvements Plan ........................................... 19 16. SLOPE AND SEISMIC STABILITY ......................................................................... 20 16.1 Landfill Slopes Objective ............................................................................................ 20 16.2 Seismic Design ........................................................................................................... 20 16.3 Landslide Study .......................................................................................................... 20 16.4 Geotechnical Inspector ............................................................................................... 20 16.5 Landfill Design Stability .............................................................................................. 20 16.6 Slope Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 20 16.7 Settlement Program ................................................................................................... 21 16.8 Emergency Landslide and Earthquake Program ...................................................... 21 16.9 Settlement Pond Embankment Design ..................................................................... 21 16.10 Settlement Pond(s) Monitoring Program ................................................................... 21 16.11 Stockpile Stability ........................................................................................................ 21 16.12 Unstable Areas ........................................................................................................... 21 17. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ........................................................................... 21 17.1 Groundwater Protection Objective ............................................................................. 21 17.2 Landfill Liner ................................................................................................................ 22 17.3 Leachate Collection System....................................................................................... 22 17.4 Surface Drainage System .......................................................................................... 22 17.5 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................................. 22 17.6 Downstream Well Monitoring ..................................................................................... 22 17.7 Baseline Water Characterization ............................................................................... 23 17.8 Liquid Waste Disposal ................................................................................................ 23 17.9 Drainage Grading ....................................................................................................... 23 17.10 Leachate Management .............................................................................................. 23 17.11 Water Balance Calculations ....................................................................................... 23 17.12 Leachate Holding Tanks ............................................................................................ 23 17.13 On-Site Water Supply Wells ....................................................................................... 24 17.14 Off-Site Water Well Contamination ............................................................................ 24 17.15 Liner Installation Inspection ........................................................................................ 24 17.16 Secondary Containment ............................................................................................. 24 17.17 Working Face .............................................................................................................. 24 18. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION ......................................................................... 24 18.1 Surface Water Protection Objective ........................................................................... 24 18.2 Surface Drainage System .......................................................................................... 24 18.3 Creek Protection ......................................................................................................... 25 18.4 Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan ......................................... 25 18.5 Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 26 19. HAZARDOUS WASTE ............................................................................................ 26 Page v 19.1 Hazardous Waste Ineligible ....................................................................................... 26 19.2 Load Inspection .......................................................................................................... 26 19.3 Household Hazardous Waste Program ..................................................................... 26 19.4 Hazardous Waste Pre-screening ............................................................................... 27 19.5 Regulatory Agency Approvals .................................................................................... 27 20. AIR QUALITY PROTECTION .................................................................................. 27 20.1 Prevention of Air Quality Deterioration ...................................................................... 27 20.3 Cover Frequency. ....................................................................................................... 28 20.4 Odoriferous Loads ...................................................................................................... 29 20.5 Dust Suppressants ..................................................................................................... 29 20.6 Area of Operations ..................................................................................................... 29 20.7 Air Flow Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 29 20.8 Contingency Program ................................................................................................. 29 20.9 Revegetation ............................................................................................................... 29 20.10 Tree and Shrub Planting ............................................................................................ 30 20.11 Gas Control and Collection ........................................................................................ 30 20.12 Landfill Gas Processing .............................................................................................. 30 20.13 Methane Recovery ..................................................................................................... 30 20.14 Gas Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 30 20.15 Lateral Gas Barriers ................................................................................................... 31 20.16 Settlement Protection ................................................................................................. 31 20.17 Landfill Gas Testing .................................................................................................... 31 20.18 Leachate Disposal ...................................................................................................... 31 20.19 Cell Re-Opening ......................................................................................................... 31 20.20 Fissure Repair ............................................................................................................ 31 20.21 Permanent Road Paving ............................................................................................ 31 20.22 Temporary Road Paving ............................................................................................ 32 20.23 Speed Limits ............................................................................................................... 32 20.24 Equipment Maintenance ............................................................................................ 32 21. NOISE CONTROL .................................................................................................... 32 21.1 Noise Control Objective .............................................................................................. 32 21.2 Noise Monitoring Program ......................................................................................... 32 21.3 Toe Berm .................................................................................................................... 33 21.4 Mitigation/Lift-Level Berms ......................................................................................... 33 21.5 Construction Hours ..................................................................................................... 33 21.6 Truck Noise Suppression ........................................................................................... 33 21.7 Landfill Vehicles .......................................................................................................... 33 21.8 Gas Flare Muffling ...................................................................................................... 33 22. VISUAL QUALITY .................................................................................................... 33 22.1 Visual Quality Objective ............................................................................................. 33 22.2 Landscape Plan .......................................................................................................... 33 22.3 Toe Berm .................................................................................................................... 34 22.4 Mitigation Berms ......................................................................................................... 34 22.5 Lawlor Creek Corridor Plan ........................................................................................ 34 22.6 Entrance Screening .................................................................................................... 34 22.7 Jacqueline Drive Terminus ......................................................................................... 34 22.8 Auxiliary Facilities Screening ..................................................................................... 34 22.9 Architectural Treatment .............................................................................................. 34 Page vi 22.10 Area of Operations ..................................................................................................... 35 22.11 Interim Revegetation .................................................................................................. 35 22.12 Water Tank Screening ................................................................................................ 35 22.13 Final Cover .................................................................................................................. 35 22.14 Lighting ........................................................................................................................ 35 23. AGRICULTURAL AND BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................... 35 23.1 Biotics Protection Objectives ...................................................................................... 35 23.2 Range Management Plan .......................................................................................... 35 23.3 Lawlor Creek Corridor Restoration Plan .................................................................... 36 23.4 Sandstone Outcrop Area ............................................................................................ 37 23.5 Weed Control Program .............................................................................................. 37 23.6 Phased Construction .................................................................................................. 37 23.7 Vegetation Protection ................................................................................................. 37 23.8 Wildlife Exclusion and Vector Control ........................................................................ 37 23.9 Supplemental Wildlife Surveys .................................................................................. 37 24. BIRD AND VECTOR CONTROL ............................................................................. 38 24.1 Bird and Vector Control Objective .............................................................................. 38 24.2 Soil Cover Frequency ................................................................................................. 38 24.3 Working Face .............................................................................................................. 38 24.4 Bird Control ................................................................................................................. 38 24.5 Rodent Control ............................................................................................................ 38 24.6 Mosquito Control ........................................................................................................ 38 24.7 Fly Control ................................................................................................................... 39 25. LITTER CONTROL .................................................................................................. 39 25.1 Litter Control Objective ............................................................................................... 39 25.2 Load Covering ............................................................................................................ 39 25.3 Load Cover Enforcement ........................................................................................... 39 25.4 Contingency Litter Control .......................................................................................... 39 25.5 Portable Litter Fences ................................................................................................ 39 25.6 Permanent Litter Fence .............................................................................................. 40 25.7 On-Site Liter Policing .................................................................................................. 40 25.8 Off-Site Litter Policing ................................................................................................. 40 25.9 Littering Signs ............................................................................................................. 40 25.10 Clean-Up Bond ........................................................................................................... 40 25.11 Public access .............................................................................................................. 40 26. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ............................................................................ 40 26.1 Safety Objective .......................................................................................................... 40 26.2 Emergency Plan ......................................................................................................... 40 26.3 Employee Safety Equipment ...................................................................................... 41 26.4 Employee Training ...................................................................................................... 41 26.5 First Aid Equipment .................................................................................................... 41 26.6 Emergency Communications ..................................................................................... 41 26.7 Emergency Eye Baths and Showers ......................................................................... 41 26.8 Equipment Maintenance ............................................................................................ 41 26.9 Gas Migration Monitoring ........................................................................................... 42 26.10 Refuse Cover .............................................................................................................. 42 26.11 Load Inspection .......................................................................................................... 42 Page vii 27. SITE SECURITY ....................................................................................................... 42 27.1 Security Objective ....................................................................................................... 42 27.2 Security Fencing ......................................................................................................... 42 27.3 Security Staffing .......................................................................................................... 42 27.4 Security Lighting ......................................................................................................... 42 28. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 42 28.1 Cultural Resource Preservation Objective ................................................................. 42 28.2 Employee Access ....................................................................................................... 42 28.3 Archaeology ................................................................................................................ 42 29. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................................ 43 29.1 Traffic Objective .......................................................................................................... 43 29.2 Access Route .............................................................................................................. 43 29.3 Landfill Access Road .................................................................................................. 43 29.4 Landfill Entrance ......................................................................................................... 44 29.5 Bailey Road, Pittsburg city limits to the Landfill Entrance ......................................... 44 29.6 Bailey Road Pavement Study .................................................................................... 44 29.7 Road Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 44 29.8 Highway 4/Bailey Road Interchange.......................................................................... 45 29.9 Peak Period Traffic Management .............................................................................. 45 29.10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ...................................................................... 46 30. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN ................................................................ 46 30.1 Final Site Services and Utilities Plan ......................................................................... 46 30.2 Water Service Component ......................................................................................... 46 30.3 On-site Water Wells .................................................................................................... 46 30.4 Public Water Supply Option ....................................................................................... 46 30.5 Fire Protection Component ........................................................................................ 47 30.6 Fire District Programs ................................................................................................. 47 30.7 Construction Timing .................................................................................................... 47 30.8 On-Site Water Storage ............................................................................................... 47 30.9 Fire Fighting Water Main ............................................................................................ 47 30.10 Fire Cover ................................................................................................................... 47 30.11 Fire Fighting Appliance ............................................................................................... 47 30.12 Fire Breaks .................................................................................................................. 48 30.13 Fire Extinguishers ....................................................................................................... 48 30.14 Use of Reclaimed Water for Landscaping ................................................................. 48 30.15 Equipment and Cleaning ............................................................................................ 48 30.16 Smoldering Loads ....................................................................................................... 48 30.17 Emergency Equipment Access .................................................................................. 48 30.18 Smoking Prohibitions .................................................................................................. 48 30.19 Toilets .......................................................................................................................... 48 30.20 On-site Septic System ................................................................................................ 48 30.21 Sewer Line .................................................................................................................. 49 31. WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ........................................ 49 31.1 Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Objective ............................................... 49 31.2 1990-1995 Resource Recovery Program .................................................................. 49 31.3 1996-2000 Resource Recovery Program .................................................................. 49 Page viii 31.4 Materials Recovery ..................................................................................................... 49 31.5 Composting Project .................................................................................................... 50 31.6 Wood Chipping ........................................................................................................... 50 31.7 Methane Recovery ..................................................................................................... 50 31.8 Equipment Maintenance ............................................................................................ 51 31.9 County Resource Recovery Management Program ................................................. 51 31.10 Fund Recovery ........................................................................................................... 51 32. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND CONDITIONS .............................................. 51 32.1 Hours of Construction ................................................................................................. 51 32.2 Exemption ................................................................................................................... 51 32.3 Access Roads ............................................................................................................. 52 32.4 Phasing Plan ............................................................................................................... 52 32.5 Unstable areas ............................................................................................................ 52 32.6 Dust Suppression ....................................................................................................... 52 33. CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE .............................................. 52 33.1 Submittal of Plan ......................................................................................................... 52 33.2 Funding of Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan ........................................... 52 33.3 Revision to Plan and Cost Estimates ......................................................................... 53 33.4 Staged Closure of the Landfill .................................................................................... 53 33.5 Use of Landfill Following Closure ............................................................................... 53 33.6 Postclosure Maintenance ........................................................................................... 53 34. ABANDONED VEHICLE STORAGE ...................................................................... 53 34.1 Storage Requirement ................................................................................................. 53 34.2 Off-site Storage Option ............................................................................................... 54 35. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ............................................................... 54 35.1 Transportation System Impact Fee ............................................................................ 54 35.2 Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee ........................................................ 54 35.3 Property Value Compensation Program .................................................................... 54 35.4 Resource Recovery Program Fee ............................................................................. 55 35.5 Violation of Prescribed Haul Route ............................................................................ 55 35.6 Direct Property Acquisition Study .............................................................................. 55 35.7 Adjoining Sites ............................................................................................................ 56 35.8 Mitigation Fee ............................................................................................................. 56 36. LANDFILL GAS POWER PLANT ........................................................................... 56 36.1 Power Plant Design .................................................................................................... 56 36.2 Ultimate Responsibility ............................................................................................... 56 36.3 Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit .................................................................... 56 36.4 Violation/Revocation ................................................................................................... 57 36.5 System Safety ............................................................................................................. 57 36.6 Equipment and System Monitoring ............................................................................ 57 36.7 Engines ....................................................................................................................... 57 36.8 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 57 36.9 Emergency Response ................................................................................................ 57 36.10 Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release ..................................................... 57 36.11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). ..................................................... 57 36.12 Facility Design ............................................................................................................ 57 Page ix 36.13 Power Plant Landscape Plan ..................................................................................... 58 36.14 Construction ................................................................................................................ 58 36.15 Material Recycling. ..................................................................................................... 58 36.16 Implementation & Compliance Monitoring. ................................................................ 58 36.17 Surcharge. .................................................................................................................. 58 History of Revisions .......................................................................................................... 59 Page 1 1. SHORT TITLE 1.1 Short Title. The Keller Canyon Landfill project is henceforth referred to in this document as the Landfill. 2. RESPONSIBILITY 2.1 Ultimate Responsibility. The conditions of approval identify the Landfill developer as the party responsible for implementing conditions involving construction and improvements, and the Landfill operator for implementing conditions involving maintenance and management. Regardless of these identifications, the Landfill owner shall be responsible for complying with all conditions. 2.2 Transfer of Ownership. The Land Use Permit for the Landfill shall run with the land; however, a new owner shall be responsible for notifying the County Community Development Department of any change in ownership. A change in ownership shall be interpreted to mean the acquisition of 5 percent or more of the value of the Landfill site covered by this Land Use Permit. (It is noted that other permits may not necessarily run with the land.) 2.3 Assignment of Responsibility. a) The Board may assign the responsibility of administering specific Conditions of Approval or provisions of this LUP, such as State Minimum Standards, to County Departments or other units of government. b) The Board may suspend the implementation of conditions or provisions of this LUP where such conditions or provisions are inconsistent with the terms of a contract or agreement entered into between the Board and the operator or other units of government, or by the terms of a joint powers agreement where the County is a member of the joint powers agency. This would not alleviate the need to comply with the public approval process required when amending this LUP. Any Board approved suspension would automatically be nullified at such time as the contract or agreement no longer includes terms inconsistent with the specified condition. c) For the purposes of Condition 2.3(b), the Franchise Agreement between the County and the Landfill Owner as amended in November 1994, is an eligible contract. d) If no contract or agreement is in force, as referred to in Condition 2.3(b), Page 2 the County retains authority to implement this LUP and all of its Conditions. 3. COMPLIANCE 3.1 Compliance Objective. The Landfill developer and operator shall at all times comply with the requirements of laws and permits applicable to the facility. This condition is not intended to grant authority or assign responsibility to the County for the independent enforcement of regulatory and permitting requirements that fall within the primary jurisdiction of other agencies (see Condition 11.11). 3.2 Design Standard. The Landfill developer shall design the Landfill facility to meet the requirements of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board for a Class II waste disposal facility. 3.3 State Minimum Standards. The operation and maintenance of this facility shall at all times comply with Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal (California Code of Regulations, Title 14 and Title 27). 3.4 Land Use Permits. The Landfill developer and operator shall at all times comply with the provisions and requirements of this Land Use Permit. A violation of any of these conditions may be cause for revocation of the Land Use Permit pursuant to County Code Section 418-4.020 following reasonable written notice. Alternatively, the County has the option of issuing formal notices and assessing penalties pursuant to Section 4.19 of the Landfill Franchise Agreement or County Code Chapter 14-6, Civil Enforcement. 3.5 Solid Waste Facilities Permit. The Landfill operator shall conform to all provisions and requirements of the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, and any related directives of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) or Contra Costa Environmental Health, as the Local Enforcement Agency for CalRecycle. 3.6 Class II Landfill Requirements. The Landfill operator shall at all times comply with the Class II waste disposal facility provisions and requirements of Article 3, Chapter 15 of Title 23 and Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. 3.7 Other Regulatory Agencies' Requirements. The Landfill operator shall at all times comply with the provisions and requirements of other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the facility. 3.8 Utilities, Service Districts, and Government Agencies' Requirements. The Page 3 Landfill developer or operator shall at all times comply with the regulations and requirements of utilities, districts, or agencies which have jurisdiction over the installation of improvements or provide services to the landfill. 3.9 Notice Coordination. The Landfill operator shall notify the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) in writing at the time any report is submitted to other agencies concerning the design, operation, and maintenance of the Landfill. Copies shall be made available or mailed to DCD offices at 30 Muir Road in Martinez upon request. 3.10 Monitoring and Inspection. All monitoring reports and results of inspection or analysis shall be made available to the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. Any indication of an emergency or other serious problem relating to public health and safety shall be reported at once. 3.11 Master Chart. The Landfill operator will maintain for reference a master chart showing schedules and results of preparation, operation, monitoring and reporting in all major phases of the facility. 4. VALIDITY PERIOD 4.1 Validity Period. The Landfill developer shall install pre-requisite improvements and open the Landfill for receiving refuse within three years of the final approval of the project's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. This validity period shall be tolled while any appeal filed by parties other than the Landfill developer is pending. The Landfill developer may request from the Director of Community Development one or more one-year extensions of the Land Use Permit. If the Land Use Permit is not implemented within the specified time, it shall become null and void. The Director of Community Development may allow each one-year extension if the Director finds that there are changed circumstances which warrant the consideration of changes to the Conditions of Approval. 4.2 Operative Date. This Land Use Permit is valid upon approval by the Board of Supervisors. However, it shall not become operative until and unless the permittee (landfill owner, etc.) first obtains and the Board of Supervisors grants a franchise to or approves an agreement with permittee (see Section 13, Franchise Agreements). 5. SERVICE AREA 5.1 Area of Origin. The Landfill operator shall not refuse to receive eligible wastes Page 4 or cover materials which originate in Contra Costa County provided such wastes or materials are delivered to the facility in accordance with these Conditions of Approval and the landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit, and provided that the required governmental fees are paid. Rate setting requirements are specified in the Landfill Franchise Agreement and Section 12 of this Land Use Permit. 5.2 Out-of-County Wastes. INVALIDATED BY LEGISLATURE 5.3 Sub-County Service Area. If there is more than one Class II or Class III landfills operating in Contra Costa County, the Board of Supervisors may establish sub-County service areas for each on a temporary or long-term basis. If the Board has established a sub-County service area for the Landfill, the operator shall not accept waste for disposal from outside such area. 5.4 Reciprocal Capacity Agreement. The Landfill operator shall receive waste from outside Contra Costa County if in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Reciprocal Capacity Agreement entered into by Contra Costa County with another county. Waste shall be received upon reasonable notice to the Landfill operator and the Board of Supervisors and direction by the Board to the Landfill operator as to the terms and conditions under which the waste will be received. The Board may specify disposal charges which are applicable only to the waste received under the Reciprocal Capacity Agreement. 5.5 Pre-Requisite Curbside Recycling Program. The Landfill shall not admit for disposal waste loads from communities which do not have an eligible curbside recycling or equivalent program as determined by the Department of Conservation and Development. An eligible program shall recover a range of recyclable materials consistent with a curbside recycling program operating pursuant to a Board of Supervisors-approved franchise agreement.. The Board of Supervisors has the discretion to identify additional factors to be considered when determining eligibility. The Board retains the authority to approve community programs previously deemed to be ineligible by the Department of Conservation and Development. 6. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE WASTES 6.1 Eligible Wastes. The Landfill operator shall allow only wastes eligible for disposal in a Class II facility, as defined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to be admitted to the landfill. The wastes admitted to the landfill shall also be consistent with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit (07-AA-0032), administered by Contra Costa Environmental Health, and consistent with the 1990 Environmental Impact Report and Board of Supervisors' policies and Page 5 approvals (including the Board of Supervisors conditional authorization in 1992-93 to accept special wastes and limited direct haul – see Conditions 8.5 through 8.7) and these conditions of approval. To the extent allowed by law, the Board of Supervisors may direct the Landfill operator not to accept wastes that do not meet State and County policies and regulations. 6.2 Designated Wastes. The Landfill operator shall allow only those designated wastes (as defined in Section 20210 of Title 27, of the California Code of Regulations and Section 13173 of the California Water Code) approved for this facility by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and shall be consistent with the waste types allowed for disposal pursuant to Condition 6.1. The Board of Supervisors may designate special rates for this waste to the extent allowed pursuant to the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement. 6.3 Infectious Wastes. The Landfill operator shall accept only those infectious wastes identified in, and disposed of in accordance with the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. 6.4 Ineligible Wastes. The Landfill operator shall not allow the following wastes to be disposed at the landfill: a) Hazardous or toxic wastes. b) Radioactive wastes. c) Liquid wastes, other than utility sludges meeting Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. d) Other ineligible wastes specified in the Solid Waste Facilities permit administered by the County Health Services Department. 6.5 Emergency Use. If the service area of the Landfill is determined to be a sub- area of the County, the County Department of Conservation and Development or Contra Costa Environmental Health may allow legal waste originating in areas of Contra Costa County, other than those stipulated in Section 5, to have access to the landfill for periods up to 180 days on an emergency basis. The department(s) may grant one extension for no longer than 180 days. The Board of Supervisors may allow the emergency use of the landfill to continue for any time period deemed necessary. 6.6 Hazardous Waste Screening and Management. See Condition 19. 6.7 Area of Origin Restrictions. See Condition 5. Page 6 7. LOAD INSPECTION 7.1 Eligible Vehicles and Loads. The Landfill operator shall screen loads to limit to the extent practicable the intake of ineligible waste. Prior to receiving waste, the Landfill operator shall prepare in writing a program for identifying eligible vehicles and screening loads at the Landfill entrance, random sampling and inspection for ineligible wastes, and checking loads at the Landfill disposal area. The Load Inspection program shall include inspection for hazardous wastes and procedures for their handling and off-site disposal consistent with the Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department and the County Community Development Department. 7.2 Load Covering. The Landfill operator shall spot check all incoming waste- hauling vehicles for proper covering or containerization consistent with the requirements of Section 418-2.008(a) of the County Code. The operator shall identify any waste loads which are susceptible to littering or leakage because of the lack of covering, inadequate covering, or disrepair of screens, covers or containers. Customers delivering any such waste loads shall be required to provide evidence that corrective actions have been taken to effectively cover and contain waste loads (e.g. waste adequately secured with covers and containers in good repair) in order to be eligible to deliver waste loads in the future. Landfill operator shall track and report applicable details about the occurrences and corrective actions taken to the County Department of Conservation and Development annually. 8. ELIGIBLE REFUSE TRANSPORT VEHICLES 8.1 Eligible Vehicles. The Landfill operator shall admit only the following refuse transport vehicles: a) Transfer station trucks (vans). Transfer stations shall have a Waste Management Program, which includes hazardous waste screening and resource recovery operations. Program may be subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors if deemed necessary for consistency with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. b) Demolition and construction material trucks hauling debris that would not be recycled or otherwise diverted from disposal if processed at a local Transfer Station. There are waste reduction requirements that apply to such wastes generated by businesses and industries, therefore the operator shall assist the County to help ensure compliance with such requirements or goals through implementation and compliance with Conditions 8.5 – 8.7. Page 7 c) Incinerated sewage sludge-hauling trucks originating at utilities. d) Sewage and water treatment plant sludge and other byproduct trucks with loads complying with San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Boards solids-to-liquid requirements. e) Trucks hauling Designated Wastes approved for this landfill by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. f) Other specialized waste transport trucks, hauling wastes identified in the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit which cannot be feasibly processed to increase diversion through a Transfer Station. 8.2 Service Area Restriction. See Section 5. 8.3 Emergency Exemption. See Condition 6.5. 8.4 Reciprocal Use Exemption. See Condition 5.4. 8.5 Direct Haul. Only wastes in the prescribed vehicles which would not be recycled or otherwise diverted from disposal if processed through a local transfer station may be considered for direct haul pursuant to the Procedures specified in Condition 8.6. At least once per year, the Landfill operator shall submit an updated list of waste and material types recovered prior to transfer for disposal at the landfill if contained in loads delivered to any of the local transfer stations open to the public. The annual list shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development and is intended to be used when screening direct haul eligibility pursuant to Condition 8.6(g). Loads containing materials that will be used as cover or otherwise beneficially reused on-site and treated as diversion under the Integrated Waste Management Act may be direct hauled without going through a transfer station. New Conditions 8.5 – 8.8 do not take effect until 18 months from September 22, 2015, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors approval in conjunction with the Permit Review for Land Use Permit 2020-89. 8.6 Direct Haul Procedures. Direct haul process and materials shall be consistent with the Solid Waste Facility Permit (No. 07-AA-0032), this LUP, and applicable policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors including those identified in 8.6(k) below. The operator shall ensure new customers receive information consistent with i) and j) prior to gaining access to the site. The operator shall conduct screening procedures specified in a) through h) prior to allowing customers to direct haul waste/material loads to the landfill. Operator shall provide written confirmation that eligibility has been demonstrated consistent with these procedures prior to loads being accepted Page 8 for disposal. Operator shall summarize results of direct haul eligibility screening completed each quarter in the direct haul reports required under Condition 8.7. a) Name of company and physical location at which the waste or material was generated. b) Complete description of waste including chemical analysis and solids- to-liquid ratio when appropriate. c) Description of originator’s in-house waste inspection program(s) to ensure screening for hazardous and/or toxic materials or originator’s written confirmation that their practices comply with uniform waste inspection program prepared by the Landfill operator. d) Description of volume and expected frequency of waste to be hauled and a description of the specialized waste transport vehicle(s) to be utilized. e) Description of the waste originator’s in-house waste reduction and recycling program(s) or originator’s written confirmation that their practices comply with a uniform waste reduction and recycling plan to be prepared by Landfill operator and approved by the Department of Conservation and Development. f) Originator’s or transporter’s affirmation to adhere to County imposed haul route and peak hour hauling restrictions. g) Written confirmation by the Landfill operator that the waste or material is not on the approved annual list described in condition 8.5, and h) Written waste eligibility determination from Keller Canyon Landfill Company based on a) through g) above. i) Requirements of Keller Canyon Landfill Company describing contract for landfill use, rules and regulations of the landfill (e.g. on-site speed limit), prescribed haul route, load inspection program, driver training program, and any other such information as required. j) Requirements for proper load covering or containerization and consequences for non-compliance specified in Condition 7.2. k) Any other information required by the Director of Conservation and Development, or by the actions of the Board on August 11, 1992 October 27, 1992, November 24, 1992, August 17, 1993 and Page 9 December 14, 1993. New Conditions 8.5 – 8.8 do not take effect until 18 months from September 22, 2015, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors approval in conjunction with the Permit Review for Land Use Permit 2020-89. 8.7 Direct Haul Reports. The Landfill operator shall submit quarterly direct haul reports to the Department of Conservation and Development. The quarterly reports shall contain details about all direct haul loads, including the date accepted, customer (company) name, waste type, tonnage, location and jurisdiction of waste/material origin (city and county) and end use (disposal, cover or other on-site beneficial reuse). Summarized results of all direct haul eligibility screening conducted during each period shall be submitted in conjunction with the quarterly waste origin reports. The quarterly reports shall also identify the total tonnage of municipal solid waste (Class III waste) received that quarter, total tonnage of Class II wastes received that quarter, and the percentage of total waste received which is characterized as Class II. If determined necessary by DCD, additional reporting information or more frequent reporting may be required in the future. New Conditions 8.5 – 8.8 do not take effect until 18 months from September 22, 2015, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors approval in conjunction with the Permit Review for Land Use Permit 2020-89. 8.8 Emergency Direct Haul. In the event that a natural disaster or other emergency prevents the timely processing of wastes through a transfer station before disposal at the landfill, such waste or loads may be considered for direct haul. The landfill operator shall submit a written request to the County Department of Conservation and Development when circumstances or conditions warrant, or may warrant, emergency direct haul to the landfill. The landfill operator shall not proceed with emergency direct haul until written approval has been provided by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development. The landfill operator shall submit an incident report describing the basis for emergency direct haul and the contingency actions taken. New Conditions 8.5 – 8.8 do not take effect until 18 months from September 22, 2015, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors approval in conjunction with the Permit Review for Land Use Permit 2020-89. 9. OPERATING PARAMETERS 9.1 Hours of Operation. The Landfill operator shall not open the landfill to receive waste loads before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Refuse shall be covered by 7:30 p.m. at which time working lights shall be extinguished. Entry and security lights shall be dimmed at 7:30 p.m. Other hours of operation, within those parameters, may be specified by the County Health Services Page 10 Department or in the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. Special loads may be received at other times in accordance with procedures established by Contra Costa Environmental Health or the Department of Conservation & Development. The Director of Conservation and Development may administratively shorten or extend the hours of operations prescribed above after consultation with the Landfill operator, Contra Costa Environmental Health, and the City of Pittsburg, after holding a public hearing to obtain the comments of other interested parties. To shorten the hours of operation, the Director of Conservation and Development shall find that the changes are needed to mitigate substantial noise, traffic, or similar impacts arising from the operation of the Landfill which were not known when this Land Use Permit was adopted. To extend the hours of operation, the Director of Conservation and Development shall find that longer hours will not cause traffic, noise, glare, or similar impacts of Landfill operations to substantially increase in the vicinity of the Landfill. Exceptions to this limitation may be granted in response to natural disasters or other emergencies if deemed warranted by the Director of Conservation and Development if required to address any applicable officially declared disaster. 9.2 Operating Days. The landfill shall remain open for operation six days a week except on Holidays. It shall close on Sundays. Exceptions to this limitation may be granted in response to natural disasters or other emergencies if deemed warranted by the Director of Conservation and Development. 9.3 Maximum Daily Tonnage. The landfill may accept for disposal a maximum of 3,500 tons of refuse per day. The Board of Supervisors shall review and revise, if necessary, the maximum allowable tonnages per day. If the Board establishes sub-County service areas, maximum tonnages for each landfill may be prorated to reflect their service areas. The Board may increase the maximum daily tonnages, if necessary, to reflect Reciprocal Capacity Agreements or emergency measures. Exceptions to this limitation may be granted in response to natural disasters or other emergencies if deemed warranted by the Director of Conservation and Development. The Landfill operator shall submit quarterly reports to the Department of Conservation and Development solely showing daily waste tonnage accepted for disposal. 9.4 Minimum Buffer Zone. The Landfill developer shall reserve a minimum buffer of 2,000 feet from the closest place of permanent waste placement to the closest existing residence on Jacqueline Drive. 9.5 Special Buffer Area. No residential housing shall be permitted at any time in the special buffer area. See Condition 23.2. Page 11 9.6 Dedication of Special Buffer Area. At the time of the submission of the landfill's Development and Improvement Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 7050, the landfill owner shall offer to dedicate the fee title of the land within the Special Buffer Area to the County of Contra Costa for recordation. The County may accept the fee title and complete the dedication subsequent to the opening of the landfill for the disposal of waste. In making the offer of dedication the Landfill owner may reserve the rights to carry out mitigation programs required by these Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval, and as may be further detailed in implementation plans required to be prepared by these Conditions within the Special Buffer Area. The Landfill operator may perform grading and make installations, such as drainage ditches within the Special Buffer Area related to the landfill facility, provided that the grading and installations are consistent with the approved final Development and Improvements Plan and do not impair the capability of the Area to accommodate agricultural grazing and provide habitat mitigation consistent with these Conditions of Approval. Similarly, the Landfill operator shall be allowed to carry out closure and post-closure activities related to the landfill or the Special Buffer Area provided that such activities are consistent with a County-approved closure plan and with the uses of the land allowed by these Conditions of Approval. The County may require the Landfill operator to maintain the Special Buffer Area, subsequent to dedication, at the operator's expense. Maintenance shall include security, weed control, erosion control and the provision of fire trails. 10. WASTE MEASUREMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION 10.1 Volume Estimation. The Landfill operator shall prepare reports annually estimating the remaining landfill site life (years) and capacity (cubic yards and tons). Reports shall be submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development by March 1st of each year. The Landfill operator shall also submit an initial topographic map prior to receiving wastes. 10.2 Scales. The Landfill developer shall install certified scale(s) at the landfill to weigh incoming and outgoing trucks. A weighing program, subject to approval by the County Department of Health Services and Director of Weights and Measures, shall be implemented to monitor incoming wastes. 10.3 Waste Characterization. The Landfill operator shall participate with transfer station operators serving the landfill in a tracking and reporting program to characterize incoming wastes by generator (customer) name, type, amount, and originating community and perform detailed load inspections on vehicles according to a program specified by the Department of Conservation and Development. Reports shall be submitted to the Department of Conservation Page 12 and Development on a quarterly basis on or before the landfill reporting deadlines specified in the Disposal Reporting regulations (Title 14). 11. ADMINISTRATION 11.1 Permit Review. The Landfill operator shall submit reports to the Department of Conservation and Development summarizing the compliance status for these Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval annually unless otherwise specified by the Director of Conservation and Development. The Board of Supervisors will hold annual public hearings to review the Conditions of Approval for this Land Use Permit for three years beginning one year after the commencement of operations of the Landfill. The Board may refer proposed changes to the Land Use Permit to the County Planning Commission for processing. Thereafter, the County Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on the Land Use Permit at three-year intervals. As a result of a review and public hearing, the County Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Supervisors new or modified conditions to improve the public health, safety, and welfare or in response to court decisions or regulatory changes. Nothing in this condition shall preclude the Landfill owner from applying for amendments to the Land Use Permit at any time or preclude the County from addressing emergency situations or new requirements imposed by State or Federal legislation or the courts. 11.2 Local Advisory Committee. The Department of Conservation and Development shall organize, and the Landfill developer shall participate in a local advisory committee, consisting of elected representatives of local residents and neighborhood associations, to comment and advise on the development of the landfill and its operations. The Board of Supervisors may sanction the Local Advisory Committee as an official County committee. The committee shall be established as soon as reasonably possible after the Board of Supervisors' approval of this Land Use Permit, if such approval is forthcoming. Meetings shall be initiated following the approval of a Land Use Permit and shall be held at least quarterly through the first two years of landfill operation. Subsequently, meetings may be held annually, but with the provision for meetings on call by the chair or the written request of 3 or more members unless otherwise specified by the County Board of Supervisors. The County Health Services Department shall be notified at least 10 days in advance of all meetings. Subjects for consideration at meetings will include, but shall not be limited to safety and emergency procedures, landfill fill-related traffic problems, screening of visual impacts and problems of litter, odor, and noise control. Meeting agenda also may include discussion of reports on the landfill construction, operation and maintenance. The Landfill operator shall provide reasonable access to the landfill arranged through the Conservation and Development Department. A surcharge on the tipping fee may be used Page 13 to fund the advisory group's operations. 11.3 Insurance and/or Bonding. The applicant shall provide the insurance and bonds specified by the units of government having approval authority over the project. The applicant/operator is obligated to comply with additional County specified insurance and bonding requirements pursuant to Article 12 of the First Amended Landfill Franchise Agreement. Subjects may include continuity of landfill operation, non-compliance, emergency measures, construction performance, landscaping and closure. 11.4 Notification Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a program to notify potential customers and periodically remind existing customers of the landfill’s opening and closing times, and the conditions of its use, including waste reduction and recycling requirements, load covering requirements, site access regulations, truck maintenance to conserve fuel and a detailed list of prohibited hazardous wastes and alternative disposal options. Customers shall also be notified and periodically reminded of waste acceptance eligibility criteria so that refuse loads containing materials on the list approved annually pursuant to Condition 8.5 are not being brought directly to the landfill. The program should be prepared in conjunction with the operator(s) of the transfer station(s) serving the landfill consistent with the Board of Supervisors’ policies on direct haul (see Conditions 8.5 through 8.7). It shall be approved by the County Department of Conservation and Development. 11.5 Development Coordinator. The Landfill owner shall provide a fund to support a County Landfill Development Coordinator, if the County establishes the position, through the period of construction and landfill operations. The Coordinator shall be a staff member or a consultant. The owner shall make quarterly advance payments. The Landfill developer and operator shall provide such information as the Development Coordinator may require to review plans and installations under the purview of the County, except that any requirements for additional studies shall be subject to the approval of the County's Director of Community Development. 11.6 Compliance and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Landfill operator shall fund the County Department of Conservation and Development’s program for monitoring of compliance with these Conditions of Approval and the Environmental Impact Report’s mitigation monitoring program. 11.7 Pre-Annexation Notification. If the Landfill owner decides to request annexation of the Landfill to a city, the owner shall notify the Board of Supervisors at least 180 days in advance of filing any application for such Page 14 annexation. The Board may require the Landfill owner to consult with it or County staff to determine how solid waste management programs specified in these Conditions of Approval would be carried out subsequent to annexation. In no case shall the annexation relieve the Landfill operator of the financial responsibilities, including payment to the County of mitigation fees, specified in these Conditions. 11.8 Fee and Surcharge Identification. The Landfill operator (permittee) shall not identify the costs of public agency (County, etc.) fees, charges, or surcharges on bills and receipts issued to landfill users without first obtaining the specific written approval of the County. 11.9 Interpretation of Conditions. The Community Development Department Director is authorized to interpret these Conditions in the event that any clarification is needed. 11.10 Conditions Requiring Franchise. Conditions of Approval 4.2, Operative Date, and 13.4, Franchise Agreement Requirement, require a franchise or agreement to be established by this County. All of the terms of said franchise or agreement shall be subordinate to these Conditions of Approval, and these Conditions of Approval shall control in the case of any conflict unless otherwise provided for pursuant to Condition 2.3. There shall be no need to amend these Conditions of Approval or the franchise in the event of such a conflict. 11.11 Regulations Enforced by Other Agencies. Several of these Conditions of Approval relate, paraphrase or summarize laws and regulations which are imposed and enforced by other governmental agencies which have jurisdiction over particular aspects of this project. It is this Board's intent in adopting these Conditions of Approval to provide the applicant and the public with an overview of the scope of regulation applicable to this project and to provide this County with the authority to exercise enforcement power if deemed necessary in response to violations of such laws and regulations enforced by other agencies. Unless specifically stated in the Conditions of Approval, however, it is not this Board's intent to establish rules or regulations which are stricter than the laws or regulations which are applied to this project by the other agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of this project. If another agency primarily responsible for some aspect of this project finds that any action or inaction is in compliance with, or violates, any such law or regulation, that finding shall be conclusive. If these Conditions of Approval require some approval by any other agency and that agency declines to approve or disapprove the subject matter, such approval shall be deemed to have been given for purposes of these Conditions of Approval. 11.12 Required Expenditures. This Board does not intend, by requiring the Page 15 applicant to fund various measures, to make any decision regarding whether or not, or how, any expenditures incurred may be recovered through the rate structure or otherwise by the applicant. Any such decision by this Board shall be reserved for its consideration in the franchise or agreement. No inference regarding this issue is to be drawn from this Board's use of any particular terminology in these Conditions of Approval. 11.13 Designation of Authority. In any instance where a Condition of Approval provides that this Board will decide or act upon a certain matter, this Board may delegate the initial decision making or action with respect to that matter to the Director of Conservation and Development or such other designee as this Board determines to be appropriate, provided that there shall be a right of appeal to this Board from any decision to the Director of Conservation and Development or other designee. 12. RATE REVIEW 12.1 Rate Approval. a) The Board of Supervisors may at its discretion review and approve all rates charged by the landfill operator at the landfill to the extent allowed by the terms of the applicable Franchise Agreement. The rates established by the Board shall be the maximum rates. b) The landfill operator shall at all times maintain on file with the County, a current schedule of Base Rates and Gate Rates charged to each customer as required in Section 6.6 of the Landfill Franchise Agreement. c) As provided for in Condition 2.3, where there is an inconsistency between the requirement(s) of this or any other rate setting Condition in Section 12 and the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement which granted the operator sole discretion over setting the base gate rate charged to customers, the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement shall supersede the applicable language in Condition 12.1(a) and 12.2 - 12.6 until such inconsistency no longer exists pursuant to Condition 2.3(d). 12.2 Rate Review. If the Board of Supervisors elects to review and approve rates, it should be done annually in accordance with the rate review procedure established by the County. More frequent review of rates may occur if requested by the landfill operator and if the Board determines that changing circumstances warrant such review. The Board may also review rates more frequently if the Board determines that it is in the public interest to do so Page 16 pursuant to the terms of the Franchise Agreement for the landfill. 12.3 Form and Content of Rate Review Application. The landfill operator shall submit its rate application in a form and content as specified by the County. The Landfill operator shall provide any relevant rate and cost information requested by the County. Such application may require the landfill operator to submit the application on forms and/or using computer software provided by or specified by the County. The County shall have the right to inspect and audit all records of the landfill operators which support its rate review application. 12.4 Rate Application Guidelines. The rate application shall be designed to ensure reconciliation of rates with audited company financial statements; detailed year-to-year cost comparisons; documented guidelines for allowable expense categories, accounting methodologies, allowable management costs and other cost elements; unit usage and unit cost data on major expense items; calculation and reporting of company productivity statistics by cost category; and full documentation of assumptions and source materials. The rate application process shall also provide for comparative rate surveys with other similar operations. 12.5 Financial Statement. The landfill operator shall maintain full and complete accounting records in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals applied on a consistent basis. A financial statement for the proceeding fiscal year, in such form and providing such information as the Board may require, shall be submitted with each rate review application. The financial statement shall be prepared and certified by a Certified Public Accountant currently licensed to practice in the State of California. The County, through a Certified Public Accountant appointed by the County for that purpose, shall at all reasonable times have the right to inspect and audit the records of the landfill operator that supports the financial statements. The County reserves the right to determine which records are relevant. 12.6 Scope of Rates. The Board of Supervisors may require that the landfill operator include in its rates collection for purposes other than disposal including but not limited to, charges for funding of inspections, charges relating to origin of waste such as out-of-county waste, franchise or agreement fees, closure and postclosure maintenance of other landfills, solid waste management programs such as general litter pick-up, abandoned vehicle removal, solid waste planning, and any other conditions of approval. 13. FRANCHISE AGREEMENT 13.1 Franchise Compliance and Agreement. The Landfill operator shall be Page 17 subject to the terms and conditions of any franchise or agreement established by the Board of Supervisors. A draft franchise or agreement shall be submitted with or before the Final Development and Improvements Plan. 13.2 Assignment. The landfill operator and the landfill owners shall not assign or subcontract the franchise or agreement, any part of the franchise or agreement or any obligation of the franchise or agreement without written prior consent of the Board of Supervisors. Unless otherwise specified in the franchise agreement, the term "assignment" shall include any dissolution, merger, consolidation or reorganization of the landfill's ownership or the sale or other transfer of the controlling percentage of the owner's stock in the landfill or the sale of 51% of the value of the assets of the landfill's owners. 13.3 Contents. The franchise or agreement may contain such provisions as the Board deems necessary, including but not limited to complete indemnification of the County, liability insurance by type and amount, performance bond by type and amount, rights of the County to acquire ownership of the landfill, funding for mitigation and reimbursement of County costs, funding for closure or post-closure costs, franchise or agreement fee fees) rate review and approval procedure and determination of and consequences of breaches of the franchise. 13.4 Requirement. Permitee shall not establish, operate or carry on the business of a solid waste facility pursuant to this permit unless and until it has been first granted a franchise (or entered an agreement with the Board of Supervisors). 13.5 County Discretion. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Permit, Permittee acknowledges that the County's discretion to grant or deny one or more said exclusive, non-exclusive or otherwise franchises or similar agreements is not limited or abridged in any manner by this Permit; and that this Permit does not require the approval of any such franchise or agreement. County reserves the right as part of the negotiation and entry of any such franchise or agreement to enter a public-private partnership with the Permitee for the project and/or to pursue the rights of the County to acquire ownership of the Landfill. 14. LAND USE PERMIT PLAN CONSTITUENTS 14.1 Initial Development and Improvements Plan. The Initial Development and Improvements Plan approved by this Land Use Permit, and modified by these Conditions of Approval, shall consist of the following schematic plans included in the applicant's January 31, 1989 entitlement application, the Keller Canyon Landfill Comprehensive Project Description (February 1989) and addendum (December 1989), and the 3-volume Site Characterization Report (September Page 18 1989). a) Grading/Excavation Plans with fill limits for each phase. b) Layout for Groundwater Collection System. c) Liner System Cross-section and Installation Sequence. d) Leachate Collection System Layout Plan. e) Gas Collection Layout Plans for each phase. f) Surface Water Drainage Plan. g) Facilities Site Plan for Operations and Maintenance. h) Leachate, Landfill, Gas and Water Storage Facility. i) Landfill Access Road Plans Profiles, Typical Section. j) Bailey Road Plan and Typical Section. k) Landscape Facilities Site Plan for Operations and Maintenance. l) Landscape Plan for Leachate, Landfill Gas and Water Storage Facilities. m) Landscape Plan. 14.2 Regulatory Agency Approvals. Subsequent to the approval of this Land Use Permit, the Landfill Developer shall obtain approvals from the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project, and obtain their detailed requirements for building, serving, and operating the Landfill. The approvals shall include, but are not limited to: a) Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Authority to Construct (and Authority to Operate Requirements) from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. c) Wetland Modification Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. d) Streambed Alteration Agreement from the State Department of Fish and Game. The Landfill developer shall notify the Department of Conservation and Development if proposed or adopted permit conditions or requirements of other regulatory agencies do not appear to be consistent with this Land Use Permit or the Landfill's Environmental Impact Report. The Landfill operator shall submit to the County copies of all new and modified permits or entitlements at the time each is issued or approved by the applicable regulatory agency. 14.3 Improvements Requirements. Subsequent to the approval of this Land Use Permit, the Landfill developer shall obtain approvals from the agencies, utilities, and parties having jurisdiction or control over the on-site and off-site Page 19 improvements required by this Land Use Permit or by agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over the project. The Landfill developer shall notify the Community Development Department if proposed or adopted Conditions or requirements do not appear to be consistent with this Land Use Permit or the Landfill's Environmental Impact Report. 15. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 15.1 Final Development and Improvements Plan. Subsequent to the approval of the Land Use Permit but prior to the commencement of any construction, the Landfill developer shall submit a Development and Improvements Plan to the Community Development Department and obtain the approval of the Director of Community Development. The Development and Improvements Plan shall be consistent with the project approved by the Land Use Permit, but prepared to a level of detail appropriate for the review of the engineering and construction of the project's on-site and off-site improvements. It shall be internally consistent with the project's Environmental Impact Report findings, these Conditions of Approval, regulatory agencies and others having discretionary approvals over the project, and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued by the County Health Services Department. The Community Development Department will coordinate the review of the plan by the Health Services Department, the Public Works Department, and other appropriate units of government. The Landfill developer shall comply with all provisions of the final Developments and Improvements Plan. The Development and Improvements Plan shall include: a) Site Development Plan, as described in the following sections. b) A Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan, (Section 18). c) An Agricultural and Habitat Enhancement Plan, (Section 23). d) A Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Program, (Section 31). e) A Landscape (screening) Plan, (Section 22). f) A Landfill Gas Management/Air Quality Monitoring/Odor Control Plan, Section 20). g) A Leachate Management Plan, (Section 17). h) A Site Services and Utilities Plan (Section 30). i) A Traffic/Circulation Plan, (Section 29). 15.2 In approving the Development and Improvements Plan, the Community Development Department Director may allow the Landfill developer to phase construction of landfill modules and other features, except where timing is specified in these conditions. The submittal of the Development and Improvements Plan components may reflect this phasing. Page 20 16. SLOPE AND SEISMIC STABILITY 16.1 Landfill Slopes Objective. Landfill slopes shall be engineered to provide static and dynamic (seismic) stability under design criteria for Class II Landfills. 16.2 Seismic Design. The Landfill, its drainage features and operating components (lifts, berms, liners, sediment pond, leachate and gas collection systems and major stockpiles) shall be designed to withstand earthquakes as specified in applicable regulations. The Landfill developer shall utilize a MCE (design earthquake) specified by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Landfill developer shall provide substantiation in the Final Development and Improvements Plan that the Landfill design will withstand the MCE. 16.3 Landslide Study. The Landfill developer shall employ a licensed geo- technical consultant to conduct a supplementary study of landslides and slope stability in areas of the site affected by Landfill and improvements grading. The study shall be performed by a licensed geotechnical professional. The study shall be subject to the approval of the County and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Landfill developer shall incorporate the results of the study into the site grading program and the designs of overlying structures, which shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 16.4 Geotechnical Inspector. The Landfill operator shall fund the costs of an independent geotechnical consultant, who shall be selected by and be responsible to the County. The Inspector shall inspect the installation and condition of liners, leachate control facilities and other installations, identified by the County, as they are installed and periodically thereafter as directed by the County. This provision shall remain in force over the life of the landfill. 16.5 Landfill Design Stability. The Landfill developer shall provide a static and dynamic stability analysis of the final engineering design of the Landfill and its appurtenant improvements. The stability analysis method and the resulting analysis shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and included in the Final Development and Improvements Plan. 16.6 Slope Monitoring. The Landfill operator shall install and maintain slope monitoring stakes on landslides and sensitive slopes which could affect an operating Landfill. The monitoring program shall be approved by the County Department of Conservation and Development. Page 21 16.7 Settlement Program. The Landfill developer shall implement a program to prevent fill settlement and an inspection program to detect and correct settlement problems. The developer shall compact the refuse and cover materials to maximum strength and design and maintain the necessary slope gradient to ensure proper surface water drainage. A network of settlement platforms shall be installed to monitor fill settlement at critical points. The station specifications and locations shall be included in the Improvements and Development Plan. The Settlement program shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16.8 Emergency Landslide and Earthquake Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement an emergency program for inspecting the Landfill facility, dealing with failures and providing for uninterrupted refuse handling for implementation following a landslide and/or earthquake. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Department of Conservation and Development, Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16.9 Settlement Pond Embankment Design. The Landfill developer shall design the settlement pond to control foundation seepage through the means of a filter or other materials. 16.10 Settlement Pond(s) Monitoring Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a failure prevention and warning system, including daily monitoring and visual inspection, for the sedimentation ponds. The program shall be approved by the County Community Development Department and shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 16.11 Stockpile Stability. Commencing with the onset of stockpiling, the Landfill operator shall continually analyze daily cover material stockpiles for stability to determine allowable heights and/or slopes. The results shall be available to the County Community Development Department and the County Health Services Department on demand. 16.12 Unstable Areas. Areas with landslide potential to affect landfill operations shall be stabilized through excavation or other methods such as compacting or the construction of retaining walls. Grading operations shall be performed in a manner which shall not destabilize slopes. 17. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 17.1 Groundwater Protection Objective. The Landfill shall not impair the beneficial uses of groundwater on the Landfill site or in its vicinity. The design and Page 22 monitoring of the Landfill shall be based upon the assumption of the existence of high permeability interconnecting cracks and fissures in the underlying strata allowing the potential of groundwater transmission. 17.2 Landfill Liner. The Landfill developer shall install a engineered liner system, including a clay liner and a high-density polyethylene liner, which meets State Class II Landfill standards. The liner shall be approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and its specifications and design shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. The liner shall be designed to withstand the Maximum Credible Earthquake as specified by the Regional Water quality Control Board. See Section 16. 17.3 Leachate Collection System. The Landfill developer shall install a leachate collection system which shall meet State Class II standards. The leachate collection system shall be approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and its specifications and design shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. Leachate shall be contained by a double liner system consisting of a two-foot thick layer of clay overlain by a synthetic membrane liner. Enclosed storage tank design for leachate treatment shall meet hazardous waste storage requirements, which includes a double liner system with perimeter berms. An emergency connector shall be installed between the pre- and post-treatment tanks in the event of an overflow situation. A tanker truck shall be readily available for emergency purposes. Measures shall be taken to limit leachate formation, such as prompt covering of waste and provision of surface water drainage away from landfill areas. 17.4 Surface Drainage System. Water collected in the underdrain system beneath the landfill shall be monitored on a regular basis specified by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. If contaminated, this water shall be treated as leachate. See Section 18.2. 17.5 Groundwater Monitoring. The Landfill developer shall install a groundwater monitoring system and implement a monitoring program, as required by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The monitoring stations' specifications, locations, and their frequency of monitoring shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. The proposed monitoring program shall be subject to review by the County Health Services Department and the County Community Development Department. 17.6 Downstream Well Monitoring. . The groundwater monitoring program shall include selected wells down gradient from the site. The wells shall be subject to approval by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Landfill operator shall sample and analyze water from these wells as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The location of these wells shall Page 23 be identified on the Development and Improvements Plan. 17.7 Baseline Water Characterization. The Landfill developer shall conduct a groundwater characterization study for at least a one-year period following the approval of the Land Use Permit. The procedures for the study shall be specified by the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department. 17.8 Liquid Waste Disposal. The Landfill operator shall comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for disposal of de- watered sewage and other utilities' sludges in the Landfill to prevent excess liquid concentrations. The Landfill operator shall not accept other liquid wastes. 17.9 Drainage Grading. The Landfill developer shall grade completed fill areas to convey surface run-off to ditches at the fill perimeter to limit infiltration into the Landfill. The grading specifications shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 17.10 Leachate Management. The Landfill operator may reapply leachate removed from the leachate collection sumps to the Landfill for absorption by solid waste, or arrange for its transportation (pretreated if necessary) to an appropriate treatment and disposal facility. If leachate is returned to the fill area, it shall be injected under the Landfill's cover rather than applied over its surface. The return of leachate to the Landfill shall be subject to the solids-to- liquids ratio restrictions defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department. If leachate is transported to an off-site disposal/treatment facility, it shall be pretreated on-site to meet all requirements of such facility before transport. If leachate build up becomes a problem, the County Health Services Department may require additional remedial measures, such as the placement of more soil cover, or the installment of a low-permeabiity earthen or synthetic cover. The Leachate Management Program shall be included as part of the Site Design Plan. 17.11 Water Balance Calculations. The Landfill operator shall provide water balance calculations, when requested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board or other applicable regulatory agency, to evaluate intermediate stages of Landfill operation to ensure the maintenance of a proper solids-to-liquid ratio. 17.12 Leachate Holding Tanks. Holding tanks for leachate shall be tested to ensure chemical compatibility to prevent chemical degradation of said tanks. The Landfill developer shall submit test results to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Services Department, prior to the Page 24 submission of the Development and Improvements Plan. 17.13 On-Site Water Supply Wells. The Landfill developer shall construct the proposed on-site water supply wells after a hydro-geologic investigation has determined flow direction and relationship between water bearing strata if any. Water supply wells shall utilize separate water bearing strata, and shall be sealed to prevent communication between shallow and deep ground water. The locations and characteristics of water supply wells shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan, and shall be subject to County Health Services Department and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board approval. Pump tests shall be provided for on-site wells located within 500 feet of any domestic well to evaluate interference between wells. 17.14 Off-Site Water Well Contamination. If the water quality of nearby domestic water supplies is impaired by Landfill leachate, the Landfill operator shall take immediate remedial action that is acceptable to the County Health Services Department and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The source of contamination shall be identified and immediately repaired. Remedial measures shall include but are not limited to extraction wells and slurry walls. The Landfill operator may be required to replace the impaired water supply. 17.15 Liner Installation Inspection. See Condition 16.4. 17.16 Secondary Containment. The Landfill developer shall construct a secondary containment system capable of containing 1.5 times the volume of each leachate-holding tank. 17.17 Working Face. The Landfill operator shall maintain a maximum daily working face of 3 acres or less in order to minimize surface water infiltration to the refuse, as well as to control dust and erosion, prevent vector proliferation, and minimize visual impacts. Exceptions to this limitation may be granted in response to natural disasters or other emergencies if deemed to be warranted by the Director of Conservation and Development. 18. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION 18.1 Surface Water Protection Objective. The Landfill shall not impair the beneficial uses of water bodies in the vicinity of the Landfill site. 18.2 Surface Drainage System. The Landfill operator shall install and maintain a Landfill surface drainage system which shall be designed to meet State Class II standards. It shall accommodate a 1,000-year, 24-hour design storm, as specified by the County Public Works Department and the San Francisco Page 25 Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). The drainage system shall convey surface water around the active fill area without contacting the working face or any solid waste. The surface drainage system shall be approved by the SFRWQCB and the County Department of Conservation and Development and included in the Development and Improvements Plan. Surface flow shall be evaluated further with groundwater levels and precipitation factors prior to construction, and findings incorporated into the final landfill design in order to lessen impacts to surface water flow. Flow rates and groundwater levels shall be monitored through the life of the landfill. If loss of surface flow is determined to have unforeseen impacts, a like amount of water shall be provided. 18.3 Creek Protection. The landfill shall be designed so leachate and other contaminated water does not flow into Lawlor Creek. See Section 23.3. 18.4 Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan, which shall be subject to the approval of the County Department of Conservation and Development. The plan shall include a Stability Analysis of proposed cut and fill slopes, and shall prevent substantial erosion on slopes on the project site and reduce the amounts of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. It shall include the components listed below, and it shall be included in the Final Improvements and Development Plan. a) Primary Grading. The Landfill developer shall perform primary grading for the project's fill modules, cover, roads, paved areas, building sites, and the construction of site slopes during the April through October low rainfall season. [RNGPFP – Section 37] b) Temporary Flow Restriction. If grading must be done during rainy periods, or if erosion is occurring on previously graded areas, the Landfill developer shall take corrective actions, which may include the installation of ground cloth or the placement of hay bales. [RNGPFP – Section 37] c) Ground Cover. The Landfill developer shall plant ground over on graded areas which are not to be developed within 90 days. The ground cover shall be consistent with the Landscaping Plan. [RNGPFP – Section 37] d) Ditch/Swale Liners. The Landfill developer shall line any ditches and swales for conveying surface runoff across sanitary Landfill areas to limit water infiltration. Drainage-ways across other areas shall be lined or planted to limit erosion. [RNGPFP – Section 37] e) Sedimentation Ponds. The Landfill developer shall install and maintain Page 26 a sedimentation pond system prior to other landfill development to hold and process drainage from the Landfill property which shall be designed to withstand the 1,000-year, 24-hour design storm and Maximum Credible Earthquake event. The Landfill developer shall develop a program for monitoring storage volumes in the sedimentation ponds and releasing water depending on expected rainfall. Flow rates for downstream discharge shall not exceed the 25- year, 24-hour design storm. The program shall include a preventive maintenance program which shall include a program for clearing of sedimentation ponds and maintenance of perimeter ditches and vegetative cover. The owner shall submit documentation to the Department of Conservation and Development to demonstrate that basin maintenance (e.g. dredging) has been completed as needed or required prior to the start of the rainy season (October 15th). The program shall be subject to approval from the County Department of Conservation and Development, Contra Costa Environmental Health, Public Works Department, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The efficacy of the Landfill surface water control system in reducing downstream flooding shall be addressed in the annual and triennial reviews required by Condition 11.1. f) Runoff Conveyance. Erosion to ditches or gullys used to convey runoff shall be corrected by use of appropriate measures such as energy dissipators or rip rap. [RNGPFP – Section 37] g) Equalization Basin. Water in contact with the working face area of the landfill shall be discharged into an equalization basin, monitored, and treated if necessary. 18.5 Monitoring. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a surface water monitoring program to check for possible contamination of off-site surface water drainage facilities. Baseline water quality shall be determined prior to project implementation. Sedimentation pond outflow shall be monitored. The monitoring program shall be subject to approval of the County Health Services Department, the County Community Development Department, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 19. HAZARDOUS WASTE 19.1 Hazardous Waste Ineligible. See Section 6.4. 19.2 Load Inspection. See Condition 7.1 19.3 Household Hazardous Waste Program. The Landfill operator shall develop a household hazardous waste collection and management program for the Page 27 service area which is consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and with the County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services and Community Development Department. The household hazardous waste shall be managed in accordance with the "Waste Minimization Hierarchy" identified in the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The operator is encouraged to develop the program in cooperation with other waste management facilities and collection services. The proposed program, along with a schedule of proposed costs and funding sources, shall be submitted to the County departments no later than 6 months prior to the opening of the landfill. The program shall include mechanisms for removing household hazardous waste from the waste stream which arrives at the facility. If the household hazardous waste program (or a version of it) is approved by the County Board of Supervisors, the Landfill operator shall implement it. The Landfill household hazardous waste program shall include a public information and education program approved by the County Health Services Department/County Hazardous Materials Commission for notifying facility users and households in its service area of what constitutes hazardous waste and how such wastes are to be disposed of. The household hazardous waste program shall be amended if required by the County Board of Supervisors in their review of the Land Use Permit. 19.4 Hazardous Waste Pre-screening. The landfill entrance load screening procedures and a manual load check program during unloading operations shall be included in the load screening program required under Condition 7.1. Landfill employees shall be instructed to investigate suspicious containers for hazardous materials during bulldozing and other activities. Any hazardous materials found shall be set aside for proper collection and disposal. 19.5 Regulatory Agency Approvals. The collection and storage of toxic and hazardous wastes pursuant to this section shall be subject to County Health Services Department’s Hazardous Materials Division, State Department of Health Services, and other regulatory agency approvals. 20. AIR QUALITY PROTECTION 20.1 Prevention of Air Quality Deterioration. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner that does not result in the significant deterioration of air quality in the vicinity of the site or in the Bay Area. The condition shall be interpreted as a requirement that the Landfill comply with terms of the Authority to Construct Permit to Operate permits issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [RNGPFP – Section 37] Page 28 20.2 Odor Containment. The Landfill operator shall operate the Landfill in a manner that prevents odors from being detected off-site, pursuant to Regulations 7-101 and 7-102 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If odors are reported to Contra Costa Environmental Health, or reports are relayed from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Department of Conservation and Development or Contra Costa Environmental Health may require additional physical improvements or management practices as necessary to alleviate the problem. Contra Costa Environmental Health shall have the authority to cease disposal at a particular area of the Landfill, to control odors. A small daily working face (3 acres or less) shall be maintained. The leachate treatment system shall be enclosed and properly maintained to control odors from leachate. The landfill gas collection system and flare shall utilize BACT to reduce landfill gas as a source of toxics and odor. The Landfill operator shall implement Best Management Practices of the industry to minimize odors from operations and emissions from equipment. If the operator is contacted about odors being detected off-site, the date, time and description of the odor complaint shall be logged and investigated promptly to expedite implementation of any necessary corrective action by the landfill operator. The Landfill operator shall contact Contra Costa Environmental Health or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District at minimum of once per year to obtain any information possible about odor complaints received by each agency. Any odor complaints received by the Landfill operator, Contra Costa Environmental Health or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall be included in the annual Activities Report required under the Landfill’s Franchise Agreement unless otherwise specified by the Director of Conservation and Development. The landfill operator shall provide a means for receiving after hours odor complaints. Complaints shall be promptly investigated (after hours investigations required if/when multiple after hours complaints received on the same day or on multiple consecutive days) to identify whether the source of the odor is on the landfill site, in which case the problem should be corrected in a timely manner. A response to the person lodging the complaint shall be made within 48 hours and copied to the Department of Conservation and Development, detailing the problem and remedial action taken. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 20.3 Cover Frequency. The Landfill operator shall cover newly disposed refuse with compacted soil or other cover material meeting state regulatory require- ments enforced by Contra Costa Environmental Health and CalRecycle and approved in writing by the Department of Conservation and Development. All working faces of the Landfill shall be covered by the end of the working day. Intermediate cover, meeting the requirements of the State shall be applied over each layer of cells ("lift"). The type of cover material and frequency of Page 29 cover shall be modified in order to control odor, litter or birds, if necessary, or if required by the Director of Conservation and Development or the Landfill's Solid Waste Facilities Permit. 20.4 Odoriferous Loads. The Landfill operator shall identify potentially odoriferous loads prior to acceptance and make any arrangements needed to ensure that disposal of odoriferous loads is managed to avoid off-site detection, which may involve covering such incoming loads immediately. 20.5 Dust Suppressants. The Landfill operator shall apply water or proven environmentally safe dust suppressants at least twice daily to working faces of the landfill, unpaved access roads, storage pile disturbances and construction areas as determined to be necessary by the County Health Services Department. The Health Services Department may require sprinklering more frequently for control of particulates. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 20.6 Area of Operations. See Conditions 17.17 and 22.10. 20.7 Air Flow Monitoring. The Landfill operator shall monitor air flow on the site upon commencement of operations and shall provide background meteorological conditions including wind direction, wind velocity, and temperature. After the Landfill is in operation, data shall be used to correlate odor, dust, or litter management with meteorological conditions. Air flow monitoring reports shall be submitted or made available to the Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Department of Conservation and Development upon request. 20.8 Contingency Program. Prior to the start of filling operations, Landfill operator shall prepare a "bad days" contingency program for managing the Landfill during periods of unusual wind speeds or directions, rainfall or drought or other atypical situations. It shall apply specific site monitoring information. The Landfill operator shall consider the comments of the City of Pittsburg and consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The program shall be approved by the Department of Conservation and Development and Contra Costa Environmental Health, and it may be revised from time to time. See Condition 25.4. 20.9 Revegetation. The Landfill operator shall revegetate completed Landfill areas. Revegetation shall be in accordance with the Development and Improvements Plan and shall be consistent with State and local water conservation landscaping requirements. Intermediate and final cover areas shall be reseeded with native grasses immediately. Excavations shall be reseeded with native grasses or filled immediately. Operating areas which Page 30 will not be used for fill or construction for 90 days or longer shall be planted for dust and erosion control and for aesthetic purposes. Landfill operator shall provide the County Conservation and Development Department with written notice and documentation (e.g. photographs) of any inactive unvegetated areas of disturbance not being reseeded immediately whether due to on-site activity associated with the landfill (construction or operations) or naturally occurring (landslides, etc.). The Director of Conservation and Development may require that revegetation notices be submitted more frequently and/or on a fixed schedule. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 20.10 Tree and Shrub Planting. The Landfill developer shall plant trees and shrubs downwind of the Landfill to aid in trapping dust. The planting plan shall be included in the Landscaping plan component of the Development and Improvements Plan. 20.11 Gas Control and Collection. The Landfill operator shall install a Landfill gas control collection system in accordance with the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The system shall have the capacity to operate in an active mode, using a mechanical vacuum, to withdraw gas from the Landfill. The system shall be operated in an active mode as soon as practical. The gas control and collection system shall be installed concurrently with the placement of wastes in the Landfill and shall be ready for operation when gas is produced. The gas collection and related recovery system shall utilize BACT and shall be subject to the approval of the Bay Air Quality Management District and County Community Development Department and it shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 20.12 Landfill Gas Processing. The Landfill developer shall install a flaring mechanism, in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines/regulations, to combust collected landfill gas. The flare shall be of the nonilluminous type. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) shall be used, as defined and approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The flare shall be installed with staged combustion, operated under fuel-rich conditions, and be designed with flue gas recirculation. 20.13 Methane Recovery. The Landfill operator shall install a methane recovery system simultaneously with the construction of the gas collection system, preferably utilizing the Landfill gas to produce energy when the Landfill has developed enough gas to justify recovery. When required by the County Community Development Department, the Landfill operator shall conduct a study to determine how methane could be recovered from the gas and used for fuel or as a commodity. 20.14 Gas Monitoring. The Landfill developer shall install gas migration detection probes and wells along the boundary of the Landfill footprint, near on-site buildings, and in other locations specified by the Bay Area Air Quality Page 31 Management District or the County Health Services Department to monitor for subsurface and surface gas migration. The gas monitoring stations shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan approved by the County Community Development Department. If gas migration is found, the Landfill operator shall notify the County and take remedial actions. Training of employees for detection of gas migration shall be included in the employee training program. 20.15 Lateral Gas Barriers. The Landfill developer shall install a gas barrier or gas collection area on side slopes of the Landfill to prevent lateral gas migration through the sides of the Landfill. The barrier or gas collection area shall be approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 20.16 Settlement Protection. The Landfill developer shall use flexible piping and lightweight backfill for the Landfill gas collection system to ensure that settlement of the fill will not affect operation of the system. 20.17 Landfill Gas Testing. The Landfill operator shall test Landfill gas for its toxic composition and for toxic constituents. The testing program shall be subject to the approvals of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Department of Conservation and Development. The Landfill operator shall provide the results to the County Department of Conservation and Development and Contra Costa Environmental Health on a bi-annual basis unless a more frequent interval is specified in the Solid Waste Facilities Permit. 20.18 Leachate Disposal. See Condition 17.10. 20.19 Cell Re-Opening. Previously-closed cells shall not be reopened without permission from Contra Costa Environmental Health. The Department of Conservation and Development shall be notified of any occurrence that potentially necessitates that one or more cells be re-opened. 20.20 Fissure Repair. The Landfill operator shall inspect the Landfill daily. Surface cracks, fissures, eroded areas, or inadequately covered areas on the Landfill may require repairs within 24 hours. The Department of Conservation and Development shall be notified in writing at the time the operator identifies any substantial surface cracks or fissures requiring repairs beyond the placement and compaction of additional clean soil. Photo of the crack should accompany the written notice which describes he expected cause and corrective action plans and repair schedule. This activity shall be included in the employee training program. 20.21 Permanent Road Paving. The Landfill developer shall pave and maintain Page 32 permanent access roads to control dust. A road used for one year or longer shall be considered to be a permanent road. Road construction shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan. 20.22 Temporary Road Paving. The Landfill developer shall pave and maintain temporary road with gravel or crushed aggregate. Temporary roads shall be wetted or chemically treated when necessary to control dust. Road construction shall be described in the Development and Improvements Plan. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 20.23 Speed Limits. The Landfill operator shall enforce speed limits set by the Contra Costa Environmental Health on internal site roads. The Landfill operator shall install appropriate signs and speed control devices. The maximum internal on-site speed limit shall be 20 mph unless otherwise specified by Contra Costa Environmental Health. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 20.24 Equipment Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall maintain Landfill equipment in optimum working order to ensure that vehicle emissions are controlled and equipment shall be fitted with spark arrestors so potential for causing fires is minimized. Equipment shall not be left idling when not in use. Maintenance records shall be kept on all pieces of Landfill equipment. The records are subject to review by the County Health Services Department. Equipment shall be stored, serviced, and repaired in a maintenance area designated in the Development and Improvements Plan and approved by the County Community Development Department. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 21. NOISE CONTROL 21.1 Noise Control Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner that minimizes noise impacts to area residents. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 21.2 Noise Monitoring Program. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a noise monitoring and abatement program, which shall be approved by the County Department of Conservation and Development and Contra Costa Environmental Health. The program shall monitor noise levels at sensitive receptor locations, one West of Bailey Road and South of West Leland Road, one near Bailey north of West Leland, and another in the Jacqueline Drive area south of West Leland Road. The Director of Conservation and Development may specify other monitoring locations. Noise monitoring reports shall be submitted to the County Conservation and Development Department on a quarterly basis unless otherwise specified by the Director of Conservation and Development. If the monitoring noise levels at the Landfill boundary line or other monitored location exceed 60 dBA during Page 33 daylight hours, or 50 dBA during the evening or at night, the County may require the operator to institute additional noise reduction measures to bring noise emanating from the Landfill to the forementioned levels or less. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 21.3 Toe Berm. See Condition 22.3. 21.4 Mitigation/Lift-Level Berms. See Condition 22.4 21.5 Construction Hours. See Condition 32.1. 21.6 Truck Noise Suppression. The Landfill operator shall require transfer trucks and other waste hauling vehicles using the facility to be equipped with factory approved noise suppression equipment, including engine compartment insulation. The Landfill operator shall request the California Highway Patrol actively enforce muffler and vehicle noise standards as required in the California Vehicle Code if, for any reason, noise from heavy trucks becomes a source of complaints in the project area, whether project-related or not. Transfer trucks and other waste hauling vehicles with faulty mufflers shall be denied access to the landfill after one warning by a landfill operator at the landfill entrance. 21.7 Landfill Vehicles. The Landfill operator shall provide Landfill equipment with the best available noise suppressing equipment to minimize sound generation. 21.8 Gas Flare Muffling. If flaring is used to dispose of Landfill gas, the flares shall be contained in noise and glare-reducing housing. The housing shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services and Community Development Departments and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 22. VISUAL QUALITY 22.1 Visual Quality Objective. The Landfill developer shall construct and operate the facility in such a manner that the high visual value of the surrounding area is maintained. 22.2 Landscape Plan. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a site Landscaping Plan. The plan shall enhance the site's visual values as open space and its functional values as wildlife habitat. It shall minimize the visual impacts of the landfill operations and appurtenant facilities through revegetation and landscape screening. The plan shall show the plant species, size, and locations to be used to blend in with the existing natural vegetation. Page 34 Natural, drought tolerant species shall be used, in accordance with State and local water conservation landscaping requirements. A landscape maintenance program shall be part of the plan. A Weed Monitoring and Control Program shall be included, containing a listing of noxious weeds, a monitoring program, and abatement measure options. A Landscape Plan shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. The Landscape Plan shall assure no visual impact on the Cities of Concord and Clayton consistent with the Environmental Impact Report. 22.3 Toe Berm. The Landfill developer shall install the first phase of the toe berm prior to other landfill construction and development of the Landfill. Other sections of the toe berm shall be installed in stages (see condition 32.4). The toe berm shall be contoured to blend with existing topography. It shall be designed to screen the landfill access road. It shall be revegetated immediately with native grasses and other vegetation to blend in with the surrounding area. 22.4 Mitigation Berms. The Landfill developer shall install landscaped mitigation berms (lift-level peripheral berms) at the face of each lift in areas visible off the Landfill site, before beginning refuse disposal on the lift. The berms shall be landscaped to blend with existing terrain. Specific heights for the initial toe berm and each of its phases shall be established in the Final Development and Improvements Plan (Condition 15.1). 22.5 Lawlor Creek Corridor Plan. See Condition 23.3. 22.6 Entrance Screening. The Landfill developer shall install landscaping at the entrance of the landfill to screen the entrance facilities from Bailey Road users. Olive trees shall not be included as part of the entrance landscape plan. 22.7 Jacqueline Drive Terminus. The north terminus of Jacqueline Drive shall be landscaped, with native species, to shield near-views of the toe berm. Planting of the terminus area shall begin as soon as practicable. The outside access road berm shall be a minimum of 15 feet high to shield transfer truck traffic and noise from nearby residences. 22.8 Auxiliary Facilities Screening. The landscaping plan shall provide for the screening of auxiliary areas, such as the administrative buildings, parking lots, maintenance facilities, and screening of facilities shall occur during the first year of development. Enhancement of Lawlor Creek shall occur during the first year, to aid in screening facilities from Bailey Road users. 22.9 Architectural Treatment. Plans for buildings and other structures shall include architectural sections showing design and materials to be used. Buildings shall be designed to blend into the rural agricultural setting. Page 35 22.10 Area of Operations. Except during construction of modules and other major installations, the Landfill operator shall limit unvegetated working areas of the landfill, including the daily working face, to 25 acres for appearance and to control dust and erosion. The restriction shall not apply to grading for founda- tions, cover, site roads, berms and other construction, providing these are carried out expeditiously. 22.11 Interim Revegetation. Interim revegetation shall be required on all areas that will be inactive for more than 90 days. Revegetation shall include native grasses, shrubs and trees to lend more variety and natural appearance to the finished landfill. 22.12 Water Tank Screening. The Landfill developer shall provide landscaping to screen the facility's water tanks. Where possible, the landscaping shall be installed prior to the installation of the tank. Consideration shall be given to subsurface or partially buried tanks, and to painting the structures with earth- tone colors. 22.13 Final Cover. Final cover shall be contoured and landscaped to blend with existing topography. 22.14 Lighting. The Landfill developer shall design and locate the lighting system to reduce glare and reduce impact to area residents. Focused directional security and operational lighting shall be installed. Operation lighting on the working face shall be turned off by 7:30 p.m. Security and entrance lighting shall be dimmed at 7:30 p.m. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 23. AGRICULTURAL AND BIOTIC RESOURCES 23.1 Biotics Protection Objectives. a) The Landfill developer shall construct and operate the facility in such a manner that ensures, through protection and enhancement measures, that there is no net loss of significant habitat, wetland, woodland, or agricultural production. b) The Landfill developer shall provide at least twice the amount of mitigation wetland for significant wetland lost to the project (2-to-1 mitigation). A minimum of six acres of mitigation wetland shall be provided. Wetland loss shall be mitigated through the enhancement of stock ponds and sedimentation basins, or the creation of new wetlands. 23.2 Range Management Plan. The Landfill operator shall design and develop a Page 36 Range Management Plan in order to provide for continued grazing on portions of the site. The Special Buffer Area shall remain as Agricultural Preserve, and development rights shall be conveyed to the County. The buffer area and other site rangelands of the Primary Project Area not exempted for habitat protection and not in active landfill use shall be enhanced as grassland/oak woodland, and shall provide grazing for at least 270 head of cattle, approximately the same number of cattle which presently graze on the site. Stock watering ponds shall be enhanced through planting of trees and shrubs. Grazing shall be restricted for a 1 to 2 year period in order for grasses to get reestablished. It shall provide for adequate grazing range, and for native tree species such as oaks to be planted for animal protection and to replace trees removed during landfill construction, while controlling soil erosion. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Contra Costa County Resource Conservation District and the Agricultural Extension Service. It shall be coordinated with the Landscape Plan, the Habitat Preservation Plan, and the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan developed for the landfill facility. It shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department and it shall be included in the Improvements and Development Plan. 23.3 Lawlor Creek Corridor Restoration Plan. Enhancement of this riparian area shall replace habitat lost by the rerouting and covering of a portion of the unnamed drainageway within the waste placement area. This plan shall provide replacement for habitat lost to landfill construction. The Corridor Plan shall also provide screening of the landfill entrance and service facilities from Bailey Road. Livestock fencing shall be constructed around the perimeter of approximately 35 acres to exclude cattle from the riparian and oak woodland areas. Litter shall be removed from the creek and corridor, and fencing shall be established along Bailey Road to prevent unlawful disposal of trash. Riparian species of trees such as Willows, Fremont cottonwood, sycamore and other oak species, California Bay Laurel and shrubs shall be planted. The access road crossing of Lawlor Creek shall be designed and constructed in a manner that would be compatible with the aesthetics of the corridor and habitat enhancement. Installation of horizontal drainage pipes into hillsides may be provided to tap groundwater sources to improve creek flow conditions. A monitoring and maintenance program shall be established to insure wildlife habitat values are protected. Rock dams, overhangs, splash pools and erosion control structures shall be included in the corridor plan design. The detailed restoration plan shall be developed for Lawlor Creek in coordination with the County, the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, local Audubon and California Native Plant Society representatives and other environmental organizations. A streambed alteration agreement shall be obtained if determined to be necessary by the CDF&G. A wetland modification permit shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers if necessary. Implementation of the Restoration Plan shall Page 37 take place during the initial development phase of the Landfill. 23.4 Sandstone Outcrop Area. Livestock fencing shall be constructed around the perimeter of the 72-acre sandstone area at the front of the Landfill to exclude cattle and preserve upland habitat area. Landfill personnel and construction operators shall be alerted regarding the protected area. Native trees such as Oak and California Buckeye shall be planted along the perimeter of this area. The adjoining equalization basin and toe berm shall be constructed to avoid damage to the protected area. 23.5 Weed Control Program. The landfill operator shall submit a weed control program to control introduced weedy species on the Landfill property as part of the Range Management Plan. The program is subject to approval by the County Community Development Department. The weed control program shall include a list of noxious weeds, periodic monitoring of these species, and a weed control and removal program. 23.6 Phased Construction. The Landfill operator shall construct and operate the Landfill in phases in order to reduce the acute impact to vegetation and wildlife habitat. Mature trees should be removed only as needed, not more than one year in advance of module development. Black walnut and other heritage tree cuttings shall be taken with the direction of a research organization such as the University of California's botanical garden. 23.7 Vegetation Protection. The Landfill developer shall employ dust suppression measures to prevent damage from dust loading on vegetation. Periodic watering of vegetation adjacent to the fill working area shall be developed as part of the Range Management Plan. 23.8 Wildlife Exclusion and Vector Control. The Landfill operator shall construct fences around the working area of the site, limit the size of the working face, and cover refuse at least daily in order to exclude wildlife and control vectors at the working area of the site. 23.9 Supplemental Wildlife Surveys. The Landfill developer shall conduct additional surveys to establish the presence or indicate the absence of the following species at the landfill site. a) San Joaquin Pocket Mouse. The survey shall be conducted according to USFWS recommendations. If found, the developer shall follow USFWS guidelines regarding appropriate mitigation procedures. b) The California Tiger Salamander and the Alameda Whipsnake. The salamander study shall take place during the rainy season. If salamanders are found to exist in the unnamed creek, they shall be trapped and released to the Lawlor Creek area. If the Alameda Page 38 Whipsnake is encountered, then facilities such as the equalization basin, and the access road shall be relocated further from the outcrop area. The outcrop reserve shall be expanded to include the easternmost outcrops. Consideration shall be taken in siting facilities and any activities north of access road. Lighting shall be shielded and shall illuminate only paved areas in this vicinity. 24. BIRD AND VECTOR CONTROL 24.1 Bird and Vector Control Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in such a manner that prevents and controls the attraction and/or generation of birds and vectors at the site. 24.2 Soil Cover Frequency. See Condition 20.3. 24.3 Working Face. See Condition 17.17 24.4 Bird Control. If birds become a problem at the Landfill in the judgement of the County Health Services Department, the Landfill operator shall institute a contingency bird control program. Such a program may consist of monofilament or wire lines suspended in the air at appropriate intervals over and around the active disposal area. The Landfill operator shall retain a biologist during the initial period of operation to (1) assess the effectiveness of the monofilament line for bird control and (2) assess the effect of the line on avian predator species. If necessary, additional corrective measures shall be taken at that time. Such measures may include a reduction in the size of the working face of the landfill, the use of nets over the working face, or the use of a habitat manipulation and modification program. 24.5 Rodent Control. If waste compaction does not eliminate live rodents from the Landfill footprint, or if rodents (other than small numbers of field mice, etc.) occupy facility landscaping or agricultural areas, the operator shall work with the local enforcement agency to identify the reasons for the presence of rodents and make appropriate changes in operational procedures. If an eradication program is necessary, the use of alternative rodent control programs such as sustained live trapping using nonpoisonous baits, and natural biological control shall be considered. Anti-coagulants shall be administered by a pest management professional in a manner which minimizes exposure to avian predators. Class 1 pesticides shall not be used. 24.6 Mosquito Control. The Landfill operator shall grade areas within the Landfill property to prevent ponding of water which could harbor mosquitos (except for sedimentation ponds and riparian habitat areas). Sedimentation ponds shall be stocked with mosquito fish unless otherwise specified by the Mosquito Page 39 & Vector Control District. If a mosquito problem persists, Contra Costa Environmental Health may require the preparation and implementation of additional mosquito control measures, such as spraying of non-toxic larval suppressant. 24.7 Fly Control. The Landfill operator shall limit the size of the working face and shall cover refuse daily in order to prevent fly proliferation. If an eradication program is necessary, the use of a pest-control specialist shall be considered and a plan implemented pursuant to approval by the County Health Services Department. 25. LITTER CONTROL 25.1 Litter Control Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner which confines litter to the working face of the Landfill, which prevents litter from accumulating another parts of the site, and which prevents litter from being blown off the site. 25.2 Load Covering. The Landfill operator shall implement a program requiring landfill users (customers) to securely containerize their load to avoid littering and exclude uncovered loads from arriving at the Landfill consistent with the requirements of Section 418-2.008 of the County Code. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Department of Conservation and Development and Contra Costa Environmental Health. See also Condition 7.2. 25.3 Load Cover Enforcement. If routine enforcement of load cover requirements is not effective, the Landfill operator shall offer to contract with the Sheriff's Department to enforce regulations requiring the covering of trucks and trailers. 25.4 Contingency Litter Control. Under windy conditions, the Landfill operator shall cover the refuse with County approved cover materials as often as necessary to control blowing litter. Other options shall be considered as necessary, including the alignment of unloading areas away from the prevailing wind direction, increasing the number of compactors, decreasing the active face size, and reducing the number of vehicles tipping at one time. The Contingency Litter Control measures shall be contained in the Litter Control and Prevention Program that is subject to review and approval of the Department of Conservation and Development and Contra Costa Environmental Health. Contra Costa Environmental Health shall have the authority to enforce this requirement. See Section 20.8. 25.5 Portable Litter Fences. The Landfill operator shall install portable fencing near the working face of the Landfill to intercept wind-blown debris. Page 40 25.6 Permanent Litter Fence. The Landfill operator shall install a permanent fence of wire around the current fill area of the Landfill. The location shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 25.7 On-Site Liter Policing. The Landfill operator shall remove litter from the litter fences and planting screens at least once each day. On-site roads, including 500 feet of Bailey Road south of the site entrance, shall be policed at least daily. Contra Costa Environmental Health may require more frequent policing to control the accumulation of litter. 25.8 Off-Site Litter Policing. The Landfill operator shall provide weekly (or more frequent) litter clean-up along Bailey Road from Highway 4 to at least 500 feet south of the site entrance. Based on experience, the County Department of Conservation and Development or Contra Costa Environmental Health may modify frequency of clean-up and/or area of coverage. If wind-blown litter from the landfill reaches other properties, the Director of Environmental Health or the Director of Conservation and Development may require the Landfill operator to remove the litter and the Director(s) may require the operator to institute additional measures to prevent recurrence of the problem. 25.9 Littering Signs. The Landfill operator shall post signs, as determined necessary by the County Public Works Department, along access roads to the Landfill noting littering and illegal dumping laws. The Landfill operator shall post signs at the Landfill entrance noting the hours when the Landfill is open. The operator should periodically publish these laws and operating hours in mailings to Landfill clientele. 25.10 Clean-Up Bond. The Landfill developer shall deposit a surety bond for $10,000 payable to the County to use for clean-up in the event of emergency or disputed littering or spills. 25.11 Public access. Public access to the landfill shall be prohibited unless such access is provided for special events, such as tours, open house functions or wetland field trips for local schools. 26. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 26.1 Safety Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner which does not impair the safety of persons living in its vicinity, Landfill users, or Landfill employees. 26.2 Emergency Plan. The Landfill operator shall prepare an emergency plan specified by the Solid Waste Facilities Permit and approved by the County Page 41 Health Services Department. The emergency plan shall include the following: (a) A fire and explosion component. (b) A seismic component. (c) A hazardous waste spills and contamination containment component. (d) An evacuation component. 26.3 Employee Safety Equipment. The Landfill operator shall provide or require employees to provide safety equipment, such as safety glasses, hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, coveralls, and noise reducers as required by state and federal safety agencies and the County Health Services Department. 26.4 Employee Training. The Landfill operator shall develop and implement training and subsequent refresher training programs covering accident prevention, safety, emergencies and contingencies ("bad-day" scenarios), gas detection, identification of hazardous materials and ground fissures, first aid, and instruction in the use of equipment. The programs shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 26.5 First Aid Equipment. The Landfill operator shall provide and maintain supplies located in easily accessible areas. The first aid supplies shall be consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 26.6 Emergency Communications. The Landfill operator shall provide radio phones or telephones for employee use to call for medical and other emergency assistance. Phone numbers to use for outside emergency assistance shall be clearly posted on the Landfill and in other work areas. The communications system shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 26.7 Emergency Eye Baths and Showers. The Landfill operator shall provide facilities for emergency eye baths and emergency showers. The facilities shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 26.8 Equipment Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement an equipment maintenance program which shall be approved by the County Health Services Department prior to the commencement of operations. The program shall address transfer vehicles and other refuse-conveying vehicles stored on the site as well as the station's refuse-moving vehicles and mechanical equipment. Vehicles and equipment shall be regularly cleaned to reduce the risk of fires. Page 42 26.9 Gas Migration Monitoring. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a gas migration monitoring program to detect underground gas migration. Landfill buildings and paved areas within 1,000 feet of the Landfill disposal area shall be monitored unless otherwise specified in state regulations. The monitoring program shall be approved by Contra Costa Environmental Health. 26.10 Refuse Cover. See Condition 20.3. 26.11 Load Inspection. See Condition 7.1. 27. SITE SECURITY 27.1 Security Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in a manner which prevents unauthorized persons from having access to the working areas of the Landfill both during and after operating hours. 27.2 Security Fencing. The Landfill developer shall install a security fence around the perimeter of the site with lockable gated entrances and exits. The fence shall be located to minimize its visual impacts. It shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 27.3 Security Staffing. The Landfill operator shall staff the Landfill 24 hours per day. Private security services may be retained when the site is not open to patrol and/or aid with investigating after hours odor complaints (see Condition 20.2) as needed. 27.4 Security Lighting. The Landfill developer shall install and operate adequate lights at the entrance area to the Landfill. The lighting shall be provided in a manner which minimizes glare to nearby residents and road users. The security lighting shall be covered in the Development and Improvements Plan. 28. CULTURAL RESOURCES 28.1 Cultural Resource Preservation Objective. The Landfill developer shall construct the facility in such a manner that preserves important archaeological or historic sites. 28.2 Employee Access. Employee access to the buffer area, the Lawlor Creek area, or the sandstone outcrop area shall be limited to duties associated with landfill maintenance. Artifact collection or vandalism in these areas shall be strictly prohibited. 28.3 Archaeology. Should human remains be uncovered during grading, Page 43 trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 29. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 29.1 Traffic Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in such a manner that provides safe, efficient transport of solid waste, while minimizing impacts to County residents. 29.2 Access Route. Access to the landfill facility shall be via State Highway 4, and Bailey Road unless alternate routes are approved by the County Department of Conservation and Development on an interim basis. No waste-hauling traffic shall be allowed entrance to the landfill from Bailey Road south of the site. The Landfill operator shall specify use of the prescribed route in all user contracts and shall notify non-contract users of the requirement. At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Landfill Operator shall reimburse the County for the cost of enforcement of this Condition on the access route. The Board of Supervisors may also request the Landfill operator to reimburse the City of Concord for an access control police inspection stop on Bailey Road should it become necessary to enforce this access route condition. 29.3 Landfill Access Road. The Landfill developer shall install a paved, two-lane access road between Bailey Road and the edge of the current working lift of the landfill. A facility parking lot, a bridge across Lawlor Creek, a 12-foot turn- around lane, and parking/turn-off lanes shall be provided. the traffic lanes shall be built to a suitable Traffic Index (between 10.0 and 10.5). The roadway shall be constructed of all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, and not less than 13'-6" of vertical clearance, to all landfill areas within the site. The road shall not exceed 20% grade, shall have a minimum centerline turning radius of 30 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus (20 tons). The access road shall be operational when the landfill opens. All costs shall be borne by the Page 44 Landfill developer. The design and specifications of the roadway shall be approved by the County Public Works and Community Development Department in consultation with the Riverview Fire Protection District. 29.4 Landfill Entrance. The Landfill developer shall construct the Bailey Road entrance to the site in a manner that provides safe access into the landfill. This improvement shall include the following for proper sight distance and intersection design: a separate left turn lane at least 150 feet in length and an acceleration lane, at least 1200 feet in length, leading north on Bailey Road, away from the site. The landfill developer shall also become responsible for a traffic signal at a later date, if warranted. The County Public Works Department shall approve the design of the entrance and estimate its cost. All costs shall be borne by the Landfill developer. 29.5 Bailey Road, Pittsburg city limits to the Landfill Entrance. The Landfill developer shall reconstruct the sections of Bailey Road between the city limits and the landfill entrance. The reconstructed roadway shall provide the sight distance, and roadway geometrics (including shoulder widening) specified by the County Public Works Department for truck use. This shall include two twelve-foot lanes with eight-foot shoulders. These improvements shall be in place prior to commencement of landfill operations. The Landfill developer shall upgrade the pavement capacity to reflect a 20-year life (an estimated Traffic Index of 10.0 - 10.5) along Bailey Road between the Pittsburg city limits and the landfill entrance. The County Public Works Department shall approve the design of the roadway and pavement reconstruction and estimate its cost. All costs shall be borne by the Landfill developer. 29.6 Bailey Road Pavement Study. The Landfill developer shall conduct a study of the Bailey Road roadway from the Pittsburg city limits to the Highway 4 interchange to determine the improvements necessary to re-construct the right hand (outside) traffic lanes of the road to a 20-year pavement standard to be an estimated Traffic Index of 10.0 to 10.5. The County Public Works Department, in consultation with the City of Pittsburg, shall estimate the costs of the improvements, estimate the longevity of the existing roadway under increased traffic conditions, and determine a per-ton refuse disposal surcharge adequate to fund the improvements when reconstruction is necessary. The Landfill operator shall impose the surcharge and pay it quarterly into a segregated account established by the County. The design of the improvements, their costs, the surcharge and its disbursement shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 29.7 Road Maintenance. Subsequent to the funding of the above traffic lane up- grading improvements, the landfill operator shall impose a surcharge for the maintenance of Bailey Road between the Highway 4 interchange and the Landfill intersection. The surcharge shall be estimated by the County Public Page 45 Works Department in consultation with the City of Pittsburg and shall be based on the landfill's proportionate share of traffic on the road corridor adjusted for vehicle weight and number of axles. The fees shall be paid quarterly into a segregated account established by the County. The design of the improvement, its cost, the surcharge and disbursements from the segregated account shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 29.8 Highway 4/Bailey Road Interchange. The Landfill developer shall participate in an improvements district, benefit area, or other cooperative arrangement with the County, the City of Pittsburg, and Caltrans which may be created to improve the Highway 4/Bailey Road Interchange. The developer shall be required to pay an amount for the improvements and maintenance proportionate to the traffic generated by the landfill, adjusted for truck use. If necessary, the developer shall advance the money for the interchange design and improvements. The County Public Works Department shall approve the design of the interchange and estimate its cost. The fees shall be paid quarterly into a segregated account established by the County. The design of the improvements, their costs, the surcharge, and disbursements from the segregated account shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 29.9 Peak Period Traffic Management. The Landfill operator shall prepare a study, in conjunction with the local transfer station(s) serving the landfill, for managing transfer vehicle traffic to reduce peak period conflicts with traffic on Highway 4. The study shall address the restricted departure periods from the Landfill identified in the Environmental Impact Report (6:30 - 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 - 6:30 p.m.) and shall identify any changes to the conditions of approval needed to implement a peak-period traffic reduction program. The study shall be approved by the County Public Works and Conservation and Development Departments and shall be provided with the Development and Improvements Plan. The Director of Conservation and Development has imposed the peak period traffic restrictions identified in a) and b) below. The Director of Conservation and Development may specify any additional peak period traffic restrictions deemed to be warranted. The Landfill operator shall comply with such restrictions, and shall require compliance in contracts with Landfill users. a) The A.M. peak period departure from the landfill shall commence at 7:10 a.m. b) A three minute interval shall be maintained between waste hauling vehicles en route to Highway 4 westbound during the period of 7:10 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. c) Waste hauling vehicles en route to eastbound Highway 4 (the uncongested “reverse commute” direction) may be released without restriction. Page 46 29.10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. The Landfill developer shall incorporate into the Transportation and Circulation Plan a bicycle and pedestrian path system along Bailey Road in the vicinity of the landfill. 30. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN Site Services and Utilities Objective. The Landfill developer shall design, develop and manage the facility in such a manner that services and utilities adequately meet the landfills requirements, while ensuring the protection of site employees, area residents, and the surrounding environment. 30.1 Final Site Services and Utilities Plan. The landfill developer shall prepare and submit a final Site Services and Utilities Plan, and obtain the approval of the County Community Development Department prior to beginning construction. The Site Services and Utilities Plan shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. The final Site Services and Utilities Plan shall include: a) A water service component. (see Condition 30.2) b) A fire protection component. (see Condition 30.5) 30.2 Water Service Component. The Landfill developer shall prepare and implement a Water Service Component, covering available water resources, estimated total water needs and supplies, landfill construction and operation, landscaping, fire protection, employee hygiene, and human consumption water needs, and water supply sources. Potable water shall be provided for hygiene and consumption. Potable water may be trucked onto the Landfill. 30.3 On-site Water Wells. The Landfill operator shall install wells for water supply with a minimum pumping capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute, or must have on-site storage which produces this capacity. The County Community Development Department and the County Department of Health Services shall be furnished pumping test information which shall be submitted with the Development and Improvement Plan. 30.4 Public Water Supply Option. The Landfill operator may substitute water service from a public water supply system for the use of wells, if arrangements can be made with the Contra Costa Water District and, where applicable with the cities of Concord or Pittsburg. The water supply may be potable or non- potable. Annexation to the Contra Costa Water District probably would be required, as well as an approval for annexation from the Local Agency Formation Commission, and would have to be obtained prior to the submission of the Water Service Plan as part of the Final Development and Improvements Plan. The size and placement at the water supply line shall be Page 47 included in the Water Service Plan and shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services and Community Development Departments. 30.5 Fire Protection Component. The Landfill operator shall develop and implement a Fire Protection Component meeting the requirements of the Riverview Fire Protection District to contain and extinguish fires originating on the landfill property and off-site fires caused by Landfill operations. It shall include training for all employees. The program shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 30.6 Fire District Programs. The Landfill developer shall participate in the Riverview Fire Protection Districts Benefit Assessment Program and the New Development Fees program. 30.7 Construction Timing. Access roads and water supply systems shall be installed and in service prior to any combustible construction and/or related landfill activity. No construction, excavation, or grading work shall be started on this landfill facility until a plan for water supply system has been submitted to and approved by the County Health Services Department and the County Community Development Department. Water may be transported onto the site during construction activities, but trucked water shall not be used for ongoing landfill activities. 30.8 On-Site Water Storage. The Landfill developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection which shall include on-site storage. The storage tank(s) shall have a useable capacity of not less than 240,000 gallons of water and shall be capable of delivering a continuous flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. 30.9 Fire Fighting Water Main. If the Landfill developer exercises the alternative of utilizing public water supply, an above-ground main of sufficient size and quantity shall be provided, which when connected to the respective storage tank, shall be capable of supplying the required portable monitor (see Condition 30.11) with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 GPM delivered to the working face of any open cell in the landfill operation. 30.10 Fire Cover. The Landfill operator shall store a supply of soil nearby the working face to be used for fire suppressant. The adequacy of the cover stockpile shall be determined by the County Health Services Department in cooperation with the Riverview Fire Protection District. 30.11 Fire Fighting Appliance. The Landfill operator shall provide a minimum of one (1) approved portable master-stream firefighting appliance (monitor) located within fifty (50) feet of each working face of any open cell in the landfill. Page 48 30.12 Fire Breaks. The Landfill developer shall provide and maintain firebreaks as follows: a) A minimum 100-foot firebreak around the perimeter of each landfill disposal area, b) A minimum 60-foot firebreak around the perimeter of the entire site and around any buildings or similar structures. The firebreaks shall be placed to minimize any adverse visual effects. Their locations shall be subject to the approval of the Riverview Fire Protection District. The firebreaks shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan. 30.13 Fire Extinguishers. The Landfill operator shall provide landfill equipment with fire extinguishers large enough to fight small fires on the equipment or on the landfill. The extinguishers and their distribution shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department and the Riverview Fire Protection District. 30.14 Use of Reclaimed Water for Landscaping. The Landfill Developer shall make every effort to use treated waste water from a district sewage treatment plant for landscape maintenance. The Landfill Developer shall report on this matter to the Community Development Department. 30.15 Equipment and Cleaning. See Condition 20.24. 30.16 Smoldering Loads. The Landfill operator shall check incoming loads and direct vehicles hauling smoking or burning trash to a designated place apart from the current fill area. The loads shall be dumped immediately and the fire extinguished before the waste is incorporated into the fill. 30.17 Emergency Equipment Access. The Landfill operator shall designate access points for local fire protection agency access to all parts of the landfill and routes. The access points shall be included in the Development and Improvements Plan and shall be subject to the approval of the Riverview Fire Protection District. 30.18 Smoking Prohibitions. The Landfill operator shall prohibit smoking on the landfill except in designated areas. In no event shall smoking be allowed near the working face of the landfill and the fuel storage area. Signs shall be clearly posted and enforced. 30.19 Toilets. The Landfill operator shall provide portable chemical toilets near the active disposal area for use of workers and drivers. Their placement and maintenance shall be subject to the approval of the County Health Services Department. 30.20 On-site Septic System. Septic systems shall be designed to County Department of Health Service Standards, and State Health and Safety Code requirements. The Landfill developer shall pay for any treatment plant fees. Page 49 30.21 Sewer Line. In the event that the Landfill developer elects to connect to a sewer line, the developer shall pay for any capacity studies required, and any resultant equipment and/or facilities. 31. WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY 31.1 Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Objective. The Landfill operator shall manage the facility in such a manner that complies with the State's waste management hierarchy of source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal; and that is consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 31.2 1990-1995 Resource Recovery Program. The Landfill Operator shall participate with the transfer station(s) operators(s), route collection companies and direct haulers in designing and implementing a resource recovery and recycling program for the service area which is consistent with the goal of diverting 25 percent of all solid waste generated in the County from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995. 31.3 1996-2000 Resource Recovery Program. Prior to 1995, the Landfill operator shall prepare and submit for review and approval by the County Community Development Department a resource recovery and recycling program for the service area covering the period from 1996-2000. This shall be consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan's goal of diverting a total of 50 percent of all solid waste generated in the County from landfill facilities by January 1, 2000. 31.4 Materials Recovery. The Landfill operator shall prepare and implement a Material Recovery Program for recovering recyclable materials (e.g. construction and demolition debris) from refuse loads brought directly to the landfill. The Program shall describe in detail all existing and proposed on-site recovery activities and the associated percent of waste diversion for each, including materials diverted for use as cover, on-site beneficial reuse as well as transported off-site (e.g. biomass facilities). The Program shall include proposed on-site recovery activities intended to handle source separated loads and comingled loads to be sorted on-site to increase diversion, if applicable. The Program shall be consistent with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The landfill operator shall record and report the weight of all material(s) recovered through the Material Recovery Program. Each type of recovered material being diverted must be weighed for reporting purposes. Materials accepted for beneficial reuse or ADC, which are subsequently deemed unsuitable and must therefore be disposed of, shall be Page 50 weighted and reclassified for the purposes of reporting and fee calculation. Incoming quantities required to be tracked and reported by waste type and jurisdiction of origin, pursuant to Conditions 8.7 and 10.3 must accurately differentiate between the tons disposed, beneficially used on-site or sent off- site. Quarterly disposal reports must also accurately reflect the destination and tonnage of each type of recovered material sent off-site, if applicable. The Program shall be subject to the approval of the County Department of Conservation and Development. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 31.5 Composting Project. The Landfill operator shall develop and implement a program for composting organic material. The program may occur at the landfill site, off-site or in coordination with third party(ies), and shall be approved by Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Department of Conservation and Development. The compost shall be used for landfill landscaping, cover material or other approved on-site uses; alternatively, compost can be made available or sold off-site. The purpose of the composting program shall be to implement a cost effective and feasible means of providing adequate local organics diversion capacity through large- scale composting. The composting operations shall be subject to regulatory and permitting requirements enforced by Contra Costa Environmental Health, the Air District and the Water Board. No later than January 1, 2016, the Landfill operator shall submit substantiation that they have applied for the required regulatory approvals (permits) processes necessary to conduct large-scale composting or demonstrate that arrangements are underway to implement an equivalent off-site program. The Landfill operator shall make all feasible efforts to assist the County in ensuring that there will be adequate composting capacity available to readily divert the organics waste stream generated in Contra Costa County which is currently used as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) prior to the sunset of the ADC diversion credit on January 1, 2020. 31.6 Wood Chipping. The Landfill operator shall establish a program to encourage landscape services and construction/demolition debris haulers to segregate wood material for chipping and diversion from landfill disposal. The program may occur off-site, however unless and until there is on-site recovery (waste diversion as defined in the Integrated Waste Management Act) the Landfill operator shall direct these customers to deliver loads of landscaping and construction/demolition debris to facility(ies) that recover and chip wood material. The program shall be submitted for review and approval by the County Department of Conservation and Development and implemented on an ongoing basis following approval. 31.7 Methane Recovery. The Landfill operator shall explore the use of methane in landfill gas collected for air pollution reduction as a fuel commodity. The operator shall report findings to the Community Development Department at Page 51 the time of the landfill's periodic reviews. If there is an economic use found for recovered methane, and if the County subsequently includes the use in its Integrated Waste Management Plan, the Landfill operator shall implement a methane recovery program. 31.8 Equipment Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall maintain motorized landfill equipment to assure maximum fuel efficiency. 31.9 County Resource Recovery Management Program. a) When directed by the County, the Landfill operator shall impose a tonnage surcharge adequate to support a County Resource Recovery Management Program. The cost of the program to be supported by the surcharge shall not exceed $100,000 at 1987 levels. If other solid waste disposal facilities are subject to this or a similar condition, the County may pro-rate the cost of the program among them according to a formula approved by the Board of Supervisors. b) As provided for in Condition 2.3, where there is an inconsistency between this condition and the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement which effectively suspended the collection of this Resource Recovery Management Program Fee, the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement shall supersede Condition 31.9 (a) until such inconsistency no longer exists pursuant to Condition 2.3(d). 31.10 Fund Recovery. The Landfill owner may recover funds provided to the County in advance of the opening of the Landfill through subsequent rate adjustments or surcharges approved by the County. The County may pro- rate the cost of the program among other waste disposal facilities it approves which are subject to similar conditions. 32. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND CONDITIONS 32.1 Hours of Construction. The Landfill developer shall restrict outdoor construction activities to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 32.2 Exemption. The Landfill developer may request, in writing, and the Director of Conservation and Development may grant, exemptions to Condition 32.1 for specific times for cause. An example is the placing of concrete. [RNGPFP – Section 37] Page 52 32.3 Access Roads. Before commencing landfilling operations, the Landfill developer shall install and pave the site access road from Bailey Road to the Phase I excavation area (see Initial Facilities Site Plan drawing of the Initial Development and Improvements Plan, Condition 16.1). This installation shall include the new bridge over Lawlor Creek and the turnaround lane. An area which can be used by the California Highway Patrol for vehicle inspection/weighing shall also be constructed. 32.4 Phasing Plan. The Landfill developer shall design a Phasing Plan setting forth a schedule of construction activities and projects, with detailed information provided on sensitive installations such as the landfill liner and the leachate collection and gas management systems. Sensitive installation projects shall be subject to inspection by the Geotechnical Inspector (Condition 23.6). The necessary installations of the Surface Drainage System (Condition 18.2) and Soil Erosion and Control Plan (Condition 18.4) shall be in place before major excavations commence in order to ensure controlled surface water runoff. Sediment in the sedimentation pond shall be monitored to control quality of runoff. Construction activities shall be timed to coincide with the dry season and low surface water flows. 32.5 Unstable areas. Areas determined to be unstable by the Stability Analysis performed for the landfill (condition 18.4) shall be excavated or retaining walls installed under the supervision of a Certified Engineering Geologist or a Registered Geotechnical Engineer. 32.6 Dust Suppression. The developer shall sprinkle or chemically treat graded areas, borrow sites, stock piles, and temporary pavements to control dust, as determined necessary by Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [RNGPFP – Section 37] 33. CLOSURE AND POSTCLOSURE MAINTENANCE 33.1 Submittal of Plan. The Landfill operator shall submit to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Integrated Waste Management Board, and the County Health Services Department a plan for the closure and the postclosure maintenance of the landfill as required by State law, but no later than upon application for a Solid Waste Facilities Permit. A copy of the closure and postclosure maintenance plan shall be submitted to the County Community Development Department. 33.2 Funding of Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan. The Landfill operator shall submit to the Board of Supervisors or California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)evidence of financial ability to provide for the cost of closure and postclosure maintenance in an amount Page 53 not less than the estimated cost of closure and 15 years of postclosure maintenance as contained in the submitted closure and postclosure maintenance plan unless otherwise required by the State. Evidence of financial ability shall be in the form of a trust fund approved by the Board of Supervisors in which funds will be deposited on an annual basis in amounts sufficient to meet closure and postclosure costs when needed unless an equivalent financial arrangement is identified as acceptable to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors determined that the State required financial guarantees approved and periodically reviewed by CalRecycle are equivalent and therefore adequate to satisfy this condition. The Landfill operator shall maintain a trust fund balance that equals or exceeds the requirements of state law or regulation notwithstanding, however, the trust fund balance shall be at least equal to the then current closure and postclosure cost estimate at such time the landfill has reached one-half of its permitted capacity. The Trust Fund balance requirement shall be appropriately adjusted if the landfill is closed in stages under Condition 33.4. 33.3 Revision to Plan and Cost Estimates. Should State law or regulation regarding the closure and postclosures maintenance plan or funding of the plan change at any time, the owner of the landfill shall submit any required changes to the closure and postclosure maintenance plan and/or evidence of financial ability to the Board at the same time as submittal to the applicable state or regional agency. 33.4 Staged Closure of the Landfill. The landfill owner or operator shall close the landfill in stages if compatible with the filling sequence and the overall closure plan. 33.5 Use of Landfill Following Closure. After active landfill operations have ceased, the site shall be utilized for grazing purposes. The Board may require the owner of the landfill to deed all development rights for the landfill site to the County to ensure fulfillment of this condition. 33.6 Postclosure Maintenance. The Landfill operator shall institute a postclosure maintenance program to ensure that containment and monitoring facilities retain their integrity. If damaged areas are found, the operator shall notify the County and take remedial actions to prevent odor and landfill gas problems. 34. ABANDONED VEHICLE STORAGE 34.1 Storage Requirement. The Landfill operator shall provide a minimum 10-acre area on the landfill site for the storage of abandoned vehicles awaiting salvaging, if required by the Board of Supervisors. The storage site operator shall accept only vehicles directed to the site by a law enforcement agency Page 54 operating in Contra Costa County, which shall be responsible for the vehicle until its title is conveyed to a salvager. The site would provide storage only; operations of disposing, salvaging, and security of abandoned vehicles shall not be the responsibility of the operator. The site may be subject to further planning and development approvals, and would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The storage of abandoned vehicles shall be subject to conditions set by the County Health Services Department, and may be subject to the approvals of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. 34.2 Off-site Storage Option. The Landfill operator may establish the abandoned vehicle storage area at another location, which shall be subject to the approval of the County Community Development Department. 35. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 35.1 Transportation System Impact Fee. The Landfill operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costa a Transportation Impact Fee of $2.00 per ton of waste received at the Landfill to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill-generated traffic on the County's road system. The operator shall deposit the fee monies quarterly in a segregated account established by the County. The fee shall be considered to be a pass- through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. The fee shall be adjusted annually to reflect the current Consumer Price Index. The Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2020-89 on November 1, 1994 which stayed the operation of Conditions 35.1 and 35.2 as long as the new Condition 35.8 remains in full force and operation. 35.2 Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee. The Landfill operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costa an Open Space and Agricultural Preservation Fee of $2.00 per ton on solid wastes received at the Landfill to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture. The operator shall deposit the fee monies quarterly in a segregated account established by the County. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. The fee shall be adjusted annually to reflect the current Consumer Price Index. The Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2020-89 on November 1, 1994 which stayed the operation of Conditions 35.1 and 35.2 as long as the new Condition 35.8 remains in full force and operation. 35.3 Property Value Compensation Program. The Landfill operator shall provide funding for the preparation of a property value compensation program study when requested by the County of Contra Costa. The study will address the means of determining the extent of property value losses or reductions Page 55 attributable to Landfill impacts, such as aesthetics, noise, traffic, or pollution, and the means of compensating property owners for said losses or reductions. When a compensation program is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the Landfill developer shall fund it in the manner specified by the Board. If the Board of Supervisors determines that progress on the implementation of a compensation program is not proceeding in a timely manner, the Board may require the use of a facilitator and/or an arbitrator. The fee shall be considered to be a pass-through business cost for the purposes of rate setting. 35.4 Resource Recovery Program Fee. a) The Landfill developer or operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costa a resource recovery program fee of $200,000 annually, beginning July 1, 1990. The developer or operator shall deposit the monies in a segregated account established by the County. The extent of the fee shall be subject to reconsideration when a franchise or agreement is established for the Landfill. The resource recovery program fee from its inception shall be a pass-through business cost for the purpose of rate setting. The fee shall be adjusted annually to reflect the current Consumer Price Index. b) As provided for under Condition 2.3, where there is an inconsistency between this condition and the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement which effectively suspended this Resource Recovery Program Fee, the terms of the Landfill Franchise Agreement shall supersede Condition 35.4 (a) until such inconsistency no longer exists pursuant to Condition 2.3(d). 35.5 Violation of Prescribed Haul Route. Upon a receiving a written determination from the County that a user of the Landfill has violated Condition 29.2 by using a prohibited access route, the Landfill operator shall impose on that user the sanction that is directed by the County. Such sanction may include a surcharge on the tipping fee, prohibition against accepting waste from that user for a designated period of time, revocation of County refuse-hauling license, or other sanction directed by the County. A system for reporting alleged violation and for monitoring enforcement data shall be established by the County and implemented by the Landfill operator. 35.6 Direct Property Acquisition Study. The Landfill operator shall study the appropriateness of direct acquisition of properties immediately adjacent to the project, and shall fund any acquisition program ordered by the Board of Supervisors. The study shall be consistent with the Environmental Impact Report and shall be completed prior to the issuance of a franchise agreement. Page 56 35.7 Adjoining Sites. This permit authorizes the use of the Keller Canyon Landfill site only for its specified waste disposal uses as set forth in these Conditions of Approval, and for no other uses. In particular, during the effective and operative periods of this Permit, the Keller Canyon site covered by this Permit shall not be used to provide access to, or to accommodate in any way the use of, any adjoining property for landfill purposes, unless the County has approved the use of such adjoining property for landfill purposes. 35.8 Mitigation Fee. The Landfill operator shall pay to the County of Contra Costa a fee, the amount of which may be set by the Board of Supervisors by a Board Order from time to time, which amount shall not be less than $3.00 per ton and shall not be more than $4.00 per ton, on solid waste received at the Landfill. The fee shall be used as directed by the Board in its sole discretion: 1) to mitigate general impacts of the Landfill-generated traffic on the County's road system, 2) to mitigate the general impacts of the Landfill on open space, existing and proposed recreational facilities, and agriculture, or 3) to mitigate any general impacts of the Landfill upon the surrounding community. Conditions 35.1 and 35.2 of Land Use Permit 2020-89 are hereby stayed in their operation as long as Condition 35.8 remains in full force and operation. Should Condition 35.8 (or any portion of it) for any reason be set aside or stayed in its operation, then Conditions 35.1 and 35.2 shall be in full force and operation. Condition 35.8 was added when Amendment 1 to Land Use Permit 2020-89 was approved. The Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 1 on November 1, 1994 which stayed the operation of Conditions 35.1 and 35.2 as long as the new Condition 35.8 remains in full force and operation. 36. LANDFILL GAS POWER PLANT 36.1 Power Plant Design. The design of the Landfill Gas Power Plant project as approved is generally shown on the plans submitted to the Community Development Department on October 16, 2001. 36.2 Ultimate Responsibility. These conditions of approval identify the Landfill Gas Power Plant operator as the party primarily responsible for implementing conditions involving the design, construction, improvements, maintenance and management of the power plant. However, ultimate responsibility for compliance with these conditions lies with the owner of the landfill. 36.3 Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit. The construction and operation of the Landfill Gas Power Plant is also subject to all other conditions in Land Use Permit 2020-89 for the Keller Canyon Landfill, as appropriate. Page 57 36.4 Violation/Revocation. The Landfill Gas Power Plant owner and operator shall at all times comply with the provisions and requirements of these Conditions of Approval. A repeated violation of any of these Conditions as a result of the construction or operation of the Power Plant is cause for revocation of the Land Use Permit for the power plant. 36.5 System Safety. Risk of fire (from gas, oil, or electrical sources) shall be controlled through the use of flame sensors, ultraviolet (UV) radiation and methane detectors, and fire extinguishers. These components shall be installed at a minimum, in the power modules, exhaust and cooling packages, and other locations as required by Code. 36.6 Equipment and System Monitoring. Instrumentation shall be provided for all power plant equipment and systems which provide for a fully automated monitoring and warning system. This will include an automated switch to combustion flare if necessary. Additionally, routine monitoring of the gas extraction system and power plant facility shall be performed during normal business hours by at least one on-site operator. 36.7 Engines. Power plant facilities shall use lean burn internal combustion engines to meet BAAQMD regulations for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). 36.8 Hazardous Materials. Landfill Gas Power Plant operator shall prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the Power Plant in compliance with requirements of the Hazardous Materials Division of Contra Costa County’s Health Services Department. 36.9 Emergency Response. Landfill Gas Power Plant operator shall submit a facility specific Emergency Response Plan and then implement and update as needed, said Plan. 36.10 Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release. Landfill Gas Power Plant operator shall notify the Community Development Department immediately of any plant upset or accidental leakage or release of landfill gas. A written report of the cause of any plant upset and the corrective measures taken by the facility operator, shall be provided to the Community Development Department within 72 hours after resolving an emergency. 36.11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Landfill Gas Power Plant operator shall implement the Keller Canyon SWPPP (prepared in 1996 and as may be amended from time to time), for water resources protection measures in case of spill of coolant, oil, or other lubricant. 36.12 Facility Design. Power Plant facilities shall be painted Bronze Olive or other Page 58 suitable color as approved by the Community Development Department. Power Plant operator shall install a perimeter security fence to enclose the power plant. 36.13 Power Plant Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan for the Power Plant site shall be submitted subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. The location and types of landscaping proposed along the security fence shall be specified. 36.14 Construction. Upon completion of construction, all construction materials, including packaging materials, worker facilities, and debris will be removed from the site. Additionally during construction all excess materials shall be removed periodically, as needed. 36.15 Material Recycling. Whenever feasible, all oils, lubricants, and coolant shall be recycled rather than disposed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Debris Recovery Plan. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall submit a Debris Recovery Report. 36.16 Implementation & Compliance Monitoring. The operator shall provide payment for costs associated with the Community Development Department’s monitoring of implementation and compliance with these Conditions of Approval. 36.17 Surcharge. A surcharge, if established by the County Board of Supervisors, shall be paid to the County, by the operator, related to the sale of landfill gas or the sale of electricity produced by burning said gas. Page 59 37. LANDFILL RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE (RNGPFP) 37.1 Land Use Permit. This land use permit is APPROVED for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline (RNGPFP), as described in the Land Use Permit application and documentation submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on July 24, 2018, as amended by the plans and documentation submitted on June 8, 2021. Any change from the approved plans shall require review and approval by the Board of Supervisors and may require the filing of an application to modify this Land Use Permit. 37.2 Keller Canyon Land Use Permit. The Conditions of Approval of Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit 2020-89, Amendment 3 shall apply to the Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline. 37.3 COA Compliance Review. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the RNGPFP operator shall submit an application for condition of approval (COA) Compliance Review, and a report on compliance with the conditions of approval for the review and approval by the CDD. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,500.00 that is subject to time and material costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each conditions followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. A copy of the permit conditions of approval may be obtained from the CDD. 37.4 Application Costs. The Land Use Permit application was subject to an initial deposit of $49,838.00 that was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid at the time of submittal of a grading or building permit application, or within 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013/340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of approval. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Page 60 37.5 Indemnity. The Applicant shall enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the County, and the Applicant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the County), and hold harmless the County, its boards, commissions, officers, employees, and agents (collectively "County Parties") from any and all claims, costs, losses, actions, fees, liabilities, expenses, and damages (collectively, "Liabilities") arising from or related to the Project, the Applicant's application for a land use permit, the County's discretionary approvals for the Project, including but not limited to the County's actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and planning and zoning laws, or the construction and operation of the Project, regardless of whether those Liabilities accrue before or after Project approval. RNGPFP DESIGN 37.6 Design of the RNGPF. The RNGPF shall be designed to meet the most stringent design and safety standards in accordance with federal and State regulations. a. The RNGPF operator shall submit building plans for the RNGPF to the Building Inspection Division and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with requirements issued by both agencies. b. In accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.6 (Equipment and System Monitoring), the plant process shall be automatically controlled by a plant-wide programmable logic controller (PLC) control system to operate, monitor, and maintain the RNG process under normal conditions. The control logic includes alarms and shutdowns to safely shut down the process if process conditions are outside the design basis. Any potential waste gas process streams shall be combusted in the RNGPF thermal oxidizer and/or process enclosed flare. c. A new automated notification system shall be installed for monitoring the proposed RNGPFP. The system shall notify the RNGPF operator of an abnormal condition during both attended and non-attended operation and shall provide visual and audible warnings to assist operator response. d. On loss of power or instrument air or other plant upset, the following safety and design measures shall be implemented: • Fail-Safe mode of operation shall shut down the RNGPF; Page 61 • Emergency stop-push buttons shall be strategically located at the RNGPF entrance/exit to allow shutdown of the facility; • Hazardous gas detectors shall be strategically located in the process area to detect gas leaks from the facility; and • Seismic sensors shall be installed and in the event of a large earthquake the RNG processing equipment shall be shut down and pipeline valves shall be closed. e. A fire detection system shall be provided in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.5 (System Safety) and shall include manual pull stations, smoke detectors and rate of rise detectors in electric/control room, methane detectors, and alarm strobes/horns. f. In the event of planned maintenance, process upset or other event, the RNGPF shall be either manually or automatically shut down and LFG shall be redirected to the existing landfill flares as necessary. g. Acoustic shrouding shall be installed and maintained on RNG processing equipment such as compressors and feed blowers. 37.7 Design of RNG Pipeline. The RNG pipeline shall be designed to meet the most stringent design, pipeline class, and safety standards of Class 4 requirements in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 (49 CFR Part 192). a. The RNGPF operator shall obtain design approval from PG&E for tie-in of the RNG pipeline into existing PG&E Line 191-1, as required by agreement and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). b. The pipe itself shall be designed to operate at less than 10 percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS). The actual percent SMYS for the other system components will be determined after facility requirements have been specified. If flanges and/or flanged assemblies are required, they may be the pressure limiting factors of the system. The design shall ensure that the flanged systems and any other appurtenances meet the design requirements. c. The system shall be designed to handle a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 400 psi. Pressure and flow shall be monitored and any change outside of normal operating parameters shall shut off the RNG pipeline and when necessary shut down the RNGPF. Page 62 d. The system shall be designed to operate under ambient temperature conditions of – 20 ° F to 150 ° F. e. The pipeline shall be buried to a minimum of four feet below grade. This exceeds the three feet depth specified in regulations. The pipeline shall have at least five feet between adjacent structures/facilities. f. The pipe to be used shall be 4.5” outside diameter, 0.237” nominal wall thickness, Grade B, or as required by federal regulations, with a MAOP of 400 psig. g. Emergency shut-off valves, pressure monitoring devices and other control equipment shall be incorporated into the design of the RNG pipeline. The system shall include devices required by 49 CFR 192 and as deemed appropriate by the RNGPFP operator. These devices shall be installed on the pipeline at locations and distance intervals specified in federal regulations. h. The location of the RNG pipeline throughout its route shall be marked by required above-ground signage and other notification at locations and distance intervals specified in federal regulations. i. An appropriate cathodic protection system shall be designed and installed on the RNG pipeline. The cathodic protection system shall protect the RNG pipeline from corrosion, foreign currents, etc. All system components including pipeline crossings, electrical systems in the area, and isolation requirements shall be considered and included in the design and installation. The cathodic protection system shall be monitored by personnel trained to make adjustments to cathodic protection as needed based on future readings taken in the field. CULTURAL RESOURCES 37.8 Cultural Resources. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction. a) A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. b) If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Page 63 Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. 37. Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. Updated COA #28.3 37.9 The following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction. a) A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. b) If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. CULTURAL-1 37.10 Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Page 64 Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. CULTURAL-2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 37.11 Construction. All construction activity shall comply with the following restrictions, which shall be included in the construction drawings. a) The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project- related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. b) The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible. c) The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. d) A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the property with the telephone number and person to contact regarding construction- related complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Department of Conservation and Development phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. e) Large trucks and heavy equipment are subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. f) All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: Page 65 New Year’s Day (State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington’s Birthday (Federal) Lincoln’s Birthday (State) President’s Day (State and Federal) Cesar Chavez Day (State) Memorial Day (State and Federal) Independence Day (State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day (State and Federal) Veterans Day (State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) For details on the actual date the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/k8.htm California Holidays: www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm 37.12 Construction Traffic Control. During construction in the east portion of the project site on PG&E property, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg alerting of the need for potential traffic and parking controls on Alta Vista Circle on days vehicles and equipment are scheduled to access the PG&E property. 37.13 During construction in the mid portion of the project site and PG&E valve lot, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg and/or property owners to allow for vehicle access through the John Henry Johnson Parkway and Golf Course Road, respectively. AIR QUALITY PROTECTION 37.14 Air Quality Best Management Practices. To protect air quality during construction, the following best management practices shall be implemented. a. Diesel-powered construction equipment (e.g. graders, scrapers, compactors) shall be specified to use cleaner Tier IV diesel engines. b. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access Page 66 points. c. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. d. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. e. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. g. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Equipment pads will be installed as soon as possible after grading. h. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. i. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. j. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 37.15 Hydroseed or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 37.16 Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent Page 67 silt runoff to public roadways. 37.17 Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible. 37.18 Wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas shall be planted where feasible. 37.19 Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. 37.20 The total area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity shall be limited at any one time. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 37.21 Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release. In accordance with LP89- 2020, Section 36 Landfill Gas Power Plant, COA 36.10 (Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release) pertaining to the existing LFGTE power plant, the RNGPF operator shall notify the DCD immediately of any RNG processing facility upset that result in accidental leakage or release of processed gas to the atmosphere. A written report of the cause of any plant upset and the corrective measures taken by the facility operator, shall be provided to the DCD within 72 hours after resolving an emergency. 37.22 System Safety. In accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.6 (Equipment and System Monitoring), the plant process shall be automatically controlled by a plant-wide programmable logic controller (PLC) control system to operate, monitor, and maintain the RNG process under normal conditions. The control logic includes alarms and shutdowns to safely shut down the process if process conditions are outside the design basis. Any potential waste gas process streams shall be combusted in the RNGPF thermal oxidizer and/or process enclosed flare. 37.23 Operator Safety. Operators in the RNG processing facility shall be required to wear appropriate hearing protection devices in conformance with OSHA requirements. 37.24 Emergency Response Plan. The existing Emergency Response Plan for the LGFTE power plant shall be updated in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.9 (Emergency Response) to include the proposed RNGPF equipment, potential hazardous materials, and appropriate response procedures. Page 68 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION 37.25 Drainage Control. The RNGPFP shall be consistent with local plans and policies related to surface water protection and drainage. Drainage control measures that the RNGPFP operator shall incorporate into the design, construction, and operation of the RNGPFP include the following. a. For the RNGPF site, a new central stormwater drainage system shall be designed and constructed to convey surface runoff safely and efficiently from the project site to the existing KCL terminal detention basin. Prior to issuance of building permits, the RNGPF operator shall provide drainage information confirming the adequacy of the existing system to handle the additional impervious area generated by the RNGPF. b. For the RNGPF project site and RNG pipeline, components of the Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan as described in LP89-2020 COA 18.4 shall be implemented as appropriate. Components will include a Stability Analysis of proposed cut and fill slopes, and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to prevent substantial erosion on slopes on the project site and reduce the amounts of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. BMPs to be implemented that are in accordance with those identified in COA 18.4 shall include the following. • Primary grading for the RNGPF building site, and the construction of site slopes shall be performed during the April through October low rainfall season. • If grading must be done during rainy periods, or if erosion is occurring on previously graded areas, the RNGPF operator shall take corrective actions for temporary flow restriction, which may include the installation of ground cloth or the placement of hay bales. • The RNGPF operator shall plant ground over on graded areas which are not to be developed within 90 days. The ground cover shall be consistent with the Keller Canyon Landfill Landscaping Plan. • Ditches and swales for conveying surface runoff shall be lined or planted to limit erosion. • Erosion to ditches or gullies used to convey runoff shall be corrected by use of appropriate measures such as energy dissipators or rip rap. Page 69 • For the RNGPF project site and RNG pipeline, applicable measures from WDR Order No. 01-040 and NPDES Permit #2- 75006887 as amended shall be incorporated into construction documents and the KCL SWPPP. 37.26 Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan. The requirements of the Keller Canyon Landfill Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be implemented in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.11 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) for water resources protection in the event of a spill of coolant, lubricant, or other products or by-products of the RNGPF. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 37.27 The RNGPF operator shall coordinate with the Contra Costa Health Services Department on compliance with applicable regulations and/or programs pertaining to identification, use, disposal of hazardous materials, emergency response, and notification. These include regulations and programs prescribed by County Code Chapter 450-8 Risk Management; County Code Chapter 84-63 Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Material; the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Area Plan (May 2016); and documents approved by the Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Program. 37.28 The existing LFGTE plant includes a hazardous management business plan prepared in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.10 (Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release). The plan shall be updated to address new aspects of the RNGPF equipment and operation. VISUAL QUALITY 37.29 Aesthetics. The RNGPF operator shall apply an earth tone color scheme for the RNGPF equipment to ensure compatibility with the project site and surrounding landscape colors. A standard Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) requirement is for all exposed surfaces to be painted with a non-reflective finish (less than 55 percent reflectance). At the time of application for a building permit, the RNGPFP operator shall submit construction drawings that include earth tone, non-reflective paint on all exposed surfaces for review and approval by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). 37.30 Visual Screening with Tree Planting. The RNGPF operator shall plant coast Page 70 redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) on the KCL property to screen the view from residences located to the north, subject to review and approval by the DCD. The RNGPFP operator shall coordinate with a landscape designer specializing in visual screening. Minimum height of the planted redwoods shall be 10 feet to 12 feet, at a tree spacing of 15 feet to 25 feet on-center, with 13 to 21 trees, with final numbers and locations to be determined. 37.31 Nighttime Effects. The RNGPF operator shall design and locate the lighting system to reduce glare and reduce impact to area residents. Focused directional security and operational lighting shall be installed. Security and entrance lighting shall be dimmed at 7:30 p.m. SITE SERVICES AND UTILITIES PLAN 37.32 Fire Hydrant. The RNGPFP operator shall construct a new fire hydrant in a location near the mid-southeastern boundary of the RNGPF enclosure. The precise location and specifications of the new hydrant shall be coordinated with the CCCFPD to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 37.33 Construction of a series of bio-engineered improvements (e.g. log drop- structures) to trap sediment and protect the grade downstream of the road. The type, number, and precise location of these bio-engineered improvements would be determined by the project biologist in coordination with County and State resource agencies. The combination of exclusionary fencing, and bio-engineered solutions would be designed to endure over the projected 20-year lifespan of the proposed project. 37.34 HCP/NCCP Participation. The RNGPFP operator shall participate in and receive take coverage under the HCP/NCCP and comply with all conditions of the take coverage. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the RNGPFP operator shall submit an HCP/NCCP application and associated fee worksheet to the CDD and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) for review and approval. The temporary and permanent impacts to grassland habitats, jurisdictional waters and wetland resources shall require both temporary and permanent impact fees as defined by the current HCP/NCCP fee schedule at the time of application. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures as required by the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented to minimize impacts to covered species and jurisdictional resources. The Certificate of Coverage Page 71 will be issued to the RNGPFP operator to confirm the fee has been received, that other HCP/NCCP requirements have been met or will be performed and will authorize take of covered species. Participation in the HCP/NCCP will fully satisfy requirements for addressing impacts to the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. BIOLOGY-1 37.35 Burrowing Owl. To avoid and minimize impacts on burrowing owls and potential burrows the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. • Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring: This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the RNGPFP operator shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone Page 72 (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the RNGPFP operator shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. BIOLOGY-2 37.36 Golden Eagle. To avoid and minimize impacts on golden eagles the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to establish whether nests of golden eagles are occupied. If nests are occupied, minimization requirements and construction monitoring will be required. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: Covered activities shall be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, although mating and egg incubation occurs late January through August, with peak activity in March through July. If site- specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be Page 73 implemented, the RNGPFP operator shall coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. • Construction Monitoring: Construction Monitoring: Construction monitoring shall focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. These measures will include consultation with USFWS and CDFW if an active nest is identified, monitoring conducted by a qualified biologist with stop work authority Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the Urban Limit Line (ULL), covered activities inside and outside of the HCP Preserve System designated in the HCP/NCCP have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. The majority of the project activities fall outside of the ULL. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized through direct consultation with USFWS and CDFW on appropriate buffer zones and construction monitoring requirements, a qualified biologist will monitor all activities to ensure the buffer zone is maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. BIOLOGY-3 37.37 Nesting and Migratory Birds. To avoid and minimize impacts on nesting and migratory birds and to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act pre- construction surveys shall be conducted and construction avoidance measures shall be implemented if necessary. • Preconstruction Survey: Riparian vegetation, grassland habitats and trees shall be surveyed prior to commencing with covered activities to evaluate nesting bird habitat. If work is scheduled to take place between February 1 and August 31, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days of construction, covering a radius of 500 feet for non‐listed raptors and 100 feet for non‐ listed passerines at all locations. Preconstruction surveys will need to be done in phases as work along the alignment will not be occurring concurrently. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If an active bird nest is found within these buffers, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. If an active nest is present, a minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are Page 74 present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. BIOLOGY-4 37.38 American Badger. To avoid and minimize impacts on American badgers the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey, within the limits of proposed temporary and permanent impact in grassland and ruderal habitat, no less than 14 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect American badger. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction shall be avoided. If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using remote cameras or methodology coordinated with CDFW. If unoccupied, the qualified biologist shall collapse these dens by hand or shall request permission from CDFW to temporarily plug the burrow entrance with sandbags to prevent badgers from re-using them during construction. If occupied, the biologist shall consult with CDFW regarding best practices for encouraging the badger(s) to move to alternate dens outside the work areas. BIOLOGY-5 37.39 San Joaquin Kit Fox. To avoid and minimize impacts on San Joaquin kit fox the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas that support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist Page 75 shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS within five working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below will be implemented. • Avoidance and Minimization Requirements o If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. o Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. o If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. o If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional five consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). • Construction Monitoring: If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones shall be circular, with a radius measured outward Page 76 from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. A qualified biologist shall monitor all activities to ensure exclusion zones are maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. All exclusion zones shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. BIOLOGY-6 37.40 Special Status Bats. To avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats the following measures shall be implemented: • Focused Habitat Assessment: If trees along the access route or within the project site are to be removed a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if the subject trees have potential habitat. • Preconstruction Surveys: If the project does not avoid impacts to suitable habitat for special status bats, a preconstruction survey shall be required to determine whether the sites are occupied immediately prior to construction or whether they show signs of recent previous occupation. Preconstruction surveys are used to determine what avoidance and minimization requirements are triggered before construction and whether construction monitoring is necessary. Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. If occupied habitat is determined present and cannot be avoided, consultation with CDFW shall occur in order to determine the appropriate plan for eviction and compensatory mitigation. • Avoidance and Minimization: If the species is discovered or if evidence of recent prior occupation is established, construction shall be scheduled such that it minimizes impacts on special status bats. Hibernation sites with evidence of prior occupation shall be sealed before the hibernation season (November–March), and nursery sites shall be sealed before the nursery season (April–August). If the site is occupied, then the action shall occur either prior to or after the hibernation season for hibernacula and after August 15 for nursery colonies. Construction shall not take place as long as the site is occupied. BIOLOGY-7 37.41 Tree Pruning Overseen by Certified Arborist. Prior to any tree pruning and subject to CDD review, the RNGPFP operator shall hire a Certified arborist Page 77 to oversee and/or conduct any native-tree pruning required to access, construct, and implement the Project. Proposed removal of existing pepper trees at the proposed RNG Processing Facility shall be mapped and submitted to the CDD for review. BIOLOGY-8 37.42 Develop Temporary Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the RNGPFP operator shall develop a Temporary Restoration Plan to ensure the site is restored to pre- project conditions. This may include measures such as topsoil preservation per station segments and reseeding with native seed mixes. The Temporary Restoration Plan will include updated mapping of current Sensitive Natural Communities, monitoring of topsoil preservation in areas that are directly impacted (California buckeye groves and Gum Plant patches) and monitoring and reporting of SNCs that are to be avoided (rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches). The Temporary Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the CDD and the ECCCHC for review and approval. BIOLOGY-9 37.43 Aquatic Resources Delineation. In conjunction with Biology 1, the RNGPFP operator shall submit the Aquatic Resources Delineation to the ECCCHC for review and approval, and as required, to the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. BIOLOGY-10 37.44 Implement the Permit Conditions of the Aquatic Resource Agencies. Prior to commencing project construction, the RNGPFP operator shall obtain required permits from the Army Corps, CDFW, and/or RWQCB. Avoidance, minimization, and compensation will be determined by these agencies. The agencies will set the permit conditions, which are likely to include onsite enhancement and monitoring of seeps and drainages to ensure groundwater and surface water interruptions do not occur as a result of the project. The RNGPFP operator shall be responsible to implement the permit conditions, subject to oversight by the agencies. BIOLOGY-11 SLOPE AND SEISMIC STABILITY 37.45 Geology. To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, implementation of the following measures shall be required: a) Avoid crossing the lower elevations of the slide, where down cutting and potential regressive slope failures adjacent to canyon bottoms. b) Cross landslides where topography is relatively gentle. Page 78 c) Minimize earthwork in the landslide area by orienting the pipeline crossing so that it parallels the topographic contour. d) Implement a ground movement monitoring program that shall include at least bi-annual monitoring (i.e., before and after the rainy season), and after significant earthquake in accordance with the provisions of an “Inspection and Monitoring Program.” That program shall specify the qualifications of the inspector, identify the segments if the pipeline to be inspected, and provide an inspection form that shall identify the date of the inspection; name, title and contact information for the inspector; descriptions of the features observed; recommendations of inspector for supplemental/ special geotechnical investigations or other corrective work; and indicate the entity/ staff position that is to receive the inspection for Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG, LLC (or its successor). Copies of all inspection reports shall be kept on file by the operator of the facility and shall be made available for review by representatives of Contra Costa County (e.g., during routine mitigation monitoring by the County). e) Include an automatic shut off valve and other safety measures in the pipeline design. GEOLOGY-1 37.46 Liquefaction. To mitigate the confirm/ modify the preliminary assessment of liquefaction for the RNG processing facility, the following measures shall be implemented: a) The project geotechnical engineer shall present an updated evaluation of liquefaction potential of the sand body penetrated by boring B-102 from 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface, based on the methodology and parameters required by the CGS for projects located in the Seismic Hazard Zone (SHZ). The seismic parameters peak used in the analysis shall match those provided by SHZ Report 127; the analysis shall reference the methodology selected by the project geotechnical engineer; provide justification the parameters that were inputs into the computer model run(s); and shall clearly demonstrate the analysis is consistent with the standards required for projects in the SHZ. b) The liquefaction analysis presented in response to item 2.A above shall be submitted for review at least 30 days prior to submitting an application for a grading or building permit for the RNG processing facility. That report shall also provide final recommendations for site grading, drainage, and foundation design, including recommendations for reinforced earth, retaining walls, and foundations of proposed structures. It shall also present plan review Page 79 comments of the project geotechnical engineers, and geologists, outline the recommended observation and testing services during construction. c) The report required by items 2.A and 2.B above shall be subject to review by the County Peer Review Geologist, and review/ approval by the CDD. GEOLOGY-2 37.47 Seismicity. To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, the Geology 1 mitigation measures shall be implemented. In addition, the following measures are required: a) The project engineering geologist shall view where landslide deposits are in contact with colluvium of bedrock. This shall occur prior to placement of any bedding/ backfill in the following segments of the trench to determine if weak soil conditions are encountered that would warrant special engineering at such interfaces (e.g., over- excavation of any soft material at the slide/ bedrock contact, and replacement with reinforced earth or other special engineering). The findings of the project engineering geologist shall be documented in the final grading report. The project engineering geologist shall view and document exposed conditions in the pipeline trench where it crosses the boundary of landslides Qls #2, Qls #3 and Qls #4. b) The project engineering geologist shall view exposed conditions in the immediate area of the trench pipeline crossing of the Kirker Pass fault. The fault is a geologic contact, so there is potential for contrasting engineering properties of the rock units on opposite sides of the fault, along with the engineering properties of the fault zone. The fault zone area is a potentially weak, marginally stable area that can be expected to include highly fractured rock, shear planes, possible gouge zone, and possible seepage zone. These are adverse conditions could influence local slope stability. The final grading report shall include mapping of the fault zone and provide an explanation of any special recommendations/ special engineering incorporated into the design. GEOLOGY-3 37.48 Scour. To mitigate the potential for future headward erosion, soil creep, and shallow sloughing to undermine the pipeline, implementation of scour protection measures shall be implemented where the pipeline crosses seasonal water courses. a) Where feasible, the pipeline shall be buried below the potential scour depth. Page 80 b) Scour assessment shall be performed by the project geotechnical engineer at locations specified in the project geotechnical engineer’s reports. Typical scour protection measures shall be considered for use, including structural and/ or biotechnical erosion control. The selection of the scour protection measures shall be based upon completion of the scour assessment and shall consider environmental constraints. c) During construction, the scour assessment shall be determined by the project geotechnical engineer and may include a plan view, typical section(s), and specifications for the proposed stabilization/ erosion control measures. GEOLOGY-4 37.49 Expansive and Corrosive Soils. To mitigate the potential impact of expansive and corrosive soils, implementation of the following measures shall be required: a) For the RNG processing facility, additional soil expansion and corrosion hazard testing shall be required for the on-site and any import earth materials by the project geotechnical engineer. The findings of the testing shall be documented in the final grading report, which shall provide specific standards and criteria for the geotechnical aspects of the RNG processing facility. b) The final grading report required by Geology 5.A shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist, and review and approval by the CDD. c) For the pipeline, a California licensed corrosion engineer shall be retained by the RNGPFP operator to identify suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits and fittings. d) During pipeline construction, the corrosion potential of the on-site soils shall be verified for each encountered soil type. e) Any import fill materials shall be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential. All import must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to transporting to the project site. f) The corrosion engineer shall review available information on the corrosion hazard and may require additional testing. The corrosion engineer shall document the specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations, and any monitoring recommendations, in Page 81 a wet signed and stamped letter-report. That report shall be submitted to the CDD prior to placing any pipe. GEOLOGY-5 NOISE CONTROL 37.50 General Construction. Pile driving, blasting, and helicopters shall not be used as methods of construction. RNG Pipeline Construction. The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation and shall be included on all sets of construction drawings. a) The RNGPFP operator shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. b) A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the property with the telephone number and person to contact regarding construction- related complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Department of Conservation and Development phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. c) Additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation in the PG&E utility corridor: • Per City of Pittsburg Municipal Ordinance Section 18.82.040 Noise, no construction event or activity occurring on the PG&E property adjoining existing residential uses shall generate loud noises in excess of 65 decibels measured at the property line, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. • Per City of Pittsburg General Plan Noise Element Policy 12-P-9, the RNGPFP operator shall restrict outdoor construction activities in the PG&E utility corridor to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. • In addition to the foregoing, the RNGPFP operator shall provide notification to occupants of property directly adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor two weeks prior to, and 24-hours prior to, scheduled construction activity in the PG&E utility corridor. NOISE -1 Page 82 WASTE REDUCTION AND RECOVERY 37.51 Construction solid waste generated by the construction of the RNGPFP shall be accounted for in the State reporting system. The RNGPF operator shall implement the following measures for job site debris. a.Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.4 (Materials Recovery) and in accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) as amended in Contra Costa County Code, at least 65 percent by weight of the job site debris generated by the RNGPFP shall be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. A Construction Waste Management (CalGreen) Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the County Building Inspection Department (BID) prior to commencing construction. b.Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.4 (Materials Recovery) and in accordance with the CalGreen as amended in Contra Costa County Code, plans and reports with verifiable post-project documentation shall be submitted to the BID to demonstrate that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated on the job site was salvaged for reuse, recycled or otherwise diverted. A Construction Waste Management (CalGreen) Report shall be submitted to the BID prior to final inspection. c.Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 31.1 (Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Objective), a Supplemental Land Clearing Debris and Universal Waste Report for CalGreen shall be submitted to the BID along with the CalGreen Report above outlining the extent and quantity of land clearing and excavation debris recycled for materials such as plants, trees, soil, sand, and rock. 37.52 Surcharge. A surcharge, as established by the County Board of Supervisors, ADVISORY NOTES Page 83 A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the RNGPFP operator that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. Seq, the RNGPFP operator has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the CDD within 90-days of the approval date of this permit. B. The RNGPFP operator shall coordinate with the Contra Costa Health Services Department on compliance with applicable regulations and/or programs pertaining to identification, use, disposal of hazardous materials, emergency response, and notification. These include regulations and programs prescribed by County Code Chapter 450-8 Risk Management; County Code Chapter 84-63 Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Material; the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Area Plan (May 2016); and documents approved by the Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Program. C. The RNGPFP operator shall submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and comply with Division requirements. It is advisable to check with the Division prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. D. The RNGPFP operator is responsible for contacting the Health Services Department Environmental Health Division regarding its requirements and permits. E. The RNGPFP operator must submit building plans to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with its requirements. The RNGPFP operator is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Fire Protection District. F. The RNGPFP operator must comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District. G. The RNGPFP operator is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District regarding its requirements and Page 84 permits. H. The RNGPFP operator shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region 11). I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the RNGPFP operator's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the RNGPFP operator's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. History of Revisions 7/24/1990 – Original Approval 11/1/1994 – Amendment 1 (added COA 35.8) 6/25/2003 – Amendment 2 (added Section 36 “Landfill Gas Power Plant” – LP012115) 12/16/2014 – Permit Review Modification (modified conditions 20.3, 25.4, and 31.5) 9/22/2015 – Permit Review Modification (modified numerous conditions and added conditions 2.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7 and 8.6) M:\Keller\COAs\KCL-LUPCOA_Amd5.docx ATTACHMENT 3 PARCEL PAGE, GENERAL PLAN MAP, ZONING MAP 097-17,22 FM: 075-08; 094-05,06,07,08,10,11,12,13 360 08 75 10 17 97 111 01 360 08 05 140 ' P G & E E A S E . 22 2322 15 141516 21 22 23 27 26 1 2 1 1 2 2 23 24 2526 24 19 25 30 26 35 36 25 25 30 3136 25 30 36 31 36 3131 11 66 3635 2 1 22 2 27 26 34 35 2 1 1 2 N1 7 ^ 3 8 ' 9 " E 440 N2 4 ^ 4 1 ' 5 3 " E N88^44'34"W N30^1'53"W N88^49'7"W 25 4 9 . 4 3 1326.31 (T) 1298.15 17 9 1 . 6 6 1571.57 N2 2 ^ 4 1 ' 7 " E N2 2 ^ 4 1 ' 7 " E N1 ^ 6 ' 2 7 " E N89^49'10"W 16 3 8 . 1 25 9 7 . 6 3 N89^51'7"W 517.45 299.87 45 3 7 . 2 1 N3 ^ 8 ' 5 7 " W N1 ^ 1 3 ' 3 " E 29 9 2 . 5 1 N3 4 ^ 2 9 ' 4 7 " W 26 1 1 . 1 N89^39'17"W N1 ^ 2 5 ' 5 4 " E N0 ^ 5 1 ' 3 1 " E 2621.96 32 2 5 . 4 4 ( T ) N1 ^ 2 1 ' 5 4 " E R=14 5 0 26 0 9 . 6 8 N89^46'47"EN88^27'50"W 2629.981742.74 N0 ^ 5 3 ' 1 8 " E N52 ^ 2 0 ' 1 3 " W 435 7 . 0 4 R= 5 2 5 R= 1 4 7 5 N6 ^ 3 6 ' 8 " E 13 1 4 . 3 7 N0 ^ 2 6 ' 3 " E 15 4 0 . 8 8 N87^59'45"E 2576.45 S89^37'6"E S2 ^ 1 1 ' 3 6 " W 26 1 0 . 3 5 N0 ^ 5 8 ' 3 7 " E 25 7 6 . 6 7 S66^ 1 5 ' 1 2 " W S2 3 ^ 4 4 ' 4 8 " E 40 0 500 BA I L E Y & 2- (1 0 0 L S M 2 0 ) 13 08 08 (CITY OF PITTSBURG) 22 ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE94 36 10 2 4 . 9 9 N47^22'46"E 127.74 R=1108.42 206.70 R=695 626.44 R=475 134.35 R=525 172.77 R=825 201.35 R=425 251.58 R=375 229.07 R=2042 332.25 R=1958 253.81 S71^22'39"W 149.51 S39^37'19"W 1.69 N8^10'7"E 105.57 N27^59'10"E 117.21 N9^54'W 107.60 N2^48'15"E 122.65 N26^26'34"E 314.39 N33^7'14"E 111.64 N29^55'4"E 164.41 N39^24'36"E 83.48 N63^26'6"E 98.39 N19^33'30"W 80.65 N18^14'5"E 48.67 S4^37'19"W 144.75 S89^31'37"E 661.82 S86^3'12"E 4.17 S55^10'19"W 384.37 S52^31'19"W 371.49N1 ^ 6 ' 4 1 " E 13 3 7 . 8 4 N26^3'53"E 11.08 N1 ^ 6 ' 5 7 " E S14^9'55"E 347.12 S6 ^ 4 4 ' 1 7 " E 63 3 . 5 5 5.28AC 45.43AC 40.599AC 14 86 7 . 1 6 47 0 . 6 8 F-(7-19),G-(17-19),H-17,19,J-18 SA N T A M A R I A D R BA I L E Y PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 13 RD 6-02-92 1"=2000' TO 97-17 TR 8042 TO BK 97 PG 21 N89^45'47"E 2627.94 19 20 S83^15'57"W 3018.86 N0 5 ^ 2 9 ' 4 6 " E 25 2 5 . 2 2 N76^25 ' 1 3 " E 2229.5 6 S1 2 ^ 2 2 ' 4 9 " E 27 4 6 . 9 8 17 155.8Ac 06 08 03 158.0Ac 18 N88^46'57"E 2645.49 N1 ^ 3 ' 3 8 " E 25 6 3 . 2 8 APN# 094-100-011 EXP L O S I V E S A F E T Y E A S E ( U S A ) (34 0 . 9 A c ) 22 SEC 25 & POR SEC 23,24,26,35,36 T2N R1W POR SEC 19,30,31 T1N R1E MDB&M POR 32PM42 POR 155PM44 3/18/1974 11/22/1991 1- 4.59Ac 370.3Ac 303.47Ac "B" 446.09Ac 833.2Ac POR "PCL A" 74.4Ac 26 3 8 . 0 8 N0 1 ^ 1 0 ' 2 5 " E 13 1 9 . 2 6 62 2 . 7 4 N0 1 ^ 0 4 ' 2 5 " E 26 5 5 . . 5 5 20 3 2 . 8 1 N28^26'03"W 979.39 MT D I A B L O M E R I D I A N KELLER CANYON LANDFILL KELLER CANYON LANDFILL R1 W R1 E RD T2N T1N W LELAND RD HWY 4 KIR K E R PASS 6/2/09 21 159.61Ac 33 32 28 30 0504 22 21 19 20 31 26 25 18 95 PB 09 36 080 89 PB87 PB 36 36 29 TRACT 5398 M.B.229-31 9-7-79 5-22-84 45.64AC 13 24 2314 3-23-83 M.B. 268-26 30.62AC 32 24 25 2623 12 02 CITY OF PITTSBURG 40.33Ac. 4.59Ac. 19 30 2524 11 11.75Ac. 14 PITTSBURG 3759 OR 3 345.45Ac. 18 19 2413 31 37 27 43 41 74.40Ac. 300Ac. "B" 31.45Ac. TRACT 5346 9-22-78 TRACT 4732 8-30-78 MB 217-1 6.518Ac. LOT 613 TRACT 6016 TRAC T 5 4 9 1 7-30- 7 9 MB 22 7 - 3 2 35.87 A c . RD . LE L A N D 2624.72 N0^02'E N0^02'E N1^48'W 2608.14 5085.71S0^19'30"W 80 0 548.50 S0^25'20"W N8 9 ^ 5 4 ' 3 0 " W 29 9 . 8 7 N88^34'35"W S29 ^ 1 6 ' 2 5 " W 517 . 4 5 25' R / W 400' 400' 50 0 ' 50 0 ' S6 6 ^ 1 5 ' 3 4 " W N6 6 ^ 1 5 ' 3 4 " E N23^ 4 4 ' 2 6 " W 14 5 9 . 3 6 N8 9 ^ 4 8 ' 4 0 " E N8 9 ^ 3 4 ' 4 0 " W 15 6 2 . 1 8 3419 . 2 6 1628 . 6 8 N23^ 4 3 ' 5 8 " E S8^43'58 " W N0^08'W 1075 . 8 6 500.10 48 6 . 3 0 N6 9 ^ 3 6 ' W S89^52'W 100365.80 29 9 18 3 . 3 4 26 8 . 4 4 R= 6 5 8 R= 7 4 2 29 7 . 9 4 S8^57'20"EN40^37'20"W 73.50 N7 3 ^ 1 2 ' W N7 4 ^ 3 8 ' W 40 0 . 1 0 12 5 7 . 0 4 14 2 1 . 5 6 N7 3 ^ 1 2 ' W 40 0 N7 2 ^ 1 8 ' 4 3 " W 12 3 . 6 3 244.3 3 247.11 17 1 . 9 2 N78^W N66^34'40"W N72^17'20"W 150.75 150.75 146.70 38 CC FIRE 520 29.40 TO C I T Y 1. 9 3 A c . 76 9 . 9 9 S17^3 4 ' 2 4 " W S2^22'54"W 559'1 1 350' N25^ 5 0 ' E 197.76' 39 2 . 8 8 ' N8 2 ^ 4 0 ' W 44 0 . 0 ' N6 4 ^ 1 0 ' W N25^ 5 0 ' E N0^20'W 27 0 ' N6 4 ^ 1 0 ' W N25^ 5 0 ' E N6 4 ^ 1 0 ' W 1 12 9 8 . 1 5 (S0^29'23"W) 2634.59' S1^18'47"W 1 26 3 4 . 7 2 ' S8 9 ^ 4 2 ' 2 9 " 11622.74' N1^01'48"E N17^3 7 ' 3 7 " E 4789. 0 8 ' (S0^03'42"W)S0^53'06"W 2612.46 1644 . 9 3 ' (S21 ^ 1 8 ' 2 0 " W ) S22^ 0 7 ' 4 4 " W 1 (N16^ 4 8 ' 1 3 " E ) 47.83 ' N89^4 5 ' 0 9 " E N1^15 ' 0 3 " W 50.02 62.25 ' N89^4 5 ' 0 9 " E N8 8 ^ 5 5 ' 4 5 " E N. D . N.D. 2 "C" 2 97 0 . 8 7 N7 8 ^ 1 8 ' 1 0 " E 100 ' N45 ^ 3 0 ' 3 6 " E N7 3 ^ 4 0 ' 4 5 " W 45 7 . 6 0 25 2 . 4 0 43 8 . 6 0 234 . 9 9 S8 8 ^ 5 3 ' 0 5 " W S00^21'29"W84.08 39 6 . 8 0 40 0 . 4 6 SLOPE EASE (1.64Ac.) S87^51'58"W R= 3 8 4 2 R= 3 7 5 8 95 5 . 4 4 1.87Ac. 97 6 . 8 0 11 6 9 . 7 9 11 5 2 . 4 0 ??? 85.78 N0^41'50"E S00^44'22"W 102 . 1 2 ' 0.20Ac. TO CITY 682.7'(N3 1 ^ 4 8 ' 1 3 " E ) S7 2 ^ 2 2 ' 3 6 " W S7 8 ^ 0 5 ' 3 6 " E 31.55 R=124 2 ' 113.91 R=115 8 106.21 1 88.78 339.80 6.53Ac.53 5 . 2 ' 55 2 . ' N7 3 ^ 1 2 ' W 39 4 . 0 0 201 N25^ 2 4 ' W N31^ 0 7 ' W 141. 4 0 N6 7 ^ 0 4 ' W 95 0 . 6 0 N8 4 ^ 0 5 ' W 70 2 . 1 0 69 . 2 0 N1 2 ^ 3 1 ' W 40 S7 7 ^ 0 9 ' W 55 9 . 9 207 2 "A" 26 N3 4 ^ 0 1 ' W N3 4 ^ 0 1 ' W 43.19Ac. WOP. 1" = 8 0 0 ' ASSESSOR'S MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIF. BOOK PAGE94 8 080 N17^3 7 ' 3 7 " E 1130.1 9 22 620 33 2 . 1 3 2 120 385.55 22 0 450 N9^46'49" W N7 3 ^ 1 1 ' 4 7 " W 42 200 200 24 0 CITY A- 2- 1- 1-2-62 GCC 43 8/15/07 SEC 24 POR SEC 13 & 25 T2N R1W MDB&M POR SEC 18,19 & 30, T2N R1E MDB&M 32PM42 3/18/74 MB 279-19 "HILLSDALE UNIT-10" 5/19/98PCL"C"174PM4 PURPOSES ONLY. NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION NOTE: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ASSESSMENT DELINEATED HEREON. ASSESSOR'S PARCELS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH LOCAL LOT SPLIT OR BUILDING SITE ORDINANCES. 3.28Ac 27.222Ac 50.66Ac 100 ' P G & E E A S E TR 6016 MB 279-19 TO PG CITY OF PITTSBURG 160.32Ac P G & E SBE 135-7-99 PCL 3 135-7-100 POR PCL 1 12/8/60 271.09Ac CITY OF 16.16Ac .979Ac 8.331Ac 2.36Ac N16^4 8 ' 1 3 " E .80Ac PG&E 3.75Ac 45.46Ac MB 217-20 PG&E TR 5399 SBE 135-7-55 POR PCL 3 SBE 135-7-55 POR PCL 3 CDLP18-02022 Project Site: APN 094-360-019, 094-360-008, 094-360-020, 094-360-022, 094-080-012 Source: Accela, accessed July 24, 2018 094-360-019 094-360-020 094-360-022 094-080-012 094-360-008 CDLPLP18-02022 General Plan: LF, Landfill – APN 094-360-019, 094-360-008; OS, Open Space – APN 094-360-020, 094-360-022, 094-080-012 Source: Accela, accessed July 24, 2018 CDLP18-02022 General Plan Land Use Designations: LF, Landfill; OS, Open Space Source: Accela, accessed July 14, 2020 CDLP18-02022 Zoning: A-3, Heavy Agricultural – APN 094-360-019, 094-360-008; A-4, Agricultural Preserve – APN 094-360-020, 094-360-022; A-2, General Agricultural – APN 094-080-012 Source: Accela, accessed July 24, 2018 CDLP18-02022 Zoning: A-3, Heavy Agricultural; A-4, Agricultural Preserve; A-2, General Agricultural Source: Accela, accessed July 14, 2020 ATTACHMENT 4 PROJECT PLANS X X KIRKER PASS ROAD EBRPD SEENO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL EBRPD PG&E PG&E PG&E STATE HIGHWAY 4 AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) PG&E LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA KELLER CANYON LANDFILL KELLER CANYON LANDFILL REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) DISPOSAL AREA LIMIT Green Clean Sustainable. . ~ I Ll I I I + + I /~ .. . . . (.. • . ~ ~ ~ j "";, .,_ U' '?"r <>" _. ~ \~ ' \ \ / / \ + OJ "' u ,.; iU I ~ \ ,,. ~ G l .., '% .... "' I 0 I '° 0 > "' ~ LD OJ c;: l:J z er __J u y I E <C / "" z :E " _<; u._ / U1 "' '-:J OJ c;: iU 0 (\J / OJ "' u / <:: 0 ,,., <:: Cl u '-"' o; I 'L 0 u i U1 "' I '-"' E i <C / '° I I + 0 0 (\J \ \ l J U1 +' u "' ., 0 '-CL u <:: Cl __J / Li FIGURE 5 0 30 60 RNG PROCESSING FACILITY SITE PLAN (REVISED) APPROX. SCALE IN FEET BRYAN A. STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES AME R ESCO KELLER CANYON DATE: j 01 JUNE Z021 AMER ESCO<(; DRAWN E!Yo I EBT D 6\ J74!l MT. DIABLO BLVD_ f JOO RENEWAB LE NATURAL GAS PROJECT REVIEW BY;( AS I JAS LAFAYETIE, CA 94!149 Graan •Clean• Sustainable 009-655~3271 CON TRA COSTA COUNTY LP 18-2 022 / SCH 20 20100267 REV: 202 1-1/ATSI 01-27-2021 FI G U R E 6 RN G P R O C E S S I N G F A C I L I T Y G E N E R A L A R R A N G E M E N T ( R E V I S E D ) Gr e e n C l e a n S u s t a i n a b l e . . X X SEENO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PG&E PG&E PG&E AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) DISPOSAL AREA LIMIT Green Clean Sustainable. . OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx Green Clean Sustainable. . ATTACHMENT 5 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROJECT SITE Existing Ameresco LFG Power Plant Looking Northeast Source: Ameresco, April 2020 Site of Proposed RNG Processing Facility Looking Northwest Source: Ameresco, April 2020 RNG Processing Equipment Photos Biogas Compressor TSA Media Tanks Photos Source: Ameresco, April 2020. RNG Processing Equipment Photos (continued) Recuperative Thermal Oxidizer Overhead Pipe Assembly (left); Control Center on Skid (center) Photos Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Ameresco Ninety-First Avenue RNG Processing Facility – Phoenix, AZ Photo Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Enclosed Flare Skids Tanks Compressors Tanks Electrical Conditioning Pipe Assembly RNG Processing Equipment Photos (continued) Containerized Membrane (typical) Carbon Tanks (typical) Photos Source: Ameresco, April 2020. RNG Transmission Pipeline Along Litter Fence Looking East Source: Ameresco, April 2020 Keller Canyon Special Buffer Area Looking East Source: Ameresco, April 2020 Pipeline Alignment To Be Constructed In Ranch Roads Were Possible Source: Ameresco, April 2020 ATTACHMENT 6 AGENCY COMMENTS Subject LP18-2020 From Randolf Sanders To Stanley Muraoka Sent Thursday, June 10, 2021 4:42 PM Stanley, Public Works previous conditions of approval for LP89-2020 are still applicable and no additional conditions are required as part of this land use permit. The applicant, under LP18-2020, must provide drainage information for adequacy of the existing system to handle the additional impervious area generated by the new RNG facility prior to issuance of building permits. Sincerely, Randolf Sanders, PE | Associate Civil Engineer Contra Costa County Public Works Department: Engineering Services Division 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 p: 925.313.2111 | f: 925.313.2333 | e: Randolf.Sanders@pw.cccounty.us | http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us “Accredited by the American Public Works Association” CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 Phone: 925-67 4-7205 Fax: 92S.674-7258 AGE NCY COMMENT REQUEST I Date '1 p.'5 l fs' our comments re ardin the attached a Hcatio ·currentl under review. DISTRIBUTION ~ _v_.R B•u•u111ding lnspectiOn _Advance Planning ~rading Inspection __ Housing Programs _Trans. Planning _Telecom Planner _ALUC Staff VH-~~ _APC Floodplain Tech Yc~nty G~t Heal · Service artm nt · · fVU... 1 ) Please submit your comments to: Project Plann.er S {am le.~ l\\vr.....ol<o. Phone# <.:Jo?~_ ~ 14. fJ f' E-mail ,fq~Jq. '4vr"'"' 1> t< e.-@dcd.cccounty.us County Fiie # l. P 1 f . 2.e 7 7 Prior to ai&A, j....J--,;( '-1 l Zo I ;p **** We have found the following special programs apply Environmental Health _Hazardous Materials to this application: Pubijg Works Deoartment .NQ. Active Fault.Zone {Alqulst-Prlolo) ~ptglneering Services (Full-size) _Traffic ~. Floo~ Hazard Area, Panel # ____ ....,.... _ _ ../_ FFllcood Control {Fulf .. size) _Special Districts .1lD. ao-dBA Noi~ Control tf-iiliiiJl-------------......... 1 .t!Q_ CA EPA Hazardlus Waste Site Fire District __________ _ -..Z Consolidated -(email) fire@cccfpd.org ~~nltary IS - Uwater District Co NJ!l~ 4:071\ VcJty .of P rTl>iUR-6, _School District(s)_· --------­ _LAFCO _Reclamation District # __ _ _East. Bay Regional Park District _Dla~lo/Oiscovery Bay/Crockett CSD _._MACITAC ________ ~--------~ _·_Improvement/Community Association _x_cc Mosquito & Vector Control Dist (email) Others/N on.-local ~<3:'RIS-Sonoma State ..l&A Fish and Wiidiife, Region 3 -Bay Delta _·_Native American Tribes ***** AGENCIES: Please indica~e the applicable code section for any recommendation required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant and Owner. Comments:. __ None _,k_eerow _Attached ~~i!°Cj~,.~~C:rt syy-fcc~ftM ~b + fl.t.b .. Vet\~:~ @k&.-i~ ~ E··~ D1,ji11·~±: f>!i~rd2--•·f\$-4' I(~ -k.., 4,r· Additional Reciolents _ O · Print Name J t>Jd s:;k .Sl if~ IA1As7B J)fy/tQ_ --::z;:l1 ~ lfftt /J S-----------~.-.r.....;;...;;:~~,;;,...s;;..-. ... · _L · Signat!Jre DATE Agency phone# q ~ f .. 9 'If ... 3 3 ~J!C,/ ANNA M. ROTH , RN, MS, MPH HEALTH ,SERVICES DiRECTOR RANDALL L. SAWYER (HIEF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & HAZMAT OFFICER MARILYN C. UNDERWOOD, PHD, REHS D IRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH September 12, 2018 CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division Attn: Stanley Muraoka 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 CONTRA COSTA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2120 Diamond Boulevard, Suite 200 Concord, California 94520 Ph (925) 692-2500 Fax 92 fi9.2.=2502 · rt~c~he'alth:ordteht rn.~T"f'~.;· l; roS1'A. COUNT \ 1-..._.v i '• k ,,_, • • ~ 1" ! 1----·~---, . I SEP 172!l18 j Dept of Consenation & levtlop .. RE: LP18-2022 -Ameresco/Keller Canyon Gas Processing Power Plant 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA APN: 094-360-008, -019, -020, -022, & 094-080-012 Service Request#: SR0011629 Dear Mr. Muraoka: Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) has received a request for agency comment regarding the above referenced project. The following are our comments: 1. A permit from CCEH is required for any well or soil boring pfior to commencing drilling activities, including those associated with water supply, environmental investigation arid cleanup, or geotechnical investigation. 2. Any abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) and septic tanks must be destroyed under permit from CCEH. If the existence of such wells or septic tanks are known in advance or discovered during construction or other activities, these must be clearly marked, kept secure, and destroyed pursuant to CCEH requirements. 3. This site is known to have septic systems and onsite wells. From provided documentation it is appears those systems would not be affected however the applicant is required to contact CCEH to have a plan check and evaluation to verify that the onsite water and septic systems are unaffected and meet current standards, including disposal field replacement area, construction, well yield, water quality, and setbacks. A hydrogeological study may be required to ensure adequate water supply. 4. The CCEHD is designated by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for solid waste facilities, including landfills, transfer stations, and waste tire generators and haulers. Keller Canyon Landfill is full permit solid waste--disposal facility (07-AA-0032). Depending on the scope of changes resulting ·from -this project, Keller Canyon may be A • Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health & Hazardous Materials Programs• • -. c-o-nt-ra -Co-st-a H-e-alt-h,-Hou-sin-g -& H-o-me-le-ss -Se-rv-ices_•_C_on-tr-a C~o-sta-'-H-ea-lth-Pl-an-•-Co-n-tra_C_ost-a-Pu-bl-ic -He-alt_h _• C-o-ntr-a -Co_st_a R-eg-io-na-1 M-e-dic-al -Ce-nt-er-&-He-alt_h_Ce-nt-er-s .- required to change, modify, or update various aspects of their permit and/or operational documents. 5. Debris from construction or demolition activity must go to a solid waste or recycling facility that complies with the applicable requirements and can lawfully accept the material (e.g., solid waste permit, EA Notification, etc.). The debris must be transported by a hauler that can lawfully transport the material. Debris bins or boxes of one cubic yard or more owned by the collection service operator shall be identified with the name and telephone number of the agent servicing the container. These comments do not limit an applicant's obligation to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (925) 692- 2538. Sincerely, df:_ ~-~ W. Eric Fung, REHS Environmental Health Specialist II WEF:tf Contra Costa County Brian M. Balbas, ex officio Chief Engineer Flood Control Mike Carlson, Deputy Chief Engineer --.. & Water Conservation District rrncfilvf.o':?"""· -=-- Interoffice emo cG" co~y DATE: August 22, 2018 Dept of Conserration & Development 'TO: Stanley Muraoka, DCD-Community Development Division i/l~·-2u2<__ Jocelyn LaRocque, PWD-Engineeri?gl Services FROM: Rene Urbina, Rood Control ~\Jv- SUBJECT: LP18-2022 -Ameresco Keller canyon Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project FliLE: 92-2022-18 and 3099-06 094-360-019,-008,-020,-022; 094-080-012 MESSAGE: T:he Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) received an Agency Comment Request for a Land Use Permit Application for the Ameresco Keller Canyon Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project on June 25, 2018. We understand the project consists of :installing a new processing gas infrastructure and a new pipeline from the site to a PG&E interconnection. The gas processing power plant would be constructed on the Keller Canyon Landfill parcels, ,APN 094-360-019,-008,-020,-022 and 094-080-0l2 .. We have the following comments: We recommend that the project be deemed incomplete,, because the applicant does not demonstrate that the project is connecting to an adequate storm drain system. RECOMMENDED CONDffiONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Land Use Permi~, the applicant shall be required to submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations to the Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department that prove the adequacy of the on-site drainage system and the downstream drainage system. 2. Prior to approval of the Land Use Permit, the applicant shall provide a drainage study for review and approval that analyzes the basin for the additional runoff and sediment. 3. Prior to approval, submit an Operation and Maintenance (O & M) manual for the basin. "'Acaedited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive • Martinez, CA 94553 TEL: (925) 313-2000 • FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Stanley Muraoka, DCD-Community Development Division Jocelyn LaRocque, PWD-Engineering Services August 22, 2018 Page 2of2 GENERAL COMMENTS 4. The proposed project is located in Drainage Area 99, an unformed drainage area. Therefore, there are no drainage area fees due at this time. 5. The project proposes to connect to an existing on-site basin downstream of the project on the Keller Canyon Landfill parcels. The existing on-site basin is a sedimentation basin, and its capacity is dependent on the amount of sediment present in the basin at any time. At no time shall the capacity of the basin be below the required amount of storage that it was designed for. The applicant shall provide hydraulic and hydrologic calculations that demonstrate that the existing basin has the capacity for the additional runoff generated by the project as well as the existing sediment load. The applicant should also submit an O .&. M manual of the basin for review and approval. The 0 & M manual should identify the entity responsible for maintaining the basin. If you have any questions, please contact me via e-mail at rene.urbina@ pw.cccounty.us or by phone at (925) 313-2308. RU:cw G:\fldctl\CUrDev\CnlES\Bay Point\3099-o6\APN 094-360-019 Keller Canyon Landfill\Comments Memo.docx c: lim Jensen, Flood Control Michelle Cordis, Flood Control Teri E. .Rie, Rood Control Alan D. Siegwarth, Ameresco Keller Canyon 111 Speen Street, Suite 410 Framingham, MA 01701 Departm.ent Memo Brian M. Balbas . Director Deputy Directors Stephen Kowalewski, Ch REd~rv:En Mike Carlson CONTRA COST A COUNTY Warren Lai ·~-,,.--.. Carrie Ricci Joe Yee AUG 2 2 2018 Dept of Conservation & Development August 22, 2018 TO: Stan Muraoka, Planner, Department of Conservation and Development FROM: ~Kara Schuh-Garibay, Civil Engineer, Engineering Services Division SUBJECT: PERMIT LP18-2022 30-DAY COMMENTS -INCOMPLETE (Ameresco Keller Canyon/Bailey Road/Bay Point/APN 094-360-008, -019, -020, 094-080-012) FILE: LP18-2022 We have reviewed the application for land use permit LP18-2022 received by your office on July --­ -24, 2018 and submit the following comments: Background The applicant requests a land use permit to construct additional gas processing equipment at the existing landfill gas power plant at Keller Canyon Landfill including a buried pipeline through Keller Canyon Landfill and PG&E right-of-way, terminating at PG&E STANPAC 3 gas pipeline in the City of Pittsburg. The equipment is proposed to be located on a flat pad created with earth fill on APN 094-360-019 just west of the existing Ameresco Power Plant. The proposed pipeline will cross several parcels to the east from the site before reaching the point of termination. The earth fill pad on which the new equipment will be placed is proposed to be covered in gravel. While the exact equipment to be installed has not been determined at this time, the applicant has indicated that the majority of the equipment is on skids and will be located on concrete pads. Traffic and Circulation The project is located on the private road within the Keller Canon LandfiJI property accessed via Bailey Road. To limit traffic impacts to nearby neighborhoods, construction access to the site will be limited to Bailey Road as a condition of approval. Drainage The proposed project site is a hillside draining to the northwest. The applicant proposes to add earth fill the site to create a flat pad to locate equipment on. The site is proposed to drain to an ''Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000 •FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Stan Muraoka August 22, 2018 Page 2 of 3 existing sedimentation basin located east of the existing gas processing equipment. The applicant indicates that the existing drainage system to which the site will drain has been designed for the 1,000 year storm. The existing system ultimately drains to a storm drain system within the City of Pittsburg. Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm water to an adequate natural watercourse. Any revised submittal should include a conceptual drainage plan indicating how the proposed site will drain to the existing system. The plan should show approximate location of any drainage inlets, pipes and ditches. It should show and label any proposed berm around the site and should show the proposed connection to the existing system. On-site pipes do not need to be sized at this time. The applicant should submit calculations demonstrating that the existing system has adequate capacity to convey additional flow from the project site. Ideally, the submitted calculations should include a copy of the original calculations for the existing storm drain system and basin, marked and/or highlighted to show the portion of the calculations pertinent to this project and include a summary indicating how it is determined that the system has adequate capacity to convey the additional runoff. Information should also be provided as to what entity reviewed and approved the original calculations; specifically a copy of any signoff by the reviewing party should be submitted. Any revised submittal should include information, such as an operation and maintenance manual, regarding the maintenance program in place for the existing sedimentation basin to ensure it retains the required capacity. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance The proposed project must be permitted under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The applicant has indicated that Keller Canyon Landfill has its own NPDES permit. The applicant will need to determine if the proposed project can be covered by the Landfill's permit and submit evidence to demonstrate that It the case. If the project is not covered or cannot be covered under the landfill's permit, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and the County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES Permit. A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications that will create and/or redevelop impervious surface area exceeding 10,000 square feet (5,000 square feet for projects that include parking lots, restaurants, automotive service facilities and gas stations) in compliance with the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and the County's MS4 NPDES Permit. This land use permit proposes to construct more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface with the concrete pads on which equipment will be mounted and compacted gravel area, which is above the threshold for requiring submittal of a SWCP. If the project is not covered under the Landfill's NPDES permit, the applicant will need to submit a SWCP. The SWCP shall be prepared using the latest edition of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook and template (available at www.cccleanwater.org) and meet requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The design, location, and installation of the clean water facilities cannot be deferred to a later date linked to the acquisition of building permits for each lot proposed with this subdivision request. Stan Muraoka August 22, 2018 Page 3of3 This application cannot be deemed complete without submittal of an adequate SWCP that includes a bound report and attached stormwater exhibit depicting separate drainage areas and the fadlities designated to treat each drainage area. The County's Stormwater Management Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) required that discharge of polluted water be effectively prohibited, and allows the County to require that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared to minimize the discharge of pollutants from any project that involves a land use that is likely to result in the discharge of pollutants. The applicant has indicated that Keller Canyon Landfill has an existing SWPPP and that it will be amended as necessary to reflect a change in construction, operation or maintenance procedures which may result from the proposed project. The applicant will be required to submit the amended SWPPP for the review and approval by the Public Works Department. The submitted application should be considered incomplete. Before accepting the application as complete, the following concerns should be addressed: • Any revised submittal should include a conceptual drainage plan indicating how the proposed site will drain to the existing system. The applicant should submit calculations demonstrating that the existing system has adequate capacity to convey additional flow from the project site. Ideally, the submitted calculations should include a copy of the original calculations for the existing storm drain system and basin, marked and/or highlighted to show the portion of the calculations pertinent to this project and include a summary indicating how it is determined that the system has adequate capacity to convey the additional runoff. Information should also be provided as to what entity reviewed and approved the original calculations; specifically a copy of any signoff by the reviewing party should be submitted. • Any revised submittal should include information, such as an operation and maintenance manual, regarding the maintenance program in place for the existing sedimentation basin to ensure it retains the required capacity. • Any revised submittal should include an adequate preliminary SWCP or demonstrate that the project will be covered by the Keller Canyon Landfill NPDES permit. KSG:ss \\PW-OATA\grpdata\engsvc\Land Oev\LP\LP 18-2022\30-Day Comments.doc:x cc: S. Gospodchlkov, Engineering Services J. LaRocque, Engineering Services R. Sanders, Engineering Services T. Rei, Flood Control R. Urbina, Flood Control Rick King, General Manager, owner Republic Services 901 Balley Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 rklna@reoub!icseMg:s.com Alan D. Siegwarth, applicant Ameresco Keller canyon 111 Speen Street, Suite 410 Framingham, MA 01701 as!eawartb@arneresm.com CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM August 20, 2018 Stanley Muraoka, Project Planner Contra Costa County ALAMEDA COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 HUMBOLDT LAKE MARIN MENDOCINO MONTEREY NAPA SAN BENITO SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO SANTACLATA SANTACRUZ SOLANO SONOMA YOLO Northwest Information Center Sonoma State University 150 Professional Center Drive, Suite E Rohnert Park, California 94928-3609 Tel: 707.588.8455 nwic@sonoma.edu http~//www .sonoma.edu/nwic RECEIVED CONTRA COST A COUNTY AUG 2 0 2018 File No.: 18-0208 Dept of Conservation & Development re: LP-18-2022, O Bailey Rd, Bay Point (APNs 094-360-019, -008, -020, -022 & 094-080-012), Ameresco Keller Canyon Dear Mr. Stanley Muraoka, Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect cultural resources. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological sites and historical buildings and/or structures. The review for possible historic-era building/structures. however, was limited to references currently in our office and should not be considered comprehensive. Project Description: Proposed additional gas processing equipment at existing landfill gas power plant at Keller Canyon Landfill, with buried pipeline through Keller Canyon Landfill and PG&E right-of-way, terminating at PG&E STANPAC 3 gas pipeline in the City of Pittsburg. Previous Studies: XX This office has record of six previous cultural resource studies that cover approximately 50% of the project parcels and specifically the proposed project area. These studies identified one or more cultural resources. Study# 6987 (Banks 1984), Study# 10724 {Peak and Associates 1986), Study #11353 (Scott 1989), Study #11354 (McGuire 1989), Study #11355 (Herbert and Mikesell 1989) and Study# 35796 (Sisken et al 2009). See recommendations below. Archaeological and Native American Resources Recommendations: XX The project area contains six archaeological sites P-07-000374, a petroglyph site, P-07-000274, an historic site, P-07-000272 and P-07-000271, both habitation and tool processing sites, P-07-000273, a historic mine adit, and P-07-000375, an historic ranch and trash scatter. The current proposed project contains two of these sites, P-07-000374 and P-07-000274. It is recommended that a qualified professional assess the status of the resources and provide project specific recommendations. XX Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Contra Costa County have been found near oak woodland, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. Sites are also found on ridges, midslope benches, in valleys, and near intermittent and perennial watercourses. The proposed project area is located in a hilly grassland area located approximately 2.5 miles south of Suisun Bay at the Sacramento River Delta. The project area also contains several creeks and springs. Given the similarity of one or more of these environmental factors and the known resources within the area, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources in the proposed project area. In addition, the 1896 Mt. Diablo 15' quadrangle map depicts roads, the 1943 Mt. Diablo 15' quadrangle map depicts roads and transmission lines, and the 1907 Antioch 15' quadrangle map depicts roads and buildings within the project area. With this is mind, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic resources in the proposed project area. Due to the passage of time since the previous surveys and the changes in archaeological theory and method since that time, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study for the entire proposed project area to identify cultural resources. Field study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. XX We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. Built Environment Recommendations: XX The proposed project area contains one recorded transmission line, P-07-002956. Prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be assessed by a qualified professional familiar with the architecture and history of Contra Costa County. XX The 1953 USGS Honker Bay 7.5' quadrangle map depicts three buildings in the proposed project area. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older may be of historical value, it is recommended that prior to commencement of project activities, a qualified professional familiar with the architecture and history of Contra Costa County conduct a formal CEQA evaluation. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information ~n local/regional tribal contacts. The California Office of Historic Preservation {OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System's (CHRIS) regional Information Centers {ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OH P's regulatory authority under federal and state law. For your reference, a list of qualified professionals in California that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards can be found at htt : www.chrisinfo.or . If archaeological resources are encountered during the project, work in the imme iate vicinity o the inds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call (707) 588-8455. cc: Ameresco Keller Canyon c/o Alan D. Siegwarth asiegwarth@ameresco.com L·Sincerely, ~ ~~ Q..J..d~J..lv, __ :__ Jillian Guldenbrein Researcher __ I .. I I"'°" --\J Ir'\ --'"'I .. I I DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT · COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 Phone: 925-67 4-7205 Fax: 925-674~7258 AGE Nc ·v CO MMEN T REQUEST Date '1~5 j L~ the attached a licatioo current! under review. DISTRIBUTION .::_Advance Planning _Trans. Planning _ALUCStaff -.Housing Programs _Telecom Planner V'HCEl_N .C CCP Staff -(,fV\-t.,.. St~> _APC Floodplain Tech Vc9unty Geolog1s_t . \. fVU.. S/l6.' Heal · Services De artment · J Environmental Health _Hazardous Materials Pub Ue Works De partment :;::::,91glneering Services (Full-size) _Traffic _ v_ FFllcood Control (Full-size) _Special Districts ~· V Fire District -..,..----------­ -\)"'"Consolidated -(email) fire@cccfpd.org _·_sanitary District. _________ _ ~ater District Cc ~(\. Cos?J\ Vc1ty .of ~ rrzse·uR..G, _School District(s) _________ _ _ LAFCO _Reclamation District # __ _ _ East Bay Regional Park District _Dia~lo/Discovery Bay/Crockett CSD _._MACITAC ___________________ _ _ ._Improvement/Community Association :l_CC Mosquito & Vector Control Dist (email) Oth ers/Non ... local iZc);IRIS-Sonoma State JLc,A Fish and Wildlife, Region 3 -Bay Delta _Native American Tribes Additional Reci pients D J . 5DVtO I Alks7E; -ftV l 0 Please submit your comments to: Project Planner S {am le4 b vl""""°K a. Phone # ~ti? t; -~ 14. 'l f I E-mail ~fq'>Alq . ft4vr"'" o t< a @dcd.cccounty.us County File # l. P \ f -2.o Z 7 Prior to !}.M. ]J-~ 4 , 2 o) J! **** We have found the following special programs apply to this application: · bJO_ Active Fault. Zone (Alquist-Priolo) ~.Flood Hazard Area, Panel # ____ __..,, ___ .1)0. 60-dBA Noise Control ~CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site ***** AGENCIES: Please indica.te the applicable code section for any recommendation required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant and Owner. Comments: ___ None /'Below __ Attached I. l:.e~L-, fh-..> a W1 r.-1 ~"'~ fi'"=''l'-'O\ /..-3"' ~~ ~U.., ~ Print Name )&.-o C&::>~~ ~llJ g_, L/-18 Signature 7 DATE Agency phone # 6 7Y -71 'to REVISED 05/25/2017. TO PRINT MORE COPIES: G:\Current Plannlng\APC\APC Forms\CUR~ENT FORMS\PLANNING\Agency Comment Request.doc CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 Phone: 925-67 4-7205 Fax: 925-67 4-7258 AGENc·v COMMENT REQU EST Date '1 kis j t&' the attached a lication current! under review. DISTRIBUTION ~ _V_RB•u 1i1llding Inspection _Advance Planning _Trans. Planning _ALUCStaff ~rading Inspection _Housing Programs _Telecom Planner VHtfL~~~ _APC Floodplain Tech Vc9unty Geologist l Hit.A-StlE.) Heal · Services De artment Environmental Health _Hazardous Materials Publie Works Department ~_9lgineering Services (Full-size) _Traffic _V_ FFllcood Control (Full-size) _Special Districts ~District -_V __ c_o_n_so_lld-a-ted---(e-m-ail-) fi-re_@_cccfpd--.o-rg _·_sanitary District. __________ _ 12Water District Cot'l"lAf>s. lDS71\.. Vcity .of P n7?8UJ<....6t _School District(s)_· --------­ _LAFCO _Reclamation District# __ _ _East Bay Regional Park District _DlaQlo/Discovery Bay/Crockett CSD _._MACITAC __ ~--------- lm rov · ·on _A_CC Mosquito & Vector Control Dist (email) Others/Noflplocal jz~RIS-Sonoma State J&A Fish and Wildlife, Region 3 -Bay Delta _Native American Tribes Additional Recipients O O J . 5040 I Al&$% -flVl Please submit your comments to: Project Planner Si '1N!l 1 kvr~l< a. Phone # ~ o1 ~ -~ 1 Lt. 11 f I E-mail fa /q?ll t.t· M.vr11t. o t< 0\.. @dcd.cccounty.us County File# l.P 1 f. 2o 1 7 Pricir to a~ ]J-: t:? 4 l 2p J? **** We have found the following special programs apply to this application: .hlQ_ Active Fault. Zone (Alquist-Prlolo) ~.Flood Hazard Area, Panel# _____ ,__ .1lfi 60-dBA Noise Control ~CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site ***** AGENCIES: Please indica.te the applicable code section for any recommendation required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant and Owner. Comments:. __ None Xselow __ Attached EmploV all measures necessary to ensyre no creation or maintenance of a public nyjsance as defined by California Health and Safety Code §2002. Maintaining a nuisance on the .property may lead to abatement of the nuisance by the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District and civil penalties pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §2060-2067. At no time shoyld any aspect of the project or project area breed harbor or majntajn vectors or other nuisances. Print Name Jeremy Shannon ~s~ 7/26/2018 DATE REVISED 05125/2017. TO PRINT MORE COPIES: G:\Current Plannlng\APC\APC fom\8\CUR~ENT FORMS\PLANNING\Agency Com~nt Request.doc ATTACHMENT 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7 Attachment 7 includes written public comments received by the Department of Conservation and Development after the close of the 78-day public review period on draft MND SCH #2020100267 on December 23,2020. The public comments include letters received between February 2, 2021 and May 28, 2021 that are included in Attachment 4 of the CDLP18-02022 CPC Staff Report for the June 23, 2021 CPC hearing. Section VII (Public Comments) of the June 23, 2021 CPC Staff Report, which is Attachment 1, addresses the letters. The letters are from: • Hanson Bridgett on behalf of Discovery Builders, Inc. received on February 2, 2021; • Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, received on April 29, 2021; • Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), received on May 20, 2021; • PG&E, received on May 28, 2021; and • PG&E to Ameresco dated May 25, 2021, received on May 28, 2021. These letters are included in Section A of this Attachment 7. The Department received two letters on June 23, 2021, including letters from: • Hanson Bridgett on behalf of Discovery Builders, received after 1:00 pm; and • City of Pittsburg, received after 5:00 pm. Staff provided the two letters to the County Planning Commission and reported to the Commission that it had reviewed the letters and did not find anything in either letter that would alter any findings in MND SCH #2020100267. The letters received prior to the CPC hearing are included in Section B of this Attachment. The Department received an email on June 25, 2021 from Hanson Bridgett, that included two attachments. The email and attachments received after the CPC hearing are included in Section C of this Attachment. Section D of this Attachment includes staff responses to the comments in the letters received on June 23, 2021 in Section B and in the email received on June 25, 2021 in Section C. SECTION A PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BETWEEN FEBRUARY 2, 2021 AND MAY 28, 2021 34914.11 17252192.1 Hanson Bridgett LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA 95814 CHRISTINA L. BERGLUND SENIOR COUNSEL REAL ESTATE + ENVIRONMENT DIRECT DIAL (916) 491-3031 DIRECT FAX (916) 442-2348 E-MAIL cberglund@hansonbridgett.com VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez CA 94553 E-Mail: stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Ameresco Kelley Canyon RNG LLC Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Muraoka: We submit this letter on behalf of our client, Discovery Builders, Inc., in connection with the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared and circulated by Contra Costa County (“County”) for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project (“Project”). Discovery Builders has an application pending with the County to develop a residential subdivision, known as Stoneman Park, adjacent to the proposed landfill facility and pipeline. Please see Figure 1 on the next page, depicting the location of Stoneman Park vis-à- vis the Project. The MND has a number of information gaps that must be addressed, both for practical purposes and to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). For the reasons detailed below, we request that the County consider and address these concerns in a recirculated MND before moving forward with approval. Please note that our client is pro-development, and is supportive of development projects, but wants to ensure that the welfare of local residents, including future residents of Stoneman Park, is adequately protected. Most significantly, the MND does not contain sufficient information to appreciate risks and impacts the Project’s pipeline may have on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Specifically, the Project’s 3.4-mile pipeline will pass within a few hundred feet of Stoneman Park and within 50 feet of other sensitive receptors, which in turn could present significant, undisclosed risks to and impacts on these populations. These omissions result from: (1) insufficiently detailed risk assessments that fail to identify the location and severity of significant environmental concerns, including a failure to identify key environmental setting features such as landslide, liquefaction, and other compromised soils that could result in pipeline leaks; (2) instances of improper, deferred mitigation measures to remedy risks and ensure proper construction and operation of the pipeline; and on 02/02/2021 By Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development LP18-2022 Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 2 34914.11 17252192.1 (3) failure to consider foreseeable future residential developments, such as Stoneman Park. Given the information gaps present in the MND, it is impossible for our client – or any member of the public – to understand, with any sense of accuracy, the potential risks associated with the proposed Project. Figure 1: Map depicting Project in relation to boundaries of Stoneman Park subdivision (highlighted in yellow) Please note, again, that our client is not anti-development. Here, we merely believe the approval process is unfolding too quickly and without proper attention to certain details, and we think all parties can agree that pipeline risks, including those from potential leaks, ruptures, and other dangers, present credible and disastrous threats, and that any pipeline carrying combustible Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 3 34914.11 17252192.1 substances through open space areas must be thoroughly vetted and conditioned to ensure the public is kept safe. To assist the County in providing the requisite information, our client has retained a pipeline expert, who has prepared a report that is attached to this letter as Attachment A. This report identifies both the information necessary for the public to understand risks associated with the proposed pipeline, and mitigation measures the County should adopt to ensure the pipeline is safely constructed and operated. I. LEGAL AND PROJECT FRAMEWORK. A. CEQA Framework. The fundamental goals of environmental review under CEQA are “information, participation, mitigation, and accountability. [Citations.]” (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 443-444, citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21000(a).) CEQA documents, such as a the MND for the Project, “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 55, 564.) To be adequate, such a document must do more than disclose a project’s environmental impacts; it must also meaningfully evaluate the level of environmental significance of such impacts. (Poet, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 64.) Even if County staff or the MND drafters already know how the Project will impact the environment, the “critical point” is that the public and County decision- makers “must be equally informed.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404.) CEQA compliance “serve[s] an important purpose in helping to shape and inform [public officials’] exercise of discretion.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com.(1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 122.) In this way, CEQA protects not only the environment but also informed self- government. (Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 549, 576.) When it enacted CEQA, the Legislature also declared that it is the policy of the state to “[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001(d).) CEQA is “enforced with powerful remedies to ensure that the review process is completed appropriately and the various findings are made before projects go forward. Litigants, including members of the public, may apply to courts to order agencies to void, either in whole or in part ‘any determination, finding, or decision …made without compliance’ with CEQA. [Citations.]” (Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority (2017) 3 Cal.5th 677, 713.) B. Ameresco Project Description. Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC (“Ameresco”) operates an existing landfill gas-to-energy power plant and seeks to expand its collection and control system as the Keller Canyon Landfill (“Landfill”) continues to dispose of waste. Ameresco proposes to construct both a renewable natural gas processing facility (that will be adjacent to existing facilities) and a pipeline system that siphons natural gas from the Landfill. While the proposed processing facility will be built almost entirely on Landfill land, the pipeline will stretch 3.4 miles and transport large quantities of natural gas (consisting of nearly 100% methane) from the new processing facility to a PG&E natural gas transmission pipeline network. (MND at 184.) Much of this alignment runs through Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 4 34914.11 17252192.1 open space areas, and through swaths of soil that are riddled with stability and corrosivity problems. For reference, the MND indicates that the nearest existing residences are 0.33 miles north- northwest and 0.4 miles west of the proposed Project site. (MND at 3.) Moreover, the pipeline may come within 50 feet of the nearest existing residences. (MND at 164.) These estimates do not account for the pipeline’s proximity to proposed Stoneman Park, an application for which is currently pending with the County. From the Project map, it is clear that the pipeline would run adjacent to a substantial portion of Stoneman Park, and would be closer than 0.33 miles in some instances. The exact distance must be confirmed by the County, but the pipeline potentially runs as close as 400 feet (0.08 miles) to Stoneman Park’s residential footprint. As such, the environmental impacts considered in the MND are of significant importance to Discovery Builders. II. THE MND FAILS TO INCLUDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC AND DECISION-MAKERS TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE AND SEVERITY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS. As explained herein, the MND does not comply with CEQA.As the lead agency, the County must “use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.” (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15144; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1197 [CEQA document “must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed projects”].) An agency may not “hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) The MND fails to provide sufficient information for the public and decision-makers to evaluate the magnitude and severity of the Project’s potential impacts. In some instances, the MND fails to consider significant risks altogether. Lack of information regarding the impact itself is an obstacle to determining whether mitigation measures are necessary or whether proposed mitigation would be effective. Potential risks that are inadequately addressed relating to certain aesthetic, geological, hydrological, noise, hazardous material, and other safety concerns are outlined below. We respectfully request that all of the requisite information be provided and evaluated in a recirculated MND. A. Geological Concerns The MND discloses a number of significant environmental effects related to geology and soils. (MND at 137.) However, the locations of these geological concerns are not clearly delineated, making it impossible to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. x Strong Seismic Ground Shaking.Ground conditions within the Project site are not homogenous. The pipeline traverses three “[dormant] deep-seated landslides.” (MND at 138.) “Strong ground shaking could trigger reactivation of shallow slope failures within the dormant landslide, resulting in a potentially significant impact.” (MND at 138.) The MND fails to address the degree to which the pipeline’s integrity could withstand this seismic activity. Moreover, landslide areas are not clearly marked on maps or diagrams. Without such information, it is impossible to assess the potential Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 5 34914.11 17252192.1 risk of pipeline upset due to seismic activity on the existing and future residents in the Project area. Mitigation measures in place include an automatic shutoff valve, implementing a ground movement monitoring program, and requiring that the pipeline be oriented such that it parallels the topographic contour. (MND at 139.) Given the environmental setting is unclear, substantial evidence fails to support the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027 [efficacy of mitigation must be supported by substantial evidence].) Regardless, the mitigation proposed fails to adequately address this significant impact. Mitigation Measure Geology 1(D) requires implementation of a ground movement monitoring program under which an inspector will provide recommendations for “supplemental/special geotechnical investigations or other corrective work.” (MND, p. 139.) This mitigation measure, however, does not require implementation or compliance with any of these recommendations. Monitoring a project’s environmental impacts by itself does not constitute mitigation, because studying an environmental impact does not reduce or avoid it. Future studies of potential impacts are impermissible where they are not coupled with mitigation measures designed to address impacts identified in the study. (See Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275 (“Defend the Bay”).) Additionally, Mitigation Measure Geology 1(E)’s reliance on “other safety measures” is impermissibly vague. (See Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 (“Preserve Wild Santee”) [mitigation is legally inadequate if it is so undefined that it is impossible to gauge its effectiveness].) x Seismic-related Ground Failure.The MND discloses that a “small portion” of the proposed processing facility site is at-risk for liquefaction. (MND at 140.) The proposed pipeline corridor also crosses limited sections of drainage channels that are potentially at-risk of liquefaction. (MND at 140.) The MND fails to include maps or diagrams delineating these at-risk areas and instead references only the Seismic Hazard Zone map of the Honker Bay Quadrangle for this proposition. This document does not appear to be readily available, another potentially significant omission which impedes the public’s and decision-makers’ ability to fully appreciate the significant impact of pipeline upset due to ground failure. Additionally, Mitigation Measure Geology 2 suffers from the same affliction as Mitigation Measure Geology 1(D). Mitigation Measure Geology 2 requires only future evaluation and preparation of a report regarding the liquefaction potential of at-risk soils—but does not require implementation of any recommendations stemming from that evaluation. (See Defend the Bay,supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275.) x Landslides.Three landslide areas were identified along the pipeline corridor. (MND at 142.) The MND discloses that there is potential that portions of the dormant landslide could be reactivated, which may result in a potentially significant impact to the pipeline within that area (MND at 142), and by extension, the surrounding neighborhoods. Incredibly, the MND fails to specifically identify the location of these landslide areas. Without information related to location of landslides or sensitive soils, it is impossible for the public and decision-makers to understand the scope and severity of the potential impact. Additionally, Mitigation Measure Geology 3 is legally inadequate in that it relies on future study and fails to require that “any special Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 6 34914.11 17252192.1 recommendations/special specially engineering” be incorporated into the design. (See Defend the Bay,supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275.) x Location on Unstable Soil.As discussed above, there is a potential for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline corridor area, which could result in a significant impact. (MND at 145.) The original geologic map of the site prepared by Tetra Tech confirmed the presence of “four deep-seated landslides that are dormant at present, along with more than 10 shallow- to moderate-depth landslides on the slopes on the project site.” (MND at 145.) The MND fails to depict where along the pipeline corridor these risks lie. Failure to identify these areas makes it impossible to assess the efficacy of any proposed mitigation measures. x Erosion or Loss of Top Soil. Soils in the Project area are subject to medium to rapid runoff and a moderate to high hazard of erosion that could result in a potentially significant impact at two identified locations along the pipeline corridor. (MND at 143- 144.) Not only does the MND fail to identify the two locations along the pipeline corridor, it also provides legally inadequate vague and deferred mitigation measures. For instance, Mitigation Measure Geology 4(A) requires placement of the pipeline below potential scour depth, “where feasible.” (MND at 144.) The mitigation fails to identify a standard for feasibility rendering the mitigation impermissibly vague and impossible to gauge its effectiveness. (Preserve Wild Santee,supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 281; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B) [formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time].) With respect to the “scour assessment,” the proposed mitigation offers no objective evaluation standards and fails to obligate Ameresco to prevent erosion or loss of top soil. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B) [deferral of mitigation may be appropriate if the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation; (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve; and (3) identifies the types of potential actions that may feasibly achieve that performance standard].) As such, the measures are inadequate under CEQA and must be revised. x Location on Expansive Soil. Tetra Tech determined that native soils are anticipated to have a “very severe corrosion potential to buried ferrous metals.” (MND at 146.) As such, the expansive and corrosive soils on the Project site could result in potentially significant impacts on the proposed processing facility and the pipeline. (Id.) The MND fails to disclose the location of these soils, making it impossible for the public and decision-makers to understand the associated risks to nearby homes. Mitigation measures include continued and enhanced expansion and corrosion testing requirements subject to review and approval and retention of a licensed corrosion engineer to identify “suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits and fittings.” (Id.) These mitigation measures appear to be lacking in performance standards that would allow for objective review, and are therefore inadequate under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) At a minimum, internal corrosion monitoring facilities must Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 7 34914.11 17252192.1 be included as required under Title 49 C.F.R. section 192.477. (Attachment A, pp. 5, 35.)1 B. Hazardous Material Concerns The proximity of the pipe to Stoneman Park – and the possibility of pipe failure or leakage – require additional evaluation of impacts related to the potential corrosive effects of surrounding soils and gas transmission. As explained herein, the MND omits critical information related to pipeline safety and potential hazards. The proposed gas transmission pipeline is subject to strength requirements based on population density near the pipeline. (MND at 160.) Such classifications range from 1 (rural) to 4 (densely populated). The most populated area contemplated by Ameresco along the pipeline corridor is a Class 3 residential neighborhood in which the pipeline will run approximately 50 feet from the nearest homes. (MND at 163.) In all areas, the pipeline will remain in compliance with Class 4 requirements. (MND at 164.) While the pipe will adhere to the strictest requirements, the corrosive nature of the soils and/or the gas running through the pipeline are not discussed in detail, making it difficult for the public or decision-makers to fully evaluate the potential gas transmission risk. The MND states only that “[a]ll federal, State, and industry standards will be met or exceeded (MND, p. 169), but fails to include information as to how those standards will be met. (See Attachment A, pp. 2-25 [identifying applicable federal regulatory standards].) Part 192 of the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (Title 49 C.F.R. (2021)) sets forth minimum federal safety standards for pipeline transmission of gas covering over 300 pipeline safety activities. The federal standards do not, however, dictate how to properly perform these safety activities. Our expert identified nearly 60 federal requirements applicable to the Project. (Attachment A, pp. 2-25.) These include, among others, the following: x Implementation of a continuing program to minimize the detrimental effects of stray electrical currents (49 C.F.R. § 192.473); x Annual testing of cathodic protection (49 C.F.R. § 192.465); x Hydrostatic testing of pipeline (49 C.F.R. § 192.503); x Preparation of a manual of written procedures for operation and maintenance activities, as well as emergency response (49 C.F.R. § 192.605); x Procedures to identify, investigate, and respond to abnormal conditions including increase or decrease in pressures or flow rates (49 C.F.R. § 192.605); 1 Attachment A to this letter is a report prepared by Don Deaver, P.E. evaluating the adequacy of the MND’s analysis of pipeline hazards and safety. A copy of Mr. Deaver’s curriculum vitae is attached to this letter as Attachment B. Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 8 34914.11 17252192.1 x Implementation of procedures for continuing surveillance activities to identify adverse operating and maintenance conditions, as well as corrective actions to be taken should any adverse conditions be encountered (49 C.F.R. § 192.613); x Development and implementation of damage prevention program (49 C.F.R. § 192.614); x Preparation and implementation of emergency response plans to effectively respond to emergency events, provide emergency shutdown and pressure reduction as needed, and to make safe any actual or potential hazard to life or property (49 C.F.R. § 192.615); x Public awareness program identifying hazards associated with unintended release of gas, steps to be taken for public safety, and procedures for reporting an emergency event (49 C.F.R. § 192.616); x Preparation and implementation of procedures for conducting failure investigations (49 C.F.R. § 192.617); x Preparation and implementation of a patrol program to observe surface condition on and adjacent to the pipeline for indications of leaks or other factors affecting safety and operation (49 C.F.R. § 192.705); and x Completion of leakage surveys four times per year for Class 4 locations (49 C.F.R. § 192.706). Requirements related to cathodic protection and stray electrical currents are particularly relevant given the existing overhead high-voltage electrical transmission lines in the utility corridor where the pipeline would be located. (MND, p. 184; Attachment A, p. 31.) Stray currents can cause severe corrosion to buried pipelines, as well as pose potential safety hazards for personnel constructing and maintaining the pipeline, or others in the vicinity of this infrastructure. The potential for these risks must be analyzed in the MND. There are a number of other applicable federal requirements, including Part 68 and Part 370 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulations (Title 40 C.F.R. (2021)) related to risk management programs and public disclosure of hazardous chemicals under the Emergency and Community Right-to-Know Act.2 (Attachment A, pp. 14-25.) Please provide all materials prepared by the Project applicant and submitted to the County demonstrating compliance with these important federal safety regulations. (See Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq [Public Records Act].) Failure to inform the public and decision-makers of the magnitude and severity of potential hazards related to pipeline safety runs afoul of CEQA’s information disclosure requirements. Additionally, the pipeline hazard analysis – amounting to less than two pages in the MND – is insufficient to adequately address safety risks posed by construction and operation of the pipeline near residential areas. The MND analyzes a potential impact radius of only 72 feet based on the Title 49 C.F.R. Part 192 standard for instantaneous ignition. (MND, p. 165.) An 2 For a full list of all applicable requirements please refer to Attachment A, pages 2-25. Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 9 34914.11 17252192.1 impact radius of 72 feet only accounts for the homes immediately adjacent to the pipeline corridor, wholly ignoring the safety of the remaining residents. Regardless, instantaneous gas release is unlikely in the context of the Project. (Attachment A, pp. 34-35.) More common in this type of situation is “delayed ignition” wherein vapor clouds formed by a gas release travel a distance before ignition – creating a large vapor cloud explosion. To ensure safety of nearby existing and future residential communities, the potential impact radius should be expanded to 2,214 feet in accordance with the formula set forth in Part 68 of the EPA regulations (Title 40 C.F.R. section 192.903). (Attachment A, pp. 34-35.) Finally, the MND fails to adequately consider all factors relevant to pipeline failure, whether that be pipeline leakage or pipeline rupture. (See MND, pp. 166-169.) While identifying various factors related to pipeline failure, the MND appears to only consider hoop stress in concluding that the risk of pipeline failure is less than significant. Internal pressure is not the only source of stress to the pipeline that should be considered. (Attachment A, p. 34.) Other factors that must be considered include pipeline stress due to seismic, landslides, or unstable soil (all of which have potential presence at the Project site as disclosed in the MND), residual stress at joint welds, pressure fluctuation due to connection to the PG&E pipeline, as well as the risk of external damage due to any future excavation work in the utility corridor. (Attachment A, pp. 12 [potential threats to pipeline], 31, 33-34.) This is particularly relevant because the data on reported incidents versus pipeline failure clearly demonstrate that stress level by itself is not the only criterion affecting pipeline safety. (Attachment A, pp. 36-38.) The MND should be revised and recirculated to address the deficiencies identified in the report prepared by Don Deaver, P.E. included as Attachment A. At a minimum, the MND should disclose how all applicable safety standards will be met and additional mitigation should be developed to address all potential threats to the pipeline (not just those related to internal stress) in accordance with these standards. (See Attachment A, pp. 11-14 [citing regulations related to risk assessment and mitigation measures].) C. Aesthetic Concerns The MND exhibits significant gaps in information with respect to aesthetic impacts due to fencing, views of the processing facility from Stoneman Park, and the proposed PG&E metering station. Without additional information, it is impossible to determine whether and to what extent existing or future residents in the vicinity of the Project will be significantly impacted. x Fencing and Access Roads Along Pipeline Corridor. The MND is silent as to whether fencing or access roads are planned to protect or service the pipeline. Fencing may be an eyesore when visible from a residential neighborhood, and any plans to install fencing along the pipeline corridor should be detailed. Similarly, construction of access roads may be an aesthetic concern. We request that the County provide further clarification as to plans to construct either additional fencing or access roads. If there are no plans to install fencing or access roads, it is essential that the MND explain how the pipeline will be secured and, should an emergency occur, how the Project applicant or emergency personnel will be able to access the pipeline. x View of Processing Facility.The proposed processing facility will be adjacent to and northwest of the existing plant. (MND at 44.) The Project would require Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 10 34914.11 17252192.1 equipment ranging from 25 to 50 feet in height. (MND at 44-45.) Though the natural topography shields the existing plant from the City of Pittsburgh to the north (MND at 45, 47), it is unclear whether the facility would be completely obscured from future residents of Stoneman Park, which is located approximately 5,000 feet east/northeast of the proposed processing facility. The MND fails altogether to address this impact. x Redwood Trees.Ameresco will plant coast redwoods on the Landfill property to screen the view from residences to the north. Minimum height of the trees will be 10 to 12 feet. (MND at 46.) It is unclear, however, whether the 10- to 12-foot trees would be sufficient to obscure the view of the processing plant, especially considering at least some equipment will stand 50 feet high. It is further unclear whether trees would obscure views of the plant vis-à-vis homes within Stoneman Park. Again, the MND fails to contemplate future residents of Stoneman Park as sensitive receptors. x PG&E Metering Station and Ameresco Interconnect Station Fencing.The proposed project will require PG&E to add a metering station approximately 50 feet to the south of the existing valve lot 3 to accommodate the new gas receiving equipment. (MND at 12.) The station will be approximately 4,000 square feet. (MND at 12.) A 7-foot tall security fence will be constructed to surround the metering station. (MND at 12.) Additionally, an Ameresco interconnect station will be attached to the PG&E metering station and would include a pipeline riser, valving, and pig station for future pipeline inspections. (MND at 12.) This fenced enclosure may be as large as 2,700 square feet. (MND at 12-13.) Metering and interconnect stations may be visible from the northeastern portion of Stoneman Park. Visual simulations from existing and reasonably foreseeable vantage points should be prepared to adequately analyze aesthetic impacts of the metering station. (See MND at Figure 16.) The MND should be revised and recirculated to adequately address potential aesthetic impacts to existing and future residential development, including Stoneman Park. D. Hydrological Concerns The Landfill comprises its own watershed encompassing approximately 573 acres and all active area runoff is collected and conveyed to the existing terminal adjacent to the proposed processing facility. (MND at 177.) Development of the proposed processing facility would increase the watershed by approximately 84,000 square feet. (MND at 177.) The MND does not disclose whether the pipeline is in the same watershed. We request that this information be provided so that any potential hydrological concerns as they relate to surrounding residential subdivisions may be adequately assessed. E. Noise Concerns While operational noise does not appear to be a significant concern, noise impacts related to construction of the processing facility and pipeline are a concern for existing and reasonably foreseeable future residents. Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 11 34914.11 17252192.1 x Pipeline Construction Noise. Some of the pipeline would be installed approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residences to the east. (MND at 199.) We estimate that the pipeline will be installed less than 400 feet away from the nearest residences of Stoneman Park. Installation of the pipeline requires excavation ranging from four feet to approximately 44 feet to meet clearance requirements. (MND at 199.) After the pipeline is installed, the trench would be backfilled to its original contour. (MND at 199.) The MND provides that pipeline construction noise levels would be anticipated to occur for relatively short intervals in various locations along the pipe corridor and would be approximately 77 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. (MND at 199.) Thus, at a distance as great as 400 feet, we estimate noise levels of approximately 59 dBA in Stoneman Park, nearing if not exceeding the maximum 60 dBA typically acceptable for single-family residences. As such, we request that a noise study be performed in the vicinity of Stoneman Park to evaluate pipeline construction noise. Noise levels would be significantly higher at homes situated 50 feet from the pipeline, and the MND assesses construction noise impacts at neither sensitive receptor locations. x Processing Facility Construction Noise. Noise levels during construction will vary “greatly” depending on the construction activity. (MND at 197.) At the nearest existing residences (as identified in the MND), noise generated from construction activities at the processing facility would be approximately 50 to 60 dBA. (MND at 197.) To the extent pipeline construction occurs after occupancy of Stoneman Park, noise levels would likely be less than those reported because the nearest receptors are closer to the proposed processing facility than Stoneman Park. Assuming construction equipment will generate approximately 60 dBA at 1,600 feet away (MND at 197), noise levels at Stoneman Park would be approximately 50 dBA at 5,000 feet away. The MND should be revised and recirculated to evaluate the impact of the processing facility construction noise on residents of Stoneman Park. x Ground-borne Vibration.The MND concludes that impacts related to ground-borne vibration and noise are less than significant. (MND at 200.) However, use of an excavator in installation of the underground pipeline would generate a vibration level of approximately .031 in/sec PPV, similar to a large bulldozer. (MND at 201.) As such, during construction, occupants in the nearest residences may perceive vibration levels. (MND at 201.) Vibration levels are estimated to remain below the threshold of “architectural damage” (.2 PPV) at all times during construction and the MND concludes the impact is less than significant. (MND at 201.) While levels may not threaten architectural integrity of nearby structures, excessive noise and vibration may well be bothersome to existing residents, and future Stoneman Park residents in the event construction is ongoing. The MND should be revised and recirculated to address impacts of groundborne vibration on sensitive receptors, i.e., residents – not just physical structures. F. Additional Concerns. In addition to the inadequacies discussed above, the MND omits discussion of other potential concerns. For example, additional information regarding the following is necessary to evaluate potential environmental impacts: Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 12 34914.11 17252192.1 x The pipeline’s physical components and operating parameters to better understand risks of leaks and ruptures; x Characterization of soils through which the pipeline will run, which present landslide, liquefaction, corrosivity, and other challenges; and x Pipeline protection in terms of security and fire safety, and what potential aesthetic and other impacts such components would have. As such, we request that the MND be revised to include consideration and discussion of such issues to assuage concerns for current and future residents of the area. III. THE AMERESCO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FAILS TO CONSIDER REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. The MND fails to consider Stoneman Park, a reasonably foreseeable residential development, despite the fact that the Stoneman Park project application is pending with the County The baseline for assessing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project is measured at the time the notice of preparation is published. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) In a landmark decision, Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the California Supreme Court acknowledged that environmental conditions evolve over time and agreed that an agency may predict environmental conditions that would exist when a project begins operation. (57 Cal.4th 439.) Under this interpretation, the County should consider the effects the proposed Project will have on Stoneman Park because it is a reasonably foreseeable development that is currently under consideration with the County. As such, the MND should be revised and recirculated to consider environmental impacts to the future residents of Stoneman Park. Some examples of areas that should be reevaluated include: x Division of an Established Community.The MND provides that the proposed processing facility and pipeline will not create a physical division of an established community. (MND at 183.) The processing facility will be located “almost entirely” on Landfill property while the pipeline will run underground and be approximately 3.4 miles in length. (MND at 183.) Though the proposed facility and pipeline would not divide an already-established community, the MND does not consider communities yet to be built. From the project map, it appears that the pipeline would run close to, but not come into contact with, the southeastern side of Stoneman Park. x Potential Impact Radius.The potential impact radius of the proposed pipeline, in case of incident, was calculated at 72 feet. (MND at 185.) This is a concern in the case of pipe failure or leakage considering the proximity between the proposed pipeline and Stoneman Park. Even a remote possibility of catastrophic pipe failure or leakage of large quantities of flammable gas close to a residential neighborhood may give rise for concern. The MND should be revised and recirculated to evaluate this impact and explicitly describe safety precautions that will protect current and future residents from pipe failure or leakage. (See Attachment A, pp. 34-35.) x View of Processing Facility.As discussed above, it is unclear whether the proposed processing facility would be completely obscured from future residents of Stan Muraoka, AICP Page 13 34914.11 17252192.1 Stoneman Park. The subdivision is located approximately 5,000 feet east/northeast of the proposed processing facility, and intervening topography might obscure views of the facility from proposed homes. We request that the MND be revised and recirculated to evaluate aesthetic impacts on the viewshed of residents living at Stoneman Park and to clarify whether the processing facility would be visible from the subdivision vantage point. IV. CONCLUSION Discovery Builders appreciates the County’s consideration of its comments and respectfully requests that the MND be revised to address these deficiencies and subsequently recirculated. To reiterate, our client is not adverse to the ultimate development of the Project, but merely is asking that the risks associated with the project, and especially the contemplated pipeline, are evaluated in significantly more detail. We therefore ask that the County slow down this process, request the applicant provide the additional data, and recirculate an updated MND so that our client and the public can better understand the impacts of the Project. Further, please provide us with notice by mail of all actions the County plans to take with respect to the Project pursuant to, inter alia, Public Resources Code sections 21083.9, 21092(b)(3), and 21092.2. Understanding that the pandemic has made noticing somewhat challenging in certain circumstances, we will accept notice by electronic mail. Very truly yours, Christina L. Berglund Senior Counsel CLB:msf Attachments cc: Louis Parsons (via email lparsons@discoverybuilders.com) Sean Marciniak (via email smarciniak@hansonbridett.com) Jeanne Pavao (via email jpavao@seenohomes.com) David Young (Via email dyoung@discoverybuilders.com) Christina L Berglund 4906-032acp DANIEL L. CARDOZO KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL CHRISTINA M. CARO JAVIER J. CASTRO THOMAS A. ENSLOW KELILAH D. FEDERMAN ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES DARIEN K. KEY RACHAEL E. KOSS AIDAN P. MARSHALL MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Not admitted in California. Licensed in Colorado. SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 k h a r t m a n n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper April 29, 2021 Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail John Kopchik, Director Stan Muraoka, Principal Planner Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: john.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us; stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) We write on behalf of Contra Costa Residents for Responsible Industry (“Residents”) to express our support for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) (“Project”) proposed by Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC (“Applicant”). Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations concerned about the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. We are pleased to report that Residents and the Applicant have negotiated and executed a legally enforceable settlement agreement whereby the Applicant is required to implement additional measures, described below, to address the concerns raised by Residents in its comments on the Project related to air quality, public health and safety, and biological resources. The Applicant is also relocating the Project transmission line, which will further reduce impacts. Based on the legally enforceable settlement agreement and changes in the Project, the concerns of Residents have been settled and resolved and Residents supports approval of the Project. April 29, 2021 Page 2 4906-032acp A. Air Quality 1. All diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier 4 Final construction equipment during all construction phases of the Project, to be confirmed on site by the on-site construction supervisor during each day of use. 2. Mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD in its CEQA Guidelines Table 8-2 will be implemented to reduce fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, including, but not limited to, the following:  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.  Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).  Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.  All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. April 29, 2021 Page 3 4906-032acp 3. In addition to the measures listed in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines Table 8-2, Ameresco will implement the following measures at the RNG processing facility:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three times per day, subject to weather conditions.  Excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be minimized when sustained, average wind speeds exceed 30 mph, where feasible.  All earth-moving equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.  Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.  Subject to landowner approval, site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6-to-12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel, where feasible.  On-road diesel trucks used for Project construction shall be equipped with BACT to reduce NOx and PM emissions, to the extent feasible. B. Public Health and Safety 1. Ameresco shall monitor gas levels during Project operation at the Project facilities to detect leaks of hazardous gases at the processing facility, including but not limited to methane and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and report any exceedances of applicable thresholds to BAAQMD annually. The Applicant will implement any actions determined necessary by BAAQMD, the County, or other applicable Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) to prevent catastrophic accidents from occurring at the Project facilities, and to mitigate impacts to nearby sensitive receptors related to excess hazardous gases released by the Project. 2. The dust-control measures required under Condition of Approval 20.5 (Dust Suppressants) shall be implemented at night and on weekends, as feasible, to control the release of fugitive dust. April 29, 2021 Page 4 4906-032acp C. Biological Resources 1. Prior to performing preconstruction surveys, Ameresco shall retain an independent biologist to perform surveys to detect the presence of plant and animal species present at the Project site and immediately surrounding area, including but not limited to surveys for Burrowing Owl, Golden Eagle, Nesting and Migratory Birds, American Badger, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Special Status Bats, and all wetland features, in order to determine the distribution of species at the Project site prior to preconstruction surveys. 2. Mitigation measures shall be implemented, to the extent feasible, for species detected by surveys required under Section C.1. of this Agreement that are not covered by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kendra Hartmann KDH:acp Plan Review Team Land Management 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A San Ramon, CA 94583 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1 May 20, 2021 Anne Nounou Contra Costa County Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution Dear Anne Nounou, Thank you for submitting the CDLP18-02022 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities. Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights. Below is additional information for your review: 1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page. 2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services. 3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities. Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required. This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required. Sincerely, Plan Review Team Land Management PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2 Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf 1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work. 2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe. Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas. Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments). No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded. 4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4. 5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3 wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away. Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations. For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment. 7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement. If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict. 8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities. 9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks. 10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area. PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4 11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering. 12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines. With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete. 13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities. PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5 Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows: 1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.” 2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure. 3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment. 4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged. 5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines. 6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed. 7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed. PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6 8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement. 9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction. 10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E. 11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. 12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations. Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed. Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction. 13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities. Plan Review Team Land Management 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A San Ramon, CA 94583 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1 May 28, 2021 Stanley Muraoka Contra Costa County 30 Muir Rd Martinez, CA 94553 Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution Dear Stanley Muraoka, Thank you for submitting 901 Bailey Rd plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities. Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights. Below is additional information for your review: 1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page. 2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services. 3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities. Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required. This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required. Sincerely, Plan Review Team Land Management PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2 Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf 1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work. 2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe. Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas. Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments). No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded. 4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4. 5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3 wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away. Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations. For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment. 7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement. If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict. 8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities. 9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks. 10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area. PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4 11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering. 12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines. With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete. 13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities. PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5 Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows: 1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.” 2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure. 3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment. 4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged. 5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines. 6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed. 7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed. PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6 8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement. 9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction. 10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E. 11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. 12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations. Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed. Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction. 13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities. May 25, 2021 Subject: System Feasibility Study for Interconnection of the Keller Canyon, LLC renewable gas project to PG&E’s Gas System in Pittsburg, CA Dear Mr. Bakas: PG&E has completed a System Feasibility Study for the Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC renewable gas project for interconnection to the PG&E gas system, pursuant to your recent Request for Gas Supply Interconnection. PG&E approves the project interconnection on L191-1 at approximately Mile Point 1.4 (37.999967, -121.906667). Our project team will continue to work with Ameresco project management as we continue with facility design and route surveys. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey G. Ryan Jeffrey G. Ryan Interconnection Contracts Manager Wholesale Marketing & Business Development – Gas Operations Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 770000 SECTION B PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON JUNE 23, 2021 34914.11 17633060.2 Hanson Bridgett LLP CHRISTINA L. BERGLUND -3031 -2348 -MAIL cberglund@hansonbridgett.com June 23, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Comments on Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Muraoka: We submit this letter in advance of the Planning Commission hearing and on behalf of our client, Discovery Builders, Inc., in response to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared by Contra Costa County for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline (“Project”). This letter serves to supplement our initial comment letter dated February 2, 2021. While the Project has been revised in response to public comments received, the MND remains inadequate. We reiterate the need to slow down the process to ensure that all significant environmental impacts have been fully analyzed prior to Project approval. As discussed herein, the MND remains inadequate — lacking proper consideration of potential impacts, particularly as they relate to hazards, impermissible deferral of mitigation, and substituting the good-faith, reasoned analysis that is the hallmark of CEQA with numerous technical reports that have not been made available for public review. Moreover, the Final MND includes significant new information in the form of Project revisions and changes to mitigation measures. The County indicates that the Project revisions would not require recirculation of the MND because the changes do not result in new significant impacts. (Final MND, p. 3.) The County misses the point. CEQA requires recirculation where, like here, meaningful public review is precluded because the MND is fundamentally inadequate. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) We respectfully request that the County correct the identified deficiencies and recirculate a revised CEQA document for public review. I. THE FINAL MND INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION TRIGGERING RECIRCULATION. A lead agency is required to recirculate an MND when the document must be substantially revised. Substantial revision of the MND means “a new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measure[s] or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance; or the lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measure[s] or project revision[s] will not reduce potential effect[s] to less than significant, and new measures or Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development June 23, 2021 Page 2 34914.11 17633060.2 revisions will be required.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) The purpose of recirculation is to give the public and other agencies an opportunity to evaluate the new data and the validity of conclusions drawn from it. (Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 91, 108 (“Spring Valley Lake”).) Here, revisions in the Final MND have brought to light substantive Project changes, not previously disclosed or evaluated. The MND must be recirculated to allow not only the public, but also the decision makers the opportunity to evaluate this new information. • Realignment of RNG Pipeline. The alignment of Segment 1 has been revised to connect to the existing PG&E Line 191-1 one mile south of the connection previously identified in the draft MND. (Final MND, p. 5.) The Final MND indicates that this new alignment eliminates potential impacts to residential development adjacent to PG&E- owned property. (Final MND, pp. 5-6.) It appears, however, that by eliminating 3,000 feet of pipeline, the Project is now closer to the residential development to the south of those homes. The Final MND fails to address potential impacts to these homes due to the realignment of the Project. • Cathodic Protection Monitoring Program. Similarly, the County appears to be modifying “consistency measures” in the Final MND. For example, response to comment 16-13 states that the applicant will implement a cathodic protection monitoring program. This appears to revise and supplement the cathodic protection system described in the MND. (See MND, p. 163.) The MND impermissibly treats these “consistency measures” as a component of the Project rather than as a set of mitigation measures designed to reduce project impacts. As held in Lotus v. Dept. of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 651-652, an MND cannot incorporate mitigation measures into the description of the project and then conclude that any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant. Doing so precludes both identification of potential environmental consequences arising from the project and also thoughtful analysis of the sufficiency of measures to mitigate those consequences. (Id. at pp. 655-657.) A need to further strengthen mitigation measures, demonstrates the existence of a significant impact. The MND fails to describe the extent of the Project’s impacts prior to implementation of these “consistency measures” in violation of CEQA. • Alternating Current Mitigation Study. Response to comment 16-14 indicates that “during design of the pipeline, a full Alternating Current (AC) Mitigation Study will be performed.” (Staff Report, p. 17.) This new mitigation appears to have been developed in response to significant environmental impacts related to stray electrical currents from overhead transmission lines. (See Hanson Bridgett Letter, Comment 16-14.) The need for additional mitigation implicates a potentially significant impact due to stray electrical currents. The MND must be revised and recirculated to fully analyze impacts related to stray electrical currents and develop mitigation to avoid or reduce significant impacts. (Vineyard Area Citizen for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 (“Vineyard”) [recirculation required where new information reveals a new potentially significant impact]; CEQA Guidelines, §15088.5(a)(3) [recirculation required when information added to the final EIR consists of new mitigation measures].) Moreover Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development June 23, 2021 Page 3 34914.11 17633060.2 the AC Mitigation Study is not included in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project and there is no assurance that it will be made enforceable. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6(b) [mitigation measures that are adopted must be enforceable]; accord CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2).) • Borrow Sites. The Final MND indicates that “significant volumes of select earth materials will be transported from pre-determined borrow site locations on the Keller Canyon Landfill property.” (Final MND, pp. 21-22, 148, 160.) This was not disclosed previously. The Final MND concludes that this work “would have zero impact because if not moved for the construction of the RNGPF, it would be moved to comply with the landfill’s already permitted construction and operations.” (Final MND, pp. 21-22.) This is incorrect and runs afoul of CEQA’s baseline principles. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 [when evaluating a proposed change, existing physical conditions rather than the maximum level of operations allowed at the facility under its permits set the baseline; CEQA Guidelines, § 15124(a)(3) [existing conditions baseline may not include hypothetical conditions, such as conditions that might be allowed under existing permits but that have not occurred].) • New Technical Studies. The Final MND identifies three new technical reports that were prepared after the MND was released for public comment. (Final MND, p. 3.) These reports have not even been provided for public review. Replacing analysis with technical reports and a conclusory assurance that the Project revisions do not result in new significant impacts deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. (Spring Valley Lake, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 108 [recirculation required where city replaced 26 pages of EIR text with 350 pages of technical reports].) While we can appreciate that many of the Project revisions included in the responses to comments were intended to alleviate concerns raised by the public, unfortunately, in doing so, the Project has been substantially changed in a manner that deprives the public of opportunity to comment on significant impacts. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112.) The MND should be revised and recirculated to address this significant new information and allow the public the opportunity to comment. (See Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th 412, 447 [recirculation is not mandated when the new information “merely clarifies or amplifies” the previously circulated CEQA document, but is required when it “reveals, for example, a new substantial impact or a substantially increased impact on the environment”].) II. THE FINAL MND RELIES ON VARIOUS TECHNICAL REPORTS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY CITED. The County responded to several comments by generally referring to a number of technical reports prepared as background documents. (See, e.g., Responses to Comments, 11-30, 16-2, 16-6.) In several instances, the MND altogether fails to provide specific reference to these reports. This is insufficient under CEQA. Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development June 23, 2021 Page 4 34914.11 17633060.2 A reader of the MND is not expected to “ferret out an unreferenced discussion [and] interpret that discussion without assistance.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 442; see County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 955-956 [an adequate MND requires more than raw data; it also requires an analysis of that data to provide decision makers with sufficient information to make intelligent decisions]; CEQA Guidelines § 15147 [environmental review documents must include technical detail “sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental effects … by members of the public”].) For example, the Geology and Soils chapter of the MND refers to various geotechnical reports including the “Tetra Tech Geotechnical Feasibility reports” to support that there is a potentially significant impact due to seismic-related ground failure at the proposed RNG processing facility site. (MND at 140-141.) However, nowhere does the MND indicate where within these comprehensive reports the public can locate the relevant analyses. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15148 [the environmental review document “shall cite all documents used in its preparation including, where possible, the page and section number of any technical reports which were used as the basis for any statements in the EIR,” italics added].) The MND remains inadequate by failing to clearly identify information contained in the technical reports referenced in the Final MND. III. THE STONEMAN PARK SUBDIVISION IS A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT. The County indicates that the Stoneman Park development is located in the City of Pittsburg and “at this point is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable.” (Responses to Comment 16-4, 16-25.) That Stoneman Park is located outside of the County’s jurisdiction does not relieve it of its obligation to analyze the Project’s impacts on the future residents. (American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City of American Canyon (2015) 145 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1082 citing City of Marina v. Bd. of Trustees (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 359-360 [“The Supreme Court recently confirmed that an agency must identify and attempt to mitigate the extraterritorial environmental effects of any project it intends to carry out or approve”]; Pub. Resources Code, § 21060.5 [CEQA defines “environment” as the “physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project”].) Where development is foreseeable as it is here, CEQA requires it be taken into consideration. The County’s position that the Stoneman Park is not reasonably foreseeable is unsupported by substantial evidence. Discovery Builders submitted an application for preliminary review for the Stoneman Park development on July 6, 2017, more than three years before the Notice of Public Review was issued for the Project. Moreover, the City of Pittsburg has desired to process land use entitlements allowing development of Stoneman Park since as early as 2008 when it entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Discovery Builders, giving the County nearly 13 years notice of a future residential development in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Discovery Builders submitted an application to the City of Pittsburg for a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Tentative Map related to Stoneman Park in November 2020 followed by a second submittal earlier this month. Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development June 23, 2021 Page 5 34914.11 17633060.2 The Final MND even references the vesting tentative tract map for Stoneman Park dated October 9, 2020. (Final MND, p. 36.) CEQA Guidelines sections 15144-15145 allow a lead agency to determine that an impact is too speculative for evaluation only after investigating whether reasonable analysis of the impact can be feasibly provided. Here, a reasonable analysis of the pipeline’s impacts on future homes is certainly feasible. The County has already considered the impact on other nearby residential developments. Stoneman Park is no different. The County’s comment that the construction of the Project would likely be completed by the time that residents occupy the Stoneman Park subdivision is well taken. (See Response to Comment 16-21 and 16-22.) Nevertheless, given the infirmities in the MND and the need to revise and recirculate it for public comment, it is far from certain that operations for the Project would commence in 2022 as planned, making it increasingly likely that the Stoneman Park subdivision will be complete and occupied by residents by the time that Project is underway. IV. THE MND CONTINUES TO FAIL TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. Despite the fact that the MND cites to several technical reports, there remain a number of information gaps in the MND, which must be corrected. (See Joy Road Area Forest & Watershed Assn. v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 656, 677 [MND must include “substantial evidence” such that there is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion”].) As discussed below, the following impacts should be addressed in a recirculated MND to ensure that all potential environmental impacts are assessed. • Location of Areas at Risk of Landslide, Liquefaction, Soil Expansion, and Erosion. Our initial comments pointed out a number of information gaps preventing proper assessment of potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils. (See Hanson Bridgett Letter, Comments 16-4 through 16-10.) The Final MND and the County’s responses to comments fail to identify these specific hazard areas on readily available and easily accessible maps or diagrams making it impossible to evaluate not only the magnitude of the impact, but the efficacy of proposed mitigation measures. The County merely refers to “comprehensive geotechnical reports” completed to assess geology-related hazards. (See Staff Response to Comments 16-6 through 16-10.) “[A] report ‘buried in an appendix,’ is not a substitute for [the] ‘good faith reasoned analysis’“ CEQA requires. (Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293.) CEQA documents “must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed projects.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1197; see Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296,311 [An agency may not “hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data”].) • Potential Impact Radius. The Final MND indicates that the potential impact radius (“PIR”) has been reduced from 72 feet to 55 feet due to the reduction in the maximum Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development June 23, 2021 Page 6 34914.11 17633060.2 allowable operating pressure of the RNG pipeline from ~680psi to ~400psi. (Final MND, p. 4.) However, as was noted in our initial comment letter and accompanying exhibit submitted by our pipeline expert, that analysis is inadequate because it fails to consider the potential for a delayed or non-instantaneous ignition. The MND states that PIR “refers to the area that may be impacted due to catastrophic failure of the pipeline, such as a rupture or an explosion.” (MND, p. 165.) It goes on to state that “any incidents that might be possible would almost always be a leak rather than a rupture.” (MND, p. 168.) A reduction in PIR therefore is not substantial evidence that impacts due to pipeline leakage would be less than significant. • Access to Entire Pipeline Corridor. In response to comment 16-18, the County confirms that the proposed pipeline and processing facility would not require construction of additional access roads. (Response to Comment 16-18.) While this clarification helps to assess potential aesthetic impacts, it does not properly address how the pipeline would be secured or how emergency personnel would be able to access certain portions of the pipeline in the event of catastrophic failure, leakage, or other emergency. • Aesthetic Impact of Warning Tape. In response to comment 16-18, the County clarifies that the proposed pipeline and processing facility would not require construction of new fencing. (Response to Comment 16-18.) While this clarification helps to assess the aesthetic impacts the potential pipeline may have vis-à-vis the Stoneman Park subdivision, it fails to consider the full aesthetic impact of the pipeline. For example, response to comment 16-16 indicates that the pipeline will be buried underground and will be marked with warning tape to prevent accidental dig-in, the impact of which remains unanalyzed. V. THE MND CONTINUES TO IMPROPERLY DEFER MITIGATION MEASURES. A mitigation measure that simply requires an applicant to undertake a future study and comply with recommendations resulting therefrom is inadequate under CEQA. (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. Cty. of Kern (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 814, 856 [“an agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report”].) Details of mitigation measures may be left to later design or engineering work if mitigation that can meet a specified performance standard is known to be available. (Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884; Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 25.) Several of the mitigation measures continue to lack objective performance standards and do little to commit the applicant to undertaking them. For example, the County noted that “expansive soils are not anticipated to pose significant impacts to the future pipeline based on geotechnical studies completed along the pipeline route.” (Response to Comment 16-10.) However, the MND notes that the “Soil Survey of Contra Costa County indicates the soil series identified within the project areas are highly expansive and highly corrosive. Laboratory testing performed by Tetra Tech indicates the soils are moderately to highly expansive, and over the Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development June 23, 2021 Page 7 34914.11 17633060.2 long-term soils are considered to be corrosive.” (MND, p. 145.) To mitigate potential impacts, the County has adopted Mitigation Measure Geology 5, which requires preparation of additional reports and additional testing. It does not require implementation of any recommendations stemming from those reports or identify necessary measures that will be taken as a result of those tests. (See Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275; Poet LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 738 [“the deferral of the formulation of mitigation measures requires the agency to commit itself to specific performance criteria for evaluating the efficacy of the measures implemented”]; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Similarly, improperly deferred mitigation measures exist elsewhere in the MND. (See, e.g., Mitigation Measure Geology 4(a) [requires placement of pipe below scour depth “where feasible”]; Mitigation Measure Geology 2 [requiring future evaluation and preparation of a report regarding liquefaction potential of at-risk soils].) VI. CONCLUSION We appreciate the County’s responses to our comments despite the fact that they were received after the public review period has closed. As you are aware, in approving the Project, the County must consider it in light of “the whole of the record before it (including the initial study and any comments received).” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15074(b).) The close of the administrative record does not occur until the County approves the project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6.) Though noted in our initial letter, it bears repeating. Our client is pro-development and not fundamentally opposed to the proposed Project. Rather, the concern remains the adequacy of the analysis under CEQA. For the reasons articulated above, we respectfully request that the MND be recirculated to ensure that potential impacts are adequately assessed, and sufficient information is provided to the public to evaluate this assessment. We look forward to reviewing a revised and recirculated MND for the RNGPF and pipeline project. Please feel free to contact my office with any questions or concerns. CLB:msf cc: Louis Parsons (lparsons@discoverybuilders.com) David Young (dyoung@discoverybuilders.com) SECTION C PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON JUNE 25, 2021 Subject CDLP18-02022 - Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Final Mitigated Negative Declaration From Christina L. Berglund To Stanley Muraoka Sent Friday, June 25, 2021 10:43 AM Attachments <<FINAL AMERESCO Evaluation Risks to the Public Proposed Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline.pdf>> <<DEAVER CV 2020.pdf>> Mr. Muraoka, In response to comment 16-2, the June 23, 2021 staff report for the above referenced project indicates that information regarding locations of landslide risk provided in Tetra Tech reports is available upon request. Please provide the following documents listed in response to comment 16-2. •Tetra Tech reports, Tetra Tech BAS, 2019 •Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Ameresco Gas Processing Plant, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job # BAS-136E •Tetra Tech BAS, 2020 •Geotechnical Engineering Report, Renewable Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline, Ameresco Keller Canyon, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18-136E •Tetra Tech BAS, 2019 and 2020. Geology and Soils •Darwin Myers Associates, 2020. Geologic Peer Review/Geotechnical Reports & CEQA Assessment, LP18-2022/APN 094-360-019, etc. & 094-080-012, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA Project # 3006.20 We further request the following supplemental technical assessments, which were prepared after the MND was circulated for public review are identified in the Final MND as available upon request. •Tetra Tech, 2021. Addendum No. 1 – Supplemental Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed RNG Pipeline Realignment, Project No. BAS 18-136E •Swaim Biological, Inc., 2021. Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Pipeline Alternative Evaluation •FirstCarbon Solutions, 2021. Ameresco Keller Canyon – RNG Pipeline (email) We can submit a formal Public Records Act request, if necessary. Finally, while our comment letter dated February 2, 2021 was included in the staff report, we note that the report prepared by pipeline expert, Don Deaver, and attached to our comment letter has been omitted. As attached, we are resubmitting Mr. Deaver’s evaluation along with his CV to ensure their inclusion in the record. Very truly yours, Christina HB-1A HB-2A Christina L. Berglund Senior Counsel Hanson Bridgett LLP (916) 491-3031 Direct (916) 442-2348 Fax CBerglund@hansonbridgett.com 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco | Sacramento | North Bay | East Bay | Los Angeles This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 1 DEATECH Consulting Company 203 Sarasota Circle South Montgomery, TX 77356-8418 PHONE 1-936-449-6937 FAX 1-936-449-5317 Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposed Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Introduction Purpose of this report is to evaluate the information related to public safety risks due to construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed gas transmission line from Ameresco’s new renewable natural gas processing facility to PG&E’s nearby gas transmission system. The contents of this report will cover: 1.Overview of Federal Title 49 CFR Part 192 Regulations and on gas transmission pipelines. 2.Overview of EPA Title 40 CFR Part 68 regulations. 3.Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 4.Summary of information and opinions in the Contra Costa County study of potential impacts study of the proposed Ameresco gas transmission pipeline. 5. Analysis of information and opinions in the Contra Costa County environmental impacts report. 6.Studies on the Effects of Operating Pressure and Pressure Induced Stress on Pipeline Failures. on 06/25/2021By Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development LP18-2022 1 AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 2 Overview of Title 49 CFR Part 192 Title 49 CFR Part 192 is titled Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards. This regulation covers over 300 pipeline safety activities to be done, but not how to properly perform these activities. This was an arrangement reached by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the gas pipeline industry whereby the industry would provide how-to-do-it standards and recommended practices and the U.S. DOT would specify limit regulations to activities to be performed. States are required as a minimum to enforce Title 49 CFR Part 192 and are allowed to develop and implement additional regulations that are consistent with the Federal pipeline regulations. Currently, requirements in Title 49 CFR Part 192 that apply to the Ameresco gas transmission pipeline include: 1.Conduct class location surveys. (192.5) 2.Incorporate industry standards and related published documents. (192.7) 3.Materials and components must be (192.53): a.Able to maintain the structural integrity of the pipeline under temperature, seismic, and environmental conditions and b.Chemically compatible with any gas that is transported. 4.Pipe must be designed with sufficient wall thickness or must be installed with adequate protection to withstand anticipated external loads that will be imposed on the pipe after installation. (192.103) 5.The design factor for calculating the maximum internal design pressure for Class 4 locations is 0.4 times the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe. (192.111) 6.Each piping component of a pipeline must be able to withstand external loadings without impairment of its serviceability at stresses allowed for pipe of comparable material in the same location. (192.143) 7.Except for station piping, each new transmission line must be designed and constructed to accommodate passage of internal inspection devices. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 3 (192.150) 8. Where entrained vapors in gas may liquefy, the compressor must be protected against liquids that could cause damage and have a means to remove the liquids. (192.165) 9. Each compressor station must have pressure relief or other suitable protective devices to ensure the maximum allowable operating pressure is not exceeded by more than 10%. (192.169) 10. Each compressor station must have adequate fire protection facilities. (192.171) 11. Each point on the pipeline must be within 2.5 miles of a block valve. (192.179) 12. Welding must be performed by a qualified welder in accordance with a qualified welding procedure. (192.225) 13. Welding must be visually inspected by a properly qualified inspector. (192.241) 14. Nondestructive testing of welds must be performed by a process that clearly indicates the presence of defects that may affect the integrity of the weld. (192.243) 15. Each transmission line must be constructed in accordance with comprehensive written specifications that are consistent with Title 49 CFR Part 192. 16. Construction of each transmission line must be inspected to ensure compliance with Title 49 CFR Part 192. (192.305) 17. Each length of pipe and each component must be visually inspected to ensure it has not sustained any damage. (192.307) 18. All practical steps shall be taken to protect each transmission line from movement or to sustain abnormal loads from (192.317): AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 4 a. Washouts, b. Floods, c. Unstable soil, d. Landslides, or e. Other hazards. 19. Corrosion control procedures on the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of cathodic protection systems must be carried out or under the direction of a person qualified in pipeline corrosion control methods. (192.453) 20. Each buried pipeline must have (192.455): a. An external protective coating that meets the requirements in 192.461 and b. A cathodic protective system designed to protect the pipeline. 21. Each pipeline under cathodic protection must be tested at least annually to determine whether it meets requirements. (192.465) 22. Each buried pipeline must be electrically isolated from other underground structures. (192.467) 23. Each pipeline that may be subjected to stray electrical currents shall have a continuing program to minimize the detrimental effects of such currents. (192.473) 24. Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the corrosive effects of the gas have been investigated. (192.475) 25. Each new transmission line must be designed to prevent internal corrosion including (192.476): a. Be configured to reduce the risks that liquids will collect in the line, AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 5 b. Have effective liquid removal features where the line’s configuration allows liquids to collect in the line, and c. Use corrosion monitoring at locations with significant potential for internal corrosion. 26. If corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means must be used to determine the effectiveness of internal corrosion measures. (192.477) 27. In-line inspection must comply with API Std. 1163, ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ, and NACE SP 0102. (192.493) 28. Each pipeline shall be hydrostatically tested to substantiate (192.503): a. Its maximum allowable operating pressure and b. Ensure all potentially hazardous leaks are located and eliminated. 29. Each pipeline operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline a manual of written procedures for conducting operating and maintenance activities and for emergency response. (192.605) 30. Each pipeline operator shall promptly respond to a report of a gas odor inside or near a building. (192.605) 31. Each pipeline operator shall implement applicable control room procedures. (192.605) 32. Each transmission line operator must have procedures to identify, investigate, and respond to each abnormal condition where design limits have been exceeded including increase or decrease in pressures or flow rate outside normal limits. (192.605) 33. Each operator shall have a procedure for and conduct continuing surveillance activities on each transmission line to determine and take corrective actions on adverse operating and maintenance conditions. (192.613) AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 6 34. Each pipeline operator shall determine if each pipeline segment is in satisfactory and unsatisfactory condition. (192.613) 35. If a pipeline segment is in unsatisfactory condition and the unsatisfactory condition creates an immediate hazard, the pipeline segment cannot be operated. (192.613) 36. If a pipeline segment is in unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out the pipeline segment. (192.613) 37. Each pipeline operator shall develop and implement a damage prevention program that at least includes requirements to (192.614): a. Develop procedures for safe excavation activities to be followed by their excavators and third-party excavators, b. Notify the public in the vicinity of the pipeline and excavators who work in the area of the pipeline location of the program’s existence, c. Provide a continuous means of receiving one-call and other notifications of excavation and construction work in the vicinity of each pipeline segment, d. Provide for temporary marking of each pipeline where excavation activity may be performed, and e. Provide for onsite inspection of excavation activities where there may be reason for damage to the pipeline. 38. Each pipeline shall have full time emergency response plans to (192.615): a. Receive notices of events that require an immediate response by the pipeline operator; b. Provide prompt and effective response to each notice of an emergency including: (1) Gas detected inside or near a building and AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 7 (2) Explosion and/or fire located near or involving a pipeline facility; c. Provide emergency shutdown and pressure reduction in the affected parts of the pipeline system; and d. Making safe any actual or potential hazard to life or property. 39. Each pipeline operator shall have a public awareness program to educate the public, government organizations, municipalities, school districts, businesses, and person engaged in excavation activities on (192.616): a. Hazards associated with unintended releases from a gas pipeline facility, b. Steps to be taken for public safety, and c. Procedures for reporting such an event. 40. Each operator shall have procedures for conducting failure investigations of failures and shall investigate each failure to determine (192.617): a. Causes of each failure and b. Identify actions to prevent a recurrence. 41. Each operator shall have procedures to determine the design pressure of the weakest element in each pipeline segment. (192.619) 42. Each pipeline operator shall ensure pipelines in Class 3 or 4 areas contain gas that is readily detectable concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit by a person with a normal sense of smell. An operator must conduct periodic sampling of the gas with an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. (192.165) 43. Each operator must have written control room management procedures if the transmission line has a compressor station and a SCADA system. The control room procedures shall at least include (192.631): a. Definition of the roles and responsibilities of a controller during: AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 8 (1) Normal operations, (2) Abnormal operations, and (3) Emergency operating conditions; b. A method of controlling shift changes (requires 24 hours operation); c. Conduct point to point verification between SCADA displays and field instrumentation; d. Controller fatigue mitigation; e. Written alarm management program for SCADA systems; f. Management of change process for control room operations; and g. Provide training for controllers. 44. Each segment of pipeline that is determined to be unsafe must be replaced, repaired, or removed from service. (See 912.613) (192.703) 45. Hazardous leaks must be repaired promptly. (192.703) 46. Each operator shall have a patrol program to observe surface condition on and adjacent to the transmission lines right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and operation. Frequency of patrols is determined by factors affecting safety, operation, and maintenance. (192.705) 47. Leakage surveys of a transmission line shall be conducted at least (192.706): a. Twice a year for Class 3 locations or b. Four times a year for Class 4 locations. 48. Line markers must be placed and maintained as close as practical over each buried transmission line where necessary to identify the locations of the AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 9 transmission line. (192.707) 49. Operators of onshore steel transmission lines must have pipeline failure prediction procedures and shall analyze anomalies or defects to determine at least (192.712): a. The predicted failure pressure at the location of each anomaly or defect; b. Remaining life of the pipeline segment at the location of the anomaly or defect; c. Initial and final remaining flaw sizes must be determined using an appropriate fracture mechanics model; d. Each unrepaired anomaly and defect shall be re-evaluated before 50% of the remaining life has expired; and e. In performing the analysis on anomalies and defects, an operator must account for all uncertainties in the in-line inspection unless the anomaly and defect dimensions have been verified using in situ direct examination and measurements. 50. An operator must keep records for the life of the pipeline of all investigations, analyses, and other actions taken for compliance with section 192.712. Records shall include: a. Each technical approach used for each anomaly or defect; b. All data used and analyzed for each anomaly or defect; c. Pipe and weld properties; d. Procedures used for the analysis; e. Evaluation methodology used; f. Engineering models used; g. Direct in situ examination and measurement data; AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 10 h. Each in-line inspection tool run information evaluated including multi tool run evaluations; i. Pressure testing data and results; j. In-the-ditch assessments; k. All measurement tool, assessment, and evaluation accuracy specifications and tolerances used in technical and operation results; l. All finite element analysis results; m. The numbers of pressure cycles to failure of each anomaly and defect; n. The number of annual pressure cycles and the pressure counting method and data; o. Fracture mechanics evaluation methods; p. Safety factors used for fatigue life and predicted failure pressure calculations; q. Reassessment time intervals for each anomaly and defect; r. Date of each assessment; s. Confirmations of the procedures and results by subject matter experts; and t. Approvals by operations management personnel. 51. Except for rupture discs, each pressure relieving device in a compressor station must be inspected and tested and must be operated periodically to determine that it opens at the correct set pressure. (192.731) 52. Each compressor station building must have a fixed gas detection and alarm system. (192.736) 53. Each launcher and receiver must be equipped with a device capable of safely relieving pressure in the barrel before removal or opening of the AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 11 launcher or receiver. (192.750) 54. Each operator shall take steps to minimize the danger of accidental ignition of gas in any structure or area where the presence of gas constitutes a hazard of fire or explosion. (192.751) 55. Minimum requirements for each pipeline owner/operator for qualification of individuals performing tasks on a pipeline facility that are required by Title 49 CFR 192 and affects the operation and integrity of a pipeline include (192 Subpart N): a. Development and implementation of a written qualification program. b. Development of a list of all tasks to be performed on a pipeline. c. Preparation of instructions on how to perform each task. d. Development of minimum training requirements for each task. e. Development of qualification testing and required proof of adequate knowledge, skills, and ability to perform each task in addition to on-the- job observation. f. Development of instructions for supervisors to monitor the compliance performance of each qualified person to perform each task in accordance with instructions and procedures. g. A process whereby unqualified persons are allowed to perform a covered task in accordance with instructions and procedures if trained, directed, and observed by a person qualified to perform the covered task. h. Minimum record keeping requirements. i. Periodic retraining requirements on each task for individuals qualified to perform the task. 56. Each operator shall develop and implement a written integrity management program that at least includes the following elements for a high consequence area including the area around the Ameresco 4-inch pipeline (192 Subpart O): AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 12 a. Compliance with ASME B31.8S, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines. b. An identification of all potential high consequence areas. c. A baseline integrity assessment plan that at least includes: (1) Identification of all potential threats to each covered pipeline segment and information supporting threat identifications. (2) The threats to each pipeline segment shall at least include: (a) Third-party damage; (b) Mechanical damage; (c) Inadequate and incorrect operating pressures; (d) Human error; (e) Seismicity, geology, and soil stability; (f) Internal corrosion; (g) External corrosion; (h) Stress corrosion cracking; (i) Manufacturing defects; (j) Construction defects; and (k) Cyclic fatigue. (3) Methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe including an explanation on why each integrity assessment method is chosen. (4) To identify and evaluate each potential threat to a covered pipeline segment, the operator must gather and integrate data and information AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 13 on all covered and non-covered pipeline segments operated by the pipeline owner/operator. (5) An operator must conduct a risk assessment that considers the likelihood of failure and consequences of failure on the identified potential threats for each covered pipeline segment. (6) The operator must use the risk assessment to: (a) Prioritize baseline and continued integrity reassessments of each covered pipeline segment. (b) Determine additional preventative and mitigative measures needed for each covered pipeline segment. (7) The integrity assessment used on each covered pipeline segment must be based one each identified threat. (8) The analysis of anomalies detected by in-line inspection surveys shall be performed in accordance with section 192.712, Analysis of predicted failure pressure and section 192.937(c)(1). 57. Additional preventative and mitigative measures to address identified threats are to at least include (192.935): a. For the threat of third-party damage, enhance the damage prevention program. b. For the threat of outside force damage: (1) Increase frequency of patrols, (2) Add external protection to piping, (3) Reduce stress from external loads, (4) Relocate the line, and AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 14 (5) Run in-line inspections with geospatial and deformation detection tools. c. For the threat of a gas release, install automatic or remote control block valves. 58. Develop and implement a continuing process of evaluation and integrity assessments to maintain a pipeline’s integrity. (192.937) Overview of U.S. EPA Title 40 CFR Part 68 Regulations In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Title 40 CFR Part 68 on accident prevention programs for facilities that “handle, manufacture, store, or use toxic substances and highly flammable substances”. These regulations provide technical guidance on how to determine if a facility is subject to these regulations and how to comply with Title 40 CFR Part 68. The goal of Title 40 CFR Part 68 and the risk management program it prescribes is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment from short-term exposures from releases that occur from facilities handling toxic and highly flammable materials. Title 40 CFR Part 68 was required by the Clean Air Act “to issue a rule specifying the types of actions to be taken by facilities to prevent accidental releases of hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere and reduce their potential impact on the public and the environment”. U.S. EPA Title 40 CFR Part 68 requires development of a risk management plan that at least includes: 1. A worse case hazardous material analysis including: a. Release flow rates, b. Evaporation rates for liquid releases, and c. Release duration times. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 15 2. Analyze onsite and offsite consequences based on distance to public receptors: a. Toxic exposures, b. Explosions, and/or c. Fires. 3. Analyze potential offsite consequence analysis of: a. Toxic exposures if a toxic substance release, b. Explosives if a flammable substance release, c. Ignition of a flammable substance, and/or d. Fire from a flammable substance release. 4. Determine the locations of offsite population impacts based on: a. Hazardous distances from release to endpoint of hazardous conditions and b. Distances from the release point of each offsite population receptor. c. Public receptors include any residual population, schools, hospitals, prisons, parks, and major office, commercial and industrial areas. After the hazardous endpoint distances are determined from the facility, a determination must be made whether the risk management plan (RMP) is required to be a level 1, level 2, or level 3 RMP. Level 1 is the least comprehensive RMP and level 3 is the most comprehensive RMP. The criteria for each RMP level include: 1. RMP level 1 criteria: a. No serious accidental releases within past five (5) years and AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 16 b. Distance to a toxic, flammable, or explosive endpoint of a worse-case release is less than the distance to any public receptor. 2. RMP level 2 criteria: a. Experienced at least one serious accidental release within past five (5) years and b. At least one serious public receptor exists within a toxic, flammable, or explosive endpoint. 3. RMP level 3 criteria: a. Meets level 2 criteria and b. Process is an OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119 process safety management facility. c. Is a chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, petroleum manufacturing, or coal products manufacturing facility. The U.S. EPA provides and requires compliance with significantly more comprehensive documents than the U.S. Department of Transportation. For compliance with Title 40 CFR Part 68, the U.S. EPA provides: 1. EPA 555-B-04-001, General Guidance on Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accident Prevention; 2. EPA 550-B-00-001, Risk Management Program Guidance for Propane Storage Facilities; and 3. EPA 550-B-99-009, Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis. The U.S. DOT also provides TTO Number 14 for gas pipeline integrity management programs titled Derivation of Potential Impact Radius Formula for Vapor Cloud Dispersion. U.S. DOT Title 49 CFR Part 192 applies to gas that is “natural gas, flammable gas, or gas which is toxic or corrosive”. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 17 Specific Requirements for Risk Management Programs (RMP) Under Title 40 CFR Part 68 Each written RMP for each covered facility from level 1 through level 3 shall at least include: 1. An executive summary that includes a brief description of each of the following: a. Accidental release prevention and emergency response policies; b. Each stationary source and regulated substances handled; c. Worse-case release scenario(s) and any alternate release scenarios; d. In general, the accidental release prevention program for each specific chemical; e. Five-year accident history; f. Emergency response programs; and g. Planned areas of safety improvement. 2. Copy of the operator’s single registration form (see 68.160). 3. Data on offsite consequence analysis for each covered chemical. 4. Written emergency response program including: a. Specific actions to be taken in response to accidental releases of regulated substances, b. Procedures for informing the public on accidental releases, c. Procedures for informing local agencies responsible for responding to accidental releases, and d. Information on emergency health care. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 18 Additional requirements for a level 2 RMP at least include the following: 1. Five or six digit NAICS code for each process. 2. Names of all chemicals handled. 3. Date of most recent revision of safety related information. 4. List of Federal and state regulations and industry-specific codes and standards used to demonstrate compliance with safety requirements. 5. Major hazards identified. 6. Process controls in use. 7. Mitigation systems in use. 8. Monitoring and detection systems in use. 9. Latest hazard review or update including: a. Identify all hazards associated with the process; b. Identify all hazards associated with the regulated substances; c. Potential for equipment malfunction that could cause an accidental release; d. Potential for human error that could cause an accidental release; e. Safeguards needed to control the hazards, prevent equipment malfunction, or human error; f. Safeguards used to control the hazards, prevent equipment malfunction, or human error; g. Steps needed to detect or monitor releases; h. Steps taken to detect or monitor releases; and AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 19 i. Update the above review process at least every five (5) years and whenever any major changes are made in the process. 10. Changes in processes and facility since last hazard review or update. 11. Operating procedures to at least cover: a. Initial startup of any facility, b. Normal operations, c. Temporary operations, d. Emergency shutdown and operation, e. Normal shutdown, f. Startup following a normal or emergency shutdown, and/or g. Startup following each major change in operations and/or facility that requires a hazard review. 12. Extensive training of operating and maintenance personnel to at least include: a. Each person involved with operating a process shall be trained and tested for competency on operating procedures that pertain to their duties. b. Each person involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of the process shall be trained. c. Personnel must be trained on any updated or new procedures prior to startup after a major process change. 13. Each owner or operator shall ensure that inspections and tests are performed on process equipment following recognized and generally accepted “good engineering practices”. 14. Each owner or operator shall investigate each incident which resulted in or could have (near miss) resulted in a catastrophic release. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 20 Additional requirements for a level 3 RMP at least include: 1. Comprehensive process hazard analysis using a team having expertise in engineering and process operations. 2. Mechanical integrity program for: a. Pressure vessels, b. Storage tanks, c. Piping systems, d. Pressure relief systems, e. Emergency shutdown systems, f. Operating controls and monitoring devices, g. Mechanical integrity written procedures, and h. Mechanical integrity records. 3. Management of change process. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPA Title 40 CFR Part 370 is titled Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-to-Know. Purpose of this rule is to provide the public with important information on the hazardous chemicals in their communities. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) required Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) to: 1. Develop emergency response plans, 2. Review the plans at least annually, and AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 21 3. Provide information about chemicals in the community to citizens. Emergency response plans are to be developed by the LEPCs with stakeholder participation. LEPC membership must at least include: 1. Elected state and local officials; 2. Police, fire, civil defense, and public health officials; 3. Environmental, transportation, and hospital officials; 4. Facility owners; and 5. Representatives from community groups and the media. To find your LEPC where you live, contact your State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). Requirements for each community emergency response plan at least include: 1. Identification of each facility handling extremely hazardous substances, 2. Identification of transportation routes of extremely hazardous substances, 3. Designation of a community coordinator for each plan, 4. Designation of a facility emergency coordinator(s) to implement each plan, 5. Outline of emergency notification procedures, 6. Description on how to determine the affected area and population due to releases, 7. Description of local emergency equipment and facilities and names of persons responsible for local emergency equipment, 8. Outline of evacuation plans, 9. Training program for emergency responders, and 10. Methods and schedules for exercises of each emergency response plan. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 22 Minimum reporting requirements include: 1. Report each hazardous chemical at your facility that meets or exceeds the applicable threshold levels by submitting: a. A MSDS (or SDS) for each hazardous chemical or b. List of all hazardous chemicals grouped by the specific health and physical hazards (see Section 370.66). 2. Within 30 days of a request by the LEPC, submit an MSDS (or SDS) for each hazardous chemical at your facility. 3. The following Tier I inventory information must be reported for the previous year. a. Certification that information is true, accurate, and complete. b. Calendar year for reporting period. c. Complete name and location of the facility. d. Whether facility is manned or unmanned. e. Estimate of maximum number of occupants present at any one time. If location is unmanned, indicate “not applicable”. f. Phone number of the facility (optional). g. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the facility. h. Dun & Bradstreet number of your facility. i. Facility identification numbers assigned under the toxic release inventory (TRI) and Risk Management Program, if applicable. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 23 j. Indication whether the facility is subject to emergency planning notification requirements under EPCRA, Section 302 under 40 CFR Part 355. k. Indication whether the facility is subject to the chemical accident prevention requirements under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR Part 68 also known as the Risk Management Program. l. Name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address of the owner or operator of the facility. m. Name, title, phone number, 24-hour phone number, and e-mail address of the facility emergency coordinator, if applicable. n. Name, title, phone number, and e-mail of person to contact for the information in the Tier I response. o. Name, title, phone number, and e-mail of at least one local individual that local responders can contact if responding to a chemical accident at this facility. p. An estimate of the maximum amount of hazardous chemicals in each category present at the facility during the previous year. q. Maximum number of days that any single hazardous chemical within each hazard category was present at the facility during the prior year. r. General location of hazardous chemicals in each hazard category within the facility. One or more of the following may be attached: (1) Site plan on buildings, lots, and areas throughout the facility; (2) List of site coordinate abbreviations; (3) Descriptions of dikes and other safeguard measures for storage locations throughout the facility; and (4) Any other attachments. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 24 4. If required by state and local officials, the following additional information shall be provided: a. Chemical name of pure chemicals (non-mixtures). b. Indication whether the chemical is a solid, liquid, or gas and whether the chemical is an EHS. c. For mixtures, provide: (1) Mixture name; (2) Product name or trade name, as provided on MSDS or SDS; (3) Name of EHS in the mixture; (4) Indicate hazard categories of the mixture; (5) Estimate of maximum amount of the mixture at the facility during any day during the prior year; (6) Maximum number of days the hazardous chemical or mixture was present at the facility during the previous year; and (7) Type of storage facilities that the hazardous chemical or mixture. 5. The required inventory information must be submitted before March 1 to the SERC, LEPC, and fire department with jurisdiction over the facility. Community access to information includes: 1. Any person may obtain an MSDS (or SDS) for a specific facility by writing to the LEPC. The LEPC must provide the MSDS (or SDS). 2. Any person may request Tier II information for a specific facility by writing to the SERC or the LEPC. The SERC or LEPC must provide the Tier II information. Local fire department inspection requirements include: AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 25 1. Allow the fire department with jurisdiction over the facility to conduct an on-site inspection of the facility and 2. Provide the fire department with information about the specific locations of hazardous chemicals at your facility. Summary of Information and Opinions in the Contra Costa County Study on Potential Impacts of the Proposed Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Information and opinions in the Contra Costa County study on potential impacts of the proposed Ameresco gas transmission pipeline include the following assertions by the County and Ameresco, though in many cases these assertions are conclusory and are unsupported by facts. 1. Project description a. The processing facility that delivers gas to the proposed pipeline will operate 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Therefore, the pipeline will also operate 24 hours a day/7 days a week. b. The processing plant (and pipeline) will be manned by two operators for 40 hours per week. Therefore, the processing facility and pipeline will be staffed for operation about 24% of the time (40 ÷ 24 x 7). c. The design of the pipeline will meet or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. d. The pipeline will go under the Contra Costa Canal. e. The pipeline will terminate in a metering station owned and operated by Ameresco. f. The Ameresco metering station will connect to an existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline located in a PG&E utility corridor with electric transmission towers with high-voltage electric lines. g. The pipeline length is 3.4 miles and 0.8 miles will be located in PG&E’s corridor. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 26 h. The pipeline will consist of 4-inch diameter, 0.237-inch wall, Grade B steel pipe that is wrapped. i. The pipeline is designed for a maximum operating pressure of 680 psig. j. The pipeline will be buried with a minimum of 48 inches of cover. k. The applicant, Ameresco, has “extensive experience with safely operating pipelines that carry RNG (reclaimed natural gas) in many locations across the country”. l. The pipeline will be designed to the “highest available design standards for protection of public health and safety and the natural environment”. m. The pipeline will be designed to the most stringent requirements for a Class 4 location, buried deeper than required, receive extensive testing, and inspection of 100% of the welds. 2. Properties of reclaimed natural gas a. Natural gas will not burn unless the mixture with air is within a range of roughly 5 to 15 percent of natural gas. b. The combustible mixture has a very high ignition (auto ignition) temperature of about 1150°F. c. Natural gas is lighter than air, so it can dissipate into the air rapidly, making accidental combustion difficult. d. A chemical odorant called mercaptan is added to make leaks easy to smell. The mercaptan has a “rotten egg” smell that is a warning of a gas leak. 3. Pipeline regulations and design features a. Pipeline will be designed and operated in accordance with federal and state regulations. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 27 b. The pipeline will be designed in compliance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31.8. c. Industry codes and standards for the pipeline include those of OSHA, ASME, and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). d. Pipelines will be designed to meet or exceed Class 4 requirements and operate under 20% of the pipe’s specified minimum yield strength. e. Pressure relief systems will be included at unspecified locations to ensure the pipeline does not overpressure. f. Ameresco will work with PG&E engineers to meet requirements to tie-in to PG&E system. 4. PG&E utility corridor a. The PG&E gas transmission runs along the eastern edge of the corridor within about 50 to 100 feet of homes along the eastern edge of the corridor. b. The corridor also contains water lines and high voltage transmission lines. c. The distances of the Ameresco transmission line from PG&E’s 20-inch line, the water lines, and high voltage towers is not specified, but are very important to avoid third party excavation damage to the new 4-inch pipeline. 5. Operation and maintenance a. Potential unforeseen contingency events could include: (1) Processing facility failure, (2) Pipeline rupture, (3) Power failure or outage, and AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 28 (4) Earthquakes. b. Contingency measures for the pipeline include: (1) Pipeline flow rate and pressure will be monitored at unspecified locations and any change outside normal operating parameters will cause the pipeline and processing facility to be shut down. (2) In case of a large earthquake, the processing facility will be shut down and the pipeline valves at unspecified locations will be closed. 6. Project life a. Will be at least 20 years and b. The agreement may extend the time after 20 years. 7. Other public agencies whose approval is required include: a. Bay Area Air Quality District, b. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, c. California Public Utilities Commission, d. City of Pittsburg, e. Contra Costa Water District, f. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, g. Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, h. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, i. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and j. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8. Sensitive receptors of emission and releases to the atmosphere AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 29 a. Only potential receptors from emission from the processing plan are included. b. No potential receptor releases from the pipelines are included. 9. Landslides and soil instability potential impacts a. Three landslide areas extended into the pipeline’s route. b. There is a potential for substantial soil erosion which could result in a potentially significant impact at two locations along the pipeline route. c. There is a potential for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline route which could result in potentially significant impacts. d. The expansive and corrosive soils could result in potentially significant impacts on the proposed pipeline. 10. Effect of pipeline pressure on safety of the nearby community a. The pipeline will be designed to meet the most stringent, Class 4 location even though the pipeline location (Class 3) allows higher pipe stresses. b. By designing the pipeline to meet Class 4 requirements with a lower pipe stress, the pipeline provides the “greatest level of safety for the nearby community”. c. Pressure and flow rate shall be monitored and any change outside normal operating parameters will shut off the pipeline. (The effects of change in the pressure of PG&E’s pipeline are not addressed.) 11. Gas leakage detection a. Hazardous gas detectors shall be strategically located in the processing facility area to detect gas leaks from the facility. b. Odorant will be added to the gas in the pipeline for minimum detection of leaks by the public. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 30 12. Pipeline hazard analysis a. The potential impact radius was based on the minimum requirements in Title 49 CFR 192 was calculated at 72 feet for 4-inch pipe and a pressure of 685 psig. b. The minimum potential impact radius for the interconnecting 20-inch pipeline at a pressure of 685 psig is 361 feet was not included. c. The inadequate basis for the PIR of 72 feet for public safety of 5,000 BTU/ft.2-hr. was not addressed. d. The potential for a delayed or non-instantaneous ignition was not addressed. e. The report indicated that the first 2.6 miles of the pipeline would be located in a Class 1 location for low population areas. However, the report did not address future development that will increase the class location of much of the 2.6 miles to a Class 3 location. f. Figure 9-4 in the report shows that the 72 feet impact radius included homes on the east side of the 4-inch pipeline within the PG&E corridor. g. The deeper the pipe is buried in combination with low SMYS results in a higher probability of leakage versus a rupture. h. Pipelines operating at a sufficiently low stress are less likely to fail in a rupture mode and are more likely to fail in the leak mode. Analysis of Information and Opinions in The Contra Costa County Environment Impacts Report My analysis of information and opinions in the Contra Costa County Study on Potential Impacts of the proposed Ameresco gas transmission pipeline include: 1. The information on the pipeline constituted only one (1) or two (2) percent of the entire environment report. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 31 2. The analyses of the pipeline’s impacts are based on documents prepared by Ameresco and that are inadequate. 3. Ameresco’s planned manpower only includes plant personnel about 24 percent of the time. No pipeline personnel are to be provided at the facility. 4. Pipeline personnel have to be available for emergency response 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. 5. Compliance with Title 49 CFR 192 requires instructions, training, and qualification of pipeline personnel to perform over 100 specific tasks. 6. Title 49 CFR 192 requires supervisors to oversee the compliance with pipeline personnel qualification requirements. 7. Ameresco is required to have a written program with processes and procedures to qualify both Ameresco employees and contractors. 8. Individuals who are not qualified by the Ameresco qualification program are allowed to perform a specific task if under the direction, observation, and control of a person qualified by Ameresco to perform each specific task. 9. The PG&E corridor’s high voltage electric transmission line may induce stray currents into the 4-inch gas pipeline. 10. Because the 4-inch gas pipeline is connected to a PG&E pipeline, the 4- inch pipeline’s pressure will be a function of pressure in PG&E’s pipeline. 11. Pressure fluctuations in PG&E’s interconnected pipeline were not addressed. 12. Details on Ameresco’s “extensive experience with safely operating pipelines” were not included in the report. 13. Ameresco should be required to identify and provide information on the “highest available design standards for protection of public health and safety” that will be followed on the project. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 32 14. Little information is provided on the operation, maintenance, emergency response, and integrity management of the proposed Ameresco 4-inch pipeline. 15. On October 1, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued significant numbers of new regulations that Ameresco will unlikely have compliance experience, because they require several highly trained and qualified engineering subject experts to cover the new requirements. 16. Ameresco mischaracterized the hazardous properties of natural gas. Comments include: a. When released into the atmosphere, large amounts of ignitable mixtures of natural gas in air will exist. b. The 1150°F temperature is the auto ignition temperature of natural gas and has little to do with the temperature in which natural gas will ignite in air. c. The dispersion of natural gas in air is not based on Ameresco’s concept that natural gas behaves like a helium filled balloon. The dispersion of a substance in air is based on the sizes of the particles, gas, and vapors. The movement of gas in air is primarily based on air movement. d. Odorants used in gas pipelines are well known to be ineffective because: (1) They are not ethyl mercaptan, (2) Adsorption to soil and other solids as they travel underground from the leak site, (3) Oxidation into sulfur components that have little odor, and (4) The inability of many people to have limited or no sense of smell. e. Detection of natural gas by the public should be based on gas detection instrumentation with alarms as required in Title 49 CFR 192.736 for compressor stations. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 33 f. The ignition energy for natural gas can be as low as 0.3 milli joules. 17. Federal and state regulations for pipeline safety are titled as “minimum standards” and contain requirements on certain activities to be performed, but not how to perform the activities. a. Ameresco should be required to provide the written processes and procedures for design, construction, pressure testing, operation, maintenance, emergency response, and integrity management of the proposed 4-inch pipeline as a condition of approval. b. Ameresco’s written processes and procedures should be provided and reviewed for adequacy before approval for the pipeline is given. 18. The Ameresco 4-inch pipeline should be required to comply with all applicable parts of ASME B31.8, ASME B31S, and ASME B31Q not just the design requirements as a condition of approval. 19. American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and recommended practices should be included for compliance purposes as a condition of approval. 20. Few requirements in Title 49 CFR Part 192 are specific to Class 4 locations. 21. The PG&E corridor boundary appears to be coinciding with the back property lines of homes. 22. The PG&E gas transmission line and Ameresco’s 4-inch pipeline will be closer to homes than 100 feet and very close to the back yards of homes. The back yards should be considered as part of a home. 23. Ameresco should be required to repair all leaks as soon as possible after they are found, because it is impractical to predict with accuracy the migration of natural gas through the soil toward homes. 24. Maintenance on water lines in the PG&E corridor must be directed and inspected by pipeline owners to avoid excavation damage to pipelines. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 34 25. No details are provided on emergency response by Ameresco to “contingency events”. 26. Written processes and procedures are not provided on how landslide and soil instability issues will be addressed by Ameresco. 27. Internal pressure is not the only source of stress to a pipeline. Other sources of stress including bending from movements due to seismic, landslide, and unstable soil. Other sources include residual stress at welds. 28. External loads must be provided for the design of pipelines as required by Title 49 CFR 192.103 and 192.143. This data is critical to understanding the risk posed by operations to human safety and health and the environment. 29. A lower stress level does not guarantee the “greatest level of safety” for the nearby community. See the included section on studies on the effects of internal pressure and pressure induced stress on pipeline failures. 30. Although gas detectors will be located at various places in the processing facility area, why aren’t gas detectors with alarms provided along the 4-inch pipeline route for public safety? 31. The potential impact radius equation in Title 49 CFR 192 is based on an instantaneous ignition and a radiant heat level of 5,000 BTU per ft.2-hr. 32. A radiant heat level of 5,000 BTU per ft.2-hr. can cause second degree burns in 5 seconds or less. Older people have little tolerance to burns and second degree burns can be fatal to older people. 33. The EPA PIR equation is based on a heat radiation of 1520 BTU per ft.2-hr. which could cause second degree burns in 40 seconds for middle age adults. Older people have a low tolerance to burn injuries and a lower heat radiation should be used. 34. Instantaneous ignition of a gas release is unlikely unless Ameresco provides ignition sources along the 4-inch pipeline which is very unlikely. 35. Delayed ignition, on the other hand, can allow vapor clouds to form that travel a distance before ignition to create a large vapor cloud explosion as AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 35 covered in U.S. DOT study TTO Number 14 and required in EPA Title 40 CFR Part 68. 36. The PIR for a 4-inch gas pipeline at 685 psi for the EPA standard is 2,214 feet, not 72 feet. 37. The Title 49 CFR 192 PIR equation is based on a person finding shelter within 30 seconds. Older people and young children will be unlikely to find shelter in time to avoid critical burns. 38. Undetected underground gas leaks can migrate hundreds of feet from a gas pipeline creating safety risks outside the project area. The environmental review document does not address this real and significant risk. 39. Ameresco does not plan to provide internal corrosion monitoring facilities in the 4-inch pipeline as required by Title 49 CFR 192.477. This is significant. 40. The depth of pipeline burial does not affect whether a pipeline leaks or ruptures unless Ameresco fails to respond to a notice of excavation by others and provide inspection of the excavation activities. 41. The report does not specify the types of sensors and systems to be used to detect pipeline leakage or rupture. Continuous detection of leaks and ruptures in a gas pipeline can be a challenging activity, especially if pressures and/or flow rates are not constant. This data is critical to understanding the risks posed by operators to human safety and health and the environment. 42. The report does not specify the types of in-line inspection tools to be used and how often is “on a regular basis”? This data is critical to understanding and controlling the risks posed by operation to human safety and health and the environment. 43. The statement that the proposed pipeline will have no impact of a school may apply to the school’s buildings, but does not apply to the students that may be outside during recess, physical activities, or walking from home to school and back. More discussion and evaluation are needed to properly understand all risks. AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 36 Studies on Effects of Operating Pressure and Pressure Induced Stress on Pipeline Failures The estimated percent of incidents versus stress level for ruptures from figure 9 in the subject unnumbered American Gas Association (AGA) report by Kiefner, Gideon, and Smith of Battelle were: Percent of Incidents versus Hoop Stress – Ruptures Hoop Stress ksi Corrosion Outside Forces Const. Defect/Matl. Failure Total 1-3 10 36 8 18.0 3-6 10 5 12 9.0 6-9 10 14 10 11.3 9-12 20 19 3 14.0 12-15 5 8 13 8.7 15-18 5 3 10 6.0 18-21 4 3 5 4.0 21-24 8 2 4 4.7 24-27 9 3 6 6.0 27-30 1 3 6 3.1 30-33 2 1 6 3.0 33-36 5 1 13 6.3 36-39 5 1 1 2.3 39+ 7 1 4 4.0 Totals 100 100 100 100 The percent of incidents versus stress level for leaks from figure 8 in the subject unnumbered AGA report were: AMERESCO – Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposal Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline Page 37 Percent of Incidents versus Hoop Stress – Leaks Hoop Stress ksi Corrosion Outside Forces Const. Defect/Matl. Failure Total 1-3 18 40 15 24.3 3-6 24 8 10 14.0 6-9 30 14 4 16.0 9-12 10 20 10 16.7 12-15 3 2 9 4.7 15-18 2 4 2 2.7 18-21 2 3 2 2.3 21-24 2 2 4 2.7 24-27 2 2 8 4.0 27-30 2 1 11 4.7 30-33 1 1 10 4.0 33-36 1 1 6 2.7 36-39 1 1 4 2.0 39+ 2 1 3 2.0 Totals 100 100 100 100 Relevant information in AGA Report No. 158 on the number of reported pipeline incidents. A total of only 5,610 in-service incidents reported contained enough information to determine if a leak or rupture was involved with the incidents. Relevant information and data on these 5,610 gas transmission failures included: 1. 35.7% (2003) of the incidents were indicated as ruptures. 2. 9.2% (514) of the incidents were indicated as ruptures that propagated more than one foot along the pipe axis. 3. Five previous analysis of DOT gas pipeline incident data between 1970 through 1978 indicated that about one third of all reportable incidents were classified as ruptures. 4. The number of incidents involved with exceeding the MAOP of the piping was 4.4%. In 1982, about 28% of the reported incidents involved exceeding the MAOP of the piping. Curriculum Vitae Page 1 DEATECH Consulting Company 203 Sarasota Circle South Montgomery, TX 77356-8418 _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ PHONE 1-936-449-6937 FAX 1-936-449-5317 CURRICULUM VITAE R. DON DEAVER, P.E. 203 Sarasota Circle South Montgomery, TX 77356-8418 Office: 936-449-6937 Facsimile: 936-449-5317 E-mail: rdd5703@aol.com ACADEMIC BACKGROUND: Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering in 1964, Texas A & M University. Member of Tau Beta Pi, the oldest engineering honor society in the United States. WORK EXPERIENCE AND AREAS OF EXPERTISE: Royce Don Deaver worked for Exxon Pipeline and Exxon affiliates for over 33 years. Exxon experience included numerous technical and management positions. Work activities involved consulting within Exxon, on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, Exxon pipeline affiliates, and numerous oil and gas industry committees and work groups. Work activities at Exxon as a subject matter expert and later at DEATECH as a consultant and as an expert witness involved: 1. Pipeline regulations, 2. OSHA regulations, 3. Pipeline accident analysis, 4. Pipeline corrosion control, 5. Pipeline welding, on 06/25/2021By Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development LP18-2022 Curriculum Vitae Page 2 6. Pipeline metallurgy, 7. Pipeline inspection, 8. Pipeline materials, 9. Nondestructive testing, 10. Fracture prevention and control, 11. Pipeline failure investigation and analysis, 12. Project management, 13. Pipeline facility design, 14. Main pipeline design, 15. Pipeline construction, 16. Pipeline construction specifications, 17. Pipeline pressure testing, 18. Pipeline repairs, 19. In-line pipeline inspection, 20. Fluid dynamics, 21. Pipeline surge analysis, 22. Explosion simulations and analysis, 23. Fire exposure simulations and analysis, 24. Statistical data analysis, 25. Integrity analysis, 26. Pipeline integrity management, 27. Liquid measurement, 28. Gas measurement, 29. Leak detection, 30. Pipeline operations and control, 31. Pipeline maintenance, 32. Pipeline repairs, 33. Pipeline stress analysis, 34. Mechanical damage assessment, 35. Pipeline rupture simulations, 36. Pipeline fire and explosions analysis, 37. Pipeline marking, 38. Gas underground migration, 39. Petroleum underground migration, 40. Piping fitness for service assessments, 41. Automatic pipeline shutdown, 42. Hydrogen sulfide safety, 43. Oil and gas production operations, 44. Gas detection and odorization failures, 45. Cast iron pipe problems, 46. Vintage pipeline problems, 47. Pipeline excavation damage prevention, 48. Pipeline safety management, 49. Pressure control and limiting, 50. Pipeline easement assessments, and 51. Pipeline construction environmental damage mitigation. Curriculum Vitae Page 3 PROFESSIONAL LICENSE: Registered in Texas in the area of mechanical engineering. INDUSTRY SERVICE: I have served on the following committees and task groups. * ASME B31.4 Code Committee for cross country liquid pipelines * ASME B31.11 Code Committee for slurry pipelines * ASME Work Group on Pipeline Design Requirements * ASME Task Group on Mechanical Damage and Integrity Assessment * ASME Work Group to update pipeline welding requirements * ASME Work Group on Offshore Pipelines * Coordinator of API Work Group on State of the Art in pipeline leak detection * Chairman of API Committee on Pipeline Markers * API Committee on Gas Measurement * API Committee on Liquid Measurement * API Measurement Training Committee * API/NIST Task Group on Volume Standards Calibration * API Task Group on Dynamic Liquid Measurement Computations * API Task Group on Meter Provers * Chairman of API Task Group on Statistical Analysis of Measurement Quantities * API Planning Committee for 1997 API Pipeline Conference * API Users Subcommittee on Line Pipe Standards * API Welding Committee * Joint Welding Committee on API 1104 and API 1107 * API Task Group on Laser Welding * Owner Companies Technical Review Task Group Chairman on TAPS Fluid Measurements * TAPS Prover Calibration Task Group * TAPS Vapor Pressure Measurement Task Group * TAPS Corrosion Peer Group * TAPS Fluid Measurement Peer Group * TAPS Smart Pigging Task Group * Coordinator of pipeline and marine terminaling research for Exxon Corporation * Exxon Corporation Pipeline Research Steering Committee * Exxon Corporation Terminaling Steering Committee * Exxon Corporation Metrication Committee * Seadock Offshore Pipeline Advisory Committee * API Pipeline School of Technology * Investigation team on Exxon fire at the Baton Rouge refinery * ARAMCO Consulting Group * Design coordinator for industry marine terminal in Santa Barbara, California Curriculum Vitae Page 4 Industry service awards included the following. * American Petroleum Institute Award for service involving many contributions to programs of API (1994) * American Petroleum Institute Award in recognition for 40 years of service in standards development activities of API (2010) EXPERT WITNESS CASES Lawsuits in which I have been involved include, but were not limited to: 1. PG&E San Bruno explosion; 2. Union Pacific/Kinder Morgan reimbursement dispute; 3. Santa Monica Charnock Aquifer MTBE contamination investigation; 4. McAllen, Texas gas gathering leaks and petroleum contamination; 5. El Paso Carlsbad, New Mexico explosion; 6. Tenneco West Houston explosion; 7. Bellingham, Washington Olympic Pipeline rupture and fire; 8. Koch Kaufman County, Texas LPG explosion; 9. Koch Industries Clean Water Act violations; 10. Longhorn Pipeline Environmental Assessment dispute; 11. El Paso Bushland, Texas explosion; 12. Atmos McKinney, Texas explosion; 13. Atmos Dallas, Texas explosion; 14. Atmos Irving, Texas explosion; 15. Atmos Cleburne, Texas explosion; 16. Occidental Elk Hills, California explosion; 17. Enterprise Johnson County, Texas explosion; 18. Luminant/EMS pipeline construction dispute; 19. Northern Natural Gas Iowa explosion; 20. Oakland Port Authority/Kinder Morgan dispute; 21. Enbridge/British Petroleum mismeasurement dispute at Sarnia, Canada; 22. British Petroleum North Slope, Alaska oil spill; 23. Washington Gas explosion at Penn Marr in Maryland; 24. XTO BOA Plant maintenance incident; 25. Amoco rupture near Peoria, Illinois; 26. Texas New Mexico/EOTT leak and contamination in Midland, Texas; 27. Signature Flight Support pipeline leak in Anchorage, Alaska; 28. Explorer rupture in North Texas; 29. Columbia Gas explosion in West Virginia; 30. Atmos North Richland Hills explosion in Fort Worth, Texas; 31. AGL explosion in Douglasville, Georgia; 32. West Shore leak in Wisconsin; Curriculum Vitae Page 5 33. Northwest Pipeline dispute with ADA County Highway Department in Boise, Idaho; 34. Plains All American Leak in Santa Barbara County, California; 35. Plains All American Pipe Quality Dispute; 36. Enbridge right-of-way-clearing gas explosion in Rusk County, Texas; 37. Enbridge gas pipeline fire in Wheeler County, Texas; 38. Kinder Morgan deadly rupture in Illinois; 39. Energy Transfer rupture in South Texas; 40. Atlantic Coast Pipeline Safety Analyses for Wintergreen; 41. VNG Southside Connector Safety Analyses; 42. CenterPoint incident in Shreveport, Louisiana; 43. Atmos incident in Dallas, Texas; 44. Colonial contractor dispute in Newark, New Jersey; 45. Magellan contractor dispute in Houston area; 46. Buckeye vs. Edison Consolidated leak in Chicago area; 47. Anadarko gas explosion near Denver, Colorado; 48. Keystone Pipeline permit application review for U.S. DOT; 49. Review proposal for U.S. DOT on higher allowable operating pressure in Part 195; 50. San Francisco lawsuit against Secretary of U.S. DOT; 51. Washington Gas explosion in Silver Springs, Maryland; 52. Buckeye failure in the St. Mary’s River in Indiana; 53. Atmos incident in Stephenville, Texas; and 54. Atmos incident in Gatesville, Texas. R. D. Deaver, P.E. November 24, 2020 SECTION D STAFF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON JUNE 23, 2021 AND JUNE 25, 2021 Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 1 Attachment 7, Section D includes staff responses to the comments in the letters received on June 23, 2021 in Section B and in the email received on June 25, 2021 in Section C. The comments within each letter and email have been numbered. A. Hanson Bridgett on behalf of Discovery Builders: On June 23, 2021, Hanson Bridgett submitted a letter to staff prior to the CPC hearing on the Ameresco RNGPFP Land Use Permit application. In addition to submitting the letter, an attorney with Hanson Bridgett spoke at the CPC hearing and repeated some of the comments in the letter. Following are staff responses to the 18 comments as numbered in the letter. Staff Response to Comment HB-1: The comment stating that the MND should be recirculated is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impa cts. Recirculation of an MND is required only when new information demonstrates a “new, avoidable significant effect.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b). Here, even though the Project’s impacts are less than significant with mitigation, those less-than- significant impacts are further reduced by the Project revision reflected in the Final MND. In response to the City of Pittsburg’s concerns about the pipeline expressed in its comment letter, the applicant has realigned the proposed RNG pipeline in the PG&E property. The RNG pipeline would tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191-1 thereby eliminating a wide range of potential impacts to residential neighborhoods that are described in the MND. In addition, the revised project moves the pipeline an additional 25 feet away from the proposed Stoneman Park development. Please see the Section III. Revised Project Description of the Final MND for a detailed description of the revised RNG pipeline alignment. Staff Response to Comment HB-2: As the comment notes, recirculation of an MND is required only when new information demonstrates a “new, avoidable significant effect.” The Spring Valley decision cited by the commenter is a decision based on the different standards that apply to recirculation of a Draft EIR. Moreover, the clarifications made to the project in response to comments from the City of Pittsburg were not unlike the revisions made to the transportation and biological resources chapters in the EIR at issue in Spring Valley, which the court found did not trigger recirculation. The court held that the changes to the revisions to the transportation and biological resource information did not result in additional impacts and therefor the revisions did not “deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect.” The same is true about the Project revisions for the proposed Ameresco project, which reduce the project’s already less than significant impacts. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 2 Staff Response to Comment HB-3: The pipeline realignment shown in the Final MND was developed to further minimize impacts on the neighboring community. As shown in Section III. Revised Project Description of the Final MND, the new alignment in PG&E property will be 70 feet from the corner of one property which is more than the new reduced PIR of 55 feet. The Final MND shows that the new pipeline alignment minimizes the impact of the project on the neighbors. The previous alignment evaluated in the draft MND had the pipeline situated approximately 50 feet away from over 40 homes. Staff Response to Comment HB-4: The cathodic protection monitoring program is not a revision or supplement to the pipeline cathodic protection plan. The expanded discussion of cathodic protection in the Final MND does not represent a set of new mitigation measures. The cathodic protection monitoring plan was always required. The response to comment was just stating the fact that a cathodic protection plan would be prepared for the pipeline in accordance with federal regulations – as is done for every pipeline based on the design requirements. Cathodic protection is part of a standard pipeline design and maintenance process that is clearly defined and required by federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (Title 49 CFR Parts 190-199), specifically §192.463 External Corrosion Control: Cathodic Protection. Additionally, the cathodic protection program for the proposed project is required by PG&E and will be reviewed and approved by PG&E’s Corrosion Engineering Division Staff Response to Comment HB-5: The AC Mitigation Study is not a CEQA mitigation measure and is not used in the MND as an indication of the need to mitigate a significant impact under CEQA. The “AC Mitigation Study” is an industry-specific term that refers to the need for electrical isolation in shared corridors of overhead electrical lines and underground pipelines. An AC Mitigation Study is also referred to as an “AC Interference Study.” Electrical isolation is part of a standard pipeline design process that is clearly defined and required by federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (Title 49 CFR Parts 190-199), specifically Section 192.467 External Corrosion Control: Electrical Isolation. By regulation, pipelines designers are required to perform this study and install an AC “Interference” system as part of the pipeline design. Similar to the cathodic protection program described above, an AC Interference Study will be required by PG&E, and will be reviewed and approved by PG&E for compliance with design and construction requirements for gas and electric facilities. Staff Response to Comment HB-6: The proposed project, CDLP18-02022, is an amendment of the existing Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. Land use permit conditions of approval and entitlements under LP89-2020 also apply to the Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 3 proposed project. Conditions of Approval for CDLP18-02022 are included as LP89- 2020 Section 37. LANDFILL RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE (RNGPFP). Site development and earthmoving are allowed under LP89-2020 Section 15 Final Development and Improvements Plan. The proposed project’s use of borrow soil from on-site sources was specifically proposed to minimize impacts from the import of soil, such as traffic, noise, vibration, and dirt and dust. The potential impact of the use of borrow sites was evaluated in the MND. Construction emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from a wide range of construction equipment was evaluated in the draft MND, and updated in the Final MND to account for project revisions. No significant impacts were identified from GHG emissions during construction. Staff Response to Comment HB-7: The “new” technical studies are revisions of the original studies done for the project and are only designed to confirm the reduction of impacts of the revised project. The original MND had less than significant impact and these reductions reduce the impacts even further. The three technical studies referenced by the commenter are part of the substantial administrative record of studies and other information that support the conclusions of the MND. There is no legal requirement that supporting studies and other administrative record documents be circulated for public review, and these studies are available for review upon request. Staff Response to Comment HB-8: The commenter is correct that the Project changes were proposed to alleviate concerns raised by the public, but the changes do not alter the basic characteristics of the Project. No new significant impacts have been identified, and the public has not been deprived of the ability to comment upon any such impacts. Staff Response to Comment HB-9: The commenter has filed a request for supporting geotechnical reports referenced in the draft and Final MND. As discussed in Response to Comment HB-1A below, the Department of Conservation and Development Administrative Services Section will provide a download link to the requested geotechnical reports to the commenter pursuant to standard Department procedures for PRA requests. Staff Response to Comment HB-10: As noted in Response to Comment 16-4 in Attachment 4 – Public Comments, in the Final MND, the potential impacts of the pipeline on nearby residences have been adequately disclosed, and the MND concludes that there are no significant impacts. This less-than-significant impact has been further reduced by the Project changes, which have increased the distance of the Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 4 pipeline from the proposed Stoneman Park development. As the commenter notes, construction of Stoneman Park likely will occur well after construction of the Project. The commenter suggests that Project construction could be delayed, but the County is unaware of any reason to assume delay. Even if Project operations are slightly delayed, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project would be constructed and operating by the time Stoneman Park, if ever approved by the City of Pittsburg, is under construction. Staff Response to Comment HB-11: The comment criticizes the MND and the County’s responses to the commenter’s earlier comments for not including maps for the analysis of geology and soils issues. There is no legal or factual basis for this comment. Legally, there is no requirement that an MND include specific mapping to describe an impact, rather than text analysis, and the court decisions cited by the commenter do not impose such a requirement. Two of those decisions are court decisions interpreting the separate standards for analyses in an EIR. And in the Sundstrom decision, cited by the commenter for the proposition that an agency “may not hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data,” the problem in that case was an MND that did not provide any analysis at all of the potential impact in question (sludge disposal). That decision does not stand for the proposition that specific mapping of impact analyses is required. Staff Response to Comment HB-12: The potential impact radius (PIR) is addressed extensively in the draft and Final MND. Based on project revisions, the PIR has been reduced from 72 feet in the draft MND, to 55 feet in the Final MND. Maximum operating pressure (MAOP) has been reduced from 680psi to 400psi. The draft and Final MND present analysis that supports the conclusions that the most likely potential failure for the proposed RNG pipeline is leakage as opposed to catastrophic rupture. Additionally, federal, State, and PG&E requirements require design safeguards and monitoring to effectively identify any potential leakage, and to shut down the system. Staff Response to Comment HB-13: As stated in the Final MND, the pipeline will be built along existing ranch roads to minimize impact and provide access for monitoring, maintenance, and emergency personnel should it be required. Access to the PG&E metering station and tie-in equipment will be provided by a paved road. Staff Response to Comment HB-14: Warning tape is a standard pipeline safety requirement under federal regulations and PG&E requirements. Typically, warning tape is placed in the trench 6 to 12” above the pipeline to give warning of the pipeline’s location should any excavation be planned near the RNG pipeline. The tape is buried Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 5 underground and similar to the pipeline will have no visual impact once construction is completed. Staff Response to Comment HB-15: The commenter asserts generally that the MND simply defers some issues to future study and mitigation. This assertion is incorrect. These issues were raised in the commenter’s prior letter, and the County responded to those comments by noting that detailed analyses were performed, with further study requirement being imposed in order to confirm that the conclusions of the MND and its supporting studies are correct. See Responses to Comments 16-2 and 16-6 in Attachment 4 – Public Comments, in the Final MND. Staff Response to Comment HB-16: The commenter asserts that Mitigation Measure Geology 5 improperly defers mitigation. This assertion is incorrect. First, the soils were studied for the MND, and that analysis is summarized in the document. Second, the mitigation measures for expansive and corrosive soil issues require further testing to confirm the analyses in the MND, and to provide final design level criteria for soils and pipeline materials. This follow up work is subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist and by the County, as stated in Mitigation Measure Geology-5. See also Response to Comment 16-6 in Attachment 4 – Public Comments, in the Final MND. Staff Response to Comment HB-17: Comment noted. The first comment letter from the commenter Hanson Bridgett, was received by the County 42 days after the close of the 78-day public review period. Additionally, this letter dated June 23, 2021 for which these responses have been prepared, was received on the day of the Planning Commission hearing on June 23, 2021. Both letters are included in the record. Good faith responses have been prepared for each comment. Staff Response to Comment HB-18: Please see Response to Comment HB-1 regarding the issue of recirculation of the MND. The comment stating that the MND should be recirculated is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impacts. Recirculation of an MND is required only when new information demonstrates a “new, avoidable significant effect.” B. City of Pittsburg: One June 23, 2021, the City of Pittsburg submitted a letter to the CPC prior to the hearing on the Ameresco RNGPGP Land Use Permit application. In addition to submitting the letter, a staff person with the City of Pittsburg spoke at the CPC hearing and repeated some of the comments in the letter. Following are staff responses to the four comments as numbered in the letter. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 6 Staff Response to Comment CP-1: The commenter suggests the tie-in location of the RNG pipeline with existing PG&E pipeline 191-1 should be moved 750 feet to the south of the location described in the Final MND. This configuration would require installation of the RNG pipeline adjacent to, and parallel to, the existing PG&E pipeline 191-1. Implications of this alignment are described below in Response to Comment CP-4. Staff Response to Comment CP-2: This comment is a follow-up to the City’s comment that the proposed tie-in with existing PG&E Line 191-1 described in the Final MND should be moved about 750 feet to the south. The comment further states if stability and safety concerns preclude this relocation, “that PG&E should be required to remove its existing line running through this same area immediately.” There are a variety of reasons not to proceed with this relocation, but those reasons do not relate to any problem with the stability and safety of the area or the existing PG&E line. Further, the existing PG&E line is part of baseline existing conditions, not an impact of this Project, and the applicant and the County do not control the location and operation of the PG&E natural gas network. Staff Response to Comment CP-3: As stated in Response to Comment 11-1 of the Final MND, and in other responses, the comment stating that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impacts, which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Lead Agency determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate document consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. This determination is supported by the analysis in the MND, and the substantial evidence provided in the MND and its supporting documents. With respect to the comment that an EIR is required, the impacts of the proposed project were determined to be either less than significant or mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Various mitigation measures have been clarified to confirm this is the case. A mitigated negative declaration remains the appropriate and proper CEQA document for the proposed project. Staff Response to Comment CP-4: To implement the tie-in concept shown in the provided map would require installation of the RNG pipeline parallel to existing PG&E Line 191-1 and up a slope. The proposed relocation also is not adjacent to an existing road, so construction impacts would be increased, and maintenance would be more difficult. The new location also is not necessary to reduce any significant impacts, as all impacts of the Project are either less than significant or mitigated to a less-than- significant level. The tie-in location as proposed by the applicant has been approved by PG&E - please see CPC Staff Report, Section VII.C, and Section A of this Attachment, Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 7 Letter from PG&E (J. Ryan) to Ameresco (M. Bakas) dated May 25, 2021. C. Hanson Bridgett on behalf of Discovery Builders: On June 25, 2021 Hanson Bridgett sent an email to staff requesting information and commenting on the Ameresco RNGPGP Land Use Permit application. There are two attachments to this email, including a document from the Deatech Consulting Company, Evaluation of Risks to the Public, Proposed Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline, and a second document from the Deatech Consulting Company, Curriculum Vitae, R. Don Deaver, P.E.. Following are staff responses to the two comments as numbered in the letter and the Deatech Evaluation. Staff Response to Comment HB-1A: The commenter requests copies of background documents cited in the Final MND and the CPC staff report pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA). The documents include: • Tetra Tech BAS, 2019. Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Ameresco Gas Processing Plant, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18-136E. • Tetra Tech BAS, 2020. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Renewable Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline, Ameresco Keller Canyon, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18-136E. • Tetra Tech BAS, 2019. Geology and Soils – Ameresco IS-MND Section 7 document. • Tetra Tech BAS, 2020. Geology and Soils – Ameresco IS-MND Section 7 document. • Darwin Myers Associates, 2020. Geologic Peer Review/Geotechnical Reports & CEQA Assessment, LP18-2022/APN 094-360-019, etc. & 094-080-012, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA Project # 3006.20. • Tetra Tech, 2021. Addendum No. 1 – Supplemental Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed RNG Pipeline Realignment, Project No. BAS 18-136E. • Swaim Biological, Inc., 2021. Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Pipeline Alternative Evaluation. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2021. Ameresco Keller Canyon – RNG Pipeline (email). Staff is in the process of compiling and transmitting the requested documents to the commenter pursuant to standard Department procedures for PRA requests. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 8 Staff Response to Comment HB-2A: The submittal from DEATECH Consulting Company (“DEATECH”) titled “Evaluation of Risks to the Public Proposed Ameresco Gas Transmission Pipeline” outlines a wide range of federal requirements associated with the design, construction, and operation of a gas pipeline. The applicant acknowledges the range of requirements described in the DEATECH report. As described in the draft and Final MND, the RNG pipeline system will be designed to meet all applicable federal and State requirements based on general and specific requirements of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 (49 CFR Part 192) “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards”. The proposed Ameresco Keller Canyon pipeline will be designed to meet the physical and environmental conditions in which the pipeline will be constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored. Additionally, the proposed pipeline will be subject to design review and approval by PG&E. The three sets of design requirements, federal, California Public Utilities Commission, and PG&E will ensure the design of the RNG pipeline will meet all applicable requirements. This requirement is described in the draft and Final MND, included in the project findings by the County, and incorporated as CDLP18-02022 Conditions of Approval. The DEATECH report was prepared in response to the draft MND and was not updated following publication of the Final MND. Revisions made to the pipeline route in response to comments reduce or eliminate many of the issues raised in the DEATECH evaluation. In particular, the revised route recommended by the County Planning Commission for approval: 1) Will not run parallel to PG&E electrical transmission lines, minimizing potential induced current in the RNG pipeline; 2) Will not run parallel to the City of Pittsburg water line or other existing underground utilities; 3) Will not be drilled under the Contra Costa Canal; and 4) Will be operated with an MAOP of 400psi, a 41 percent reduction the 680psi shown in the draft MND and less than 10 percent of pipe yield strength (SMYS). This change significantly reduces stress on the pipeline walls and also the size of the Potential Impact Radius (PIR). Finally, the applicant’s engineering design team rejects the assertion that the PIR for the proposed project would be 2,214 feet instead of 72 feet as described in the draft MND, and 55 feet as described in the Final MND after project revisions. There is no basis for expanding the PIR to 2,214 feet as described in the DEATECH report. Board of Supervisors – July 13, 2021 CDLP18-02022 Attachment 7, Section D – Page 9 Federal regulations clearly define the PIR, the formula for its calculation, and the design parameters that are to be used in the PIR calculation. Under Title 49 CFR Part 192, subpart § 192.903, item c: Potential impact radius (PIR) is defined as the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property. PIR is determined by the formula r = 0.69* (square root of (p*d 2)), where ‘r’ is the radius of a circular area in feet surrounding the point of failure, ‘p’ is the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in the pipeline segment in pounds per square inch and ‘d’ is the nominal diameter of the pipeline in inches. The factor of 0.69 is the factor for natural gas. The calculation of the project PIR of 55 feet based on a nominal pipe diameter of 4.00 inches, and MAOP of 400psi. The project PIR is explained in detailed in the Final MND, Section III. Revised Project Description. Please also see Response to Comment 16-15 in Attachment 4 – Public Comments, in the Final MND. ATTACHMENT 8 NOVEMBER 2020 DRAFT MND SCH #2020100267 Contra Costa County November 12, 2020 RE-NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, has prepared an initial study evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the following project: 1. Project Title: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC – Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project (Ameresco RNGPFP) 2. State Clearinghouse Number: SCH 2020100267 3. County File Number: Land Use Permit LP18-2022, amending LP89-2020 4. Lead Agency: Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development 5. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Muraoka, AICP (925) 674-7781 6. Project Location: Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 094-360-008, -019, - 020, -022; 094-080-012; 094-090-002; 094-160-004, -005, -006) 7. Applicant’s Name, Address, and Phone Number: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC 111 Speen Street, Suite 410 Framingham, MA 01701 (508) 661-2200 Attn: Alan Siegwarth John Kopchik Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Jason Crapo Deputy Director Maureen Toms Deputy Director Amalia Cunningham Assistant Deputy Director Kelli Zenn Business Operations Manager Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone:1-855-323-2626 Page 2 8. Description of Project: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC (Ameresco) owns and operates an existing landfill gas-to-energy power plant (LFGTE plant) with a peak capacity of 3.8 megawatts at Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL), located at 901 Bailey Road in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County. KCL is a Class II waste disposal site operating in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. KCL is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas (LFG) to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The gas collection and control system are expanded regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of LFG generated increases. LFG or “natural gas” consists of nearly 100 percent methane, and therefore is a valuable source of fuel. Ameresco has contracted with the Keller Canyon Landfill Company for the right to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regulations. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a LFGTE power plant that processes the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel used to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. The LFGTE plant occupies approximately 13,000 square feet of an 803-acre parcel on the KCL property. At present, the volume of LFG generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is consumed in an enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. Ameresco is proposing a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline (RNGPFP) that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. The RNGPFP would significantly reduce LFG flows to the enclosed flare facility. The new RNG processing facility would operate independently of the operation of the existing LFGTE plant and would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The footprint of the new RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet (1.1. acres) on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres). The new RNG processing facility would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week and would be manned by two operators for 40 hours per week. The proposed processing equipment includes compressors, filters, direct fuel recuperative thermal oxidizer, enclosed flare, thermal and pressure swing adsorption units, and media beds to treat LFG to meet PG&E’s Rule 21 standards. Most of the equipment would be less than 10 feet in height and, except for the proposed enclosed flare, a few larger pieces of equipment would vary in height from 25 to 35 feet. The proposed enclosed flare would be approximately 50 feet in height, the same height as the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new processing facility to a connection with the PG&E natural gas transmission pipeline network northeast of the site. The design of the pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. The pipeline would start at the RNG processing facility on a portion of the KCL Primary Project Area, traverse through the KCL-owned property known as the Special Buffer Area (SBA), and into the contiguous PG&E- owned utility corridor. Within this utility corridor, the pipeline would go under the Contra Costa Canal. The pipeline would terminate in a metering station to be owned and operated by Ameresco. The metering station would then connect with the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline at a PG&E-owned STANPAC 3 valve lot. The estimated total pipeline length is approximately 3.4 miles. The pipeline would be buried underground with 48 inches of minimum cover and would be a four-inch diameter steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 680 pounds per square inch. Page 3 Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP would take 12 to 14 months. During this time, the level pad area adjacent to the existing RNG processing facility would be constructed using approximately 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth fill, covering a total area of 189,000 square feet (4.3 acres) of land, followed by installation of new RNG processing equipment. Concurrently, the RNG transmission pipeline would be installed. The installation of the pipeline would involve creating a trench, placing the pipeline within the trench, and backfilling after placement. The pipeline would be placed at a depth of four feet in most locations. For the pipeline segment in PG&E property, the pipeline would be constructed at a minimum depth of four feet, to a depth of up to 50 feet to meet minimum clearance specifications for the Contra Costa Canal. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Ameresco RNGPFP is located almost entirely on KCL property. The KCL property is approximately 2,345 acres, which consists of a Primary Project Area of approximately 1,596 acres and an SBA of approximately 750 acres. Along with open space, active landfill operations occur within the Primary Project Area, which includes landfill infrastructure, administration, operations, and waste disposal. Within the Primary Project Area, landfill activities encompass 375 acres, and the landfill disposal footprint covers 244 acres. The SBA is conserved open space located directly east of, and contiguous to, the Primary Project Area. The SBA serves to “buffer” or isolate the landfill from surrounding land uses and is reserved for uses consistent with open space, agriculture, and non-waste disposal landfill infrastructure as determined by Contra Costa County. The Ameresco RNGPFP would be located on the following KCL-owned parcels. Location APN Primary Project Area 094-360-008 094-360-019 Special Buffer Area 094-360-020 094-360-022 A portion of the RNG transmission pipeline would be in PG&E property east of, and contiguous to, the SBA. The PG&E property consists of five parcels that total approximately 212 acres, including four parcels in the City of Pittsburg that total approximately 52 acres and one parcel of approximately 160 acres in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The PG&E property is open space land that serves as a north-south utility corridor and contains large electrical transmission lattice towers, overhead high-voltage electrical transmission lines, and an underground gas transmission pipeline. The northernmost PG&E parcel includes the STANPAC 3 valve lot. A portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP pipeline would be located on the following PG&E-owned parcels. Location APN County 094-080-012 Pittsburg 094-090-002 094-160-004 095-160-005 095-160-006 Land immediately surrounding the Ameresco RNGPFP includes the above described KCL Primary Project Area and SBA and the adjoining PG&E utility corridor. The Concord Hills open space is adjacent to KCL to the south and southeast. The nearest developed non-landfill land uses are single- family residences located off the KCL property approximately 0.33 mile north-northwest of the proposed project site; single-family residences located about 0.40 mile west of the proposed project Page 4 site west of Bailey Road; and single-family residences and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant located east of the project site and adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor. 10. Determination: The County has determined that without mitigation the project may result in significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15070, a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study has been prepared which identifies mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project that will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the County will be accepting comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration/initial study during the public comment period. The public comment period started on Thursday, October 15, 2020 and will end on Wednesday, December 23, 2020. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and all documents referenced therein may be reviewed by contacting the offices of the Department of Conservation & Development during normal business hours, located at 30 Muir Road in Martinez. Public Comment Period – The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental document will extend to 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, December 23, 2020. Any comments should be submitted in writing to the following address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development Attn: Stan Muraoka, AICP 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed project will be considered at a meeting of the County Planning Commission for recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors. The tentative hearing date before the County Planning Commission for consideration of the project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration is Wednesday, January 27, 2021. Hearing notices will be sent out prior to the finalized hearing date. Additional Information – For additional information on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed project, you can contact Stan Muraoka, AICP by telephone at (925) 674-7781, or email at stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Sincerely, Stan Muraoka. AICP Principal Planner Department of Conservation & Development cc: County Clerk’s Office (2 copies) attachments: Project Vicinity Project Area Project Vicinity Ameresco Gas Processing and Pipeline Project Source: Accela, 2020. Project Parcels Project Area Ameresco Gas Processing and Pipeline Project Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon (Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates), 2020. 1 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (REVISED JANUARY 7, 2019) 1. Project Title: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC – Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project (Ameresco RNGPFP) County File Number – Land Use Permit LP18-2022 (amending LP89-2020) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Muraoka, AICP (925) 674-7781 4. Project Location: Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 094-360-008, -019, -020, -022; 094-080-012; 094-090-002; 094- 160-004, -005, -006) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC 111 Speen Street, Suite 410 Framingham, MA 01701 Attn: Alan Siegwarth 6. General Plan Designation: LF, Landfill; OS, Open Space 7. Zoning: A-3, Heavy Agricultural; A-4 Agricultural Preserve 8. Description of Project: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC (Ameresco) owns and operates an existing landfill gas-to-energy power plant (LFGTE plant) with a peak capacity of 3.8 megawatts at Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL), located at 901 Bailey Road in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Figure 1 shows the project location. KCL is a Class II waste disposal site operating in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. KCL is required by permit and regulation to collect and control landfill gas (LFG) to minimize impacts to the community and environment. The gas collection and control system are expanded regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of LFG generated increases. As required by Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020 Condition of Approval 31.7 (Methane Recovery), KCL is required to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. LFG is a valuable source of fuel. Consistent with LP89 -2020 Condition of Approval 31.7, Ameresco has contracted with the Keller Canyon Landfill Company for the right to utilize the LFG for energy production or other beneficial uses as allowed by regulation s. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a 2 LFGTE power plant that processes the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel use d to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. The LFGTE plant is shown on Figure 2. The LFGTE plant occupies approximately 13,000 square feet of an 803-acre parcel on the KCL property. At present, the volume of LFG generated at KCL exceeds the fuel demands of the LFGTE plant, and the excess LFG is consumed in an enclosed flare facility located adjacent to the LFGTE plant. Ameresco is proposing a renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline (RNGPFP) that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. As shown on Figure 3, the proposed RNG processing facility would be constructed in the landfill area north of the LFGTE plant. The RNGPFP would significantly reduce LFG flows to the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The new RNG processing facility would operate independently of the o peration of the existing LFGTE plant and would significantly increase the utilization of LFG for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The footprint of the new RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet (1.1. acres) on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square fe et (1.9 acres). The new RNG processing facility would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week and its operation would be overseen by two operators for 40 hours per week. Most of the equipment would be less than 10 feet in height and, except for the propos ed enclosed flare, a few larger pieces of equipment would vary in height from 25 to 35 feet. The proposed enclosed flar e would be approximately 50 feet in height, the same height as the existing KCL enclosed flare facility. The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new processing facility to a proposed PG&E metering station for connection with the PG&E natural gas transmission pipeline network northeast of the site. The design of the pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. The pipeline would start at the RNG processing facility located on a portion of the KCL Primary Project Area, traverse through the KCL-owned property known as the Special Buffer Area (SBA), and into the contiguous PG&E-owned utility corridor. Within this utility corridor, the pipeline would go under the Contra Costa Canal. The pipeline would terminate i n an interconnect station to be owned and operated by Ameresco. The interconnect station would then connect with the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline at a PG&E-owned STANPAC 3 valve lot. The estimated total pipeline length is approximately 3.4 miles. The pipeline would be buried underground with 48 inches of minimum cover and would be a four-inch diameter steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 680 pounds per square inch. Construction of the Ameresco RNGPFP would take 12 to 14 months. During this time, the level pad area adjacent to the existing RNG processing facility would be constructed usi ng approximately 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth fill, covering a total area of 189,000 square feet (4.3 acres) of land, followed by installation of new RNG processing equipment. Concurrently, the RNG transmission pipeline would be installed. The installation of the pipeline would involve creating a trench, placing the pipeline within the trench, and backfilling after placement. The pipeline would be placed at a depth of four feet in most locations. For the pipeline segment in PG&E property, the pipeli ne would be constructed at a minimum depth of four feet, to a depth of up to 44 feet to meet minimum clearance specifications for the Contra Costa Canal. 3 A summary of the proposed project is presented in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposed project follows the table. Table 1. Project Overview Responsible Parties Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG, LLC (Applicant); Keller Canyon Landfill Company, Republic Services, (Property Owner) Proposed Project Processing of existing landfill gas with export to a pipeline and inter-connection with existing PG&E valve lot. Proposed project would be a new facility that would not be connected to the operation of the existing power plant Project Goals and Objectives Reliably and safely process landfill gas and export RNG without creation of adverse public safety or environmental impacts, or adversely affecting existing landfill gas operations, staffing, and worker safety Purpose and Need Increased utilization of existing landfill gas for productive energy in accordance with Keller Canyon Land Use Permit LP89-2020. RNG created will be introduced into the local natural gas system grid Permitting Actions Required Amendment of County Land Use Permit LP01-2115 and Section 36. Landfill Gas Power Plant of Keller Canyon Land Use Permit LP89-2020; BAAQMD Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate; potential HCP/NCCP with East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy; Building Permits from County and City of Pittsburg , other permits as required by law Project Area Unincorporated County area in City of Pittsburg Sphere of Influence; pipeline construction to occur within KCL property and contiguous PG&E property located in the City of Pittsburg city limit Facility Location Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 Recovery Process Collection and processing of existing landfill gas to meet State utility standards for RNG Proposed New Process Equipment and Pipeline Infrastructure Skid-mounted compressors, chillers, direct fired recuperative thermal oxidizer, filter membrane(s), pressure and thermal swing adsorption vessels, enclosed flare, motor control center; and high BTU pipeline [4" steel-wrapped pipe, buried to a minimum depth of 48" (4 feet)] Staffing Requirements Two onsite operations staff upon Project operation Prior Related CEQA Review Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for KCL LFGTE power plant approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 2001; Environmental Impact Report for KCL in 1990 4 Project Goal and Objectives The proposed RNGPFP would provide a significant increase in the utilization of LFG, for energy, an existing renewable resource. Ameresco's project goal is to construct and operate a state-of-the-art RNG processing facility and underground pipeline. The system would be equipped with extensive control measures designed to minimize potential imp acts at the project site, and to the natural environment and the surrounding community. Specific objectives of the Project include: • Implement a state-of-the-art RNG processing facility to meet or exceed applicable industry, federal, and California standards to produce reliable commercial quality RNG, using the applicant’s extensive experience with safely operating pipelines that carry RNG in many locations across the country. • Design the RNG processing facility and pipeline to the highest available design standards for the protection of public health and safety and the natural environment. This will require designing the pipeline to the most stringent requirements of Class 4, burying the pipeline deeper than required, and performance of extensive testing and inspection of 100 percent of welds during construction. • Locate the system exclusively on existing landfill property and existing electric and gas utility property to avoid intrusion into surrounding residential and commercial uses. • Reduce air emissions from the Keller Canyon Landfill flares while creating a beneficial fuel source of clean/green RNG. • Decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels by off -setting natural gas use with locally generated RNG. Properties of RNG RNG or biomethane is defined as methane produced from biomass converted to a pipeline -quality gas that is fully interchangeable with conventional natural gas. Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas found in porous formations beneath the earth’s surface. RNG is essentially biogas (the gaseous product of the decomposition of organic matter) that has been processed to above the purity standards of natural gas. The process requires the biogas to be cleaned and conditioned to remove the non-methane elements. Like conventional natural gas, the resulting RNG can be used as a replacement for natural gas to generate power, provide heat for homes or in a transportation fuel in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). RNG qualifies as an advanced biofuel for vehicles under the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard. Combustion of natural gas is the chemical reaction of oxygen with a combust ible material which produces heat. There are three requirements for combustion, fuel (natural gas), oxygen and a source of ignition. If one of these three components are missing, combustion cannot occur. Natural gas will 5 not burn unless the mixture is within a flammable range of roughly 5 to 15 percent gas per vo lume of air. Above and below these amounts it will not burn. A combustible mixture of natural gas with air also has a very high ignition temperature of about 1150° F, which is almost twice the ignit ion temperature for gasoline. Natural gas is lighter than air, so it can dissipate into the air rapidly, making accidental combustion difficult. It is also colorless, non-toxic, and had no taste in its natural state. When taken from the ground, natural gas is odorless, but as it is processed for transportation in a pipeline a non-toxic chemical odorant called mercaptan is added to make leaks easy to smell. The mercaptan has a “rotten- egg” smell that is a warning of a gas leak. Beneficial Use Operation of the existing LFGTE plant greatly reduces GHG emissions at KCL while generating energy. Preliminary estimates by the applicant indicate a substantial reduction in GHG emissions compared to the existing baseline condition due to the LFGTE plant. In addition, it is anticipated that the RNG produced by the proposed RNG processing facility will be utilized by vehicles fueled by natural gas. Based on data prepared by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Energy, the proposed project has the additional potential to substantially reduce overall GHG emissions of heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses. Operating trucks on RNG rather than diesel fuel typically resulted in a 93 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions; a 45 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen emissions; and more than a 90 percent reduction in total particulate matter. From the U.S. EPA Methane Outreach website, the RNG by the proposed Project when used to fuel heavy duty trucks would offset approximately 64,483 tons of CO2 per year from fossil fuels or equivalent to the reduction of 6.5 million gallons of gasoline consumption in automobiles. Overview of System Components Existing LFGTE Plant The existing LFGTE plant consists of an enclosed building and other equipment located within a fenced compound located adjacent to KCL’s blower and flare station. LFG is first filtered and dried, then it is used to fire two internal combustion engine driven generators to produce up to 3.8 megawatts of electricity. The existing landfill gas power pl ant operates a small enclosed flare as part of its fuel pre- processing system. This area also includes other environmental management facilities for KCL, including storage tanks for leachate, condensate, and water. The Ameresco existing power plant occupies an area of approximately 13,000 square feet. Landfill Gas Collection System LFG is generated through degradation by microorganisms of municipal solid waste and other biodegradable waste. Aerobic conditions in the presence of oxygen leads to predominant ly carbon dioxide emissions. In anaerobic conditions (i.e. in the absence of oxygen) typical of landfills, methane 6 and carbon dioxide are produced. The landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) is operated by KCL to control subsurface gas migration around the landfill perimeter, and to control direct emissions of LFG to the atmosphere. The system operates by applying vacuum to a system of horizontal and vertical extraction wells. The vacuum draws LFG out of the waste mass and conveys it to a blower/flare station for destruction of the methane and non-methane organic compounds. Combustion currently occurs in either the internal combustion engines at the LFGTE plant or the flare station. Proposed RNG System The proposed RNGPFP would be located west of the existing LFGTE plant and blower/flare station. The project includes RNG processing equipment to separate methane from the balance of the LFG. The proposed RNG processing facility would not be connected to the operation of the existing LFGTE plant. In addition to the new processing facility, a new pipeline is proposed to connect the RNG processing equipment with the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas pipeline. The proposed RNG pipeline will be buried underground with a minimum 48 inches of cover and will be a four-inch steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 680 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The proposed location of the RNG processing facility and transmission pipeline are shown on Figure 4. RNG Processing Facility The RNG processing facility will operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week and its operation would be overseen by two employees for 40 hours per week. The processing equipment includes compressors, filters, direct fuel recuperative thermal oxidizer, enclosed fl are, thermal and pressure swing adsorption units, and media beds to treat LFG to meet PG&E’s Rule 21 standards. The first portion of the treatment process will remove any entrained water vapor and non-methane organic compounds from the LFG. The gas will then be compressed to around 250 psig and processed to remove carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2) and other trace constituents. The process will increase the calorific value (heat content) of the LFG from approximately 480 BTU/standard cubic foo t (BTU/scf) to approximately 980 BTU/scf. A polishing unit at the end of the treatment process may be used to ensure that none of the trace constituents (including the carcinogenic, non -carcinogenic and pipeline integrity constituents) exceed Rule 21 or other pipeline requirements. The RNG will then be compressed up to pipeline pressure and piped to a nearby PG&E natural gas transmission main. A site plan of the RNG processing facility area is shown on Figure 5. A detail of the proposed general arrangement of the equipment and list of major components are shown on Figure 6. The footprint of the RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet (1.1 acres) on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres). Cons truction of the final grade for RNG processing equipment would require approximately 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth fill covering a total of approximately 189,000 square feet (4.3 acres) of land. Reinforced soil slopes at gradients of up to 1.5(h) to 1(v) or flatter, and up to 58 feet in heigh t along the western and northern boundaries of the pad. A mechanically stabilized earth wall up to about 20 feet would be constructed along the southern boundary of the pad. Parking and access for maintenance veh icles would be provided on the eastern boundary at-grade with the existing asphalt turnaround. The RNG processing 7 equipment would be housed in a secure fenced compound. The RNG processing equipment reflect industry standards that would be applied to the proposed Project. Control Measures Incorporated into Project Design, Construction, and Operation Control measures have been incorporated by the applicant into the design, construction, and operation of the RNGPFP. These control measures are proposed prior to any determination of impact significance as presented in the following Environmental Checklist. Control measures are designed to minimize the potential for significant impacts associated with the proposed RNGPFP. The control measures include, but are not limited to, compliance with design, operations, and maintenance requirements specified in the LP89-2020 Conditions of Approval and discretionary improvements or best practices consistent with County regulations and industry standards. These control meas ures are discussed in applicable sections of the Environmental Checklist. Description of RNG Processing The RNG processing facility is designed to process LFG, produced at KCL into RNG. The processing facility will be designed to process up to 4,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of LFG to produce a nominal maximum volume output of approximately 2,041 scfm of RNG. The process operation for the proposed facility is described generally below. The process flow diagram shown on Figure 7 illustrates the process from initial in-feed of LFG, through various processing equipment, and ultimately to delivery into an underground pipeline. Photos of some of the major processing equipment at an existing Ameresco-owned RNG processing facility comprise Figure 8. Step 1. LFG Conditioning RNG feed blowers take suction from the existing LFG blowers at approximately one psig and raise the pressure to approximately 10 psig. From the feed blowers, the LFG will be dehydrated and conditioned to approximately 60 percent relative humidity and filtered. The LFG at this point has begun the treatment process and is known as the Pre-Processed RNG (PPRNG). The PPRNG will then enter a fixed bed hydrogen sulfide (H2S) scrubber unit utilizing activated carbon media or equivalent. From the H2S scrubber the PPRNG will be further dehydrated to approximately 50 -degree dew point and then sent to the feed compressors. Some of the PPRNG from the H2S scrubber is used for pilot gas fuel for the enclosed flare and recuperative thermal oxidizer (TOX). Step 2. Feed Compression The feed compressors will increase the gas pressure to approximately 250 psig. The compressed gas will then be cooled to approximately 80° F prior to it being sent to the thermal swing adsorption (TSA) system. 8 Step 3. Removal of VOC, NMOC, CO2, N2, and O2 A TSA system is used for removal of volatile organic compounds (VOC), non -methane organic compounds (NMOC) and siloxane compounds. From the TSA the PPRNG is then sent to a three-stage membrane system to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the PPRNG. From the CO2 membrane system, the PPRNG is sent to the pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit to remove nitrogen (N 2) and some amounts of oxygen (O2) remaining in the PPRNG. The PPRNG will be further conditioned to remove the remaining O2 by using a catalytic oxidation process in the deoxygenate (Deoxo) system. PPRNG leaving the Deoxo system will be dehydrated utilizing a TSA system. The TSA will have closed loop regeneration and therefore will not be required to vent any off -gases. Step 4. Product Compression After the impurities are removed from the PPRNG, the resulting product is RNG and is sent to product compressors where it is pressurized to approximately 680 psig for delivery to a PG&E gas transmission line. At the PG&E metering station, the RNG will be metered and analyzed prior to entry into the utility gas line. The RNG leaving the product compressor will be odorized in accordance with regulations before being sent to the pipeline. Step 5. Waste Gas Destruction in TOX Waste gas (also known as tail gas) from the TSA, CO2 membrane, N2, and PSA systems will be sent to the TOX for destruction. Waste gases from the final CO2 membrane stage (also called permeate gas) containing primarily CO2 and small amounts of CH4, O2 and N2 are sent to the TOX for destruction. A portion of the permeate gas is used as the sweep gas for the regeneration of the TSA prior to being sent to the TOX. The siloxanes and hydrocarbon compounds are removed from the PPRNG as it flows thru the TSA. During the TSA regeneration the siloxanes and VOC’s are desorbed from the TSA media into the sweep gas and sent to the TOX for destruction. PPRNG going to the N 2 PSA has negligible amounts of organics, sulfides, and other hydrocarbons. Thus, the tail gas stre am from the N2 PSA is primarily N2 with some CH4 and a small amount of O2. This tail gas stream is sent to the TOX for destruction. Step 6. Destruction in Process Flare A process enclosed flare will be used for destruction of waste gases generated durin g upset and/or transient scenarios for the gas from process equipment and pipelines. The five possible flare scenarios are: start-up of the nitrogen removal unit (NRU), out of specification partially processed RNG, high O 2 membrane dump, compressor depress gas, and product pipeline purge. These five upset and/or transient conditions are short duration events and are not expected to occur simultaneously. The RNG facility process enclosed flare will operate occasionally under five transient operating scenarios mentioned above. The enclosed flare will have a pilot that burns PPRNG continuously so it will be readily available as needed when an upset and/or transient condition occurs. The pilot is required to operate continuously as the gas sent to the process enclosed flare for destruction has a 9 wide variation of flow and heat content. The process flare may operate in five supporting scenarios during these upset and/or transient conditions and is estimated to operate for up to approximately 1,752 hours per year (20 percent of time annually). Step 7. Condensate Removal LFG supplied to the RNG process will have water in it and any cooling below the gas/water dew point in the process will result in formation of condensate. Condensate will be collected from variou s points in the process and sent to a condensate tank. Condensate traps, condensate seal tanks or loop seals will be used to prevent LFG, PPRNG, or RNG from entering the condensate system. The collected condensate from the RNG processing facility will then be pumped to the Landfill’s condensate system. Condensate will be collected by truck and disposed at an approved facility. RNG Pipeline Regulations and Design Features Applicable Codes and Design Standards The proposed RNG transmission pipeline will be designed and operated in accordance with applicable federal and State regulations. CPUC General Order No. 112 -F “State of California Rules Governing Design, Construction, Testing, Operation, and Maintenance of Gas Gathering, Transmission, and Distribution Piping Systems” (June 2015) rules will be incorporated into the pipeline design. Additionally, the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations outlined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) Part 192 also govern the design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of gas piping systems and will be incorporated into the pipeline design. The rules outlined by the CPUC General Order do not supersede CFR Part 192 but are considered a supplement. The purpose of 49 CFR and the CPUC General Order are to establish the minimum requirements for the design, construction, quality of materials, locations, testing, operations, and maintenance of facilities used in the gathering, transmission, and distribution. These are regarded as the established pra ctices to protect the safety of the public and employees. The proposed pipeline will also be designed in compliance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers B31.8 which establishes standards for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems. The requirements of this Code are adequate for safety under conditions usually encountered in the gas industry. This Code is focused on the design parameters and calculations. Other supplemental industry codes are utilized within these codes such as OSHA, ASTM, or others. In any case the most stringent code shall apply. In summary, the over-arching industry codes and standards for this application are: • CPUC General Order 118F (June 2015); • Code of Federal Regulation Title 49 Part 192 (March 2015); • ASME B31.8 – 2018 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems; and • Various industry standards such as OSHA, ASME, and ASTM. 10 RNG Pipeline Design Features Design of the RNG pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. Design features below represent control measure to meet the regulations required for the proposed project. Items to be considered and included in the design are: The pipeline will be designed to meet or exceed Class 4 requirements, a standard that is above and beyond the required criteria for the proposed project; • The pipe itself will be designed to operate under 20 percent Specified Minimum Yield St rength (SMYS). The actual percent SMYS for the other system components will be determined after facility requirements have been specified. If flanges and/or flanged assemblies are required, they may be the pressure limiting factors of the system. The desig n will ensure that the flanged systems and any other appurtenances meet the design requirements; • The system will be designed to handle a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 680 psi. Relief systems outside the pipeline design will be included as required to ensure the pipeline does not over pressure; • The system will be designed to operate under ambient temperature conditions of – 20 ° F to 150 ° F; • The pipeline is to be buried to a minimum of four feet below grade. This exceeds the three feet depth specified in regulations. The pipeline will have at least five feet between adjacent structures/facilities; • The pipe to be used in the Project will be 4.5” outside diameter, 0.237” nominal wall thickness, Grade B, with a MAOP of 680 psig. This corres ponds to about 18.5 percent of SMYS; and • The applicant will work with PG&E engineers to meet tie -in requirements into their system(s) as required by agreement and the CPUC. PG&E will organize and implement any clearance requirements for their systems. RNG Pipeline Route The proposed pipeline will connect the proposed RNG processing facility to a proposed PG&E metering station and the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline. The proposed pipeline plan is shown on Figure 9. The proposed pipeline route through the PG&E utility corridor is shown on Figure 10. The pipeline will be buried underground and will be a four-inch steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 680 pounds per square inch. The estimated total pipeline le ngth is approximately 18,030 lineal feet (LF) in plan or about 3.4 miles. Two main pipeline segments a re proposed: 11 • Segment 1 is located entirely on KCL property and includes approximately 13,760 LF (2.6 miles) of buried pipeline. Segment 1 comprises approximately 3,340 LF (0.6 mile) in the Primary Project Area, and 10,420 LF (2 miles) within the SBA. Segment 1 would connect the proposed RNG processing facility to the PG&E utility corridor located east of, and contiguous with, the KCL property. • Segment 2 is located in PG&E utility corridor and includes approximately 4,270 LF (0.8 mile) of buried pipeline. Segment 2 would begin in the PG&E property after Segment 1 exits the KCL property and proceed in a northerly alignment to connect to the proposed PG&E metering station and the existing STANPAC 3 gas pipeline located in the City of Pittsburg. Figure 11 illustrates typical pipeline sections for paved and non-paved trenches. Under federal regulations, minimum cover is 36 inches; however, for the proposed Project the pipeline will be buried with 48 inches of minimum cover. After exiting the RNG processing facility, the proposed pipeline would run generally southeast along an existing litter fence parallel to the existing paved landfill haul road as shown on Figure 12. Most of the route on KCL property would follow or be near existing access and ranch roads to minimize impacts during construction. After exiting the Primary Project Area, the pipeline would continue southeast down a slope into and through the SBA. Annual Grassland is the dominant land cover type in the SBA. Representative photos of the pipeline route in the SBA are shown on Figure 13. Construction in the SBA would occur in hilly terrain and require low to medium grading depending on the slope at each location. Unnamed Seasonal Stream Crossing The proposed pipeline would cross an unnamed tributary to Willow Creek that drains north to Suisun Bay. The location of this crossing is shown on Figure 14. Cattle grazing remains extensive in this area which tends to increase erosion and destabilize hillsides. The proposed pipeline crossing of the unnamed tributary is directly adjacent to an unpaved ranch road. One relatively large, ancient landslide exists along the channel starting around 600 feet downstream of the road crossing and is considered dormant in the present geologic environment. The applicant conducted a study of the location and determined that future decades could be dominated by channel erosion and scour that could cause the existing head cut of the channel to migrate up and through the ranch road. Should this occur, it would threaten to expose the proposed buried pipeline and introduce fine sediment to downstream waters. The applicant has proposed measures for erosion control, gas line protection, and channel enhancement to reduce the risk of potential damage to the pipeline and minimize the potential for downstream sedimentation. These measures are described below. The final design will be coordinated with, and approved by, County and State resource agencies. • Exclusion of cattle (by fencing) from the road crossing to the confluence with a nother channel, approximately 250 feet downstream of the road. Fencing would facilitate vegetation growth of 12 existing plants, stabilize soils, and reduce erosion potential as evidenced by several downstream willows and oaks observed to be holding existing head cuts in place; • Trenching of the pipeline into bedrock to reduce incision potential, while still meeting other construction requirements; and • Construction of a series of bio-engineered improvements (e.g. log drop-structures) to trap sediment and protect the grade downstream of the road. The type, number, and precise location of these bio-engineered improvements would be determined by the project biologist in coordination with County and State resource agencies. The combination of exclusionary fencing, and bio-engineered solutions would be designed to endure over the projected 20-year lifespan of the proposed project. PG&E Utility Corridor An existing PG&E 20-inch diameter L-191-1 gas transmission pipeline runs along the eastern edge of the PG&E-owned utility corridor, east of the SBA. The alignment of the proposed RNG transmission pipeline would run parallel to, and west of, the L-191-1 pipeline along the eastern edge of the PG&E property. The pipeline alignment in the PG&E property is potentially li mited by environmental concerns, proximity to existing high voltage transmission lines and water lines, and location of the Contra Costa Canal crossing. A photo of a portion of the PG&E utility corridor is shown on Figure 15. The pipeline alignment through the PG&E property will be finalized during detailed design and approved by PG&E and the PUC. Construction through the PG&E utility corridor will require careful consideration regarding the crossing of existing gas and electric transmission lines. The RNG pipeline will adhere to PG&E clearance requirements. The proposed pipeline would cross under the Contra Costa Canal per Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) specifications. The approved canal crossing location will determine the construction method used. Trenchless options such as a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) will be evaluated for use as the selected route is optimized. The proposed PG&E metering station and associated Ameresco interconnect station are shown on Figure 16. PG&E will add a metering station approximately 50 feet to the south of the existing valve lot with a width of approximately 40 feet and length of 100 feet (4,000 square feet) to accommodate the new gas receiving equipment. An isometric view of the PG&E metering station is shown on Figure 17. Noise and lighting for this expanded area will be similar to the existing station and will be surrounded by an approximately 7-foot tall security fence. PG&E equipment will be powered by electricity so new poles may be necessary to connect the new PG&E equipment to existing electric lines. The new pole height and line configuration will be similar and connect to the existing electrical service pole for the STANPAC 3 valve lot. Attached to the PG&E metering station (or included inside the station depending on PG&E design) will be an Ameresco interconnect station which would have a pipeline riser, valving, and pig station for future pipeline inspections. This equipment would be constructed in a fenced enclosure (if not included in PG&E’s metering station) of no larger than 45 feet in width x 60 feet in 13 length (2700 square feet). The line from the PG&E metering statio n will connect to the existing STANPAC 3 valve lot. Construction The construction period is expected to require 12 to 14 months depend ing on seasonal requirements. Construction on the RNG processing facility and the transmission pipeline would proceed concurrently. Following approval of the proposed project by the County, the required permits must be obtained. Current projections are that the RNGPFP would begin construction in mid-2021. The level pad area of the RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres), adjacent to the existing LFGTE plant. Construction of the level pad area would require approximately 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth fill. The 4 -inch diameter steel pipeline will be installed utilizing an excavator that will create a trench and the pipeline will be placed and backfilled at a depth of four feet in most locations. Under drainages the pipeline will be buried to a depth of at least six feet. Pipeline construction activities will occur within 15 feet on either side of a 15 -foot wide workspace centered on the pipe center line. After the pipeline is installed the trench wil l be backfilled and the site will be re-graded and restored to its approximate original contours. Wherever possible the pipeline will be designed to follow existing ranch/fire roads on th e KCL property to minimize temporary and permanent construction impacts. The pipeline trench will be backfilled and restored immediately upon installation of the pipeline to the maximum extent possible. All construction impacts are expected to be temporary. HDD would be required for the pipeline to pass beneath the canal maintained by the CCWD. Construction could involve the use of a mobile crane to unload and install heavy equipment. The following construction activities would be performed to create the p ermanent site for the RNG processing equipment and to ensure the preservation of soil and to minimize erosion during construction: • Implementation of construction storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) best management practices and/or other temporary controls as required by KCL permits; • Site clearing and grubbing; • Earthwork to design surface elevations; • Installation of electrical grounding grids; • Placement of concrete pads for RNG processing equipment; • Delivery and placement of RNG processing equipment; • Construction of gravel access and maintenance roads; and • Installation of a central drainage pipe for collection of storm water runoff and other permanent storm water control features. 14 Construction Access and Staging Areas The proposed underground RNG pipeline route spans a variety of terrain ranging from level to hil ly. The 3.4-mile length of the pipeline requires strategic locations for safe and efficient vehicle and equipment access and the staging (laydown) of equipment and construction materials. Proposed access and equipment staging/laydown areas are shown on Figure 18. Access for construction on KCL property would be via Bailey Road and internal facility roads. The construction access for the RNG processing facility will be provided by the paved asphalt road and turnaround adjacent to the proposed site. The projected traffic associated with construction of the RNG processing facility and pipeline is an average of approximately 20 inbound trips. Access for one staging location on Keller Canyon Landfill property and for two locations on the PG&E property would require approvals from the landowners or the City of Pittsburg. These locations include: • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to access a laydown area to be located on Keller Canyon Lan dfill property; • Access through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E utility corridor; and • Access from the parking lot of the former Delta View Golf Course, located at the end of Golf Club Road to provide access to the PG&E valve lot. Operation and Maintenance The RNG processing equipment will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week except during maintenance periods. The entire RNG processing facility is designed to operate on an automatic basis with only minor periodic adjustments by onsite operations personnel. While the RNG processing equipment will be designed to operate automatically, routine maintenance and the capability to respond to any process upsets will be required. The RNG processing facility operators will be onsite 40 hours per week and can respond within a one-hour response time when they are not onsite. The proposed RNG processing equipment is planned to be maintained by two new operators who will respond to any calls. Maintenance activities associated with the proposed Project will involve routine maintenance at specified intervals. Major maintenance will occur at longer intervals. Ameresco personnel or appropriate sub -contractors will conduct maintenance work in a manner to prevent spills or other adverse environmental impacts. Project Traffic Access to the LFGTE plant is confined by permits to Bailey Road. KCL is not open to the public. The landfill is currently permitted to be open Monday through Saturday from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., but typically, the facility closes by 5:00 P.M. KCL is closed on Sunday. No changes are proposed to KCL access or traffic patterns with the RNGPFP. Once operational, the RNGPFP would generate an average of fewer 15 than 10 inbound trips per day. These trips would be confined to employee trips and planned maintenance trips. Monitoring and Reporting Operation of an RNG processing facility within an existing landfill GCCS is a relatively new concept. Ameresco anticipates various elements or individual pieces of equipment could require adjustment or modification to maximize safety and efficiency of the system. The Applicant would coordinate with KCL staff, County DCD and Environmental Health staff, the City of Pittsburg, and regulatory agencies to ensure operations meet project goals and performance specifications. Coordi nation would include verbal and written reports status reports. Examples of parameters to be monitored and reported include, but are not limited to, the following: • Recuperative thermal oxidizer and enclosed flare emissions will be monitored, reported yearly, and tested by/for the BAAQMD as required in the RNG processing facility's future Permit to Operate; and • RNG produced at the RNG processing facility will be metered for sales purposes to meet PG&E and CPUC requirements as well as other environmental attributes. Contingency Unforeseen events could temporarily affect the RNG processing and pipeline operations that could preclude the processing and pipeline export of RNG. These potential events could include: • Local or regional power failure or outage; • Upset in the GCCS systems upstream of the RNG processing facility including collection well failures, blower/flare station upsets; • Equipment shutdown or control issues at the LFGTE plant; • RNG processing facility equipment failure; • Pipeline rupture; and • Natural disaster such as an earthquake. Based on the occurrence of these events, Ameresco would implement the following contingency measures: 1. The RNG processing facility control system is designed to operate and maintain the RNG process under normal conditions. If conditions occur outside of the normal operating range, the RNG processing facility will shut down and any potentially hazardous process conditi ons will be combusted in the upset flare. 16 2. An electronic auto-dialing system will be expanded to include the proposed project. The system can notify the operator of an abnormal condition during non -business hours and will provide visual and audible warnings to assist operator response. 3. In the event of planned maintenance, process upset or other event, the RNG processing facility will be either manually or automatically shut down and LFG will be redirected to the flares as necessary. 4. The pipeline pressure and flow will be monitored and any change outside of normal operating parameters will shut off the pipeline and shut down the RNG processing facility . 5. The RNG processing facility will have a seismic sensor. In the event of a large earthquake the RNG processing equipment will be shut down and pipeline valves will be closed. Potential impacts from possible events are evaluated the Environmental Checklist by subject category. Potential mitigation measures and applicant control measures are also described in the Environmental Checklist. Project Life Span The operational life of the proposed RNG processing facility and pipeline is dependent upon the decaying refuse generating methane within the landfill. Ameresco's original agreement with KCL all ows for a 20-year project life span with the opportunity to extend the agreement as long as sufficient LFG is available to make operating the LFGTE plant commercially viable. Current KCL LFG generation models predict that methane generation will continue far beyond the 20-year project period. T he proposed RNGPFP will increase the amount of LFG utilized for substantial environmental benefit. Once the agreement with KCL expires, the Ameresco existing power plant and proposed RNG processing facility will be de-constructed, the RNG pipeline abandoned according to prevailing regulations, and the remaining LFG will be directed to the landfill flares. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Ameresco RNGPFP is located almost entirely on KCL property. The KCL property is approximately 2,345 acres, which consists of a Primary Project Area of approximately 1,596 acres and a KCL-owned portion of the SBA of approximately 750 acres located directly east of, and contiguous with, the Primary Project Area. Technically, the SBA is conserved open space that includes two non-KCL parcels including a 155.8-acre open space parcel (APN 094-360-017) and a 4.59-acre water tank parcel (APN094-360-006). Together with the KCL parcels, he SBA totals approximately 910 acres; however for the purposes of this environmental review, only the KCL parcels are included in the discussion of the SBA, as the non-KCL parcels are not be part of the proposed project. Along with open space, active landfill operations occur within the Primary Project A rea, which includes landfill infrastructure, administration, operations, and waste disposal. Within the Primary Project Area, landfill activities encompass 375 acres, and the permitted landfill disposal footprint covers 244 acres. The SBA is conserved open space located directly east of, and contiguous to, the Primary Project Area. The SBA serves to “buffer” or isolate the landfill from surrounding land uses and is reserved for uses 17 consistent with open space, agriculture, and non-waste disposal landfill infrastructure as determined by Contra Costa County. The Ameresco RNGPFP would be located on the following KCL -owned parcels. Location APN Primary Project Area 094-360-008 094-360-019 Special Buffer Area 094-360-020 094-360-022 A portion of the RNG transmission pipeline would be in PG&E property east of, and contiguous to, the SBA. The PG&E property consists of five parcels that total approximately 212 acres, including four parcels in the City of Pittsburg that total approximately 52 acres and one p arcel of approximately 160 acres in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The PG&E property is open space land that serves as a north-south utility corridor and contains large electrical transmission lattice towers, overhead high - voltage electrical transmission lines, and an underground gas transmission pipeline. The northernmost PG&E parcel includes the STANPAC 3 valve lot. A portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP pipeline would be located on the following PG&E-owned parcels. Location APN County 094-080-012 Pittsburg 094-090-002 094-160-004 095-160-005 095-160-006 Land immediately surrounding the Ameresco RNGPFP includes the above described KCL Primary Project Area and SBA and the adjoining PG&E utility corridor. The Concord Hills open space is adjacent to KCL to the south and southeast. The nearest developed non -landfill land uses are single-family residences located off the KCL property approximately 0.33 mile north-northwest of the proposed project site; single-family residences located about 0.40 mile west of the proposed project site west of Bailey Road; and single-family residences and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant located east of the project site and adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 18 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In accordance with Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, subsequent to the County determination that the project application was complete, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was both mailed and sent via email on October 7, 2020 to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notific ation of proposed projects. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d), there is a 30-day time period for the Wilton Rancheria to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. To date, no response has been received from the Wilton Rancheria. Previously, the Wilton Rancheria had requested consultation in response to a consultation notice for a different project that led to a meeting between staff and a representative of the Wilton Rancheria. At that meeting, a tentative agreement was reached b etween staff and the Wilton Rancheria that the Native American tribe will be notified of any discovery of cultural resources or human remains on the site. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requested that pursuant to State law, the NAHC shall be notified of any discovery of human remains rather than the Native American tribe. Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2 in Section 5 (Cultural Resources) of this Environmental Checklist provide for notice to the Wilton Rancheria of any discovery of cultural resources and notice to the NAHC of any discovery of human remains on the site. Any future construction activity on the project site would be subject to Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2. . . FIGURE 1 Figure 2 Existing Ameresco LFG Power Plant Looking Northeast Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Figure 3 Site of Proposed Gas Processing Facility - Looking Northwest Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Figure 4 Project Area Ameresco Gas Processing and Pipeline Project Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon (Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates), 2020. Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG L.L.C., April 2020 EXISTING LFGTE POWER PLANT LANDFILL GAS CONDITIONING AND FEED BLOWERS REMOVAL O2, N2, CO2 VOC, NMOC, Siloxane Compunds RNG Pipeline Purge & Depressurization Nitrogen Removal Unit Start-Up Hi O2 Dump Equipment Depressurization PPRNG Pipeline Purge & Depressurization THERMAL OXIDIZER RNG COMPRESSOR EXISTING LANDFILL A-1 Flare A-2 Flare EXISTING LANDFILL BLOWERS GAS COMPRESSION, THERMAL SWING ADSORPTION, AND CO2 REMOVAL PROPOSED RNG PROCESSING FACILITYKELLER CANYON LANDFILL EXISTING LFGTE PLANT Continuous Pilot/Burner Continuous Pilot/Burner CO2 Membrane Tail Gas Nitrogen Removal Unit Tail Gas ENCLOSED FLARE Condensate Removal System BAAQMD Permit No. A4618 BAAQMD permit No. B7667 Process Design Capacity 4,700 scfm RNG 2,041 scfm Continuous Pilot Plus Only One Stream to Enclosed Flare At a Time. Pre-processed RNG (PPRNG) Figure 7 AMERESCO KELLER CANYON RNG PROCESSING FACILITY SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM EXISTING LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION & CONTROL SYSTEM UNDERGROUND PIPELINE TO PG&E Figure 8 RNG Processing Equipment Photos Biogas Compressor TSA Media Tanks Figure 8 RNG Processing Equipment Photos (continued) Recuperative Thermal Oxidizer Overhead Pipe Assembly (left); Control Center on Skid (center) Figure 8 RNG Processing Equipment Photos (continued) Ameresco Ninety-First Avenue RNG Processing Facility – Phoenix, AZ Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG L.L.C. April 2020 Enclosed Flare Skids Tanks Compressors Tanks Electrical Conditioning Pipe Assembly Figure 8 RNG Processing Equipment Photos (continued) Containerized Membrane (typical) Carbon Tanks (typical) Photos Source: Ameresco, April 2020. SEENO PARCEL LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA BASELINE E.O.D. (DRAFT SEIR 2009) LIMIT OF LINER (WDR 2017) PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA PROPOSED ROUTE ~18,030' (PLAN) (~4,270' IN PG&E) APPROX. PROPERTY LINE KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PG&E PG&E PG&E AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA Green Clean Sustainable. . FIGURE 9 - PIPELINE PLAN PG&E STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT PG&E PG&EPROPOSED PG&E METERING STATION PROPOSED AMERESCO INTERCONNECT STATION KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE Green Clean Sustainable. . FIGURE 10 - PIPELINE PLAN IN PG&E PROPERTY Figure 11 Pipeline Trench Details Figure 12 Pipeline Alignment Along Litter Fence Looking East Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Figure 13 Keller Canyon Special Buffer Area Looking East Figure 13 (continued) Pipeline Alignment To Be Constructed In Ranch Roads Where Possible Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Figure 14 Unnamed Stream Crossing Several headcuts downstream of road crossing, near observed bedrock exposure. Figure 14 Unnamed Stream Crossing (continued) Evidence of deposition upstream of the road crossing. Note the fence is trapping sediment, as evidenced by the fence, which is approximately 6 feet tall, though only 3-4 feet visible above ground adjacent to the channel. Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Figure 15 PG&E Property Looking South Figure 15 (continued) PG&E STANPAC3 Facility Looking North Source: Ameresco, April 2020. Figure 17 PG&E Metering Station Isometric View (Sample – Not for Construction of Proposed Project) 43 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on t he environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. October 14, 2020 Stan Muraoka, AICP Date Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 44 1. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 210 99, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less than significant) Figure 9-1 (Scenic Ridges & Waterways) of the General Plan Open Space Element identifies the major scenic resources in the County, including the ridges of the Concord Hills located 1.7 miles southeast of the existing Ameresco landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) power plant in the Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL). The LFGTE plant is located six miles north of Mount Diablo State Park. The proposed project would construct a new RNG processing facility adjacent to and northwest of the existing LFGTE plant. The existing plant is at an elevation of 410 feet, and the new facility would be on a pad that is at the same elevation. The new facility would include gas processing equipment that would vary in height. The tallest structures to be constructed include: • An enclosed flare approximately 50 feet in height; • A recuperative thermal oxidizer approximately 35 feet in height; • A thermal swing adsorption unit approximately 34 feet in height; Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 45 • Nitrogen removal unit product vessel approximately 32 feet in height; Hydrogen sulfide removal vessels of approximately 28 feet in height; and, • Pipe Rack Assembly up to 25 feet in height. With the exception of the above described structures, m ost of the equipment would be low profile rectangular shapes averaging less than 10 f eet in height. The topography of the local area slopes upward southeast of the Ameresco facility toward the Concord Hills, which peak at 1,430 feet in elevation. Overall, due to the project site’s location and height in relation to the Concord Hills and Mount Diablo, the proposed RNG processing facility would not substantially alter available views of the scenic ridges in the project vicinity. The pipeline portion of the project would be located below ground and would not affect any views of scenic vistas. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? (No impact) There are no state scenic highways in the project vicinity (Caltrans 2019). The General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element Figure 5 -4 (Scenic Routes Map) identifies that section of Kirker Pass Road traversing through the Concord Hi lls and Nortonville Road east of Kirker Pass Road travelling through the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve as scenic routes; however, these scenic routes are not visible from the RNG processing facility. Also, as explained in Environmental Checklist Section 1.a above, the pipeline portion of the project would be located below ground. Thus, the proposed project would not affect any views associated with the scenic routes. There would be no impact. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than significant) As described in Environmental Checklist Section 1.a above, the proposed RNG processing facility would include equipment ranging from 25 to 50 feet in height; h owever, most of the equipment would average less than 10 feet in height. The proposed RNG processing facility would be comparable in height to the existing LFGTE plant, and therefore, would not be readily distinguishable in off-site views. The natural hillside landscape already shields the existing power plant and flares from the City of Pittsburg and Bay Point communities to the north. Also, the pipeline portion of the project would be below ground and would not be visible in off-site views. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 46 A site plan and general arrangement of equipment in the proposed RNG processing facility area are shown on Figures 5 and 6 in Section 8 (Description of Project). The RNG processing equipment would cover an area of 48,000 sq. feet on an 84,000 square-foot level pad. The pad would have reinforced soil slopes at gradients of up to 1.5(h) to 1(v) or flatter, and up to 58 feet in height along the western and northern boundaries of the pad. A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall up to 20 feet high would be constructed along the southern boundary of the pad. The RNG processing equipment would be secured by fencing. While scenic vistas in views from off -site locations to the west and southwest of the Ameresco RNG processing site would be maintained, the following measures will be incorporated into the proposed project to ameliorate views of the project if the project is approved. 1. The applicant shall apply an earth tone color scheme for the RNG processing equipment to ensure compatibility with the project site and surroundi ng landscape colors. A standard Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) requirement is for all exposed surfaces to be painted with a non-reflective finish (less than 55 percent reflectance). At the time of application for a building permit, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that include earth tone, non-reflective paint on all exposed surfaces for review and approval by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). 2. The applicant shall plant coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) on the K CL property to screen the view from residences located to the north, subject to review and approval by the DCD. The applicant shall coordinate with a landscape designer specializing in visual screening. Minimum height of the planted redwoods shall be 10 feet to 12 feet, in numbers and locations to be determined. Visual Assessment A visual assessment was completed using four vantage points and an aerial view. Vantage points 1 and 2 were used in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ameresco Power Plant approved by the Board of Supervisors in January 2002. Vantage Points 3 and 4 were selected by the DCD based on staff awareness of local concerns about visibility of landfill operations . The vantage points and aerial view include: 1. Bailey Road, approximately 120 feet south of Willow Avenue, looking southeast; 2. Bailey Road, at the landfill entrance, looking east; 3. Santa Maria Drive, approximately 0.46 mile to the north, looking south; and Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 47 4. Aerial view of the project site looking east. This view approximates the elevations and angle of view of the homes located near Vantage Point #4. The locations and directions of view for each vantage point are shown on Figure 1-1. Photographs from each vantage point are shown on Figure 1-2. Vantage Points #1 and #2 The RNG facility site is not visible from Vantage Points #1 and #2. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of t he site and its surroundings. There would be no significant impact at Vantage Points #1 and #2. Vantage Point #3 Vantage Point #3 is located on Santa Maria Drive near single-family residences north of KCL. This vantage point was chosen because there is a small valley that provides a visual connection from the project site leading north to a landfill property boundary gate at Santa Maria Drive. The proposed RNG processing facility would be located on a fill pad extending 150 feet to the northwest of the existing slope. For this vantage point, ground level photographs were taken from Santa Maria Drive looki ng south to the site of the RNG processing facility. Additionally, the proposed RNG facility site plan was overlaid onto Google Earth to better estimate sight lines. The existing view from Santa Maria Drive from the other side of the property gate to KCL is shown on Figure 1-3. Figure 1-3 shows existing pepper trees located on landfill property. These pepper trees were used as visual reference marks to assess project visibility. These trees would be removed as part of the construction of the embankment fill to create the level pad for the RNG processing facility. The locations of the pepper trees to be removed were compared to the site plan. Most of the proposed RNG processing facility would be visually screened by a large hill located adjacent to and immediately north of the project site. Figure 1-4 presents a photo montage of the constructed project as viewed from Santa Maria Drive. Based on the projec ted height of 50 feet for the enclosed flare (the tallest facility structure) and other equipment of the RNG processing facility, several large pieces of equipment would be visible from Vantage Point #3. Equipment that might be visible include nitrogen removal units, thermal swing adsorption units, enclosed flare, and the recuperative thermal oxidizer. Such equipment would be newly introduced vertical elements that would contrast with, and potentially change, the existing open space character of the view. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 48 If the proposed project is approved, the applicant will plant coast redwood trees in strategic locations to screen the RNG processing facility in views from off-site locations to the north of the Ameresco facility site. Figure 1-5 shows the tree planting measure from Santa Maria Drive. The planted redwood trees would break up sight lines and would blend into the hilltops north of the Ameresco site. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. There would be a less than significant impact at Vantage Point #3. Vantage Point #4 Figure 1-6 shows a bird’s eye view of the existing landfill industrial facilities area without the proposed RNG processing equipment. Figure 1-7 is a simulation of the proposed RNG processing equipment constructed on the project site. The proposed RNG processing facility would be visible from the fenced backyards of fewer than 10 homes located approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the project site. Figures 1-6 and 1-7 approximate the elevations and angle of view at these locations. These backyard locations currently have limited visibility of the Ameresco facilities site due to a large berm that separates the fenced backyards from the slope located to the east. The homes in this area were constructed several years after the KCL commenced operation. The size and scale of equipment at the proposed RNG processing facility are compatible with the existing industrial character of this portion of KCL. Moreover, If the proposed project is approved, the applicant will apply an earth tone color scheme for the RNG processing equipment to ensure compatibility with the project site and surrounding landscape colors, subject to review and approval by the DCD. Thus, the potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site from Vantage Point #4 and its surroundings would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 1.c above, if the proposed project is approved, the applicant will apply an earth tone, non-reflective color scheme for the RNG processing equipment to ensure compatibility with the project site and surroundi ng landscape colors, subject to review and approval by the DCD. The non-reflective paint will ensure that daytime glare would be maintained at a less than significant level. Regarding potential nighttime effects, as required by Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89- 2020 the applicant will implement the following measure if the proposed project is approved. 1 Condition of Approval (COA) 22.14 (Lighting). The applicant shall design and locate the lighting system to reduce glare and reduce impact to area residents. Focused directional Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 49 security and operational lighting shall be installed. Security and entrance lighting shall be dimmed at 7:30 p.m. Thus, the new nighttime lighting would result in a less than significant nighttime light impact on views of the site. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Aesthetics - Ameresco IS-MND Section 1. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Open Space Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Transportation and Circulation Element. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • California Department of Transportation, 2019. Scenic Highways Desig and Eligible AUG2019_a11y (1). 50 Section 1 Figures Figure 1-1 Vantage Points and Direction of View 51 Figure 1-2 Vantage Points Vantage Point 1 - Bailey Road 120 feet south of Willow Ave looking southeast. Vantage Point 2 - Bailey Road at Keller Canyon Landfill entrance looking east 52 Figure 1-2 Vantage Points (cont’d) Vantage Point 3 View from Santa Maria Drive at Keller Canyon Landfill property gate Vantage Point 4 Bird’s-eye aerial view of the existing project site from the west 53 Figure 1-3 Existing view from Vantage Point 3 Santa Maria Drive at Keller Canyon Landfill property gate 54 Figure 1-4 Simulation of view from Vantage Point 3 of the RNG Processing Facility located on project site 55 Figure 1-5 Simulation of view from Vantage Point 3 of planted trees to visually screen project site from gate at Santa Maria Drive. 56 Figure 1-6 Existing bird’s-eye aerial view of project site from Vantage Point #4 57 Figure 1-7 Simulation of bird’s-eye aerial view of RNG processing equipment from Vantage Point #4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 58 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? SUMMARY: a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No impact) As shown on the California Department of Conservation’s Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2016 map, the Ameresco RNGPFP site includes Urban and Built-Up Land, Grazing Land, and Other Land. Thus, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance to a non-agricultural use. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 59 The proposed RNG processing facility and a portion of the proposed underground RNG pipeline would be constructed in the KCL Primary Project Area, which is zoned A-3 Heavy Industrial. KCL operates under Land Use Permit LP89-2020, as allowed in the A-3 District. The Ameresco RNG use is allowed by LP89-2020. The remaining portion of the underground pipeline would be constructed in the SBA, which is zoned A-4 Agricultural Preserve, and approved for livestock grazing and uses compatible with agriculture under a Range Management Plan prepared pursuant to LP89-2020. The underground gas pipeline would be a use that is compatible with agricultural uses. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The SBA was under Williamson Act Contract No. 8-69; however, the SBA came out of the contract after certification by the Board of Supervisors of the original Keller Canyon Landfill Environmental Impact Report in 1990. Thus, the Ameresco RNGPFP would not affect a Williamson Act contract. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as define d in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defin ed by Government Code section 51104(g) or conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of , forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? (No impact) The project site is not considered forest land as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g) or timberland as defined by California Public Resources Code Sectio n 4526. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest resources . d) Would the project involve or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? (No impact) As discussed previously, the project site is not considered forest land. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existin g environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 2.b above, the proposed project would be constructed in the A-3 Heavy Agricultural and A-4 Agricultural Preserve Districts and would add a proposed RNG processing facility and pipeline. The proposed project is not located on farmland. Consequently, the project would not result in conversion of agricultural land to a non-agricultural use. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 60 Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Agricultural and Forest Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 2. • California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2018. Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2016. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8. Zoning Ordinance. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 61 3. AIR QUALITY – Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than significant) Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay air basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) pursuant to the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to bring the air basin into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards and achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 and 2050. The proposed project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan goals, objectives, and control measures to decrease emissions of harmful air pollutants and super-GHGs. Being located almost entirely within the KCL property, the proposed project is subject to the LP89 -2020 Conditions of Approval, as well as requirements of other permits governing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the landfill. Accordingly, if the proposed project is approved, the following LP89-2020 COAs will be incorporated into the project. 1 COA 20.1 (Prevention of Air Quality Deterioration). The applicant shall manage the facility in a manner that does not result in the significant deterioration of air quality in the vicinity of the site. The applicant shall comply with terms of the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2 COA 20.2 (Odor Containment). The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices of the industry to minimize odors from operations and emissions fro m equipment. If the operator is contacted about odors being detected offsite, the date, time and description Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 62 of the odor complaint shall be logged and investigated promptly to expedite implementation of any necessary corrective action by the landfill operator. 3 COA 20.5 (Dust Suppressants). The applicant shall apply water or proven environmentally safe dust suppressants at least twice daily to working faces of the landfill, unpaved access roads, storage pile disturbances and construction areas. 4 COA 20.9 (Revegetation). The applicant shall revegetate exposed areas which will not be used for fill or construction for 90 days or longer with native grasses for dust and erosion control and for aesthetic purposes. 5 COA 20.22 (Temporary Road Paving). The applicant shall pave and maintain temporary road with gravel or crushed aggregate. Temporary roads shall be wetted or chemically treated when necessary to control dust. 6 COA 20.23 (Speed Limits). The applicant shall enforce speed limits set by the Contra Costa Environmental Health on internal site roads. The maximum internal on -site speed limit shall be 20 mph unless otherwise specified by Contra Costa Environmental Health. 7 COA 20.24 (Equipment Maintenance). The applicant shall maintain gas processing equipment in optimum working order to ensure that equipment emissions are controlled. Equipment shall be fitted with spark arrestors so potential for causing fires is minimized. Equipment shall not be left idling when not in use. Maintenance records shall be kept on all pieces of gas processing equipment. 8 COA 32.6 (Dust Suppression). The applicant shall sprinkle or chemically treat graded areas, borrow sites, stock piles, and temporary pavements to control dust, as de termined necessary by Contra Costa Environmental Health and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Other air quality measures that will be incorporated into the proposed project, if approved, including the following. 9 Diesel-powered construction equipment (e.g. graders, scrapers, compactors) shall be specified to use cleaner Tier IV diesel engines. 10 The project shall apply BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (as listed in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) to further reduce potential fugitive emissions during construction: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 63 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Equipment pads will be installed as soon as possible after grading. 4. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction work ers at all access points. 5. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 6. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number sh all also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The proposed project would provide a beneficial use for the landfill gas (LFG) generated from operating the KCL and would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Clean Air P lan. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan , and with the incorporation of the above described measures, would have a less than significant impact . b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable ne t increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than significant) The May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide guidance on evaluation of air quality impacts with adopted thresholds of significance for emissions of criteria air pollutants and pollutant pre- cursors during project construction and during project operation. Under Criteria air pollutants include the following: • Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless odorless gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as natural gas, at power plants, wildfires, and incinerators. There is substantial evidence that CO can adversely affect public health and Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 64 can participate in chemical reactions in the atmosphere that can result in the formation of ozone. CO is harmful because it reduces the oxygen -carrying capacity of the blood. At toxic levels, CO interferes with oxygen delivery to the brain, heart, and other vital organs. This condition is especially critical for people with chronic lung disease, other cardiovascular diseases, and anemia. • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a pungent gas that when combined with another air quality pollutant such as particulate matter creates the reddish-brown smog haze that occurs in parts of California. NO2 acts as a respiratory irritant and is one of a family of chemicals comprised of nitrogen and oxygen commonly referred to as nitroge n oxides (NOX). The most prevalent of the NOX are NO2 and nitric oxide (NO). NOX is produced by fuel combustion in motor vehicles, industrial stationary sources (such as industrial activities), ships, aircraft, and rail transit. Much of the NO2 in the ambient air is formed in the atmosphere through photochemical reactions between NO and other air pollutants. NOX is a known precursor to the formation of ozone. Studies have demonstrated linkages between NO2 exposure and premature death, and cardiopulmonary effects in infants, children, and asthmatics. • Airborne inhalable particulate matter is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings. For air quality regulatory purposes particles are defined by their diameter. Those with a diameter of 10 microns or fewer (PM10) are inhalable into the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Fine particulate matter is defined as particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or fewer (PM2.5). PM10 and PM2.5 can be emitted from different sources and may have different chemical compositions. PM2.5 can be emitted from combustion of gasoline, diesel, oil, or wood products. These sources also may represent a significant portion of PM10. PM10 also includes dust from construction sites, landfill, agriculture, wildfires, industrial sources, and windblown dust. Both PM10 and PM2.5 can be inhaled into airway passages and deposited on the lungs. Particles deposited on the lung surface can cause tissue damage and lung inflammation. Short-term exposures to PM10 have been associated with worsening of respiratory diseases including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-term exposure to PM2.5 has been linked to premature death in people with chronic heart or lung diseases, and reduced lung function growth in children. Long-term exposure to PM10 is less clear; however, a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 concluded that particulate matter in outdoor pollution can cause lung cancer. • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels such as coal. SO2 has a pungent irritating odor and is one of a family of chemicals made up of Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 65 sulfur and oxygen commonly referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). SO2 is emitted when sulfur- containing fuel is burned by motor vehicles, trains, ships, industrial sources, and off -road diesel equipment. Epidemiological studies have shown that asthmatic children and adults are most susceptible to SO2 exposure. The elderly and people with cardiovascular disease may suffer adverse health effects such as decreased pulmonary function, wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. SO2 is also a precursor to the formation of atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) and contributes to potential atmospheric sulfuric acid formation that could precipitate as acid rain. • Ozone (O3) is an important component of smog and is a highly reactive and unstable gas. Ozone has a characteristic pungent odor. Ozone f orms in the atmosphere through a complex chemical reaction between chemicals such as reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX emitted from vehicles, industrial sources, fossil fuels, evaporation of paints, consumer products, and other sources. Ozone can damage tissues in the respiratory tract and result in adverse effects such as coughing, chest tightness and worsening of asthma symptoms in asthmatic children and adults. Ozone has also been demonstrated to cause damage to crops, vegetation, rubber, and plastics . Studies have shown that children and adults who participate in rigorous outdoor physical activities are at greater risk to ozone exposure. Project Operation Emissions Following is an evaluation of emissions from project operation. The emission factors used for CO and NOX were obtained directly from the manufacturer specifications for the enclosed process flare and thermal oxidizer. The emission factors for POC, PM10, and SO2 were derived from USEPA AP-42 Air Emission Factors, as shown in Table 3-1. The proposed project would have a maximum capacity of 4,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of LFG. Accordingly, the baseline condition shown in Table 3 -2 is defined as the current flares operating on 4,700 scfm. The proposed project would reduce the need for the current continuous use of the two enclosed flares in operation at KCL and would result in a substantial reduction in criteria pollutants as shown in Table 3 -2. The proposed project would result in reduction of emissions of up to 95 percent for CO. Substantial reductions of other crite ria pollutants would also result from the project. These results are based on a worst -case scenario for operation of the RNG equipment that assumes the enclosed process flare would operate 25 percent of the calendar year. After initial start-up and two to three months of conditioning, actual operation of the enclosed process flare is project to be less than five percent. The enclosed process flare would operate only during a plant upset, or detection of out -of-specification gas that must be burned. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 66 Table 3-1. Equipment Emission Factors Equipment Criteria Pollutant CO NOX PM10 SO2 VOCs Enclosed Process Flare Emission Factor 0.20 lb/MMBTU (Partially Processed RNG and Waste Gas) 0.06 lb/MMBTU (Partially Processed RNG) 0.15 lb/MMBTU (Waste Gas) 0.06 lb/MMBTU (Partially Processed RNG) 0.15 lb/MMBTU (Waste Gas) 99.7% Sulfur conversion to SO2 (Partially Processed RNG and Waste Gas) 39% of NMOC fraction in gas composition (Partially Processed RNG and Waste Gas) Source John Zink (Manufacturer) John Zink (Manufacturer) USEPA AP-42 USEPA AP-42 USEPA AP-42 Thermal Oxidizer Emission Factor 0.01 lb/MMBTU 0.056 lb/MMBTU 17 lb/MMscf CH4 99.7% Sulfur conversion to SO2 39% of NMOC fraction in gas composition Source Clean Air (Manufacturer) Clean Air (Manufacturer) USEPA AP-42 USEPA AP-42 USEPA AP-42 Pounds per million British Thermal Units - lb/MMBtu, % - percent, lb/MMscf CH4 – pounds per million cubic feet of methane, RNG – renewable natural gas Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020 Table 3-2 shows a projected net decrease in all criteria pollutants because the proposed project would displace the LFG flow currently routed to the KCL’s two enclosed flares. Thus, the proposed project does not have the potential to generate significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts. Since project-specific air quality impacts would not be significant, they would not contribute to impacts that are cumulatively considerable. In accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 Section 301 (2 -2-301), the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) would be applied to any new or modified source that has the potential to emit (PTE) 10.0 pounds or more per highest day of CO, NO X, PM10, SO2, and precursor organic compounds. The estimated pounds per day and equivalent tons per year (TPY) of emissions for the enclosed process flare and TOX are shown in Table 3-3. For the enclosed process flare, the SO2 emissions are estimated to be below 10.0 pounds per highest day. For the TOX, the CO, PM10, and SO2 emissions are projected to be below 10.0 pounds per highest day. Thus, no BACT is required for these criteria pollutants. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 67 Table 3-2. Comparison of Existing Flare Emissions vs Proposed RNG Potential to Emit (PTE)1 (Tons Per Year [TPY]) Site Criteria Pollutants Emissions (TPY) CO NOX PM10* SO2 VOCs Baseline Existing LFG Flare Emissions (approximately 4,700 scfm total) 2 154.51 37.30 9.66 10.25 9.62 Proposed Project (4,700 scfm)1 7.72 9.34 1.91 1.54 6.68 Expected Net Change in Emissions (146.79) (27.96) (7.75) (8.71) (2.94) Percent Reduction 95% 75% 80% 85% 31% 1Proposed Project emissions based on operation of Thermal Oxidizer (TOX) for full year (8,760 hours) and enclosed process flare operating on pilot gas the full year (8,760 hours), and high oxygen waste gas 20 percent of the year (1,752 hours) at 50 percent methane. 2Current emissions for existing KCL A-1 and A-2 Flares at 4700 scfm total, over 8,760 hours in a calendar year. *PM2.5 emissions assumed to be the same as PM10. Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020 For the enclosed process flare the estimated emissions for CO, NOX, PM10, and VOCs exceed the 10.0 pounds per highest day threshold. For the TOX, the estimated emissions for NOX and VOC exceed 10 pounds per day, therefore the need for BACT would ultimately be determined by the BAAQMD. Potential project-wide emissions for the criteria pollutants CO (7.72 TPY), NO X (9.34 TPY), and VOCs (6.68 TPY) are estimated to be less than the 10.0 TPY threshold established by the BAAQMD for offsets. The offset thresholds for PM10/PM2.5 and SO2 are 100.0 TPY in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2-301. Thus, no offsets are needed for these criteria pollutants. The offset thresholds for PM10/PM2.5 and SO2 are 100.0 TPY in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2-301. No offsets are required for these criteria pollutants. There are no projected emissions from the proposed Project that exceed the acute and chronic trigger levels in BAAQMD Regulation 2 Rule 5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants). Based on the above considerations the impact of project operation would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 68 Table 3-3. Proposed Equipment PTE Pounds Per Day and Tons Per Year Source1 Criteria Pollutants Emissions () CO (lbs/day) (TPY) NOX (lbs/day) (TPY) PM10* (lbs/day) (TPY) SO2 (lbs/day) (TPY) VOCs (lbs/day) (TPY) Enclosed Process Flare 175.28 6.93 129.81 4.90 14.69 0.58 6.50 0.25 48.73 1.82 TOX 4.34 0.79 24.32 4.49 7.29 1.33 7.08 1.29 26.60 4.86 Total Pounds Per Day and Tons Per Year for Project 179.62 7.72 154.13 9.34 21.98 1.91 13.58 1.54 75.33 6.68 1 Total annual emissions for Process Enclosed Flare emissions per 100 percent operation during calendar year; 20 percent in transient scenario at highest emissions of High Oxygen operating scenario, and 100 percent operating on pilot gas. *PM2.5 assumed to be the same as PM10. Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020 Construction-Related Emissions The BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines (pg. 8 -1) outlines the use of the URBEMIS model for estimating construction-related emissions. For this analysis, project construction-related emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEE Mod). CalEEMod was developed by the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) and has most recently been updated in 2016. The URBEMIS was last updated in 2008, and therefore is outdated in comparison to the CalEEMod. CalEEMod is a state-wide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operational from a variety of land use projects. The results from the CalEEMod are presented in Table 3-4. CalEEMod outputs (daily average emissions) were compared with the BAAQMD thresholds as detailed in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The estima ted average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO X, PM2.5, and PM10 from the proposed RNG processing facility would be below applicable thresholds of significance Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 69 for construction-related emissions as established in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017. Thus, potential impacts from construction-related emissions would be less than significant. Table 3-4. Construction Thresholds and CalEEMod Results Pollutant BAAQMD CEQA Construction Threshold (average lbs/day) CalEEMod Results for Project Construction (Maximum lbs/day) ROG 54 1.39 NOX 54 26.52 PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 2.29 PM10 82 (exhaust) 1.17 PM10/PM2.5 Best Management Practices N/A Local CO None N/A GHGs - None N/A Risk and Hazards for new sources and receptors (Cumulative Threshold)* Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan OR Cancer: > 100 in a million(from all local sources) Non-cancer: > 10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources) (Chronic) PM2.5: > 0.8 µg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor See Section on Risks and Hazards. Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants* None N/A Odors* None N/A CO = carbon monoxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHGs = greenhouse gases; lb/day = pounds per day; NO X = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5= fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic res istance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ppm = parts per million; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; N/A – Not Applicable *The receptor thresholds were the subject of litigation in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369. ** The BAAQMD recommends that for construction projects that are less than one year dur ation, Lead Agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts are to occur, rather than the full year. Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020 Greenhouse Gases (GHG): The BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold of significance for constru ction-related GHG emissions. Nevertheless, air quality measures 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, as described in Environmental Checklist Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 70 Section 3.a above would be implemented during construction, if the proposed project is approved, to minimize the construction-related GHG emissions. A quantitative assessment of construction-related GHG emissions is included in Environmental Checklist Section 8.a below. As discussed in Section 8.a, construction-related GHG emissions would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than significant) Sensitive receptors would be persons, who by either age (e.g., children and elderly persons), and/or pre-existing health conditions, and/or proximity to emission sources, and/or duration to exposure are considered to be more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Accordingly, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and residential areas are considered sensitive to air pollutants. In addition, persons who engage in rigorous outdoor physical activities are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air pollutants during activities involving exertion of the respiratory system. Potential sensitive receptors located near KCL are single-family and multi-family residences; however, there are no residences within one-quarter mile of the proposed project. The closest residences to the Ameresco RNG processing facility site are single-family units located to the north and west, including in the following areas. • The terminus of Jacqueline Drive, approximately 0.32 mile northeast of the project site; • Westwood Lane, approximately 0.56 mile northwest of the project site; and • Summitridge Court, approximately 0.40 mile west of the project site. There are no residences located immediately south of the project site. The closest residences to the east of the project site are located approximately 1.6 miles away. In addition to residences, there are no schools within one-quarter mile of the proposed project. Fourteen (14) schools are in the Pittsburg area within a 4 -mile radius surrounding the project site. The closest schools are Royal Oaks Academy (private) and Rancho Medanos J unior High School, located approximately 1.2 miles and 1.6 miles, respectively, from th e project site. Since these distances are greater than 1,000 feet, public notification requirements specified in BAAQMD 2 -1- 412 are not applicable. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3.b above, emissions from the proposed RNG processing facility would be substantially lower compared to the baseline condition that involves continuous operation of KCL’s two enclosed flares. Further, the proposed project would allow for the reduced need and operation of the existing KCL’s flares while creating a beneficial use of the LFG. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 42301.6(a) and BAAQMD Regulation 2, Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 71 Rule 1, Section 412. the proposed project would not result in significant emissions of criteria air pollutants either during the construction period or during project operation. Thus, air pollutant- related impacts of the proposed project on surrounding sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely af fecting a substantial number of people? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3.a above, if the proposed project is approved, air quality measures would be implemented for odor containment and to reduce construction- related emissions. With these measures, the proposed project would not result in emissions during project operation or construction that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. As shown in Table 3-2, the proposed project would allow for a beneficial use of the LFG generated at the KCL and result in a substanti al net decrease in emissions of criteria pollutants compared to the baseline condition. The proposed project equipment and the RNG processing operation do not use or generate odorous compounds. The applicant would be required to follow proper procedures and methods to minimize potential facility odors. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Air Quality - Ameresco IS-MND Section 3. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. • https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air-pollutants, 2020. Common Air Pollutants, California Air Resources Board. • https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home, 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). • Tetra Tech, 2020. CalEEMod Results. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 72 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than significant with mitigation) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 73 The biological resources survey area includes land within the Primary Project Area, the SBA, and contiguous PG&E property. The survey area begins in the northwest portion of the active KCL landfill on the proposed RNG processing facility site located west of the existing LFGTE plant. The site would be filled to create a level pad for the proposed RNG processing facility. From this location the pipeline would be buried and travel through the developed landfill area, portions of the SBA, and into the contiguous PG&E property. The pipeline would terminate in a new Ameresco interconnect station to be constructed near the existing PG&E valve lot. Portions of the PG&E property and the valve lot are in the City of Pittsburg. Permanent impacts to habitat would occur as part of the construction of the pad for the processing facility. Currently, storm water flow from landfill roads is di verted to a concrete drainage ditch in this area. As a result of construction of the new RNG processing facility, all storm flow will be diverted to the existing detention basin. Removal of eight non-native pepper trees (Schinus molle) would occur as part of this development. The pipeline alignment extends south and east from the proposed RNG processing facility through disturbed areas of the KCL into the SBA. The pipeline alignment follows existing disturbed ranch roads, but also exits the ranch roads where necessary to maximize constructability and minimize impacts on the natural terrain. Equipment and material laydown areas are strategically located along the pipeline route. The pipeline route proceeds east, exits the SBA and enters adjoining PG&E property south of the former City of Pittsburg golf course. The pipeline alignment proceeds northeast to a point west of an existing PG&E underground pipeline. From this point the pipeline alignment proceeds parallel to the PG&E pipeline due north. The pipeline trench w ould go underneath the Contra Costa Canal and a stream/riparian area through a horizontal directional drill before emerging on the other side and eventually terminating at a new interconnect station to be located near the existing PG&E metering valve lot. Temporary construction impacts would occur during pipeline installation. The construction activities will occur within a 60-foot wide to a 100-foot wide workspace throughout the project area (Figure 4-1). Construction access would be limited to existing paved roads and current ranch/fire roads to the extent feasible and/or within the 15 -foot buffer with defined staging and equipment laydown areas. Access is proposed from four locati ons: • West end access point: Bailey Road access through the existing landfill paved road; • Mid-point access point: John Henry Johnson Parkway through City of Pittsburg -owned lands; • East end access point: gate at Alta Vista Circle; and • North end access point: City of Pittsburg old golf course parking lot. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 74 Permanent impacts associated with the installation of the pipeline include the installation of bioengineered stabilization structures along a Tributary to Willow Creek, and the installation of equipment in the proposed interconnect station near the existing PG&E valve lot. Staging and equipment laydown areas are proposed at five (5) locations along the proposed pipeline route as shown on Figure 4 -1. All temporary impacts will be restored to previous conditions within one year of impacts occurring. Biological Resources Analysis A biological resources analysis for the survey area was completed for the proposed project, which included a literature review of existing information regarding biological res ources in the project region followed by reconnaissance-level field surveys, botanical surveys and jurisdictional wetlands/waters delineations. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters are discussed in more detail in Environmental Checklist Section 4.c below. Literature Review A review of existing biological resources within and adjacent to the project site was conducted prior to performing field surveys. A query of federally listed wildlife species for the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Sacramento Endangered Species Office IPaC website. Additional information about the locations of known occurrences of sensitive species within five miles of the project area was compiled from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and by searching within the six U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles that surround the project area (Vine Hill, Honker Bay, Antioch North, Antioch South, Clayton, Walnut Creek). The California Native Plan Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants was searched for special status plant species within the Vine Hill, Honker Bay, Clayton, and Antioch South U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles that surround the survey area. Additional sources consulted included the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). Reconnaissance-Level Biological Resources Survey Visual reconnaissance surveys of the project area and surrounding habitats were conducted by Swaim Biological Inc. during multiple field surveys from November 2017 to March 2020. During the field surveys the biologists walked the extent of the project area for the proposed RNG processing facility, proposed pipeline alignment, proposed interconnect station, and existing PG&E valve lot to evaluate biological resource conditions that exist within the project area. The survey area included an approximately 50-foot buffer on either side of the proposed pipeline Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 75 alignment, and the sites of the proposed RNG Processing Facility and proposed interconnect station near the existing PG&E valve lot. Special-Status Species Candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their presence in a given area or across their native habitat. These species have been identified and assigned a status ranki ng by governmental agencies such as the CDFW and the USFWS and by private organizations such as the CNPS. The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the determining factor in the assignment of a status ranking. Some common threats to a species’ or population’s presence include habitat lo ss, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as human conflict and intrusion. For the purposes of this biological review, special-status species are defined by the following codes: ▪ Animals and plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1et seq.) or the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (50 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 17.11); ▪ Animals and plants that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57533-57547, October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §2068); ▪ Animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) that may include species not found on either State or Federal Endangered Species lists; ▪ Animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by CDFW; ▪ Animal species that are designated as “fully protected” under California (Fish and Game Code 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515); ▪ Animal species that are designated as “covered” species under the HCP/NCCP; ▪ Bat species that are designated on the Western Bat Working Group’s (WBWG) Regional Bat Species Priority Matrix as: “Red or High.” These species are considered to be “imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.” ▪ Plants that are listed by CNPS Rare Plant Program as rank 1A – plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere, 1B – plants rare, threatened or endangered in California or elsewhere, 2A – plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere, 2B – plants rare, threatened or endangered in California by common elsewhere, 3 – plants about which more is needed and 4 – plants of limited distribution; ▪ Plants that are listed by the HCP/NCCP as “covered” or “no take” species; Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 76 ▪ Sensitive Natural Communities – Natural Communities are identified by CDFW. State and Global rarity ranks are indicated Alliances and some Associations. Natural communities with State rarity ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities. A “?” indicates the State’s best estimate of the rank if it is known that insufficient samples over the full expected range but existing information points to this rank. Habitat Types and Associated Wildlife Species Habitat types within the survey area are described based on field observations and are consistent with the HCP/NCCP land cover type classifications. Annual Grassland Annual grassland is the dominant habitat type present throughout the SBA and project ar ea. The majority of the pipeline alignment is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and wild oat (Avena species). Within the annual grassland habitat are three vegetation/community alliances which are CDFW Sensitive Natural Communities - California match weed patches, California buckeye groves, and gum plant patches. The annual grassland habitat is intact and connected to adjacent op en grassland habitat. This intact grassland supports multiple wildlife species inclu ding reptiles such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridis); mammals such as black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California vole (Microtus californicus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and coyote (Canis latrans); and birds such as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Annual grasslands also provides important foraging habitat for turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and CDFW Watch List species such as Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The three Sensitive Natural Communities are described further. • California match weed patches (State Rarity Rank S3, MCV2 Alliance 32.042.00). Small stands of California matchweed (Gutierrezia californica) are associated with small and large rock outcrops and were observed among the grasslands at three locations . (Figure 4-2). The large outcrops supported California sage (Artemesia california) as a codominant, while smaller grassland outcrop codominants were narrow tarplant (Holocarpha virgata Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 77 ssp. virgata), naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), and annual grasses. Other species observed were soaproot (Chlorogallum pomeridianum), Clarkia, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and Amsinckia. The herbaceous layer is open to continuous and grassy. Stands are also known to occur at the nearby Black Diamond Mines Regional Park. Characteristic species in the CDFW-described Alliance are Atriplex spinifera, Eastwoodia elegans, Ephedra californica, Ericameria linearifolia and Eriogonum fasciculatum. CDFW reports that in the Diablo Range and elsewhere in the Central California Ranges, Gutierrezia californica occurs with other herbs such as Amsinckia menziesii, Poa secunda, and non-native grasses, which is more similar to what was observed in the study area. • California buckeye groves (State Rarity Rank S3, MCV2 Alliance 75.100.03). Outside of the pipeline alignment corridor but adjacent to (nearly overhan ging) a potential access road is a small, dense grove of California buckeye (Aesculus californica) trees. The grove is associated with the intermittent drainage located along the access route (Figure 4 -2). The understory was not explored but appeared to be lacking in shrub and herbaceous layers due to a darkly shaded environment created by the continuous tree canopy. CDFW reports that inland stands are small and often occur in relative mesic, north -facing concavities among oak woodlands and grasslands. • Gum plant patches (State Rarity Rank S2S3, MCV2 Alliance 52.206.01). Gum plant patches occur at several locations in the survey area within the SBA and are associated with moist hillslopes that are in turn broadly associated with seepy areas. Coverage is not continuous but is consistently intermittent where patches occur. The patches do not strongly correlate with the described Alliance, which focuses more on slightly elevated or drier ground adjacent to coastal dunes, salt marshes, or alkaline marshes. Membe rship rules for the Alliance are not provided, but Grindelia camporum is the dominant large herb and patches exhibit consistent coverage. CNPS remarks that more sampling and analysis is needed to clarify Grindelia stands in overall grassland, coastal salt marsh, and alkaline marsh patterns. Developed and Ruderal Developed land cover is present at the site of the proposed RNG processing facility and the existing PG&E valve lot. These areas are also surrounded by grassland and ruderal habitats and not completely isolated from urban environments. The HCP/NCCP discerns ruderal habitats from weedy annual grasslands by characterizing them as di sturbed areas, usually as vacant lots within developed zones, with sparse nonnative, typically weedy vegetation. Such ru deral habitats present at the existing Ameresco LFGTE plant and around the PG&E valve lot consist of weedy species including black mustard (Brassica nigra), thistles (Cirsium spp.), and wild radish (Raphanus sativa). Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 78 Wildlife common to ruderal habitats and developed habitats within the project area can include species closely associated with urban development, such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock dove (Columba livia), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), black-tailed jackrabbit, raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and house mouse (Mus musculus). Wildlife species described above under annual grassland could also be utilizing these ruderal habitats throughout the project area and vice versa. Potential Special-Status Plant and Animal Species A total of 53 special status wildlife species and 63 special status plant species were identified through the literature review and database queries as having some potential to occur in the project area. Of these, three plant species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the project area. A total of 18 wildlife species were determined to have a moderate to high potential to occur within the project area. The complete list of plant species with the potential to occur within the project area is provided in Table 4-1; the complete list of wildlife species with the potential to occur within the project area is provided in Table 4-2. The results of the CNDDB search are shown graphically for plants on Figure 4-3 and wildlife on Figure 4-4. Potential Special Status Plants Three special status plant species have a moderate potential to occur within the project area. • Large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora); FESA Endangered, CESA Endangered, CNPS Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1, HCP/NCCP No Take Species. Large flowered fiddleneck is an annual herb that is native and endemic to California. It occurs on grassy slopes below 984 feet elevation, and blooms between March and May. There are only nine known occurrences, and of those just three are presumed to be extant. The other six are likely extirpated. Although several species of Amsinckia were observed during surveys, large- flowered fiddleneck was not observed. • Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa); CRPR 1B.1, HCP/NCCP Covered Species. Big tarplant is an annual herb that is native and endemic to California. It occurs on dry slopes in grasslands below 1,640 feet elevation, and blooms between July and November. It usually occurs on clay soils, which are present in the survey area. There are 53 known occurrences and 51 of those are presumed to be extant, although occurrences in the Honker Bay U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle (in which the project is located) are believed extirpated. Big tarplant was not observed during surveys. Out of the 10 genera and many Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 79 species comprising Asteraceae Group 10 which includes Blepharizonia, only narrow tarplant was observed (Holocarpha virgata ssp. virgata). • Round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla); HCP/NCCP Covered Species. Round-leaved filaree is an annual herb that is native to California and also occurs down to northern Mexico. It is the only plant in its genus. It occurs in open sites, grassland, scrub, vertic clay, and occasionally serpentine soils below 3,937 feet elevation, and blooms between March and July. It formerly was a CRPR species, but surveys identified enough secure populations to remove it from the rare ranking. It remains a covered species under the HCP/NCCP. Round-leaved filaree was not observed during surveys. Potential Special Status Wildlife A total of 18 special status wildlife species have a moderate to high potential to occur within the project area. Amphibians • California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense); FESA Threatened; CESA Threatened, HCP/NCCP Covered Species. Critical habitat for the California tiger salamander was designated by USFWS in 2005. The project is located outside of designated critical habitat for the species. The nearest critical habitat to the project area is Unit CV-18, located approximately 18 miles away to the south in Alameda County. The California tiger salamander is a terrestrial salamander that inhabits valley and foothill grasslands and the grassy understory of foothill oak woodland s, usually within one mile of water. The California tiger salamander is strongly associated with grassland habitat but also occurs in other habitat types, including oak savanna, the edges of mixed woodlands, and foothill coniferous forests. The species requires two major habitat components: aquatic breeding sites and terrestrial refuge sites. California tiger salamanders move between these two habitat types throughout the year. The California tiger salamander spends most of its time underground in subterranean refuge sites, or refugia. Subadult and adult California tiger salamanders spend the dry summer and fall months of the year in the burrows of small mammals typically California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechyii) or Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows and, occasionally, human-made structures. These burrows provide protection from the sun and dry winds that are associated with the dry California climate. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 80 Adults use aquatic breeding sites that are up to 1.4 miles from upland refugia. The adults migrate to suitable breeding sites during the rainy season to lay their eggs primarily in vernal pools, seasonal pools and ephemeral ponds, permanent human-made ponds (e.g., stock ponds), reservoirs, and small lakes. After breeding, adults leave the pond and enter small mammal burrows where they may continue to exit and enter the burrows nightly for the next few weeks to feed. Post-metamorphosis dispersal of juvenile salamanders occurs as seasonal breeding sites begin to dry in late spring or early summer, metamorphosed juveniles move away from breeding ponds into the surrounding upland habitat. Once in upland terrestrial habitat, juvenile California tiger salamanders may not return to breeding ponds for several years. However, they do remain active in the upland habitat and come to the surface during rainfall events to disperse and forage. The project area is located within HCP/NCCP modeled suitable migration and refugia habitat for the California tiger salamander. Grassland with rodent burrows throughout the impact locations provide suitable upland habitat. There is a detention basin located 0.14 mile downslope from the proposed RFG processing facility, along with livestock ponds and created wetlands are present surrounding the study area that may provide suitable breeding habitat although no suitable breeding habitat occurs within the study area. There are 22 CNDDB records of the California tiger salamander within five miles of the property; the closest record is 0.3 miles away where 50 juveniles were observed in a mitigation pond on the landfill property in May 1995; however, this mitigation pond has failed to hold water on a regular basis. • California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); FESA Threatened; CDFW Species of Special Concern, HCP/NCCP Covered Species. Critical habitat for the California red-legged frog was designated by USFWS in 2010. The components of the proposed project are not within any designated critical habitat. The nearest critical h abitat is Unit CCS-2, located approximately eight miles to the south of the project area. California red-legged frog populations are typically associated with deep pools or lakes with overhanging woody vegetation, usually willows, and an intermixed fring e of cattails. California red-legged frogs also frequently breed in ephemeral creeks and drainages and in ponds that may or may not have riparian vegetation. Suitable breeding sites include still or slow-moving sources of water that remain inundated long enough for larvae to complete metamorphosis, which typically occurs from 11–20 weeks after hatching. California red-legged frogs generally breed from January to May, attaching eggs to vegetation, fencing, or any available attachment sites in shallow water. During summer and fall months, California red-legged frogs may disperse away from breeding sites and take refuge in cool, moist areas, including aquatic, riparian, and upland areas within the range of the species and any landscape features that provide cover such as small mammal Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 81 burrows, rocks piles, organic debris (e.g., downed trees or logs), leaf litter, or industrial debris. Adult California red-legged frogs tend to be most active at night during wet weather, but they may move through upland areas at any time during the year. California red-legged frogs may disperse over two miles from breeding ponds but shorter movement distances of up to one mile probably occur much more commonly. The project area is located within HCP/NCCP modeled potential migratio n and refugia habitat. A tributary stream to Willow Creek within the SBA is mapped by the HCP/NCCP as potential breeding habitat. There is a detention basin located 0.14 mile downslope from the proposed RFG processing facility, along with livestock ponds, created wetlands and former golf course ponds present in the project area that may provide suitable breeding habitat although no suitable breeding habitat occurs within the proposed RNG processing facility site or proposed pipeline alignment. Grassland with rodent burrows, soils cracks, and seasonal wetlands such as seeps and springs present within and adjacent to the impact locations provide suitable upland refugia habitat. There are 13 CNDDB records of the California red-legged frog within five miles of the property. The created wetlands within the SBA have the closest CNDDB record; a juvenile was observed in 2000. Birds. The SBA includes open, intact grassland that supports potential habitat for multiple special status grassland bird species. In addition to the federal and State protections listed below, all species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit take of individuals (including active nests). • Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii); CDFW Watch List Species. Cooper’s hawks breed in forests, woodlands, and wooded areas within developed landscapes. The species forages most frequently in wooded habitats but will also forage within edge and open field habitats. Individuals hunt from concealed perches, or on the wing, using vegetation and structures to conceal their approach. Preferred prey includes small and medium sized ground and shrub-dwelling birds, although small mammals are also taken. Suitable foraging habitat exists throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment, although the species’ preferred woodland foraging habitat is absent from the project area. • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor); CDFW Threatened Species. The tricolored blackbird occurs primarily in California, forming large flocks within freshwater marsh, grassland, and agricultural habitats. The species nests primarily in dense freshwater marshes surrounded by extensive grasslands, but is also known to utilize blackberry, triticale, and other dense vegetation for nesting colonies. Breeding colonies require extensive nearby grassland habitat to provide suitable foraging resources for the colony. Opportunistic foragers, tricolored blackbirds feed on a variety of insects, invertebrates, Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 82 and both wild and crop grains. Wintering birds inhabit open grassland and agricultural areas, forming mixed flocks with other blackbird species. Suitable grassland foraging habitat exists throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. • Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum); CDFW Species of Special Concern. Grasshopper sparrows breed in extensive, open, short grasslands with scattered clumps of shrubby vegetation. Nests consist of a domed grass structure built on the ground and concealed in dense vegetation. Prime breeding habitat features very large, unfragmented areas of grassland with patches of bare ground, and clumps of shrubby vegetation surrounded by denser grass cover for singing perches and nest sites . Grasshopper sparrows breed from mid-March to August in California, after which they migrate to southern wintering grounds. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exist throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CDFW Fully Protected Species, HCP/NCCP Covered Species . Golden eagles occur in grasslands, oak savannahs, woodlands, and agricultural areas. Nesting habitat includes cliffs and large trees in open or semi-open areas, and golden eagles frequently use the same nesting sites between years or use alternate sites within a territory. Golden eagles mostly prey on rabbits, hares and rodents but also take other mammals, birds, reptiles , and some carrion. The project area is located within the HCP/NCCP mo deled suitable habitat of the golden eagle. Grassland within the SBA provides suitable foraging habitat. No large trees were observed that could supporting nesting in the grassland potential impact locations, however, large trees on the adjacent golf course could provide marginal nesting habitat. Eucalyptus trees along the ranch roads within the SBA provide potential nesting habitat. There is one CNDDB record of the Golden eagle within five miles of the property on the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) where eagles have been seen foraging regularly during Audubon Christmas Bird Counts; habitat at the former CNWS is considered foraging/winter migration habitat. • Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus); CDFW Species of Section Concern. The short-eared owl is a species of open country, nesting on the ground in marshes, grasslands, and tundra. The species breeds only rarely in the Greater Bay Area but has been observed foraging over marshlands and grasslands. Short-eared owls hunt both day and night, preying primarily on small mammals, especially voles (Microtus californicus). Suitable grassland foraging habitat exists throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 83 • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); CDFW Species of Special Concern, HCP/NCCP Covered Species. The burrowing owl is a small owl (typically ten inches tall) associated with open grasslands. In California, burrowing owls occur in extensive grassland habitats that support California ground squirrels. Ground squirrel burrows are utilized by the burrowing owl for both nesting and roosting. The species occurs in flat or gently sloping open grassland or sparse scrubland habitats. High quality habitat consists of annual and perennial grasslands, with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub cover, and areas of short vegetation. These areas provide foraging habitat and allow burrowing owls to detect predators. Burrowing owls typically nest between February and August. After nesting is completed, adult owls may remain in their nesting burrows or in n earby burrows, or they may migrate; young birds disperse across the landscape from 0.1 to 35 miles from their natal burrows. Burrowing owl populations have declined substantially in the San Francisco Bay area in recent years, with declines estimated at four to six percent annually. The project area is located within the HCP/NCCP modeled suitable habitat of burrowing owl. Burrows of suitable size to support the species (four inches or greater in diameter) were observed during the planning survey conducted for the proposed project within the project area. California ground squirrels were observed as well as active ground squirrel burrows. There are previous observations of burrowing owls on the property. There are five CNDDB records of the Burrowing owl withi n five miles of the property. The nearest record is approximately 1.3 miles away where an active burrow was observed in 1999 near the former CNWS. • Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis); CDFW Watch List Species. Ferruginous hawks occur in grasslands and other extensive, open habitats. The species winters in California, occurring where its primary prey, rabbits, and ground squirrels, are numerous. Individuals frequently hunt from the ground or from elevated perches. Suitable grassland foraging habitat exists throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. • Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius); CDFW Species of Special Concern. Northern harriers inhabit open habitats with relatively short vegetation. The species occurs year -round in California, breeding primarily in extensive marshlands, wet grasslands, and agricultural fields. Harriers forage over open wetland and grassland habitats, preying on small and medium-sized mammals and birds. Suitable foraging habitat exists throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. • White tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Fully Protected. The white-tailed kite occurs in nearly all lowlands in California, except the southeast deserts. The core of the white -tailed kite’s breeding range in the U.S. is California, with nearly all areas up to the western Sierra Nevada foothills and southeast deserts occupied. They require relatively open habitat for Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 84 foraging, and trees (isolated or within stands) for nesting and roosting. White -tailed kite nest in trees, composed of small twigs and lined with grass, hay or leaves. White-tailed kites breed in lowland grasslands, agriculture, wetlands, oak-woodland and savannah habitats, and riparian areas associated with open areas. The presence of white-tailed kites is closely tied to the presence of prey species, particularly voles. Prey base may be the most important factor in determining habitat quality for white-tailed kites. The project area includes suitable foraging habitat throughout the SBA and PG&E property. Trees in the SBA and near the boundary with the PG&E property could support nesting. Some of these locations are adjacent to or near the proposed pipeline alignment. Additionally, large trees located outside of the project area on the adjacent golf course, and eucalyptus and other trees within the SBA along the ranch roads may provide potential nesting habitat. There is one CNDDB record of the white-tailed kite within five miles of the property (approximately 4.5 miles away). The observation is a nesting record from 1985. • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), CDFW Watch List Species. The California horned lark is endemic to California and Baja California and is a common resident of open habitats absent of trees and large shrubs. They are primarily associated with grasslands with low, sparse vegetation and can be found from the coast and deserts near sea level to alpine habitat above treeline in the Sierra Nevada. They are often found walking along the ground foraging for insects, spiders, and snails. Grasses, forbs, rocks, clods of soils, and other surface irregularities provide cover for foraging and nesting. Nests are built on the ground in depressions often next to grass tufts. Due to the loss of grassland habitat through agricultural development, the California horned lark is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List Species. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exist throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); CDFW Species of Special Concern. Loggerhead shrikes inhabit open habitats with relatively short vegetation and may be found in a variety of open habitats, including grasslands, scrub, riparian woodlands, ruderal habitats, and developed areas such as golf courses and agricultural fields. Ideal breeding habitat for loggerhead shrikes is open, with short grassy vegetation punctuated by many perches, shrubs, or trees for nesting, and sharp branches or barbed wire fences for impaling prey. Shrikes may begin nesting as early as late February, and continue through July, especially in the western portion of the range, where populations are sedentary. Shrikes typically nest in shrubs and low trees, although brush piles may also be used when shrubs are not available. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 85 The project area includes suitable foraging habitat throughout the SBA and PG&E Property. Trees that would be removed at the proposed RNG processing facility site and trees at the SBA/PG&E property boundary provide suitable nesting habitat. Trees along the ranch roads may also provide suitable nesting. Barbed wire is prevalent offerin g resources for prey impalement. Mammals • American badger (Taxidea taxus); CDFW Species of Special Concern. The American badger is a carnivore in the family Mustelidae. Badgers range throughout most of California and can be found anywhere with friable soils and high concentrations of burrowing rodents, but are more prevalent in open grassland, savanna, and mountain meadow habitats. Their front legs have large claws adapted for digging their prey out of underground burrows. Badgers prey primarily on ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) and pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), although prey may also include other rodents, reptiles, birds, eggs, insects, and carrion. They frequently reuse old bu rrows, although some may dig a new den each night especially during summer. Badgers mate in summer and early fall and young are born in burrows in March and April. Badgers are less active in the winter and may spend extended periods of time in a state of torpor. The intact grassland in the SBA and on PG&E property provide high quality suitable habitat for American badger. Burrows of suitable size to accommodate the badger, with large soil aprons, large belly drags, and appropriate tracks, were observed adjacent to ranch road through the SBA. Thus, the potential for American badger within the project area is moderate to high, supported by the presence of suitable burrows in the surrounding area. • San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica); ESA Endangered; CESA Threatened, HCP/NCCP Covered Species. Critical habitat has not been designated for the San Joaquin kit fox. Kit foxes are typically associated with annual grasslands with sparse or absent shrub cover, sparse ground cover, and short vegetation. The species excavates burrows in areas in areas with sandy soils that are relatively stone-free to several feet below the surface. Kit foxes also frequently modify or use dens constructed by other animals and human made structures. Kit foxes change dens frequently, and often use several dens each year. Burrows suitable for use by San Joaquin kit fox are generally at least four to five inches in diameter at the surface and extend at least two feet below the surface without narrowing below four inches. San Joaquin kit foxes are primarily nocturnal and active throughout the year. Kit foxes primarily prey on small to medium sized mammals, most commonly California ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, and lagomorphs. Kit foxes breed between December and February, with pups typically born in February or March. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 86 One litter per year is typical. Pups remain with their parents for three to four months before dispersing. The project area is located within the HCP/NCCP modeled suitable core habitat of San Joaquin kit fox. Indications of use by San Joaquin kit fox – including large keyhole-shaped burrows, tracks, scat, prey remains, or fur were not observed during the reconnaissance surveys for the proposed project. However, burrows of suitable size to accommodate the San Joaquin kit fox (greater than five inches in diameter for a minimum of one-foot underground) were observed within the project area and within the pipeline alignment. There are four CNDDB records of the San Joaquin kit fox within five miles of the project site. The nearest record is from 1992 of a foraging adult on East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) lands. Bat Species of Special Concern. The SBA includes open, intact grassland with adjacent rock outcrops, trees and water sources that supports potential habitat f or roosting and foraging bat species. Potential roost sites in rock outcrops in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignment are present and provide potentially suitable roost habitat for special status bat species discussed below. Trees in the SBA and PG&E property could support roosting and are adjacent to or near the pipeline alignment. Additionally, trees located along ranch roads within the SBA provide potential roosting habitat. • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); CDFW Species of Special Concern. Pallid bat day-roosting habitat typically includes rocky outcrops, cliffs, large-diameter live and snag trees, and spacious crevices near open foraging habitats. Pallid bats may also roost in caves, mines, bridges, barns, porches, bat boxes, stone piles, r ags, baseboards, rocks, and on the ground. Day roosts are generally warm and out of reach from ground predators and may consist of single- or mixed-sex colonies in crevices or man-made structures. Pallid bats have also been documented using culvert structures and bridges for roosting. The number of individuals in a day roost range from a few individuals to a couple of hundred individuals. There is one CNDDB record for pallid bat that is part of a museum collection at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berk eley. Pallid bats have been detected on EBRPD lands as part of surveys conducted in Black Diamond Mines Regional Park located within the 5-mile radius of the project area. • Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii); CDFW Species of Special Concern, HCP/NCCP Covered Species. Townsend's big-eared bats are found throughout California, but the details of its distribution are not well known. Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in all but subalpine and alpine habitats and may be found at any seaso n throughout its range. The species requires cavity-type habitats such as caves, tree basal hollows, mines, tunnels, buildings, bridges, or other human-made structures for roosting. Townsend’s big- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 87 eared bats may use separate sites for night, day, hibernati on, or maternity roosts. Hibernation sites are generally cold, but not below freezing. Individuals may move within the hibernaculum to find suitable temperatures. Maternity roosts are found in generally warm sites. Day roosting colonies can range from a singly roosted male or female depending on season to groups of individuals into the hundreds during maternity season. There are no CNDDB records of the Townsend’s big-eared bat occurring within the 5-mile radius. • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii); CDFW Species of Special Concern. Western red bats can be found throughout California’s lower elevations, with many records concentrated in the Central Valley. Like some bats found in California, western red bats make regional seasonal movements between their winter and maternity roosts. As a foliage roosting bat, the western red bat is closely associated with well -developed riparian habitats but would also utilize other habitats (e.g. orchard trees, eucalyptus, tamarisk, etc.) that provide suitable dense clusters of leaves creating suitable roosting sites. Of note, this species has been observed roosting on the ground within leaf clutter. The western red bat is a solitary roosting bat that would often have two pups per year. There is one CNDDB record of a “bat(s) detected” within the 5-mile radius in Antioch in 1998. Impacts to Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Special Status Plants No special-status plants were observed during floristic botanical surveys conducted for the proposed project. Thus, there are no potentially significant impacts to special status plants. Special Status Wildlife The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to certain special status wildlife species during project construction, including the following. • California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. Project-related impacts could affect California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander upland habitat and potentially impact individuals present in the affected habitat. No impacts to breeding habitat for either species would occur as a result of project activities. Seasonal wetlands that would be impacted as a result of construction of the proposed RNG processing facility construction and the pipeline crossing provide refugia habitat for the California red- legged frog. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 88 Temporary impacts associated with construction related activities may injure or kill individuals by crushing occupied burrows or running over individuals. Individuals may become trapped in excavated areas, pipes or other equipment used for construction. Hazardous chemicals and substances during construction (oil, gasoline) may cause mortality in the event of spills or leaks. • Birds. The project area contains suitable nesting habitat for multiple special status bird species. Open, intact grassland and tress within and adjacent to the Project Site provides suitable habitat for a variety of nesting raptors and birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), con struction could have direct effects on special status and other bird species potentially nesting in open grassland and/or trees within the SBA. Ground disturbance in the grassland and removal or trimming of the trees could result in destruction of active nests, including eggs, nestlings, or juveniles, and construction-related disturbance (e.g., equipment noise, presence of workers) could disrupt normal nesting behavior, resulting in nest abandonment and reproductive failure. • American badger and San Joaquin kit fox. The SBA and most of the PG&E property provide suitable habitat for American badgers and San Joaquin kit fox. Construction could have direct effects if these animals are present in burrows within the affected habitat. Potential direct effects on individuals include mortality and injury. Construction -related ground disturbance (e.g., grading and excavation) and vehicle traffic may injure or kill individuals by crushing occupied dens/burrows/nests or running over individuals. Sound and vibration-related disruptions from construction activities may impair b reeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors. • Bats. Rock outcrops adjacent to the proposed site of the RNG processing facility, and trees near ranch roads provide potential suitable roosting habitat for special status bat species. Rock outcrops would be avoided during construction activities; however, construction could have direct effects on roosting bats if they are present in any affected habitat. Removal and trimming of trees could destroy occupied roost sites, resulting in injury and mortality of adults and young. Impacts on the special status wildlife species listed above would be addressed through participation in the HCP/NCCP and implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 89 Mitigation Measures Biology 1: HCP/NCCP Participation. The applicant shall participate in and receive take coverage under the HCP/NCCP and comply with all conditions of the take coverage. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an HCP/NCCP application and associated fee worksheet to the CDD and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) for review and approval. The temporary and permanent impacts to grassland habitats, jurisdictional waters and wetland resources shall require both temporary and permanent impact fees as defined by the current HCP/NCCP fee schedule at the time of applic ation. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures as required by the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented to minimize impacts to covered species and jurisdictional resources. The Certificate of Coverage will be issued to the applicant to confirm the fee has been received, that other HCP/NCCP requirements have been met or will be performed and will authorize take of covered species. Participation in the HCP/NCCP will full y satisfy requirements for addressing impacts to the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. Biology 2: Burrowing Owl. To avoid and minimize impacts on burrowing owls and potential burrows the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys sh all take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 90 Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. • Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring : This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Repo rt on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the applicant shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the applicant shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area sh all be monitored daily for one week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. Biology 3: Golden Eagle. To avoid and minimize impacts on golden eagles the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to establish whether nests of golden eagles are occupied. If nests are occupied, minimization requirements and Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 91 construction monitoring will be required. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: Covered activities shall be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, alt hough mating and egg incubation occurs late January through August, with peak activity in March through July. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a s maller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be implemented, the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. Construction Monitoring: Construction monitoring shall focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the ULL, covered activities inside and outside of the HCP Preserve System designated in the HCP/NCCP have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Biology 4: Nesting and Migratory Birds. To avoid and minimize impacts on nesting and migratory birds and to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act pre -construction surveys shall be conducted and construction avoidance measures shall be implemented if necessary. • Preconstruction Survey: Riparian vegetation, grassland habitats and trees shall be surveyed prior to commencing with covered activities to evaluate nesting bird habitat. If work is scheduled to take place between February 1 and August 31, a pre‐ construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days of construction, covering a radius of 500 feet for non‐listed raptors and 100 feet for non‐listed passerines at all locations. Preconstruction surveys wil l need to be done in phases as work along the alignment will not be occurring concurrently. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. Avoidance and Minimization: If an active bird nest is found within these buffers, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. If an active nest i s present, a minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20 -foot intervals, and Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 92 construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted prior to initiation of grading in the nest -setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Biology 5: American Badger. To avoid and minimize impacts on American badgers the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey, within the limits of proposed temporary and permanent impact in grassland and ruderal habitat, no less than 14 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect American badger. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction shall be avoided. If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, a qualified biologist shall determ ine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using remote cameras or methodology coordinated with CDFW. If unoccupied, the qualified biologist shall collapse these dens by hand or shall request permission from CDFW to temporarily plug the burrow entrance with sandbags to prevent badgers from re-using them during construction. If occupied, the biologist shall consult with CDFW regarding best practices for encouraging the badger(s) to move to alternate dens outside the work areas. Biology 6: San Joaquin Kit Fox. To avoid and minimize impacts on San Joaquin kit fox the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas that support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 93 Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS within five working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not r equired prior to initiation of covered activities. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below will be implemented. • Avoidance and Minimization Requirements o If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. o Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. o If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. o If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional five consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determin ed to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). • Construction Monitoring: If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 94 entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones shall be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. All exclusion zones shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Biology 7: Special Status Bats. To avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats the following measures shall be implemented: • Focused Habitat Assessment: If trees along the access route or within the project site are to be removed a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if the subject trees have potential habitat. • Preconstruction Surveys: If the project does not avoid impacts to suitable habitat for special status bats, a preconstruction survey shall be required to determine whether the sites are occupied immediately prior to construction or whether they show signs of recent previous occupation. Preconstruction surveys are used to determine what avoidance and minimization requirements are triggered before construction and whether construction monitoring is necessary . Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If the species is discovered or if evidence of recent prior occupation is established, construction shall be scheduled such that it minimizes impacts on special status bats. Hibernation sites with evidence of prior occupation shall be sealed before the hibernation season (November–March), and nursery sites shall be sealed before the nursery season (April–August). If the site is occupied, then the action shall occur either prior to or after the hibernation season for hibernacula and after August 15 for nursery colonies. Construction shall not take place as long as the site is occupied. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than significant with mitigation) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4.a above, three SNCs were observed in the survey area: California match weed patches (State Rarity Rank S3, MCV2 Alliance 32.042.00), Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 95 California buckeye groves (State Rarity Rank S3, MCV2 Alliance 75.100.03), and gum plant patches (State Rarity Rank S2S3, MCV2 Alliance 52.206.01). California Match Weed Patches The nearest California match weed populations to the proposed project area are (1) at the proposed RNG processing facility to the north of the existing LFGTE plant; and (2) along the pipeline near existing rock outcrops (Figure 4-2). The proposed project would avoid all impacts to rock outcrops, in which case California match weed patches would be avoided as well. Thus, no impacts would occur to this SNC. California Buckeye Groves California buckeye groves are a SNC and buckeye individuals are County -protected trees. A California buckeye grove occurs in the SBA along the existing ranch road across from the mitigation wetland (Figure 4-2). this location, the trees nearly or slightly overhang the road, and therefore, could be damaged by large project equipment. Sufficient tree limb damage could weaken the tree and potentially provide an entry point for pathogens, eventually resulting in tree death. Thus, loss of one or more California buckeye trees would be a potentially significant impact during project construction. Implementation of mitigation measure Biology 8 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Gum Plant Patches Gum plant patches occur along the pipeline route and access roads within the SBA (Figure 4-2) and could be impacted as a result of construction related ac tivities. Construction activities that result in direct disturbance to gum plant patches would be potentially significant impa cts. Implementation of mitigation measure Biology 9 would reduce potential impacts to less -than- significant levels. Mitigation Measures Biology 8: Tree Pruning Overseen by Certified Arborist. Prior to any tree pruning and subject to CDD review, the applicant shall hire a Certified arborist to oversee and/or conduct any native-tree pruning required to access, construct, and implement the Project. Proposed removal of existing pepper trees at the proposed RNG Processing Facility shall be mapped and submitted to the CDD for review. Biology 9: Develop Temporary Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall develop a Temporary Restoration Plan to Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 96 ensure the site is restored to pre-project conditions. This may include measures such as topsoil preservation per station segments and reseeding with native seed mixes. The Temporary Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the shall be submitted to the CDD and the ECCCHC for review and approval. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less than significant with mitigation) A Preliminary Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) was completed by Swaim Biological Inc. for a study area that extended the length of the proposed pipeline and included an approximate 100 - foot-wide corridor and an area around for the proposed new RNG processing facility. The Aquatic Resources Delineation Area (ARDA) includes two drainages named Tributary to Willow Creek and seven additional unnamed drainages already mapped by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and/or Contra Costa County (Figure 4-5, Wetland Delineation Study Area) for a total of nine locations within the ARDA. Based on field investigations, Locations 3, 4 and 9 are NWI- and/or County-mapped features that do not actually occur in the ARDA. Thus, the aquatic resources that do occur in the ARDA are located at the remaining six locations (Locations 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 on Figure 4-5). These locations are described in Table 4-3. The drainages are all tributary to Willow Creek, which is tributary to Suisun Bay, a Traditional Navigable Waters. All crossings are mapped by the NWI and/or County as Riverine drainages, but four of these crossings were delineated as seasonal wetlands (Locations 2, 5, 7, 8). At the proposed RNG processing facility site there is an existing concrete canal and natural drainage that will be permanently impacted as part of the project at Location 1. The remaining locations occur along the pipeline alignment within the SBA (Locations 2, 5, 6) and the PG&E property (Location 7, 8). Wetlands within the surveyed project area total approximately 0.429 ac re (Location 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 5, 7 and 8), Other Waters total approximately 0.070 acre (Locations 1a, 1c, 2d, 6) and stream channels total approximately 550 linear feet (Locations 1a, 1c, 2d, and 6). The Locations are listed in Table 4-3. At Location 2, the pipeline alignment will be trenched into the existing road where a headwater tributary crosses the ranch road. Currently, no culvert or other crossing exists at this location. Downstream of the ranch road there is evidence of channel erosion and scour. I n order to protect the pipeline within the road crossing and address potential fo r upstream channel erosion and Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 97 headcutting, the applicant proposes to install in-stream stabilizations measures that will include exclusion of cattle (by fencing) from the roa d crossing to the confluence with another channel, trenching the pipeline into bedrock to reduce incision potential, and construction of a series of bio-engineered improvements (e.g. log drop-structures) to trap sediment and protect grade downstream of the road. The type, number, and precise location of these bio-engineered improvements will be determined and approved in permit documents to be issued by regulatory agencies. Table 4-3. Summary of Aquatic Resources Located in ARDA Feature Name Aquatic Resource Type Aquatic Resource Size (acre) Required for all resources Aquatic Resource Size (linear feet) Required for only stream channels Location 1 RNG Expansion Area 1a- Concrete Canal Other Waters 0.013 140 1b- Wetland Tributary Wetland 0.035 1c- Drainage Other Waters 0.006 135 Location 2 2a- Pipeline Crossing Wetland [Tributary Seep] 0.042 2b- Cattle Pump Wetland [Tributary Seep] 0.020 2c- Road Seep Wetland [Tributary Seep] 0.050 2d- Log Jams Intermittent Drainage 0.049 175 Location 5- Drainage Crossing [Seasonal] Wetland 0.049 Location 6- Buried Culvert Other Waters 0.002 100 Location 7- Seasonal Wetland [Seasonal] Wetland 0.033 Location 8- Seasonal Wetland [Seasonal] Wetland 0.200 ALL SITES TOTAL 0.499 acre 550 linear feet Source: Swaim Biological Inc., October 2020 The applicant will need to submit the ARD to the ECCCHC as part of the Application and Planning Survey Report and as required to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Neglecting to submit the ARD to the HCP/NCCP and other permitting agencies would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure Biology 10 would reduce this potential impact to a less -than-significant level. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 98 In order to meet applicable State and federal wetlands requirements, the applicant will need to obtain necessary permits from the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. Starting construction of the proposed project prior to obtaining the required permits would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure Biology 11 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures Biology 10: Aquatic Resources Delineation. In conjunction with Biology 1, the applicant shall submit the Aquatic Resources Delineation to the ECCCHC for review and approval, and as required, to the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. Biology 11: Implement the Permit Conditions of the Aquatic Resource Agen cies. Prior to commencing project construction, t he applicant shall obtain required permits from the Army Corps, CDFW, and/or RWQCB. Avoidance, minimization, and compensation will be determined by these agencies. The agencies will set the permit conditions, which are likely to include onsite enhancement and monitoring of seeps and drainages to ensure groundwater and surface water interruptions do not occur as a result of the project. The applicant shall be responsible to implement the permit conditions, subject to oversight by the agencies. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Less than significant with mitigation) Wildlife movement corridors are linear features that contain natural habitat and provide connection between at least two larger adjacent open spaces. Wildlife movement corridors are large enough to support at least a natural habitat mos aic and viable populations of smaller terrestrial species, such as rodents, smaller carnivores (r accoons, skunks, foxes, and weasels), passerine birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. Because a functional network of connected wildlands is essential to the continued support of California’s diverse natural communities, in 2010, CDFW and California Department of Transportation commissioned the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (CEHCP) to identify large, relatively natural habitat blocks that support native biodiversity and areas essential for ecological connectivity between them. The CEHCP included a statewide Essential Habitat Connectivity Map. According to this map the project area does not overlap with Essential Habitat Connectivity areas mapped under the statewide effort but is located within a roughly triangular patch of appro ximately 27,000 acres of undeveloped land between the Diablo Range and the northernmost foothills of Bay Point. This large undeveloped area is bounded by relatively vast acreages of CEHCP Important Baylands on the north, CEHCP Diablo Range on the east and south, and CEHCP Mt. Diablo Creek Riparian Corridor on the west. At the local level, the HCP/NCCP was designed to ensure that Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 99 habitat connectivity and wildlife corridors are identified and maintained as a de facto extension of the statewide mapping effort. The KCL-owned portion of the SBA encompasses approximately 750 acres of undeveloped land that is accessible by and amenable to the diffusion and dispersal of many species, with approximately 3.6 aerial miles of distance between the two nearest commuter roads: Bailey Road and Kirker Pass Road. Thus, the SBA is considered to be a wildlife movement corridor for this biological resources analysis. Construction and operation of the proposed RNG processing facility and the Ameresco interconnect station at the PG&E valve lot would result in permanent changes to the built environment. Construction of the RNG processing facility would remove approximately 1.9 acres of a grassland drainage that otherwise could be used for concealed wildlife movement through the immediate area; however, this impact would be minimal due to the proximity of this location to existing residential development in the City of Pittsburg, and the operation of landfill industrial facilities in this area. The value of this area for wildlife move ment is minimal. Further, there is a substantial remaining amount of undeveloped land available within the approximately 750 - acre SBA and surrounding undeveloped adjacent lands for continued wildlife movement through and around this area. The permanent impacts of construction of the proposed Ameresco interconnect station near the existing PG&E valve lot will result in loss of approximately 0.16 acres of ruderal habitat immediately adjacent to other developed facilities and adjacent residential development. Loss of this grassland and ruderal habitat would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures Biology 1 and Biology 11 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pipeline construction in the SBA would result in a temporary reduction in acreage that may result in disturbance of free movement for wildlife. This impact would be considered to be minimal due to project construction in a linear sequence across the SBA, and the vast remaining amount of undeveloped land available for continued wildlife movement through the project area. As the four-inch diameter pipeline is to be buried underground, project operation and routine maintenance would not impact the SBA’s value as a wildlife movement corridor in the long ter m. Ground disturbances of the SBA associated with construction activities could cause temporary impacts to wildlife movements. Wildlif e would have the ability to move around or avoid the construction work areas given the availability of open space within the SBA and adjacent properties. The disturbances associated to wildlife corridors would be temporary and limited to the construction timeframe of the project. Thus, construction related impacts associated with pipeline construction would have a less than significant impact on species movements or migratory corridors. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances prot ecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less than significant with mitigation) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 100 The Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance provides for the protection of certain trees by regulating tree removal while allowing for reasonable development of private property. The Ordinance applies to any designated open space areas or visually significant riparian or ridge line vegetation and where tree removal is proposed adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area. Any protected tree to be cut down, destroyed or trimmed by topping requires a permit. Wi thin the project area this ordinance would apply to the tree removal at the proposed RNG processing facility site and the potential for tree trimming within the SBA. RNG Processing Facility Trees to be removed within the proposed RNG processing facility site include eight pepper trees. A map showing trees planned for removal will be submitted to the County prior to construction activities commence as part of the County’s criteria for tree protection and preservation in accordance with Biology 8 to determine if any of the pepper trees planned to be removed at the project site for the RNG processing facility meet the County’s criteria for tree protection and preservation. Special Buffer Area Trees protected by the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance are present in the SBA; however, no tree removal in the SBA will occur during implementation of the proposed Project. California buckeye trees are present adjacent to the access route (Figure 4 -2). These trees canopies extend into the access road that may require trimming to accommodate large equipment access. These trees are protected under the Ordinance as they are an indigenous tree, and the California Buckeye Grove is a CDFW protected Sensitive Natural Community. The trimming of Code-protected trees within the California Buckeye Grove during construction would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure Biology 8 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or sta te habitat conservation plan? (Less than significant with mitigation) There is one adopted habitat conservation plan in Contra Costa County, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan, which was approved in May 2007 by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. The ECCCHC is a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County to implement the HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP establishes a coordinated process for Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 101 permitting and mitigating the incidental take of endangered species in eastern Contra Costa County. Because the proposed project is subject to the HCP/NCCP, the applicant would need to submit an HCP/NCCP application and a Planning Survey Report to HCP/NCCP staff for review and approval. Non-compliance with HCP/NCCP regulations, requirements, and procedure s would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure Biology 1 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Swaim Biological Inc. et al., 2020. Biological Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 4. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8. Zoning Ordinance. • https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/depart/cd/water/HCP/, 2020. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. • https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Habitat-Conservation-Plans/, 2020. Habitat Conservation Plans, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office . !U !U ±!U RNG Processing Facility !U Metering Station Pipeline Alignment Access Road Laydown/Staging/Storage Area 0 0.25 0.5 Miles $ 0 2010 Miles Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project September 2020 Figure 4-1 Pipeline Workspace, Access and Staging P i t t s b u r g ±0 0.25 0.5 Miles Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project Figure 4-2: Mapped Sensitive Natural Communities Basemap: Digital Globe 2017 California buckeye SNC California matchweed SNC Grindelia SNC Laydown/Storage Options RNG Processing Facility Final Proposed Alignment Existing gravel road Existing dirt ranch road Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 104 Table 4-1. Special Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Amsinckia grandiflora large-flowered fiddleneck FE SE 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat present. There are historical records more than five miles to the east in the Antioch area and two CNDDB records within five miles of the project site. Both are locations of reintroduction on East Bay Regional Park District's Black Diamond Mines property; one population approximately four miles away is extirpated and the other record approximately three miles away is considered extant. This species is an East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP No Take plant species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland habitat present but no chaparral or scrub habitat. Observations in Contra Costa County limited to Mt. Diablo area. Anomobryum julaceum slender silver moss 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Lower montane coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous forest None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Arabis blepharophylla coast rockcress 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Arctostaphylos auriculata Mt. Diablo manzanita 1B.3 Chaparral (sandstone), Cismontane woodland; occurs primarily in chamise or manzanita chaparral. It can also be found as an understory shrub in coast live oak woodland None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are five presumed extant CNDDB records within five miles of the project location. Species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species and is not within modeled suitable habitat. Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata Contra Costa manzanita 1B.2 Chaparral (rocky) None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. 105 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch 1B.2 Playas, Valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), Vernal pools, occurs in wetlands, occasionally not in wetlands. Low. Suitable grassland habitat with clay soils present. This species is an HCP/NCCP no take plant species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale 1B.2 Chenopod scrub (most commonly on fine- textured, alkaline and/or saline soils in areas of impeded drainage), Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (sandy) Very Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however alkaline/saline soils were not observed. Sandy habitat present near rock outcrops however impacts to rock outcrops will be avoided. Atriplex coronata var. coronata crownscale 4.2 Chenopod scrub (most commonly on fine- textured, alkaline and/or saline soils in areas of impeded drainage), Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools, occurs occasionally in wetlands, occasionally non wetlands Very Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however alkaline/saline soils were not observed. Atriplex depressa brittlescale 1B.2 Chenopod scrub (most commonly on fine- textured, alkaline and/or saline soils in areas of impeded drainage), Meadows and seeps, Playas, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; occurs on alkali soils of the Pescadero and Solano series. Typically occurs in barren areas within alkali grassland, alkali meadow, and alkali scrub. It is occasionally found on the margins of alkali vernal pools. Very Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however alkaline/saline soils were not observed. Species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species and is not within modelled suitable habitat. 106 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Blepharizonia plumosa big tarplant 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat present. There are eight CNDDB records within five miles of the project site; one record is presumed extirpated, the remaining are presumed extant. The two closest records are approximately 1 and 2 miles away, are historic records and presumed extant. Species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species and is within modeled suitable habitat. Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia 4.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. California macrophylla round-leaved filaree CBR Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; occurs in grasslands on friable clay soils Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat with clay soils is present. Species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species and is not within modeled suitable habitat. Calochortus pulchellus Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; grows on grassy slopes and in openings in chaparral and oak woodland communities Low to Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat present but intact chaparral, riparian or cismontane woodland is not. There are three presumed extant CNDDB records within five miles. The nearest record is approximately 3.5 miles away, in East Bay Regional Park District's Black Diamond Mine's property and was observed in 2003.The species is an HCP/NCCP No Take species. Portions of the project site are within HCP/NCCP modeled suitable habitat. Campanula exigua chaparral harebell 1B.2 Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentinite) None. Minimal habitat suitable to support this species is present, and rock outcrops will be avoided. 107 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua johnny-nip 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools margins Low. Suitable grassland habitat present but coastal scrub and marshes/swamps are not. All Contra Costa County records are in the west county associated with salt marsh habitats. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline) Very Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however alkaline soils/grassland was not observed within the project area. All known records in Contra Costa County are in the southwestern portion. Chloropyron molle ssp. molle [formerly Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis] soft bird's-beak FE SR 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are two CNDDB records within five miles of the property. Both records occur within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay/Sacramento Delta. Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi Bolander's water-hemlock 2B.1 Marshes and swamps Coastal, fresh or brackish water None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are two CNDDB records within five miles of the property. Both records occur within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay/Sacramento Delta. Collomia diversifolia serpentine collomia 4.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning-glory 4.2 Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, seeps, strong indicator of alkaline soils Low. Suitable grassland present but alkaline soils not observed. Cordylanthus nidularius Mt. Diablo bird's-beak SR 1B.1 Chaparral (serpentinite) None. Minimal habitat suitable to support this species is present, and rock outcrops will be avoided. Cryptantha hooveri Hoover's cryptantha 1A Inland dunes, Valley and foothill grassland (sandy) Very low. Presumed to be extinct. 108 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Delphinium californicum ssp. interius Hospital Canyon larkspur 1B.2 Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland (mesic), Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There is one CNDDB record within five miles of the property. The record is mapped to approximate location near Mt. Diablo as exact location is unknown. Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur 1B Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland Very low. Suitable grassland habitat present however alkaline soils/grassland was not observed within the project site. All known records in Contra Costa County are in the southwestern portion. This species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species; the project site is not within modeled suitable habitat. Eleocharis parvula small spikerush 4.3 Marshes and swamps None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Eriastrum ertterae Lime Ridge eriastrum 1B.1 Chaparral (openings or edges) None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Eriogonum truncatum Mt. Diablo buckwheat 1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland Low to Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat present although chaparral/scrub does not occur within the project location. There are two CNDDB records within five miles of the project. One is historic and presumed extirpated. The other is from 2016 and observed at East Bay Regional Park District's Black Diamond Mines property; found in grassland on highly erosive soils. This species is an HCP/NCCP No Take plant species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. Eriophyllum jepsonii Jepson's woolly sunflower 4.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. 109 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Eryngium jepsonii Jepson's coyote thistle 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools, occurs in wetlands. Low. Suitable grassland habitat but vernal pool/wetland habitat not observed within project location. There is one presumed extant record from 1998 in East Bay Regional Park District's Black Diamond Mines property, located in moist soil but exact location is unknown. Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum Contra Costa wallflower FE SE 1B.1 Inland dunes None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There is one CNDDB record that is presume extant but is identified as transplanted outside of its native/habitat range on Brown's Island. Eschscholzia rhombipetala diamond- petaled California poppy 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline, clay) Low to Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat present and clay soils observed. Alkaline habitat not observed within project extent. This species is an HCP/NCCP No Take plant species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, Meadows and seeps, Playas, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; typically occurs in alkali grassland and alkali meadow, or on the margins of alkali scrub. It occurs on clay soils, often in areas of high alkalinity. Low. Suitable grassland habitat and clay soils present however alkaline soil conditions not observed. There is one CNDDB record within five miles of the project in Concord, is based on a museum specimen and is possibly extirpated. This species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Pinyon and juniper woodland, Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however chaparral and woodland habitats not present Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however woodland habitats not present 110 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Galium andrewsii ssp. gatense phlox-leaf serpentine bedstraw 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Grimmia torenii Toren's grimmia 1B.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland. with thin, rocky, well-drained soils. It is found in grassy openings in woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub, often at the transition zone between woodland and chaparral Low. Suitable grassland present but woodland and chaparral habitats not present. There are six presumed extant CNDDB records within five miles of the property, all located on East Bay Regional Park District's Black Diamond Mines property and associated with woodland/grassland ecotone habitats. Species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species and is not within modeled suitable habitat. Hesperolinon breweri Brewer's western flax (aka Brewer’s dwarf flax by HCP/NCCP) 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; grows on rocky soils on serpentine, sandstone, or volcanic substrates. It is associated with grassland, oak woodland, and chaparral communities. It typically appears in areas with low vegetative cover, such as the transition zone between grassland and chaparral or open areas in chaparral Low to Moderate. Suitable grassland and sandstone habitat is present in the form of rock outcrops. Intact woodland and chaparral habitats are not present. There is one presumed extant CNDDB record within five miles of the property, located on East Bay Regional Park District's Black Diamond Mines property. Species is an HCP/NCCP covered species. Low potential suitable habitat is modelled near the project impact locations. Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields FE 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Playas (alkaline), Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Low. Suitable grassland habitat present although alkaline habitat and vernal pools not observed. There are two extirpated CNDDB records and no extant records within five miles of the project impact locations. This species is an HCP/NCCP No Take species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. 111 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater and brackish) None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are 16 presumed extant CNDDB records within five miles of the project location; however, all occurrences are within the bay/salt marsh habitat. Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis SR 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (brackish or freshwater), Riparian scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Limosella australis Delta mudwort 2B.1 Marshes and swamps (freshwater or brackish), Riparian scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Madia radiata showy golden madia 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Primarily occupies open grassland or grassland on edge of oak woodland Low to Moderate. Suitable grassland habitat present throughout project impact locations; intact oak woodland not present although there are scattered oaks near Crossing 11. There is one CNDDB record identifying historical records as located "near Antioch". This species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush- mallow 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Monolopia gracilens woodland woolythreads 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest (openings), Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland present however chaparral and intact woodland habitat was not observed. Navarretia gowenii Lime Ridge navarretia 1B.1 Chaparral None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Navarretia heterandra Tehama navarretia 4.3 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic), Vernal pools Low. Suitable grassland present however vernal pools habitat was not observed. 112 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis adobe navarretia 4.2 Valley and foothill grassland vernally mesic, Vernal pools sometimes; occurs in heavy clay soils of vernal pools and other low, seasonally moist areas in grasslands Low to Moderate. Suitable grassland and clay soils present, along with seepy areas. This species is an HCP/NCCP Covered Species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP. Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians shining navarretia 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Low. Suitable grassland present however vernal pool habitat was not observed. Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Antioch Dunes evening- primrose FE SE 1B.1 Inland dunes None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are three presumed extant CNDDB records within five miles of the property. Two records are from transplants outside of native habitat/range on Brown's Island and the other is near Lime Ridge. Phacelia phacelioides Mt. Diablo phacelia 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup 4.2 Cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Low. Suitable grassland habitat present however intact woodland or vernal pool habitat were not observed. Sanicula saxatilis rock sanicle SR 1B.2 Rocky, scree, and talus slopes within Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland habitat and rock outcrops present; chaparral habitat not observed. Scree and talus slopes not observed. Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort 2B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus most beautiful jewelflower 1B.2 Serpetinite. Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland present however serpetinite habitat was not observed. Streptanthus hispidus Mt. Diablo jewelflower 1B.3 Rocky. Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland Low. Suitable grassland and rock outcrops present however chaparral habitat was not observed. 113 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence FE S A CE S A / NP P A CR P R Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina slender-leaved pondweed 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater) None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (brackish and freshwater) None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), Vernal pools None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Tropidocarpum capparideum caper-fruited tropidocarpum 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline hills) Low. Suitable grassland habitat present but alkaline habitat not observed within project impact location. There is one presumed extant CNDDB record that is based on museum specimen collected in Clayton. This species is an HCP/NCCP No Take Species; habitat was not mapped under the HCP/NCCP Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum 2B.3 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. *Status: Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) Designations: (FE) Federally Endangered, (FT) Federally Threatened, (FPE) Federally Proposed for listing as Endangered, (FPT) Federally Proposed for listing as Threatened, (FPD) Federally proposed for delisting, (FC) Federal candidate species California Endangered Species Act (CESA) / Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) Designations: (SE) State Endangered, (ST) State Threatened, (SCE) Candidate Endangered, (SCT) Candidate Threatened, (SR) State Rare. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank (CRPR): (1A) Presumed extinct in California; (1B) Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; (2) Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; (3) More information is needed; (4) Limited distribution, watch list . Threat Rank: 0.1 Seriously threatened in California (more than 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of t hreat); 0.2 Fairly threatened in California (20 to 80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat); 0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) **Species list developed from CNDDB Records, IPaC species list, HCP/NCCP species accounts and CNPS Rare Plant Inventory. 114 Table 4-2. Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur within the Project Area Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Invertebrates Apodemia mormo langei Lange's metalmark butterfly FE Riverbank sand dunes; host is Eriogonum latifolium ssp. auriculatum Not Expected. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There is one CNDDB record within five miles of the project although there is no information in the record regarding habitat or observation details. Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumblebee SCE Grassland and scrub habitats with wildflower foraging habitat; occurs at relatively warm and dry sites, including the inner Coast Range of California and margins of the Mojave Desert Not expected. While suitable habitat is present and the project site is within the historical range of the species, it is not within the known contemporary range of the species (Xerces 2018). There is one presumed extant CNDDB record from a 1926 historical record mapped in Antioch. Bombus occidentalis occidentalis western bumble bee, southern subspecies - SCE - Wet/moist meadows with abundant floral resources, roadside areas, and other areas containing forage species preferred by bumble bees (USFS, 2018). Not expected. Current California populations are mostly restricted to high elevation sites in the Sierra Nevada, though there have been a couple of observations of this species on the northern California coast (Xerces Society 2018). May occur in grassland and scrub areas and forest openings. The project site is not within the known contemporary range of the species (Xerces 2018). There are two presumed extant CNDDB records from collections in the area. 115 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Callophrys mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly FE Occurs in coastal grassy mountainous areas near San Francisco Bay. Located on steep northfacing slopes above 500’ elevation that contain populations of host plant; Sedum spathulifolium. Uses a variety of nectar plants occurring in upper elevation grasslands and scrub. Not Expected. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT Elderberry shrubs over 1" diameter in riparian and upland habitats in the Central Valley up to 3000 ft elevation Not Expected. No elderberry shrubs observed. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Elaphrus viridis Delta green ground beetle FT Associated with vernal pool complexes and areas adjacent to other seasonal wetlands in the grassland land cover type. The beetle is only known to occur in areas with high clay-content soils. Not expected. Vernal pool complexes not observed during surveys. Speyeria callippe callippe callippe silverspot butterfly FE Grasslands supporting its host plant, Viola pedunculata. Uses a variety of nectar plant species found in grassland and coastal scrub communities. Ridgelines and hilltops are an important habitat component. Not expected. Grassland habitat is present however the property is outside of the known range of the species. Crustaceans Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp FE Found in vernal pools that form in depressions in grassland habitats and ditches in the Central Valley, Solano, and Sacramento counties. Not expected. Vernal pool complexes not observed during surveys. No known records within Contra Costa County or within five miles of the property. 116 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT Usually associated with vernal pools but can also be found in association with other ephemeral habitats including alkali pools, seasonal drainages, stock ponds, vernal swales, rock outcrops, and artificially created ephemeral habitats (e.g. roadside ditches and depressions in firebreaks) Not expected. Vernal pool complexes not observed during surveys however rock outcrops are present on the property but will be avoided during project impacts. There is one CNDDB occurrence 3.8 miles from the property. The extant record is from 1999 where a population was observed during a construction project. Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE Occur in ephemeral freshwater habitats, including alkaline pools, clay flats, vernal lakes, vernal pools, vernal swales, and other seasonal wetlands Not expected. Vernal pool complexes not observed during surveys. One known record in Contra Costa County and no records within five miles of the property. Fishes Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Sacramento perch SSC Native to California, usually found in warm reservoirs and ponds where summer temperature range form 18-28°C None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Hypomesus transpacificus Delta Smelt FT SE Endemic to California; occurs only in the brackish and freshwaters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Exhibits seasonal migration within the estuary, moving upstream before spawning. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. 117 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Steelhead FT Anadromous. Tributary streams to Suisun Marsh including Suisun Creek; Green Valley Creek; and an unnamed tributary to Cordelia Slough (commonly referred to as Red Top Creek). Adults need access to natal streams; eggs and fry need cool water with adequate dissolved oxygen; clean gravel; juveniles migrate out to the ocean. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There is one CNDDB record from the Delta within five miles of the project location. Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Sacramento splittail SSC Confined to the Delta; Suisun Bay and associated marshes and estuarine environments; slow moving rivers sections; dead end sloughs; requires flooded vegetation for spawning and foraging for young; None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt FC ST Pelagic estuarine fish found in the San Francisco Bay Delta None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are five CNDDB record from the Delta within five miles of the project location. Amphibians Ambystoma californiense Calif1ornia tiger salamander FT ST Ponds and vernal pools in grassland; and oak woodland. Moderate to High. Grassland with rodent burrows provide suitable upland habitat. Suitable breeding habitat present adjacent to impact locations. There are 22 CNDDB records within five miles of the property; the closest record is 0.3 miles away where 50 juveniles were observed in a mitigation pond on the landfill property in May 1995; however, this mitigation pond has failed to 118 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W hold water on a regular basis (Republic staff, personal communication). The property is mapped as HCP/NCCP modeled suitable migration and upland habitat. Rana boylii Foothill yellow- legged frog; West/Central Clade SE Streams and rivers with rocky substrates and sunny banks in forests, chaparral, and woodlands at elevations from 0’ – 6,000’. Sometimes found in isolated pools, vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded, spring-fed pools. Not expected. Streams within the impact areas are ephemeral, lack rocky substrate and cover and do not provide suitable habitat. There are no CNDDB records within a 5-mile radius of the project site. Streams within the property are mapped as HCP/NCCP modeled suitable low use habitat. Rana draytonii California red- legged frog FT SSC Requires slow moving or still water for juvenile development. Occurs in freshwater marshes; stock ponds; and riparian habitats. May aestivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods. Moderate to High. Grassland with rodent burrows, seasonal wetlands and seeps that provide suitable upland and wet refugia habitat. Suitable breeding habitat present adjacent to impact locations. The created wetlands have the closest CNDDB record; a juvenile observed in 2000. There are 13 CNDDB records within five miles of the property. The property is mapped as HCP/NCCP modeled potential migration and upland habitat and the adjacent tributary stream within the SBA is mapped as potential breeding habitat. Reptiles Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard (aka Silvery legless lizard in HCP/NCCP) SSC Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Low. Potential habitat is present within creek habitat and at sandy soils located near rock outcrops but is outside of the known range of the species. The property is not mapped as HCP/NCCP suitable habitat. 119 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake SSC Inhabits arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral. Appears to prefer microhabitats of open areas and areas with soil loose enough for easy burrowing. Low. Scrub habitat is present on slopes near the RFG processing facility and within the SBA, however, the project location is outside of the known range of the species. Emys marmorata western pond turtle SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams & irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation. Need basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5km from water for egg laying. Low. Suitable pond habitat is present within the SBA in the created wetland and livestock ponds, and suitable egg-laying habitat surrounds these features. Project impact locations are not adjacent to these areas so impacts to breeding habitat are unlikely. There are four CNDDB records within five miles of the property. The nearest record is 3 miles away to the east in a pond on the bay. Tributary streams within the Special Buffer Area are mapped as HCP/NCCP movement habitat. The created wetland and livestock ponds within the SBA are mapped as core habitat. Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake FT FT Chaparral; northern coastal sage scrub; coastal sage; and grassland communities. Low to Moderate. There is no scrub habitat suitable to support this species present within the project impact locations. However there is scrub habitat on slopes near the RFG processing facility and within the SBA, and rock outcrops are present adjacent to the project impact locations. Grassland and stream corridors located within the project impact areas could be used for dispersal. There are 30 CNDDB records within five miles of the property. The property is not mapped as HCP/NCCP core habitat or dispersal habitat. 120 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard SSC Inhabits open areas of sandy soil and low vegetation in valleys, foothills and semiarid mountains. Found in grasslands, coniferous forests, woodlands, and chaparral, with open areas and patches of loose soil. Often found in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered shrubs and along dirt roads, and frequently found near ant hills. Low to Moderate. Grasslands and sandy soils near rock outcrops adjacent to the project area provide potential habitat and project site is within known range of the species. No impacts to rock outcrops or sandy soil will occur. Thamnophis gigas giant gartersnake FT ST Associated with aquatic habitats. Often occurs in or near agricultural wetlands and other waterways such as irrigation and drainage canals; sloughs; ponds; small lakes; low gradient streams; rice fields; freshwater marshes; and adjacent uplands in the Central Valley. None. Outside the known range for the species. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. No CNDDB records within five miles of the property. Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL (Nesting). Associated with deciduous, mixed, and coniferous forest, and deciduous stands of riparian habitat in woodlands, riparian corridors, and along habitat edges, will nest in urban areas. They use mature trees with moderate to high crown-depths and canopy cover for nesting High (nesting and foraging). Suitable foraging habitat is present. Trees located off-site on the adjacent golf course and eucalyptus and other trees within the SBA may provide potential nesting habitat. No direct impacts to nesting habitat will occur. Access to the project site could have the potential to impact active nests if present in the trees. Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ST (nesting colony) Emergent wetlands; grasslands; and agricultural fields. Breeds near fresh water; preferably in emergent wetlands in cattails or tules; but also in thickets of willow; Low (nesting), high (foraging). Foraging habitat present throughout the grasslands of the project area. Potential nesting habitat is present in the created wetland within the SBA and on adjacent riparian area near the 121 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W wild rose; blackberry; or tall herbaceous species. Contra Costa Canal although no direct or indirect impacts to nesting habitat will occur as part of the project. There are no CNDDB records within five miles of the p roperty. The created wetland within the SBA provides suitable nesting habitat and is mapped as HCP/NCCP potential nesting habitat. The entire project impact area is mapped as HCP/NCCP foraging habitat. Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow SSC (nesting) Breeds and forages in extensive meadows, fallow fields, and pastures. Moderate to high (nesting and foraging). Grassland throughout and adjacent to the project impact locations provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle FP (nesting and wintering) Open to semi-open country; in prairies; tundra; open coniferous forest and barren areas; especially in hilly or mountainous regions. Typically nest on cliffs, steep escarpments, trees or in human- made structures, including windmills, observation towers, nesting platforms, and electrical transmission towers in grassland, chaparral, shrubland, forest, and other vegetated areas. Moderate to high (nesting and foraging). Grassland throughout and adjacent to the project impact locations provides suitable foraging habitat. No large trees were observed that could support nesting directly within the impact areas, however large trees on the adjacent golf course located outside of the project area and eucalyptus trees within the SBA may provide potential nesting habitat. No direct impacts to nesting habitat will occur. Access to the project site could have the potential to impact active nests if present in the trees. There is one CNDDB record within five miles of the property. The record is on the former Concord Naval Weapons Station where eagles have been seen foraging regularly during Audubon Christmas Bird Counts. The study area is mapped as HCP/NCCP suitable habitat. 122 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Asio flammeus short-eared owl SSC (nesting) Requires dense vegetation; tall grasses, brush, ditches, and wetlands are used for resting and roosting cover. Found in open, treeless areas with elevated sites for perches, and dense vegetation for roosting and nesting. Low (nesting), high (foraging) Suitable open foraging habitat is present throughout the project area and surrounding grasslands, dense brushy habitat for nesting is not present. Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC (burrow sites and some wintering sites) Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands with low-growing vegetation and on the margins of disturbed/developed habitats. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. High (nesting and foraging). Suitable foraging and nesting habitat present. Ground squirrel burrows of appropriate size for nesting observed. There are previous observations of burrowing owls on the property (Republic Services staff, personal communication). There are five CNDDB records within five miles of the property. The nearest is approximately 1.3 miles away where an active burrow was observed in 1999 near the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. The property is mapped as HCP/NCCP suitable habitat. Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk WL (Wintering). An uncommon winter resident at low elevation grasslands throughout California. They frequent grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, and the periphery of pinyon-juniper habitats searching for prey from low flights over open areas. Moderate (winter foraging). Suitable grassland habitat for foraging and wintering habitat is present throughout the project area and along the pipeline alignment. Depending upon the timing of impacts, potential to disturb wintering birds could occur. Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk ST (nesting) Nests in scattered trees or along riparian systems adjacent to agricultural fields or pastures; which are their primary foraging areas. Preferred nest trees are Low (nesting and foraging). Suitable marginal nesting and foraging habitat is present although the site is not near known agricultural fields which are their primary foraging habitat. The property is not within 123 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W valley oak; cottonwood; willow; sycamore; and walnut. HCP/NCCP modeled potential foraging or breeding habitat. Charadrius montanus mountain plover SSC (wintering) Winter visitor to California, primarily from September to mid- March. Does not breed in California. Species of special concern status is for wintering habitat only. Strongly associated with short-grass prairie habitats, or their equivalents, that are flat and nearly devoid of vegetation. Low. Grassland habitat on the property is currently grazed with patches of low grassland but property has several steep hills. Historical records from Contra Costa County are considered rare. Circus hudsonius northern harrier SSC (nesting) Sloughs; wet meadows; marshlands; swamps; prairies; plains; grasslands; and shrublands; large forest openings; open; low woody or herbaceous vegetation for nesting and hunting; nest on ground. Low (nesting), high (foraging) Suitable foraging habitat is present throughout the project area. Riparian area near the Contra Costa Canal and golf course provides potential nesting habitat although direct impacts to nests will not occur as part of the project. Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail SSC Shallow marshes, and wet meadows; in winter, drier fresh- water and brackish marshes, as well as dense, deep grass, and rice fields. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FP (nesting) Open grasslands; meadows; or marshes for foraging close to isolated; dense topped trees for nesting and perching. High (nesting and foraging). Suitable foraging habitat is present. No large trees were observed that could support nesting directly within the impact areas, however large trees located off-site on the adjacent golf course and eucalyptus and other trees within the SBA may provide potential nesting habitat. No direct impacts to nesting habitat will occur. Access to the project site 124 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W could have the potential to impact active nests if present in the trees. There is one CNDDB record within five miles of the property approximately 4.5 miles away. The observation is a nesting record from 1985. Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark WL Associated with grasslands with low, sparse vegetation (Wiens et al. 1987) and can be found from the coast and deserts near sea level to alpine habitat above treeline in the Sierra Nevada. Nests are built on the ground in depressions often next to grass tufts. High for nesting and foraging. Observed foraging during field surveys. Suitable nesting habitat and foraging habitat present throughout the project area and within the pipeline alignment. Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat SSC (nesting) Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and saltwater marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are three CNDDB records within five miles of the property. All records occur within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay. Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail ST Tidal salt marshes of the northern San Francisco Bay; primarily in San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Prefers marshes close to the water (bay or river); large; away from urban areas; and saline to brackish with a high proportion of Salicornia; Scripus maritime; Juncus; and Typha. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are eight CNDDB records within five miles of the property. All records occur within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SSC (nesting) Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees; forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats. Moderate (nesting), high (foraging). Trees in the Special Buffer Area and at the RNG Processing Facility serve as suitable nesting 125 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W habitat. Grassland and barbed wire indicative of suitable foraging habitat. Melospiza melodia mailliardi song sparrow ("Modesto" population) SSC Permanent resident, central lower basin of Central Valley, from Colusa south to Stanislaus County and east of Suisun Marshes. Nests and forages in fresh-water marshes and riparian thickets. Requires dense vegetation for nesting sites, song perches, and cover for refuge from predators. Not expected. Outside of the known range of the Modesto subspecies population. Riparian area near the Contra Costa Canal and golf course provides potential nesting habitat, and the created wetlands within the SBA provide suitable habitat although no impacts to these habitats will occur as part of the project. There is one CNDDB record approximately five miles from the property that is from museum collections with unknown accuracy and is estimated to be on the edge of the known range. Melospiza melodia maxillaris Suisun song sparrow SSC Permanent resident, tidal marshes surrounding Suisun Bay, from vicinity of confluence of Sac and SJ rivers west to Carquinez Straits. Nests and forages in tidal marshes only. Requires dense vegetation for nesting sites, song perches, and cover for refuge from predators. Not expected. Outside of known range of Suisun population and lacks tidal marsh habitat. Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail FE SE Salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There is one CNDDB record within five miles of the property. The record occurs within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay. 126 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Sternula antillarum browni California least tern FE FE FP Abandoned salt ponds and along estuarine shores in San Francisco Bay. Feeds primarily in shallow estuaries or lagoons where small fish are abundant. Nests on barren to sparsely vegetated site near water; usually on sandy or gravelly substrate. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are two CNDDB records within five miles of the property. Both records occur within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay. Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat SSC Regionally found in low elevation arid or semi-arid areas near water. Their day roost is often in a warm horizontal opening (e.g. rock cracks, attics); the night roost is often in the open, near foliage; and the hibernation roost is often in buildings, caves, or cracks in rocks. Moderate. Intact grassland with adjacent rock outcrops, trees and water sources that supports potential habitat for roosting and foraging. Potential roost sites occur in rock outcrops and trees adjacent to the project impact areas. Direct impacts to rock outcrops will be avoided. Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big- eared bat SSC Found in pine forests and arid desert scrub, almost always near hibernation caves and mines, or near roosting areas. Prefer large open areas for roosting. Moderate. Intact grassland with adjacent rock outcrops, trees and water sources that supports potential habitat for roosting and foraging. Potential roost sites occur in rock outcrops and trees adjacent to the project impact areas. Direct impacts to rock outcrops will be avoided. 127 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat SSC Typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs. Day roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas. There may be an association with intact riparian habitat (particularly willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores). Moderate. Riparian corridor near Contra Costa Canal and streams in the SBA provide potential roost habitat although direct impacts to these areas will not occur as a result of project activities. There is one CNDDB record approximately five miles away in Antioch from 1998 when bats were detected; exact location and details on habitat are unknown. Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco Dusky-footed woodrat SSC Oak and conifer woodlands; scrub communities; riparian habitats. Prefers forest habitats with moderate canopy, year-round greenery, a brushy understory, and suitable nestbuilding materials. Well-developed understory at base of a single evergreen may be suitable for a single individual. Not expected. Riparian corridor near Contra Costa Canal is present but lacks moderate canopy and appropriate forest/woodland/brushy understory. There is one CNDDB record approximately five miles from the property of a nest observed near Mitchell Canyon. Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat SSC Roosts in desert and arid grassland areas where rocky out-crops, canyons, or cliffs provide ideal roosts. Occasionally in buildings. None. Species' range does not include northern California. Observations here are considered vagrants or extralimital records. Reithrodontomys raviventris Salt-marsh harvest mouse FE FE SFP Salt and brackish marshes of San Francisco; San Pablo; and Suisun Bay. Pickleweed is primary habitat. Requires upland areas for flood escape. None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. There are ten CNDDB records within five miles of the property. All records occur within saltwater marsh habitat along Suisun Bay/Sacramento Delta. 128 Scientific Name** Common Name Status* Habitat Potential for Occurrence within Project Impact Area FE S A CE S A CD F W Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew SSC Occurs in tidal and brackish marsh communities along the north shore of San Pablo and Suisun bays. In general, salt marsh shrews prefer areas of low, dense vegetation, which provide adequate cover and nesting places along with a plentiful supply of invertebrates None. No habitat suitable to support this species is present. Taxidea taxus American badger SSC Open areas; plains and prairies; farmland and woodland edges. Constructs deep burrows for the pursuit of prey and for sleeping. High. Active burrow observed in the SBA during surveys for the proposed Project. Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE ST Grasslands and scrublands and agricultural mosaics of row crops; irrigated pastures; orchards; vineyards; and grazed annual grasslands. Moderate. Grassland habitat and burrows of suitable size observed during surveys. There are four CNDDB records within five miles of the project site. The nearest record is from 1992 of a foraging adult on East Bay Regional Park District lands. The property is mapped as HCP/NCCP core habitat. *Status: Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) Designations: (FE) Federally Endangered, (FT) Federally Threatened, (FPE) Federally Proposed for listing as Endangered, (FPT) Federally Proposed for listing as Threatened, (FPD) Federally proposed for delisting, (FC) Federal candidate species California Endangered Species Act (CESA) / Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) Designations: (SE) State Endangered, (ST) State Threatened, (SCE) Candidate Endangered, (SCT) Candidate Threatened, (SR) State Rare. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Designations:(SSC) Species of Special Concern, (FP) Fully Protected Species, (WL) Watchlist Species **Species list developed from CNDDB Records, IPaC species list, East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP species accounts and CDFW Special Animals List. ± Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC RNG Gas Processing and Pipeline Project Figure 4-3 CNDDB Plants April 2020 Pipeline Alignment Pipeline 5 mile Buffer Antioch Dunes evening-primrose Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee Bolander's water-hemlock Brewer's western flax Contra Costa goldfields Contra Costa manzanita Contra Costa wallflower Delta mudwort Delta tule pea Diablo helianthella Hall's bush-mallow Hospital Canyon larkspur Jepson's coyote-thistle Mason's lilaeopsis Mt. Diablo buckwheat Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern Mt. Diablo manzanita San Joaquin spearscale Suisun Marsh aster big tarplant caper-fruited tropidocarpum chaparral ragwort large-flowered fiddleneck showy golden madia slender silver moss soft salty bird's-beak 0 1 20.5 Miles ± Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC Gas Processing and Pipeline Project Figure 4-4 CNDDB Animals April 2020 Pipeline Alignment Pipeline 5 mile Buffer Alameda whipsnake California Ridgway's rail California black rail California least tern California red-legged frog California tiger salamander Crotch bumble bee Lange's metalmark butterfly San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat San Joaquin kit fox Suisun song sparrow burrowing owl golden eagle longfin smelt northern California legless lizard pallid bat salt-marsh harvest mouse saltmarsh common yellowthroat song sparrow ("Modesto" population) steelhead - Central Valley DPS vernal pool fairy shrimp western bumble bee western pond turtle western red bat white-tailed kite 0 1 20.5 Miles ! ! !! !! ( ( ( (( (( ( Bore under canal and drainage Tr i b o f W i l l o w La w l o r R a v i n e Tri b o f W i l l o w Tr i b o f W i l l o w 9 1 8 76 5 4 3 2 R4SBC ± 0 !Field Delineated Stream Crossings ( Evaluated Potential Stream Crossings Proposed Pipeline Workspace RNG Processing Facility Active Landfill County Mapped Creeks NWI Wetlands 2018 NWI Waters 2018 Neighboring Watershed Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project Figure 4-5: Wetland Delineation Study Area Prepared October 2020Basemap: ESRI World Topographic Map ( Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 132 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SUMMARY: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Less than significant with mitigation) A records search and literature review were conducted for the project site and a 0.5 -mile radius surrounding it in November 2018 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System. In addition, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) conducted a series of three linear surveys in December 2018, May 2019, and March 2020 for unrecorded cultural resources along the length of the proposed underground four-inch diameter pipeline. The NWIC records search showed six cultural resources recorded within 0.5 mile of the project area, four of which are historical in nature. None of the cultural resources are within the footprint of the proposed RNG processing facility or the proposed pipeline alignment. The closest historical resource is P-07-000375, a designated historical ranch complex located 0.4 mile to the northwest of the pipeline alignment. Of 35 area-specific survey reports on file with the NWIC for the 0.5 - mile search radius, eight reports address the project area, and none identified any historical resources that may be adversely affected by pipeline construction. This was confirmed by the three FCS linear surveys that came to the same conclusion. Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and other earthwork, and therefore, it is possible that buried historical resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Historical resources can include but are not limited to wood, stone, foundations, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. Damage or destruction of these historic resources during project construction would be a potentially significant impact. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the following standard DCD mitigation measures. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 133 Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources 1: The following measures shall be implemented during project construction. 1. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. 2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on -site excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Less than significant with mitigation) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5.a above, six resources have been recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site including two significant prehistoric resources: P -07- 000272, a prehistoric settlement site, and P-07-000374, an important prehistoric petroglyph site. While these resources are located outside of the proposed pipeline alignment and w ould most likely be unaffected by pipeline construction, the presence of nearby prehistoric sites increases the potential for potentially significant sub-surface features to be encountered during ground disturbance. This is especially true where the proposed pipeline alignment is located in the SBA and southern portion of the PG&E property. These areas are largely undisturbed, obscure d by foliage, contain features such as seasonal drainages that may have been utilized in antiquity, and are in closer proximity to the two prehistoric resources recorded within the search radius. Similar to historical resources, grading and other earthwork associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources and therefore, it is possible that buried archaeological resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur . Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these archaeological resources during project construction would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Cultural Resources 1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 134 c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interre d outside of formal cemeteries? (Less than significant with mitigation) No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project area, proposed site of the RNG processing facility, or the proposed pipeline alignment; however, there is a possibility that human remains could be present within the project area and accidental discovery could occur. Consequently, construction activities on the project site could result in a potentially significant impact due to disturbance of human remains. Thus, the applicant is required to implement the following standard DCD mitigation measure. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources 2: Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains an d determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2020. Cultural Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 5. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 135 6. ENERGY – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less than significant) The proposed project would use energy during project construction and project operation. Construction The proposed project consists of constructing a RNG processing facility to the northwest of the existing LFGTE plant and a new pipeline leading from the RNG processing facility to a PG&E valve lot located to the northeast of the KCL in the City of Pittsburg. The construction period for the proposed project is expected to be between 12 to 14 months. During construction, there would be energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for building construction, lighting, and other construction uses. Fossil fuels to power construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, and building construction. The types of equipment could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment. Incorporation of the applicable LP89-2020 COAs and application of the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as described in Environmental Checklist Section 3.a above would reduce energy use through limiting idling of vehicles and equipment and requiring equipment to be properly maintained. In addition, the applicant is required to implement the Department’s standard construction restrictions that include, but are not limited to, limiting all construction activities and use of large trucks and heavy equipment t o daylight, non-holiday weekday hours. With incorporation of the applicable LP89-2020 COAs, the BAAQMD Basic Construction measures, and the Department’s standard construction restrictions into the proposed project, the impact from the construction-related energy use would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 136 Operation During the operation of the project, energy would be consumed as part of the RNG processing operations. Processing operations for the project would involve energy consumption for the various equipment at the RNG processing facility, along with outdoor parking lot and security lighting. This future energy use would add to the energy use of the existing LFGTE plant. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Green Buildings Standards Code, which includes specific requirements for nonresidential construction to reduce the amount of energy required for lighting and heating, as well as to promote energy conservation. As a result, while there would be an incremental increase in energy use with the proposed project, such increase would be considered to be less than s ignificant. The proposed project would enable the applicant to more fully utilize the landfill gas generated at KCL that would otherwise be burned in the flares. Accordingly, there would be a less than substantial effect on operational energy and impacts related to operational energy use would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less than significant) The State of California has routinely adopted legislation to address climate change and clean energy production that has resulted in efforts to increase the efficiency of vehicles, buildings, and appliances and to provide energy from renewable sources. Locally, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan in December 2015. The proposed project is a renewable energy project that is authorized by various State of California legislation and is proposed in accordance with the Keller Can yon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89- 2020 COA 20.13 (Methane Recovery). The Project is also wholly consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted Climate Action Plan. Thus, the proposed project would not impede any State or local initiatives for increasing renewable energy or efficiency. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Energy - Ameresco IS-MND Section 6. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Climate Action Plan. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 137 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? SUMMARY: a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 138 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or b ased on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Less than significant) The California Geological Survey (CGS) has delineated Alquist-Priolo (A-P) zones along the known active faults in California. There are no active faults on the project site, and the nearest known active fault is the Concord fault, which passes approximately six miles southwest of the site. A bedrock fault is shown to cross the pipeline corridor. Tetra Tech completed Geotechnical Feasibility reports for the proposed RNG processing facility and the pipeline and concluded that the most recent displacement on the Kirker Pass fault occurred prior to the Holocene Epoch (i.e. more than 11,700 years before present). It is interpreted as a tear fault associated with the north-northeast dipping Clayton fault, which is approximately two miles south of the project site. The Clayton fault is a thrust fault that passes along the southwest toe of the Los Medanos. Based on the preponderance of evidence, which has included the subsurface investigation and field geologic mapping of the project engineering ge ologist, the risk of surface fault rupture on the Kirker Pass fault is rated “low.” Th us, the risk of surface fault rupture can be considered to be less -than-significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than significant with mitigation) Due to the location of the site with respect to active San Francisco Bay Region faults, and the proximity of the known active faults, strong to violent ground shaking poses a potential hazard to improvements. The risk of structural damage from earthquake ground sh aking is controlled by building and grading regulations. The California Building Code (CBC) mandates that for structures requiring building permits (including the proposed structures, r etaining walls over three feet in height and most types of accessory st ructures), the design must take into account both foundation conditions, proximity of active faults and their associated ground shaking characteristics. Design-level geotechnical reports must include CBC seismic design parameters. Those parameters are used by the structural engineer in the design of civil engineering structures. With conservative design and quality construction, ground shaking damage can be kept to a practical minimum. It should be recognized that mitigation of ground shaking damage to acceptable limits that is based solely on compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) assumes that the ground is stable. However, ground conditions within the project site are not isotropic and homogeneous. For example, the pipeline corridor traverses three deep-seated landslides. The data gathered by Tetra Tech, which includes slope stability analysis, indicates these landslides are dormant. The risk of reactivation of the entire slide mass is considered less-than-significant. However, strong ground shaking could trigger reactivation of shallow slope failures within the dormant landslide , resulting in a potentially significant impact. Thus, the applicant is required to implement the fol lowing mitigation Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 139 measures. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Geology 1: To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, implementation of the following measures shall be required: A. Avoid crossing the lower elevations of the slide, where down cutting and potential regressive slope failures adjacent to canyon bottoms. B. Cross landslides where topography is relatively gentle. C. Minimize earthwork in the landslide area by orienting the pipeline crossing so that it parallels the topographic contour. D. Implement a ground movement monitoring program that shall include at least bi - annual monitoring (i.e. before and after the rainy season), and after significant earthquake in accordance with the provisions of an “Inspection and Monitoring Program.” That program shall specify the qualifications of the inspector, identify the segments if the pipeline to be inspected, and provide an inspection form that shall identify the date of the inspection; name, title and contact information for the inspector; descriptions of the features observed; recommendations of inspector for supplemental/ special geotechnical investigations or other corrective work; and indicate the entity/ staff position that is to receive the inspection for Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG, LLC (or its successor). Copies of all inspection reports shall be kept on file by the operator of the facility and shall be made available for review by representatives of Contra Costa County (e.g. during routine mitigation monitoring by the County). E. Include an automatic shut off valve and other safety measures in the pipeline design. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than significant with mitigation) In 2019 the California Geological Survey (CGS) issued a Seismic Hazard Zone (SHZ) map of the Honker Bay Quadrangle. The provisions of the SHZ Mapping Act can be found in the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Sections 2690 -2699.6. This law is similar in many respects to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Mapping Act, which has been implemented by the County for the past 40+ years. However, SHZ maps identify areas that are considered to Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 140 be at risk of earthquake triggered landslides and liquefaction. The SHZ map identifies a small portion of the proposed RNG processing facility site is an at-risk area for liquefaction. (The only portion of the site considered to be at-risk of liquefaction is located in the axis of the existing drainage swale). Similarly, the proposed pipeline corridor bisects limited sections of drainage channels that are indicated to be at-risk of liquefaction. Where granular, relatively loose alluvial deposits are encountered during subsurface exploration, the SHZ Map ping Act requires a rigorous evaluation of liquefaction potential that follows guidelines presented in CGS Special Publication 117A. These guidelines have been adopted by the California Mining & Geology Board as representing competent professional practice. The project geotechnical engineers are required to utilize the earthquake-related parameters and technical data provided in the SHZ Report #127.Where potentially liquefiable sands are confirmed to be present, Policy 10-20 of the General Plan Safety Element requires that structures be sited, designed and constructed to minimize the damage hazard. Tetra Tech performed a screening investigation to evaluate liquefaction potential. Specifically, they logged three borings that were extended to bedrock within the site for the proposed RNG processing facility. The surficial deposits penetrated by the borings consisted chiefly of very stiff and hard clays and silts, along with some interbedded medium -dense to dense clayey sands and silty sands that were interpreted as colluvial deposits that were too cohesive and/or too dense to liquefy, and these deposits were substantially above the elevation of water table. For completeness, Tetra Tech included analysis of the medium dense sand lens that was penetrated between depths of 15 to 20 f eet below the ground surface (boring B- 102). Using field and laboratory test data, and assuming a worst case for the elevation of the water table (i.e. six feet below the ground surface), the liquefaction potential of the sand body was analyzed using a methodology compliant with Special Publication 117A, and confirmed that the sand layer was not susceptible to liquefaction. For the pipeline component of the project, Tetra Tech logged 20 borings and 21 test pits. The data gathered indicate that surficial deposits along the pipeline corridor tend to be thin, clayey and cohesive. No clean, loose to medium dense sands were encountered th at were potentially liquefiable. Sieve testing indicated that the clay fraction ranged from 99 percent (by weight) to 50 percent (by weight). The lowest clay content sample was just over 30 percent clay, which is still too cohesive to be a candidate for li quefaction potential. Tetra Tech indicates that perhaps in the lower portion of the drainage chan nels (far outside of the pipeline project area) may contain potential liquefiable fluvial deposits, but the clayey alluvial fan and soil creep deposits in the in area of the pipeline are fine-grained, poorly sorted and too cohesive to be candidates for liquefaction. Review of the Tetra Tech Geotechnical Feasibility reports by the County Peer Revie w Geologist indicates the sand body analyzed from the proposed RNG processing facility site is Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 141 not sufficiently documented to allow for peer review of the analysis. In the Tetra Tech report, the peer reviewer is provided with an explanation of the methodology used in the analysis, some of the data inputs into the analysis, and the results of the analysis. Nevertheless, some of data inputs and intervening steps leading to the conclusions of Tetra Tech are not provided. The Peer Review Geologist considers the assessment of liquefaction to be adequate for a preliminary evaluation of liquefaction, but that preliminary analysis needs to be confirmed/ modified prior to issuance of the first construction permit for the proposed RNG processing facility. Accordingly, there is a potentially significant impact due to seismic related ground failure at the proposed RNG processing facility site. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the following mitigation measures. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact from seismic related ground failure to a less than significant level. With respect to the pipeline corridor, the Peer Review Geologist concurs with the finding of Tetra Tech that the screening investigation of liquefaction potential along the pipeline corridor confirms the colluvial deposits are too cohesive to present a hazard of liquefaction. No further evaluation of liquefaction potential is warranted for the pipeline component of the project. Mitigation Measures Geology 2: To mitigate the confirm/ modify the preliminary assessm ent of liquefaction for the RNG processing facility, the following measures shall be implemented: A. The project geotechnical engineer shall present an updated evaluation of liquefaction potential of the sand body penetrated by boring B-102 from 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface, based on the methodology and parameters required by the CGS for projects located in the Seismic Hazard Zone (SHZ). The seismic parameters peak used in the analysis shall match those provided by SHZ Report 127; the analysis sha ll reference the methodology selected by the project geotechnical engineer; provide justification the parameters that were inputs into the computer model run(s); and shall clearly demonstrate the analysis is consistent with the standards required for projects in the SHZ. B. The liquefaction analysis presented in response to item 2.A above shall be submitted for review at least 30 days prior to submitting an application for a grading or building permit for the RNG processing facility. That report shall also provide final recommendations for site grading, drainage and foundation design, including recommendations for reinforced earth, retaining walls, and foundations of proposed structures. It shall also present plan review comments of the project geotechnical Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 142 engineers, and geologists, outline the recommended observation and testing services during construction. C. The report required by items 2.A and 2.B above shall be subject to review by the County Peer Review Geologist, and review/ approval by the CDD. iv) Landslides? (Less than significant with mitigation) The SHZ map of the Honker Bay Quadrangle identifies areas that are considered to be at-risk of earthquake triggered landslides by the CGS on the north -facing flank of the Los Medanos Hills. No landslide hazard areas are indicated on the SHZ map that would affect construction of the proposed RNG processing facility. The Tetra Tech investigation confirms that landslides do not present a hazard to the RNG processing facility site. However, three landslide areas are delineated that extend into the pipeline corridor. The original geologic map prepared by Tetra Tech for the pipeline corridor delineate three landslides that are to be traversed by the pipeline. They are designated landslides Qls#2, Qls#3 and Qls#4 on Plate 1a of the Geotechnical Feasibility report for the pipeline. Each landslide was explored by the project engineering geologist using large diameter boreholes, which allowed the geologist to enter the borehole and map features on the walls. The goal of the engineering geologic investigation was to select an alignment for the pipeline that would avoid landslides wherever possible. Where routing the pipeline through a slide area was unavoidable, the approach was to (i) avoid areas of Holocene age landslides and slumps, (ii) crossing the ancient/ dormant slide where topography was relatively flat, (iii) gather s ufficient subsurface and laboratory data to characterize the depth of landslides and engineering properties of slide debris, (iv) perform preliminary evaluation of slope stability, and (v) identify mitigation measures to address any significant impacts that were confirmed to be pr esent. As a result of th is investigation the original pipeline alignment was significantly modified. The slope stability analysis evaluated the global stability of the three landslides under static conditions using the computer program Slope/W. To evaluate the performance of the landslides under earthquake ground seismic shaking, Tetra Tech utilized a displacement analysis model. To assess satisfactory performance, the criteria employed by Tetra Tech were as follows: (i) static safety factor of at least 1.3, and (ii) a seismically induced permanent displacement of the slope that is no greater than 12 inches. Tetra Tech report found that the static safety factors for the three landslides (Qls #2, Qls #3 and Qls #4) all exceeded the stability threshold of 1.3; the displacement analysis determined that Qls #3 and Qls #4 exceeded the threshold value of 12 inches. The County Peer Review Geologist indicated that: (i) the pipeline does not fall under the authority of the SHZ Mapping Act be cause it is not a structure for human occupancy; (ii) the static slope stability analysis was based on unusually complete subsurface and laboratory data, and geologic cross -sections of the slides that were Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 143 the basis of the analyses, and (iii) the displacement analysis does not imply that the entire landslide mass would be mobilized. However, there is a potential for portions of the ancient landslide to be reactivated, which could result in a potentially significant impact on the pipeline within the slide area. Thus, the applicant is required to implement the mitigation measures of Geology 1 and the following Geology 3 mitigation measures. Implementation of the Geology 1 and Geology 3 mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Geology 3: To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, the Geology 1 mitigation measures shall be implemented. In addition, the following measures are required: A. The project engineering geologist shall view where landslide deposits are in contact with colluvium of bedrock. This shall occur prior to placement of any bedding/ backfill in the following segments of the trench to determine if weak s oil conditions are encountered that would warrant special engineering at such interfaces (e.g. over- excavation of any soft material at the slide/ bedrock contact, and replacement with reinforced earth or other special engineering). The findings of the project engineering geologist shall be documented in the final grading report. The project engineering geologist shall view and document exposed conditions in the pipeline trench where it crosses the boundary of landslides Qls #2, Qls #3 and Qls #4. B. The project engineering geologist shall view exposed conditions in the i mmediate area of the trench pipeline crossing of the Kirker Pass fault. The fault is a geologic contact, so there is potential for contrasting engineering properties of the rock units on opposite sides of the fault, along with the engineering properties of the fault zone. The fault zone area is a potentially weak, marginally stable area that can be expected to include highly fractured rock, shear planes, possible gouge zone, and possible seepage zone. These are adverse conditions could influence local slope stability. The final grading report shall include mapping of the fault zone and provide an explanation of any special recommendations/ special engineering incorporated into the design. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than significant with mitigation) The soil series in the project area is the Altamont clay/ Altamont -Fontana Complex. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County indicates that where the soils are bare, they are subject to medium Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 144 to rapid runoff and that hazard of erosion is moderate to high. With respect to short-term erosion, a routine provision for grading permits in Contra Costa County is a requirement for submittal of an Erosion Control Plan (ERP). This plan is required to be submitted by the applicant prior to issuance of a grading permit. The ERP is subject to technical review by the Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division (BID). Normally refinements to the plan are required as the winter rainy season approaches. This occurs during late summer, when it is known what the status of the project would be on October 1st. Additional detail is provided to the ERP at that time, including such items as provisions for (i) storage of extra erosion control materials on site and (ii) monitoring of the performance of disturbed areas during/ immediately following significant rain storms. If erosion control facilities are damaged or failing to perform as intended, the erosion control measures being implemented on the site are refined to correct the deficiency. Implementation of the ERP would reduce the impact of short-term erosion control to a less than significant level. In addition to the routine erosion control measures identified above that are required by the BID), there are two locations along the proposed pipeline corridor identified by Tetra Tech that require special care to control erosion, soil creep, and scour protection at incised drainage swale crossings). Thus, there is a potential for substantial soil erosion, which could result in a potentially significant impact at the two identified locations along the pipeline corridor . area. Thus, the applicant is required to implement the following mitigation measures. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Geology 4: To mitigate the potential for future headward erosion, soil creep, and shallow sloughing to undermine the pipeline, implementation of scour protection measures shall be implemented where the pipeline crosses seasonal water courses. A. Where feasible, the pipeline shall be buried below the potential scour depth. B. Scour assessment shall be performed by the project geotechnical engineer at locations specified in the project geotechnical engineer’s reports. Typical scour protection measures shall be considered for use, including structural and/ or biotechnical erosion control. The selection of the scour protection measures shall be based upon completion of the scour assessment and shall consider environmental constraints. C. During construction, the scour assessment shall be determined by the project geotechnical engineer and may include a plan view, typical section(s), and specifications for the proposed stabilization/ erosion control measures. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 145 c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than significant with mitigation) Scientific and historical data indicate liquefaction is a hazard where relatively clean, loose, granular deposits are present. These conditions were not confirmed to be present within the pipeline corridor, but one boring in the area of the proposed RNG processing facility encountered a medium-dense sand that was considered to be a possible candidate for liquefaction, assuming that the sand was saturated. The geotechnical/ geologic investigation of the pipeline corridor encountered bedrock at/ near the ground surface. Where surficial deposits were present on the site, they tended to be relatively thin and in the upper reaches of drainage swales. The de posits were chiefly fine-grained, poorly sorted, and most were interpreted as older (Pleistocene) colluvium. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the risk of liquefaction and associated lateral spreading failures are less -than-significant. Another hazard evaluated by Tetra Tech was dynamic settlement. Under conditions of strong earthquake shaking, relatively loose, dry sands can consolidate, triggering subsidence/ differential settlement. The subsurface data gathered by Tetra Tech did not indicate the presence on any loose, dry sands within the proposed RNG processing facility site, and none were encountered during the investigation of the pipeline corridor. Consequently, the risk of dynamic settlement is considered to be less -than-significant. Landslides, soil creep and erosion are potential hazards whenever improvements are constructed within steep hillside areas. The engineering geologic investigation indicates no landslide hazards in the area of the RNG processing facility, but the original geologic map of the site prepared by Tetra Tech confirmed the presence of four deep -seated landslides that are dormant at present, along with more than 10 shallow- to moderated-depth landslides on the slopes on the project site. Some of these smaller landslides are clearly of Holocene age, and fence posts and leaning trees are evidence of pervasive soil creep. Consequently, there is a potential for liquefaction at the proposed RNG processing facility site and for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline corridor area, which could result in potentially significant impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures Geology 1, Geology 2, Geology 3, and Geology 4 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than significant with mitigation) The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County indicates the soil series identif ied within the project areas are rated highly expansive and highly corrosive. Laboratory testing performed by Tetra Tech indicates the soils are moderately to highly expansive, and over the long-term the soils are considered to be corrosive. Final design recommendations to mitigate the potential hazard posed by these adverse soil conditions should be provided in a pre-construction geotechnical report. For Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 146 the proposed RNG processing facility, the applicant may elect to utilize non-expansive soil on building pads and as the design of the project proceeds more detail w ould be required on the future loads to be imposed by the processing facility structures. Regarding corrosive soils, excessive sulfate in the soil (or groundwater) has potential to result in a re action between cement in concrete and the soil. The regulatory framework includes standards for evaluation of sulfate levels, and how they relate to cement reactivity with soils and/or groundwater. Similarly, iron/steel in contact with the ground is potentially subject to corrosion, depending on chloride ion concentrations. Preliminary testing has been performed for the proposed RNG processing facility and pipeline project, but that tes ting was not intended to be the basis for final design recommendations. Based on testing and the experience of Tetra Tech, the native soils are anticipated to have a very severe corrosion potential to buried ferrous metals. Thus, the expansive and corrosive soils on the project site could result in potentially significant impa cts on the proposed RNG processing facility and the pipeline. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the following mitigation measures. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of expansive and corrosive soils to l ess than significant levels. Mitigation Measures Geology 5: To mitigate the potential impact of expansive and corrosive soils, implementation of the following measures shal l be required: A. For the RNG processing facility, additional soil expansion and corrosion hazard testing shall be required for the on-site and any import earth materials by the project geotechnical engineer. The findings of the testing shall be documented in the final grading report, which shall provide specific standards and criteria for the geotechnical aspects of the RNG processing facility. B. The final grading report required by Geology 5.A shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist, and review and approval by the CDD. C. For the pipeline, a California licensed corrosion engineer shall be retained by the applicant to identify suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits and fittings. D. During pipeline construction, the corrosion potential of the on -site soils shall be verified for each encountered soil type E. Any import fill materials shall be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential. Al l import must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to transporting to the project site. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 147 F. The corrosion engineer shall review available information on the corrosion hazard and may require additional testing. The corrosion engineer shall d ocument the specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations, and any monitoring recommendations, in a wet signed and stamped letter-report. That report shall be submitted to the CDD prior to placing any pipe. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Less than significant) The proposed RNG processing facility is immediately northwest of the existing LFGTE plant. A new employee restroom would be provided for the two new employees expected to operate and monitor the RNG processing facility. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 19.c, a septic system with a leach field was constructed for the existing LFGTE plant in 2009 under Contra Costa Environmental Health Permit 07-000-774565, as required by LP89-2020 COA 30.20 (On-site Septic System). The new restroom would tie into this existing septic system. Similarly, personnel who would monitor the underground pipeline would be able to use existing wastewater facilities on the KCL site and/or at the RNG processing facility. By utilizing existing wastewater facilities, use of new septic tanks would not be required, and therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less than significant) The proposed RNG processing facility site is located in an area of industrial facilities bounded to the southeast by the existing LFGTE plant and on the west and south by the paved landfill haul road used by trucks hauling debris to the landfill disposal area. When those adjacent facilities were constructed in the late 1980s - early 1990s, the industrial facilities area was graded. The earthwork performed at that time resulted in topographic highs being lowered in elevation, and engineered fill placed as needed to create level padded lands , and therefore, nearly 100 percent of this area was previously disturbed. As a result, the potential to disturb unique paleontological or geological features at this location is negligible. With respect to the pipeline corridor, the westernmost 0.4 mi long segment is within the KCL Primary Project Area. East of the Primary Project Area, a proposed 2.0-mile-long pipeline segment would traverse the SBA. The SBA is an undeveloped open space hillside area used for cattle grazing. There are dirt ranch roads that provide access for emergency/firefighting equipment, and monitoring of landfill debris by KCL staff. The pipeline follows the alignment of rural roads. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 148 Elsewhere in the SBA, the pipeline alignment is guided by such factors as landslides/slope stability and topography. The design of the pipeline installation requires excavation of a trench that ranges from four to 10 feet in depth. Due to the shallow depth of the pipeline trench, any rock exposed in the walls or floor of the trench can be anticipated to be weathered. Typically, the weathering process leaches the calcareous shells of the foraminifera (protozoans with calcareous tests), with the calcareous material in solution and moving downward/ down gradient. Ultimately, with evaporation, the calcareous material would form of calcareous veining or in-filling voids. Thus, the potential for discovery of scientifically significant fossils in shallo w trenches that penetrate only soil and weathered rock is less-than-significant. Unique geologic features are not ordinary rock outcrops. Examples of unique features known to occur in sedimentary rock include natural arches, spires, and balanced rocks. There are no features of this type on the site. In volcanic terrain, natural curiosities or wonders might include caldera, lava tubes, beautifully colored volcanic tuff, columnar jointed basalt, etc. There are many areas located in the SBA, that present medium- and long-range views of natural terrain features (e.g. ridge crests with natural vegetation, and topography modified by landslides, etc.). Construction of the pipeline through the SBA would not damage existing views. The adjoining PG&E portion of the pipeline is at lower elevations than the SBA. Much of this segment of the pipeline crosses a disturbed area, characterized by major overhead power lines, underground utilities, and the Contra Costa C anal. This segment of the pipeline is underlain by geologically recent alluvial deposits, artificial fill, along with non -marine bedrock of Latest Pliocene age. Consequently, the potential for unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features along the pipeline corridor would be less-than-significant. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Darwin Myers Associates, 2020. Geologic Peer Review /Geotechnical Reports & CEQA Assessment, LP18-2022/APN 094-360-019, etc. & 094-080-012, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA Project # 3006.20. • Tetra Tech BAS, 2019. Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Ameresco Gas Processing Plant, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18 -136E. • Tetra Tech BAS, 2020. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Renewable Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline, Ameresco Keller Canyon, Pittsburg, California, Tetra Tech Job #BAS 18-136E. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 149 • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Safety Element. • California Building Code, 2019. • Contra Costa County Grading Ordinance. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 150 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? SUMMARY: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than significant) Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change. Greenhouse gases include gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and various fluorocarbons commonly found in aerosol sprays. Typically, a single project in the County would not generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to substantially change the global average temperature; however, the accumulation of GHG emissions from all projects both within the County and outside the County has contributed and will contribute to global climate change. In an effort to reduce California’s contribution to climate change, the State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that California cap its GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. Locally, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2015. The CAP identifies how the County would achieve the AB 32 GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below baseline levels by the year 2020. The CAP applies to all unincorporated areas of the County, including Bay Point, the unincorporated community located closest to the proposed project. The CAP lays the groundwork for achieving long-term State GHG reduction goals for 2035. The County’s CAP includes GHG reduction targets, strategies, and measures to reach the community-wide GHG reduction goal of 15 percent below baseline levels by 2020. In total existing actions, State programs, and GHG reduction measures in the CAP would reduce GHG emissions in the unincorporated County area by 86,300 MT CO2e in 2020 as shown in Table 8-1. GHG Emissions from Project Operation The proposed Ameresco RNGPFP represents a stationary source of potential GHGs. Stationary sources are non-moving, fixed-site producers of pollution such as power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, manufacturing facilities, and other industrial facilities. In 2013, the unincorpo rated Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 151 areas of Contra Costa County had 20 stationary source facilities that were req uired to report emissions to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The CARB is the State agency designated with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs in order to reduce their emissions. Emissions from stationary source facilities and from the energy used by those facilities and other major industrial sites accounted for 93 percent of all emissions within the unincorporated County area in the baseline year of 2005 and 92 percent in 2013. Table 8.1. GHG Reduction Summary by Topic (MT CO2e) Topic 2020 2035 Energy Efficiency 7,510 14,000 Renewable Energy 9,090 15,470 Land Use and Transportation 12,630 23,830 Solid Waste 55,280 79,430 Water 1,210 940 Governmental Operations 580 450 Total 86,300 133,670 Source: Contra Costa County Final Climate Action Plan, December 2015, Table 4.2, page 74 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain Thresholds of Significance for project level operational-related GHG emissions as follows: • For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr.) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr. (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities; and • For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 (MT/yr.) of CO2e. Stationary- source projects include land uses that would accommodat e processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. The applicable BAAQMD emission threshold for the operation of the proposed RNGPFP is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr.) of CO2e. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed this level, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. The Ameresco RNGPFP would process and consume GHGs that otherwise would be released to the atmosphere under current conditions. Thus, the project’s utilization of LFG that is already Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 152 being produced at KCL would have a beneficial impact on potential GHG emissions. (LFG at KCL is projected to increase over time as more waste is landfilled.) The RNG processing facility would process the LFG produced at KCL into commercial quality RNG that would be supplied to the local natural gas network operated by PG&E via underground pipeline, which would eliminate any need for transporting the gas via conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles. The RNG produced from the LFG is expected to be sold in the market for use by local trucks; more than half of all natural gas dispensed in California for transportation utilizes RNG to power trucks and buses. The international reporting standard for carbon dioxide emissions is in metric tons. There are approximately 2,204 pounds per metric ton. Reducing 10 metric tons of CO2e is equivalent to: • Saving 1,125 gallons of gasoline. • Taking 2.1 passenger vehicles off the road. • 1.4 homes’ worth of electricity for one year. Table 8-2 provides a comparison of GHGs generated by the baseline and proposed project conditions. Table 8-2 shows that in the first year of operation, the Ameresco RNGPFP is estimated to reduce annual GHG emissions of CO2e by approximately 50,257 metric tons, and CO2 by approximately 50,044 metric tons per year, or approximately 39 percent compared to the baseline condition. Emissions of methane and nitrous oxides would be reduced by approximately 82 percent and 81 percent, respectively. The project’s estimated GHG emissions reduction of 50,257 MTCO2e achieves approximately 91 percent of the CAP’s Solid Waste reduction target for 2020, and approximately 70 percent of the 2035 target. The proposed RNGPFP would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions , and the BAAQMD emission threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr.) of CO2e is not exceeded. The proposed project by design, implements local and regional policies for the reduction of GHGs, and therefore, represents a major improvement over current baseline conditions. As a result, there would be a beneficial project impact. Construction-Related GHG Emissions The proposed RNGPFP has the potential to emit construction-related GHGs. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines currently do not include any significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions; however, the Guidelines require a quantification of GHG emissions and a determination of whether the Project is con sistent with meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, including reducing total projected 2020 GHG emissions to 1990 levels, which would be a reduction of approximately 30 percent. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 153 Table 8-2. Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Estimated Emissions GHG CO2e CH4 N2O CO2 (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) A-1 Flare 15.862 0.49 0.10 15,820 69,832 2.13 0.42 69,649 A-2 Flare 16,809 0.52 0.10 16,764 73,447 2.26 0.44 73,329 Baseline Total 1 32,671 1.01 0.20 32,584 143,279 4.39 0.86 142,978 Thermal Oxidizer 16,464 0.13 0.03 16,453 72,111 0.56 0.11 72,065 Enclosed Flare 2,3 17,355 0.26 0.05 17,334 15,785 0.24 0.05 15,765 Proposed Totals 4 33,819 0.39 0.08 33,787 87,896 0.80 0.16 87,830 Net Change (TPY) Net Change (MTPY) -55,383 -50,257 -3.59 -3.26 -0.70 -0.64 -55,148 -50,044 Percent Reduction (TPY) 39% 82% 81% 39% Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020 CO2 – Carbon Dioxide; CH4 – Methane; N2O – Nitrous Oxide; CO2e = Carbon Dioxide equivalent lb/hr – pounds per hour; TPY – tons per year; MTPY – metric tons per year Global Warming Potential (GWP)/CO2e are as follows: CH4 = 25, CO2 = 1, N2O = 310 1 Baseline total flow based on 4,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of landfill gas (LFG) per size of proposed project of 4,700 scfm. Operations over 8,760 hours in a calendar year. 2 The enclosed flare would operate on continuous pilot gas (8,760 hours a calendar year) and operate approximately 20 percent of the year on waste gas (1,752 hours a calendar year). 3 Estimated emissions for enclosed flare based on estimates of high oxygen waste gas (1,752 hours a calendar year) and pilot gas (8,760 hours a calendar year). 4 Proposed total flow based on 4,700 scfm of LFG for 8,760 hours in a calendar year for the thermal oxid izer. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 154 Construction equipment and construction period for the Ameresco RNGPFP were assumed for each phase of construction as follows: • Mass grading and fill of the proposed RNG processing facility site (45 days); • Pipeline construction (120 days); and • RNG processing facility construction (76 days). Given these construction periods, the overall construction period is assumed to be eight to 12 months, with potentially all phases under construction concurrently. Estimates of CO2e emissions for the proposed project were calculated in pounds per day using the CalEEMod model in accordance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The pounds per day estimates were then converted to total pounds emitted during the entire construction period, and the equivalent tons and metric tons. A summary of construction-related GHG emissions by construction phase is presented in Table 8-3. Table 8-3 shows that a total of up to 629 MT of CO2e would be emitted over the entire eight to 12 month construction period. GHG emissions for on-site construction and off-site construction (traffic related to hauling, vendors, and workers) for each phase are estimated as follows: • Phase 1: Mass Grading: 120.63 MT CO2e; • Phase 2: Pipeline Construction: 227.823 MT CO2e; and • Phase 3: RNG Processing Facility Construction: 281.094 MT CO2e. As noted previously, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not currently include thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. When compared to the BAAQMD threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e for stationary-source projects, the Project’s estimated 629 MT of CO2e is less than 6.5 percent of the stationary source threshold. The proposed project’s consistency with meeting AB32 goals and County CAP goals and strategies for GHG reduction were described previously related to the operational-level impacts. Based on these considerations, the potential impact of construction-related GHG emissions from the proposed project would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than significant) At a regional scale, the BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to bring the air basin into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards and achieve greenhouse gas reduction Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 155 targets for 2030 and 2050. The Clean Air Plan included a number of pollutant reduction strategies for the San Francisco Bay air basin. Table 8-3. Summary of Construction-Related GHG Emissions (CO2e) POUNDS/DAY CO2e POUNDS CO2e EMITTED ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION TONS CO2e METRIC TONS CO2e ALL PHASES 18,226.292 1,386,713.383 693.357 629.180 Phase 1 – Grading Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted 45 days Construction Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e On-Site 2,460.427 110,719.215 55.360 50.236 Off-Site 3,429.777 154,339.952 77.170 70.027 Total 5,890.204 265,059.167 132.530 120.263 Phase 2 - Pipeline Construction Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted 120 days Construction Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e On-Site 3,933.550 472,026.000 236.013 214.168 Off-Site 250.802 30,096.288 15.048 13.655 Total 4,184.352 502,122.288 251.061 227.823 Phase 3 - Plant Construction Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted 76 Days Construction Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e 2021 (On-Site & Off-Site) 4,098.665 311,498.517 155.749 141.333 2022 (On-Site & Off-Site) 4,053.071 308,033.411 154.017 139.761 Total 8,151.736 619,531.928 309.766 281.094 Source: Tetra Tech, CalEEMOD Results, May 25, 2020 As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 8.a above, Contra Costa County has an adopted Climate Action Plan that includes a number of GHG emission reduction strategies designed to implement AB32. As a renewable energy source, the proposed RNGPFP is consistent with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and the CAP by implementing the following CAP goals: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 156 • Goal 2: Renewable Energy, Increase the Production of Renewable Energy from Small- Scale and Commercial-Scale Renewable Energy Installations o Measure RE 1: Alternative Energy Installations o Measure RE 2: Alternative Energy Facilities • Goal 3: Land Use and Transportation o Measure LUT 2: Alternative-Fuel Infrastructure, Expand the Use of Alternative Fuels in Vehicle Travel • Goal 4: Solid Waste, Reduce Waste Disposal o Measure W 2: Landfill Management, Reduce Fugitive Methane Emissions and Other GHG Emissions from Solid Waste Landfills. The proposed RNGPFP would facilitate County-wide GHG emission reduction goals by substantially reducing the emissions of GHG. The proposed project would be in conformance with applicable County and State GHG emission reduction strategies. Sources of Information • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Greenhouse Gases - Ameresco IS-MND Section 8. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Air Quality Guidelines; May 2017. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Climate Action Plan. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 157 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? SUMMARY: a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 158 Hazardous material is defined generally in the County Code Chapter 84 -63, Article 84-63.422 as “any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment, and includes any material that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations at CFR Title 49, Section 172.01 (Hazardous Materials Table) as amended from time to time. Regulatory Setting The generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste is governed by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Under RCRA, individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs in li eu of RCRA as long as the state program is at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements. In California, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous material waste. Hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for the following: • Identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; • Establish the management of hazardous waste; • Establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, a nd transportation; and • Identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed o f in landfills. These regulations also require hazardous materials users to prepare written plans, such as Hazardous Materials Business Plans, that describe hazardous materials inv entory information, storage and secondary containment facilities, emergenc y response and evacuation procedures, and employee hazardous materials training program. A number of agencies participate in enforcing hazardous materials management requirements, including DTSC, the RWQCB, and the Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Program (CCHSHMP). The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads. Within California, the State agencies with pr imary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, federal and State agencies determine driver-training requirements, load-labeling procedures, and container specifications. Although special requirements apply to transporting hazardous materials, requirements for transporting hazardous waste are more stringent, and hazardous waste haulers must be licensed to transport hazardous waste on public roads. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 159 The CCHSHMP provides comprehensive environmental regulatory compliance inspection services, performs plan reviews and inspections associated with the construction, upgrading, and closure of hazardous materials storage facilities and equipment. Under the authority granted by the State, the CCHSHMP administers the following: • Aboveground Petroleum Storage; • California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP); • Enforcement; • Green Business Program; • Hazardous Materials Business Plans; • Hazardous Waste Generator Program; • Hazardous Waste Tiered Permitting; • Incident Response; • Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO); • Storm Water; and • Underground Storage Tanks. Since 2009, Ameresco has operated a LFGTE power plant that processes the LFG by filtration and drying to create fuel used to fire internal combustion generators to produce electricity. The proposed Ameresco RNGPFP would produce RNG and is subject to County Code and implementation requirements of various programs administered by the Contra Costa Health Services Department that pertain to the definition, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and potential release or threatened of hazardous materials. County regulations, standards, and guidelines are prescribed by: • • Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Code, Chapter 450-8 Risk Management; • Contra Costa County Code, Chapter 84 -63 Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials; • Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Area Plan, May 2016; and • Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Mate rials Program. Potential Hazards The potential for significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is relat ed to the facility equipment, safety Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 160 design features, and the nature of potentially hazardous materials used in the facility. Potentially hazardous materials associated with the RNG processing facility include following: • Lubricating Oil. Rotating RNG processing machinery require oil for proper lubrication. The system includes oil-filled equipment and on-site storage of replacement oil in 55 -gallon drums. Total volume of lubricating oil stored on site would not exceed 275 gallons. • Waste oil. A double-wall waste oil tank would be provided to handle oil change-outs and other maintenance activities associated with oil lubricated equipment. The waste oil tank would be approximately 1,000 gallons in capacity. The tank would be periodically pumped out by an approved waste hauler when it is full. • Condensate. Untreated LFG would be cooled to condense water vapor from the LFG for removal from the gas stream. The removed condensate would be collected in a small holding tank (less than 500 gallons) and then pumped back to KCL for disposal. • Propylene Glycol. Lubrication oil coolers would require chilled water in the cooling loop. The chilled water would contain a small percentage (less than 50 percent) of propylene glycol as a freeze and corrosion inhibitor. The system would include propylene glycol filled equipment and on-site storage of replacement glycol and used glycol. Total volume would not exceed 275 gallons. The proposed underground four-inch diameter pipeline for conveying the RNG to PG&E would be constructed on existing private landfill property and on contiguous existing PG&E property that is currently approved for, and being utilized by, existing gas and electrical transmission lines. The proposed pipeline has a nominal diameter of four inches and would be approximately 3.4 miles in length. Notably, public access onto the landfill property is strictly controlled and public access to the PG&E property is prohibited. Regulations for gas transmission pipelines establish pipe strength requirements based on population density near the pipeline. Locations along gas pipelines are divided into classes from 1 (rural) to 4 (densely populated) and are based upon the number of buildings or dwellings for human occupancy. Allowable pipe stresses, as a percentage of speci fied minimum yield strength (SMYS), decrease as class location increases from Class 1 to Class 4 locations. The proposed pipeline is designed to meet the most stringent class requirement (Class 4) even though the pipeline location allows higher pipe stress es. By designing the pipeline to meet Class 4 standards with a resulting lower allowed pipe stress, the pipeline provides the greatest level of safety for the nearby community. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 161 Consistency Measures By design, the proposed RNGPFP would be consistent with local plans and policies related to hazardous materials and fire protection. Consistency measures that Ameresco would incorporate into the design, construction, and operation of the RNGPFP include the following. These measures are designed to minimize the potential for significant impacts associated with the proposed project. General 1 The applicant shall coordinate with the Contra Costa Health Services Department on compliance with applicable regulations and/or programs pertaini ng to identification, use, disposal of hazardous materials, emergency response, and notification. These include regulations and programs prescribed by County Code Chapter 450-8 Risk Management; County Code Chapter 84-63 Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Material; the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Area Plan (May 2016); and documents approved by the Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Program. RNG Processing Facility 2 In accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.10 (Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release) pertaining to the existing LFGTE plant, the operator shall notify the DCD immediately of any RNG processing facility upset that result with accidental leakage or release of processed gas to the atmosphere. A written report of the cause of any plant upset and the corrective measures taken by the facility operator, shall be provided to the DCD within 72 hours after resolving an emergency. 3 In accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.6 (Equipment and System Monitoring), the plant process shall be automatically controlled by a plant-wide programmable logic controller (PLC) control system to operate, monitor, and maintain the RNG process under normal conditions. The control logic includes alarms and shutdowns to safely shut down th e process if process conditions are outside the design basis. Any potential waste gas process streams shall be combusted in the plant thermal oxidizer and/or enclosed flare. 4 A new automated notification system shall be installed for monitoring the proposed RNGPFP. The system shall notify the operator of an abnormal condition during both attended and non-attended operation and shall provide visual and audible warnings to assist operator response. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 162 5 On loss of power or instrument air or other plant upset, the following safety and design measures shall be implemented: • Fail-Safe mode of operation shall shut down the processing facility; • Emergency stop-push buttons shall be strategically located at the plant entrance/exit to allow shutdown of the facility; • Hazardous gas detectors shall be strategically located in the process area to detect gas leaks from the facility; and • Seismic sensors shall be installed and in the event of a large earthquake the RNG processing equipment shall be shut down and pipeline valves shall be closed. 6 A fire detection system shall be provided in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.5 (System Safety) and shall include manual pull stations, smoke detectors and rate of rise detectors in electric/control room, methane detectors, and alarm strobes/horns. 7 In the event of planned maintenance, process upset or other event, the RNG processing facility shall be either manually or automatically shut down and LFG shall be redirected to the existing landfill flares as necessary . 8 The existing Emergency Response Plan for the power plant shall be updated in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.9 (Emergency Response) to include the proposed RNG processing facility equipment, potential hazardous materials, and appropriate response procedures . 9 The requirements of the Keller Canyon Landfill Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be implemented in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.11 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) for water resources protection in the event of a spill of coolant, lubricant, or other products or by-products of the RNG processing facility. 10 The potential hazards previously identified in the existing LFGTE plant are similar to those anticipated in the proposed RNG processing facility. The existing LFGTE plant includes a hazardous management business plan prepared in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.10 (Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release). The plan shall be updated to address new aspects of the RNG processing facility equipment and operation. The curre nt plan addresses, business activities, safe handling practices, hazardous mater ial inventory, emergency response and employee training plans . Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 163 RNG Pipeline 11 The pipeline shall be designed to meet the most stringent design, pipeline class, and safety standards of Class 4 requirements in accordance with 49 CFR. 12 Emergency shut-off valves, pressure monitoring devices and other control equipment shall be incorporated into the design of the pipeline. The system shall include devices required by 49 CFR 192 and as deemed appropriate by the Applicant. These devices shall be installed on the pipeline at locations and distance intervals specified in federal regulations. 13 The pipeline system shall be designed to handle a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 680 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Pressure and flow shall be monitored and any change outside of normal operating parameters shall shut off the pipeline and when necessary shut down the RNG processing facility. 14 The location of the pipeline throughout its route shall be marked by required above- ground signage and other notification at locations and distance intervals specified in federal regulations. 15 An appropriate cathodic protection system shall be designed and installed on the pipeline. This system shall protect the pipeline from corrosion, foreign currents, etc. All system components including pipeline crossings, electrical systems in the area, and isolation requirements shall be considered and included in the design and installation. The consistency measures 1 through 15 above would minimize potential foreseeable hazards during operation or accidental release of hazardous materials in the event of a plant upset. The proposed project involves processing of LFG through the cooling, filtering, compressing, membrane separation, and adsorption. The process ing of LFG does not involve chemical reactions. No runaway temperatures (i.e. uncontrolled) can occur. Potential excess pressures are handled by pressure relief valves. Based on these considerations, potential hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment th rough reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than significant) Human exposure to a hazardous substance could occur through accidental release of a hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater , Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 164 in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up properly, th e hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or ch annel, causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the na ture of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.a above, the design, construction, and operation of the proposed RNG processing facility and pipeline would be subject to federal, State, and local regulation. The proposed RNG processing facility would be located northwest of the existing LFGTE plant in a location that would be approximately 0.32 mile from the nearest residences. Thus, the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials at the proposed RNG processing facility would be less than significant. On the other hand, sections of the pipeline would be on existing PG&E property within approximately 50 feet from the nearest residences. Thus, the proposed pipeline is designed to meet the most stringent class requirement (Class 4) under federal law. Pipeline Hazard Analysis A hazard analysis of the proposed pipeline was conducted in accordance with applicable federal. state, and local regulations . The analysis includes assessment of three related and overlapping factors: High Consequence Area, Class Location, and Potential Impact Radius. High Consequence Area (HCA) High Consequence Areas are segments of pipelines in which the surrounding areas are more densely populated. HCAs are required to have more stringent requirements to design, construct, and manage the integrity of the pipeline. For the proposed RNG pipeline, federal regu lations at 49 CFR 192 were used to determine the HCA. The only HCA identified for this pipeline coincides with the identified Class 3 location where the pipeline would be in PG&E property, within approximately 50 feet of single-family residences and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant. The HCA designation does not alter the design requirements for the system, because the pipeline would be designed to meet the most stringent requirements of C lass 4. Class Location Class Location is a measure of human activity near a pipeline. It is used to define design criteria, safety factors, and other construction related considerations. Class Locations for the proposed pipeline have been determined using the methodology defined in 49 CFR 192. According to federal classification, the pipeline would be on Class1/non-HCA locations over first 2.6 miles of Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 165 the pipeline route through the SBA. The pipeline would be considered to be in a Class 1 location due to a lack of buildings for human occupancy. Once the pipeline is in PG&E property, it would run parallel to an existing PG&E gas pipeline and terminate at the Ameresco interconnect station adjacent to the existing PG&E valve lot. According to federal classifi cation, this 0.8-mile section of pipeline would be in a Class 3/HCA location due to the existence of single -family residences and buildings for human occupancy. Despite these different clas s designations, the pipeline would be designed to exceed the most conservative requirements stipulated by 49 CFR 192 in the interest of public safety. As stated previously, the entire pipeline w ould be designed and constructed to meet Class 4 requirements as described in Consistency Measure 11. Potential Impact Radius (PIR) Potential Impact Radius (PIR) is a calculation that determines the size of the area that would be impacted if there were to be an incident. The PIR is defined as the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have signif icant impact on people or property and are related to identifying HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192 and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The PIR for the proposed pipeline was calculated as 72 feet. Figure 9-1 illustrates the relationship of the PIR to the proposed pipeline. Figure 9-2 (9100) illustrates the 72-foot PIR for the entire pipeline system. The PIR is shown in orange shading. A detailed illustration of the 72-foot PIR for the PG&E property from the point where the pipeline would enter PG&E property to a point just north of the Contra Costa Canal is shown on Figure 9- 3 (9101). The section of pipeline from north of the Contra Costa Canal to the PG&E STANPAC facility is shown on Figure 9-4 (9102). While the PIR is typically used to determine the safety factors that would be applied to the pipeline design, it is not as applicable for identifying the potential for extreme case failures. PIR refers to the area that may be impacted due to a catastrophic failure of the pipeline, such as a rupture or an explosion. The proposed pipeline would have a PIR that is less (i.e. shorter in length) than that of the existing PG&E underground gas infrastructure and would be situated farther away from residences than the existing gas infrastructure. Thus, the PIR for the proposed pipeline does not pose any additional risk to the nearby area. Pipe Leakage vs. Rupture of the Proposed Pipeline As described earlier, the pipeline would be constructed to the most stringent standards of Class 4. The pipeline material, strength, welding techniques, and construction inspection/quality assurance would meet all applicable State and federal regulations. The pipeline segment to be located on the landfill property would be constructed at an average depth of four feet. For the pipeline segment to be constructed in PG&E property, the pipeline would be constructed at a Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 166 minimum depth of four feet, to a depth of up to 50 feet in order to meet minimum clearance specifications for the Contra Costa Canal. Generally, the deeper the pipe is buried in combination with low SMYS results in a higher probability of pipe leakage versus rupture. Potential rupture failure is a function of pipeline design, MAOP, hoop stress i.e. the percent SMYS of the pipe, pipeline material, installation and welding techniques, the age and condition of the pipe, extent of internal pipe corrosion, and the depth at which the pipeline would be buried. Generally, pipelines operating at a sufficiently low hoop stress (below 20% to 30% SMYS) are le ss likely to fail in rupture mode and more likely to fail in leak mode. The proposed pipeline would be designed to operate at approximately 18.5 percent SMYS. Other factors related to susceptibility of pipe rupture versus leakage included the following: • Low temperatures; • Internal corrosion; • History of pipe seam failures; • History of pressure surges; • Pre-1980 vintage pipe; • Bare pipe or cathode protection not monitored and not piggable; • Pressure test of < 1.4 MAOP; and • Soil movement mechanism (e.g. seismic). Most of the factors listed above do not apply to the proposed RNG pipeline. The proposed pipeline system would be tested to 1.5 times the MAOP (greater than the 1.4 MAOP threshold) and the potential for soil movement would be addressed by the consistency measures described in Environmental Checklist Section 9.a related to seismic design and post-earthquake event monitoring. Design Criteria The design of the pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. Design criteria provided below meet the regulations required for the proposed project. Those items that exceed stipulated requirements are identified. • The pipeline will be designed to meet or exceed Class 4 requirements for its entire length from the RNG processing facility to the PG&E valve lot. This design criterion is above and beyond the required criteria for the project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 167 • The pipe itself will be designed to operate under 20 percent SMYS, which places the proposed pipeline in a lower risk category per federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration guidelines, and requires less stringent test requirements; however, the pipeline will be tested to 1.5 times the MAOP or approximately 1,020 psig in accordance with regulations governing design to meet higher risk. If flanges and/or flanged assemblies are required, they may be the pressure limiting factors of the system. The design will ensure that the flanged systems and any other appurtenances meet the design requirements. • The system will be designed to handle a MAOP of 680 psig to be consistent with the PG&E pipeline that would receive the RNG. Relief systems at the discharge of the gas compression and before entering the pipeline would be included as required to ensure the pipeline does not experience an over-pressurized event. • The system will be designed to operate under ambient temperature conditions of – 20° F to 150° F. • The pipeline will be buried to a minimum of four feet below grade. This exceeds the three feet specified in regulations. The pipeline will have at least five feet between adjacent structures/facilities. • The pipe to be used in the project will be 4.500” OD, 0.237” WT, GR B. With a MAOP of 680 psig, this corresponds to the pipeline operating at approximately 18.5 percent of SMYS. • Emergency shutoff valves, pressure monitoring devices, and other control equipment w ill be incorporated into the design of the system as required by required by 49 CFR 192 or as deemed appropriate by the applicant. • The RNG transported through the pipeline will be continuously monitored before it enters the pipeline to verify it meets gas quality standards required to prevent internal corrosion of the pipeline. No internal corrosion monitoring facilities have been included in the design. No special metallurgy (for hydrogen sulfide or other potential corrosives) will be specified or included in the design. • To prevent galvanic corrosion of the pipeline, an appropriate cathodic protection system will be designed and installed on the pipeline. Cathode protectio n is a method used to protect steel pipeline from corrosion, foreign currents, etc. All system components including pipeline crossings, electrical systems in the area, and isolation requirements w ill Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 168 be considered for cathode protection and included in the design and installation as needed. • The pipeline design will include appropriate roping (bending stress) and wheel loading calculations. • The appropriate pipeline coating system, Fusion Bond Epoxy, will be specified. • The applicant will work with PG&E engineers to meet tie-in requirements into their system(s) as required by agreement and the CPUC. PG&E w ill organize and implement any clearance requirements for their systems. Pipeline Operations and Maintenance Manual In addition to the design criteria, the applicant would incorporate the pipeline system into its Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M manual) before the new pipeline system is placed in operation and would fully train operators on the pipeline system. Operators would be trained on how the pipeline system is to function and how to make adjustments or corrections to the system in upset or emergency conditions. Required maintenance and inspection of the system w ould take place as required by the O&M manual. Pipeline System Sensors Sensors in the pipeline system would detect an incidence of pipe leakage or rupture. Should either of these events occur, the system would shut down accordingly and the system operators would be notified. Ruptures or explosions are almost always possible only when a pipeline operates at a stress level higher than 20 percent SMYS. In the proposed project, the pipeline would be designed to operate at less than 20 percent (at approximately 18.5 percent) SMYS, and therefore, any incidents that might be possible would almost always be a leak rather than a rupture. A leak would be significantly less consequential than a rupture. In general, natural gas is believed to be less hazardous to the public than petroleum products because it is tr ansported at lower pressures and, when released, rises and dissipates into the atmosphere. In the case of the proposed project, at 680 psig the gas would rise and dissipate rapidly during a pipe leak. Further, gas has a higher flashpoint and is not as flammable compared to petroleum products such as gasoline. Natural gas dissipates in air while petroleum products/vapors collect low on the ground where the vapors have the potential to be ignited. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 169 Factors Affecting Pipeline Safety Factors that affect potential safety impacts of the proposed pipeline include the following: • All federal, State, and industry standards will be met or exceeded; • The design will be governed by Class 4 criteria, which is more conservative than the pipeline's actual classification and provides a higher safety factor; • The pipeline will be designed around the conventional wisdom that a pipeline operating under 20 percent SMYS would leak rather than rupture, allowing any damage to be detected and repaired before a rupture or fire could occur; • The route of the pipeline will be located either within existing landfill property or in an existing electric and gas utility property; • The pipeline will be buried deeper than required, and inspection and testing during construction will be extensive, including x-ray tests of 100 percent of welds; • The pipeline will be designed to allow internal inspection on a regular basis to reduce the possibility of unmitigated internal corrosion of the pipe; and • The applicant will apply its significant experience with safely operating pipelines th at carry RNG in many locations across the country. Given these factors, the potential impacts of the pipeline due to accidental release of hazardous materials, explosion, or wildfire from foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions (such as pipeline rupture) would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No impact) Fourteen (14) schools are in the Pittsburg area within a 4-mile radius surrounding the project site; however, there are no schools within one-quarter mile of the proposed project. The closest schools are Royal Oaks Academy (private) and Rancho Medanos Junior High School, located approximately 1.2 miles and 1.6 miles, respectively, from the project site. Thus, the proposed project would have no significant impacts associated with safety hazards due to proximity within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials s ites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No impact) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 170 A review of regulatory databases maintained by County, State, and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the subject property. Th us, there would be no impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No impact) The project is not located within 2 miles of an airport. The nearest airport is Buchanan Field Airport, which is approximately 6.6 miles west of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than significant) The Ameresco RNGPFP would be located on portions of the KCL Primary Area, the SBA, and the contiguous PG&E-owned utility corridor. Operational access to the RNGPFP would be from the KCL driveway at 901 Bailey Road, which is a major arterial in the Pittsburg area. Operation of the RNGPFP would be conducted by two employees, and therefore, the impact of RNGPFP operation on emergency response or emergency evacuation via Bailey Road would be minimal. During the 12 to 14-month construction period, there would be one staging location on KCL property and two locations on the PG&E property for which access may be required from the landowners or City of Pittsburg. The locations include: • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to access a laydown area on KCL property; • Through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E property; and • Via the parking lot of the former Delta View Golf Course, located at the end of Golf Club Road to provide access to the PG&E valve lot. The proposed project would not require any road closures or ch ange road configurations. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with any emergency response plans. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response of emergency evacuation. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 171 The project site is 1.7 miles northwest of the Concord Hills and six miles north of Mount Diablo State Park. The project site, and the neighboring open space and park lands are in a high fire hazard severity zone. However, the potential for wildfires originating from the RNG processing facility or pipeline is greatly minimized by the consistency measures discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.a and the design criteria described in Environmental Checklist Section 9.b. In addition, due to its location in a high fire haza rd severity zone, project implementation would conform to California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) and California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland -Urban Interface Fire Areas), which would reduce the risk of loss, injury or death from wildland fires. With implementation of these consistency measures and design criteria, and adherence to the applicable requirements of California Building Code Chapter 7A and California Fire Code Chap ter 47, the potential for the Project to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Campos EPC, 2020. Ameresco 4” Biomethane Pipeline Projec t Safety Considerations and Plans, Guidance Document. • Keller Canyon Landfill, 2016. Health and Safety Program, Draft Joint Technical Document. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Ameresco IS-MND Section 9. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • Contra Costa County, 2016. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. • Contra Costa County Code, Chapter 450-8 Risk Management. • Contra Costa County Code, Chapter 84-63 Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Safety Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Transportation and Circulation Element. • https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/, 2020. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese), California Department of Toxic Substances Control. • California State Geoportal, 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. • U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 49, Sections 192.50 and 192.903. Figure 9-1 Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Pipeline Potential Impact Radius (PIR) of 72 feet 72 ft. 72 ft. RNG Pipeline RNG Pipeline PIR Boundary PIR Boundary Source: Ameresco, May 2020. Campos EPC and/or client. permission of Campos EPC and/or client, or to use the same in any way detrimental to used for the purpose other than that for which it is specifically published without the written be copied, reproduced, exhibited, loaned or otherwise published, disposed of, nor to be published and is confidential in consideration of the client thereof. This document is NOT to This document is the exclusive property of Campos EPC and/or client. It has not been DESCRIPTION DATE BY REV. R E V I S I O N S ORDER SCALE DATEDRAWN BY PROJECT ENG / PROJECT MGR CHECKED BY MADE DATE BY APPROVED ENG FILE NO. Seed-9100-WS.dgn 15-APR-2020 20:48PM Estim ating .pen POTENTIAL IMPACT RADIUS EXHIBIT LPK 4/15/20 A 303-623-3345 Denver, CO 80202 1401 Blake Street Know what's below. before you dig.Call AMERESCO KELLER CANYON RNG LLC RNG PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE 4-15-2020 L. KISIELINSKI JARED SHANKS/HAYTHAM HANTASH R. WAMBLE PITTSBURG, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA BOM NO. S U M M A R Y O F M A T E R I A L S DESCRIPTION (HORIZONTAL DISTANCE)QTY DWG NO. R E F E R E N C E D R A W I N G S TITLE PRIVATE DR LANDFILL KELLER CANYON CR ESTVIEW DR BUCHANA N RD CONTRA COSTA CANAL DELT A DE ANZA REGIONA L TRAIL PIR AREA - CLASS 3 PIR AREA CLASS 1 GAS TRANSMISSION (E) 20" L-191-1 PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION (E) 26" SP3 PG&E SEE SHEET 9101 SEE SHEET 9102 (P) 4" RNG PIPELINE DESIGNED FOR CLASS 4 - POTENTIAL IMPACT RADIUS = 72 FT. SCALE: 1" = 400' -- -- LEGEND: --(E) PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION (P) 4" RNG FOR CLASS 4 PIR AREA - PIPELINE DESIGNED AS SHOWN 9100 144'-0" 144'-0" 1+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00 35+00 45 +00 50+00 55 +00 60+00 65 +00 70+00 75+00 80+00 85 +00 90+00 95+00 10 0 +00 10 5 +00 11 0 +00 115+00 12 0 +00 12 5 +00 13 0 +00 13 5 +00 14 0 +00 14 5+00 15 0+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00 181+31 40 +00 TRANSMISSION (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION STATION (E) PG&E GAS FIGURE 9-2 Campos EPC and/or client. permission of Campos EPC and/or client, or to use the same in any way detrimental to used for the purpose other than that for which it is specifically published without the written be copied, reproduced, exhibited, loaned or otherwise published, disposed of, nor to be published and is confidential in consideration of the client thereof. This document is NOT to This document is the exclusive property of Campos EPC and/or client. It has not been DESCRIPTION DATE BY REV. R E V I S I O N S ORDER SCALE DATEDRAWN BY PROJECT ENG / PROJECT MGR CHECKED BY MADE DATE BY APPROVED ENG FILE NO. Seed-9101-WS.dgn 15-APR-2020 20:49PM Estim ating .pen POTENTIAL IMPACT RADIUS EXHIBIT LPK 4/15/20 A 303-623-3345 Denver, CO 80202 1401 Blake Street Know what's below. before you dig.Call AMERESCO KELLER CANYON RNG LLC RNG PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE 4-15-2020 L. KISIELINSKI JARED SHANKS/HAYTHAM HANTASH R. WAMBLE PITTSBURG, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA BOM NO. S U M M A R Y O F M A T E R I A L S DESCRIPTION (HORIZONTAL DISTANCE)QTY DWG NO. R E F E R E N C E D R A W I N G S TITLE ELECTRIC CAUTION: OVERHEAD APN: 087-082-018APN: 087-082-017APN: 087-082-016APN: 087-082-015 APN: 087-082-014 APN: 08 7-082 -01 9 APN: 087-090-005 APN: 087-381-046 APN: 087-381-045 APN: 094-080-012 APN: 094-090-002 APN: 095-160-004 CON TRA COSTA CAN A L GAS TRANSMISSION (E) 20" L-191-1 PG&E ELECTRIC CAUTION: OVERHEAD FAIRWAY CT (E) FENCE (E) P/L (E) P/L (E) EP (E) P/L 25 '-2" 17'-3" 29'-7" 48 '-5" 24 '-5" 16 '-3" 31 '-5" 48 '-0" 39 '-3" 43 '-8" 36 '-6" 46 '-7" 8'-2" 10 '-2" 22 '-7" 27 '-4" (P) 4" RNG WATER TREATMENT POND CITY OF PITTSBURG 72 '-0" 72 '-0" PIPELINE DESIGNED FOR CLASS 4 - POTENTIAL IMPACT RADIUS = 72 FT. SCALE: 1" = 60' -- -- LEGEND: --(E) PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION (P) 4" RNG FOR CLASS 4 PIR AREA - PIPELINE DESIGNED AS SHOWN 9101 14 8 +00 149+00 150+00 15 1 +00 15 2 +00 15 3 +00 15 4 +00 15 5 +00 15 6 +00 15 7 +00 15 8 +00 15 9 +00 16 0 +00 161+00 16 2 +00 16 3 +00 16 4 +00 165+00 166+00 167+00 168+00 FIGURE 9-3 Campos EPC and/or client. permission of Campos EPC and/or client, or to use the same in any way detrimental to used for the purpose other than that for which it is specifically published without the written be copied, reproduced, exhibited, loaned or otherwise published, disposed of, nor to be published and is confidential in consideration of the client thereof. This document is NOT to This document is the exclusive property of Campos EPC and/or client. It has not been DESCRIPTION DATE BY REV. R E V I S I O N S ORDER SCALE DATEDRAWN BY PROJECT ENG / PROJECT MGR CHECKED BY MADE DATE BY APPROVED ENG FILE NO. Seed-9102-WS.dgn 15-APR-2020 20:49PM Estim ating .pen POTENTIAL IMPACT RADIUS EXHIBIT LPK 4/15/20 A 303-623-3345 Denver, CO 80202 1401 Blake Street Know what's below. before you dig.Call AMERESCO KELLER CANYON RNG LLC RNG PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE 4-15-2020 L. KISIELINSKI JARED SHANKS/HAYTHAM HANTASH R. WAMBLE PITTSBURG, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA BOM NO. S U M M A R Y O F M A T E R I A L S DESCRIPTION (HORIZONTAL DISTANCE)QTY DWG NO. R E F E R E N C E D R A W I N G S TITLE APN: 087-082-022APN: 087-082-021 APN: 087-312-007APN: 087-312-008APN: 087-312-009 APN: 087-082-036 APN: 087-082-035APN: 087-082-034APN: 087-082-033APN: 087-082-032APN: 087-082-031APN: 087-082-030APN: 087-082-029 APN: 087-312-010 APN: 095-160-004 APN: 095-160-006 APN: 095-160-005 (E) P/L (E) EP (E) FENCE (E) DIRT ROAD ORINDA CIR STATION TRANSMISSION (E) PG&E GAS ORINDA CIR BROOKSHIRE CT DEL T A AN ZA REGION AL TRAIL APN: 087-082-020 APN: 087 -08 2 -01 9 APN: 087-082-023 APN: 087-082-024 APN: 087-082-025 APN: 087-082-026 APN: 087-082-027 APN: 087-082-028 GAS TRANSMISSION (E) 20" L-191-1 PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION (E) 26" SP3 PG&E (E) P/L (E) P/L (E) P/L PRIVATE ROAD ELECTRIC CAUTION: OVERHEAD ELECTRIC CAUTION: OVERHEAD PETAR LN 25 '-5" 17 '-7" 29 '-0" 48 '-6" 26 '-3" 18 '-8" 27 '-1" 49 '-1" 27 '-3" 19 '-11 " 24 '-10 " 50 '-1" 28 '-0" 20 '-11 " 23 '-1" 51 '-0" 28 '-9" 21 '-11 " 21 '-4" 51 '-9" (P) 4" RNG 72 '-0" 72 '-0" PIPELINE DESIGNED FOR CLASS 4 - POTENTIAL IMPACT RADIUS = 72 FT. SCALE: 1" = 60' -- -- LEGEND: --(E) PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION (P) 4" RNG FOR CLASS 4 PIR AREA - PIPELINE DESIGNED AS SHOWN 9102 16 8 +00 16 9 +00 17 0 +00 17 1 +00 17 2 +00 17 3 +00 17 4 +00 17 5 +00 17 6 +00 17 7 +00 17 8 +00 17 9 +00 18 0 +00 181 +00 18 1+31 18 1+31 FIGURE 9-4 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 176 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 177 The proposed RNG processing facility site is located in the northern portion of the Keller Canyon watershed The KCL comprises its own watershed encompassing approximately 573 acres. All of the active KCL area runoff is collected and conveyed to the existing KCL terminal detention basin located approximately 750 lineal feet east of, and down slope, of the proposed RNG processing facility site. The terminal detention basin greatly reduces the volume of peak runoff leaving the Keller Canyon watershed. Development of proposed RNG processing facility site would add approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres) to the Keller Canyon watershed. As detailed below under Drainage Control Measures, the drainage system for the proposed processing facility would be designed to convey storm runoff to the existing terminal detention basin. During operation, the RNG processing equipment would not generate any form of wastewater. Also, as described below, the Ameresco RNGPFP would implement applicable measures from Keller Canyon Landfill Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 01 -040 and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit #2 -7S006887 as amended. Drainage Control Measures By design, the proposed RNGPFP would be consistent with local plans and policies related to water quality and drainage. If the proposed project is approved, drainage control measures that the applicant would incorporate into the design, construction, an d operation of the RNGPFP include the following. These measures are designed to minimize the potential for significant impacts associated with the proposed project. 1 For the RNG processing facility site, a new central stormwater drainage system shall be designed and constructed to convey surface runoff safely and efficiently from the project site to the existing KCL terminal detention basin. 2 For the RNG processing facility project site and pipeline, components of the Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan as described in LP89-2020 COA 18.4 shall be implemented as appropriate. Components will include a Stability Analysis of proposed cut and fill slopes, and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to prevent substantial erosion on slopes on the project site and reduce the amounts of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. BMPs to be implemented that are in accordance with those identified in COA 18.4 include the following. a) Primary grading for the RNG processing facility building site, and the construction of site slopes shall be performed during the April through October low rainfall season. b) If grading must be done during rainy periods, or if erosion is occurring on previously graded areas, the applicant shall take corrective actions for temporary flow Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 178 restriction, which may include the installation of ground cloth or the placement of hay bales. c) The applicant shall plant ground over on graded areas which are not to be developed within 90 days. The ground cover shall be consistent with the Keller Canyon Landfill Landscaping Plan. d) Ditches and swales for conveying surface runoff shall be lined or planted to limit erosion. e) Erosion to ditches or gullies used to convey runoff shall be corrected by use of appropriate measures such as energy dissipators or rip rap. 3 For the RNG processing facility project site and pipeline, applicable measures from WDR Order No. 01-040 and NPDES Permit #2-75006887 as amended shall be incorporated into construction documents and the KCL SWPPP. 4 For the portion of the project area in PG&E property for which horizontal directi onal drilling (HDD) shall be performed, a frac-out plan shall be prepared to address the unintentional return of drilling fluids to the ground surface during HDD. The frac-out plan shall address at a minimum: a description of work, training, equipment, dri lling procedures, and agency coordination and notification. The frac-out plan shall be approved by the appropriate agencies. The applicant shall obtain an approved frac-out plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. With these drainage control measures applied by the applicant, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on water quality or waste discharge. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less than significant) The proposed project would have no impacts associated with groundwater pumping. Any water necessary for the proposed RNG processing facility would be supplied by an existing 342,300- gallon water tank located south of, and adjacent to, the processing facility site. Regarding groundwater recharge, at the RNG processing facility site, an earth fill embankment would be constructed to form a relatively flat pad for the RNG processing equipment. The equipment would be mounted on skids with individual concrete slab foundations and s urrounded by gravel-covered access corridors and a maintenance road. As a result, the proposed RNG Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 179 processing facility would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site by less than the 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres), which is the area of the pad. Final grading would ensure positive drainage to a central drainage pipe that would convey surface runoff to the existing terminal detention basin. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10.a above, the proposed project would convey storm runoff from the new pad to the existing terminal detention basin. The detention basin, by design, retains stormwater and has sufficient capacity to accept runoff from increased impervious surface area at the proposed RNG processing facility site. Thus, directing all storm runoff from the RNG processing facility to the detention basin would ensure that the project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater recharge. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less than significant) As stated in Environmental Checklist Section 10.b above, the proposed RNG processing facility would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres). Storm runoff from this area would be conveyed to the existing terminal detention basin of the landfill. Thus, the proposed RNG processing facility would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the processing facility site . Further, as described in the preceding Environmental Checklist Section 10.a, the applicant would incorporate drainage control measures into the design, construction, and operation of the RNGPFP to minimize the potential for significant impacts . Accordingly, the proposed project would direct runoff from new impervious surfaces to existing drainage facilities and would not cause substantial erosion or siltation. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner , which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less than significant) A hydrologic analysis was completed in 2019 to evaluate the project's potential to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that could result in on or off -site flooding. This analysis utilized a HEC-HMS hydrologic model that was prepared in 2011 to examine the feasibility of modifying the landfill stormwater handling system by adding an up- stream basin and modifying the terminal detention basin. That project has been set aside and there are currently no plans to modify the stormwater handling system in this manner. The 2011 model, however, is representative of the baseline conditions for the proposed RNGPFP. The 2011 HEC-HMS model was used to assess the area of the sub basin that includes the proposed RNG processing facility and pipeline. Th e proposed RNG processing facility site would mostly be impervious area, which would be consistent with surface assumptions in the Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 180 2011 base model. The hydrologic model assumes very little infiltration and no initial rainfall absorption prior to runoff. Thus, the 2011 and the 2019 updated model very conservatively assumes the entire area is impervious. The soils within the landfill drainage are primarily clay - rich, adobe soils that are characterized by high runoff and extremely low permeability. All runoff calculations shown in Table 10-1 assume low rainfall infiltration and high runoff. The results of the modeling for the output of the existing terminal detention basin with the addition of the proposed RNG processing facility area are shown in Table 10-1. Table 10-1. Results of Hydrologic Modeling for Proposed RNG Processing Facility Recurrence Interval Existing Conditions (cfs) Post Project (cfs) Change (cfs) Change (%) 2 - year 90.1 90.3 0.2 0.2 5 - year 111.8 112.1 0.3 0.3 10 - year 142.5 143.7 1.2 0.8 25 - year 178.8 180.2 1.4 0.8 50 - year 244.4 247.4 3.0 1.2 100 - year 281.2 283.9 2.7 0.9 1,000 - year 531.0 536.6 5.6 1.0 Source: Questa Engineering, October 2019 The results of the 2019 hydrologic modeling shown in Table 10-1 show that the proposed RNG processing facility site would increase surface runoff by a maximum of approximately 1.2 percent for the 50-year recurrence interval. All runoff from the proposed RNG processing facility would be collected and directed into the existing drainage system of the landfill. The 1.2percent or lower increase in surface runoff would not be a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff , and therefore, would have a less than significant impact on the existing landfill drainage system and would not result in on or off- site flooding. iii) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10.c.ii above, there would be no substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on or off - site flooding. Only a minor addition of a central drainage pipe would be needed to safely and efficiently convey runoff to the existing terminal detention basin. The results of the 2019 hydrologic modeling study shown in Table 10-1 demonstrate that the pad area for the Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 181 proposed RNG processing facility, would increase surface runoff leaving the pad area by approximately 1.2 percent for the 50-year recurrence interval. The estimated 1.2 percent or lower increase in peak flows resulting from the installation of the proposed RNG processing facility would have a less than significant impact on the existing landfill drainage system in general, and on drainage conditions downstream of the proposed RNG processing facility in particular. The estimated 1.2 percent or lower increase in peak flows does not warrant any special mitigation or significant modification of the existing drainage system beyond that which is currently in place for the landfill. The proposed additional impervious surface area of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres) to the Keller Canyon watershed would not have significant impacts on the operation of the existing terminal detention basin. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less than significant) The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is located FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Flood Map 06013C0118G. As shown on the FEMA Flood Map, land in the KCL Primary Project Area, SBA, and PG&E utility corridor is classified as being in Zone X, which is considered to be an area of minimal flood hazard. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (No impact) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10.c.iv above, the project site is not within a 100- year flood hazard area. The project site is also not in an area that would be susceptible to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The California Geological Survey (2009) has projected and mapped the tsunami hazard posed by a tidal wave that passes through the Golden Gate and into San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait. As mapped, the tsunami hazard in Contra Costa County is limited to the lowland areas immediately adjacent to these waterways. A seiche is a water wave in a standing body of water such as a large lake or reservoir that is caused by an earthquake, a major landslide, or strong winds. This hazard does not exist within the project vicinity as there are no large lakes or reservoirs in the area. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct im plementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10.a above, by design, the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP would implement applicable measures from Keller Canyon Landfill Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 01-040 and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 182 (NPDES) Permit #2-7S006887 as amended. Also, there is no groundwater management plan in effect for the KCL. Thus, the proposed pro ject would not conflict with a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Tetra Tech et al., 2020. Hydrology & Water Quality - Ameresco IS-MND Section 10. • Questa Engineering, Inc., 2019. HEC-HMS modeling, Ameresco RNG Processing Facility. • Contra Costa County, 1989-1990. Keller Canyon Landfill Draft EIR (1989); Final EIR (1990). • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • Keller Canyon Landfill, 1991. Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 01-040 as revised and amended. • Keller Canyon Landfill, 1992. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit #2 - 7S006887. • CH2M Hill, 1991. Sedimentation Basin Flood Hydrology Memorandum. • Keller Canyon Landfill, 2011. HEC-HMS Model 2011. • Contra Costa County, 2019. HEC-HMS Guidance Rainfall Data. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 10, Division 1014. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. • https://msc.fema.gov/portal/, 2020. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Flood Map 06013C0118G, effective 09/30/2015. • California Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning: Richmond Quadrangle/San Quentin Quadrangle, Mare Island Quadrangle, Benicia Quadrangle. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Safety Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 183 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? SUMMARY: a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No impact) As discussed in Section 8 (Description of Project), the Ameresco RNGPFP is a proposed renewable natural gas processing facility and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a proposed RNG processing facility and an underground RNG transmission pipeline. The footprint of the proposed RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet (1.1. acres) on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres). The estimated total length of the underground pipeline is approximately 3.4 miles. The pipeline would be a four- inch diameter steel-wrapped pipe buried underground with four feet of minimum cover. As described in Section 9 (Surrounding Land Uses and Setting), the RNGPFP would be located almost entirely on KCL property. The KCL property is approximately 2,345 acres, which consists of a Primary Project Area of approximately 1,596 acres and an SBA of approximately 750 acres. The SBA includes two non-KCL parcels including a 155.8-acre open space parcel and a 4.59-acre water tank parcel; however, only the KCL-owned parcels in the SBA are considered for the pro posed project. A portion of the RNG transmission pipeline would be in PG&E property east of, and contiguous to, the SBA. The PG&E property consists of five parcels that total approximately 212 acres, including four parcels in the City of Pittsburg that tot al approximately 52 acres and one parcel of approximately 160 acres in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Land immediately surrounding the Ameresco RNGPFP includes the above described KCL Primary Project Area and SBA and the adjoining PG&E utility corri dor. The Concord Hills open space is adjacent to KCL to the south and southeast. The nearest developed non -landfill land uses are single-family residences located off the KCL property approximately 0.3 2 mile northeast of the proposed project site; single-family residences located approximately 0.40 mile west of the proposed project site west of Bailey Road; and single-family residences and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant located east of the project site and adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 184 The proposed RNGPFP would not alter KCL operations, use of the PG&E utility corridor, or any off - site uses, and therefore would not divide an established community. Thus, there would be no impact. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land us e plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less than significant) As stated in Environmental Checklist Section 11.a above, the Ameresco RNGPFP includes a proposed RNG processing facility and an underground RNG transmission pipeline. As discussed in Section 8 (Description of Project), the RNGPFP would significantly increase the utilization of LFG produced at KCL for energy, by processing the landfill gas to sufficient quality to allow it to be placed into the regional natural gas network. The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new processing facility to a connection with the PG&E natural gas transmission pi peline network northeast of the site. As described in Section 9 (Surrounding Land Uses and Setting), the RNGPFP would be located almost entirely on KCL property, which includes a Primary Project Area and an SBA. The Primary Project Area has a LF, Landfill, General Plan Land Use designation and is in the A-3 Heavy Agricultural District. Along with open space, active landfill operations occur within the Primary Project Area, which includes landfill infrastructure, administration, operations, and waste disposal. The SBA has an OS, Open Space, General Pl an Land Use designation and is in the A -4 Agricultural Preserve District. The SBA is conserved open space located directly east of, and contiguous to, the Primary Project Area. The SBA serves to “buffer” or iso late the landfill from surrounding land uses and is reserved for uses consistent with open space, agriculture, and non - waste disposal landfill infrastructure as determined by Contra Costa County. The adjacent PG&E parcel to the east of the SBA in the County has an OS, Open Space, General Plan Land Use designation and is in the A-2 General Agricultural District. The adjoining PG&E property to the north is in the City of Pittsburg and has a Pittsburg General Plan designation of Utility/ROW and is in the Pittsburg OS Open Space District. The PG&E proper ty is open space land that serves as a north-south utility corridor and contains large electrical transmission lattice towers, overhead high-voltage electrical transmission lines, and an underground gas transmi ssion pipeline. Within the KCL Primary Project Area, the proposed project would improve and expand the methane recovery for the production of energy that is required in LP89 -2020 and other existing permits, and is consistent with the General Plan LF designation and the A-3 District. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 8.b above, the proposed project would be consistent with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan and the County’s CAP. The underground transmission pipeline would Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 185 traverse portions of the SBA and the PG&E utility corridor. Development Rights to the SBA were conveyed by the landfill owner to Contra Costa County in 1996. Installation of landfill infrastructure i.e. the pipeline, in the SBA is an allowable landfill infrastructure use under the Development Rights, subject to the approval of the DCD Director. The portion of the underground transmission pipeline within the PG&E utility corridor would be a use that is similar to the existing PG&E underground transmission pipeline. Thus, the proposed project would not have a significant impact. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Land Use - Ameresco IS-MND Section 11. • Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, November 19, 1996. Acceptance of Development Rights for Special Buffer Area, Keller Canyon Landfill. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Open Space Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Land Use Element. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. • City of Pittsburg, 2011. Land Use Map, General Plan Pittsburg 2020. • City of Pittsburg, 2010. Chapter 2 Land Use, General Plan Pittsburg 2020. • http://cityofpittsburg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=54f347e4fe8b405ab 2b93b922bcce89c, 2020. Pittsburg Zoning Districts (2010) Map. • City of Pittsburg, 2016. Chapter 18.58, Open Space District (OS), Pittsburg Municipal Code. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 186 12. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No impact) Known mineral resource areas in the County are shown on Figure 8 -4 (Mineral Resource Areas) of the Contra Costa County General Plan Conservation Element. No known mineral resources have been identified in the project vicinity, and therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a l ocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No impact) The project site is not within an area of known mineral imp ortance according to the General Plan Conservation Element, and therefore, the project would not impact any mineral resource recovery site. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Conservation Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 187 13. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than significant with mitigation) The proposed RNGPFP would be located almost entirely within the KCL property. Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 9.1 (Hours of Operation) and COA 9.2 (Operating Days) landfill operation is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except on holidays . The landfill is closed on Sundays. Given its location, the RNGPFP would also be subject to the LP89-2020 Conditions of Approval, and therefore, if the proposed project is approved, the following LP89-2020 COAs related to noise control will be incorporated into the project. 1 COA 21.1 (Noise Control Objective). The applicant shall manage the facility in a manner that minimizes noise impacts to area residents. 2 COA 21.2 (Noise Monitoring Program). The applicant shall prepare and implement a noise monitoring and abatement program, which shall be approved by the County Department of Conservation and Development and Contra Costa Environmental Health. T he program shall monitor noise levels at sensitive receptor locations, one West of Bailey Road and Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 188 South of West Leland Road, one near Bailey north of West Leland, and another in the Jacqueline Drive area south of West Leland Road. The DCD Director may specify other monitoring locations. Noise monitoring reports shall be submitted to the DCD on a quarterly basis unless otherwise specified by the DCD Director. If the monitoring noise levels at the Landfill boundary line or other monitored location exceed 60 dBA during daylight hours, or 50 dBA during the evening or at night, the County may require the operator to institute additional noise reduction measures to bring noise emanating from the Landfill to the forementioned levels or less. 3 COA 21.8 (Gas Flare Muffling). If flaring is used to dispose of Landfill gas, the flares shall be contained in noise and glare-reducing housing. The housing shall be subject to the approval of the Contra Costa Environmental Health, DCD, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 4 COA 20.23 (Speed Limits). The applicant shall enforce speed limits set by the Contra Costa Environmental Health on internal site roads. The maximum internal on -site speed limit shall be 20 mph unless otherwise specified by Contra Costa Environmental Health. 5 COA 20.24 (Equipment Maintenance). The applicant shall maintain gas processing equipment in optimum working order to ensure that equipment emissions are controlled. Equipment shall be fitted with spark arrestors so potential for causing fires is minimized. Equipment shall not be left idling when not in use. Maintenance records shall be kept on all pieces of gas processing equipment. 6 COA 32.1 (Hours of Construction). The applicant developer shall restrict outdoor construction activities on the KCL property to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 7 COA 32.2 (Exemption). The applicant may request, in writing, and the DCD Director may grant, exemptions to Condition 32.1 for specific times for cause. An example is the plac ing of concrete. Other noise control measures that will be incorporated into the proposed project, if approved, including the following. 8. Operators in the RNG processing facility shall be required to wear appropriate hearing protection devices in conformance to OSHA requirements. 9. Acoustic shrouding shall be installed and maintained on RNG processing equipment such as compressors and feed blowers. 10. Pile driving, blasting, and helicopters shall not be used as methods of construction. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 189 As described in Section 8 (Description of Project), the proposed RNG processing facility would be located on a portion of the KCL Primary Project Area adjacent to, and northwest of, the existing LFGTE plant. The new underground RNG transmission pipeline would start at the RNG processing facility, traverse through the SBA, and into the contiguous PG&E-owned utility corridor. Within this utility corridor, the pipeline would go under the Contra Costa Canal and would terminate in an Ameresco interconnct station that would then connect with the existing PG&E gas transmission pipeline at a PG&E-owned valve lot. Existing Community Noise Environment To assess ambient noise levels at locations that may be affected by the proposed RNGPFP, Illingworth and Rodkin (IR) conducted a noise monitoring survey in the project vicinity in February 2019. IR took noise measurements at various community locations, as shown on Figure 13-1. As illustrated on the Figure, the project site is bordered by residential neighborhoods to the west, north, and east, and open land to the south. The residential locations are noise sensitive locations for the noise monitoring survey. The existing LFGTE plant is located on the western side of the site, with the landfill to the south. Commercial land uses are located to the northwest of the project site, at the intersection of Bailey and West Leland Roads. The IR community noise monitoring survey included two long-term noise measurements (LT-1 and LT-2 on Figure 13-1) to quantify the daily trend in noise levels at nois e sensitive locations near the project site. 1. Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made in front of a residence at 1287 Brooktrail Drive, approximately 2,850 feet (0.54 mile) west of the existing LFGTE plant. This location is approximately 175 feet south of Summitridge Court (discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3.c). The primary noise sources at this location included distant and local traffic, a nearby water feature, distant construction, and other local community noise sources. Hourly average noise levels at this location ranged from 43 to 57 dBA L eq during the day, and from 40 to 50 dBA L eq at night. The day-night average noise level was 55 dBA DNL on February 23, 2019, and 51 dBA DNL on February 24, 2019. 2. Long-term noise measurement LT-2 was made at the end of Jaqueline Drive, near the residence at 2308 Jaqueline Drive, approximately 1,730 feet (0.33 mile) northeast of the existing LFGTE plant. The primary noise sources at this location included distant traffic and occasional distant aircraft overflights. Hourly average noise levels at this location ranged from 39 to 50 dBA Leq during the day, and from 32 to 48 dBA Leq at night. The day- night average noise level was 51 dBA DNL, on February 23, 2019 and February 24, 2019. 190 Figure 13-1. Noise Monitoring Locations in Nearby Neighborhoods Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 191 In addition to the two ling-term noise measurements, six attended short-term noise measurements (ST-1 through ST-6 on Figure 13-1) were made at both long-term sites and at additional representative noise sensitive locations in the site vicinity to provide qua litative and quantitative information about the existing noise environment in nearby residential areas. A summary of the short-term measurement results is shown in Table 13-1. 1. Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was made adjacent to long-term noise measurement location LT-1 in front of a residence at 1287 Brooktrail Drive. As detailed above, the primary noise sources at this location included distant and local traffic, a nearby water feature, distant construction, and other local community noise sources. 2. Short-term noise measurement ST-2 was made in in front of a residence at 462 Oak Crest Place. The primary noise sources at this location included distant and local traffic, local community noise sources, and occasional distant aircraft overflights. The 10 -minute average noise level measured at this location between 1:40 p.m. and 1:50 p.m. on February 22, 2019 was 48 dBA Leq. 3. Short-term noise measurement ST-3 was made in in front of a residence at 3818 La Miranda Place. The primary noise sources at this location included distant and local traffic and occasional distant aircraft overflights. The 10 -minute average noise level measured at this location between 2:20 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on February 22, 2019 was 47 dBA L eq. 4. Short-term noise measurement ST-4 was made in in front of a residence at 34 Orinda Circle. The primary noise sources at this location included distant and local traffic, local community noise sources, yard work, and occasional distant aircraft overflights. The 10 - minute average noise level meas ured at this location between 2:20 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on February 22, 2019 was 44 dBA Leq. 5. Short-term noise measurement ST-5 was made adjacent to long-term noise measurement location LT-2 at the end of Jaqueline Drive, near the residence at 2308 Jaqueline Drive. As detailed above, the primary noise sources at this location included distant traffic and occasional distant aircraft overflights. 6. Short-term noise measurement ST-6 was made across the street from a residence at 2251 Santa Maria Drive. The primary noise sources at this location included distant and local traffic, local community noise sources, local agricultural noise (cows), and occasional distant aircraft overflights. The 10-minute average noise level measured at this location between 2:50 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on February 22, 2019 was 51 dBA L eq. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 192 Table 13-1. Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) Noise Measurement Location L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq DNL1 ST-1: In front of 1287 Brooktrail Drive (2/22/2019, 1:10 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.) 57 48 42 39 46 51 ST-2: In front of 462 Oak Crest Place (2/22/2019, 1:40 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.) 56 50 47 46 48 51 ST-3: In front of 3818 La Miranda Place (2/22/2019, 2:20 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.) 61 46 36 34 47 52 ST-4: In front of 34 Orinda Circle (2/22/2019, 2:20 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.) 54 52 42 39 44 51 ST-5: In front of 2308 Jacqueline Drive (2/22/2019, 2:50 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 46 44 37 35 40 51 ST-6: Across from 2251 Santa Maria Drive (2/22/2019, 2:50 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.) 63 55 42 39 52 53 1 Calculated based on comparison between the short-term and long-tern noise data. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 The primary noise source in the surrounding neighborhoods is intermittent traffic on local roadways. Distant traffic from Highway 4 and major arterials also contributes to background noise levels. In general, noise levels of 55 to 60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65 to 70 dBA are typical values for primary/major arterials, and 75 to 80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In this context, the surveyed neighborhoods have relatively low ambient noise levels . Aside from traffic noise, localized community noise sources (dog barks, neighborhood activity, garage door opening, local water features, yard work, etc.) and distant aircraft overflights contribute to the noise environment. RNG Processing Equipment Noise In addition to the community noise monitoring survey, on-site noise measurements were recorded in February 2019. Figure 13-2 shows the locations of noise measurements made to confirm existing equipment noise levels at the LFGTE plant. The results of the on-site measurements are summarized in Table 13-2. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 193 Figure 13-2. Ameresco LFGTE Plant On-Site Equipment Noise Measurements Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 The RNG processing facility would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week in conjunction with the existing LFGTE plant, except during maintenance periods. The footprint of the RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 48,000 sq. ft. and would be located adjacent to, and northwest of, the LFGTE plant. The entire facility would operate automatically with only minor adjustments by operations personnel. Proposed noise generating equipment includes compressors, coolers, vacuum pumps, a thermal oxidizer, and feed blowers. A list of equipment proposed for the site, the numbers of units proposed, and the noise output of the units are shown in Table 13-3. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 194 Table 13-2. Noise levels Generated by Existing On-Site LFGTE Plant Equipment Existing LFGTE Plant Equipment Noise Level at Distance from Source, Leq dBA 3 feet 5 feet 15 feet 50 feet 100 feet Internal Combustion Engine Generator (3.8 Megawatts) With LFGTE Plant Door Open, In Line with Door 104 94 88 82 With LFGTE Plant Door Closed, In Line with Door 78 71 With LFGTE Plant Door Open, at Angle from Door 73 With LFGTE Plant Door Closed, at Angle from Door 68 Turbines 86 Compressor 82 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 TABLE 13-3. Noise Levels for Proposed Equipment at 3 feet Equipment Number of Units Proposed Noise Level per Unit at 3 feet, dBA Feed Compressor Oil Cooler 4 81.7 dBA Feed Compressor 4 75 dBA Feed Blowers 3 80 dBA Recirculation Compression Aftercooling 1 81.7 dBA Recirculation Oil Cooler 2 81.7 dBA Recirculation Compressors 2 75 dBA Stage 2 Compressors 2 81.6 dBA Stage 2 Compressor Oil Cooler 2 81.7 dBA HX-380 Second Stage Aftercooler 1 81.6 dBA Thermal Oxidizer 1 85 dBA NRU Vacuum Pumps 2 83 dBA Product Compressor/Aftercooler 2 72 dBA Stage 3 Compressors 2 75 dBA Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 provided by Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 195 Noise levels were modeled at the short-term noise measurement locations, considering the shielding effects of the topography of the area. The closest residences to the equipment at the proposed RNG processing facility are located approximately 2,100 feet (0.40 mile) to the west on Summitridge Court (near ST-1), approximately 1,700 feet (0.32 mile) to the northeast on Jacqueline Drive (near ST-5), and approximately 2,450 feet (0.46 mile) and within line of sight of residences to the north on Santa Maria Drive (near ST-6). The calculations assume operation of all proposed equipment simultaneously. Noise levels resulting from project operations at the nearest receptors are shown on Figure 13-3 and in Table 13-4. As shown, noise levels of the proposed equipment would range from 24 to 40 dBA Leq at the short-term noise measurement locations, with the highest noise levels experienced in locations with line of sight to the facility (ST-6). The resulting DNL levels, assuming all equipment operating continuously for 24-hr/day, would range from 30 to 47 dBA DNL. Figure 13-3. Noise Contours Generated by Proposed RNG Processing Facility Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 196 TABLE 13-4. Noise levels Generated by Proposed Equipment Receiver Project Generated Leq, dBA Project Generated DNL1, dBA ST-1 38 45 ST-2 34 40 ST-3 25 32 ST-4 24 30 ST-5 27 34 ST-6 40 47 1 Assumes continuous simultaneous operation of all equipment, 24 -hr/day Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 Table 13-5 shows existing ambient and calculated DNL noise levels resulting from proposed RNG processing facility, with all equipment operating simultaneously 24-hr/day. Ambient DNL levels are based on noise measurements and observations made during the noise monitoring survey TABLE 13-5. Estimated Increase in DNL Resulting from Project Operations Receiver Ambient DNL, dBA Project Generated DNL1, dBA Existing + Project DNL1, dBA DNL Increase2, dBA ST-1 51 45 52 0.9 ST-2 51 40 51 0.4 ST-3 52 32 52 0.0 ST-4 51 30 51 0.0 ST-5 51 34 51 0.1 ST-6 53 47 54 0.9 1 Assumes continuous simultaneous operation of all equipment, 24 -hr/day. 2 Results were rounded to the nearest decibel. In some cases, this can result in relative changes that may not appear intuitive. For example, the difference between 64.4 (64) and 64.5 (65) is 0.1 (0), not 1. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, March 2020 As indicated in Table 13-5, project operations would result in DNL noise levels increases of 0 to 1 dBA at the nearest surrounding residences. The noise levels generated by the RNG processing facility at the community noise measurement locations would not exceed the County’s daytime (60 dBA Leq), nighttime (50 dBA Leq) thresholds set by LP89-2020 COA 21.2. Equipment noise levels would typically not be audible or distinguishable above other ambient sources at the nearest residences except at the most exposed residences during the quietest nighttime hours. Further, activities at the proposed RNG processing facility are not expected to expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of the Community Noise Exposure Levels shown on Figure 11 -6 of the General Plan Noise Element. Figure 11-6 shows 60 dBA as normally acceptable and 70 dBA as conditionally acceptable for single-family residences. In addition, the applicant will apply the relevant noise control measures LP89-2020, if the proposed project is approved. Thus, noise effects of project operations would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 197 Project-Generated Traffic Noise As discussed in Section 8 (Description of Project), operation of the proposed RNG processing facility would be overseen by two operators for 40 hours per week. Accordingly, there would not be any substantial change in facility access or traffic patterns assoc iated with the RNGPPP and project-generated traffic noise would be less than significant. Noise during Project Construction Noise levels during construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by intervening structures or terrain, and ambient noise levels. Construction activities for the RNG processing facility include site clearing, grading and earthwork, installation of electrical grounding grids, placement of concrete pads, installation of processing equipment, construction of gravel roads, and installation of permanent storm water control features. Noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Construction equipment noise varies greatly depending on the construction activity performed, type and specific model of equipment, and the condition of equipment used. Typical noise levels for different construction equipment a t a distance of 50 feet are shown in Table 13 -6. If the project is approved, the applicant will implement the noise control measures des cribed above, including not using pile driving, blasting, or helicopters as methods of construction. Thus, most demolition and construction noise would range from 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrai n can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors. Residences are located as close as approximately 1,700 feet (0.32 mile) to the northeast and approximately 2,100 feet (0.40 mile) to the west of the proposed RNG processing facility. With the drop off in noise levels with increasing distance from noise sources, construction activities at the RNG processing facility site would be anticipated to generate noise levels in the range of 50 to 60 dBA at a distance of 1,600 feet, not taking any shielding from intervening terrain or structures into account. At a distance of 2,000 feet, construction activities would be anticipated to generate noise levels in the range of 48 to 58 dBA. Noise levels would be lower at more distant and/or shielded receptor locations. Accordingly, noise impacts during construction of the proposed RNG processing facility would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 198 Table 13-6. Construction Equipment 50-foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder Auger Drill Rig Backhoe Bar Bender Boring Jack Power Unit Chain Saw Compressor3 Compressor (other) Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump Concrete Saw Concrete Vibrator Crane Dozer Excavator Front End Loader Generator Generator (25 KVA or less) Grader Grinder Saw Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack Hydra Break Ram Impact Pile Driver Insitu Soil Sampling Rig Jackhammer Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) Paver Pneumatic Tools Pumps Rock Drill Scraper Slurry Trenching Machine Soil Mix Drill Rig Street Sweeper Tractor Truck (dump, delivery) Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck) Vibratory Compactor Vibratory Pile Driver All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP 73 85 80 80 80 85 70 80 85 82 90 80 85 85 85 80 82 70 85 85 80 90 105 84 85 90 85 85 77 85 85 82 80 80 84 84 85 80 95 85 Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Impact Impact Continuous Impact Impact Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Notes: 1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation. 3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that oper ates at greater than 50 psi. Source: Mitigation of Nighttime Construction Noise, Vibrations and Other Nuisances, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 1999. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 199 With respect to installation of the RNG transmission pipeline, most of the pipeline installation would be located 2,000 (0.38 mile) to 4,500 feet (0.85 mile) from the nearest residences ; however, within the PG&E utility corridor, the pipeline would be installed approximately 50 feet from residences to the east (ST-3 and ST-4 on Figure 13-1). The four-inch diameter steel pipeline would be installed to a typical depth of four feet utilizing an excavator except where horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is required to allow the pipeline to pass beneath the Contra Costa Canal. HDD may require drilling to a depth of approximately 44 feet to meet clearance requirements. After the pipeline is installed, the trench would be backfilled and restored to its original contours. As shown in Table 13-6, an excavator would be anticipated to generate a maximum noise level of 85 dBA Lmax during operation at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels on an hourly average would be considerably lower and would be 77 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. Pipeline construction would be anticipated to occur for relatively short periods of time in any specific location as construction proceeds along the project’s alignment. Nevertheless, noise levels could exceed ambient levels by as much as 26 dBA in the PG&E utility corridor at the nearest residences during daytime periods of construction. As a result, noise from pipeline installation that exceeds the normally acceptable 60 dBA noise level for single-family residences could result in a potentially significant impact. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the foll owing mitigation measure for project-related noise, in addition to applying the noise control measures described above. Mitigation Measures Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation and shall be included on all sets of construction drawings. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project - related contractors. 2. A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the property with the telephone number and person to contact regarding construction-related complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Department of Conservation and Development phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3. Additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation in the PG&E utility corridor: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 200 a. Per City of Pittsburg Municipal Ordinance Section 18.82.040 Noise, no construction event or activity occurring on the PG&E property adjoining existing residential uses shall generate loud noises in excess of 65 decibels measured at the property line, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. b. Per City of Pittsburg General Plan Noise Element Policy 12 -P-9, the applicant shall restrict outdoor construction activities in the PG&E utilit y corridor to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. c. In addition to the foregoing, the applicant sh all provide notification to occupants of property directly adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor two weeks prior to, and 24-hours prior to, scheduled construction activity in the PG&E utility corridor. Implementation of the Noise 1 mitigation measures would reduce the noise impact from pipeline installation to a less than significant level. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than significant) Future construction of the RNGPFP, including the proposed RNG processing facility and the underground RNG transmission pipeline would not include any components (e.g., pile-driving) that would generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels. Additionally, normal operation of the RNG processing facility and transmission pipeline would not generate ground-borne vibrations during project operations. Construction activities would include site clearing, earthwork, construction of the proposed RNG processing facility, and installation of an underground RNG transmission pipeline to connect to the PG&E valve lot. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Secti on 13.a, pile driving and blasting, which can cause excessive vibration, would not be used as methods of construction. Table 13-7 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet (excluding pile driving and blasting). Project construction activities may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity of work areas, but vibration levels would vary at off-site receptor locations depending on distance from the source of the vibration, soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. The nearest off-site residences are located approximately 1,700 feet (0.32 mile) to the northeast and approximately 2,100 feet (0.40 mile) to the west of the proposed RNG processing facility. At these distances, vibration levels would not be discernible from ambient conditions (0.002 in/sec PPV or less). Thus, project-generate ground-borne vibration levels for the RNG processing facility would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s vibration -induced architectural damage Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 201 threshold of 0.2 PPV, and therefore, would have a less than significant ground-borne vibration impact. Table 13-7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Vibratory Roller 0.210 Hoe Ram 0.089 Large bulldozer 0.089 Loaded trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018. During installation of the underground RNG transmission pipeline within the PG&E utility corridor, construction would be located as close as 50 feet from residences to the east (ST-3 and ST-4 on Figure 13-1). At a distance of 50 feet, use of an excavator would be anticipated to generate a vibration level of about 0.031 in/sec PPV (similar to a hoe ram or large bulldozer). Vibration levels may be perceptible to occupants during short periods when construction is located directly adjacent to structures but would be below the Federal Transit Administration’s vibration-induced architectural damage threshold of 0.2 PPV. Thus, vibration levels associated with installation of the underground pipeline would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No impact) There is no currently operating private airstrip in the vicinity of the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people to airstrip-related noise. The nearest public use airport is the Buchanan Field Airport, which is approximately 6.6 miles west of the project site, and the nearest public airport is the Oakland International Ai rport, located 24.8 miles to the southwest. Accordingly, the project site would not be located within an area where there would be excessive airport-related noise. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 202 • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Illingworth & Rodkin, 2020. Noise - Ameresco IS-MND Section 13. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Noise Element. • Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123. • Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 203 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SUMMARY: a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less than significant) As described in Section 8 (Description of Project), the proposed RNGPFP would more fully utilize LFG and convert it into a renewable gas product at a new processing facility and transmit the RNG product to PG&E via an underground transmission pipeline. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 11 (Land Use and Planning), the proposed project would not change any of the uses on the project site or in the vicinity. In addition, no off-site improvements such as new roads or other infrastructure is proposed with the project. Further, operation of the RNGPFP would be conducted by two employees, and therefore, the RNGPFP would not significantly increase the population in the unincorporated Pittsburg area. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No impact) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 14.1 above, the proposed project would add a RNG processing facility and a RNG transmission pipeline to the project site. There are currently no persons residing on the project site, and here are no housing units. Accordingly, the proposed project would not displace any person from the project site. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 204 • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 205 15. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? SUMMARY: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? (Less than significant) Fire protection and emergency medical response services in the project vicinity are provided by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD). Fire protection at the project site would be provided by Fire Station 87 located at 800 West Leland Road, approximately 1.0 mile to the northeast, and by Fire Station 86 located at 3000 Willow Pass Road, approximately 1.7 miles to the north. If necessary, additional fire protection support would be provided by Fire Station 84 located at 1903 Railroad Avenue, approximately 2.7 miles to the northeast, and by Fire Station 8 located at 4647 Clayton Road, approximately 4.0 miles to the southwest. (Distances are from the proposed RNG processing facility.) The proposed project would add a RNG processing facility adjacent to the northwest of the existing LFGTE plant and an underground RNG transmission pipeline. The project site is located in the designated area for landfill infrastructure and control systems , and therefore the applicant shall comply with applicable LP89-2020 COAs. Existing LP89-2020 permit conditions include meeting the requirements of the CCCFPD for on-site fire protection water supply (COA 30.8, On- Site Water Storage), (COA 30.18, Smoking Prohibitions), equipping the landfill facilities with fire extinguishers (COA 30.13, Fire Extinguishers), and maintaining a 60-foot fire break around the perimeter of the landfill and any buildings or structures (COA 30.12, Fire Breaks). As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.a, the proposed project would provide a fire detection system that would include manual pull stations, smoke detectors, rate of rise detectors in the electric/control room, methane detectors, and alarm strobes/horns. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 206 Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 30.17 (Emergency Equipment Access), an existing paved cul-de- sac provides access and circulation for large vehicles to/from the other existing industrial facilities located near the proposed site of the RNG processing facility. The industrial facilities include large storage tanks, the Ameresco LFGTE plant, and landfill flare station. Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 30.8 (On-Site Water Storage), an existing water supply tank for landfill operations is located southeast of the proposed RNG processing facility. Water supply for firefighting would be sourced from this existing tank. The total capacity of the water supply tank is approximately 342,300 gallons. The net capacity for stored water reserved for firefighting is approximately 235,800 gallons, or about 69 percent of total stored water. Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 30.5 (Fire Protection Component), two existing fire hydrants are located within 325 feet of the RNG processing facility site for use in a fire event: One hydrant is located adjacent to the water supply tank; a second hydrant is located southwest of the water supply tank alongside the access road near the landfill maintenance building. If the proposed project is approved, the applicant will implement the following additional fi re protection measure. 1. The applicant shall construct a new fire hydrant in a location near the mid -southeastern boundary of the RNG processing facility enclosure. The precise location and specifications of the new hydrant shall be coordinated with the CCCFPD to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code. As described above, the proposed third hydrant would be located off the edge of the cul-de-sac, approximately near the mid-point of the east boundary of the RNG processing facility enclosure. The gas processing equipment would be accessible via the existing cul-de-sac. Fire apparatus would be able to connect hoses to any one or all of the hydrants to extinguish fires. Figure 15-1 illustrates the access and water supply system, two existing hydrants, a nd location of the proposed new hydrant. As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services. b) Police Protection? (Less than significant) Police protection services at KCL are provided by the landfill operator pursuant existing LP89-2020 permit conditions, including managing KCL in a manner that prevents unauthorized access (COA 27.1, Security Objective), perimeter security fencing (COA 27.2, Security Fencing), 24 -hour private security protection (COA 27.3, Security Staffing), and maintenance of security lighting (COA 27.4, Security Lighting). Implementation of the RNGPFP would not significantly impact the provision of security in KCL, and thereby would have a less than significant impact on police protection. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 208 c) Schools? (No impact) The Mt. Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) and the Pittsburg Unified School District (PUSD) provide public education services from kindergarten to 12th grade to students in the KCL area. Nearby MDUSD schools include Delta View Elementary School located at 2916 Rio Verde, approximately 1.9 miles to the west, and Bel Air Elementary School located at 663 Canal Road, approximately 1.1 miles to the north. Nearby PUSD schools include Willow Cove Elementary School located at 1880 Hanlon Way, approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast, Ranchos Medanos Junior High School located at 2301 Range Road, approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast, Heights Elementary School located at 40 Seeno Avenue, approximately 2.0 miles to the east, and Los Medanos Elementary School located at 610 Crowley Avenue, approximately 2.0 miles to the northeast. (Distances are from the proposed RNG processing facility.) The RNGPFP would not include any residential units, and therefore, would not affect student enrollment in the MDUSD and the PUSD. Accordingly, there would be no impact. d) Parks? (Less than significant) The closest public parks to the project site include Hillsdale Park located at 2240 Daffodil Drive, approximately 0.7 mile to the northeast, Oak Hills Park located on Southwood Drive at Fieldgate Drive, approximately 1.0 mile to the northwest, and Ambrose Park located at 175 Memorial Way, approximately 0.8 mile to the north. (Distances are from the proposed RNG processing facility.) Hillsdale Park and Oak Hills Park are operated by the City of Pittsburg Parks and Recreation Department. Ambrose Park is operated by the Ambrose Recreation and Park District . The applicant would employ two persons to operate the RNG facility, and if these persons use nearby public parks, the increase in use of the parks by the employees would be less than significant . e) Other public facilities? (No impact) Libraries: The Contra Costa Library operates 26 facilities in Contra Costa County, including the Bay Point Library located at 205 Pacifica Avenue, approximately 2.7 miles to the northwest, and the Pittsburg Library located at 80 Power Avenue, approximately 2.6 miles to the northeast. (Distances are from the proposed RNG processing facility.) The applicant would employ two persons to operate the RNG facility and these persons may use public libraries, but the employees would not substantially increase the number of library patrons. Thus, the project would have no impact on library facilities. Health Facilities: The Contra Costa County Health Services District operates a regional medical center (hospital) and 11 health centers and clinics in the county. The closest public health facilities to the project site are the Bay Point Family Health Center located at 215 Pacifica Avenue, Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 209 approximately 2.7 miles to the northwest, and the Pittsburg Health Center located at 2311 Loveridge Road, approximately 3.5 miles to the east. (Distances are from the proposed RNG processing facility.) Because the RNGPFP would not include any residential units, there would be no project-related increase in population, and therefore, there would be no impact on the use of public health facilities. Sources of Information • https://www.cccfpd.org/station-address, 2020. Fire Stations, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Public Services - Ameresco IS-MND Section 15. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit LP89-2020. • https://www.mdusd.org/, 2020. Schools, Mount Diablo Unified School District. • https://www.pittsburg.k12.ca.us/pittsburg, 2020. District Map, Pittsburg Unified School District. • http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=238, 2020. Parks and Recreation, City of Pittsburg. • https://www.ambroserec.org/parks-facilities, 2020. Parks and Facilities, Ambrose Recreation and Park District. • http://ccclib.org/, 2020. Contra Costa County Library. • https://cchealth.org/#Centers, 2020. Health Centers & Clinics, Contra Costa Health Services. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 210 16. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SUMMARY: e a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less than significant) As described in Environmental Checklist Section 15.d (Public Serv ices – Parks), nearby neighborhood parks include Hillsdale Park and Oak Hills Park operated by the City of Pittsburg Parks and Recreation Department, and Ambrose Park operated by the Ambrose Recreation and Park District. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 1.a, the ridges of the Concord Hills are approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the existing LFGTE plant and Mount Diablo State Park is approximately six miles to the south. Other regional park facilities include the Lime Ridge Open Space operated by the City of Walnut Creek, and the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. A trailhead for Lime Ridge is located approximately 5.1 miles to the southwest on Montecito Drive near Ygnacio Valley Road, and a trailhead for Black Diamond Mines is located approximately 4.5 miles to the south on C layton Road near Oakhurst Drive. The applicant would employ two persons to operate the RNG facility, and these persons may use nearby neighborhood parks. The regional parks and trailheads are further from the project site than the neighborhood parks , and therefore, employees would be less likely to use these facilities. Overall, the impact of the proposed project on neighborhood parks and regional facilities would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No impact) The proposed RNGPFP would not include a recreational facility on the project site. Given the location of the nearby neighborhood parks described in Environmental Checklist Section 15.d Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 211 (Public Services – Parks), as well as the regional facilities discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 16.a, employees at the RNGPFP would likely use these facilities. The incremental increase in the use of these nearby neighborhood parks and recreational facilities would not be expected to result in the need to construct or expand recreational facilities. Sources of Information • https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=517, 2020. Mount Diablo State Park, California Department of Parks and Recreation. • https://www.walnut-creek.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/12/664, 2020. Lime Ridge Open Space, City of Walnut Creek. • https://www.ebparks.org/parks/black_diamond/, 2020. Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, East Bay Regional Open Space District. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 212 17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Less than significant) As discussed in Section 8 (Description of Project) the proposed RNG processing facility would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week with two operators overseeing the facility for 40 hours per week. With respect to trip generation per employee, there is almost no transportation survey data for a RNG processing facility and relatively little transportation survey data available for power generating facilities. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has published data that includes power generating facilities. This data shows power generating facilities have the same daily trip rate as general light industrial fa cilities, with a rate of 3.02 trips per employee. Using this trip rate, the two employees at the RNG processing facility would generate six trips per day. In the 2017 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, the PM peak hour trip rate for general light industrial facilities is approximately 0.09 percent of the daily trips. Accordingly, the two employees would generate less than one peak hour trip. Policy 4-c of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan requi res a transportation impact analysis of any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak -hour trips. The proposed RNGPFP would generate at most up to two new peak-hour trip. Accordingly, a project-specific traffic impact analysis is not required. Since the project would yield less than 100 peak hour AM or PM trips, the proposed project would not conflict with the circulation system in the KCL area. With respect to construction traffic, the applicant anticipates that there would be less than 20 inbound construction trips per day. Access to the RNGPFP project area for construction traffic would be from the following locations: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 213 • Bailey Road and internal site roads for construction on KCL property; • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to connect to a laydown area located on KCL property ; • Through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E property; and • Via the parking lot of the former Delta View Golf Course, located at the end of Golf Club Road to provide access to the PG&E valve lot. Construction peak hour trips are temporary. To minimize disruption of local area traffic, the applicant will implement the following construction traffic measures, if the proposed project is approved. 1 During construction in the east portion of the project site on PG&E property, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg alertin g of the need for potential traffic and parking controls on Alta Vista Circle on days vehicles and equipment are scheduled to access the PG&E property. 2 During construction in the mid portion of the project site and PG&E valve lot, advance notice shall be given to the City of Pittsburg and/or property owners to allow for vehicle access through the John Henry Johnson Parkway and Golf Course Road, respectively. With implementation of the construction traffic measures, the impact of construction traffic would be less than significant. Following are assessments of possible effects on public transit, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Public Transit: There is no transit service along Bailey Road at KCL. The nearest transit stops are the Tri-Delta Transit bus stops on West Leland Road near Bailey Road approximately 0.9 mile to the northwest of the project site. Because of the distance between transit stops and the hilly terrain of the KCL area, significant demand for transit service is not expected, and the project would not impede any existing transit service. Bicycle Facilities: There is a Class II bicycle lane on Bailey Road that starts approximately 300 feet south of the entrance to KCL and turns into a Class III bicycle route approximately 175 feet south of Willow Avenue, The Contra Costa County Bicycle Facilities Network Ma p shows Baily Road through the KCL area as a Class II bicycle lane connecting to similar faci lities along West Leland Road in the City of Pittsburg. Given that the Class II bicycle lane is already installed at the KCL Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 214 entrance, the proposed project would not impede the future provision of bicycle lanes in the local area. Pedestrian Facilities: There are no pedestrian facilities along Bailey Road in the vicinity of the KCL entrance. Due to the rural character of this area, pedestrian activity along any roadway is largely non-existent. The location and characteristics of the project site make it unl ikely that anyone would travel by foot. Thus, the absence of pedestrian facilities woul d not constitute a significant impact. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? (Less than significant) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines in June 2020. The Transportation Analysis Guidelines include the following screening criteria. If a proposed project meets the screening criteria, the project would be expected to have a less than significant impact and would not require VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) analysis. i. Projects that: a. Generate or attract fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips; or, b. Projects of 10,000 square feet or less of non -residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. ii. Residential, retail, office projects, or mixed-use projects proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. iii. Residential projects (home-based VMT) at 15% or below the baseline County-wide home- based average VMT per capita, or employment projects (employee VMT) at 15% or below the baseline Bay Area average commute VMT per employee in areas with low VMT that incorporate similar VMT reducing features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility). iv. Public facilities (e.g. emergency services, passive parks (low-intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. Based on the assessment in Environmental Checklist Section 17.a, the RNGPFP would generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips, and therefore, a VMT analysis is not required. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than significant transp ortation impact and would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 215 c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No impact) The proposed RNGPFP does not include construction of any new offsite roadways and access to the KCL and Ameresco facilities would be unchanged. Thus, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to design features and it would have no impact. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (No impact) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.f, operational access to the RNGPFP would be from the KCL driveway at 901 Bailey Road. Operation of the RNGPFP would be conducted by two employees, and therefore, the impact of RNGPFP operation on emergency response or emergency evacuation via Bailey Road would be minimal. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 17.a above, During the 12 to 14-month construction period, there would be one staging location on KCL property and two locations on the PG&E property. The locations include: • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to access a laydown area on KCL property ; • Access through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E property; and • Access from the parking lot of the former Delta Vie w Golf Course, located at the end of Golf Club Road to provide access to the PG&E valve lot. The proposed project does not include any roadway modifications or any road closures during construction. Accordingly, the project would have no impact on emergen cy access in the project area. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Transportation - Ameresco IS-MND Section 17. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Growth Management Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Transportation and Circulation Element. • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2012. Trip Table. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 216 • Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. Common Trip Generation Rates (PM Peak Hour), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. • http://trideltatransit.com/local_bus.aspx, 2020. System Map, Tri-Delta Transit. • Contra Costa County, 2010. Bicycle Facilities Network Map. • Contra Costa County, 2020. Transportation Analysis Guidelines. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 217 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as d efined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? SUMMARY: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a trib al cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (Less than significant with mitigation) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5.a above, no cultural resources are within the footprint of the proposed RNG processing facility or the proposed pipeline ali gnment. Nevertheless, because construction of the proposed project would involve grading and other earthwork, it is possible that buried historical resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Damage or destruction of these historic resources during project construction would be a potentially significant impact. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the mitigation measures Cultural Resources 1. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant levels. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? (Less than significant with mitigation) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 218 As discussed in Environmental Checklist Sections 5.b, and 5.c above grading and other earthwork associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. Damage or destruction of archaeological resources and disturbance of human remains during project construction would be potentially si gnificant impacts. Implementation of Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2 would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Regarding paleontological resources, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 7.f, the potential for unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features along the pipeline corridor would be less-than-significant. With respect to consultation with California Native American Tribes, on October 7, 2020, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was both mailed and sent via email to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. To date, no response has been received from the Wilton Rancheria. Sources of Information • Site visits by County staff, October 2018. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2020. Tribal Cultural Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 18. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 219 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste redu ction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SUMMARY: a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than significant) The proposed project would be constructed in an area designated for industrial use, infrastructure, and facilities. Utilities and service systems are in existence and available for use by the proposed project. To ensure adequate sewer service for the RNGPFP, the applicant will implement the following improvement, if the proposed project is approved. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 220 1 Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 30.20 (On-site Septic System), the applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health on the design for a new wastewater connection to the existing septic system. Other utilities and service systems would req uirement minor modification to meet design and construction code requirements for the RNG processing facility equipment. There would be no requirements for new or expanded utilities or other systems related to electric power, water supply, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, or telecommunication facilities. The installation and operation of the RNG processing facility and transmission pipeline would have less than significant effects on utilities and service systems. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 19.a above, on-site water supply would not require major modification for the proposed RNGPFP. Existing water lines would be extended as needed. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 15.a, an existing water supply tank for landfill operations is located southeast of the proposed site of the RNG processing facility, as required by LP89-2020 COA 30.8 (On-Site Water Storage). The total capacity of the water supply tank is approximately 342,300 gallons, with approximately 235,800 gallons (about 69 percent) reserved for firefighting. Thus, the allocation of water to serve the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on existing water resources. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected d emand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 19.a above, if the proposed project is approved, the applicant will coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health for a new wastewater connection to the existing septic system. Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 30.20 (On-site Septic System), a septic system with a leach field was constructed for the existing LFGTE plant in 2009 under Contra Costa Environmental Health Permit 07 -000-774565. The new connection would provide for a new employee restroom for the two new employees expected to operate and monitor the RNG processing facility. The applicant would be required to acquire a new or amended permit from Contra Costa Environmental Health for the new connection. The design capacity of the existing system is 105 gallons per day (gpd) to accommodate up to seven employees at the LFGTE plant. The two employees at the proposed RNG processing facility are projected to generate approximately 30 gpd, which would increase the total flows to the existing septic system to approximately 45 gpd. Th e future total flow would be accommodated Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 221 by the capacity of the existing septic system, and therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standard s, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less than significant) Construction of the RNGPFP would generate construction solid waste, which would be accounted for in the state reporting system. Accordingly, if the project is approved, the applicant will implement the following measures for job site debris. 2 Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.4 (Materials Recovery) and in accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) as amended in Contra Costa County Code, at least 65 percent by weight of the job site debris generated by the RNGPFP shall be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. A Construction Waste Management (CalGreen) Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the BID prior to commencing construction. 3 Consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.4 (Materials Recovery) and in accordance with the CalGreen as amended in Contra Costa County Code, plans and reports with ver ifiable post-project documentation shall be submitted to the BID to demonstrate that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated on the job site were salvaged for reuse, recycled or otherwise diverted. A Construction Waste Management (CalGreen) Report shall be submitted to the BID prior to final inspection. 4 Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 31.1 (Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Objective), a Supplemental Land Clearing Debris and Universal Waste Report for CalGreen shall be submitted to the BID along with the CalGreen Report above outlining the extent and quantity of land clearing and excavation debris recycled for materials such as plants, trees, soil, sand, and rock. During construction of the RNG processing facility, some equipment or hardware would be delivered in various containers, pallets, or skids. No significant construction debris is expected from construction of the pipeline, given the limited type of materials required (i.e. primarily pipe) and the requirement for covering the trench upon installation. if the project is approved, the applicant will implement the measures for job site debris described above to reuse, recycle, or divert disposal of job site construction debris in accordance with County Code. Thus, project construction would have a less than significant solid waste impact. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 222 e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes a nd regulations related to solid waste? (No impact) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 19.d above, if the proposed project is approved, a Construction Waste Management (CalGreen) Plan to track the tonnage of debris will be submitted for approval to the BID prior to construction. Similarly, a post-project Construction Waste Management (CalGreen) Report will be prepared to demonstrate how non-hazardous C&D was handled. This report will be submitted to the BID prior to final inspection. Construction of the RNG processing facility would require site development, grading, and limited tree removal. Accordingly, if the proposed project is approved, a Supplemental Land Clearing Debris and Universal Waste Report for CalGreen will be prepared outlining the extent and quantity of land clearing and excavation debris recycled. This report will be submitted to the BID for review and approval. Thus, there would be no conflict with existing regulations applicable to solid waste. The project would have no impact. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Utilities and Service Systems - Ameresco IS-MND Section 19. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 223 20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of run off, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? SUMMARY: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.g (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), project site is 1.7 miles northwest of the Concord Hills and six miles north o f Mount Diablo State Park. The project site, and the neighboring open space and park lands are in a high fire hazard severity zone. However, the potential for wildfires originati ng from the RNG processing facility or pipeline is greatly minimized by the consistency measures discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.a and the design criteria described in Environmental Checklist Section 9.b. In addition, due to its location in a high fire hazard severity zone, project implementation would conform to California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 224 Exposure) and California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas), which would reduce the risk of loss, injury or death from wildla nd fires As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 15.a (Public Services – Fire Protection), fire protection and emergency medical response services in the project vicinity are provided by the CCCFPD, which has four fire stations in proximity to KCL. Due to the location of the RNGPFP within KCL property, the proposed project would be subject to LP89-2020 COAs. Existing LP89-2020 permit conditions include: • Meeting the requirements of the CCCFPD for fire hydrants (COA 30.5, Fire Protection Component); • Providing an on-site fire protection water supply (COA 30.8, On-Site Water Storage); • Maintaining a 60-foot fire break around the perimeter of the landfill and any buildings or structures (COA 30.12, Fire Breaks); • Equipping the landfill facilities with fire extinguishers (COA 30.13, Fire Extinguishers); • Providing emergency vehicle access (COA 30.17, Emergency Equipment Access); and • Instituting smoking prohibitions (COA 30.18, Smoking Prohibitions). Compliance with the LP89-2020 COAs and all CCCFPD requirements would ensure that project impacts on emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less than significant) The RNGPFP project on KCL property and the adjoining PG&E utility corridor would be on hilly terrain that varies in elevation from approximately 270 feet at the KCL entrance on Bailey Road to approximately 410 feet at the LFGTE plant to approximately 60 feet at the PG&E valve lot. Access to the RNGPFP would be via Bailey Road and internal KCL roads, including a paved asphalt road to the RNG processing facility site. Accordingly, access to and from the processing facility would not be substantially encumbered due to a wildfire and persons on the project site would be able to readily evacuate if necessary. With respect to the underground RNG transmission pipeline, employees would conduct inspection and maintenance from time to time but would not regularly be in the pipeline corridor. Most of the pipeline corridor would be accessible via internal KCL and PG&E roads, and employees would be able to evacuate using the roads if necessary. In addition to meeting CCCFPD requirements as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 20.a above, construction plans for the RNGPFP would be reviewed and approved by the CCCFPD. With the preceding consideration, wildfire risk to persons at the RNG processing facility would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 225 c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 20.a above, construction plans for the RNGPFP facilities would be reviewed and approved by the CCCFPD, and compliance with all Fire Protection District requirements would ensure that temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment due to wildfires would be less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less than significant with mitigation) In Environmental Checklist Sections 7.a.iii, 7.a.iv, 7.b, and 7.c, the proposed RNGPFP would have potentially significant impacts due to seismic related ground failure , reactivation of ancient landslides, soil erosion, and liquefaction, and unstable geologic units or soil . Accordingly, the applicant is required to implement mitigation measures Geology 1, Geology 2, Geology 3, and Geology 4. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the risks seismic related ground failure, reactivation of ancient landslides, soil erosion, and liquefaction, and unstable geologic units or soil to less than significant levels. Sources of Information • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Wildfire - Ameresco IS-MND Section 20. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 226 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory ? (Less than significant with mitigation) As assessed in Environmental Checklist Sections 4 (Biological Resources), 5 (Cultural Resources), and 18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), the proposed project would have potentially significant construction impacts on special status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and wildlife corridors, and due to accidental discovery of buried historic and archaeological resources. Mitigation measures, including Biology 1 through Biology 11 and Cultural Resources 1, are proposed in this Initial Study. If the proposed project is approved, the mitigation measures Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 227 will be conditions of approval of the proposed project and the applicant will be responsible for implementation of the measures. With implementation of the mi tigation measures, project impacts will be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Less than significant) The proposed project would not create substantial cumulative impacts. The proposed RNG processing facility would be located in an area that is currently in use as the KCL active landfill. The proposed underground RNG transmission pipeline would start in the active landfill, traverse the landfill open space buffer area, and through the PG&E utility corridor. As discussed in Section 8 (Description of Project), the proposed project would be consistent with LP89-2020 COA 31.7 (Methane Recovery) and as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 3.a, would provide a beneficial use for the landfill gas generated from operating the landfill and would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Clean Air Plan. Moreover, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 8.a, KCL would have a beneficial impact on potential GHG emissions. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact on cumulative conditions in the county , and in fact, would have a beneficial effect by reducing air contaminants and potential GHG emissions . c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than significant with mitigation) This Initial Study has disclosed impacts that would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. As evaluated in Environmental Checklist Sections 4 (Biological Resources), 5 (Cultural Resources), 7 (Geology and Soils), 13 (Noise ), 18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), and 20 (Wildfire), the proposed project includes the construction of a RNG processing facility and installation of an underground RNG transmission pipeline that would create potentially significant impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures Biology 1 through Biology 11, Cultural Resources 1, Cultural Resources 2, Geology 1 through Geology 5, and Noise 1 would reduce the impact of the construction of the RNG processing facility and installation of the RNG transmission pipeline to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures are required in the conditions of approval for the proposed project, and the applicant would be responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures. As a result, there would not be any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with the mitigation measures. 228 REFERENCES In the process of preparing the Initial Study Checklist and conduction of the evaluation, the following references were consulted and are available for review by contacting the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez, CA 94553: • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Darwin Myers Associates, 2020. Geologic Peer Review /Geotechnical Reports & CEQA Assessment, LP18-2022/APN 094-360-019, etc. & 094-080-012, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA Project # 3006.20. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Aesthetics - Ameresco IS-MND Section 1. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Agricultural and Forest Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 2. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Air Quality - Ameresco IS-MND Section 3. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Energy - Ameresco IS-MND Section 6. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Greenhouse Gases - Ameresco IS-MND Section 8. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Ameresco IS-MND Section 9. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Public Services - Ameresco IS-MND Section 15. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Transportation - Ameresco IS-MND Section 17. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Utilities and Service Systems - Ameresco IS-MND Section 19. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Wildfire - Ameresco IS-MND Section 20. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2020. Cultural Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 5. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2020. Tribal Cultural Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 18. • Illingworth & Rodkin, 2020. Noise - Ameresco IS-MND Section 13. • Swaim Biological Inc. et al., 2020. Biological Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 4. • Tetra Tech et al., 2020. Hydrology & Water Quality - Ameresco IS-MND Section 10. ATTACHMENT 9 JUNE 2021 FINAL MND SCH #2020100267 JUNE 2021 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL STUDY FOR AMERESCO KELLER CANYON RNG LLC – PROPOSED RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY AND PIPELINE PROJECT SCH #2020100267 LAND USE PERMIT LP18-2022 JUNE 23, 2021 I. INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND), State Clearinghouse SCH #2020100267, for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC – Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project (Ameresco RNGPFP) in unincorporated Contra Costa County near Pittsburg, CA. The proposed project is a renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility (RNGPF) and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a new RNGPF and an underground transmission pipeline. The Final MND includes a revised project description, summary responses addressing the project description and potential impacts, the written comments received on the November 2020 re-noticed draft MND, responses to the comments received, and staff-initiated text changes including changes resulting from the preparation of responses to comments received and revised and/or deleted figures. The text changes are not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, do not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and does not alter any findings in the section. The County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will consider the environmental record including the draft MND, the Final MND, and the findings therein prior to taking action on the project as a whole. On October 7, 2020, the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), published a draft MND that analyzed potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP. Pursuant to Section 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires a minimum 30-day public review period, the draft MND included a 38-day public review period that ended on November 13, 2020. A Re-Notice of Public Review was issued on November 12, 2020, which included a 42-day public review period that ended on December 23, 2020. In total, the public review period encompassed 78 consecutive calendar days. The purpose of the public review period is for the public to submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the draft MND. DCD staff received written comments on the draft MND from eight (8) commenters during the public review period. In addition to this introduction, the Final MND includes the following sections: II. Comments Received III. Revised Project Description IV. Summary Responses V. Comments and Responses to Comments VI. Staff-Initiated Text Changes to the Draft MND VII. Revised MND Figures June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 2 of 276 II. COMMENTS RECEIVED During the October 7, 2020 to December 23, 2020 public review period on the draft MND, DCD staff received written comments from the following commenters. The written comments received by DCD staff are included in this Final MND as Section V. Comments Received Commenter Type 1 1 a 1 b Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Letter Letter Letter 2 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) Letter 3 3 a 3 b Wilton Rancheria Wilton Rancheria Wilton Rancheria Email Email Email 4 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Letter 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Email 6 Contra Costa Water District Letter 7 7 a Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Letter Email 8 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Email 9 9 a Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Email Email 10 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Email 11 City of Pittsburg Letter 12 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Email 13 Contra Costa Environmental Health Letter 14 PG&E Letter 15 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Letter III. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Ameresco RNGPFP has been revised in response to written comments received from the City of Pittsburg and other interested parties on the draft MND regarding potential project effects. The applicant has revised the alignment of three (3) segments of the proposed RNG pipeline system. Project revisions primarily comprise of changes in pipeline alignments, corresponding changes in pipeline operating pressure, and relocation of the metering station from PG&E property to Keller Canyon Landfill (KCL) property. Other elements of the Project Description evaluated in the MND related to project design, and operation remain largely June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 3 of 276 unchanged. Certain assumptions about construction methods, and disturbed ground surface area would change as a result of a pipeline alignment change in the PG&E and KCL properties. The project revisions were analyzed to determine the effects of the changes on the MND environmental assessments. The assessments include: (1) Tetra Tech, 2021. Addendum No.1 - Supplemental Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed RNG Pipeline Realignment, Project No. BAS 18-136E; (2) Swaim Biological Inc., 2021. Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Pipeline Alternative Evaluation; and (3) FirstCarbon Solutions, 2021. Ameresco Keller Canyon – RNG Pipeline (email). The assessments are available for review by contacting the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez, CA 94553. 1. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act allows for new project revisions to be added “in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.” CEQA Guideline 15073.5(c)(2). Such project revisions would not require recirculation of the negative declaration. Relocation of the RNG Pipeline as described above would not result in new significant impacts as defined in CEQA Guideline 15073.5(c)(2). The changes reduce impacts by reducing the length of the RNG pipeline, thus reducing associated construction impacts, and by locating the pipeline further away from residences 2. Applicable Codes and Design Standards for the RNG Pipeline The proposed RNG pipeline would be designed and operated in accordance with applicable federal and State regulations. Federal and State regulations include the requirements and established practices to protect the safety of the public and employees. CPUC General Order No. 112-F “State of California Rules Governing Design, Construction, Testing, Operation, and Maintenance of Gas Gathering, Transmission, and Distribution Piping Systems” (June 2015) rules would be incorporated into the RNG pipeline design. Additionally, the federal pipeline safety regulations outlined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 (49 CFR Part 192) “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards” also govern the design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of gas piping systems. All applicable federal and State requirements would be incorporated into the RNG pipeline design. The rules outlined by the CPUC General Order do not supersede 49 CFR Part 192 but are considered a supplement. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 4 of 276 3. Overview of Revised Pipeline Segments The Project Description in the draft MND includes a total of 18,030 feet (3.41 miles) of RNG pipeline. The three segments of the proposed RNG pipeline that have been revised are designated as Segments 1, 2, and 3 from east to west respectively. The general location of each segment is depicted on Plat 1 (a revised Figure 9 – Pipeline Plan from the MND). Details of each segment are shown on other plats as described below. With implementation of Segment 1, the total length of the RNG pipeline would be reduced to 15,050 feet (2.85 miles), a reduction of nearly 17 percent. Segment 1 is a direct tie-in of the RNG pipeline into the existing PG&E Line 191-1, approximately one mile south of the pipeline connection at the STANPAC pipeline as proposed in the draft MND. The tie-in of the RNG pipeline into existing PG&E Line 191-1 would eliminate approximately 75 percent of the RNG pipeline proposed for installation within PG&E property as described in the draft MND. The deleted portion of the RNG pipeline was proposed to run northeast across PG&E property and then north parallel to the existing PG&E Line 191-1, and be located within 50 feet of existing residences. In Segment 2, the RNG pipeline would be moved an additional 25 feet east of the property boundary with the proposed Stoneman Park development, resulting in a total physical separation of approximately 75 feet. Segment 3 includes a revision of the RNG pipeline route where it connects to the proposed RNG processing facility, to better separate it from existing and future underground utilities. 4. Potential Impact Radius Comments were received on the Potential Impact Radius (PIR) associated with the RNG pipeline. The PIR is the radius of a sphere within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property, as defined by the 49 CFR Part 192. The PIR is not a blast radius or zone of destruction. The PIR factors in other potentially dangerous effects and includes impact from heat radiation in the highly unlikely event of a rupture and ignition. The PIR, by definition, does not represent an area of complete devastation. A direct tie-in of the RNG pipeline to the existing PG&E Line 191-1 (described below in Segment 1) would allow for a reduction in maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the RNG pipeline to ensure efficient injection of RNG into existing PG&E Line 191-1. MAOP for the RNG pipeline would be reduced from ~680psi as proposed in the draft MND to ~400psi. As a result of the revised project, the PIR of 72 feet as described in the draft MND, would be reduced to 55 feet. The revised PIR was calculated as follows: PIR = 0.69 x 4.00 x SQRT (400) = 0.69 x 4.00 x 20.00 = 55.20 ~ 55 feet June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 5 of 276 The reduction in MAOP would allow the RNG pipeline to operate at lower than 10 percent of its yield strength (SMYS). The pressure at which this type of pipe fails by rupture is in the 25 to 30 percent and higher SMYS range. Therefore, leakage is considered to be the mode of potential failure for the proposed RNG pipeline rather than sudden rupture. A failure would be detected by sensors at the RNGPF and would activate the automated shut-off system thereby limiting the flow of RNG that could escape from the pipeline. 5. Description of the Tie-In to Existing PG&E Line 191-1 The proposed tie-in would be a “hot tap” involving the connection of the RNG pipeline as an inlet lateral to the existing PG&E Line 191-1, a live operating header pipeline, without clearing the gas from the header pipeline. The tie-in would be installed by PG&E or their approved contractor and would not require service shut down of existing PG&E Line 191-1. PG&E and industry-standard equipment and procedures would be followed to connect the RNG pipeline to existing PG&E Line 191-1. These include installation of a “Stoppel fitting” (a device that provides access for tooling to make the pipe connection while safely restraining the pipeline contents), small pressure- equalizing valves, and a 4” branch valve to allow isolation of the RNG line. The branch valve operator would be set below ground, several feet west of existing PG&E Line 191-1, in a pre-cast concrete vault with a heavy (traffic-rated) cover. 6. Segment 1 – PG&E Property Area The RNG Pipeline would connect to the existing PG&E Line 191-1 approximately one mile south of the connection shown in the draft MND. The proposed routing of the RNG pipeline to the tie- in point is shown on Plat 2. The proposed revised route was developed in response to written comments received on the draft MND regarding potential project effects. In the revised project, Ameresco has eliminated the segment of the RNG pipeline that was previously proposed to run parallel to PG&E Line 191-1 within 50 feet of some residences. The former PIR of 72 feet extended into portions of backyards of some residences. This potential impact has been eliminated. The RNG pipeline route through PG&E property has been re-located outside of the Pittsburg city limit. The metering station previously proposed to be located on PG&E property has been re- located onto KCL property, eliminating potential impacts of close proximity of the metering station to adjacent residences. The tie-in route and proposed metering station are accessible from PG&E property via an existing paved road that traverses both PG&E and KCL properties. Access to the paved road is provided from the gate into PG&E property at Alta Vista Circle. The metering station is also seasonally accessible via existing un-paved access roads entirely within KCL property. Compared to the RNG pipeline route evaluated in the draft MND, a tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191-1 would substantially reduce the potential effects of the project in, and adjacent to, the PG&E property. Changes in Segment 1 would: June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 6 of 276 • Eliminate ~3,135 feet of the RNG pipeline within PG&E property, including all of the pipeline and associated PIR previously proposed to be within 50 feet of some existing residences. • Relocate the metering station from PG&E property onto KCL property, eliminating effects of close proximity of the metering station to nearby residences. The site for the metering station is an elevated plateau and is shown on Plats 2 and 3. The near-level ground surface of the plateau area appears to have been created prior to 1993, but subsequent to that area’s use as a ranch/barn/corral beginning prior to the 1930’s. The approximate boundaries of the metering station site are shown in a ground plane photograph on Plat 3. • Eliminate all (~1,550 feet) of proposed horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and its associated potential effects from the PG&E property. Elimination of HDD also eliminates the need for a frac-out plan to address the unintentional return of drilling fluids to the ground surface during HDD. • Reduce the length of RNG pipeline within PG&E property from 4,165 feet to about 1,030 feet from the assumed property line, a reduction of 3,135 feet (75 percent). • Avoid potential direct impacts to two wetlands identified in the draft MND. • Eliminate the need for National Environmental Policy Act review and permitting from the Contra Costa Water District as a result of deleting a portion of the RNG pipeline previously proposed to cross beneath the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation canal. • Shorten the project pipeline construction duration and reduce the overall potential for impacts during pipeline construction. • Eliminate four (4) construction equipment and material laydown areas within the Pittsburg city limit and near residences thereby reducing potential impacts related to construction and operation of each laydown area as shown on Plat 4 (revised MND Figure 18 – Access and Laydown Areas During Construction). • Reduce potential noise and vibration impacts to adjacent properties during construction in the PG&E property due to substantially reduced RNG pipeline length, elimination of horizontal directional drilling, and substantially reduced proximity to residences. • Reduce construction-related air emissions due to shortened construction duration. • Cross an existing City of Pittsburg underground water line on KCL property. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 7 of 276 • Reduce overall project energy demand for RNG processing due to lower compression of final product (MAOP reduced to ~400psi vs. ~680psi). Field assessment and/or literature review were completed to evaluate potential impacts on cultural resources, biological resources, and geology and soils. No new impacts were identified based on field assessments and literature reviews. No impacts would occur to cultural resources; no impacts would occur to biological resources such as wetlands or other sensitive resources; and no impacts to geology and soils would occur related to landslides, slope stability, seismic shaking, or liquefaction. Standalone reports are available for biological resources (Swaim Biological Incorporated, Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Pipeline Alternative Evaluation, April 16, 2021) and geotechnical (Tetra Tech, Draft Addendum No. 1 – Supplemental Geotechnical Assessment Proposed RNG Pipeline Relocation). Written confirmation was received from the project cultural resources specialist that the Segment 1 area was included in the evaluation presented in the draft MND and no new impacts would occur. Further, preliminary information was received from PG&E as to their preferred tie-in location. Additional data were received from the pipeline design engineer regarding tie-in design, construction requirements, and operating data assumptions. The general location of the tie-in is shown on Plat 2. A ground plane photograph of the tie-in location is shown on Plat 5. 7. Segment 2 – RNG Pipeline Near Property Boundary with Proposed Stoneman Park Ameresco Keller Canyon has revised the proposed RNG pipeline route for the segment of pipeline located along the property boundary with the proposed Stoneman Park development. This portion of the pipeline is located entirely on property owned by the Keller Canyon Landfill Company. The revised route was developed in response to written comments received on the MND regarding potential project effects. This discussion of a revised pipeline route pertains only to the segment of pipeline located along the property boundary with the proposed Stoneman Park development. The subject area is shown on Plat 6 in relation to the Stoneman Park Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) (dated 10-09-2020). The RNG pipeline alignment proposed in the draft MND is shown as a blue dotted line on Plat 6. This alignment is situated about 50 feet east of the apparent property line indicated by an existing fence and has been deleted. The applicant was unaware of the proximity of proposed residential lots at the time the original alignment was established. The proposed Stoneman Park property is currently open space. The RNG pipeline route adjacent to the proposed Stoneman Park has been revised in recognition of concerns expressed regarding the project’s potential effects identified in comments on the draft MND. The revised segment is shown as a black dashed line on Plat 6. The revised segment creates additional physical separation between the RNG pipeline and the proposed Stoneman Park development. Separation would increase by 50 percent from 50 feet to 75 feet. The revised route places the RNG pipeline 20 feet outside of the new PIR of 55 feet. The revised RNG pipeline route June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 8 of 276 would not result in new significant impacts. The change in pipeline length is negligible. Analyses of potential impacts presented in the MND such as biological resources, geology and soils, potential hazards, and noise remain valid for the revised segment. 8. Segment 3 – Connection of RNG Pipeline to RNG Processing Facility The project revision in Segment 3 comprises a change in RNG pipeline alignment where it would connect to the RNG Processing Facility as shown on Plat 7. This revision was required to minimize potential impacts on landfill operations and to increase physical separation between the RNG pipeline and existing and future underground utilities. No new significant impacts would result from this revised segment. X X SEENO PARCEL LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD LIMIT OF LINER PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PG&E PG&E PG&E AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) Green Clean Sustainable. . OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx Green Clean Sustainable. . Green Clean Sustainable. . C: \ L a n d P r o j e c t s 2 0 0 6 \ A m e r e s c o K e l l e r C a n y o n \ d w g \ 2 0 2 1 F i g u r e s \ A m e r e s c o K C L - R N G F i g 1 8 ( r e v 0 4 - 2 9 - 2 1 ) . d w g Green Clean Sustainable. . Green Clean Sustainable. . OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x OH P x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Green Clean Sustainable. . NO PARKI N G G June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 16 of 276 IV. SUMMARY RESPONSES A wide range of comments were received on the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP evaluated in the LP18-2022 draft MND. In some cases, multiple comments from different commenters addressed the same subject matter. These include, but are not limited to, the scope of the CEQA review; design standards, elements of the Project Description, and potential effects of the RNGPF and RNG pipeline. Summary responses have been prepared by the Lead Agency to respond to comments expressed by multiple commenters. 1. CEQA – Environmental Impact Report Required Comment: Several commenters stated that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. Response to Comment: This contention is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impacts, which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Lead Agency determined that a MND is the appropriate document consistent with CEQA Guidelines. This determination is supported by the analysis in the MND, and the substantial evidence provided in the MND and its supporting documents. 2. Project Concept - Defined in Land Use Permit 2020-89 Comment: Some comments indicated a misunderstanding of the purpose and goals of the proposed project. Response to Comment: The proposed project is a renewable energy facility required by County Land Use Permit 2020-89 (LP89-2020) for Keller Canyon Landfill, Condition of Approval 20.13 Methane Recovery which states: 20.13 Methane Recovery. The Landfill operator shall install a methane recovery system simultaneously with the construction of the gas collection system, preferably utilizing the Landfill gas to produce energy when the Landfill has developed enough gas to justify recovery. When required by the County Conservation and Development Department, the Landfill operator shall conduct a study to determine how methane could be recovered from the gas and used for fuel or as a commodity. The Ameresco RNGPFP will use a substantial portion of landfill gas (LFG) currently generated by the landfill, that otherwise would be destroyed in the landfill’s enclosed flares. Without the proposed project, this energy source would be wasted by combustion in the landfill flares. Comparatively higher emissions of air pollutants from the landfill site would be released into the local community without the project. The emissions resulting from combustion of the methane portion (~ 50 percent) of the LFG will be shifted from the landfill site to users of the RNG produced. The decrease in emissions will be (1) local to the site/neighborhood; and (2) avoided emissions by RNG users away from “naturally-sourced” natural gas. The project will process LFG June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 17 of 276 to commercial quality consistent with State goals and utility company specifications. In the process, local emissions criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases will be substantially reduced compared to existing baseline (i.e., “No Project”) condition. 3. Applicable Codes and Design Standards for the RNG Pipeline Comment: Some comments were received suggesting the design of the RNG pipeline would be inadequate to ensure public safety. Response to Comment: This response outlines the rigorous federal and State regulations that govern the design of the proposed project. The proposed RNG transmission pipeline will be designed and operated in accordance with applicable federal and State regulations. Federal and State regulations include the requirements and established practices to protect the safety of the public and employees. CPUC General Order No. 112-F “State of California Rules Governing Design, Construction, Testing, Operation, and Maintenance of Gas Gathering, Transmission, and Distribution Piping Systems” (June 2015) rules will be incorporated into the RNG pipeline design. Additionally, the federal pipeline safety regulations outlined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 (49 CFR Part 192) “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards” also govern the design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of gas piping systems. All applicable federal and Statement requirements will be incorporated into the RNG pipeline design. The rules outlined by the CPUC General Order do not supersede 49 CFR Part 192 but are considered a supplement. 4. Project Design Comment: Several comments were received on the project location on the Keller Canyon Landfill property, a possible misunderstanding of the KCL landfill gas collection system, its purpose and role in abatement, and operational relationship between the existing KCL flares and the proposed RNGPF. Response to Comment: Following are relevant elements of the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP. • Project Site: The proposed RNGPF is located within a 375-acre (+/-) developed area of the Keller Canyon Landfill. The developed area is designated for “facilities activities” in the Solid Waste Facility Permit 07-AA-0032 page 2, Section 12. Legal Description of Facility. • Source of LFG: The KCL Landfill Gas Collection and Control System (GCCS) is designed to extract LFG in sufficient quantity to control emissions. The quantity collected is determined by surface and sub-surface monitoring in accordance with regulatory permit requirements. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 18 of 276 • Abatement: Collected LFG is currently destroyed in “abatement devices” which combust (i.e., oxidize) the methane and organic vapors into heat, carbon dioxide, and water vapor in a process tightly controlled to minimize creation and release of pollutants like oxides of nitrogen (aka NOx). KCL currently abates LFG in enclosed flares and the existing Ameresco landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) power plant. • Quantity and Processing of Gas: The proposed RNGPF would not change the quantity of LFG to be destroyed - it only “shifts” gas from one abatement system (the existing landfill flares and LFGTE plant) to the other (the proposed RNGPF). LFG processed in the RNGPF will be separated into two streams: one for export in the pipeline (basically pure methane) and the other for destruction in either the RNGPF thermal oxidizer (TOX) or the RNGPF enclosed flare. The abatement processes used for destruction of the un - exported portion of LFG will meet or exceed the emission control standards of the existing KCL systems. • Operation of the Landfill Flares with the RNGPF: Upon startup of the proposed RNGPF, the existing landfill flares would not operate full time. The landfill flares will remain available to provide LFG destruction when the LFGTE plant or proposed RNGPF are shut down for scheduled maintenance or because of process upset. It is anticipated that in the future, the quantity of LFG collected from the landfill will exceed the combined capacity of the LFGTE and RNGPF plants, at which time the landfill flare(s) will operate full time. The general operational relationship between the existing and proposed abatement systems is illustrated in the figure titled “RNG Processing Facility Role in Landfill Gas Abatement”. The figure graphically shows: 1. The quantity of LFG to be destroyed is identical with the existing LFG collection system and the existing system plus the proposed RNGPF; 2. The proposed RNGPF will be a new third component of the system of LFG abatement devices to be operated at KCL; 3. Operation of the proposed RNGPF would substantially reduce the quantity of LFG that is currently destroyed at the landfill site without increasing the total flow of LFG; 4. The quantity of LFG used by the existing LFGTE plant would remain the same. • Pipeline Design Standards: The proposed project has been revised and will operate at maximum operating pressure (MAOP) of 400 pounds per square inch (psi) and less than 10 percent of the pipe yield strength (SMYS). By Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) definition, gas transmission lines operate at greater than 20 percent SMYS and these higher pipe stresses require additional inspections and monitoring. In contrast, distribution lines such as the proposed RNG pipeline and those June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 19 of 276 found in most public streets feeding natural gas to individual houses, operate at less than 20 percent SMYS due to lower pressures, typically in the 20 to 80 psi range, and as such have a lower level of required inspections. The proposed RNG pipeline would operate in the lower transmission line pressure range; however, the RNG pipeline will be classified as a distribution line per PHMSA regulations because it will operate at less than 10 percent SMYS. The pressure at which this type of pipe fails by rupture is in the 25 to 30 percent (SMYS) range. Therefore, sudden rupture of the RNG pipeline is highly unlikely. A rupture would be detected by sensors at the RNGPF and would activate the automated shut-off system thereby limiting the flow of RNG that could escape from the pipeline. Per federal guidelines, a pipeline located near homes would be considered Class 3 and be allowed to operate up to 50 percent of the SMYS of the steel used. As noted, the proposed pipeline will operate at less than 10 percent SMYS based on the MAOP of 400 psi. This design criterion meets the stricter requirements in federal regulations for a Class 4 downtown metropolitan area, and represents a higher safety factor than Class 3. The proposed RNG pipeline design will exceed the federal regulation criteria. • Pipeline Route: The pipeline route will be entirely on private landfill and PG&E property. No construction will occur in County or City public rights-of-way. The pipeline will be undergrounded to meet safety requirements and to minimize potential conflicts with land uses on the ground surface. After construction, the pipeline trench will be backfilled with the excavated soils and allowed to revert back to the pre-construction condition. The underground depth of the pipeline will be a minimum of 4 feet (48 inches) which exceeds federal guidelines (3 feet minimum). The depth of the pipeline may vary depending on topography or subsurface conditions; however, it will not be less than 4 feet. • Pipeline Alignment in PG&E Property: As a result of responses received on the MND, this portion of the RNG pipeline route has been revised. Please see Section III Revised Project Description for detailed descriptions of route revisions. The proposed 4-inch diameter pipeline would tie-in to the existing substantially larger PG&E Line 191-1, and eliminate approximately 3,130’ of pipeline previously proposed in the draft MND. • Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD): HDD was proposed in the draft MND for construction of the RNG pipeline in the PG&E utility corridor. HDD has been eliminated from the project, thereby eliminating potential impacts associated with HDD. EXISTING SYSTEM PROPOSED SYSTEM Flow from landfill gas collection system 10 (lfg) Flow from landfill gas collection system 10 (lfg) Power Plant4 (lfg) LandfillEnclosedFlares6 (lfg) Any Combination of Abatement Devices to Destroy 10 (lfg) of L andfill Gas Power Plant4 (lfg) LandfillEnclosedFlares1 (lfg) RNGProcessingFacility5 (lfg) GAS GENERATION IN LANDFILL GAS DESTRUCTION IN ABATEMENT DEVICES Units of volume (lfg) listed above are for example only. (lfg) units do not represent actual quantities or proportions of landfill gas currently or proposed to be abated, other than to illustrate that flow to the RNG Processing Facility will reduce flow from the landfill's enclosed flares without increasing the total flow of landfill gas. Any Combination of Abatement Devices to Destroy 10 (lfg) of L andfill Gas RNG PROCESSING FACILITY ROLE IN LANDFILL GAS ABATEMENT Green Clean Sustainable. . RN G P F R O L E I N A B A T E M E N T R E V 5 ( 0 6 - 0 4 - 2 1 ) . D W G June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 21 of 276 5. Project Lifespan Comment: The projected life span for the project was the subject of several comments. Response to Comment: The projected life of the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP depends on the following factors. • Availability of Land fill Gas: The operational life of the proposed RNGPF and pipeline is dependent upon the decaying refuse generating methane within the landfill. The applicant's original agreement with Keller Canyon Landfill Company (KCLC), owner of the landfill, allows for a 20-year project life span with the opportunity to extend the agreement as long as sufficient LFG is available to make operating the RNGPF commercially viable. Current KCL LFG generation models predict that methane generation will continue far beyond the 20-year project life span. The proposed RNGPF will increase the amount of LFG utilized for substantial environmental benefit. Once the agreement with KCLC expires, the Ameresco existing LFGTE plant and proposed RNGPF will be de-constructed, the RNG pipeline abandoned according to prevailing regulations, and the remaining LFG will be directed to the landfill flares. • Stabilization of Pipeline Crossing of Unnamed Seasonal Stream: The erosion control features described under Unnamed Seasonal Stream Crossing on pages 11 and 12 of the MND are intended to be semi-permanent, and will be regularly maintained as part of the overall project maintenance. 6. Project Construction Comment: Several comments referred to the construction phase of the project, and the method of constructing the RNGPF site, Response to Comment: Following are factors relevant to project construction. • Construction Period: The construction phase of the proposed project will be eight (8) to twelve (12) months. The period consisting of potential emissions through the use and operation of construction equipment, is assumed to occur throughout the 8 to 12 month construction duration. • Imported Earth Fill: The geotechnical report prepared in support of the MND refers to “imported earth fill” with the meaning that it will not be sourced from within the footprint of the RNGPF construction site. The soils to be used for construction of the RNGPF embankment will be excavated from sources within the KCL that are permitted for this use. Standard earthmoving equipment, most likely large “scrapers” would carry between 35 and 44 cubic yards per trip (depending on equipment model and loading parameters). Since the soil will be excavated from within KCL’s permitted footprint, it represents an June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 22 of 276 offset of material the landfill would have moved (with similar equipment) in any case. Stated differently, earthmoving for the RNGPF would have zero impact because if not moved for the RNGPF, it would be moved to comply with the KCL’s already permitted construction and operations • RNGPF Pad: The approximate 89,000 cubic yards of earth fill required to construct a level pad for the RNGPF will be obtained from on-site sources at KCL as noted above. No off-site sources of soil will be used. Relatively small numbers of trucks would haul aggregates, paving, and concrete. No inbound/outbound soil truck traffic will be generated by construction of the proposed project. The on-site equipment traffic will be relatively minor compared to the typical volume of earth-moving normally associated with the landfill site development and operation. 7. Project Operation Comment: Several comments suggested a misunderstanding of how the proposed RNGPF operation would be related to operation of the existing landfill flares and LFGTE power plant. Also see summary response provided above under D. Project Design, “Abatement” on this issue. Response to Comment: The following details the relationship of the proposed RNGPFP to the existing landfill and LFGTE Power Plant. • Existing Landfill Gas Management: As an example, if 4,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of landfill gas flows from the collection system, a combination of LFGTE plant operation and flaring is used to destroy all of the gas. If 1,500 cfm is used in the existing LFGTE plant (owned and operated by the applicant), then about 2,500 cfm is destroyed in the existing landfill enclosed flares. The actual volumes of landfill gas destroyed by the two devices vary at any given time; however, the requirement for destruction of the 4,700 cfm of landfill gas is constant. • Landfill Gas Management with the Project: Extending the example above, the proposed project adds the RNGPF to the existing LFGTE plant and enclosed flares as an available gas destruction device. When the RNGPF is in operation, landfill gas will continue to be used in the operation of the existing LFGTE plant; and 0 cfm would be burned in the enclosed flares. Please see Summary Responses in D. Project Design, “Abatement” above for additional discussion and a graphic depiction of the existing and proposed landfill gas utilization systems. • Collected Landfill Gas: By law, landfill gas is required to be extracted in sufficient quantity to control sub-surface migration and emissions from the landfill surface to the atmosphere. All collected landfill gas is required to be destroyed in a tightly controlled manner. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 23 of 276 • Landfill Gas Utilization: Landfill gas is generally a mixture of ~ 50 percent methane, ~ 50 percent carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other volatile non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) and sulfur compounds. The most common method of destruction is the enclosed flares, which combust the methane and NMOC to transform them into carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and water vapor. Heat is a by-product of that transformation and is blown into the atmosphere. Another method of destruction used at KCL is to combust the gas as fuel in internal combustion engines at the LFGTE plant, which in turn generate electricity for the grid. Either way, the landfill gas is destroyed – but the latter captures beneficial use from the combustion. Both engines at the LFGTE plant are stack tested annually (i.e., smog checked) to ensure they are operating properly and meeting the stringent emission (i.e., exhaust) requirements imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The proposed project will add a third method of destruction with no effect on the quantity of landfill gas generated or collected. • Risk to Local Residents: There is very low risk to local residents from a gas leak in terms of displacing oxygen as a result of the distance of residences from the pipeline. In the event of a leak the gas will dissipate into the air before becoming an issue. Utility repair crews work safely on gas leaks in local streets without specialized breathing equipment while monitoring methane concentrations. 8. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Project Comment: Comments on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis were received stating that the MND analysis of GHG emissions underestimated GHG generation and thus the data presented in Table 8-2, on page 153 in the MND, overstated the beneficial impacts of the proposed project. Response to Comment: The assumed baseline total flow of 4,700 scfm of landfill gas was cited by commenters as the basis for an overstated percent reduction of GHG. The baseline that was utilized in the MND for the proposed operation is the approximate “permitted flow” of the existing equipment – the landfill flares. A summary of the GHG emissions estimates originally presented in the MND is presented in Table 8-2 below. In response to comments, an alternative analysis has been prepared assuming a baseline flow of 2,950 scfm based on the average LFG flow to the KCL flares in 2019. Together these scenarios (the permitted flow and the baseline flow) provide greater detail to the analysis. Updated estimates of GHG emissions were compared to the original analysis presented in the MND. Assumed Flow of 4,700 scfm - Summary of Table 8-2, Page 153 in the MND • The Keller Canyon Landfill is a growing landfill and LFG generation continues to grow as more refuse is disposed at the site. The LFG flow using EPA LandGem model is expected to exceed 4,700 scfm in the next 10 years. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 24 of 276 As Presented in Page 153 of the MND Table 8-2. Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Estimated Emissions GHG CO2e CH4 N2O CO2 (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) Equipment (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) A-1 Flare 15.862 0.49 0.10 15,820 69,832 2.13 0.42 69,649 A-2 Flare 16,809 0.52 0.10 16,764 73,447 2.26 0.44 73,329 Baseline Total 1 32,671 1.01 0.20 32,584 143,279 4.39 0.86 142,978 Thermal Oxidizer 16,464 0.13 0.03 16,453 72,111 0.56 0.11 72,065 Enclosed Flare 2,3 17,355 0.26 0.05 17,334 15,785 0.24 0.05 15,765 Proposed Totals 4 33,819 0.39 0.08 33,787 87,896 0.80 0.16 87,830 Net Change (TPY) Net Change (MTPY) -55,383 -50,257 -3.59 -3.26 -0.70 -0.64 -55,148 -50,044 Percent Reduction (TPY) 39% 82% 81% 39% Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020 CO2 – Carbon Dioxide; CH4 – Methane; N2O – Nitrous Oxide; CO2e = Carbon Dioxide equivalent Lb./hr. – pounds per hour; TPY – tons per year; MTPY – metric tons per year Global Warming Potential (GWP)/CO2e are as follows: CH4 = 25, CO2 = 1, N2O = 310 1 Baseline total flow based on 4,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of landfill gas (LFG) per size of proposed project of 4,700 scfm. Operations over 8,760 hours in a calendar year. 2 The enclosed flare would operate on continuous pilot gas (8,760 hours a calendar year) and operate approximately 20 percent of the year on waste gas (1,752 hours a calendar year). 3 Estimated emissions for enclosed flare based on estimates of high oxygen waste gas (1,752 hours a calendar year) and pilot gas (8,760 hours a calendar year). 4 Proposed total flow based on 4,700 scfm of LFG for 8,760 hours in a calendar year for the thermal oxidizer. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 25 of 276 • Ameresco is building a similar RNG facility in Texas and due to the growing LFG generation rate at Keller, it was decided to build a similar plant based on the same rating of 4,700 scfm at Keller. Assumed Flow of 2,950 scfm As part of the project design, Ameresco observed KCL Landfill Gas Flare Flows, and the project baseline was chosen based on these observations in 2019. The assumed baseline flow was used as a design parameter for the process engineering of the RNGPF. When comments were received about overstating the baseline GHG emission reduction and based on flow presented in comments by the BAAQMD, a new assumed baseline flow was chosen based on actual LFG flows at the landfill of 2,950 scfm. The methodology used to generate these two tables on GHG emissions is identical with the only change is the assumed baseline total flow. All other assumptions (i.e., percent of flare operation, annual hours of operation etc.) are unchanged. Table 8-2A Table 8-2A provides a comparison of GHGs generated by the baseline and proposed project conditions. Table 8-2A shows that in the first year of operation, the Ameresco RNGPFP is estimated to reduce annual GHG emissions of CO2e by approximately 31,545 metric tons (39 percent compared to baseline), and CO2 by approximately 31,239 metric tons per year, or approximately 38 percent compared to the baseline condition. Emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxides (N2O) would be reduced by approximately 74 percent. The lower assumed baseline total flow of 2,950 scfm (compared to the higher flow of 4,700 scfm) would reduce the proposed project’s overall contribution to achieving GHG reduction targets in the County Clean Air Plan (CAP); however, the reductions achieved by the single proposed project remain high. The project’s estimated GHG emissions annual reduction of 31,545 MTCO2e achieves approximately 57 percent of the CAP’s Solid Waste GHG reduction target of 55,280 MTCO2e for 2020, and approximately 40 percent of the GHG reduction target of 79,430 MTCO2e for 2035 target. Similarly, for CH4 and N2O, the net change in metric tons per year decreased slightly compared to the assumed baseline total flow of 4,700 scfm, but the overall percent reduction remained high (74 percent) and nearly equal to the 82 percent and 81 percent, respectively, shown for CH4 and N2O in Table 8-2 in the MND. For all of the forms of GHG evaluated, none would experience a net increase as a result of assuming a lower flow of 2,950 scfm compared to the 4,700 scfm originally presented in the MND. The updated analysis is consistent with the evidence originally presented in the MND, and confirms the conclusion that the proposed project’s impacts on GHG emissions would be less than significant. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 26 of 276 Table 8-2A. Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Based on Flow of 2,950 scfm Estimated Emissions GHG CO2e CH4 N2O CO2 (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) (lb./hr.) Equipment (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) (TPY) A-1 Flare 9,173 0.28 0.06 9,148 40,382 1.23 0.24 40,276 A-2 Flare 11,356 0.35 0.07 11,326 49,739 1.52 0.30 49,541 Baseline Total 1 20,529 0.63 0.12 20,474 90,121 2.76 0.54 89,817 Thermal Oxidizer 10,346 0.13 0.03 10,356 45,315 0.56 0.11 45,361 Enclosed Flare 2,3 10,783 0.16 0.03 10,769 10,028 0.16 0.03 10,014 Proposed Totals 4 21,129 0.29 0.06 21,126 55,342 0.72 0.14 55,376 Net Change (TPY) Net Change (MTPY) -34,778 -31,545 -2.03 -1.84 -0.40 -0.36 -34,441 -31,239 Percent Reduction (TPY) 39% 74% 74% 38% Source: Tetra Tech, June 10, 2021 CO2 – Carbon Dioxide; CH4 – Methane; N2O – Nitrous Oxide; CO2e = Carbon Dioxide equivalent lb./hr. – pounds per hour; TPY – tons per year; MTPY – metric tons per year Global Warming Potential (GWP)/CO2e are as follows: CH4 = 25, CO2 = 1, N2O = 310 1 Baseline total flow based on 2,950 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of landfill gas (LFG). Operations over 8,760 hours in a calendar year. 2 The enclosed flare would operate on continuous pilot gas (8,760 hours a calendar year) and operate approximately 20 percent of the year on waste gas (1,752 hours a calendar year). 3 Estimated emissions for enclosed flare based on estimates of high oxygen waste gas (1,752 hours a calendar year) and pilot gas (8,760 hours a calendar year). 4 Proposed total flow based on 2,950 scfm of LFG for 8,760 hours in a calendar year for the thermal oxidizer. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 27 of 276 The proposed RNGPFP would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions, and the BAAQMD emission threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr.) of CO2e is would not be exceeded. The proposed project by design, implements local and regional policies for the reduction of GHGs, and therefore, represents a major improvement over current baseline conditions. As a result, there would be a beneficial project impact. 9. Construction Emissions of GHG Comment: Several comments were received requesting additional information as to how construction emissions were estimated for greenhouse gases (GHG). Specifically requested was the range of construction equipment to be used and clarification of the BAAQMD threshold of significance used for estimating construction-related GHG emissions. The following summary response has been prepared to address these issues. Response to Comment: The revised Project reduced the overall length of RNG pipeline to be constructed from 18,030 linear feet to 15,050 linear feet. The reduction of pipeline construction has a direct bearing on the estimated total project construction-related emissions of GHG. The Summary Response below adds greater detail to the original analysis presented in the MND, and the emissions estimates reflect the changes in the revised Project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to prepare the construction emission estimates for the proposed RNGPF and pipeline. CalEEMod emissions calculations are based on data provided by the applicant for construction equipment, approximate equipment operating hours, and days of operations. It is assumed that all equipment engines will be rated at Tier IV engines per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) standards. Revised estimates of construction emissions were prepared to reflect the changes to the project construction duration and shorter overall pipeline length, as described in Section III. Revised Project Description of this MND. For the purposes of the analysis, construction operations are assumed to occur in three phases over an eight (8) to 12 month period (with potentially all phases under construction concurrently) as described below: • Phase 1 for site grading and fill placement of the RNGPF site • Phase 2 for construction of the RNG pipeline • Phase 3 for construction of the RNGPF. Phase 1 - RNG Processing Facility (RNGPF) Site Grading and Fill Placement (45 days) • Mass Earthmoving – Approximately 89,000 cubic yards (cy). June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 28 of 276 • Support Equipment – Assuming four scrapers Approximately 383 machine hours. – Cat D9T (Ripper) operating 70 machine hours. – Cat 815 Compactor operating 70 machine hours. – Water truck, capacity of 4,000 gallons, operating approximately 70 hours. – Cat D6K2 approximately 40 hours. • Pad Finishing – Approximate size of 83,330 square feet, at approximately 1,250 tons base rock. – CAT Motor Grader, assumed two days of operation at 16 hours a day. – Drum Roller, assumed two days of operation at 16 hours a day. – 4,000-gallon water truck, assumed two days of operation at eight hours a day Phase 2 RNG Pipeline Construction (110 days) • Dozer, three hours a day. • Side boom D8 (2), three hours a day • CAT 315 Excavator, four hours a day. • CAT 312 Excavator, six hours a day. • Welding Truck (2), two hours a day. • Pickup truck (4), three hours a day. • Six 18-wheeler loads of pipe materials. • Off-road forklift (2), four hours a day. RNGPF Construction (76 days) • Underground work (25 days). – Backhoe (2), six hours a day. – Welder, four hours. – Ride on compactor, two hours a day. – Forklift (2), two hours a day. • Equipment Setting (one day) – Concrete delivery trucks (40). – Equipment delivery trucks (15). – 150-ton crane, four hours a day. – 100-ton crane, four hours a day June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 29 of 276 • Above ground work (50 days). – 10-ton boom truck/crane, one hour a day. – Pipe welder (2), three hours a day. – Forklift, two hours a day. – Pick-up trucks (10). CalEEMod outputs (daily average emissions) were compared with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds as detailed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines Document, dated May 2017. Construction thresholds and CalEEMod results were shown originally in Section 3. Air Quality, 3b., Table 3-4 on page 69 of the MND. As a result of the revised project, Table 3-4 has been updated. The estimated maximum pounds per day for Project Construction have decreased as shown below in Table 3-4 (Revised). Criteria Pollutants The estimated average daily construction emissions of the proposed RNGPF are below the construction emission thresholds as required by the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. According to the CEQA Guidelines, if emissions are over the threshold, then mitigation measures need to be proposed and if emissions after mitigation measures are still above threshold, emissions are significant and unavoidable. If emissions after mitigation are less than thresholds, then impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please see section below regarding mitigation recommendations. Construction-Related GHG Emissions As noted under “Construction-Related GHG Emissions” in page 152 of the MND, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines currently do not include any significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions; however, the Guidelines require a quantification of GHG emissions and a determination of whether the Project is consistent with meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, including reducing total projected 2020 GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain Thresholds of Significance for project level operational -related GHG emissions as follows: • For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr.) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr. (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities; and June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 30 of 276 Table 3-4 (Revised). Construction Thresholds and CalEEMod Results Pollutant BAAQMD CEQA Construction Threshold (Average lbs/day) CalEEMod Results for Project Construction (Maximum lbs./day) ROG 54 1.39 0.87 NOX 54 26.52 25.75 PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 2.29 0.06 PM10 82 (exhaust) 1.17 0.06 PM10/PM2.5 Best Management Practices N/A Local CO None N/A GHGs - None N/A Risk and Hazards for new sources and receptors (Cumulative Threshold)* Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan OR Cancer: > 100 in a million (from all local sources) Non-cancer: > 10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources) (Chronic) PM2.5: > 0.8 µg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor See Section on Risks and Hazards. Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants* None N/A Odors* None N/A CO = carbon monoxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHGs = greenhouse gases; lb/day = pounds per day; NO X = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5= fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ppm = parts per million; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; N/A – Not Applicable *The receptor thresholds were the subject of litigation in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369. ** The BAAQMD recommends that for construction projects that are less than one year duration, Lead Agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts are to occur, rather than the full year. Source: Tetra Tech, May 2020, Revised May 5, 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 31 of 276 • For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 (MT/yr.) of CO2e. Stationary- source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. For purposes of the updated estimates, the project level operational-related GHG emissions threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year was used to compare to updated estimates of GHG emissions for the project. Updated Estimates of Construction-Related GHG Emissions Updated estimates of CO2e emissions for the proposed project were calculated in pounds per day using the CalEEMod model in accordance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The updated estimates reflect the changes in pipeline length described in Section III. Revised Project Description in this Final MND. The pounds per day estimates were then converted to total pounds emitted during the entire construction period, and the equivalent tons and metric tons. A summary of construction-related GHG emissions by construction phase was originally presented in Section 8. Greenhouse Gases, 8b. page 155, Table 8-3 in the MND. Original Table 8-3 is presented in this Summary Response for continuity. Table 8-3 (Revised) shows that a total of up to 370 MT of CO2e would be emitted over the entire eight to 12 month construction period. With the revised project, total estimated total emissions of CO2e would decrease from 629 MT to 370 MT, a difference of 259 MT or 41 percent. Total emitted CO2e for Phase 1 Grading would remain about the same; Total emitted CO2e for Phase 2 – Pipeline Construction would be substantially reduced from 228 MT to 113 MT, a difference of 115 MT or 50 percent; Total CO2e during Phase 3 Plant Construction would decrease from 281 MT to 139 MT, a difference of 142 MT or 50 percent. When updated estimates of construction-related GHG emissions for the project are compared to the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e, the total CO2e emissions from the project is less than 34 percent of this threshold. The proposed project is consistent with meeting AB32 goals and County CAP goals and strategies for GHG reduction as described in Section 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 8a, page 150 in the MND. Based on these considerations, the potential impact of updated construction-related GHG emissions from the proposed project would be less than significant. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 32 of 276 As Presented in Page 155 of the MND Table 8-3. Summary of Construction-Related GHG Emissions (CO2e) POUNDS/ DAY CO2e POUNDS CO2e EMITTED ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION TONS CO2e METRIC TONS CO2e ALL PHASES 18,226.292 1,386,713.383 693.357 629.180 Phase 1 – Grading Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted 45 days Construction Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e On-Site 2,460.427 110,719.215 55.360 50.236 Off-Site 3,429.777 154,339.952 77.170 70.027 Total 5,890.204 265,059.167 132.530 120.263 Phase 2 - Pipeline Construction Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted 120 days Construction Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e On-Site 3,933.550 472,026.000 236.013 214.168 Off-Site 250.802 30,096.288 15.048 13.655 Total 4,184.352 502,122.288 251.061 227.823 Phase 3 - Plant Construction Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted 76 Days Construction Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e 2021 (On-Site & Off-Site) 4,098.665 311,498.517 155.749 141.333 2022 (On-Site & Off-Site) 4,053.071 308,033.411 154.017 139.761 Total 8,151.736 619,531.928 309.766 281.094 Source: Tetra Tech, CalEEMOD Results, May 25, 2020 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 33 of 276 Table 8-3 (Revised). Summary of Construction-Related GHG Emissions (CO2e) CO2e EMITTED FOR TOTAL PROJECT - CONSTRUCTION DURATIONS SPECIFIED BELOW POUNDS/ DAY CO2e POUNDS CO2e EMITTED ENTIRE CONSTRUCT ION TONS CO2e METRIC TONS CO2e ALL PHASES 16,364.88 906,777.59 453.39 369.58 Phase 1 – Grading Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e 45 days Construction On-Site 2,502.49 112,629.20 56.3146 51.079 Off-Site 3,429.78 147,263.57 73.63179 66.7862 Total 5,932.26 259,892.77 129.95 117.87 Phase 2 - Pipeline Construction Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e 110 days Construction On-Site 2030.05 223,343.79 111.6719 101.2897 Off-Site 250.802 25,844.81 12.9224 11.721 Total 2,280.85 249,188.59 124.59 113.01 Phase 3 - Plant Construction Pounds/Day CO2e Pounds CO2e Emitted Tons CO2e Metric Tons CO2e 76 Days Construction 2021 (On-Site & Off- Site) 4,098.66 91,847.07 45.92354 97.0531 2022 (On-Site & Off- Site) 4,053.10 305,849.16 152.9246 41.654 Total 8,151.76 397,696.23 198.85 138.71 Source: Tetra Tech, CalEEMOD Results, May 25, 2020; revised May 6, 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 34 of 276 10. Cumulative Analysis Comment: Several comments were received that the MND should have included a more detailed cumulative analysis of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Response to Comment: The discussion of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project is presented in Section 21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, Item 21b, on page 227 of the MND. The discussion presents the conclusion that the proposed project would have no impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. This conclusion is supported by the evidence that the proposed project would have less than significant impact resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project. The RNG processing facility would be located in an area that is currently in use as the KCL active landfill; the proposed RNG transmission pipeline would be buried underground and constructed in private property of the KCL, or public utility property owned by PG&E. The conclusion is further supported by the fact that there will be no significant on-site or off-site impacts related to land use, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, traffic, and public services. As discussed in Section 8 (Description of Project), on pages 1 through 3 of the MND, the project has been proposed in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 31.7 (Methane Recovery). Moreover, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 8.a, KCL would have a beneficial impact on potential GHG emissions. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact on cumulative conditions in the County and the local area surrounding KCL, and would have a beneficial effect by reducing air contaminants and potential GHG emissions. In response to comments on the MND, other factors were considered to provide greater detail to the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts described in the MND. These factors include the following: • Construction timeframe: the proposed RNGPF project will be constructed and become operational within an eight (8) to 12 month timeframe, commencing in 2021; and; • Projects in the vicinity of KCL: The County has established a project vicinity radius of 1/4-mile (0.25 mile) for purposes of cumulative analysis of development projects. Based on the above criteria, no past projects, current projects, or probable future projects are, or would be, located within the 0.25-mile radius criterion established by the County. Additionally, the possible timeframes associated with implementation of probable future projects are unknown. Given the scale and complexity of some probable future projects, their implementation would likely be far into the future when compared to the shorter term construction and operation of the proposed RNGPF project. The proposed RNGPF project will likely precede construction of probable future projects by several years. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 35 of 276 The evaluation of probable future projects in the vicinity of KCL (but outside the 0.25-mile radius criterion) does not change the conclusions contained in the MND: there would be no impacts from the proposed project that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. For purposes of this response, one (1) project has been identified for the KCL property and three (3) projects have been identified as being located near the KCL but outside of the 0.25-mile radius. They include: Keller Canyon Landfill, Amendment of LP89-2020, Subsequent EIR Jurisdiction: Contra Costa County This project involves the Keller Canyon Landfill property on which the RNGPFP would be constructed and operated. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) was issued by Contra Costa County on October 14, 2015. The land use permit amendment would involve increasing the maximum daily tonnage of waste for disposal from 3,500 to 4,900; establishing separate tonnage limits for beneficial reuse materials; increasing daily truck trips from 320 to 395; and redefining the Extent of Disturbance. Since issuance of the NOP in 2015, the preparation of the SEIR has gone into hiatus while the owners of KCL and Contra Costa County resolved other issues related to the long-term operation of KCL. The timeframe for re-starting the CEQA review is unknown. The extent of revisions (if any) to the Project Description contained in the 2015 NOP is unknown. The timeframe for CEQA approval, land use permit amendment, and implementation of new operating parameters at KCL is unknown. Approval of amendment to LP89-2020 is not likely to occur before or during the 8 to 12-month construction duration of the RNGPF, or commencement of RNGPFP operation. 2018 Alves Ranch Project Jurisdiction: City of Pittsburg The 2018 Alves Ranch project is proposed for a project site located approximately 1.30 miles (as the crow flies) from the proposed RNGPF site. The project involves development of 356 single-family dwelling units on a 57.81-acre project site located north of West Leland Road and west of the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs were made available in March 2019 and May 2019, respectively. The timeframe for final project approvals, final design, issuance of permits, and construction of the 2018 Alves Ranch Project is unknown. Implementation of the Alves Ranch Project is not likely to occur before or during the 8 to 12-month construction duration of the RNGPF, or commencement of RNGPFP operation. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 36 of 276 Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project Jurisdiction: City of Pittsburg The Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project is proposed for a project site located approximately 1.10 miles from the proposed RNGPF site. The proposed Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project involves development of 1,500 single-family dwelling units at buildout on a site of 607 acres. The project site is located southwest of t he municipal boundary of the City of Pittsburg, within the Southwest Hills planning subarea of the Pittsburg General Plan. The project will require annexation of the site into the City of Pittsburg City Limits, and the service areas of the Contra Costa Water District and the Delta Diablo Sanitary District. Reclassification and rezoning of the project site will be required along with an approved Master Plan and final Development Agreement. The City prepared a Draft EIR on October 10, 2018; a Partially Recirculated Draft EIR on October 18, 2019; and a Final EIR on July 17, 2020. Full implementation of the Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project is not likely to occur until after the 8 to 12 -month construction duration of the RNGPF, or commencement of RNGPFP operation. Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision Jurisdiction: City of Pittsburg The Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision is proposed for a project site located approximately 0.62 mile from the proposed RNGPF site. The project site is located at the terminus of John Henry Parkway on a vacant portion of land south of the existing Delta View Golf Course. The proposed Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision involves development of 342 single-family dwelling units and open space on a 203-acre site. The Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision (City Project No. 20-1540) will require a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and subdivision. The proposed subdivision is contiguous with the north portion of the KCL Special Buffer Area (SBA). The SBA was established by the County Board of Supervisors during the original approval and permitting of the KCL in 1991 and 1992. The SBA was designed to serve as a buffer between landfill operations and surrounding land uses. The proposed Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision may include residential lots that share a common property boundary with KCL property, as shown in the Stoneman Park Vesting Tentative Map, Subdivision 9463, dated October 9, 2020. The planning process for the Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision is in its early phases. Full implementation of the Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision is not likely to occur until after the 8 to 12-month construction duration of the RNGPF, or commencement of RNGPFP operation. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 37 of 276 PROJECT TITLE PROPOSAL STATUS AS OF JUNE 2021 LOCATION DISTANCE FROM RNGPF 1 TIMEFRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION 2 Keller Canyon Landfill Amendment of LP89-2020 CEQA State Clearinghouse No. 1989040415 1. Increase maximum daily tonnage to 4,900 2. Establish separate tonnage limits for beneficial reuse materials 3. Increase maximum daily truck trips to 395 4. Redefine Extent of Disturbance Subsequent EIR in Hiatus. Notice of Preparation issued 10-14-2015. Proposed amendments are under internal review by KCL operator. 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, CA 0.00 mile Unknown. New Project Description to be defined; CEQA review to be prepared; project approvals and permits to be obtained. 2018 Alves Ranch Project 3 CEQA State Clearinghouse No. 2004012097 1. Amendment of General Plan and re-zoning 2. Development of 356 single-family dwelling units on a 57.81-acre project site Under consideration by the City of Pittsburg North of West Leland Road between Bailey Road and 1.30 miles Unknown – the 2018 Alves Ranch Project will likely be implemented several years after the RNGPFP becomes operational Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project 4 CEQA State Clearinghouse No.2017032027 1. Annexation into the City of Pittsburg and rezoning 2. General Plan Amendment 3. Buildout of 1,500 single-family dwelling units Under consideration by the City of Pittsburg 607-acre area southwest of Pittsburg city limit in the Southwest Hills planning subarea 1.10 miles Unknown – the 2018 Faria/Southwest Hills Project will likely be implemented several years after the RNGPFP becomes operational Stoneman Park Residential Subdivision 5 CEQA State Clearinghouse No. Not Applicable 1. General Plan Amendment; Rezone; and Subdivision 2. 342 single-family dwelling units and open space on 203-acre site Project Referral and Request for Comments/Conditions issued by City of Pittsburg Planning Staff to city departments on 12-10-2020 Terminus of John Henry Johnson Parkway, south of existing Delta View Golf Course. North of, and adjacent to, KCL Special Buffer Area 0.62 mile Unknown – the Stoneman Park Subdivision Project will likely be implemented several years after the RNGPFP becomes operational Notes: 1. Distance "as the crow flies" estimated using Google Earth, from the site of the proposed RNG Processing Facility to the closest point of subject property 2. Timeframe for implementation estimated based on available information 3. 2018 Alves Ranch Project information obtained from City of Pittsburg website: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=1022 4. Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project information obtained from City of Pittsburg website: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=945 5. Stoneman Park Development project information obtained from City of Pittsburg Email Project Referral & Request for Comments/Conditions (1 st Round), December 10, 2020 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 38 of 276 11. Environmental Checklist Section 1 - Aesthetics Comment: Comments were received on the lack of clarity of some of the visual simulations and the effects on views and visibility and the number of redwood trees that would be planted as part of the applicant–proposed control measure. Response to Comment: Following are responses to comments on (A) the clarity of visual simulations, and (B) the applicant control measure for tree planting. A. Clarity of Visual Simulations: Some comments were received indicating the lack of clarity of the visual simulations presented in Section 1. Aesthetics of the Environmental Checklist in the MND. To address this comment, high resolution close-up views (cropped) images are presented in this Summary Response section to enhance the depiction of the visual environment before and after the project is built. The enhanced images and the pages in which they were originally presented in the MND, include the following: • Figure 1-3, on page 53 of the MND, Cropped – Existing view from Vantage Point 3 Santa Maria Drive at Keller Canyon Landfill property gate. • Figure 1-4, on page 54 of the MND, Cropped – Simulation of view from Vantage Point 3 of the RNG Processing Facility located on project site; • Figure 1-5, on page 55 of the MND, Cropped – Simulation of view from Vantage Point 3 of planted trees to visually screen project site from gate at Santa Maria Drive; • Figure 1-6, on page 56 of the MND, Cropped – Existing bird’s-eye aerial view of project site from Vantage Point #4; and • Figure 1-7, on page 57 of the MND, Cropped – Simulation of bird’s-eye aerial view of RNG processing equipment from Vantage Point #4. Review of the cropped images supports the conclusions in the MND that impacts to aesthetics from the proposed project would be less than significant from Vantage Point 3 (Santa Maria Drive) and Vantage Point 4 (Bird’s-eye aerial view from the west). Summary response regarding the control measure requiring tree planting near Santa Maria Drive is presented below. B. Applicant Control Measure #2 for Tree Planting, on page 46 of the MND has been clarified, with deleted text shown with strikethrough text and new text is indicated by double underlined text. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 39 of 276 2. Although the project would not be visible from the Santa Maria Drive roadway or sidewalk, this tree planting control measure will further reduce the potential for significant impacts. The applicant shall plant coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) on the KCL property to screen the view from residences located to the north, subject to review and approval by the DCD. The applicant shall coordinate with a landscape designer specializing in visual screening. Minimum height of the planted redwoods shall be 10 feet to 12 feet, at a tree spacing of 15 feet to 25 feet on-center, with 13 to 21 trees, with final number in numbers and locations to be determined. The existing area proposed for tree planting is shown on the cropped Figure 1-3 above. Cropped Figure 1-4 above shows that the RNGPF may be visible from Vantage Point 3 near Santa Maria Drive. The simulation of the tree planting control measure shown on cropped Figure 1-5 is designed to shield the view of the project from the landfill side of the property fence. The planting area covers about 7,100 square feet, and borders the existing landfill dirt road for about 320 linear feet. As described in clarified control measure #2 above and in page 46 of the MND, the exact placement of trees, and final mix of tree species will be coordinated with the on-going tree planting effort in the Visual Impacts Mitigation Plan in effect for the Keller Canyon Landfill. This plan involves the planting of Coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) and Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). The visual simulation in cropped Figure 1-4 in this Summary Responses section depicts the tree planting control measure that includes a minimum of 13 redwood trees. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 40 of 276 Figure 1-3, Cropped – Existing view from Vantage Point 3 Santa Maria Drive at Keller Canyon Landfill property near property gate Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon, June 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 41 of 276 Figure 1-4, Cropped – Simulation of view from Vantage Point 3 of the RNG Processing Facility located on project site Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon, June 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 42 of 276 Figure 1-5, Cropped – Simulation of view from Vantage Point 3 of planted trees to visually screen project site from gate at Santa Maria Drive Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon, June 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 43 of 276 Figure 1-6, Cropped – Existing bird’s-eye aerial view of project site from Vantage Point #4 Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon, June 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 44 of 276 Figure 1-7, Cropped – Simulation of bird’s-eye aerial view of RNG processing equipment from Vantage Point #4 Source: Ameresco Keller Canyon, June 2021 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 45 of 276 12. Environmental Checklist Section 4 – Biological Resources Comment: Comments were received on the lack of clarity of some of the proposed mitigation measures for potential impacts to biological resources. Response to Comment: In response to comments received on the MND, the following clarifications have been added to project mitigation measures for potential impacts to biological resources. Clarifying text is indicated by double underlined text. Mitigation Measure Biology 3, on page 90 of the MND, has been clarified that the qualified biologist has stop work authority to ensure that no direct effects to golden eagles occur. Biology 3: Construction Monitoring: Construction monitoring shall focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. These measures will include consultation with USFWS and CDFW if an active nest is identified, monitoring conducted by a qualified biologist with stop work authority Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the Urban Limit Line (ULL), covered activities inside and outside of the HCP Preserve System designated in the HCP/NCCP have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. The majority of the project activities fall outside of the ULL. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized through direct consultation with USFWS and CDFW on appropriate buffer zones and construction monitoring requirements, a qualified biologist will monitor all activities to ensure the buffer zone is maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Mitigation Measure Biology 6, on pages 92 through 94 of the MND, has been clarified that the qualified biologist has stop work authority. Biology 6: Construction Monitoring: If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones shall be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. A qualified biologist shall monitor all activities to ensure exclusion zones are maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. All exclusion zones shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 46 of 276 Mitigation Measure Biology 7 on page 94 of the MND, states preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, ECCCHC and CDFW. If occupied habitat is present, consultation with CDFW will result as part of the submittal of the surveys to CDFW and compensatory mitigation, if necessary, will be determined as part of that consultation. Mitigation Measure Biology 7 has been clarified to include these additions. Biology 7: Preconstruction Surveys: If the project does not avoid impacts to suitable habitat for special status bats, a preconstruction survey shall be required to determine whether the sites are occupied immediately prior to construction or whether they show signs of recent previous occupation. Preconstruction surveys are used to determine what avoidance and minimization requirements are triggered before construction and whether construction monitoring is necessary. Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. If occupied habitat is determined present and cannot be avoided, consultation with CDFW shall occur in order to determine the appropriate plan for eviction and compensatory mitigation. Mitigation Measure Biology 9 on page 95 of the MND, requires avoidance of rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches will be monitored and reported as part of the biological monitoring associated with the project. Mitigation Measure Biology 9 has been clarified to ensure these protections for California match weed patches. Biology 9: Develop Temporary Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall develop a Temporary Restoration Plan to ensure the site is restored to pre-project conditions. This may include measures such as topsoil preservation per station segments and reseeding with native seed mixes. The Temporary Restoration Plan will include updated mapping of current Sensitive Natural Communities, monitoring of topsoil preservation in areas that are directly impacted (California buckeye groves and Gum Plant patches) and monitoring and reporting of SNCs that are to be avoided (rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches). The Temporary Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the CDD and the ECCCHC for review and approval. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 47 of 276 V. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The comments and responses to comments in this Section are organized by letter. The comments within each letter and email have been numbered. Following each comment letter, responses to each comment are provided. As discussed in Section III, Revised Project Description, the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP has been revised in response to written comments received on the draft MND regarding potential project effects. The revisions include changes to three segments of the RNG pipeline system. As a result of the project revisions, several comments related to potential significant impacts no longer apply and are so noted in the responses. 4906-009pae DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Admitted in Colorado SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 p e n c i n a s @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper October 19, 2020 VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: John.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553 Email: Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us VIA EMAIL ONLY Stan Muraoka Email: Stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Requests for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Public Records - Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) Dear Mr. Kopchik, Ms. Napier and Mr. Muraoka: to request immediate access to any and all documents referenced or incorporated by reference in the Mitigated Negative Declaration MND for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC . Our request for all documents referenced or incorporated by reference in the MND is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality review document be made available to the public for the entire comment period.1 1 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21092, subd. (b)(1); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15072(g)(4). October 19, 2020 Page 2 4906-009pae printed on recycled paper The proposed Project is a renewable natural gas (RND) processing facility and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. The project is located at Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565. We are also writing to request separately, pursuant to the California Public Records Act2, immediate access to all public records referring or related to the Project. This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all correspondence, including electronic mail messages, staff reports, resolutions, memoranda, notes and analyses and public and agency comments. We would appreciate it if the County could prioritize and segregate our request for the documents referenced in the MND and get those to us first, since the period for providing comments has already begun. We request immediate access to review the above documents pursuant to 6253(a). Therefore, the ten- of We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200. However, please contact me at (650) 589-1660 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253.9, if the requested documents are in electronic format and are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), please email them to me as attachments. Please send the above requested items to our South San Francisco Office as follows: U.S. Mail Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037 2 Gov. Code § 6253(a) and §§ 6250 et seq. October 19, 2020 Page 3 4906-009pae printed on recycled paper Email pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Please call me at (650) 589-1660 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Paul Encinas Legal Assistant PAE:pae 4906-003pae DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN AARON M. MESSING WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Admitted in Colorado SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 p e n c i n a s @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper August 5, 2020 Via Email and U.S. Mail John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 John.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553 Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us Re: Public Records Act Request - All Documents Related to the Ameresco Keller Canyon Project in Pittsburg Dear Mr. Kopchik and Ms. Napier: We are writing on behalf of California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) to request to any and all public records referring or related to Ameresco Keller Canyon (“Project”), proposed by Applicant Tetra Tech. This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all materials, applications, correspondence, electronic mail messages, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, files, maps, charts, and/or any other documents related to the Project. The Project is a high British Thermal Unit Renewable Natural Gas (“RNG”) plant facility. The Project and associated support equipment will be constructed at and utilize the landfill gas (“LFG”) from the Keller Canyon Landfill (“Landfill”). The Project will refine LFG, routed from the Landfill to produce a pipeline-quality gas known as RNG which will contain greater than 94 percent methane. The Project will be a separate entity from the Landfill and the existing Ameresco Landfill Gas to Energy Facility located at 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565. This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §§ 6250, et seq.) This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) August 5, 2020 Page 2 4906-003pae printed on recycled paper provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200. However, please contact me at (650) 589-1660 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253.9, if the requested documents are in electronic format and are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), please email them to me as attachments. My contact information is: U.S. Mail Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037 Email pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Paul Encinas Legal Assistant PAE:pae 4906-015pae DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Admitted in Colorado SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 p e n c i n a s @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper October 26, 2020 Via Email and U.S. Mail Lawrence Huang Public Records Coordinator East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy c/o Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Public Records Act Request - All Documents Related to the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project Dear Mr. Huang: to request access to any and all public records referring or related to Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project proposed by Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC, since the date of our last request on August 5, 2020. This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all materials, applications, correspondence, electronic mail messages, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, files, maps, charts, and/or any other documents related to the Project. The proposed Project is a renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. The project is located at Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565. This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §§ 6250, et seq.) This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to October 26, 2020 Page 3 4906-015pae printed on recycled paper provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200. However, please contact me at (650) 589-1660 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253.9, if the requested documents are in electronic format and are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), please email them to me as attachments. My contact information is: U.S. Mail Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037 Email pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Paul Encinas Legal Assistant PAE:pae June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 55 of 276 1. Letters 1, 1a, 1b: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 1-1: There were three (3) separate letters received from the commenter, one of which preceded the public review period of the draft MND. The first letter included a request for immediate access to review all public records referring or related to the project pursuant to section 6253(a) of the Public Records Act (PRA). The subsequent letters designated 1a and 1b reiterated the request. DCD subsequently provided relevant documents as required under the PRA. Plan Review Team Land Management PGEPlanReview@pge.com 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A San Ramon, CA 94583 October 21, 2020 Stan Muraoka Contra Costa County Dept of Conservation & Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution Dear Stan Muraoka, Thank you for submitting the 901 Bailey Rd plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities. Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights. Below is additional information for your review: 1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page. 2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services. 3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities. Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required. This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required. Sincerely, Plan Review Team Land Management 2 Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf 1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work. 2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe. Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas. Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments). No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded. 4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4. 5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch 3 wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away. Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations. For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment. 7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement. If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict. 8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities. 9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks. 10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area. 4 11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering. 12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines. With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete. 13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities. 5 Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows: 1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.” 2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure. 3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment. 4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged. 5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines. 6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed. 7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed. 6 8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement. 9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction. 10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E. 11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. 12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations. Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed. Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction. 13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 62 of 276 2. Letter 2: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Response to Comment 2-1: Comment noted. The project applicant acknowledges receipt and review of Attachment 1 (Gas Facilities) and Attachment 2 (Electric Facilities). Response to Comment 2-2: Comment noted. The project applicant will fully participate in the application process with PG&E. Response to Comment 2-3: The project as proposed and evaluated in the MND includes the entire scope of the project. Since publication of the draft MND, the portion of the project to be located in PG&E property has been revised. Please see Section III. Revised Project Description of this Final MND. Future design work in PG&E property or for connection to new or rearranged PG&E facilities will be coordinated with PG&E as required. Response to Comment 2-4: Comment noted. Response to Comment 2-5: Comment noted. The project proponent will submit filing(s) with the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) as required. Subject RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation From Cultural Resource Department Inbox To Stanley Muraoka Cc Cultural Resource Department Inbox Sent Tuesday, October 27, 2020 10:20 AM Attachments 1_Mitigatio n_Measur... 2_Mitigatio n_Measur... 3_Mitigatio n_Measur... 4_Mitigatio n_Measur... Good morning, This letter is notice that Wilton Rancheria would like to initiate consultation under AB 52. We would like to discuss the topics listed in Cal. Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2(a), including significant effects; and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts the project may cause to tribal cultural resources. As consultation progresses, we may also wish to discuss design options that would avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources; the scope of any environmental document that is prepared for the project; pre-project surveys; and tribal cultural resource identification, significance evaluations and culturally-appropriate treatment. This letter is also a formal request to allow Wilton Rancheria tribal representatives to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Please send us all existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for, and the results of, any records searches that may have been conducted prior to our first consultation meeting. If tribal cultural be present for all ground disturbing activities. Finally, please be advised that our preference is to RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:27 AM Cases -LP Page 1 preserve tribal cultural resources in place and avoid them whenever possible. Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with Wilton Rancheria and receiving Wilton Rancheria 's written consent. In the letter Stanley Muraoka is identified as the lead contact person for consultation on the proposed project. Mariah Mayberry will be Wilton Rancheria's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mariah by phone (916) 683-6000 ext. 2023 or email at mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov to begin the consultation process. Thank you for involving Wilton Rancheria in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this letter a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected. Sincerely, Mariah Mayberry Wilton Rancheria Tel: 916.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.683.6015 9728 Kent Street | Elk Grove | CA | 95624 mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov From:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent:Wednesday, October 7, 2020 10:48 AM To:Ralph T. Hatch <rhatch@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov>; Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov>; Antonio Ruiz <aruiz@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Subject:LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation Attached is a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation for Land Use Permit application LP18-2022, for a proposed a Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline project (RNGPFP). The subject property is a portion of the Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County and Parcel Numbers 094-360-008, -019, -020, -022; 094-080-012; 094-090-002; 094-160-004, -005, -006). The applicant, Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC is proposing a renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility and an underground RNG transmission pipeline. The original letter is being sent to Mr. Hatch via USPS. Due to the shelter in place order and subsequent orders issued by the County Health Officer (Order), all offices of the Department of Conservation and Development are closed to the Cases -LP Page 2 public until further notice. We continue to work to operate County programs and provide public services to the best of our ability within the constraints of the Order and while here for a current Stan Muraoka, AICP Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-674-7781 Email: stanley,muraoka@dcd.cccounty,us Cases -LP Page 3 Tribal Cultural Resource Avoidance Mitigation Measure Wilton Rancheria Avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources and will be accomplished by several means, including: Planning construction to avoid tribal cultural resources, archaeological sites and/ or other resources; incorporating sites within parks, green-space or other open space; covering archaeological sites; deeding a site to a permanent conservation easement; or other preservation and protection methods agreeable to consulting parties and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the activity. Recommendations for avoidance of cultural resources will be reviewed by the CEQA lead agency representative, interested Native American Tribes and the appropriate agencies, in light of factors such as costs, logistics, feasibility, design, technology and social, cultural and environmental considerations, and the extent to which avoidance is consistent with project objectives. Avoidance and design alternatives may include realignment within the project area to avoid cultural resources, modification of the design to eliminate or reduce impacts to cultural resources or modification or realignment to avoid highly significant features within a cultural resource. Native American Representatives from interested Native American Tribes will be allowed to review and comment on these analyses and shall have the opportunity to meet with the CEQA lead agency representative and its representatives who have technical expertise to identify and recommend feasible avoidance and design alternatives, so that appropriate and feasible avoidance and design alternatives can be identified. If the resource can be avoided, the construction contractor(s), with paid Native American monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes present, will install protective fencing outside the site boundary, including a buffer area, before construction restarts. The construction contractor(s) will maintain the protective fencing throughout construction to avoid the site during all remaining phases of construction. The area will be demarcated as an ve Area . Native American representatives from interested Native American Tribes and the CEQA lead agency representative will also consult to develop measures for long term management of the resource and routine operation and maintenance within culturally sensitive areas that retain resource integrity, including tribal cultural integrity, and including archaeological material, Traditional Cultural Properties and cultural landscapes, in accordance with state and federal guidance including National Register Bulletin 30 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes), Bulletin 36 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties), and Bulletin 38 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties); National Park Service Preservation Brief 36 (Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes) and using the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan for further guidance. Use of temporary and Tribal Cultural Resource Avoidance Mitigation Measure Wilton Rancheria permanent forms of protective fencing will be determined in consultation with Native American rrepresentatives from interested Native American Tribes. Native American Monitoring Mitigation Measure Wilton Rancheria To minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to existing or previously undiscovered burials, archaeological and tribal cultural resources and to identify any such resources at the earliest possible time during project-related earthmoving activities, THE PROJECT PROPONENT and its construction contractor(s) will implement the following measures: Paid Native American monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes will be invited to monitor the vegetation grubbing, stripping, grading or other ground-disturbing activities in the project area to determine the presence or absence of any cultural resources. Native American representatives from cultural affiliated Native American Tribes act as a representative of their Tribal government and shall be consulted before any cultural studies or ground-disturbing activities begin. Native American representatives and Native American monitors have the authority to identify sites or objects of significance to Native Americans and to request that work be stopped, diverted or slowed if such sites or objects are identified within the direct impact area. Only a Native American representative can recommend appropriate treatment of such sites or objects. If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or bone, are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that a qualification standards can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the Caltrans, the SHPO, and other appropriate agencies. Appropriate treatment measures may include development of avoidance or protection methods, archaeological excavations to recover important information about the resource, research, or other actions determined during consultation. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities, the construction contractor or the County, or both, shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation in the area of the burial and notify the County coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains. The coroner shall examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands, in accordance with Section 7050(b) of the Health and Safety Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant (MLD) shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. Inadvertent Discoveries Mitigation Measures Wilton Rancheria Develop a standard operating procedure, points of contact, timeline and schedule for the project so all possible damages can be avoided or alternatives and cumulative impacts properly accessed. If potential tribal cultural resources, archaeological resources, other cultural resources, articulated, or disarticulated human remains are discovered by Native American Representatives or Monitors from interested Native American Tribes, qualified cultural resources specialists or other Project personnel during construction activities, work will cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (based on the apparent distribution of cultural resources), whether or not a Native American Monitor from an interested Native American Tribe is present. A qualified cultural resources specialist and Native American Representatives and Monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes will assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary. These recommendations will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations made by interested Native American Tribes which are not implemented, a justification for why the recommendation was not followed will be provided in the project record. If adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, unique archeology, or other cultural resources occurs, then consultation with Wilton Rancheria regarding mitigation contained in the Public Resources Code sections 21084.3(a) and (b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15370 should occur, in order to coordinate for compensation for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Tribal Cultural Resource Awareness Training - Mitigation Measure Wilton Rancheria A consultant and construction worker tribal cultural resources awareness brochure and training program for all personnel involved in project implementation will be developed in coordination with interested Native American Tribes. The brochure will be distributed and the training will be conducted in coordination with qualified cultural resources specialists and Native American Representatives and Monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes before any stages of project implementation and construction activities begin on the project site. The program will include relevant information regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The worker cultural resources awareness program will also describe appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for resources that have the potential to be located on the project site and will outline what to do and whom to contact if any potential archaeological resources or artifacts are encountered. The program will also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally-appropriate treatment of any find of significance to Native Americans and behaviors, consistent with Native American Tribal values. Subject LP18-2022 From Cultural Resource Department Inbox To Stanley Muraoka Cc Cultural Resource Department Inbox Sent Friday, November 20, 2020 1:12 PM Good afternoon Stanley, Thank you for sending over the request to consult. It does show in my records we sent a request for consultation back in October of 2020. We would like to initiate consultation and request Tribal Monitoring during any ground disturbance. Thank you Mariah Mayberry Wilton Rancheria Tel: 916.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.683.6015 9728 Kent Street | Elk Grove | CA | 95624 mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov LP18-2022 Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:51 PM Cases -LP Page 1 Subject RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation From Cultural Resource Department Inbox To Stanley Muraoka; Cultural Resource Department Inbox Sent Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:15 AM Hi Stanley, I do not believe we have a drop box for the attachments. Let me reach out to my IT and see if we can get something set up. Mariah Mayberry Wilton Rancheria Tel: 916.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.683.6015 9728 Kent Street | Elk Grove | CA | 95624 mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov From:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent:Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:48 PM To:Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Subject:RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:46 PM Subject RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation From Stanley Muraoka To mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov Cc Cultural Resource Department Inbox; David Brockbank Sent Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:43 PM Hi Mariah: RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:08 PM Cases -LP Page 1 I am acknowledging receipt of your email below regarding initiating consultation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Ameresco Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project can be downloaded from the Department website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4841/Public-Input. Another document that would be useful for you to review is the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions for the proposed project. Unfortunately, each document is too large to send as an attachment. I tried twice earlier today and your email server (postmaster@wiltonrancheria- nsn.gov) could not handle either the MND or the Phase I Assessment. If Wilton Rancheria has a dropbox, I could upload the documents in it for you. I can also mail you printed copies. It would be appropriate to have either a conference call or a virtual meeting on the proposed project after you have had the opportunity to review the documents. Also, It would be useful to have the project applicant included in the call/meeting, as they will be able to provide additional information on the proposed project and the site. I will be available for a meeting on November 2 -4, November 9-10, and November 16 19. Let me know if there is a time that works for you on any of those dates. Stan Muraoka, AICP Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-674-7781 Email: stanley,muraoka@dcd.cccounty,us From:Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Sent:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 10:21 AM To:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc:Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Subject:RE: LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation Good morning, This letter is notice that Wilton Rancheria would like to initiate consultation under AB 52. We would like to discuss the topics listed in Cal. Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2(a), including significant effects; and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts the project may cause to tribal cultural resources. As consultation progresses, we may also wish to discuss design Cases -LP Page 2 options that would avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources; the scope of any environmental document that is prepared for the project; pre-project surveys; and tribal cultural resource identification, significance evaluations and culturally-appropriate treatment. This letter is also a formal request to allow Wilton Rancheria tribal representatives to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Please send us all existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for, and the results of, any records searches that may have been conducted prior to our first consultation meeting. If tribal cultural be present for all ground disturbing activities. Finally, please be advised that our preference is to preserve tribal cultural resources in place and avoid them whenever possible. Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with Wilton Rancheria and receiving Wilton Rancheria 's written consent. In the letter Stanley Muraoka is identified as the lead contact person for consultation on the proposed project. Mariah Mayberry will be Wilton Rancheria's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mariah by phone (916) 683-6000 ext. 2023 or email at mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov to begin the consultation process. Thank you for involving Wilton Rancheria in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this letter a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected. Sincerely, Mariah Mayberry Wilton Rancheria Tel: 916.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.683.6015 9728 Kent Street | Elk Grove | CA | 95624 mmayberry@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov From:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent:Wednesday, October 7, 2020 10:48 AM To:Ralph T. Hatch <rhatch@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov>; Cultural Resource Department Inbox <crd@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov>; Antonio Ruiz <aruiz@wiltonrancheria-nsn.gov> Subject:LP18-2022 Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation Attached is a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation for Land Use Permit application Cases -LP Page 3 LP18-2022, for a proposed a Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline project (RNGPFP). The subject property is a portion of the Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County and Parcel Numbers 094-360-008, -019, -020, -022; 094-080-012; 094-090-002; 094-160-004, -005, -006). The applicant, Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC is proposing a renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility and an underground RNG transmission pipeline. The original letter is being sent to Mr. Hatch via USPS. Due to the shelter in place order and subsequent orders issued by the County Health Officer (Order), all offices of the Department of Conservation and Development are closed to the public until further notice. We continue to work to operate County programs and provide public services to the best of our ability within the constraints of the Order and while here for a current Stan Muraoka, AICP Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-674-7781 Email: stanley,muraoka@dcd.cccounty,us Created with OneNote. Cases -LP Page 4 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 76 of 276 3. Emails 3, 3a, 3b: Wilton Rancheria Response to Comment 3-1: On October 7, 2020, in accordance with Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was mailed and emailed to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d), there was a 30 day time period for the Wilton Rancheria to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. The Wilton Rancheria submitted an email on October 27, 2020, stating that it wished to initiate consultation. On October 27, 2020, DCD staff sent the Wilton Rancheria an email acknowledging the request for consultation, provided a website link to download the draft MND, offered to upload the draft MND and the April 21, 2020 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment into a dropbox link, and offered to meet during November 2020. On November 20, 2020, DCD received an email from the Wilton Rancheria in which it reiterated its request to initiate consultation. On November 24, 2020, DCD staff sent an email acknowledging the request for consultation and requested the Wilton Rancheria to provide dates and times for a consultation meeting. Staff also resent its October 27, 2020 email replying to the Wilton Rancheria’s October 27, 2020 request for consultation. On December 1, 2020, the Wilton Rancheria sent an email stating that it did not have a dropbox to receive documents. DCD staff sent the Wilton Rancheria an email on December 4, 2020, with a link to download the draft MND and the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment. On December 14, 2020, DCD staff sent the Wilton Rancheria an email requesting that the Wilton Rancheria let staff know if it had problems downloading the documents. To date, DCD staff has not received a reply from the Wilton Rancheria regarding the downloading of the documents and has not been provided with any dates and times for consultation. Response to Comment 3-2: As the commenter requested in the Comment, DCD staff has made the draft MND and the April 2020 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment available to the Wilton Rancheria. The October 27, 2020 email from the Wilton Rancheria included a request for observation and participation in any cultural resource surveys. As discussed in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, information on cultural resources in the project area was obtained from the Native American Heritage Commission in November 2018, and letters were sent to Native American tribes, including the Wilton Rancheria, requesting information in December 2018 and on March 18, 2020. No responses to these letters have been received to date. The Wilton Rancheria has not submitted any comments on the draft MND, and has not raised any issues with the adequacy of the MND in evaluating tribal cultural resources. As stated in the draft MND: Previously, the Wilton Rancheria had requested consultation in response to a consultation notice for a different project that led to a meeting between staff and a representative of the Wilton Rancheria. At that meeting, a tentative agreement was reached between staff and the Wilton Rancheria that the Native American tribe will be notified of any discovery of cultural resources or human remains on the site. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requested that pursuant to State law, the NAHC shall be notified of any June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 77 of 276 discovery of human remains rather than the Native American tribe. Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2 in Section 5 (Cultural Resources) of this Environmental Checklist provide for notice to the Wilton Rancheria of any discovery of cultural resources and notice to the NAHC of any discovery of human remains on the site. Any future construction activity on the project site would be subject to Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2. Mitigation measures Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2 will become Conditions of Approval of the Ameresco RNGPFP if the project is approved. Sent via electronic mail: No hard copy to follow Land Use Permit LP18-2022, Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Proposed Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Preliminary Aquatic Resources Delineation sic Concrete Canal Wetland Tributary Drainage Biological Resources Biology 10 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 82 of 276 4. Letter 4: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Comment 4-1: Comment Noted. The MND includes Mitigation Measures Biology 1, 10, and 11 which require that the applicant obtain and implement permits as an enforceable measure from State and federal regulatory agencies that have jurisdictional authority over aquatic resources, including the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). Response to Comment 4-2: Mitigation Measure Biology 11 requires the applicant to obtain required permits from the Army Corps, CDFW and the Water Board. This measure states “Avoidance, minimization and compensation will be determined by these agencies” and that the “applicant shall be responsible to implement the permit conditions”. Per this Mitigation Measure and Measures Biology 1 and 10, the proposed project is not allowed to proceed until the applicant demonstrates that compensatory mitigation acceptable to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and the regulatory agencies is addressed to ensure impacts are mitigated to a less- than-significant level. While the Water Board is not a signatory to the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, the Conservancy ensures impacts to wetlands and waters that are associated with projects they approve are properly mitigated to meet the requirements of the HCP/NCCP and the regulatory agencies. Mitigation Measure Biology 1, 10, and 11 do not assume that HCP/NCCP wetland mitigation fees are the only mechanism to address wetlands and waters impacts. Rather, it assumes that wetland and waters mitigation will be addressed with the Conservancy and the regulatory agencies to meet the requirements of the HCP/NCCP, and applicable State and federal requirements. Response to Comment 4-3: The HCP/NCCP provides the option for the applicant to pay the wetland mitigation fees or the option to “construct, manage, and monitor their own wetland, stream, ponds, or riparian mitigation in lieu of paying the wetland fee as long as wetland restoration or creation is initiated prior to project construction, wetland construction begins within 1 year of construction of the covered project, the mitigation is consistent with the requirements of Conservation Measure 2.1, and management and monitoring are funded in perpetuity” (HCP/NCCP Chapter 9, Section 9.3.1). Mitigation Measures Biology 1, 10, and 11 will ensure that wetland and waters mitigation will be addressed with the Conservancy and the regulatory agencies to meet the HCP/NCCP, and applicable State and federal requirements and ensure mitigation to a less-than-significant level. Response to Comment 4-4: Compensatory mitigation for the project to address impacts to waters of the US and waters of the state will be developed as part of the permit application process per Mitigation Measures Biology 1, 10, and 11 which will ensure mitigation to a less-than -significant level. Response to Comment 4-5: The potential mitigation ratios presented by the Water Board are noted. See responses to comments 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 above. Response to Comment 4-6: Comment noted. Subject Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC's Proposed RNG Processing Facility & Pipeline (Land Use Permit LP18-2022, amending LP89-2020) From Barry Young To Stanley Muraoka Cc Pamela Leong; Gregory Solomon; Nimrat Sandhu; Josephine Fong Sent Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:22 PM November 4, 2020 Stan Muraoka, AICP Senior Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Proposed Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility & Pipeline (Land Use Permit LP18-2022, amending LP89-2020) Dear Mr. Muraoka, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Ameresco RNG Facility and Pipeline Project (Project). The Air District staff has the following comments on the proposed Project: 1. percent methane, and therefore is a valuable source of fuel landfill gas (LFG) contains at most up to 60% methane and is mostly assumed to contain 50% methane for calculation purposes. 2.Page 65, Project Operation Emissions: This section states that there will be a substantial reduction converted to renewable natural gas (RNG). This statement may be inaccurate because the landfill flares are still permitted at their maximum capacities (4,900 cfm). The landfill will need to submit an application for permit condition changes to reduce the throughput to these flares.No real, quantifiable, and enforceable reductions will occur until the Keller Canyon Landfill Company (KCLC) has applied for a reduction in throughputs or emissions of the two flares, A-1 and A-2. Pursuant to Regulation 8-34-301, an active landfill shall operate with an active landfill gas collection and control system. In order to comply with this regulation, the two flares need to throughput and emissions levels at their maximum capacity. In order to claim any emissions In addition, A-1 and A-2 have a combined throughput of approximately 4,900 cfm. Ameresco RNG facility is designed for 4,700 cfm. The Ameresco Landfill Gas to Energy (LFGTE) facility (Plant# Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC's Proposed RNG Processing Facility & Pipeline (Land Use Permit LP18-2022, amending LP89-2020) Wednesday, November 4, 2020 2:25 PM Cases -LP Page 1 B7667) has a design capacity of approximately 1,300 cfm of LFG. The peak landfill gas production is estimated to be approximately 7,400 cfm in 2051 as per the USEPA LandGEM model. So, the Ameresco LFGTE facility and Ameresco RNG facility may be potential support facilities for the KCLC landfill. Even with Ameresco LFGTE and Ameresco RNG operating at their maximum design capacities, the landfill flares will need to remain operational for abating approximately 1,400 reductions (which is based on complete shutdown of A-1 and A-2) appears to be inaccurate. Finally, the amount of landfill gas collected by the landfill in 2019 was 4,130 cfm, out of which 1,186 cfm were sent to the Ameresco LFGTE for use in its LFG-fired internal combustion engines. The 4,700 cfm gas collection rate has not been reached yet and as such claiming emission reductions on this basis is not only inaccurate but also overstating the reductions. 3.Page 66, Table 3-1: The emission factors for PM10 for the enclosed process flare appears to be incorrect. In addition, the VOC emission factor for both the enclosed process flare and the thermal oxidizer (TOX) assume that VOCs are equal to 39% of the NMOC fraction. This is inaccurate because the 39% fraction is assumed for sites with no site-specific source test data. Keller Canyon landfill has more than two decades of source test data which verifies that VOCs make up for more than 95% of the NMOC fraction. This is true for most landfills. As such, District wide practice is to assume VOCs to be 100% equal to the NMOC fraction. 4.Page 67, Table 3-2: This table is inaccurate because the flares A-1 and A-2 would need to be shutdown in order to achieve these reductions and it is not being proposed as a result of this project. The actual emissions reductions should be calculated as per the baseline procedure in Regulation 2-2-603 and also account for the continued use of these flares for the foreseeable future. 5.Page 67: For the enclosed process flare and the TOX, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and/or Reasonably Achieved in Practice (RACT) standards may apply to the pollutants that exceed the BACT trigger level. applicant install BACT controls on the 6.Page 68, Table 3-3: The PM10 and VOC emission calculations in this table are incorrect. The PM10 emissions should be based on the US EPA AP-42 Chapter 2, Table 2.4-5 emission factor, 17 lb/MMscf CH4. As the methane concentration in the high O2 gas will be 22% (for the enclosed process flare) and in the waste gas will be 10% (for the TOX), this emission factor will change for these two abatement devices. For the enclosed process flare, this factor is 0.0777 lb/MM BTU and for the TOX, this factor is 0.171 lb/MM BTU based on the methane concentrations of 22% and 10%, respectively. As previously stated, the facility assumed VOCs to be 39% of the NMOC fraction, which is wrong. Thus, the PM10 and VOC emissions are incorrect and need to be updated. 7.Page 152-153, Table 8-2: Similar to the criteria pollutants, this table appears to be inaccurate because the emission reductions for greenhouse gases (GHGs) will not occur unless KCLC shuts down the two existing flares, which has not been proposed as part of the project or otherwise. For the GHG emissions from the process enclosed flare, the Air District assumed the worst case scenario for all upset scenarios to occur as high O2 gas. This will result in a total flow rate of 4,620 cfm as opposed to 2,650 used by the applicant, which was the flow rate for only the high O2 upset applicant provided numbers. 8.The Air District has also included fugitive emissions from leaking of parts and components from the RNG facility. Though these precursor organic compound (POC) emissions are not that high (approximately 0.077 tons per year), these will be added to the total emissions from the facility. If you have any questions, please contact me, or Nimrat Sandhu, Air Quality Engineer, at (415) 749-8604 or nsandhu@baaqmd.gov. Regards, Barry Cases -LP Page 2 Barry G. Young Senior Advanced Projects Advisor | Engineering Division Bay Area Air Quality Management District 375 Beale Street, Suite 600 | San Francisco, CA 94105 Office: 415.749.4721 byoung@baaqmd.gov | www.baaqmd.gov Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Cases -LP Page 3 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 86 of 276 5. Email 5: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Response to Comment 5-1: The BAAQMD comment is correct. The first sentence of the second paragraph in the IS/MND should read: “LFG consists of approximately 50 percent methane (e.g., natural gas), and therefore is a valuable source of fuel.” Response to Comment 5-2: See Adams-Broadwell response 15-9, and 15-10. It is true that the landfill must still have a collection and control system and a means to destroy the LFG generated to be in compliance with Regulation 8-34-301. The two KCLC landfill flares currently operate as the landfill gas system’s control devices and will continue to fulfill this function when the RNG plant is in operation. The district is correct in stating “the two flares have been permitted for throughput and emissions levels at their maximum capacity” which is for permitting, but in operation they seldom operate near maximum capacity as the Ameresco LFGTE plant combusts 1300 cfm of LFG. KCLC BAAQMD Air Permit Rule 20 requires “All landfill gas collected by the gas collection system for S-1 shall be abated at all times by the on-site enclosed flares, A-1 or A-2 or shall be vented off-site to the Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC facility (Site # B7667) for gas processing and control.” KCLC currently has sufficient capacity to combust all LFG collected from the gas collection system in the flares but is allowed by their BAAQMD Air Permit to vent 1300 scfm to the Ameresco LFGTE for combustion in beneficial use to generate electricity. Once the Ameresco RNG Facility Land Use Permit Amendment is approved, KCLC will apply to the District similar to what was done for the LFGTE facility to amend their Air Permit to allow gas to be vented to the Ameresco RNG Facility as well. It is incorrect to state that the proposed RNG Project will not achieve emissions reductions compared to current or future Keller operations. The current KCL flares, A-1 and A-2, are fueled with the same LFG stream that will be diverted to the proposed RNG Plant where it will be conditioned and injected into the natural gas pipeline system. By diverting the LFG away from the flares and toward the proposed RNG Plant, the LFG is no longer combusted at KCL and therefore is no longer contributing to the emissions produced by the flares. The LFG is instead taken off site as RNG and utilized elsewhere. Thus, in actual operation, every cubic foot of LFG that goes to the RNG Plant means is one less cubic foot that would be combusted by the KCLC flares. Response to Comment 5-3: With regard to the NMOC’s, the BAAQMD Permitting Division has already addressed the issues raised regarding the VOCs outside of the CEQA process by assuming VOC to be 100% of the NMOC fraction rather than using AP-42 values. This change in NMOC fraction for both existing landfill flare emissions and the RNGPF emissions does not change the conclusions of the MND that the project reduces current emissions levels substantially over the existing conditions. Response to Comment 5-4: See response 5-2 above. The statement of emissions reduction would be at a maximum during peak operation of the facility and when the landfill is generating greater than 4,700 scfm in LFG. It would be a displacement of the LFG from the Flares combusting the gas to the RNG, and the RNG facility has the lower emissions from the few sources proposed for June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 87 of 276 the RNG facility. Again, the change would be seen in the actual emissions, but the potentials from the landfill will need to remain, in case the RNG facility is offline/shutdown. As BAAQMD notes, currently, the A-1 and A-2 Flares are combusting approximately 2,950 SCFM at 50 percent methane. Using existing flare throughput as the baseline, the project would still reduce emissions because it would divert gas now being combusted in the flares to the RNG facility. Response to Comment 5-5: The applicant understands that the BAAQMD may require additional measures that would further reduce emissions from those disclosed in the MND. Response to Comment 5-6: See response for 5-5 above. With regards to PM10 emissions, Ameresco continues to work with the BAAQMD outside of the CEQA process to address their concern. Using AP-42 values for PM10 for the RNGPF waste gas gives a high value as the gas is chilled, refrigerated and filtered in multiple processes before being sent to the RNGPF flare and TOX. The District has agreed to use the emissions factors for particulate presented by Ameresco in the BAAQMD permit application which were also used for emissions data presented in the IS-MND. See response 5-3 above for information on the VOC emissions. Response to Comment 5-7: See response 5-2 above about shutting down the two existing landfill flares. With regard to the flow of gas, 2,650 scfm is the maximum flow rate provided by the manufacturer of the RNGPF process enclosed flare for a high O2 scenario. The high O2 scenario represents the highest potential operating emissions for the RNGPF as proposed. Emission factors from the high O2 scenario were used to compare to the emissions from the existing landfill flares. The comparison produced a realistic, yet conservative emissions profile. The use of the high O2 scenario for estimating emissions is a conservative assumption because the RNGPF is expected to operate in this mode less than 15 percent of the time. For the majority of the time (i.e., during normal operation) the RNGPF process enclosed flare will combust other waste gas that have much lower emission factors than the high O2 scenario. Therefore, assuming a flow rate for the RNGPF process enclosed flare of 4,620 scfm, as suggested by the commenter, is not applicable to a realistic operating scenario as it substantially exceeds the maximum flow rate allowed of 2,650 scfm provided by the manufacturer. Response to Comment 5-8: See response for 5-5 above. This comment from the BAAQMD acknowledges that even if fugitive emissions are included in the analysis of emissions, the precursor organic compounds (POC) emissions are not high (0.077 tons per year). Christine Schneider - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 101 of 276 6. Letter 6: Contra Costa Water District Response to Comment 6-1: Comment noted. The proposed underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal has been deleted from the project as part of the Revised Project. Therefore, authorizations from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) are no longer required. Response to Comment 6-2: Comment noted. The items listed as having been provided to the applicant by CCWD is accurate. Deletion of the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal makes this requirement no longer applicable. Response to Comment 6-3: Comment is noted that the project applicant would be required to pay applicable fees. Deletion of the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal makes this requirement no longer applicable. Response to Comment 6-4: Comment noted for the application for a construction permit from, and payment of a security deposit to, the CCWD. Deletion of the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal makes this requirement no longer applicable. Response to Comment 6-5: Comment noted for the requirement of a license from Reclamation, and application and payment of an initial administrative deposit to the CCWD. Deletion of the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal makes this requirement no longer applicable. Response to Comment 6-6: Comment noted regarding the applicability of a NEPA review. Deletion of the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal makes this requirement no longer applicable. Response to Comment 6-7: Comment noted that no construction may occur within the Reclamation right-of-way until all of CCWD’s requirements are met. Deletion of the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal makes this requirement no longer applicable. 4906-016acp DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Not admitted in California. Licensed in Colorado. SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AT TORNEYS AT LA W 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 k h a r t m a n n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper November 9, 2020 Via Email and U.S. Mail John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: John.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553 Email: Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us VIA EMAIL ONLY Stan Muraoka, Principal Planner, Department of Conservation & Development Email: Stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: FOLLOW-UP Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request for Extension of Public Comment Period - Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) Dear Mr. Kopchik, Ms. Napier and Mr. Muraoka: On behalf of California Unions for Re period for the Mitigated Negative Decl Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022; SCH ilure to provide the legally required 30-day comment period on the MND and du timely access to supporting documents for the MND. We also reiterate our previous requests for immediate access to any and all documents referenced or incorporated by reference in the MND. November 9, 2020 Page 2 4906-016acp printed on recycled paper Our request is made pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21091(b), submitted to the State Clearinghouse.1 The MND was posted on the State Clearinghouse on October 15, 2020, with a public review period commencing on October 15, 2020 and ending on November 13, 2020.2 That is just 29 days, shorter than the minimum 30-day comment period required by Public Resources Code section 21091(b). The County must extend the MND comment period to provide a minimum of 30 days for public review.3 Our request is also made pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092(b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines section 4 To date, the County has failed to provide CURE with timely access to the majority of the documents referenced in the MND, in violation of CEQA. We therefore request an extension of lease of all outstanding MND reference documents for public review, which is the minimum public review period set forth in On August 5, 2020, we submitted a Public Records Act request to the County for all documents related to the Project, materials, applications, correspondence, electronic mail messages, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, files, maps, charts, and/or any other documents related to 5 On October 19, 2020, we filed a letter with the County requesting ments referenced or incorporated by CEQA and asking that access to those 1 Pub. Resources Code § 21091(b). 2 Attachment A: Processing Facility and Pipeline Project (SCH Number 2020100267), https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020100267/2 (last visited 11/9/20). 3 Pub. Resources Code § 21091(b); see Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160 (CEQA notice posted for less than full 30 days required by CEQA is invalid) 4 Pub. Resources Code § 21092(b)(1); 14 C.C.R. § 15072(g)(4); see Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699. 5 Attachment B: Letter from Adams, Broadwell, Joseph, Pittsburg (August 5, 2020). November 9, 2020 Page 3 4906-016acp printed on recycled paper documents be prioritized.6 On October 21, 2020, we received a response from the County stating that documents in response to our PRA request had been placed in an online folder for our review.7 The online folder did not include all of the MND reference documents. On October 28, 2020, we sent an email to the County following up on our request for access to documents referenced or incorporated by reference in the MND. In response, the County stated that it had already provided the sources requested.8 production did not include all of the MND reference documents, The public review and comment period for the MND ends on November 13, 2020 and to date, though we have received numerous files from the County (most of which appear to be in response to our PRA requests), we do not have access to many of the documents referenced or relied upon in the MND. During our review, we have identified several of these documents and files that are not available by weblink in the References section of the MND, were not provided in response to our requests, and are not otherw These documents include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) section. (2) Tetra Tech Report of CalEEMod analysis, 2020. (3) Manufacturer specifications of emission factors for enclosed process flare and thermal oxidizer, as referenced on MND Page 65. (4) Support for baseline emissions listed in Table 3-2 on Page 67. (5) Swaim Biological, Inc., survey reports, 2020. (6) Tetra Tech BAS, Geotechnical Engineering Report, #BAS 18-136E, 2020. (7) oject Safety Considerations and Plans, Guidance Document. Campos EPC, 2020. 6 Attachment C: Letter from ABJC to the County re Requests for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Public Records - Ameresco Keller Canyon ssing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) (October 19, 2020). 7 Attachment D: Email from Lawrence Huang to Paul Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA (October 21, 2020). 8 Attachment E: Email from Kendra Hartmann to Lawrence Huang re Documents referenced in Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG MND (October 28, 2020). November 9, 2020 Page 4 4906-016acp printed on recycled paper (8) Health and Safety Program, Draft Joint Technical Document, Keller Canyon Landfill 2016. (9) Final Environmental Impact Report, Keller Canyon Landfill, 1990. (10) Keller Canyon Landfill Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 01- 040. (11) Keller Canyon Landfill National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit #2-7S006887. (12) Sedimentation Basin Flood Hydrology Memorandum, CH2M Hill, 1991. (13) Keller Canyon Landfill HEC-HMS Model 2011. (14) Contra Costa County HEC-HMS Guidance Rainfall Data. analyses, conclusions, and mitigation measur environmental impacts. By failing to provide access to the documents relied upon by the County in its preparation of the IS/MND during the entire public comment period, the County is preventing the public from participating in meaningful review of the IS/MND, in violation of CEQA.9 The courts have held that the failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA document for a portion of the review and comment period invalidates the entire CEQA process, and that such a failure must be remedied by permitting additional public comment.10 It is also well-settled that a CEQA document may not rely on hidden studies or documents that are not provided to the public.11 By failing to make all documents referenced and incorporated by reference in the IS/MND comment period, the County is in violation of the clear procedural mandates of CEQA. Accordingly, we request that: (1) The County immediately provide us with access to the missing documents, including but not limited to the documents specified in this letter; (2) The County extend the public review and comment period for the IS/MND by at least 30 days from the date on which the County releases these 9 See Ultramar, 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699. 10 Id. 11 Santiago County Water Dist. V. County of Orange required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have November 9, 2020 Page 5 4906-016acp printed on recycled paper documents for public review. If the missing documents are provided today, we request an extension to December 6, 2020. Given the shortness of time before the current comment deadline, please contact me as soon as possible with your response to this request, but no later than Tuesday, November 10, 2020. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at kendra.hartmann@adamsbroadwell.com. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Kendra Hartmann Christina Caro KDH:acp Attachments ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B 4906-003pae DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN AARON M. MESSING WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Admitted in Colorado SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AT TORNEYS AT LA W 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 p e n c i n a s @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper August 5, 2020 Via Email and U.S. Mail John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 John.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553 Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us Re: Public Records Act Request - All Documents Related to the Ameresco Keller Canyon Project in Pittsburg Dear Mr. Kopchik and Ms. Napier: We are writing on behalf of Californ to request to any and all public records referring or related to Ameresco Keller tra Tech. This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all materials, applications, correspondence, electronic mail messages, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, files, maps, charts, and/or any other documents related to the Project. The Project is a high British Thermal Unit ty. The Project and associated support equipment will be constructed at and utiliz will refine LFG, routed from the Landfill to produce a pipeline-quality gas known as RNG which will contain greater than 94 percent methane. The Project will be a separate entity from the Landfill and the existing Ameresco Landfill Gas to Energy Facility located at 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565. This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §§ 6250, et seq.) This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) November 9, 2020 Page 2 4906-003pae printed on recycled paper provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200. However, please contact me at (650) 589-1660 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253.9, if the requested documents are in electronic format and are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), please email them to me as attachments. My contact information is: U.S. Mail Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037 Email pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Paul Encinas Legal Assistant PAE:pae ATTACHMENT C 4906-009pae DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Admitted in Colorado SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AT TORNEYS AT LA W 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 p e n c i n a s @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper October 19, 2020 VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL John Kopchik, Director Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: John.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us Jami Napier Chief Assistant Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553 Email: Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us VIA EMAIL ONLY Stan Muraoka Email: Stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Requests for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Public Records - Ameresco Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) Dear Mr. Kopchik, Ms. Napier and Mr. Muraoka: We are writing on behalf of Californ to request immediate access to any and all documents referenced or incorporated Natural Gas Processing Facility and reference in the MND is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality review document be made available to the public for the entire comment period.1 1 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21092, subd. (b)(1); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15072(g)(4). November 9, 2020 Page 2 4906-009pae printed on recycled paper The proposed Project is a renewable natural gas (RND) processing facility and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. The project is located at Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565. We are also writing to request separately, pursuant to the California Public Records Act2, immediate access to all public records referring or related to the Project. This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all correspondence, including electronic mail messages, staff reports, resolutions, memoranda, notes and analyses and public and agency comments. We would appreciate it if the County could prioritize and segregate our request for the documents referenced in the MND and get those to us first, since the period for providing comments has already begun. We request immediate access to review the above documents pursuant to to inspection at all times during the offi 6253(a). Therefore, the ten-day response peri oes not apply to this request. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200. However, please contact me at (650) 589-1660 with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253.9, if the requested documents are in electronic format and are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), please email them to me as attachments. Please send the above requested items to our South San Francisco Office as follows: U.S. Mail Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037 2 Gov. Code § 6253(a) and §§ 6250 et seq. November 9, 2020 Page 3 4906-009pae printed on recycled paper Email pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Please call me at (650) 589-1660 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Paul Encinas Legal Assistant PAE:pae ATTACHMENT D From:Lawrence Huang To:Kendra Hartmann Cc:Christina Caro; Paul A. Encinas Subject:FW: Ameresco Keller Canyon - Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:28:33 PM Ms. Hartmann Please below the responsive link I had sent on 10-21-20. Best Regards Lawrence Huang Administrative Analyst Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development Administration Division 925-674-7859 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 EMail: Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us From: Paul A. Encinas <pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:21 PM To: Lawrence Huang <Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: Re: Ameresco Keller Canyon - Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA Thank you. From: Lawrence Huang <Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:20 PM To: Paul A. Encinas <pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com> Subject: RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon - Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA Mr. Encinas, The Department has completed its research for documents responsive to your request regarding Amereso Keller Canyon Pittsburg PRA in Pittsburg. The most recent responsive is in the folder 10-21- 20. I’ve included the previous response from 8-25-20 for your reference as well. Please see the link below responsive to your request. This link will expire in 45 days. Thank you for patience and hope all is well with you. https://cocodcd.egnyte.com/fl/In1H8OM11y Due to the shelter in place order issued by the County Health Officer (Order) on March 16, 2020, all offices of the Department of Conservation and Development are closed to the public until further notice. We continue to work to operate County programs and provide public services to the best of our ability within the constraints of the Order and while deploying staff to support the County’s emergency operations. Please click here for a current summary of our Department’s modified operations. Best Regards Lawrence Huang Public Records Coordinator Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development Administration Division 925-674-7859 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 EMail: Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us From: Lawrence Huang Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:05 PM To: Paul A. Encinas <pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com> Subject: RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon - Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA Mr. Encinas Today October 19, 2020, Department of Conservation and Development has received Public Records Act request regarding Ameresco Keller Canyon Project in Pittsburg. We anticipate that a response to your request will be provided on or before October 29, 2020. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me at 925-674-7859 or email Lawrence.huang@dcd.cccounty.us for all communications regarding this Public Records Act request. Due to the shelter in place order issued by the County Health Officer (Order) on March 16, 2020, all offices of the Department of Conservation and Development are closed to the public until further notice. We continue to work to operate County programs and provide public services to the best of our ability within the constraints of the Order and while deploying staff to support the County’s emergency operations. Please click here for a current summary of our Department’s modified operations. Best Regards Lawrence Huang Public Records Coordinator Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development Administration Division 925-674-7859 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 EMail: Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us From: Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:51 AM To: Lawrence Huang <Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: John Kopchik <John.Kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: FW: Ameresco Keller Canyon - Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA Due to the shelter in place order and subsequent orders issued by the County Health Officer (Order), all offices of the Department of Conservation and Development are closed to the public until further notice. We continue to work to operate County programs and provide public services to the best of our ability within the constraints of the Order and while deploying staff to support the County’s emergency operations. Please click here for a current summary of our Department’s modified operations. Stan Muraoka, AICP Phone: 925-674-7781 Email: stanley,muraoka@dcd.cccounty,us From: Paul A. Encinas <pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 9:46 AM To: John Kopchik <John.Kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us>; Jami Napier <Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us>; Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: Ameresco Keller Canyon - Request for Immediate Access Ref in MND & PRA Dear Mr. Kopchik, Ms. Napier and Mr. Muraoka: Attached please find our immediate access request for the above referenced project. Thank you. Paul Encinas ATTACHMENT E From:Kendra Hartmann To:Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us Cc:Christina Caro; Paul A. Encinas Subject:Documents referenced in Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG MND Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 4:41:00 PM Mr. Huang, I tried to call, but the line would not go through. I am following up on our request for access to documents referenced or incorporated by reference in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project. Your office had indicated in an email to us on October 19 that it would respond with the requested documents on or before October 29, 2020. We have not received any further response to our request, and have not been provided with access to any of the requested documents. We wanted to reach out and confirm that all responsive documents will be provided by tomorrow, as promised, as well as identify some specific requested documents we need access to. Those include, but are not limited to, references listed in the MND on PDF page 77 under “Sources of Information,” as well as the analysis for the CalEEMod results, air quality analysis and calculations, the manufacturer’s specifications for the emission factors (as referenced on PDF page 71), and support for the baseline emissions listed in Table 3-2 on PDF page 73. Please confirm that the County will have all documents referenced in the MND available for our review on October 29. Thank you, Kendra Hartmann Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Tel: (650) 589-1660 ext. 21 Fax: (650) 589-5062 khartmann@adamsbroadwell.com Subject Re: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project - Request for extension of MND comment period From Kendra Hartmann To Stanley Muraoka Cc John Kopchik; Jami Napier; Christina Caro Sent Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:09 PM Mr. Muraoka, I am following up on our letter sent Monday, November 10 requesting immediate access to documents referenced the MND for the Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, as well as requesting an extension of the public comment period.The County still has not provided access to the remaining MND reference documents and has not responded to our request for an extension of the public comment period. timely access to several of the documents referenced in the MND in violation of CEQA. Furthermore, 30 days is the minimum public review period set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for an MND submitted to the State Clearinghouse. Because, as stated in our letter, the County has provided only 29 days for the comment period, it is in further violation of CEQA. I spoke with Lawrence Huang this morning, who indicated that he would relay this information to you. As the public comment period deadline is this Friday, November 13, we respectfully request an immediate response to our request for an extension, as well as immediate access to the missing reference documents. As 30 days is the minimum review period, the deadline should be extended 30 days from the date on which the documents are provided to the public. Please feel free to reach out to me should you have any questions. Thank you, Kendra D. Hartmann Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Tel: (650) 589-1660 ext. 21 Fax: (650) 589-5062 khartmann@adamsbroadwell.com Re: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project - Request for extension of MND comment period Wednesday, November 11, 2020 2:41 PM Cases -LP Page 1 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 124 of 276 7. Letter 7, Email 7a: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 7-1: This comment states that documents related to the project pursuant to section 6253(a) of the Public Records Act (PRA) were not received in a timely manner and requested an extension of the public review period for the CEQA document. DCD ultimately extended the public review period to December 23, 2020. The decision to extend the public review period was based on other factors and not necessarily the request contained in this comment. A follow up email was submitted (document 7a) requesting an extension of the public review period. Response to Comment 7-2: This comment requested fourteen documents (14) related to the proposed project and the Keller Canyon Landfill property or permits. DCD provided the requested documents to the commenter consistent with the PRA. Response to Comment 7-3: This comment reiterated the request for fourteen documents (14) and extension of the public review period. Both requests were fulfilled by DCD. Subject Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg From Paul A. Encinas To Stanley Muraoka Sent Thursday, December 10, 2020 10:11 AM Hello Stanley, Hope you are doing well.Can you please advise when it will be available to review? If they are complete, can we obtain a copy? I appreciate your help. Thank you. Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Email: pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Phone: (650) 589-1660 Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg Monday, December 14, 2020 10:32 AM Cases -LP Page 1 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 126 of 276 8. Email 8: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 8-1: This email dated December 10, 2020 was an inquiry about whether the County had comments on the proposed Ameresco RNGPFP. On December 14, 2020, DCD staff sent the commenter and email stating that while the County does not currently have any comments on the proposed project, staff will present the project to the County Planning Commission, a Planning Commission staff report will be available prior to the meeting, and staff will send out a notice of the meeting when it has been scheduled. Subject Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg -BAAQMD comments From Paul A. Encinas To Stanley Muraoka Sent Monday, December 14, 2020 2:07 PM Hello Stan, Costa County on 11/4/20? I appreciate your help. Thank you. Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Email: pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Phone: (650) 589-1660 Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Monday, December 14, 2020 6:02 PM Cases -LP Page 1 Subject RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments From Paul A. Encinas To Stanley Muraoka Sent Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:27 PM Hi Stanley, I am just following up to see if we can also get the comments from BAAQMD? I appreciate your help. Thank you. From:Paul A. Encinas Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 2:08 PM To:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject:Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Hello Stan, Costa County on 11/4/20? I appreciate your help. Thank you. Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Email: pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Phone: (650) 589-1660 RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:11 PM Cases -LP Page 1 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 129 of 276 9. Emails 9, 9a: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 9-1: These emails (December 14, 2020, and subsequently, December 15, 2020) requested a copy of comments on the draft MND received from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The requested information was provided to the commenter by DCD. Subject CalEEMod output files - Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project From Kendra Hartmann To Stanley Muraoka Cc Christina Caro Sent Monday, December 14, 2020 3:43 PM Hi Stan, In looking through the files we received from the County on November 16, I see that we received the CalEEMod emissions output calculations, but we still do not have the unlocked Excel spreadsheet or modeling files with the input numbers supporting the emissions calculations. Could you email those files to us asap? Thank you, Kendra D. Hartmann Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Tel: (650) 589-1660 ext. 21 Fax: (650) 589-5062 khartmann@adamsbroadwell.com CalEEMod output files - Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project Monday, December 14, 2020 6:04 PM Cases -LP Page 1 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 131 of 276 10. Email 10: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 10-1: This comment requested the Excel spreadsheets comprising the CALEEMOD construction emissions output calculations. The requested data were provided to the commenter by DCD. 11 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 147 of 276 11. Letter 11: City of Pittsburg Response to Comment 11-1: The comment stating that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impacts, which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Lead Agency determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate document consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This determination is supported by the analysis in the MND, and the substantial evidence provided in the MND and its supporting documents. Even though the Project’s impacts are less than significant with mitigation, in response to the City of Pittsburg’s comment, the applicant has realigned the proposed RNG pipeline in the PG&E property. The RNG pipeline would tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191-1 thereby eliminating a wide range of impacts that are described in the draft MND. Please see Section III. Revised Project Description of this Final MND for a detailed description of the revised RNG pipeline alignment. Response to Comment 11-2: Numerous supporting documents are referenced in the text of the MND. In addition to the project-specific studies, the Keller Canyon Landfill site conditions, geology, hydrology, and flora and fauna have been extensively studied and documented in prior CEQA and other studies related to permit compliance. Many of the mitigation measures in the MND are measures that have been applied to the Keller Canyon Landfill site, such as those in the 1990 Keller Canyon EIR, the conditions of approval in County Land Use Permit 2020-89 (LP89- 2020) for Keller Canyon Landfill, the 2001 MND for the landfill gas power plant approved in 1991, and the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). LP89-2020 “runs with the land” meaning that its conditions of approval remain binding and are not affected by change in ownership. The LP was initially issued by Contra Costa County in 1990 and most recently amended in 2015. Applicable conditions of approval from LP89-2020 have been applied to the proposed project. Compliance with these conditions of approval has been evaluated on an annual basis by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development since 2015. The efficacy of these conditions of approval, incorporated into the project where noted, has been demonstrated from past evaluations by the County. All related Keller Canyon CEQA documents, including the 1990 Keller Canyon EIR and 2001 MND for the landfill gas power plant, the conditions of approval in LP89-2020; and annual evaluations by the County Department of Conservation (DCD) are available for review at the office of the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553. The project-specific technical studies that informed the MND’s analyses are available to review at the DCD office. A list of references used in preparing the MND is presented in “References” on page 228 of the MND. In response to comments, the References list has been updated and included in Section VI. Staff-Initiated Text and Figure Changes in this Final MND. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 148 of 276 Response to Comment 11-3: The timing of any deconstruction or demolition of the project is unknown at this time and thus speculative. As noted in the MND Project Description, the RNGPF and pipeline are anticipated to operate for a substantial time (at least 20 years or more). The RNGPF equipment will largely be mounted on skids or other modular platforms. Equipment removal can be accomplished with conventional cranes and flatbed trucks. The Ameresco existing power plant and proposed RNGPF will be de-constructed; gas product would be removed from the RNG pipeline and abandoned according to prevailing regulations; and the remaining LFG will be directed to the landfill flares. No significant impacts would occur from deconstruction; the impacts will be similar to those of construction, but lesser in scope and shorter in time duration given that the pipeline will be left in place. Thus, deconstruction impacts will be limited to activity on the RNGPF site. Response to Comment 11-4: The MND proposes and formulates specific mitigation, with later action to confirm and carry out that mitigation. An example is the analysis of soil stability and the sand lens, which the Darwin Myers peer reviewer stated was sufficient for a preliminary analysis, to be confirmed by a more detailed analysis later. This type of initial review, to be followed by a further study to confirm the results, is a commonly adopted mitigation measure when it is infeasible or impracticable to do the further study for the CEQA document. For example, biological mitigation often requires pre-construction surveys for bird nests because the location of active nests can change each nesting season. The responses below provide the reasons that support the need to do more detailed studies after project approval. Response to Comment 11-5: The geotechnical report prepared in support of the MND refers to “imported earth fill” with the meaning that it will not be sourced from within the footprint of the construction site subject of the report (e.g., the RNGPF itself). The soils used for the RNGPF embankment will be excavated from sources within the Keller Canyon Landfill permitted for this use. Standard earthmoving equipment, most likely large “scrapers” would carry between 35 and 44 cubic yards per trip (depending on equipment model and loading parameters). Since soil will be excavated from within Keller Canyon Landfill’s permitted footprint, it represents an offset of material the landfill would have moved (with similar equipment) in any case. Stated differently, earthmoving for the RNGPF would have zero impact because if not moved for the construction of the RNGPF, it would be moved to comply with the landfill’s already permitted construction and operations. The emissions for construction of the RNGPF are included in the construction emissions GHG analysis in Table 8-3 Summary of Construction-Related GHG Emissions (CO2e), Phase 1 – Grading, on page 155 of the MND. No inbound/outbound soil truck traffic will be generated by the proposed project. None of the soil will be hauled over public roads. No “truck trips” will be generated, other than those required to deliver small amounts of quarry rock and geosynthetics used for stabilizing the outside slopes, and for paving and concrete during the construction of the level pad. These trips were considered in the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation impact analyses. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 149 of 276 Response to Comment 11-6: Deletion of horizontal directional drill (HDD) and the underground crossing of the Contra Costa Canal eliminates this potential impact. Response to Comment 11-7: The pipeline will be placed at a minimum depth of 4 feet for additional safety and to minimize the potential for “dig-ins” or third-party damage to the pipeline. Required minimum depth is 3 feet under federal law (49 CFR Part 192). Due to varying topography, the pipeline may be located deeper than 4 feet to minimize the bending stresses in the pipeline. Response to Comment 11-8: Natural gas is lighter than air, dissipates rapidly and is harder to ignite than conventional fuels. If accidentally released into the environment, natural gas is less of a hazard than petroleum fuels. Natural gas has unique properties that make it relatively safe compared to other fuels. Unlike liquid fuels, which puddle on the ground when there is a leak or spill, natural gas being lighter than air will disperse into the atmosphere. The ignition temperature of natural gas is 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit compared to about 600 degrees Fahrenheit for gasoline, making it more difficult to ignite. Natural gas is significantly less dense than air (vapor density = ~0.7 at 1 ATM/25°C) and will migrate vertically through soil and into the atmosphere unless it hits a barrier such as a concrete pad, pavement, plastic fabric, or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) membranes. In a utility corridor such as that proposed for this project, a potential leak will tend to migrate up through the less dense trench backfill rather than through the denser soil on the sidewalls of the trench. Gas will not creep along a damaged pipeline unless that is its only path (such as a pipe that is encased in another pipe casing or covered by concrete or another dense impenetrable substance). Should the gas migrate along the pipeline as proposed by this comment, the gas would end up venting along the pipeline route and so would rise into the atmosphere from within the PG&E utility corridor rather than endangering the neighboring homes. There is a very low risk to the residents from a gas leak in terms of displacing oxygen because of the distance of homes from the pipeline. The gas will dissipate into the air as described above so that it will not develop at a sufficient concentration to present a risk of ignition. While true that individuals in close proximity to a natural gas pipeline may experience some effects (such as odor) when the concentration of methane is at a level of 2 percent or greater, the gas source would be required to be in an enclosed space for a leak to produce that concentration and an individual would need to be in that same enclosed space to experience adverse effects. Along the RNG pipeline, the gas will rise at a faster rate than the rate required to reach the concentration levels noted in the question. As mentioned above, natural gas will rise vertically through the soil covering the RNG pipeline and disperse into open air. Methane has a narrow combustible range (5-15 percent in air) which decreases the chance of an above-ground, open-air explosion to near zero. Distant ignition and flashbacks are not possible outside confined spaces because after the gas rises and spreads, there is insufficient concentration to support combustion. The MSDS noted in the question is an “air gas” MSDS for methane in air and stored in a compressed bottle. It is not the correct MSDS for the methane that would be transmitted in the pipeline. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 150 of 276 Response to Comment 11-9: Table 1 on page 3 of the MND is clearly labeled as a “Project Overview” and is intended to provide the reader with a summary of 11 topics commonly used to convey the basic features and actions associated with a proposed project. The permits listed in the category “Permitting Actions Required” are the primary permits required for the project and includes other permits required by law. Permit requirements beyond those shown in Table 1 are addressed in the individual impact sections of the MND. Response to Comment 11-10: The erosion control measures associated with the stabilization of the pipeline at the unnamed seasonal stream crossing will be designed to last for at least as long as the 20-year lifespan of the project with regular maintenance but have the potential to last longer in the event the pipeline is abandoned in place. Response to Comment 11-11: This comment states certain facts regarding distances of sensitive receptors; however, the conclusion misstates the context of the distance of possible sensitive receptors. The MND states the 0.33-mile and 0.40-mile distances to the north-northwest and west, respectively, pertain to the RNGPF site, and do not include proximity of residences compared to the entire length of the RNG pipeline. The MND discloses that the RNG pipeline as proposed would be located as close as 50 feet to residences adjacent to the PG&E property. In response to the comments, the portion of the RNG pipeline in the PG&E property has been eliminated. As reconfigured, construction would occur no closer than 70 feet from the nearest residence. At that distance, there would be no impacts related to noise, air quality, or hazards. Response to Comment 11-12: The MND states on page 7: “The processing facility will be designed to process up to 4,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of LFG to produce a nominal maximum volume output of approximately 2,041 scfm of RNG to the pipeline.” This represents approximately 1 billion scf over a year of operation. Response to Comment 11-13: The MND demonstrates that scenic vistas would not be affected due to a combination of topography, site elevation of the proposed RNGPF, and the facts that the RNGPF site is not located in a scenic highway designation, the project is consistent with the zoning, and that the RNG pipeline would be placed underground. Despite the lack of significant impact on scenic views, Measures 1 (earth tone color scheme) and 2 (planting of redwood trees) described in page 46 of the MND will be incorporated into the project design. The proposed RNGPF would not substantially alter available views of the scenic ridges in the project vicinity. Response to Comment 11-14: Comment noted. The identified measures to reduce or eliminate visual impacts shall be included be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be implemented by the County. Depending on spacing, 13 to 21 redwood trees would be planted. Response to Comment 11-15: The project characteristics and project design features cited in Item d provide evidence supporting a determination that an impact of substantial light and glare would June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 151 of 276 not be significant. If approved the project would be required to comply with the Keller Canyon Landfill Land Use Permit (LP89-2020), which requires the lighting system to be designed with focused directional security and operations lighting. In addition, the County would make compliance with LP89-2020 a condition of approval. Further, the use of non-reflective paint will be required for all major equipment in accordance with applicable conditions of approval of the Keller Canyon LP89-2020. Response to Comment 11-16: Close-up (cropped) images of visual simulations presented in the MND are provided in Section IV. Summary Responses. The cropped images are provided for clarity. Close-up views are presented from a vantage point near Santa Maria Drive, and from an aerial vantage point west of KCL. Please see the Aesthetics discussion in the Summary Responses section of the Final MND for details on the number and location of tree plantings. Response to Comment 11-17: CalEEMod is the standard tool used to estimate emissions for CEQA documents. As stated in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4.): The purpose of CalEEMod is to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to estimate potential emissions associated with both construction and operational use of land use projects. It is intended that these emission estimates are suitable for quantifying air quality and climate change impacts as part of the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. CalEEMod relies on widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions and well-researched default data, sourced from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP -42 emission factors, California Air Resources Board (CARB) vehicle emission models, studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle, among other agencies. The proposed project’s emissions demonstrate that the total emissions would be minimal in the operation of the RNGPF resulting in a considerable net decrease in emissions compared to existing baseline emissions. The emissions are projected to be minimal based on a conservative maximum operating capacity. The anticipated impact of the proposed project would result in overall benefit for the air quality, public health, and well-being of the surrounding community. Therefore, given the minimal anticipated impacts based on conservative emission estimates, it was determined no further air emissions modeling or assessments were needed. A conformity assessment would not be required as the impacts do not violate an air pollutant standard, would not cause or contribute to an increase in air pollutant emissions, and therefore are less than significant. Response to Comment 11-18: The proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any air quality plans. Specifically, the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP) was utilized and referenced during the analysis and evaluation of potential air quality impacts of the proposed project. With the use of the Bay Area June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 152 of 276 Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, it was determined that the proposed project and associated projected emissions, again at the maximum potential capacities, would not conflict with the 2017 CAP or adversely impact air quality. The analysis did not explicitly include ambient air quality and wind patterns because the nearest residential property is located over 1,000 feet from the stationary emission source and therefore did not trigger further modeling using the EPA AERMOD for health risks. However, ambient air quality and location of sensitive receptors are considered by both BAAQMD and OEHHA when establishing screening level criteria and enforceable permit conditions. With regard to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are generated when organic materials such as when wood is not fully combusted, these were included in the analysis of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) in Section 3. Air Quality, 3b, page 67 of the MND, and will be reviewed by BAAQMD. Per BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 18: Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities. The proposed RNGPF will be reviewed and moni tored for emissions of TACs through the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment. PAHs are one of several classifications of TACs. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) provides non-binding screening levels for various State agencies and other stakeholders to implement or use at their discretion. The screening levels for criteria air pollutants provided by OEHHA are then adopted by the air districts as part of the screening process for the Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate applications. The analysis in the MND followed the screening criteria established by the BAAQMD that incorporate the OEHHA screening levels. In other words, the air permit process has OEHHA’s screening levels embedded in them and the proposed RNGPF will have to me et those requirements. Estimated project emissions are shown in Table 3-2, page 67, in the draft MND. As the emission estimates show, the proposed project would reduce emissions compared to existing conditions. The project would reduce the output of the existing flares on-site that are currently combusting the LFG generated from the landfill. This decrease in emissions aligns with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, which states reduction in emissions from criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants as one of the four key priorities. Additionally, the proposed project is a beneficial end-use of the LFG containing methane. The RNG produced by the project will have an end-use that will displace the usage of fossil fuels. Displacement of fossil fuels is also one of the four key priorities within the Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air. Lastly, as previously noted, the proposed project equipment and the RNG processing operation do not use or generate odorous compounds. The applicant would be required to follow the proper procedures and methods to minimize potential odors. The RNGPF will be designed as a completely closed loop system which would not allow for the release or escape of odorous LFG. The emission calculations of potentials to emit for the criteria pollutants and air June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 153 of 276 toxics indicated that no thresholds were exceeded and therefore additional air modeling or data analysis is not required. The proposed project would result in a reduction of odors and minimal risk of exposure of sensitive receptors to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. Response to Comment 11-19: The proposed project and associated operation of the LFG processing equipment will produce minimal emissions. The LFG will be treated in the system, converted to RNG, and will be properly handled. Additionally, the RNGPF will receive an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD to ensure processing equipment are maintained and operated permitted limits. The proper operation and maintenance of the proposed project will ensure that the maximum volume of RNG is produced with minimal generation of emissions. The RNGPF emissions will be monitored and reported through the completion of regular emissions testing in a timeframe to be determined by the BAAQMD and under the KCL land use permit LP89-2020. BAAQMD Regulations The following describes BAAQMD regulations that apply to the proposed project and how the project design and operations would be in accordance with these regulations. BAAQMD Regulation 2 – Permits, Rule 1 – General Requirements: An application will be completed in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 2 Rule 1-202 and Rule 1-402. All required information and fees for the application will be provided either in the application for the BAAQMD during their review of the application. BAAQMD Regulation 2 – Permits, Rule 2 – New Source Review: Under BAAQMD Regulation 2 Rule 2-301, the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) shall be applied to any new or modified source which results in an emission from a new source which has the potential to emit 10.0 pounds or more per highest day of VOC, NOx, SO2, PM10, or CO. BAAQMD Regulation 2 – Permits, Rule 5 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminant: There are no projected emissions from the proposed project that exceed the acute and chronic trigger levels in Regulation 2 (Permits) Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). This regulation contains a list of TAC, standards for BACT, representative sensitive receptors, and procedures for risk assessment and monitoring. BAAQMD Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions, Rule 1 – General Requirements: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG shall exercise practices to minimize the particulate matter and visible emissions upon approval of the proposed Project. Per BAAQMD Regulation 6, the TOX and the process enclosed flare to be located at the RNGPF, shall not emit any visible particulate emissions for three consecutive minutes in any hour or result in fallout on adjacent property in such quantities as to cause a public nuisance. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 154 of 276 BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 2 – Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants – Hydrogen Sulfide from TOX and Process Enclosed Flare: Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG shall operate the RNGPF in compliance with the H2S removal efficiency to assure compliance with the Regulation 9-1-302 sulfur dioxide limit of 300 ppmv (dry basis). BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 34 – Landfill Gas Collection and Emission Control System Requirements: The Ameresco RNGPF will be operated in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 34-301 and minimize the emissions of LFG such that there are no leaks or emissions that exceed emission limits in Regulation 8, Rule 34, Section 301 LP89-2020 Applicability Being located almost entirely within the KCL property, the proposed project is subject to the KCL Land Use Permit LP89-2020 Conditions of Approval, as well as requirements of other permits governing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the landfill. LP89-2020 Condition of Approval 31.7 (Methane Recovery), requires KCL to explore use of the LFG as a fuel commodity. The proposed project is a renewable energy project that is authorized by State of California legislation and is proposed in accordance with LP89- 2020 COA 20.13 (also designated as Methane Recovery), which specifically requires construction of a gas collection system to utilize landfill gas to produce energy. The Project is also wholly consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted County Climate Action Plan. The above extensive discussion of State and local code requirements aimed at mitigating air quality impacts from industrial facilities describes existing regulatory provisions that ensure the project’s emissions will be less than significant. These requirements, in addition to the project-specific CalEEMod analysis, provide substantial evidence that impacts would be less than significant without additional mitigation. Further, as described in the MND, the project would improve the air quality compared to existing conditions. Additional conditions of approval beyond LP89-2020 and the BAAQMD are unnecessary and would be duplicative of established requirements. Response to Comment 11-20: Site-specific data from the landfill and composition of the LFG were utilized where possible and appropriate for the estimated emission calculations. Every project and every landfill is different. Testing and sampling data are not always available for every LFG compound. Thus, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recommends that inputs be utilized from the USEPA AP-42: Compilation of Air Emission Factors to calculate the estimated emissions of the proposed project. Therefore, when site-specific data were not available or applicable to the proposed operating scenario, default values (AP-42) were used to estimate project emissions. Without test data available, the use of the default values (AP-42) typically is more conservative in emissions estimates as the equipment typically outperforms the default emission values. The AP-42 values used in the emissions analysis in the MND are based on nationwide EPA testing of landfills providing conservative values based on a wide survey of possible conditions. The default inputs also allow for estimates that are supported through studies completed by USEPA. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 155 of 276 Additionally, site-specific NMOC data were obtained from KCL source testing reports as submitted to the BAAQMD. The data were utilized in the analysis for the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) inputs, which are typically 39 percent of the non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) detectable in LFG (provided in AP-42). Emissions calculations for compounds of the LFG routed to the proposed project were based on the gas quality necessary for RNG processing. The RNGPF is designed to accommodate varying composition (i.e., a range) of the source LFG. If the quality of source LFG were to vary greatly from the composition of that assumed in the estimated emission calculations, RNG processing could not occur. The processing equipment will be designed to handle very specific gas compositions for normal equipment operation. If the source LFG is not within specifications for the gas composition, the equipment would be unable to process the out-of-specification gas and will automatically shut down. The LFG would be rerouted to the landfill’s existing flares for control by combustion as required by U.S. EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the BAAQMD, and LP89-2020. The emission estimates provided in the MND were based on the maximum capacity in the most conservative settings of the proposed project. Response to Comment 11-21: The preliminary emission calculations completed for the proposed project indicated no further air modeling (such as air dispersion modeling) is necessary as the estimated emissions are not to exceed the significant thresholds (ROG, NOx, and PM with a threshold of 54 pounds per day, 10 tons per year). CalEEMOD, a State-approved air emission model, was used to analyze the emissions associated with the proposed project. Additionally, with the proposed project, the LFG would be diverted from the existing landfill flares Emissions calculations demonstrate the proposed project emissions at the same flow rates would result in a significant decrease in criteria pollutants compared to the existing flares. The proposed project is required to comply with Federal Clean Air Act designations and to be associated with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 60 and 63, due to the proposed project’s affiliation with a Title V landfill. The project is also required to follow California Air Abatement Quality Standards (CAAQS) for applicable air basin. California law does not require that CAAQS be met by specified dates, rather, it requires incremental progress toward attainment. Regarding the four violations associated with Keller Canyon Landfill (out of 66 inspections), these violations were not taken into consideration while evaluating potential impacts of the proposed project. The proposed project is a separate project, will be permitted separately from Keller Canyon Landfill, and will be operated by a separate and independent company. It is unclear when the NOVs mentioned by the commenter were received by the landfill; however, the landfill has resolved the root cause of the NOVs. As of December 2020, there were no outstanding NOVs assigned to Keller Canyon Landfill. Further, there is no evidence that the project would violate federal, State, and local requirements. The project applicant has a long history of safely and properly operating RNG facilities in Michigan and Texas. The proposed project will serve as an additional control device in the landfill’s system for controlling LFG that will be generated in the well field in the future. As a result, the proposed June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 156 of 276 project would assist with preventing potential surface emissions or odors resulting from landfill. Additionally, the proposed project and emissions points will properly handle the gas. Destruction efficiencies of VOCs at the proposed TOX and enclosed process flare are estimated to be approximately 98 percent. The NOVs issued to the landfill, including those associated with the VOCs, should not impede the proposed project’s operations from occurring as the NOVs are specific to the operation and performance of the landfill itself. The proposed RNGPF will receive LFG from the landfill; however, as noted above, the RNGPF will be a separate facility, with a different owner and operator from the KCL landfill gas collection and control systems. The operations and maintenance of the RNGPF will be completed by a separate entity even though it’s handling the LFG from the landfill. Response to Comment 11-22: Item 7 on page 162 of the MND was misquoted in the comment, the MND actually says: “In the event of planned maintenance, process upset or other event, the RNG processing facility shall be either manually or automatically shut down and LFG shall be redirected to the existing landfill flares, as necessary.” The MND does not say that “accidental releases” will be directed to the existing landfill flares. The “emergency emissions” are noted in the MND and are based on worst case values. The process enclosed flare will only combust off-specification process gas in emergency scenarios. The remainder of the time it will have pilot gas combusted, to allow for immediate operation in those emergency scenarios. The proposed project will be a closed loop system with vents, valves, and pressure release devices as required for safety purposes. These vents and pressure release devices will be used only during emergency situations only. The only point emissions sources for the RNGPF will be the proposed thermal oxidizer (TOX) and process enclosed flare to control emissions of criteria pollutants (NOx, CO, VOCs, PM, and SOx). It is likely that during an emergency the control devices (the TOX and enclosed flare) would be shut down since the RNGPF systems would be offline. If the RNGPF were to be shutdown, a valve would shut, preventing any new LFG from being routed to the RNGPF. The emergency valves/pressure release devices, if triggered, would not reset themselves and would contain any gas remaining in the system, thereby preventing potential impacts to the environment and public safety. RNGPF personnel would inspect the system to confirm that valves and pressure release devices are fully closed prior to restarting. Emissions estimates during emergency scenarios were not included in the MND as such extreme scenarios, and the events which may trigger them, are not reasonably foreseeable. Further, operational protocols documented in the plant control logic systems will be included in the design and operations for the RNGPF to prevent and manage potential emissions in an emergency for example such as opening a bypass valve to reduce system pressure, and would mitigate a potential significant impact. Under CEQA, a proposed project should be assessed and evaluated based on the normal planned operation of the facility that would produce typical estimated emissions. Response to Comment 11-23: Adverse temporary effects to bird habitat and species associated with construction noise and other construction related disturbances are addressed in the draft June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 157 of 276 MND, Pages 81-85 identify where specific species may be impacted; Page 88 identifies potential construction impacts to birds; and pages 89-92 describe mitigation measures for birds, including the avoidance and minimization measures for nesting and migratory birds (pages 91-92). Temporary impacts evaluated include disturbances associated with equipment noise, including sound and vibration and presence of workers. The setback and monitoring requirements in Mitigation Measure Biology 4 are designed to avoid noise and other impacts. Mitigation Measure Biology 1 requires participation in the HCP/NCCP which includes provisions for protection of migratory birds through Conservation Measure 1.11. Conservation Measure 1.11 requires compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code 3503.5. Response to Comment 11-24: Per Mitigation Measure Biology 3, preconstruction surveys for golden eagle will be completed and the results submitted to the CDD, ECCCHC, and CDFW. Per this measure, if construction activities are to occur within 0.5 miles of an active nest the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS, to ensure construction activities do not result in direct effects to golden eagles. Mitigation Measure Biology 3 has been revised to clarify that the qualified biologist has stop work authority to ensure that no direct effects to golden eagles occur. Response to Comment 11-25: Per Mitigation Measure Biology 5, preconstruction surveys for American badger will be completed and the results submitted to the CDD, ECCCHC and CDFW. Per the MND, in the event an active American badger den is identified, the applicant's qualified biologist shall determine den occupation in coordination with CDFW, and they shall consult with CDFW. Consultation with CDFW will result in the most appropriate method to determine how to avoid, minimize and fully mitigate impacts to occupied badger dens if necessary. Response to Comment 11-26: Per Mitigation Measure Biology 6, preconstruction surveys for San Joaquin kit fox will be completed and the results submitted to the CDD, ECCCHC and CDFW. Per the MND, in the event an active San Joaquin kit fox den is identified, monitoring per USFWS survey guidelines is required and consultation with USFWS and CDFW is required. Consultation with the USFWS and CDFW will result in the most appropriate method to determine how to avoid, minimize and fully mitigate impacts to occupied San Joaquin kit fox dens if necessary. Mitigation Measure Biology 6 has been revised to clarify that the qualified biologist has stop work authority. Response to Comment 11-27: Mitigation Measure Biology 7 requires a qualified bat biologist to conduct a focused habitat assessment if trees are to be removed that have potential habitat. This habitat assessment will result in a plan that identifies if there is a need to conduct focused follow- up surveys including acoustic, thermal, and/or night vision, as necessary. The plan will also define specific preconstruction surveys and the qualified bat biologist is to determine appropriate avoidance and minimization measures based on the results of these surveys. Mitigation Measure Biology 7 states preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, ECCCHC and CDFW. If occupied habitat is present, consultation with CDFW will result as part of the submittal of the surveys to CDFW and compensatory mitigation, if necessary, will be determined as part of that consultation. Mitigation Measure Biology 7 has been revised in the Section VI. Text and Figures Changes to include these additions. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 158 of 276 Avoidance of rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches will be reported as part of the biological monitoring associated with the project. This provision has been added to Mitigation Measure Biology 9 to clarify that protections for California match weed patches will be monitored and reported. Response to Comment 11-28: Mitigation Measure Biology 8 requires a Certified Arborist to oversee any impacts to trees associated with access, construction, and implementation of the project and to submit for the review and approval of the CDD any impacts to trees. It is not anticipated that trenching or construction impacts will occur within tree drip lines and no tree work is contemplated beyond tree pruning for access and removal of the identified pepper trees. Worker environmental training is a required component of the HCP/NCCP approvals (HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12) and other regulatory permits required within the IS/MND and as an existing regulatory requirement, it does not need to be a mitigation measure. Response to Comment 11-29: This comment cites only 1 part of a 2-part cultural resources mitigation measure. The entire measure is described in page 134 of the MND, and is the standard County DCD mitigation measure for mitigating potential impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resources monitoring during ground-disturbing activities is not included in the standard County DCD mitigation measure because there are no known resources in the project site. Construction workers would be educated to identify cultural resources and would stop work if a potential cultural resource is encountered so that an archeologist and, if interested, tribal monitor can evaluate the find. The cultural resources mitigation measure as described is incorporated into County CEQA documents and MMRPs. Response to Comment 11-30: Comprehensive geotechnical reports were prepared that identified potential soil and geology impacts associated with the proposed RNGPF and pipeline. For each potential impact identified, detailed analyses and evaluations were performed and, when required, specific mitigation measures were recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level as presented in mitigation measures Geology 1 through Geology 5. None of the mitigation measures prescribed is considered inadequate, or requires that alternative plans be investigated. The geotechnical study for the proposed RNGPF concluded that the soil materials encountered during field exploration generally consisted of very stiff and hard lean clays and silts, and medium dense to dense clayey sands and silty sands. These soil materials are not anticipated to be susceptible to liquefaction based on the soil fines content and engineering characteristics of the soils. For completeness, a rigorous liquefaction analysis was completed on representative soils. This analysis confirmed the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. With respect to the comment that some of Mitigation Measure Geology 2 constitutes deferred mitigation, it should be noted that two methods were used to assess liquefaction potential within June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 159 of 276 the proposed RNGPF site. Both engineering methods concluded the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. The County Peer Review Geologist considered the assessment of liquefaction prepared for the RNG Processing Facility to be adequate for an evaluation during the IS/MND phase; however, details regarding specific seismic parameters and selected methodology will be confirmed and documented prior to application of the building permit. To clarify, the geotechnical study for the RNGPF was prepared to evaluate project feasibility as part of the MND. Comprehensive analyses were completed for the MND assessed potential soil and geologic environmental impacts. The geotechnical study is not intended as a final design-level report. For example, specific details regarding liquefaction analysis as summarized in Mitigation Measure Geology 2, will be mandatory components of a design-level geotechnical report that will be prepared when final development plans are prepared and will be the basis for applying for project permits. Response to Comment 11-31: The complete CEQA checklist question referred to in Comment No. 15-31 states, “Would the project: a.) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?” The reference to “rupture” of a known earthquake fault specifically implies the potential for “active” faulting since non-active faults are not considered capable of ground rupture from a seismic event. Current State of California regulations define an active fault as a fault which shows evidence of surface displacement during the Holocene Epoch (about the last 11,700 years). The intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to reduce losses directly associated with surface fault rupture. Rigorous geotechnical investigations were completed that included research and review of geotechnical reports, geologic publications, aerial photographs, and maps for the project area encompassing the RNGPF site, proposed pipeline route, and nearby vicinity. Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones prepared by the California Geological Survey were reviewed to evaluate the location of the project site relative to active fault zones. The geotechnical field investigations also included subsurface exploration that involved excavation and logging of 27 exploratory trenches, 8 large diameter bucket auger borings and 8 hollow stem auger borings. In addition, engineering geologists performed detailed geologic field mapping of the study areas and surrounding vicinity to identify the surficial distribution of geologic units, bedding orientation, faults, landslides, and other structural features. Several faults were identified within exploratory borings, trenches, and outcrop exposures at the ground surface and are indicated on detailed geologic maps included within the geotechnical study. Based on the findings of the geotechnical investigations, no active faults capable of renewed surface rupture were identified within the project area. In addition, the project area is not located within a California designated Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest active faults to the project area are the Concord fault located approximately 5.5 mile to the southwest, and the northern extension June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 160 of 276 of the Greenville fault (Marsh Creek and Clayton fault sections) located approximately 2.0 miles to the southwest. Thus, as described in the MND, the risk of surface fault rupture associated with an active fault is considered to be less than significant. Response to Comment 11-32: The soil and geology analyses presented in the MND are based on site-specific geotechnical studies completed for the proposed RNGPF and the proposed pipeline. The geotechnical studies included detailed field investigations and extensive engineering and geologic analyses to determine appropriate design requirements and mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. Expansion tests were performed on representative soil samples collected from the low-lying areas of the proposed RNGPF site. Based on laboratory test results and the USCS visual classification, the on-site fine-grained soils are anticipated to possess a “medium” to “high” expansion potentials. With respect to future site development within the RNGPF site, significant volumes of select earth materials will be transported from pre-determined borrow site locations on the Keller Canyon Landfill property (please also see response to comment 11-5 regarding this issue). The select earth materials are necessary to raise the low-lying portions of the site by as much as 50 feet in elevation to achieve the required finish grade elevations for the proposed RNGPF building pad. Earth materials transported to the site must generally consist of granular soils possessing Very low to Low expansion potentials. Prior to transporting select earth materials to the RNGPF site, routine confirmation testing of expansion potentials will be performed by the project geotechnical engineer. Consequently, the risk of adverse impacts as a result of expansive soil to the proposed RNGPF site is considered less than significant with incorporation of the described mitigation measures. Expansive soils are not anticipated to pose significant impacts to the future pipeline. Consequently, the risk of adverse impacts to the proposed pipeline as a result of expansive soil is considered less than significant. With respect to potential soil erosion and scour, substantive mitigation measures have been established by the geotechnical engineer at defined locations along the pipeline route. Specific mitigation measures described in the MND by the geotechnical engineer include, deepening the proposed pipeline below the potential scour depth, wherever practical. If necessary, alternate mitigation for scour protection may also include riprap, gabion baskets, and geofabric lining. Selection of specific scour protection measures will be determined upon completion of a scour assessment in accordance with State and federal regulations. Consequently, the potential for adverse impacts to the proposed pipeline as a result of erosion and or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant with incorporation of the described mitigation measures. Response to Comment 11-33: The issue of the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario is addressed in Summary Response June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 161 of 276 H, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. All of the estimated emissions for the proposed project were based on the maximum capacity at the most conservative operating scenario, which is defined to occur no more than 20 percent of the year. The GHGs for the operational equipment associated with the proposed project were estimated based on the emissions of the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, and methane, with the 100-year GWPs for each pollutant based on the USEPA and BAAQMD guidance. The proposed project GHG emissions were compared to the emissions at the existing flares for the same LFG flow rates. The landfill flares are currently permitted at over the 4700 scfm flow level so it is technically feasible for the landfill flare station blowers to provide the required flow for the current RNGPF design. With the operation of the proposed project the overall net change for GHG emissions would result in a decrease, as the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be substantially lower than the current operation of the existing landfill flares. The LFG being generated at the landfill is destroyed at the existing landfill flares. Destruction of the LFG does not represent a beneficial use of the LFG. Under the proposed project, the LFG will be routed to the RNGPF, which would produce less emissions than the existing landfill flares. As response to comments the GHG emissions baseline using the 2019 landfill flare flow was used and is summarized When comparing the RNGPF with the operation of the existing landfill flares, both are based on a waste gas generation of 4,700 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) for the proposed capacity of the facility. The IS-MND clearly states on page 151 that the Operational GHG emissions BAAQMD Threshold for Significance is “for stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 (MT/yr.) of CO2e.” This threshold is for GHG emissions, not “waste generation” as asserted in this comment. The RNGPF would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions therefore does not exceed the BAAQMD 10,000 (MT/yr.) of CO2e emission threshold. The IS-MND presents on page 152 a conversion factor of “10 metric tons of CO2e is equivalent to: • saving 1,125 gallons of gasoline • taking 2.1 passenger vehicles off the road • 1.4 homes’ worth of electricity for one year.” This conversion factor is presented to allow the reader to understand the substantial reductions of GHG possible during the operation of the RNGPF in more relatable terms than the CO2e presented in Table 8-2. Response to Comment 11-34: The issue of disclosure of assumptions used for analysis for evaluation of construction impacts in the analysis in the MND is addressed in Summary Response June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 162 of 276 I, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. The construction phase of the proposed project, consisting of potential emissions through the use and operation of equipment, will be between eight and twelve months. An estimate of twelve months of construction activities was utilized when estimating GHG emissions because it is the maximum anticipated timeframe for active construction (excavation, hauling, etc.) to be completed. Following the physical construction of the proposed project, during months thirteen and fourteen, the equipment associated with construction emissions would no longer be in use or operation. Months thirteen and fourteen would be the start-up/commissioning phase, which will consist of connection of the facility to the landfill gas collection system and commissioning of the RNGPF. The commissioning process is an involved process of checking all equipment, controls, safeties, and process design system by system until the RNGPF is deemed ready for operation. This process requires about 2-months during months thirteen and fourteen of the proposed project. For the duration of the construction phase, inclusive of the physical construction and the setup of the RNGPF prior to start-up, no LFG would be routed to the RNGPF to ensure no excess emissions are generated. The construction GHG analysis in Table 8-3, Summary of Construction-Related GHG Emissions, page 155 of the MND, is a result of the CalEEMod modeling. Table 8-3 is a summary table of the construction emissions that were calculated including contractor vehicle trips and trip lengths, types of equipment, and duty cycles based on proposed construction means. The MND includes a powered haulage analysis associated with material import. The emissions associated with excavation and placement of material onsite is clearly shown in the Phase-1 Grading section of Table 8-3. Response to Comment 11-35: This comment states that a hazard rating should be prepared for the proposed project. The section of the County Code related to hazard rating is Article 84-63.10. Land Uses Permits – When Required. Subsections in Article 84-63.10 contain a hazard score formula and methodology for calculating potential risks associated with various aspects of a proposed development project. The purpose of the hazard rating calculation is to provide County agencies with the basis for determining whether a proposed development project would require a land use permit. In the case of the proposed project, the County DCD determined early that a land use permit was required, thereby rendering the necessity of a hazard rating as not applicable. The applicant filed an application for a land use permit in July 2018 for LP18-2022 amending Keller Canyon Landfill LP89-2020. DCD further determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would be prepared as described in the Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated October 7, 2020, on page 4, Item 9. Determination. The discussion of potential hazards begins at the bottom of page 159 of the MND. A 15-point program of Consistency Measures is presented that require the RNGPG and pipeline project be June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 163 of 276 consistent with local plans and policies related to hazardous materials and fire protection. All consistency measures are binding and will be incorporated into the project permit conditions of approval related to all relevant aspects of project design criteria, construction, and operation. Based on the breadth and scope of these measures, potential impacts from hazards or hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant. Documents that would be completed by the applicant in accordance with Contra Costa Health Services regulations are in the Business Plan Program. The purpose of the Business Plan Program is to prevent or minimize damage to public health, safety, and the environment, from a release or threatened release of hazardous materials. The applicant’s responsibilities for hazards and hazardous materials are described in the MND, starting with Consistency Measure 1. Measure 8 addresses the required Emergency Response Plan. Measure 9 addresses pollution prevention in the event of a spill of coolant, lubricant, or other products or by-products of the RNGPF. Measure 10 ensures that the existing Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the gas processing facilities at Keller Canyon Landfill will be revised to include the proposed project equipment and operation. As described in Measure 10, the revised Hazardous Materials Program will include the following documents: • Current plan addresses • Business activities • Safe Handling Practices Plan • Hazardous Material Inventory • Emergency Response Plan • Employee Training Plan Response to Comment 11-36: The project has been revised to include a tie-in of the RNG pipeline with existing PG&E Line 191-1. The tie-in replaces the section of RNG pipeline that is the subject of this comment. As a result, the PIR referenced in this comment does not extend beyond the PG&E property line into the yards of adjacent residences. The tie-in and new PIR are discussed in Section III. Revised Project Description, of this Final MND. The Potential Impact Radius (PIR) is defined as the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property as defined by the 49 CFR Part 192. The PIR is not a blast radius. The PIR does factor in other potentially dangerous effects and includes impact from heat radiation in the highly unlikely event of a rupture and ignition. The PIR does not represent an area of complete devastation. The comment that NTSB studies have shown that the radius and resultant failure and ignition may extend up to 75 percent greater than the “blast radius” is not associated with the PIR, but rather refers to blast radius which is much smaller than PIR. PIR takes into consideration the NTSB studies and extends far beyond the actual blast radius. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 164 of 276 The design and operating parameters of the pipeline will have it operating at less than 10 percent of its yield strength (SMYS). The pressure at which this type of pipe fails by rupture is in the 25 to 30 percent (SMYS) range. Therefore, leakage is considered to be the mode of potential failure for the proposed RNG pipeline rather than sudden rupture. A failure would be detected by sensors at the RNGPF and would activate the automated shut-off system thereby limiting the flow of RNG that could escape from the pipeline. PIR Calculation The PIR for the proposed project is calculated using the following equation: PIR = 0.69 x d x SQRT (P) Where: • PIR is calculated in feet; • P is the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in psig; and • d is the nominal diameter of the pipeline in inches. For this analysis, the following values were used: • P = 400 psig (assumed MAOP) • d = 4.00 inches Using these values, the calculated PIR for this system is: • PIR = 0.69 x 4.00 x SQRT (400) = 0.69 x 4.00 x 26.08 = 55 ft. Please also see response to Comment 11-8 above, and Section III. Revised Project Description of this Final MND. Response to Comment 11-37: The MND states that the proposed pipeline Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) is 680 psi, and as a transmission line does not compare to a residential gas distribution line. With the revised project, MAOP has been reduced to 400 psi. The statement that the proposed pipeline is not a simple neighborhood residential gas transmission line operation at 10 psi is misleading. This statement incorrectly assumes that only very low-pressure pipelines are found within residential neighborhoods. Under the 49 CFR Part 192, typical “distribution” gas lines run between 10 psi and 80 psi and are regulated down from transmission pipelines that run at much higher pressures. Transmission lines are made of much stronger pipe and have been installed at a minimum depth of 3-feet through many neighborhoods throughout the City of Pittsburg and the State of California. The transmission lines for the project will be designed to meet 49 CFR Part 192 requirements for pipeline diameter and pipeline wall thickness. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 165 of 276 The MND also states the pipeline will be built and operated as a Class 4 pipeline with safety features and inspection requirements that exceed what is required by federal guidelines. As noted earlier, the pipeline is required to be buried only 3 feet deep. As an additional measure of protection, the proposed pipeline minimum depth will be 4 feet. Thus, the pipeline is not located at a “shallow depth.” The revised project pipeline alignment in the PG&E property moves the RNG pipeline further west from the adjacent residences and with a lower MAOP reduces the PIR from 72 feet to 55 feet. As a result, all adjacent residences would no longer be located within the PIR. Note that the PIR for the existing PG&E facility is roughly 230 feet. As noted in the MND, there is a PG&E 20-inch high pressure transmission gas line L-191-1 that runs currently closer to adjacent homes than the proposed 4-inch high pressure RNG pipeline. The statement in the MND that the PIR of the proposed pipeline is less than the existing PG&E pipeline is correctly stated. With the revised project, the RNG pipeline would tie-in directly with existing PG&E Line 191-1. The segment of RNG pipeline included in the draft MND that was proposed near residences has been removed. The commenter’s statement that the MND engages in an improper “plan to plan” analysis is incorrect. The MND confirms that the PIR of the proposed pipeline is substantially smaller than the PIR for the existing PG&E pipeline 191-1. This is a comparison to existing physical conditions. Notably, with the revised project, the RNG pipeline PIR is not only substantially smaller than the PG&E pipeline PIR, and is also now located entirely outside the boundaries of the residential parcels. With no potential impact that extends into the residential parcels, the proposed pipeline cannot create a cumulative impact in connection with the existing PG&E pipeline, as a cumulative impact under CEQA is an impact that is created in part by the proposed project. Response to Comment 11-38: Page 162, Item 7 states: “In the event of planned maintenance, process upset or other event, the RNG processing facility shall be either manually or automatically shut down and LFG shall be redirected to the existing landfill flares as necessary.” The proposed project’s safety systems and measures are described in detail in the MND for the RNGPF (page 161) in measures 2 through 10, and for the RNG pipeline (page 163) in measures 11 through 15. Measure 2 for the RNGPF requires compliance with LP89-2020 COA 36.10 (Notification of Plant Upset or Accidental Release). The operator shall notify the DCD immediately of any RNG processing facility upset that result with accidental leakage or release of processed gas to the atmosphere. Measure 8 requires that the existing Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for the power plant shall be updated in accordance with LP89-2020 COA 36.9 (Emergency Response). The ERP shall include the proposed RNG processing facility equipment, potential hazardous materials, and appropriate response procedures. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 166 of 276 Measure 4 requires that a new automated notification system shall be installed for monitoring the proposed RNGPF. The system shall notify the operator of an abnormal condition during both attended and non-attended operation and shall provide visual and audible warnings to assist operator response. On loss of power or instrument air or other plant upset, a range of safety and design measures could be activated as described in Measure 5. Ultimately, a Fail-Safe mode of operation will be incorporated into the plant-wide programmable logic controller (PLC) control system which shall shut down the processing facility if needed. Nowhere in the MND does it state that accidental releases will be redirected to the landfill flares. The landfill flares are currently permitted as (and will remain) the primary control device for the landfill gas collection system and would combust excess landfill gas that the proposed RNGPF could not process. As such, no analysis or “requisite air emissions” were “tabulated” in the MND as the flares are currently permitted by the BAAQMD. As demonstrated in the MND and these responses to comments, the overall impact of the proposed project on local air quality and regional greenhouse gases will be beneficial. Currently, LFG that is not used by the LFGTE power plant to generate energy is being combusted in the existing landfill flares. Without the project, combustion in the landfill flares has a higher potential to emit criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. Response to Comment 11-39: The 49 CFR Part 192 and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B.31.8 Codes and Standards require pipeline designers and operators to design and focus on combined operating stresses as a percentage of the minimum yield stress of the steel used (SMYS). Pipeline designers and operators focus on the operating stresses (hoop stress) as a percentage of the minimum yield stress of the steel used (SMYS). Per federal guidelines, a pipeline located along homes would be classified as Class 3 and be allowed to operate up to 50 percent of the SMYS of the steel used. The proposed RNG pipeline will operate at a maximum of less than 10 percent SMYS based on the MAOP of 400 psi. This design criterion meets the stricter requirements of a Class 4 downtown metropolitan area, and represents a higher safety factor than Class 3 in federal regulations. The proposed RNG pipeline is regulated and governed by 49 CFR 192 and thus the design of the proposed pipeline will exceed the regulation criteria. The MND is correct in using both SMYS (failure stress) and MAOP, and the statement that the MAOP will be 20 percent of SMYS has been revised to less than 10 percent of SMYS as a result of the revised project. As noted in response 11-36 above, the pressure at which this type of pipe fails by rupture is in the 25 to 30 percent (SMYS) range. Thus, the proposed RNG pipeline is much less likely to have a catastrophic failure (rupture) compared to a gas pipeline that operates at a higher range of 50 percent of SMYS or greater. Response to Comment 11-40: The two long-term measurements were made from 11:00 A.M. February 22, 2019 to 9:30 A.M. on February 25 at location LT1 and from 11:20 A.M. to 9:10 A.M. at LT2 on the same days. The durations were accordingly about three days each. This data is provided in the Noise Report and is appended to this Final MND as an Appendix. The short-term locations were not random but selected on the basis of closest to the project site with a direct line June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 167 of 276 of sight to the site. Site ST-1, ST-5 and ST-6 meet this criterion and ST-2 was selected on the line between the project site and LT-1, away from possible noise created from Bailey Road. Site ST-1 and ST-5 were also selected next to LT-1 and LT-2 to allow estimation of the 24-hour metrics. The short-term sites, ST-3 and ST-4 were selected to represent residences in the vicinity of the pipeline installation. Response to Comment 11-41: Long-term measurements were made as described above and are shown in Figure 13-1 of the MND. Response to Comment 11-42: The use of short-term (“ST”) or spot measurements is typical of environmental noise measurements. They are intended to identify noise sources that may not be encountered in the long-term (“LT”) events and give more confidence that the LT measurements represent the noise in the surrounding area. The short-term measurements are attended and the sources of noise of individual events are noted. In these measurements, noise sources included passing cars, car door slams, garage door openings, distant aircraft, distant motorcycles, distance lawnmowers, people talking, barking dogs, etc. Noise from the existing facility was not noted. Simultaneous adjacent measurements were made at ST-1 and LT-1 and also at ST-5 and LT-2. Based on the comparison of the short-term and long-term measurements, the ST measurements are used to estimate the DNL at those locations. There is no intent to imply that the L50 and Leq are statistically consistent. The existing noise level is quantified by the LT data, the ST data and observations help to understand what kind of noise sources might contribute to the LT measurements. The measurements at ST-2, ST-3, ST-4, and ST-6 are not necessarily statistically related to the LT; however, they provide useful information on the noise environment and types of noise sources present. Response to Comment 11-43: Please see response to Comment 11-42 above. The ST data was not taken to determine the long-term levels. The DNL can be eliminated from Table 4 if it is interpreted as being more than an estimate. Response to Comment 11-44: In Table 13-2 of the MND there is only one measurement of the Internal Combustion Engine Generator less than 15 feet and the falloff with distance is 6 dB/doubling of distance consistent with a “point” source of noise. For the measurement at 5 feet in the open doorway of the LFGTE, the source is essentially the doorway opening. The relationship between 5 feet and 15 feet also closely follows a 6 dB/doubling falloff with distance. Overall radiated sound power level would be a good way to measure sound; however, this is not feasible for these in-situ measurements because the multiple sources are too close to each other to apply standard methods of sound power measurement. Therefore, the turbines and compressors outside of the building were measured at 3 feet to better estimate sound pressure levels since the equipment are within close proximity to each other. Measurement at distances further away than 3 feet would begin to be influenced by other noise sources and would not be representative of the particular piece of equipment being measured. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 168 of 276 Response to Comment 11-45: The sound pressure level data in Table 13-3 of the MND were measured and provided by Ameresco Keller Canyon. The distance of 3 feet was used to separate the noise from the different pieces of equipment, which are in close proximity to each other. Using this measure would minimize the potential for noise levels emanating from any single piece of equipment of being “masked” or commingled with nearby equipment. Onsite, sound pressure levels of existing turbines and a compressor were measured at a distance of 3 feet as reported in Table 13-2. Although the specific equipment was not identified in as much detail as in Table 13- 3, the data are consistent with those reported in Table 13-2 It should be noted that the Ameresco Keller Canyon measurements were conducted with acoustic shrouding in place as specified in the LP Conditions of Approval. Response to Comment 11-46: Please see response to Comment 11-45 above. The sound pressure levels provided in Table 3.3 are mitigated noise levels with shrouding and noise control measures in place. Response to Comment 11-47: The model results were generated using SoundPLAN, a commercially available, well accepted software package for predicting sound levels. SoundPLAN and other such models are not based on simple point assumptions alone, but also account for other aspects such as terrain shielding, atmospheric effects, ground effects, etc. The contours "jump" around in part because of their resolution both spatially and acoustically. The spatial resolution was 33 feet which is suitable for modeling over these distances as a change in distance of 33 feet at 1,600 feet away from the RNG Processing Facility would produce only a 0.2 dB change in noise level. Contours are spaced 5 dB apart. Close to the source, the modeled levels follow the terrain in a regular fashion. At further distances, beyond the 45 dBA contour lines appear erratic as the modeled levels vary about the contour interval. It should also be noted that the residential areas are all outside the 40 dBA contour line. Terrain used for the modeling is based on GIS data provided by the County. Response to Comment 11-48: Please see above responses, and also note that mathematical incorrectness has not been demonstrated by the comments Response to Comment 11-49: The separation between the construction activity at the RNGPF and the residences is stated as 1,600 feet, minimum. The construction equipment levels are at 50 feet. Distance alone provides a reduction of 30 dB based on spherical spreading (20Log[d2/d1]). For 2,000 feet, the attenuation is 32 dB. Terrain shielding will provide additional attenuation. The equipment used for powered haulage and earthwork will be the same as that used for daily operation. As a result, the noise levels produced by haulage and earthwork will be the same as it is for normal operations as no new equipment will be added. Noise from the pipeline installation is identified in the Noise Section of the draft MND (page 199) as potentially significant noise impact and mitigation measures are provided; however, since the length and location of the RNG pipeline and construction duration have been revised, the potential significant noise impact discussed in this comment has been eliminated. The location of the RNG pipeline has been revised June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 169 of 276 and will no longer be installed near residences Please see Section III. Revised Project Description of this Final MND. Response to Comment 11-50: Mitigation Measure Noise 1 requires more than a good faith effort to minimize project-related construction disruptions on adjacent properties. The measure also requires a project representative to respond to noise complaints within 24 hours, limiting construction activities for the pipeline to the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, limiting noise to 65 dBA or less between the hours of 5 pm and 8 am, and providing two-week and 1-day advance warnings to nearby residents when construction is schedule adjacent to their property. Note, potential vibration impacts are addressed in response 11-51. The noise mitigation measure is not ineffectual or deferred. The measure is substantially similar to the noise measure upheld in Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 208. In that ruling, the court upheld a mitigation measure that required corrective action to occur after a noise complaint, finding “there is every reason to believe a mitigation measure calling for further mitigation efforts in the event individuals directly impacted by a project complain of increased noise would go directly to the heart of the matter.” (Id.) Response to Comment 11-51: It is stated in several places in the draft MND (pages 188, 197, 200) in the noise analysis of the MND that pile driving will not be included in the project. For this reason, pile driving is also not included in the vibration assessment. It should be noted that Table 13-6 in the MND is a generic equipment list from published reports and that most of the equipment listed in this table will not be used in the construction of the proposed project. Operations at the RNGPF site would be located too far away from the residences to generate perceptible ground vibration. During construction and normal operation, the sources of vibration on the RNGPF site would be large bulldozers and loaded trucks producing levels of 0.089 and 0.076 in/sec at 25 feet. At distances of 1,000 feet, the vibration from these sources would produce values of 0.002 in/sec or less. These values are well below the threshold of perception (see response to Comment 11-42). Ground-borne vibration from buried gas pipes has been researched and determined not to occur (see Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd Edition, 1979, McGraw-Book Company pages 30-1 to 30- 3). It should be also noted that the 4-inch RNG pipeline would tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191- 1 and would no longer be installed near residences. For installation of the RNG pipeline, the sources of vibration during construction would be an excavator, a dump truck, and possibly a bulldozer. Of this equipment, the greatest vibration would be from a large bulldozer at a level of 0.09 in/sec at 25 feet or up to 0.04 in/sec at 50 feet (the previous offset to the residential property lines from the RNG pipeline prior to the revised project). Caltrans considers a level of 0.04 in/sec as unlikely to cause damage to any type of st ructure and 0.10 in/sec to pose virtually no risk of architectural damage to normal buildings including “relatively old residential structures in very poor condition”. For human response, Caltrans uses 0.04 in/sec as the level of perceptibility. Therefore, the potential for human perception during project construction would be minimal for the worst-case large bulldozer as demonstrated in the above calculations (see Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance, California June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 170 of 276 Department of Transportation, Report CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.3, September 2013, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/index.htm). Response to Comment 11-52: Please see response to Comment 11-51 above regarding pile driving. Soil testing is not warranted as the conclusions drawn hold for all four standard classes of soil type. It is assumed that ground vibration is not perceived by the surrounding residents currently and 0.006 to 0.019 in/sec is the threshold of detectability as applied to vibration from traffic. Response to Comment 11-53: As noted in response to Comment 11-51 above, the heavier pieces of equipment to be used at the RNGPF site produce vibration below 0.002 in/sec. The source levels used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are the same as those used by Caltrans and routinely used for construction vibration assessment. Further, if the source levels were twice as high as the FTA values, the vibration at the residences would still be below the threshold of detectability noted in response to Comment 11-51. The levels and criteria used to assess -vibration impact are based on overall levels, which include the summed contribution of all frequencies, and it is not necessary to consider specific frequencies unless the overall criteria are exceeded. Response to Comment 11-54: CEQA states that ground-borne vibration would be an impact if it is “excessive”. The analysis in the draft MND supports the conclusion that project-generated ground-borne vibration would not be excessive, would be below the levels that can damage structures, and would not be perceptible to nearby sensitive receptors for any meaningful duration. Please also see response to Comment 11-51. Response to Comment 11-55: As described in the draft MND, the proposed additional fire hydrant will be one of a total of three hydrants (two are existing) available for fire suppression operations at the RNGPF location and adjacent structures. The additional hydrant will improve acc ess to the existing water supply by fire personnel responding to any potential vegetation fire exposures along the project’s northwest wild land interface areas. Page 206 of the MND states: Pursuant to LP89-2020 COA 30.8 (On-Site Water Storage), an existing water supply tank for landfill operations is located southeast of the proposed RNG processing facility. Water supply for firefighting would be sourced from this existing tank. The total capacity of the water supply tank is approximately 342,300 gallons. The net capacity for stored water reserved for firefighting is approximately 235,800 gallons, or about 69 percent of total stored water. The capacity of the existing Keller Canyon fire water supply tank (available 235,800 gallons) with 1,500 gallons per minute (GPM) fire pump currently supports the multiple onsite hydrants located throughout the entire Keller Canyon Landfill site, as well as the location of the proposed RNGPF. This fire protection water supply system is in compliance with the required “minimum pumping capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute” as set forth and required by the LP89 -2020 COA 30.8 and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD), the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The proposed additional hydrant adjacent to the proposed facility would have a less than June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 171 of 276 significant impact on the existing water supply infrastructure and fire flow requirements. The capability of the water system (fire flow) is not changed due to an additional fire hydrant; it merely gives the Fire District more flexibility in the location for fire-fighting equipment. Thus, the document indicates that there would be sufficient water available to supply the three fire hydrants if required. Additionally, this is an existing private fire protection system with the storage tank capacity and fire pump serving as meeting the required onsite fire flow requirements thus minimizing any negative impacts on the adjacent public water supply infrastructure. Implementation of Measure 1 on page 208 of the MND is required as part of project approval prior to any construction. Measure 1 states: The precise location and specifications of the new hydrant shall be coordinated with the CCCFPD to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code. As the AHJ, the CCCFPD provides fire protection services to the City of Pittsburg and the unincorporated County areas outside of the city limits. Fire stations and equipment are located throughout the Fire District without regard to city boundaries. As a member of an established regional emergency response team, the CCCFPD has access to other hazardous materials and fire protection resources through automatic response and mutual aid agreements with other fire agencies at the City, County, and State levels, as well as private petrochemical industries if required. Response to Comment 11-56: The comment incorrectly equates the PIR with a “blast radius,” and mischaracterizes the potential for fire protection service related to a pipeline or other leakage. Numerous automated safety sensors, monitoring, and shutdown systems are incorporated into the design of the RNGPF and RNG pipeline. These systems will alert and enable an immediate emergency procedural response by onsite monitoring staff to any potential emergency scenario. RNGPFP emergency notification procedures include a 911 notification to the CCCFPD dispatch center. Fire protection services are provided to the City of Pittsburg and the unincorporated County areas outside the City limits from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection D istrict. Fire stations and equipment are located throughout the Fire District without regard to city boundaries. Under normal conditions an acceptable response time can be expected to the Keller Canyon Landfill site by responding fire district personnel. All these actions can be expected to occur well before any perceived I-hour delay. Please see discussion of the Safety Features and PIR in Section IV. Summary Responses of the Final MND. Response to Comment 11-57: As stated earlier in Section IV. Summary Responses of the Final MND, the construction of the RNGPF pad will use fill materials obtained on-site at the Keller Canyon Landfill. Therefore, no off-site trip generation analysis was included in the MND for fill. The fill will be obtained from an area of future landfilling that would be excavated in the future. Please also refer to response to Comment 11-5 above. Response to Comment 11-58: The “industrial area designation” referenced in page 219 of the draft MND does not pertain to official land use designations by Contra Costa County or any other jurisdiction. It pertains to the functional area (in this case with industrial infrastructure, equipment, and processes) within the 2,600-acre (+/-) Keller Canyon Landfill property. The site of the June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 172 of 276 proposed RNGPF is located within a 375-acre (+/-) developed area of the Keller Canyon Landfill designated for “facilities activities” in the Solid Waste Facility Permit 07-AA-0032 page 2, Section 12. Legal Description of Facility. The industrial area of the landfill is one of several discrete functional areas at Keller Canyon Landfill such as the Extent of Waste Placement where solid waste is disposed and buried; the Special Buffer Area open space; the storm water management system, and landfill operations areas such as the scale house, maintenance facility, and administration office. The MND describes the water supply on page 206 to be 342,300 gallons, of which 69 percent or 235,800 gallons, is reserved for firefighting. In other words, about 106,500 gallons are available for routine landfill uses. This water supply for routine landfill uses has proven adequate since the landfill commenced operation in 1992. Water levels in the water supply tank are automatically monitored to ensure the water supply in the tank maintains the 235,800 gallons reserved for firefighting. The landfill firefighting water supply and distribution systems (i.e., hydrants, diesel engine that powers distribution) are checked monthly to ensure full operational capability. The full range of fire protection design features and measures are described in the MND in Section 15a Fire Protection, pages 205 and 206. Response to Comment 11-59: This comment mischaracterizes the assessment of potential wildfire risk as presented in the MND in Hazards section 9.g - page 170; Public Services - Fire Protection, section 15.a – page 207), and the Wildfire section 20.a - page 225. The MND acknowledges that the proposed project is located in a high fire hazard severity zone. The MND references specific consistency measures that will be imposed on the project to minimize the potential for wildfires originating from the RNGPF. Please see Environmental Checklist Section 9.a and the design criteria described in Environmental Checklist Section 9.b. The MND further states that project implementation would conform to California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure) and California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas), which would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires. Finally, the MND lists specific consistency measures and conditions of approval from the Keller Canyon Landfill LP89-2020 related to design features, fire protection, hazards management, and emergency response on pages 161 to 163 of the MND. These measures are binding and will be incorporated into the land use permit for the proposed project to ensure wildfire fire risk in the area is not exacerbated. Compliance with these measures will be reviewed on a regular basis by the County. Response to Comment 11-60: Various mitigation measures have been revised, clarified, or strengthened, in responses to these comments. Section IV. Summary Responses of the Final MND, has been prepared to address a wide range of environmental issues. Section V, Comments and Responses, presents a complete picture of the project’s potential impacts and how those impacts in sum, would be less than significant. The comment stating that a full EIR is required because mitigation measures are insufficient is not supported by the evidence that potential impacts from the project as designed are reduced to a less-than-significant level by existing regulations and mitigation measures. With the clarifications or changes in text or figures made in responses to June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 173 of 276 comments, none of the mandatory findings of significance apply – all potential impacts are either less than significant without mitigation or mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Response to Comment 11-61: In the MND, the proposed pipeline was located adjacent to the existing PG&E L191-1 gas pipeline. PG&E, which owns the property, directed where the proposed RNG pipeline was to be located. With the revised project, the section of RNG pipeline previously proposed along the property boundary has been replaced by a tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191-1, removing that section of the pipeline from the project. At the meeting described in this comment, one of the options the City did suggest was an alternative route of running the pipeline north on Bailey Road, east on West Leland Road, to a termination near Golf Club Road. This route would have affected hundreds of home owners, required tearing up City streets during construction, and potentially resulted in utility service disruptions and traffic delays. The applicant did reject this suggested route as it was not safe and would have many adverse effects on the surrounding community. Response to Comment 11-62: As noted in the response to Comment 11-1 and 11-61, above, and in response to other comments, the project has been revised in response to the City’s comments. Even though the impacts of the original route were determined to be less than significant, the project has been revised to respond to the City’s concerns. The revised project includes a tie-in of the RNG pipeline with existing PG&E Line 191-1. This tie-in eliminates essentially all of the potential impacts in the PG&E property that were described in the MND. With respect to the comment that an EIR is required, the impacts of the proposed project were determined to be either less than significant or mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Various mitigation measures have been clarified to confirm this is the case. A mitigated negative declaration remains the appropriate and proper CEQA document for the proposed project. Subject RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments From Paul A. Encinas To Stanley Muraoka; Lawrence Huang Sent Thursday, December 17, 2020 4:00 PM Attachments Table 8-2 GHG emis... Hello Stan, Is it possible if you can provide us with the Excel spreadsheet that supports the estimated emissions in Table 8-2 on page 153 of the Ameresco MND (attached)? I appreciate your help. Thank you. Paul Encinas From:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent:Wednesday, December 16, 2020 11:43 AM To:Paul A. Encinas <pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com> Cc:Lawrence Huang <Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject:RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Hi Paul: I have asked Lawrence Huang of Administrative Services to provide the requested public record document to you. Stan Muraoka, AICP Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Phone: 925-674-7781 Email: stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty,us From:Paul A. Encinas <pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:28 PM To:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject:RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Hi Stanley, I am just following up to see if we can also get the comments from BAAQMD? I appreciate your help. Thank you. RE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Thursday, December 17, 2020 4:11 PM Cases -LP Page 1 From:Paul A. Encinas Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 2:08 PM To:Stanley Muraoka <Stanley.Muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject:Ameresco Keller Canyon Pittsburg - BAAQMD comments Hello Stan, Costa County on 11/4/20? I appreciate your help. Thank you. Paul Encinas Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Email: pencinas@adamsbroadwell.com Phone: (650) 589-1660 Cases -LP Page 2 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 176 of 276 12. Email 12: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 12-1: This comment requested the Excel spreadsheets related to Table 8-2 Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the MND. The requested data were provided to the commenter by DCD. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 179 of 276 13. Letter 13: Contra Costa Environmental Health Response to Comment 13-1: Comment noted. Permits from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEH) will be obtained as required. Response to Comment 13-2: Comment noted. The proposed project does not involve abandoned wells or destruction of septic tanks. Response to Comment 13-3: Comment noted. The Ameresco LFGTE power plant is on a septic system as described in the MND. The adequacy of the septic system capacity and operati on to meet current standards will be confirmed during the application for a building permit from the County. Response to Comment 13-4: The MND describes the water demand requirements for the project and compares the demand with available supply. No significant impacts to the water supply were identified; however, the project applicant will consult with CCEH’s Land Use Program to ensure adequate water supply. Response to Comment 13-5: The proposed project’s requirements for handling of construction and demolition waste are described in the draft MND, page 221, 19. Utilities and Services, part d (solid waste). No significant impacts would occur. Response to Comment 13-6: Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 13-5 above. Chris Ellis Principal Land Planner Environmental Management Mailing Address: 5555 Florin Perkins Road, Room 128D Sacramento, CA 95826 Phone: 916-386-5103 December 23, 2020 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Attn: Mr. Stan Muraoka, AICP 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Ameresco RNGPFP LP18-2022 Public Comment Period Dear Mr. Muraoka, I am submitting the attached exhibit showing the revised location for the PG&E receipt station for this project. This location is just south of the location shown in Figures 10 and 16. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Chris Ellis Pacific Gas and Electric Company Attachment June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 182 of 276 14. Letter 14: PG&E Response to Comment 14-1: Comment noted. The revised location and aerial photo of the PG&E receipt station included in this comment is acknowledged; however, the revised location no longer applies. The PG&E receipt station has been relocated from PG&E property to Keller Canyon Landfill property. Please see Section III. Revised Project Description in this Final MND for details. 4906-017acp DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN KENDRA D. HARTMANN* KYLE C. JONES RACHAEL E. KOSS NIRIT LOTAN WILLIAM C. MUMBY MARC D. JOSEPH Of Counsel *Not admitted in California. Licensed in Colorado. SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AT TORNEYS AT LA W 6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________ T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0 F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2 k h a r t m a n n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper December 23, 2020 Via Email and Overnight Mail Stan Muraoka, Principal Planner Department of Conservation & Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: Stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Re: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration - Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022 (SCH 2020100267) Dear Mr. Muraoka: We are writing on behalf of Contra Costa Residents for Responsible Industry the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility and Pipeline Project, LP18-2022; SCH ) proposed by renewable natural gas (RNG) processing facility and pipeline that includes construction and operation of a new RNG processing facility and an underground transmission pipeline. The project is lo Bailey Road in incorporated and unincorporated county areas in Pittsburg, CA. Keller Canyon Landfill operates as a Class II waste disposal site. It is owned subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. KCL is required to collect and control landfill gas to minimize impacts to the community and environment.1 The gas collection 1 IS/MND, p. 2. December 23, 2020 Page 2 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper regularly as KCL continues to dispose of waste, and the volume of LFG generated increases.2 The Applicant proposes to construct and operate a facility on KCL to process LFG to create RNG. The facility would not be connected to the existing power plant.3 The Project also includes a 3.4-mile pipeline to carry the RNG from KCL to a connection with the natural gas transmission pipeline network northeast of the site. The new processing facility would cover an area of approximately 48,000 square feet on a new level pad of approximately 84,000 square feet and would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The proposed processing equipment includes compressors, filters, direct fuel recuperative thermal oxidizer, enclosed flare, thermal and pressure swing adsorption units, and media beds to treat landfill 4 The IS/MND describes the Project site as consisting of the Primary Project Area and a portion of the SBA, described as 5 or isolate the landfill from surrounding land uses and is reserved for uses consistent with open space, agriculture, and non-waste disposal landfill infrastructure as determined by Contra Costa County.6 Land immediately surrounding the Project site includes the Concord Hills open space, adjacent to KCL to the south and southeast. The landfill comprises its own watershed encompassing approximately 573 acres. Development of the RNG facility would add 84,000 square feet to the Keller Canyon watershed.7 Aquatic resources at the site include wetlands, seasonal wetlands, intermittent drainages, and tributaries to Willow Creek, which is itself a tributary to Suisun Bay.8 The Applicant seeks an amendment to County land use permit LP01-2115, as well as an amendment to its portion of land use permit LP89-2020 for KCL. The amendment would allow installation of RNG processing equipment and construction of an underground pipeline. In addition to the LUP amendment, the following regulatory agency approvals will potentially be required: 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. at 3. 5 IS/MND, p. 16. 6 7 IS/MND, p. 177. 8 IS/MND, p. 80. December 23, 2020 Page 3 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper (1) Bay Area Air Quality Management Construct/Permit to Operate; (2) East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy: Habitat Conservation Plan Agreement; (3) Pacific Gas & Electric: Interconnection Agreement; (4) California Public Utilities Commission, in coordination with PG&E: Permits or approvals to be identified; (5) Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region: nt Discharge Elimination System permit; (6) Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Program and Environmental Health Division: possible permits for well- or soil-boring prior to drilling; possible permit for abandoned wells and septic tanks; possible modification to KCL permit for solid waste disposal facility; (7) California Department of Fish and Wildlife: possible take permits; (8) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: possible permits related to aquatic resources; (9) Building permits from the County and City of Pittsburg.9 Construction of the Project is estimated to last 12 to 14 months with the start of construction anticipated for mid-2021.10 Construction of the facility and the pipeline would proceed concurrently. The anticipated lifespan for the Project is 20+ years.11 We have conducted our review of the IS/MND with the assistance of our technical consultants, air quality and hazardous resources expert Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., PE, and biological resources expert Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.12 Their attached comments require separate responses under CEQA. We reserve the right to supplement these comments at a later time. Based upon our review of the IS/MND and reference documents, we conclude that the IS/MND is substantially deficient and fails to fulfill its mandate under CEQA as an informational document in numerous ways. As explained more fully below, the IS/MND fails to support its findings with substantial evidence and fails 9 IS/MND, p. 3. 10 IS/MND, p. 2. 11 12 culum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. December 23, 2020 Page 4 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper to show that it will not result in significant impacts to air quality and public health. The County cannot approve the Project until the errors in the IS/MND are remedied and substantial evidence supporting its conclusions are provided in an environmental impact report. I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST Residents is a coalition of individuals and labor organizations with members who may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Contra Costa County residents, California Unions for Reliable Energy and its local union affiliates and their members and their families. CURE is a coalition of labor organizations whose members encourage sustainable development of California’s energy and natural resources. Residents was formed to advocate for responsible and sustainable industrial development in Contra Costa County to protect public health and safety and the environment where Residents’ members and their families live, work and recreate. The individual members of Residents, and the members of its affiliated labor organizations, would be directly affected by the Project and may also work constructing the Project itself. They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may be present on the Project site. They each have a personal stake in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health and safety impacts. Thus, Residents, its participating organizations, and their members stand to be directly affected by the Residents supports the development of clean, renewable energy technology where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health and the environment. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live and recreate in the County. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduces future employment opportunities. Projects should avoid adverse impacts to natural resources and public health, and should take all feasible steps to ensure that unavoidable impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can energy development truly be sustainable. December 23, 2020 Page 5 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper Finally, the organizational members of Residents are concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits. CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment. It is in this spirit we offer these comments. II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED CEQA is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project.13 14 generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with 15 CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.16 The EIR is the very heart of CEQA.17 whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental 18 The EIR aids an agency in identifying, analyzing, disclosing, and, to the extent possible, avoiding mitigation measures.19 nstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the [agency] has analyzed and considered the ecological implications 20 the environment but also informed 21 ntial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the 22 The EIR aids an agency in identifying, analyzing, disclosing, and, 13 14 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 402. 15 Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283. 16 See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100. 17 Dunn-Edwards v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. 18 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220. 19 Pub. Resources Code § 21002.1(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a), (f). 20 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86. 21 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 22 Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (d) (emphasis added); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064; see also Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 13 Cal.App.4th 322. December 23, 2020 Page 6 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper s significant environmental effects through implementing feasible mitigation measures.23 In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact. Because the agency to dispense with the duty to prepare an EIR, negative declarations are allowed only in cases where there is not will have a significant environmental effect.24 Under the fair argument standard, a whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.25 The 26 In certain circumstances, a project with potentially significant impacts can be modified by the adoption of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. In such cases, an agency may satisfy its CEQA obligation by preparing a mitigated negative declaration.27 A mitigated negative declaration, however, is also subject to the fair argument standard. Thus, an MND is also inadequate, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record ant impacts may occur even with the imposition of mitigation measures. environmental review in an EIR rather than a negative declaration.28 an EIR, if any substantial evidence in 23 Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a) & (f). 24 Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21100, 21064. 25 Pub. Res. Code §§21080(d), 21082.2(d); 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602. 26 Pub. Resources Code, § 21068. 27 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(2). 28 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. December 23, 2020 Page 7 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect.29 As a matter of law, substantial evidence includes both expert and lay opinion.30 Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare an EIR.31 resolves the benefit of the doubt in favor of the public and the environment. III. THE IS/MND FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION The IS/MND must include a description of the project.32 project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the Initial 33 provide an accurate project description, or fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate. An accurate and complete project description is necessary to fully evaluate the 34 Furthermore, an agency may not rely on information buried in the CEQA ovided an adequate project description. Decisionmakers and the public cannot be information by poring over the CEQA ment] must not only be sufficient in quantity, it must be presented in a manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously familiar with the details of 35 29 CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(1); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931. 30 Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (e)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(5). 31 Arviv Enterprises v. South Valley Area Planning Comm. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1346; Stanislaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597. 32 33 Id. § 15063(a)(1) 34 El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597 (internal citations omitted). 35 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442 (quoting California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1239.) December 23, 2020 Page 8 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper A. The IS/MND Fails to Provide an Accurate and Complete Description of the Pipeline Location and Installation Methods The IS/MND anticipates that the pipeline installation will take place over the course of 12 to 14 months and will connect the RNG processing facility to a proposed PG&E metering station and the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline. The roughly 3.4 miles of pipeline is proposed to be constructed in two segments, with approximately 0.6 miles located in the primary Project area, 2 miles within conserved open space known as th miles in the PG&E utility corridor, ending at the STANPAC 3 pipeline in the City of Pittsburg.36 Though the IS/MND provides depictions 37 it fails to provide adequate explanations of what particular installation methods will be used and where, leaving too much detail to speculation to be considered sufficiently informational under CEQA. Based on a description of construction activities provided in the Project Description, it appears the majority of the pipeline will be installed using open-trenching techniques.38 Certain locations, however, will on techniques, such as when installation involves crossing existing gas and electric transmission lines or the Contra Costa Canal.39 The IS/MND indicates that the exact location of installation will determine the construction method used.40 The IS/MND states, for example, that trenchless options such as horizontal directional drilling may be used based upon the location of the pipeline. It does not, however, provide an explanation of different drilling techniques or a discussion of the impacts of different drilling techniques, nor does it specify which locations would warrant the use of any specific drilling method. Different drilling methods have substantially different impacts resources, including air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, mineral resources, noise, and transportation. 36 IS/MND, pg. 11. 37 See, e.g., IS/MND Figure 9. 38 and the pipeline will be placed and backfilled at a depth of four feet in mo 13. 39 IS/MND, pg. 12. 40 IS/MND, pg. 12. December 23, 2020 Page 9 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper Recent case studies on directional drilling techniques demonstrate that horizontal directional drilling can have significant impacts that are distinct from impacts associated with trenching.41 method can appear to be a convenient, efficient method of pipe installation in some cases, there are potential environmenta 42 Unlike trenching, directional drilling requires a plan for fluid disposal, extra workspace, specialized equipment, additional water, and an extended time frame.43 In addition, directional drilling presents a risk of an inadvertent return of drilling 44 In a frac-out, drilling fluid escapes the borehole through a fissure in the soil.45 releasing drilling fluid into wetlands include temporary displacement of resident fauna, smothering of benthic organisms and plant root systems, increased turbidity of water quality, and effects on wa 46 Because the IS/MND does not specify where and to what extent alternative methods of pipeline installation may be employed, it fails to provide a complete analysis of environmental impacts. An EIR with a detailed description of the proposed construction methods and when each of those methods will be implemented must be prepared so that decisionmakers and the public can properly assess the environmental impacts that may arise due to the installation of the pipeline. B. The IS/MND Fails to Identify Whether the Landfill Will Need Further Expansions in the Future, Resulting in Additional LFG Generation A complete project description must includ the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its 47 The requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by chopping the 41 Slade, D., Case Study: Environmental Consideration of Horizontal Directional Drills, 2000 42 Slade, D., Case Study: Environmental Consideration of Horizontal Directional Drills, 2000 43 Id. at p. 355. 44 Id. at pp. 355-356. 45 Id. at p. 356. 46 Ibid. 47 Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura County (1975) 13 Cal.3d 267, 283-84; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1989) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396 (CEQA document must include analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future December 23, 2020 Page 10 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper project into many small parts or by excluding reasonably foreseeable future activities that may become part of the project.48 The IS/MND must supply enough information so that the decisionmakers and the public can fully understand the scope of the Project.49 It must also fully analyze the whole of a project in a single environmental review document and may not piecemeal or split a project into pieces for purposes of analysis. KCL allows for a 20-year lifespan of the Project with the opportunity to extend the agreement as long as sufficient LFG is available to make operating the LFGTE plant commercially viable.50 The l system are expanded regularly as KCL 51 The IS/MND gives no indication that the production of LFG will decrease any time soon. Rather, based on information disclosed in the IS/MND, it is foreseeable that the facility may need to be upgraded and its lifespan and production capacity may also need to be extended or expanded. The IS/MND is silent on this issue. Because the IS/MND fails to adequately describe the full scope of the it fails to disclose the full range and impacts. An EIR analyzing all of the Proj from a reasonably foreseeable future expa capacity, must be prepared. IV. THE IS/MND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING setting.52 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the baseline expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects). 48 PRC § 21159.27 (prohibiting piecemealing); see also Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 370. 49 Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1990) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26. 50 IS/MND, p. 16. 51 IS/MND, pp. 1, 16. 52 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). December 23, 2020 Page 11 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper physical conditions by which a lead agency impacts.53 is to give the public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the 54 A. Baseline Emissions of the Enclosed Flares, and Thus Calculations of Emissions Reductions, are Inaccurate The CEQA Guidelines require that an include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.55 The impacts of a proposed project should be determined against the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than against hypothetical conditions allowable under a permit.56 Failure to represent actual operational conditions undermines the purpose of CEQA to fully inform decision makers and the public.57 The IS/MND asserts that existing baseline emissions of criteria pollutants amount to 4,700 standard cubic feet per minut a year.58 proposed project would have a maximum capacity of 4,700 scfm of LFG. Accordingly, the baseline condition shown in Table 3-2 is defined as the current 59 Baseline flare emissions, however, for purposes of CEQA review, would be the actual emissions from the two flares in the baseline years immediately preceding preparation of the IS/MND.60 As Dr. Fox explains, this information was not included in the IS/MND.61 Thus, the change in flare 53 Id. § 15125(a); see also Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 38 Cal. 4th 310, 320-21 (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a) applies to an initial study). 54 CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a). 55 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320. 56 Id. 57 Id. at 328. 58 IS/MND, p. 67, Table 3-2. 59 IS/MND, p. 65. 60 Fox Comments, p. 17. 61 Id., pp. 18-19. December 23, 2020 Page 12 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper emissions reported in Table 3-2 of the IS/ND is unsupported by the evidence in the comments provided to the County on November 4, 2020 on the Project, the two flares are permitted for, and have an actual combined throughput of, approximately 4,900 cfm.62 No application for a reduction in the throughput of the flares has been a maximum capacity of 4,700 scfm of LFG is similarly unsupported. No explanation for this inconsistency is provided by the IS/MND, nor is a clarification of actual baseline emissions offered. e measurement of baseline emissions which calculates baseline emissions based on the type of source and on determining the baseline period and the period ending date (typically the three-year period immediately preceding the triggering event, such as completion of an application for authority to construct or the date on which an emission reduction becomes enforceable).63 A lead agency has discretion to choose its own method of determining baseline conditions when there is evidence showing that the baseline emissions numbers selected by the agency are representative of typical operations.64 BAAQMD, however, indicated in its comment reductions should be calculated as per the baseline procedure in Regulation 2-2-603 and also account for continued use of 65 The County provides no substantial evidence to support its reliance on an illusory baseline based on maximum permitted emissions. nt letter, 4,700 cfm of gas has never amount of landfill gas collected by the landfill in 2019 was 4,130 cfm, out of which 1,186 cfm were sent to the Ameresco LFGTE for use in its LFG-fired in 66 These baseline numbers, upon which the IS/MND bases its calculations and conclusions of the 62 BAAQMD Comments to Contra Costa County re Proposed Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Processing Facility & Pipeline (Land Use Permit LP18-2022, amending LP89-2020) (November 4, 2020) (hereina 63 BAAQMD Regulation 2, Permits, Rule 2, New Source Review, 603 et seq. 64 Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors AIR v. Kern County 65 BAAQMD Comments, p. 2. 66 BAAQMD Comments, p. 2. December 23, 2020 Page 13 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper are, according to BAAQMD, inaccurate and overstated.67 Similarly to CBE v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., the IS/MND mischaracterizes information relevant to the baseline emissions levels and how the Project will impact air quality.68 The IS/MND must clearly state the baseline level of criteria pollutants and GHG emissions under current operational conditions in order to lay the foundation for an accurate environmental analysis.69 Given that it contains inconsistent information about its baseline emissions, the IS/MND is deficient as an informational document under CEQA and an EIR must be prepared that includes an accurate and clear baseline description that reflects actual conditions. B. Existing Biological Resources including special-status species occurrences, terrestrial and riparian habitats, and aquatic resources are flawed, rendering any subsequent analyses of impacts to those resources invalid. According to the IS/MND, biologists walked the length of the Project site to survey biological resources.70 However, as Dr. Smallwood points out in his ssential details of the surveys, such as how many biologists were involved, the levels of expertise of the biologists, dates and durations of the surveys, when the surveys started, and any special details of survey methods. Without these details, the reader cannot assess whether and to what degree the surveys would have 71 The IS/MND, in fact, does not report what species were detected. Furthermore, the methods used to identify the likelihood of special-status species occurrences are inadequate. As Dr. Smallwood notes, a desktop review was performed but the review for terrestrial vertebrate wildlife was mostly limited to the California Natural Diversity Data Base experience, is not a resource commonly used by biologists to submit species 67 Id. 68 CBE v. SCAQMD 69 Id. 70 IS/MND, p. 73. 71 December 23, 2020 Page 14 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper detections and does not accurately reflect species occurrences on private lands. Additionally, the County neglected to consult several available resources, including databases and local experts, to establish an accurate environmental setting in its preparation of the IS/MND. Any analysis of impacts to special-status species and other biological resources resulting from the Project that stem from this inaccurate existing baseline is therefore flawed. depiction of the presence of special-status species is: While performing surveys at Concord Naval Weapons Station (Morrison and Smallwood 2004, 2005; Smallwood and Morrison 2006, 2007, 2008), located right next to the project site, I observed many of the species listed in Table 1.72 From 2004 through 2008, I observed American white pelican, double- Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), California gull, Caspian tern, Turkey vulture, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, barn owl, great horned owl, loggerhead shrike, California horned lark, yellow-billed magpie, San Francisco common yellowthroat, Suisun song sparrow, tricolored blackbird, salt marsh wandering shrew, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged frog. Although I would not ndering shrew to occur on the project site, most of the rest of the species I detected next door likely also occur on the project site. 73 Of the 81 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife Dr. Smallwood identified as potentially using the project site from an occasional to perpetual basis, the IS/MND analyzes potential impacts to only 7 (8.6%) of them (Table 1).74 That is, the IS/MND neglects to analyze potential impacts to an astonishing 74 (91.4%) of the terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species potentially occurring on the project site. Granted, some of the species in Table 1 would be expected to use only the aerohabitat of the site, but most would stop-over during migration, forage or breed on the site. Dr. Smallwood concludes that much more analysis is needed to accurately characterize biological conditions at the Project site.75 A fair argument 72 73 Smallwood Comments, p. 2. 74 Id. 75 Id. December 23, 2020 Page 15 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately analyze these potentially significant project impacts. The IS/MND contains several other egregious errors in its description of the existing environmental setting for biological resources. The IS/MND consistently lists the likelihood of species to occur at the site as lower than shown in other documented accounts.76 Some features that exist on the Project site, such as wetlands and riparian habitat for special-status species, were completely omitted from descriptions and images of the site.77 Many of the images of the Project site included in the IS/MND, for example, depict the site in the dry season when some wetlands are unidentifiable while others represent aquatic features detectable only by an expert.78 One 3-acre pond, known by expert biologists who have studied species at the Project site to be a breeding pond for the California tiger salamander and which, according to images in the description of aquatic resources. Its significance to the survival of the California that this pond was missed, or omitted, there is a high likelihood that the IS/MND missed or omitted additional wetland 79 A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to ting biological resources and to analyze potential impacts to them. V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT ARE NOT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED OR MITIGATED BY THE MND The fair argument standard which app for requiring the preparation of an EIR.80 Under the fair argument standard, a lead bstantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.81 76 See Smallwood Comments, pp. 2, 6. 77 78 Id. 79 Id., p. 7. 80 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. 81 Pub. Res. Code §§21080(d), 21082.2(d); 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of December 23, 2020 Page 16 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper lly substantial, adverse change in the 82 Neither the lead agency, nor a court, may "weigh" conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance. A dispute between expert opinions based on substantial evidence requires preparation of an EIR.83 Additionally, an MND must fully disclose all potentially significant impacts of a project and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less significance determination with regard to each impact must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.84 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.85 The MND fails to meet these clear legal standards. A. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources a. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Significant Impacts to Special-Status Species Project site are wholly inadequate, any analyses of impacts that follow are likewise unsubstantiated. As described above, incomplete and unreliable methods used to identify the presence of special-status species or habitats led to flawed conclusions impacts. potentially significant impacts to biological resources is found in the erroneous conclusions regarding the conditions necessary for species to exist at the site. For example, the IS/MND concludes that there is a moderate-to-high potential for the California tiger salamander to occur in breeding habitat occurs within the stud Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602. 82 Pub. Resources Code, § 21068. 83 CEQA Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1); Pocket Protectors 124 Cal.App.4th at 934-935. 84 14 CCR § 15064(b). 85 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. December 23, 2020 Page 17 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper veniles were observed in a mitigation pond on the landfill property in May 1995; however, this mitigation pond has failed 86 The IS/MND appears to conclude, as Dr. Smallwood indicates, that the occurrence ed. Dr. Smallwood notes that he has n ponds as ephemeral as rain pools and are for ponds to remain inundated long enough into the spring for larvae to reach maturity, but this need not happen every 87 of impacts to wildlife movement. Though it asserts these impacts will be less than significant with mitigation, the IS/MND fails to identify many of the ways in which wildlife moves in and through the site and the impacts the Project may have on that movement. The site is known, for example, as a passage for the California tiger salamander as it moves between its breeding pond (the 3-acre pond adjoining the proposed pipeline route) and the uplands bordering Concord Naval Weapons Station.88 Trenching for the pipeline would uproot this route, though the IS/MND omits any mention of this impact or how it would be mitigated. Though the IS/MND concludes that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts to certain species, its inadequate and unreliable means of detecting the presence of special-status necessitates the preparation of an EIR to fully and accurately evaluate potential impacts and how they can best be mitigated. b. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Significant Impacts on Aquatic Resources The IS/MND fails to discuss the potential impacts to wetlands, vernal pools and special-status species due to the inadvertent return of drilling fluid. As discussed previously, horizontal directional drilling operations have the potential to release drilling fluids into the surface environment through inadvertent returns.89 Because drilling muds consist largely of a bentonite clay-water mixture, they are not classified as a toxic or hazardous substance.90 However, if released into bodies 86 IS/MND, p. 80. 87 Smallwood Comments, p. 7. 88 Id., p. 8. 89 Slade, supra, p. 355. 90 Id. at p. 359. December 23, 2020 Page 18 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper of water, bentonite has the potential to adversely affect native flora, fauna, and special-status species.91 rsect with several aquatic resources, including wetlands, seasonal wetlands, drainages, and tributaries. It would cross an unnamed tributary to Willow Creek, itself a tributary to Suisun Bay, as well as the Contra Costa Canal, at which point horizontal directional drilling will be required for installation. The IS/MND, however, does not provide any discussion or analysis of the impacts or risks from various construction methods. An EIR must be prepared with these impacts and mitigation in mind. B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately An Impacts to Air Quality a. to Air Quality are Replete with Inconsistencies and Inaccurate Information The IS/MND fails as an informational document, as demonstrated throughout several of its sections. Notably, many of the figures and factual scenarios it relies on to calculate emissions reductions are distorted, misrepresented, or simply fabricated. In its comments on the proposed Project, for example, BAAQMD pointed out severa (1) Table 3-1 on Page 66 lists incorrect emissions factors for PM10 for the enclosed flare. It furthermore e organic compounds (NMOCs) made up of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) two decades of source test data which verifies that VOCs make up for more 92 93 (2) Table 3-2 on Page 67 compares existing proposed potential to emit. As BAAQMD projected emissions could only be achieved should both flares be completely included in any part of the Project. ld be calculated as per the baseline 91 Id. at p. 355. 92 BAAQMD Comments, p. 2. 93 Id. December 23, 2020 Page 19 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper procedure in Regulation 2-2-603 and also account for the continued use of 94 (3) Table 3-3 on Page 68 contains incorrect emissions calculations for PM10 and 10 emissions should be based on the US EPA AP-42 Chapter 2, Table 2.4-5 emission factor, 17 lb/MMscf CH4. As the methane concentration in the high O2 gas will be 22% (for the enclosed process flare) and in the waste gas will be 10% (for the TOX), this emission factor will change for these two abatement devices. For the enclosed process flare, this factor is 0.0777 lb/MM BTU and for the [thermal oxidizer], this factor is 0.171 lb/MM BTU based on the methane concentrations of 22% and 10%, respectively. As previously stated, the facility assumed VOCs to be 39% of the NMOC fraction, which is wrong. Thus, the PM10 and VOC emissions 95 (4) incorrectly. The reductions in the emissions of GHGs suggested by the table will, like its counterpart listing reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants, only occur in the event that both existing flares are shuttered. (5) The IS/MND failed to include in its emissions fugitive emissions of precursor organic compounds from leaking parts and components of the RNG facility. (6) Inconsistencies in the type of construction equipment used to calculate construction emissions make it impossible to determine how accurate the measures These errors and omissions from th operational emissions render the MND inadequate as a matter of law, and upported by the record. b. truction Emissions Are Unsupported 94 Id. 95 Id. December 23, 2020 Page 20 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper The IS/MND concludes that any impacts the Project may have on air quality will be less than significant. None of its conclusions regarding impacts from construction emissions, however, are description of construction activities, Dr. Fox states, does not contain any of the information required to evaluate the Projec independent estimate of construction emissions, including the construction schedule, a list of all construction equipment including engine tier, engine horsepower rating, and hours of use. Thus, it is impossible for anyone to evaluate Moreover, the figures and calculations of construction emissions are contradictory and nonsensical. Table 3-4, for example, lists the BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities, along with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) results for the Project.96 Support for the conclusions in the Table can purportedly be found in the source scovered, however, the construction emissions found in the Tetra Tech, May 2020 report do not comport with those in Table 3-4, nor do they agree with the CalEEMod output files provided by the County.97 in the Tetra Tech memo and the CalEEMod output (mitigated) while IS/MND Table 3.4 reports 26.52 lb/day. Similar discrepanc 98 Dr. Fox discovered that the emissions of all criteria pollutants reported in Table 3-4 were, without explanation, lower than those found in the CalEEMod output file. Finally, although the IS/MND concludes that construction emissions will result in less-than-significant impacts, it lists 16 measures designed to mitigate adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts which will be incorporated into the MND upon approval. Because these measures are designed to reduce impacts, their function in the Project is as mitigation measures.99 The MND fails to describe to implementation of these measures, in 96 IS/MND, p. 69; additionally, Table 3-4 reports related emissions would be 97 See IS/MND, p. 69; Tetra Tech, May 2020 Memorand 98 Fox Comments, p 4. 99 PRC §§ 21002.1(a)(b), 21100(b)(3); 14 CCR § 15126.4. December 23, 2020 Page 21 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper violation of CEQA.100 Since the MND relies on these measures to reduce adverse impacts, they must be also included as binding mitigation measures.101 Though some of these measures are written as conditions of approval found in the Land Use Permit for the landfill, the terms of which the Project is subject to, several others are simply practices meant to help minimize the inevitable negative effects that construction of the Project will have. The IS/MND even states that measures, [the Project] would have a less 102 This clearly demonstrates that construction activities and the resulting impacts would be more th measures are necessary in order to lessen the severity of impacts. An EIR specifying each of these impacts and how they might be mitigated must be prepared and distributed so that the public and decisionmakers can effectively evaluate the c. Several Major Emissions Sources Are Omitted from Construction Emissions Calculations, Leading to Vastly Underestimated Results Dr. Fox explains that several major sources of emissions and fugitive dust are omitted from the CalEEMod calculations of construction emissions. These glaring disclosure requirements and demonstrate the need for an EIR to fully evaluate the i. Pipeline Welding 100 Id.; Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 101 Id. 102 IS/MND, p. 63. December 23, 2020 Page 22 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper Welding releases fumes and particulates with diameters of 0.001 to 100 microns103,104 as well as metals,105 including hexavalent chromium, a potent carcinogen, and cobalt, manganese, nickel, and lead, among others.106 CARB emissions of hexavalent chromium that can significantly impact public health. Welding will occur along the entire pipeline, include within 50 feet of homes.107 The IS/MND failed to disclose the pipeline material, failed to disclose welding techniques, and failed to estimate welding emissions and their public health impacts. Public health impacts are likely significant along the pipeline segment just 50 feet from homes.108 ii. Windblown Dust not include all sources of PM10 and PM2.5 construction emissions let alone from omits windblown dust from graded areas and storage piles, as well as fugitive dust from off-road travel, and underestimated fugitive dust emissions if high winds and loose soil are substantial characteristics for a given land 109 Dr. Fox explains that, in order to accurately disclose these emissions, they must be separately calculated using methods in AP-42110 and added to the CalEEMod model total, which the IS/MND failed to do.111 103 Welding Operations; https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD_welding1.pdf. See also Guide for Estimating Welding Emissions for EPA and Ventilation Permit Reporting, 2003; https://pubs.aws.org/Download_PDFS/f1.6M-2003PV.pdf. 104 U.S. EPA, AP-42, Section 12.19, Electric Arc Welding; https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch12/final/c12s19.pdf. 105 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/safety_haz/welding/fumes.html. 106 Frank Altmayer, Welding & Lead Emissions; http://www.nmfrc.org/pdf/psf2002/030226.pdf. 107 CARB, Welding Emissions; https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/welding-emissions. 108 Fox Comments, p. 5. 109 CalEEMod, Technical Paper, Methodology Reasoning and Policy Development of the California Emission Estimator Model, July 2011, p. 4. 110 U.S. EPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Report AP-42; https://www.epa.gov/air- emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors#Proposed. 111 Fox Comments, p. 6. December 23, 2020 Page 23 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper iii. Default Emissions Factors Construction emissions depend upon the conditions at the site. The default emission factors.112 The IS/MND indicates sandy soils are present at the site at depths of 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface.113 Sandy soils will generate significantly more PM10 and PM2.5 than assumed in the CalEEMod calculations. The default emission factors should have been adjusted to increase emissions to account for on-site soil conditions, which include a sand lens 15 to 20 feet below ground surface.114 iv. Jack-and-Bore Emissionst Where pipelines cross roads and canals, pipes are commonly installed using the jack-and-bore method. In this method, pits are dug on each side of the road/canal and a ram is punched through the earth using a boring machine.115 The CalEEMod analysis does not include emissions from boring machines116 or the increase in NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and criteria pollutant emissions that would result from using this method.117 v. Pipeline Trenching The installation of the gas pipeline that runs from the processing facility to the PG&E connection will require trenching. There is no default equipment list in the CalEEMod for trenching emissions. The user must specify site-specific equipment lists for trenching.118 The CalEEMod output does not include any 112 H. Fan, A Critical Review and Analysis of Construction Equipment Emission Factors, Procedia Engineering, v. 196, 2017, pp. 351-358, Sec. 3.4; https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877705817330801/1-s2.0- S1877705817330801-main.pdf?_tid=52a5d974-8784-439a-b291-b3af90dd72a8&acdnat=1547271738_ 0e7791ee60b78d3690ff871dcc1f3445. 113 IS/MND, pdf 146-147, 151. See also Tetra Tech, Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Ameresco Gas Processing Plant, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, California, October 30, 2019 (2019 Geotechnical Report), Boring Logs B-101, B-102 and Grain Size Distribution Analyses. 114 115 What is the Jack and Bore Method; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT6sK30-UuU. 116 IS/MND, pdf 158: Appendix A, Biogas Pipeline, pp. 1-2. 117 Fox Comments, p. 8. 118 CAPCOA, California Emissions Estimator Model, Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod, p. 8, pdf 11; available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3- 2.pdf?sfvrsn=6. December 23, 2020 Page 24 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper evidence that emissions from off-site trenching for the pipeline were included in the CalEEMod analysis, thus underestimating construction emissions.119 vi. Worker and Vendor Trips miles,120 which is less than the CalEEMod model default of 16.8 miles. This most likely substantially underestimates actual trip lengths for Project construction, given that a large number of highly skilled construction workers would be required to operate the various specialized equipment that would be required to build the Project. No support is provided for this estimate. It appears unlikely that a sufficiently skilled construction labor force would be available within an average 10.8-mile radius of the Project site. More likely, the construction work force does not live close by but instead may commute long distances to the Project site. Based on a report by the Denver Research Institute, construction workers commute as much as 60 miles daily to construction sites from their homes.121 The CalEEMod analysis also assumed a vendor trip length of 7.3 miles,122 without identifying the source of the imported components (e.g., pipeline segments, upgrading facility equipment), which are not likely to be sourced locally.123 vii. Worker Vehicles mes that construction workers would 124 which is not defined. Based on the CalEEMod -duty auto (or passenger car), 25% light- duty truck type 1 (LDT1), and 25% light-duty truck type 2 (LDT2),125 which are gasoline-powered vehicles. However, construction workers often drive large pickup trucks. According to CalEEMod, these vehicles have considerably higher fleet- average emission factors. The unstated assumption that all construction workers 119 Fox Comments, p. 8. 120 CalEEMod Output, p. 6. 121 Denver Research Institute, Assessing and Managing Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plants, August 1, 1984; https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/EA-3660/. 122 CalEEMod Output, p. 6. 123 Fox Comments, p. 9. 124 Ibid. 125 CalEEMod, Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod, September 2016, pdf 17-18. December 23, 2020 Page 25 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper would commute in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles and trucks may lead to a substantial underestimate of commuter vehicle emissions.126 viii. Construction Equipment Emissions Dr. Fox explains that emission models, such as CalEEMod, use fleet average emission factors that are mostly obtained from steady-state engine dynamometer results, adjusted for various factors.127 They do not represent real-world duty cycles. Dynamometer tests do not capture the episodic nature of fuel use and emissions during real-world duty cycles, such as idling, use of an attachment, movement of a load, etc. Dr. Fox concludes that these emission factors were not accurately disclosed in the IS/MND, and should be confirmed for the specific equipment and work conditions in the field by connecting an on-board portable emissions monitoring system (PEMS) to th to monitor the emissions while the vehicle is in use.128 d. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Construction Emissions Will Be Significant and Must Be Evaluated and Mitigated in an EIR the omission of major sources of of construction emissions led to greatly underestimated impacts to air quality and public health. For example, fugitive dust blown from graded areas and storage piles, as well as from off-road travel, are typically found to be major sources of PM10 and PM2.5 in construction projects.129 Her analysis of wind data for a nearby location130 for the period 2013 to 2017 identified the highest wind speed of 110 mph on November 29, 2016, at 10 AM. Winds exceeded 50 mph for 128 hours over these 5 years.131 The CalEEMod 126 Fox Comments, p. 9. 127 Fox Comments, p. 6. 128 P. Lewis and others, Requirements and Incentives for Reducing Construction Vehicle Emissions and Comparison of Nonroad Diesel Engine Emissions Data Sources, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, v. 135, no. 5, 2009, pp. 341-351 (Exhibit --9). 129 Fox Comments, p. 6. 130 Stockton Wind Data, 2013-2017; https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm#met_data. 131 Stockton Wind Data, Exhibit 2. December 23, 2020 Page 26 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper analysis, on the other hand, assumed a wind speed of 5 mph,132 but failed to calculate any fugitive PM2.5 or PM10 emissions. The much higher winds that occur at the Project site can cause substantial emissions of fugitive dust particulate matter, particularly from disturbed surfaces, even assuming standard mitigation measures are fully complied with.133 Dr. Fox states: As high winds can reach 30 to 50 mph, even up to hurricane speeds,134 they can raise significant amounts of dust, even when conventional tracking and other such controls are used to control dust, often prompting alerts from air pollution control districts. The IS/MND did not include any wind data, not even a wind rose, which is commonly found in CEQA documents. Instead, the only reference to winds is the CalEEMod default of 2.2 m/sec.135 These emissions could result in public health impacts due to violations of state and federal ambient air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from these events were construction emissions, and no air dispersion modeling was conducted to evaluate their impact on local ambient air quality. Thus, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA.136 Furthermore, substantial evidence provided by Dr. Fox supports a fair resulted in lower estimated emissions of NOx. Inclusion of the geotechnical conditions would increase NOx emissions over the significance threshold. Several geotechnical reports prepared since 2006 make various findings addressing these conditions, including use of specific equipment, methods to facilitate earthwork excavations, and activities such as dewatering. A 2019 geotechnical report indicated that construction of the Project would require, in addition to site preparation and pad grading (clearing and grubbing, remedial 132CalEEMod, wind speed = 2.2 m/s = 5.0 mph (mi/hr). 133 Fox Comments, p. 6. 134 Daphne Thompson, The Diablo Winds of California; https://blog.wdtinc.com/the-devil-winds-of- california. 135 DEIR, pdf 394. 136 Fox Comments, p. 7. December 23, 2020 Page 27 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper removal, fill placement, fill slope subdrain, surface drainage provisions, reinforced soil slopes, mechanically stabilized earth wall, foundations)137 the following:138 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth to create the level pad and perimeter slopes for the plant. Earth fills varying in thickness from a few feet up to about 45 feet are planned across the level pad. Both reinforced and non-reinforced fill slopes varying from about 25 ft to 58 ft in height will be constructed along the northern and western margins of the pad. An MSE wall varying from about 5 feet to 20 feet in height will be constructed along the southwestern perimeter. Remedial removal of soft to firm fine-grained, colluvial soils prior to pad construction. Reinforced soil slopes up to 1.5 (H) 1(V) to a maximum height of about 58 ft along the western and northern boundaries of the pad. Construction of a mechanically stabilized earth wall up to about 20 ft high along the southern boundary of the pad. ial to buried ferrous metals. The CalEEMod files, the IS/MND, and other reference documents do not contain any evidence that any of these conditions except the first one (89,000 cubic yards) were addressed in the CalEEMod run used to estimate construction emissions. They would all, Dr. Fox indicates, increase construction emissions.139 nstruction emissions using corrected emissions factors. She concludes that, construction NOx emissions are significant and unmitigated, as follows:140 137 Ibid., Section 7.2, p. 14, pdf 18. 138 Tetra Tech, Geotechnical Feasibility Report, Ameresco Gas Processing Plant, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, California, October 30, 2019 (2019 Geotechnical Report), p. 4, pdf 8 and p. 13-18, pdf 17-22; Exhibit -- 139 140 Fox Comments, p. 14. December 23, 2020 Page 28 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper Table 1: 2021 CalEEMod Construction NOx Emissions (lb/day) OPERATION Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated Mitigated Summer Summer Winter Winter Grading/Fill Placement On-Site 19.3327 6.9070 19.3327 6.9070 Off-Site 24.3839 24.3839 23.5988 23.5988 Pipeline Construction On-Site 27.7316 3.2390 27.7316 3.2390 Off-Site 0.1560 0.1560 0.1692 0.1692 Plant Construction On-Site 4.3673 0.7627 4.3673 0.7627 Off-Site 11.5813 11.4615 11.5813 11.5813 TOTAL 87.55 46.91 86.78 46.26 Significance Threshold 54 54 54 54 Significant? Yes No Yes No This table shows that unmitigated NOx construction emissions are highly significant, exceeding the BAAQMD significance threshold by a factor of 1.6. Thus, even assuming all Tier 4 Final equipment, construction emissions are significant if on-site and off-site (e.g., pipeline) construction overlap in time, as stated in the IS/MND. Clearly, the evidence supports a fair argument that an EIR must be prepared to evaluate and mitigate construction emissions. e. ational Emissions Are Incomplete, Unsupported and Inaccurate The IS/MND estimates that the Project will result in a significant decrease in operational emissions due to a reduction in the amount of LFG that is flared at the December 23, 2020 Page 29 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper existing enclosed flare facility. The IS capacity to process 4,700 cfm of LFG translates directly to the reduction of 4,700 cfm of LFG that would otherwise be flared.141 Dr. Fox explains, however, that these reductions will be offset by increases in conclusions suffer from several deficiencies: Operational emissions, listed in Table 3-2, are unsupported by any evidence, substantial or otherwise. The Table lists the same supporting document as that listed under Table 3-4, Tetra Tech, May 2020. That memorandum, however, summarizes only construction emissions, not operational emissions. Baseline emissions figures, which should be actual emissions numbers during a period preceding a project (in th Regulation 2, Rule 2-603) were erroneously ascertained, rendering all the calculated changes in emissions of criteria pollutants unsupported and inaccurate. The IS/MND used the projected amount of LFG that the Project has the figure against which it calculated supposed decreases in emissions as a result of the Project. The actual baseline em the two flares during the baseline pe ilure as an informational document under CEQA. Dr. Fox was not the only one who recognized that all of the emissions calculations contained in the IS/MND, starting with the baseline numbers and including all calculations that follow, were wildly inaccurate. BAAQMD, in its comments to the County on the proposed llutants will be reduced because the LFG that is currently flared by the two enclosed flares will be converted to RNG and wrong for three reasons: (1) The landfill flares are still permitted at their maximum capacity of 4,900 cfm each. KCL will need to submit an application for condition changes to reduce the throughput to the flares: No real, quantifiable, and enforceable reductions will occur until the Keller Canyon Landfill Company (KCLC) has applied for a reduction in throughputs or emissions of the two flares, A-1 and A-2. Pursuant 141 IS/MND, p. 65. December 23, 2020 Page 30 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper to Regulation 8-34-301, an active landfill shall operate with an active landfill gas collection and control system. In order to comply with this system. Currently, the two flares have been permitted for throughput and emissions levels at their maximum capacity. In order to claim any emissions reductions uts and emissions will need to be revised.142 (2) The flares will need to continue to operate to handle the landfill gas production, both currently and likely throughout the life of the Project. As on the proposed Project: [The flares] have a combined throughput of approximately 4,900 cfm. Ameresco RNG facility is designed for 4,700 cfm. The Ameresco Landfill Gas to Energy (LFGTE) facility (Plant# B7667) has a design capacity of approximately 1,300 cfm of LFG. The peak landfill gas production is estimated to be approximately 7,400 cfm in 2051 as per the USEPA LandGEM model. So, the Ameresco LFGTE facility and Ameresco RNG facility may be potential support facilities for the KCLC landfill. Even with Ameresco LFGTE and Ameresco RNG operating at their maximum design capacities, the landfill flares will need to remain operational for abating approximately 1,400 cfm of the claim of emission reductions (which is based on complete shutdown of [facility flares] A-1 and A-2) appears to be inaccurate.143 (3) The emissions reductions of 4,700 cfm claimed by the IS/MND is an overstatement, as KCL has never collected that amount of landfill gas. landfill collected 4,130 cfm in 2019, out of which 1,186 cfm were sent to the Ameresco LFGTE for use in its LFG- fired internal combustion engines.144 The conclusion, therefore, that the purports it will convert to RNG for energy use, thus preventing the LFG from an exaggeration and at worst an outright deception. 142 BAAQMD Comments, p. 1. 143 144 Id., p. 2. December 23, 2020 Page 31 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper Because it assumes the Project would reduce the need for the continuous use of the two enclosed flares, the IS/MND bases it conclusions that the Project will result in reduced emissions of criteria pollutants on a worst-case scenario in which the flares would operate 25 percent of the year.145 As stated previously and acknowledges that KCL is continuously increasing its production of LFG. Already, it produces more LFG than the existing power plant has demand for, giving rise to the need for the enclosed flares.146 Expecting the flares to operate only 25 percent of at actual operation of the flares is it is highly likely that the amount of LFG point, given that the production of LFG capacity is finite. When this happens, the flares may be in operation constantly, much as they are now. Considering this, the emissions reductions predicted by the IS/MND are clearly fictitious. Finally, the IS/MND failed to disclose significant sources of operational emissions, reporting only emissions from oxidizer and flares). However, the process of upgrading landfill gas into a high Btu gas as proposed by the Project requires the removal of CO2, H2S, VOCs and nitrogen (N2) as well as trace components to generate a pipeline-quality gas of sufficient quality to be blended with existing natural gas.147 This requires other equipment that emits criteria pollutants and GHGs, the emissions from which are not included which only includes flaring emissions148 or in Table 3-3. The information in the IS/MND and produced documents does not include any of the information required to estimate these missing emissions. As the court found in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes t participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed 149 The IS/MND clearly does not contain enough information for the public and decisionmakers to consider the Proj 145 IS/MND, p. 65. 146 IS/MND, p. 1. 147 Fox Comments, p. 19; CEC, Landfill Gas Power Plants; https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/california-power-generation-and-power-sources/biomass/landfill-gas-power-plants; Landfill Gas Upgrading; https://www.guildassociates.com/LandfillGas. 148 IS/MND, Table 3-2. 149 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 520. December 23, 2020 Page 32 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper impacts. An EIR must be prepared and must include all of the sources of emissions for construction and operation of the Project in order for a meaningful evaluation of C. The IS/MND Fails to Disclose and Mitigate Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction and Operations CEQA requires the lead agency to use scientific data to evaluate GHG impacts directly and indirectly associated with a project.150 The analysis must 151 In determining the significance of GHG emissions impacts, the agency must complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation o152 153 If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.154 The IS/MND asserts that, far from increasing GHG emissions, the Project 155 Dr. calculations of GHG emissions from construction and operations, which are unsupported by any of the provided data, are inaccurate and grossly underestimate 150 See 14 C.C.R. § 15064.4(a) (lead possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project); 14 C.C.R. § 15064(d) (evaluating significance of the environmental effect of a project requires consideration of reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes caused by the project); 14 C.C.R. § 15358(a) G, § VIII: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (stating agencies should consider whether the project would either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant 151 14 C.C.R. § 15064.4(b); see also Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 504 (holding that lead agencies have an obligation to track 152 Fox Comments, pp. 24-26. 153 14 C.C.R. § 15064.4(b)(3). 154 Id. 155 IS/MND, p. 5. December 23, 2020 Page 33 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper correctly calculated, Dr. Fox concludes that the Project is likely to result in significant, unmitigated GHG emissions. a. The IS/MND Fails to Support its Calculations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions The CEQA Guidelines require a lead emissions against a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the Project, or the extent to which the project complies with local regulations and requirements adopted to reduce GHG emissions, provided there is no evidence that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable.156 determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and 157 In determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment, lead agencies may adopt their own thresholds of significance, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be dete 158 The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines cautio of significance give rise to a presumption of insignificance, thresholds are not conclusive, and do not excuse a public agency of the duty to consider evidence that a significant effect may 159 i. Construction Emissions emissions are confusing and unsupported. Firstly, the IS/MND fails to provide a clear indication of what threshold of adopted to evaluate construction-related GHG emissions. Its assertions regarding best inconsistent and at worst deceptive. 156 CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 subd. (b). 157 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b). 158 CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7. 159 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, p. D-5; citing Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322. December 23, 2020 Page 34 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper In its section evaluating impacts to air quality, these emissions are classified inventory of CalEEMod results of Project construction emissions due, apparently, to the absence of a numerical threshold of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for such emissions.160 Later in the IS/MND, however, calculations of construction-related emissions are included in the lack of a numerical threshold of significance, the IS/MND appears at this point to follo to instead quantify GHG construction emissions and determine whether the Project is on track to meet AB 32 GHG reduct emissions at 1990 levels by 2020. operational GHG emissions put it into compliance with the goals of AB 32 and the Contra Costa County Climate 161 Operational emissions, however, do not need to be evaluated qualitatively, as a clear quantitative threshold exists to analyze them. Meanwhile, nowhere does the IS/MND address how its construction-related emissions are consistent with these state and local policies. Furthermore, as the years, it will be in existence long after either of these policies, making any analysis of its complianc vant. The analysis of the significance of construction-related GHG emissions relies on an elusory threshold that will not even exist by the time the Project construction is initiated. Additionally, the CalEEMod analysis, which included calculations of GHG emissions from construction,162 though the IS/MND indicates that it used the CalEEMod model.163 Dr. Fox calculated total Project construction-relat figures, at 1,248 MTCO2/year.164 The IS/MND, however, estimates total Project construction GHG emissions to be 629 MTCO2e.165 No explanation of the inconsistency is provided. 160 IS/MND, p. 69, Table 3-4. 161 IS/MND, p. 154. 162 CalEEMod records maximum daily construction GHG emissions of 5,890 lbs. during summer construction and 5,527 lbs. during winter construction; Fox Comments, p. 21; CalEEMod, pdf 4 for summer and pdf 16 for winter. 163 IS/MND, p. 154. 164 Fox Comments, p. 21. 165 IS/MND, p. 154; Table 8-3, p. 155. December 23, 2020 Page 35 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper Even more confusingly, the IS/MND reiterates several times that the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not recognize a numerical threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. It then inexplicably compares its total Project GHG construction emissions of significance for stationary-source projects, 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Though the threshold for stationary sources is in no way related to construction-related GHG emissions, the IS/MND uses this arbitrary comparison to conclude that potential -related GHG emissions are less than significant. ii. Operational Emissions oject will result in decreased GHG emissions suffers from some very acute flaws. Most notably, the source for the estimated decrease in GHG emissions is cited as Tetra Tech, May 2020. The only Tetra Tech May 2020 memo that was produced in response to requests for reference documents supporting the MND did not include any GHG emissions. Thus, the emissions in IS/MND Table 8-2 are unsupported. Dr. Fox was unable to reproduce the emissions in Table 8-2 based on any information contained in the IS/MND and supporting documents.166 Using information from the application for Authority to she was able to estimate a change in emissions due to the diversion of landfill otherwise be flared in 167 However, the Project includes GHG emission sources, including a thermal oxidizer and an enclosed upset flare, which will increase GHG emissions.168 The increase in GHG emissions due to the Project should be calculated as the difference between GHG emissions from all Project processing (flares and landfill gas treatment) and GHG emissions from baseline operation of the existing landfill gas flares A-1 and A-2. This calculation is attempted in IS/MND Table 8-2.169 As noted e figures lead to flaws throughout the entire document, and ultimately, a defective environmental review. The IS/MND estimated the expected net change in GHG emissions by subtracting Project GHG emissions from the existing LFG flares operating at near 166 Fox Comments, p. 23. 167 Fox Comments, p. 23; IS/MND, p. 2. 168 Fox Comments, Figure 2, p. 23. 169 IS/MND, p. 154. December 23, 2020 Page 36 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper permitted capacity (the assumed baseline) from the proposed capacities of the new thermal oxidizer and enclosed flare, yielding a decrease in GHG emissions of - 55,383 ton/yr.170 ations indicates several errors. Most significantly, her calculations indicate that the Project results in a significant net increase in GHG emissions when these errors are corrected.171 b. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Significant While the IS/MND dismisses the Proj emissions as less than significant, even in the absence of a clear threshold, the mandate of CEQA is clear: an agency must on information sufficient to foster informed public participation and allow reasoned decisionmaking.172 The absence of a threshold, Dr. Fox notes, does not indicate a lack of significance.173 information or other substantial evidence establishing a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must prepare an EIR to study those impacts even if the pr fall below the applicable 174 i. Construction Emissions As Dr. Fox indicates, impacts from GHG emissions are global in nature. Their effects are not limited to the geographic area where they were emitted. She notes that thresholds of significance adopted by air districts can be applied statewide: Other air districts have adopted GHG significance thresholds that are applicable to this Project. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), for example, has adopted a GHG significance threshold for stationary sources of 1,100 MT/yr CO2e for construction and 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for the operational phase.175 GHG emissions of 1,248 MT 170 IS/MND, Table 8-2. 171 Fox Comments, p. 24. 172 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 521. 173 Fox Comments, p. 22. 174 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, p. D-5. 175 SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table; http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020.pdf. December 23, 2020 Page 37 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper CO2e/yr exceed the construction threshold. Thus, construction GHG emissions are significant, requiring mitigation.176 Additionally, the IS/MND, though it claims impacts from GHG construction emissions were less than significant, includes mitigation measures to minimize construction-related GHG emissions.177 Dr. Fox points out the numerous problems inherent in the mitigation measures, notably that most of them mitigate emissions of particulate matter, not GHG emissions.178 Only one, MM9, even addresses GHG emissions.179 Most egregiously, all of the measures were assumed in the CalEEMod estimations of construction emissions. They would therefore fail to reduce emissions levels below the CalEEMod estimates, which, as Dr. Fox points out, were significant.180 ii. Operational Emissions Using its erroneous baseline emissions from flares A-1 and A-2, the IS/MND estimated the yearly baseline emissions from the flares to be 143,279 ton/yr.181 As line emissions could not be located, Dr. Fox recalculated them using information found in the BAAQMD ATC/PTO application. What she found was that the Project, contrary to claims made by the IS/MND that it would result in remarkable decreases in GHG emissions, would instead result in significant increases well over the threshold of significance. She explains: The BAAQMD ATC/PTO Application indicates that the composition of the flared landfill gas is 51.8% methane (CH4) and 37.8% carbon dioxide (CO2),182 which are both GHGs. The BAAQMD ATC/PTO Application also indicates that the capacities of the A-1 and A-2 flares are 72.7 MMBtu/hr and 76.0 MMBtu/hr.183 When the landfill gas is flared, methane is converted into carbon dioxide and 176 Fox Comments, p. 23. 177 IS/MND, p. 69; measures 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 would be implemented to minimize impacts to air quality. 178 179 IS/MND, p. 62. 180 Fox Comments, p. 21. 181 IS/MND, Table 8-2, p. 154. 182 ATC/PTOApplication, Simplified Process Flow Diagram, pdf 20. 183 ATC/PTO Application, pdf 6, Section 1.1.1. December 23, 2020 Page 38 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper water.184 Flaring a kilogram of methane yields 2.75 kg of carbon dioxide.185 Assuming the flares operated at capacity in the baseline, an unsupported assumption used in the IS/MND for criteria pollutant emissions (see Comment 2.5.1), maximum baseline GHG emissions for the existing flares A-1 and A-2 would be 28,475 ton/yr,186 based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) GHG emission factors.187 The baseline GHG emissions should be based on actual emissions during the two years preceding the start of environmental review, which likely are less than the permitted flow rates used to estimate the 28,475 ton/yr. The BAAQMD, for example, commented that the 2019 flowrate to the fares was 4,130 scfm, not 4,700 scfm.188 Dr. Fox notes that, because a significant fraction of the landfill gas is diverted from the flares to the existing landfill gas-to-energy power plant, estimated as 1,186 scfm by BAAQMD,189 even her estimate of baseline GHG emissions of 28,475 ton/yr is likely too high. Using this figure, however, the Project would increase GHG emissions from 28,475 ton/CO2e/yr to 87,896 ton/yr,190 an increase of 53,906 MT/yr.191 ificance threshold of 10,000 MT/yr, adopted by several California air districts as well as the BAAQMD and widely used in CEQA documents to evaluate the significance of GHG emissions, Project operational GHG emissions are highly significant, requiring full evaluation and mitigation in an EIR. 184 Combustion of methane: CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2O. 185 See, for example, Richard Muller, Fugitive Methane and Greenhouse Warming; https://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/fugitive-methane-and-greenhouse-warming.pdf. 186 Baseline CO2 emissions = CO2 in landfill gas + CO2 from flaring CH4 in landfill gas. CO2e in landfill gas = (0.378)(72.7 + 76.0 MMBtu/hr)(52.07 kg CO2/MMBtu)(24 hr/day)(365 day/yr)(0.00110231 ton/kg) = 28,262 ton/yr. CH4 in landfill gas converted to CO2 in the flares = (2.75 mole CO2/mole CH4)(0.518)(72.7 + 76.0 MMBtu/hr)( 52.07 kg CO2/MMBtu)(24 hr/day)(365 day/yr)(2.20331E-6 ton/g) = 213 ton/yr. Total GHG emissions = 28,262 + 213 = 28,475 ton CO2e/yr. 187 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 07/documents/emission-factors_2014.pdf. 188 Fox Comments, p. 26; Nov. 4, 2020 BAAQMD Comment, #2, Exhibit 21. 189 11/4/2020 BAAQMD Comment #2, Exhibit 21. 190 IS/MND, Table 8-2, pdf 159. 191 53,906 MT/yr. December 23, 2020 Page 39 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper VI. THE IS/MND FAILED TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND MITIGATE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT HEALTH RISKS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS An agency must support its findings impacts with concrete eviden public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary 192 about the environmental changes attributable to the Project and their associated 193 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a to make the correlation between the projec health.194 In Bakersfield description of health risks were insufficient and that after reading th health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a 195 Likewise in Sierra Club, the California Supreme Court impacts associated with exposure to the named pollutants was too general and the failure of the EIR to indicate the concentrations at which each pollutant would trigger the identified symptoms rendered the report inadequate.196 Some connection between air quality impacts and their direct, adverse effects on human health must be made. As the Court gnificant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the 197 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.198 192 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516. 193 Id. at 518. 194 Id Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 195 Id. at 1220. 196 Sierra Club, at 521. 197 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 198 Sierra Club, December 23, 2020 Page 40 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper The failure to provide information required by CEQA makes meaningful assessment of potentially significant impacts impossible and is presumed to be prejudicial.199 e to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an conclusions.200 Courts reviewing challenges to document based on a lack of substantial the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all 201 A. Health Risks from Construction Emissions Are Significant and Must Be Evaluated and Mitigated in an EIR with a Legally Adequate Health Risk Analysis Despite evidence that Project construction and operation will both release d result in significant public health risks, despite the proximity of sensitive receptors to the Project site, and despite the presence of carcinogenic pollutants such as diesel particulate matter, the IS/MND emissions during project operation or 202 No support is provided for this statement, and in the absence of an HRA, no further evidence can be established. Dr. Fox explains that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard assessment guidelines require a formal health risk assessment for short-term construction exposures lasting longer than 2 months.203 Construction of the Project will last 12 to 14 months.204 Diesel particulate matter 199 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry 200 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. 201 Id. (internal quotations omitted). 202 IS/MND, p. 71. 203 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 (OEHHA 2015), https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual- preparation-health-risk-0. 204 IS/MND, p. 170. December 23, 2020 Page 41 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper 205 will be emitted from on-road and off-road equipment during Project construction and decommissioning. Background levels of DPM, which is chronically206 and acutely207 toxic, are high in the Pittsburg area.208 el exhaust can have immediate health the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the freque 209 Emissions of DPM from construction equipment could impact construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors. The IS/MND indicates that about 1,500 feet of the gas pipeline will run immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood.210 The pipeline would be about 50 feet from the nearest residents and the City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant.211 r exposure of sensitive receptors to construction-related DPM (and other toxic air contaminants) from individual projects is an increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million.212 The IS/MND claims to apply the BAAQMD construction thresholds to the Project, but fails to describe this threshold and fails to provide any quantita construction DPM emissions exceed the threshold.213 205 OEHHA, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. See also: OEHHA, Diesel Exhaust Particulate; https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/diesel-exhaust- particulate#:~:text=Cancer%20Potency%20Information&text=Listed%20as%20Particulate%20Emiss ions%20from,(ug%2Fm3)%2D1. 206 OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) Summary, June 28, 2016; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel- summary. 207 Government of Canada, Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, March 4, 2016; http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf. 208 CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Diesel Map; https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulate- matter. 209 OEHHA and the American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 210 Fox Comments, p. 32, Figure 3. 211 IS/MND, pdf 170. See also Figure 9-4, pdf 181. 212 See BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, Page 2-10, Table 2-6, Receptor Thresholds, available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en (last visited 12/22/2020). 213 See IS/MND, p. 69, Table 3-4, citing BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA construction significance thresholds. Discusses BAAQMD cumulative cancer risk threshold of > 100 in one million, but fails to describe the individual project threshold of > 10 in one million. December 23, 2020 Page 42 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper sensitive receptors and construction workers from exposure to pollutants such as DPM, as well as its failure to mitigate these impacts by requiring the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment equipped with diesel particulate traps,214 underscores the necessity of an EIR in which all impacts can be properly evaluated and mitigated. B. Operational Emissions Pose Significant Health Risks that Must Be Evaluated and Mitigated in an EIR with a Legally Adequate Health Risk Analysis based upon the erroneous baseline flare emissions from which all flawed arguments and conclusions in the IS/MND are drawn. Accordingly, the conclusion is drawn, ated impacts of the proposed project on 215 As discussed previously, however, the Project will result in an increase, not decrease, to emissions. These emissions will include many HAPs that could result in significant health impacts, as noted by BAAQMD.216 As Dr. Fox explains, many HAPs are present in landfill gas including benzene, vinyl chloride, tetrachloroethylene, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), and mercury.217,218 The collection and processing of landfill gas by the Project and the subsequent use of the RNG will release these HAPs and/or their combustion byproducts, potentially resulting in significant health impacts. Workers at the plant, for example, will be exposed to leaks from fugitive components such as flanges and valves.219 An EIR must be prepared to evaluate the HAPs present in raw landfill gas that the IS/MND failed to disclose, and the potentially significant health risks from risks from the Project without disclosing the presence of HAPs, estimating their emissions, or conducting any analysis at all is a concern because HAPs will be 214 Fox Comments, p. 34. 215 IS/MND, p. 70. 216 7/16/2008 BAAQMD Comments. 217 See list of HAPs in AP-42, Section 2.4, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Table 2.4-1; https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf. 218 Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, Chapter 3: Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues; https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/ch3.html. 219 Fox Comments, p. 35. December 23, 2020 Page 43 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper present in emissions from the Project (e.g., from landfill gas processing equipment system. There is evidence, for example, that radioactive materials may have been disposed in the landfill and could be present in the gases upgraded by the Project. While the land use permit for the landfill specifically prohibits the disposal of radioactive wastes,220 evidence may indicate that radioactive material was improperly taken to the landfill from the cleanup of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco from 2009 to 2017. Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) is currently investigating.221 Though recent reports suggest the radioactive wastes have been removed,222 investigations continue into whether radioactive material in the landfill could be mobilized into the landfill gas and emitted when the landfill gas is processed by the Project,223 resulting in a significant health impact. Radioactive isotopes in landfill gas could be emitted from flares and other process equipment, which could result in significant public health impact not addressed in the IS/MND. As far back as 2008, BAAQMD, in response to comments solicited regarding an application for amendment to the KCL land use permit, expressed concern about health impacts from the landfill and activities in the Project vicinity. An HRA, BAAQMD recommended, should be conducted discussing the potential effects to nearby sensitive receptors, especially given that, at the time in 2008, the landfill was close to the threshold of 10 in a million for benzene.224 220 Land Use Permit 2020-89, Conditions of Approval, Keller Canyon Landfill, Approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, July 24, 1990, As Amended or Modified through September 22, 2015, Condition 6.5, pdf 14; https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40260/Keller-Canyon-Landfill-COA---Permit- Modification-9222015?bidId=. 221 Contra Costa Health Services, Keller Canyon Landfill Investigation; https://cchealth.org/eh/solid- waste/keller.php. 222 TRC, Forensic Audit Technical Memorandum, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg, CA, September 7, 2019; https://cchealth.org/eh/solid-waste/pdf/KCL-Forensic-Audit-Technical-Memorandum.pdf; Daniel Borsuk, Keller Canyon Landfill/Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Radiation Probe Agitates East County Residents, June 25, 2018; http://contracostaherald.com/06251801kccch/. 223 Contra Costa Health Services, Keller Canyon Landfill Investigation; https://cchealth.org/eh/solid- waste/keller.php. 224 July 16, 2008 BAAQMD Comments. December 23, 2020 Page 44 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper The IS/MND fails to disclose the possible presence of radioactive materials, DPM, and other HAPs that are likely to have a significant effect on human health. An EIR must be prepared. D. The IS/MND Attempts to Conceal Potentially Significant Impacts to Hydrology by Disguising Mitigation as Project Design Features Despite concluding that the Project will not result in any significant impacts 225 These include construction of a new central stormwater drainage system for the RNG processing facility site and implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent substantial erosion and reduce the amount of water-borne materials from reaching surface waters. Most notably, the IS/MND mandates the preparation of a l return of drilling fluids to the ground surface resulting from the use of horizontal directional drilling while installing the pipeline.226 Simply declaring that the Project will have no significant impacts on the effectively mitigation measures does not absolve the County of its obligation to adopt specific performance standards and identify actions that can feasibly achieve these standards.227 The mere existence of these measures, which are clearly believes these impacts will be significant. An EIR must be prepared to accurately disclose the severity of these impacts prior to mitigation, and to require binding and effective mitigation to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. VII. THE IS/MND FAILS TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND MITIGATE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT RISKS OF UPSET INVOLVING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The IS/MND acknowledges that potential hazards to public health and the environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including lubricating oil, waste oil, condensate water vapor, propylene glycol. Consistency measures designed to minimize the potential for significant 225 IS/MND, p. 177. 226 IS/MND, p. 178. 227 Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. December 23, 2020 Page 45 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper impacts associated with the Project are proposed for both the processing facility and pipeline. However, as Dr. Fox points out, the IS/MND fails to disclose many of the most crucial aspects of risks of upset of hazardous materials, such as the hazardous gases present in landfill gas, the types of hazards (fire, explosion) that leaks pose, the severity of these hazards, and the gases that will be monitored.228 Gas monitoring is essential to detect leaks of hazardous gases before they present a health hazard or risk of upset. Methane leaks at the processing facility, for example, present a significant fire and explosion hazard. Landfill gas contains high concentrations of methane, which is highly explosive when mixed with air at a volume between its LEL of 5% and it UEL of 15%.229 Landfill gas also contains high concentrations of H2S, which can result in effects that range from headaches and eye irritation to unconsciousness and death.230 As noted in Comment 4.2, it is well known that many HAPs are present in landfill gas including benzene, vinyl chloride, tetrachloroethylene, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, methyl mercapatan, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), and mercury.231 The IS/MND fails to disclose the types of accidents that may occur at the processing facility and their potential impacts. And, as Dr. Fox notes, the facility is adjacent to the existing Ameresco power plant.232 Thus, an accident involving one of these facilities could affect the other and/or employees at the other facility. The pipeline presents an entirely separate set of hazards risks, especially given that a portion of its proposed route runs adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The IS/MND fails to include a Risk of Upset Analysis, evaluating the potential impacts to the closest residences. Instead, despite concluding that sensitive receptors are within the potential impact radius of a pipeline accident, the IS/MND concluded that the impact is not PIR is less than the PIR of the existing PG&E underground gas infrastructure and 228 Fox Comments, p. 37. 229 Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues; https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/PDFs/Landfill_2001_ch3.pdf. 230 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Hydrogen Sulfide; https://www.osha.gov/hydrogen-sulfide. 231 SWANA, A Compilation of Landfill Gas Field Practices and Procedures, pdf 26, August 2011; https://www.google.com/search?q=A+Compilation+of+Landfill+Gas+Field+Practices+and+Procedure s%2C+August+2011&oq=A+Compilation+of+Landfill+Gas+Field+Practices+and+Procedures%2C+A ugust+2011&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.716j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. 232 Ameresco, Ameresco Keller Canyon Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project, July 2018. Exhibit 18. December 23, 2020 Page 46 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper would be situated farther away from residences than the existing gas infrastructure.233 The IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to disclose the impacts of an accident at the processing facility. An EIR must be prepared. VIII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires lead agencies to consider 234 The lead agency must find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and must therefore individually limited, are cumulatively considerable.235 ffects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effe 236 This analysis necessarily requires the identification of other projects that will be constructed and/or operating over the same time period as the subject project and the analysis of these projects together with the Project being reviewed. Thus, cumulative impacts can be determined by identifying past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects and their impacts. CEQA guidelines require an analysis of cumulative air quality impacts, including a quantitative analysis of cumulative TAC and PM emissions.237 The IS/MND incorrectly concluded that all cumulative impacts were less than significant without identifying any cumulative projects or conducting any cumulative impact analyses. The IS/MND asserts that since Table 3-2 shows a net 238 However, as explained above, the Project will result in significant increases in criteria pollutant emissions during both construction and operation. 233 IS/MND, pdf 171. 234 PRC § 21083; 14 CCR §15130(b)(1)(A); CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 117. 235 PRC § 21083(b); 14 CCR §§ 15064(h)(1), 15065(a)(3). 236 CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1). 237 See BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, p. 5-15 to 5-16. 238 IS/MND, pdf 72. December 23, 2020 Page 47 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper The IS/MND asserts that the Project has less than significant cumulative less than significant. This assertion is both factually and legally incorrect. First, Dr. Fox explained that, when correctly calculated, the Project has significant, unmitigated NOx, GHG, and TAC emissions which exceed thresholds. issions are cumulatively considerable.239 Additionally, even in cases where project emissions are below the applicable significance thresholds, a project may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact if there are other projects nearby whose emissions would combine with project emissions to result in an exceedance of one or more significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Further, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that there are other nearby probable future projects that should have been considered in a cumulative impact analysis in the IS/MND. Notably, the Keller County Landfill itself is undergoing an expansion, from a maximum daily tonnage limit for disposal from 3,500 to 4,900 tons per day (TPD).240 The expansion is a cumulative project. As GHG emissions arise from flaring and are directly related to landfill tonnage, flare GHG emissions will increase. I cannot estimate the increase because the record in this case does not disclose baseline emissions. Comment 2.5.1. Further, to accommodate tieing into the PG&E pipeline, PG&E will need to expand the existing valve lot about 100 feet to the south with a width of about 75 feet to accommodate the new gas receiving equipment and add new poles.241. Finally, the Project is located in Pittsburg. As Dr. Fox explains, many projects are proposed in Pittsburg that wi 239 PRC § 21083(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15130; Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 721. 239 219 Cal. App. 4th at 841-42. 240 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4984/Keller-Canyon-Landfill. See also: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2886/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-Full?bidId=. 241 Exhibit 22, pp. 2-3. December 23, 2020 Page 48 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper emissions, including the Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project,242 the Alves Ranch Project,243 and others.244 In sum, the IS/MND fails as an informational document under CEQA for failing to evaluate cumulative impacts. A. The Project Will Result in Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources The IS/MND does not analyze potential cumulative impacts contributed by the project to biological resources. A large expanse of residential development recently took habitat to the north and northeast of the project, and additional projects have been proposed or are underway in the area. Many special-status species of wildlife are obviously at risk of cumulative impacts in the area. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately analyze potential cumulative impacts to wildlife.245 IX. MITIGATION CEQA requires a lead agency to adopt mitigation measures sufficient to ntially significant adverse environmental impacts, or to rectify or compensate for those impacts.246 Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified.247 A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved. A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.248 ing accomplished in a successful 242 City of Pittsburg, Faria/Southwest Hills Annexation Project; http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=945. 243 2018 Alves Ranch Project; http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=1022. 244 Contra Costa County, Advertised & Upcoming Construction Projects; https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/261/Advertised-Upcoming-Construction-Project. 245 Smallwood Comments, p. 8. 246 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines, § 15370. 247 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). 248 E.g. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available). December 23, 2020 Page 49 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.249 Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.250 CEQA also disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures.251 An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses 252 A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved.253 making by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept 254 Moreover, deferring the development of specific mitigation measures effectively precludes public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach.255 While specific details of a mitigation measure may be developed after project approval, an agency may only do so when it is impracticable or infeasible to include those details du provided that the agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the types of potential actions that can feasibly achieve that performance standard.256 A. Inadequate, Vague, and Unenforceable biological resources are largely ineffective. The list of 7 measures offered for impacts to wildlife, for example, in actuality represent only two distinct actions: 249 CEQA Guidelines, § 15364. 250 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2). 251 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309. 252 Sundstrom, v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029. 253 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727. 254 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935. 255 E.g., Sundstrom, v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308. 256 Id. § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). December 23, 2020 Page 50 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper payment of fees to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, and preconstruction surveys for various species. Dr. Smallwood notes: Preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, it needs to be understood that preconstruction surveys, which are also referred to as take- avoidance surveys, are really just last-minute salvage efforts to prevent injury or death of the most readily detectable individuals. Preconstruction surveys are limited in their mitigation effect as they detect only a small fraction of bird nests and special-status species occurring on a project site. Members of most special- status species are rare and cryptic, often requiring surveys at night or using special equipment or methods. Most bird nests are concealed so that they are not discovered and their occupants destroyed by predators. Locating hummingbird nests, for example, can be nearly impossible. Preconstruction surveys alone fail to prevent the deaths of most of the animals at risk, nor do they do anything to prevent habitat destruction and lost reproductive capacity.257 Detection surveys, Dr. Smallwood states, should precede preconstruction surveys, and they should also precede circulation of the environmental review detection surveys is needed not only to inform the preconstruction surveys, but also to provide the bases for impact estimates and the formulation of mitigation measures, including compensatory mitigation for those impacts than cannot be 258 No detection surveys have been performed at the project site. Therefore, according to Dr. Smallwood, none of the special-status species in Table 1 can be determined absent. Detection surveys need to be performed. They need to be performed not only for adequate impacts analyses, but also to support the proposed preconstruction surveys. Additional mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources are too vague to be considered adequate mitigation. Biology 10, which simply directs the s Delineation to the ECCCHC for review and approval, and as required, to the Ar amount to a mitigation measure at all. It identifies an already-existing obligation of the Applicant. Biology 11 similarly directs the Applicant to implement the permit conditions handed down by the aquatic resources agencies. The Applicant is obligated to abide 257 Smallwood Comments, p. 9. 258 Id. December 23, 2020 Page 51 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper by the requirements of the various agencies that govern the various required permits in order to move forward with the Project. Consenting to those requirements does not release the Applicant from its obligation to mitigate impacts to less-than-significant levels. B. Insufficient The Project is subject to the LP89-2020 Conditions of Approval, including COA 20.5 mandating suppression of fugitive shall apply water or proven environmentally safe dust suppressants at least twice daily to working faces of the landfill, unpaved access roads, storage pile 259 This measure falls far short, however, of what is necessary to control fugitive dust at the most crucial times. As Dr. Fox points out, high winds also occur at night. Thus, unless the construction contractor is required to water throughout the night to maintain soil moisture, wind erosion could occur in the period when the water from the last watering event in the evening has evaporated and before the first watering event the next morning. COA 20.5 does not require dust control when the site is not being actively constructed during shorter periods, such as nighttime hours and weekends. This is of particular concern during the hot summer months, when average high temperatures can exceed 100°F and evaporation rates are high.260 If high winds occurred during grading, cut and fill, or soil movement, or from bare graded soil surfaces during non-working hours, even if periodically wetted, significant amounts of fugitive dust would be released. Additional mitigation for fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions should be required, including those measures recommended in Table 8-3 in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, which provides methods for controlling construction emissions.261 259 IS/MND, p. 62. 260 261 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017 (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Table 8-3. December 23, 2020 Page 52 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper C. Mitigation Measures Proposed for Construction Emissions Are Vague and Inadequate Though the IS/MND concludes that impacts from construction emissions will be less than significant, it nonetheless proposes eight mitigation measures to minimize impacts from construction emissions. The measures, however, are vague and inconsistent. Some are so ambiguous as to be nonsensical. uction equipment mitigation.262 If lower tier equipment were used, NOx emissions would be significantly higher and exceed the 54 lb/day significance threshold. The list of construction mitigation presented before the emission analysis in Table 3-4 and withou powered construction equipment (e.g. graders, scrapers, compactors) shall be 263 However, Tier 4 and Tier 4 Final engines do not have the same NOx emissions. The Tier 4 Final NOx emission factor is 0.30 g/bhp-hr while the Tier 4 NOx emission factors for engines of 56 to 130 kW are 1.7 to 2.5 g/bhp-hr and for engines of 130 to 560 kW, the Tier 4 Final NOx emission factor is 1.5 g/bhp-hr.264 The IS/MND does not disclose the NOx emission factor that was used for construction equipment. However, it does state that Tier 4 final engines were assumed for all construction equipment.265 Thus, NOx emissions would be 5 to 8 times higher266 than reported in IS/MND Table 3.4 if Tier 4 engines were used, rather than Tier 4 Final engines. The construction mitigation only requires Tier 4 diesel engines.267 This would increase NOx emissions reported in IS/MND Table 3-4 from 26.52 lbs/day to 133 lb/day to 212 lb/day, which are highly significant. Thus, proposed construction mitigation must be modified to specify Tier 4 Final engines in all off-road construction equipment. 262 CalEEMod Output, pp. 1, 2. 263 IS/MND, pdf 68. 264 DieselNet, United States: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Tables 3-4; https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php. 265 CalEEMod Output, p. 2. 266 Increase in NOx emission factor if Tier 4 rather than Tier 4 Final engines are used: for 56-130 kW engines: 2.5/0.3 = 8.3. For engines 130-560 kW: 1.5/0.3 = 5.0. 267 IS/MND, pdf 68. December 23, 2020 Page 53 4906-017acp printed on recycled paper And EIR must be prepared to include a legally adequate mitigation, monitoring, and reporting plan for the Project which includes mitigation measures that are certain, feasible, effective, and enforceable. X. CONCLUSION There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have potentially significant, unmitigated impacts on air quality, greenhouse gases, public health, worker safety, and biological resources. The IS/MND is also inadequate as a matter of laws because it fails to (1) completely and accurately describe the project, (2) set forth the existing environmental setting, and (3) identify, analyze, and mitigate all potentially significant impacts to biological resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, public health, and worker safety. Due to these deficiencies, the County cannot conclude mitigated to a less than significant level. The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.268 As discussed in detail above, there is more than a fair argument based on substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts not identified in the IS/MND. Moreover, there is substantial evidence the proposed mitigation measures will not reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance. We urge the County to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the IS/MND and preparing an EIR to address the issues raised in this comment letter, the attached comments from Dr. Fox and Dr. Smallwood, and other public comments in the record. This is the only way the County, decisionmakers, and the environmental, public health and safety impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Sincerely, Kendra Hartmann KDH:acp Attachments 268 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 236 of 276 15. Letter 15: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Response to Comment 15-1: The comment stating that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required is not supported by the evidence regarding the project’s impacts, which can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Lead Agency determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate document consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This determination is supported by the analysis in the MND, and the substantial evidence provided in the MND and its supporting documents. While the Project’s impacts are less than significant with mitigation, the Applicant has realigned the proposed RNG pipeline in the PG&E property in response to the City of Pittsburg’s comment. The RNG pipeline would tie-in to existing PG&E Line 191-1 thereby eliminating a wide range of impacts that are described in the draft MND. Please see the Section III. Revised Project Description of this Final MND for a detailed description of the revised RNG pipeline alignment. Response to Comment 15-2: The project description in an Initial Study/MND is supposed to be “brief.” The project description presented in the MND related to project purpose, design features, construction, and operation more than satisfies that standard. Response to Comment 15-3: The revised Project Description has eliminated Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) from the pipeline construction in the PG&E property. Therefore, potential impacts related to HDD and undercrossing for the Contra Costa Canal will not occur. The concerns expressed about HDD no longer apply. The entire pipeline will be constructed by trenching, with no drilling of any kind. Response to Comment 15-4: The revised Project Description has eliminated HDD from the pipeline construction. Thus, potential impacts related to HDD and its use to undercross the Contra Costa Canal will not occur. The concerns expressed regarding the potential for Inadvertent Fluid Returns [IFR], or hydraulic fracturing to longer apply to the proposed project, and would also not occur. Response to Comment 15-5: The MND clearly stated (Pages 2, 12, 199) that the pipeline would be installed by digging a trench, placing the pipeline, and backfilling except in the area where the line crosses the Contra Costa Canal, where HDD was proposed to pass beneath the canal and nearby stream/riparian area. HDD has subsequently been eliminated from the project due to a change in the project’s alignment. Response to Comment 15-6: The IS/MND completed for the proposed project covers only the operation of the proposed RNGPF as described. The landfill flares were destroying approximately 2,950 scfm of LFG in 2019 (the year the engineering design for the project was started), which upon startup would be shifted to the RNGPF. It is anticipated that over time the amount of gas generated in the landfill will increase beyond the 4,700scfm capacity of the RNGPF. The rate at which LFG generation and collection increases is variable, and it would be speculative to predict June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 237 of 276 when generation will increase to a particular point. It would also be speculative to predict whether or not market conditions or regulatory requirements would support a future expansion of the proposed RNG project. KCL is a separate entity from Ameresco, and KCL is responsible for its own gas collection and abatement. KCL maintains an enclosed flare facility of sufficient capacity to abate all LFG generated by the site. While the proposed RNGPF would act as part of KCL’s abatement system, it is not intended or required to abate all future LFG generated by the landfill, nor for that matter any particular quantity of LFG at all. If the proposed project were to upgrade its capacity at any point beyond what is detailed in the project description, it is understood that further CEQA analysis would be necessary for those changes. Response to Comment 15-7: The Setting for each environmental issue in the MND Checklist includes field studies conducted for biological resources, geology and geotechnical, noise sampling and modeling, and computer modeling of potential stormwater effects. Response to Comment 15-8: The baseline that was utilized in the MND for the proposed operation is the approximate “permitted flow” of the existing landfill flares. In response to this and other comments, an alternative analysis has been prepared assuming a baseline flow of 2,950 scfm, as detailed in the Summary Responses. Regarding the “permitted flow” of the landfill flares, the comment cites the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) letter in stating that the permitted flow is “… approximately 4,900 scfm …”. The BAAQMD provides an approximation because the actual permit condition is heat input measured in millions of BTU per day and per year. The BTU value per unit volume of LFG is variable, so the “permitted fl ow” is correspondingly variable and always represents an estimate with underlying assumptions. The RNGPF has been designed for essentially the same estimated flow of LFG as the flares – a ~4 percent difference in that calculated estimate for flow is so small in this context that either number could be correct at any given time. Any LFG flow directed to the proposed RNGPF would be displaced from the landfill flares (i.e., no longer combusted in the landfill flares but instead sent to the RNGPF). Regardless of flow, the same percentage improvement per unit of landfill gas directed to the RNGPF is achieved. Response to Comment 15-9: The issue of the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario is addressed in Summary Response H, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. The RNGPF will be a separate facility from the landfill and will have a separate air permit. The commenter incorrectly classifies the project as a modification to an existing project and BAAQMD’s Regulation 2, Rule 2-2-603 is not applicable to the proposed project. The air permit application is for a new source from a standalone facility under 2-2-604.1. Evaluations for new sources are based on their potential to emit. 2-2-603 is for changes (either an increase or decrease in emissions) to an already existing source. The MND describes the baseline emissions of the RNGPF in the same manner the emissions are provided for, and will be permitted by, the BAAQMD - the project’s maximum flow of 4,700 scfm at 50 percent methane, as the proposed June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 238 of 276 project could displace this amount of LFG from being combusted at the existing flares. In response to this and other comments, an alternative analysis has been prepared assuming a baseline flow of 2,950 scfm, as detailed in the Summary Responses, which approximates the flow expected upon startup of the RNGPF. It would not be accurate to compare the maximum capacity of the proposed project to the current emissions of the existing landfill flares, as noted in response 15-8 above. Any change in the flow from 4,700 scfm shown in Table 3-2, page 153, of the MND, will have the same percent reduction in the emissions. The IS/MND does not govern the gas throughputs or emissions limits of the landfill flares or the RNGPF; this will be addressed by the BAAQMD in the facilities permits issued once the IS/MND is approved. An amendment of KCL’s BAAQMD permit will be required before the RNGPF will be allowed to process LFG from the landfill. The BAAQMD will set throughput limits in the landfill’s amended permit and the RNGPF Permit to Operate to maintain existing gas flow limits at the site similar to the existing permits that allow the existing LFGTE energy plant to operate. Response to Comment 15-10: The issue of the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario is addressed in Summary Response H, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. The RNGPF’s maximum capacity will be 4,700 scfm, which is based on the capacity of the equipment as discussed in the MND. This has no relation to the landfill flare capacity. It is accurate that the RNGPF will not process 4,700 cfm of LFG in the initial years of operation. On startup, the RNGPF will process approximately 2,950 scfm, corresponding to lower emission reductions as compared to future operations. However, the emission reductions would be proportionate to the quantity of LFG processed, so when future operations increase the amount of LFG processed, greater emissions reductions will be achieved. Response to Comment 15-11: The opinion of the commenter is noted. See following responses to comments which address the analyses of the project. The MND indicates on page 74 that multiple field surveys were conducted from November 2017 to March 2020. To clarify, at total 16 site visits were conducted by biologists approved by US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct site assessments surveys and HCP planning surveys. These surveys served as site assessments to evaluate habitat conditions within the project area and a 100-foot buffer on either side of the pipeline. The surveys occurred in multiple times of the year over multiple years and are more than sufficient to evaluate the onsite conditions and special status species potential to occur. Surveys were conducted on: 1. November 14, 2017 2. June 12, 2018 3. October 25, 2018 June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 239 of 276 4. November 15, 2018 5. November 16, 2018 6. November 26, 2018 7. January 25, 2019 8. May 9, 2019 9. May 10, 2019 10. June 19, 2019 11. June 27, 2019 12. September 11, 2019 13. September 12, 2019 14. February 26, 2020 15. March 4, 2020 16. June 10, 2020 Response to Comment 15-12: As described in the MND the evaluation was not limited to desktop review, see comment 15-11 above further clarifying the assessments completed. Per Tables 4-1 and 4-2, species lists were developed from multiple records in addition to the CNDDB and took into account previous CEQA documents completed within the Special Buffer Area. The species included in the analysis are adequate. See response to comment 15-53 for further discussion. The information provided based on the commenters experience on a nearby property is noted. Response to Comment 15-13: Please see Response to Comment 15-12 and 15-53 regarding the species evaluated in the IS/MND. The MND on page 78 describes 53 special status wildlife species and 63 special status plants that were identified and potentially using the project site. Table4-2 on pages 104 to page 128 of the MND evaluates the potential to occur for all of these species. In addition, the MND provides discussion on three special status plant species and 18 wildlife species with the moderate to high potential to occur. The majority of the special status species the commenter includes in his analysis are grassland birds which are protected under Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Their potential to occur is discussed under general habitat discussions for annual grassland on page 76 and many are further evaluated. The analysis is discussed on page 78 through 87, with a discussion on direct impacts of those with the highest potential to occur on pages 87 to 88. The potential for the species to occur is based on the potential for them to occur at the project site which is defined as the KCL property and PG&E property. It is not based on other nearby project documents. The 3-acre pond feature referenced in the comment letter is documented and discussed within the MND in species habitat discussions on pages 87 and 88 and in Table 4-2 and is described in the MND as the “mitigation wetland”. The mitigation wetland is not within the study area or impact area and therefore is not discussed further. The Aquatic Resources Del ineation evaluated all potential jurisdictional resources within the pipeline and a 100-foot buffer thoroughly analyzed June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 240 of 276 the wetland features. Review and approval of the ARD will be completed per the MND enforceable measures included in Biology 1 and Biology 10. Consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Water Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife will be completed to ensure all wetlands identified within the study area that will be impacted are properly addressed and mitigated. The discussion on the potential for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog within the study area and within the mitigation wetland is discussed on pages 79 and 80 of the MND and the potential for their presence is documented. The discussion documents livestock ponds and the mitigation pond as suitable breeding habitat within the study area and therefore assumes the potential for presence of the species as moderate to high within the impact area. Impacts to upland habitat for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog to occur within the study area is acknowledged in the discussions on pages 87 and 88 of the MND. There are no impacts to breeding habitat, including the mitigation wetland which is outside of the study area, and all impacts to the upland habitat and impacts to individuals are addressed through the coverage under the HCP/NCCP which provides take coverage and compensatory mitigation. See Response to Comment 15-53 for additional discussion on the net benefit of the compensatory mitigation provided through participation in the HCP/NCCP. Response to Comment 15-14: Please see response to comment 15-1. Response to Comment 15-15: The Lead Agency determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate document consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This determination is supported by the rigorous analysis in the MND, and the substantial evidence provided in the MND and its supporting documents. Response to Comment 15-16: Please see Responses to Comment 15-13 and 15-53 which demonstrate that the MND adequately analyzed the potential for all special status species to occur. Regarding comments specifically focused on California tiger salamander, the quoted reference from the comment is preceded in the IS/MND by a statement that documents that suitable breeding habitat is adjacent to the study area (1st paragraph on page 80). As stated in Response to Comment 15-13, the mitigation wetland the commenter is focused on is not within t he study area or the impact area. Suitable breeding habitat is acknowledged as being adjacent to the study area within the mitigation wetland and other livestock ponds within the Special Buffer Area and adjacent lands, upland dispersal habitat is acknowledged to be present, the species is recognized to have moderate to high potential to occur and impacts to habitat and individuals are assumed. The reference within the IS/MND to the hydroperiod of the mitigation pond does not indicate an evaluation of the lack of the pond to serve as potential breeding habitat. There is no assumption that the mitigation wetland’s hydroperiod leads to reduction in the potential for the species to occur within the project area. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 241 of 276 Response to Comment 15-17: Please see response to Comment 15-53 for further discussion. All direct and indirect impacts to special status species are mitigated through the enrollment within the HCP/NCCP which provides a net conservation benefit (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2015). Impacts to individuals that may be present or moving through the project site during construction is addressed through the HCP/NCCP process. Response to Comment 15-18: Please see response 15- 53. Response to Comment 15-19: With the elimination of Horizontal Directional Drilling in the PG&E property, the impacts to potential wetlands and waterways have been eliminated. There is no longer the need to submit a frac-out plan. The applicant shall apply for other permits from the appropriate agencies and shall obtain approval prior to receipt of the grading or building permit for the project. Approvals and permits from the ECCHCP, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the US Army Corps of Engineers will ensure impacts t o aquatic resources are properly addressed and mitigated. Response to Comment 15-20: The MND provides a good faith attempt to accurately describe the Project and its environmental impacts. (1) In regard to the PM emission factors utilized for the enclosed flare, the factors for NOx emission factors were accidentally replicated in the PM emissions factors, yet the correct emissions factor utilized for PM is the same value as that used for the proposed thermal oxidizer (TOX), 17 pounds per million standard cubic feet as methane. As noted previously, the baseline emissions were established based on permitted emissions to best compare the proposed project’s permitted operation to the existing permitted conditions. Additionally, the proposed project would not generate new emissions from the use of the LFG as currently this LFG is being combusted at the existing landfill flares. Currently emissions from the combustion of the LFG simply flow out of the existing flares. The proposed project would not only allow for a beneficial use of the LFG, rather than just being combusted, the only new sources in the proposed project (TOX and process enclosed flare) would have far less potentials to emit/emissions than the existing landfill flares because they would be combusting a small fraction of the LFG processed. With regard to non-methane organic compounds (NMOC’s) for the Project, BAAQMD has not completed its engineering evaluation of the Authority to Construct for the proposed project. Thus, their emissions calculations should not be considered final for the proposed project as the applicant is continually working with the BAAQMD to confirm final emissions for the proposed project. The emission calculations are the modeled as accurately as possible based on existing information at the time the MND was prepared provide a reasonable estimate of reality. The KCL flares’ NMOC emissions were permitted using a previous District and Federal AP-42 standard which dictates VOCs are 39 percent of the NMOC fraction. The MND characterized the RNGPF emissions and compared them to existing conditions at AP-42 values of 39 percent as well. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 242 of 276 Regardless of the assumed VOC percentage, the project reduces VOC emissions in comparison to the current KCL flare emissions by over 30 percent. (2) It is incorrect to state that the proposed RNG Project will not achieve emissions reductions compared to current or future Keller operations. The current KCL flares, A-1 and A-2, are fueled with the same LFG stream that will be diverted to the proposed RNGPF where it will be conditioned and injected into the natural gas pipeline system. By diverting the LFG away from the flares and toward the proposed RNGPF, the LFG is no longer combusted at the KCL flares and therefore is no longer contributing to the emissions produced by the flares. Thus, in actual operation, every cubic foot of LFG that goes to the RNG Plant means is one less cubic foot that would be combusted by the KCL flares. The two KCL landfill flares currently operate as the landfill gas system’s control devices and will remain available to fulfill this function when the RNG plant is in operation. The landfill must still have a collection and control system, and a means to destroy the LFG generated to be in compliance with Regulation 8-34-301. KCL’s Title V permit, Condition #20, requires “All landfill gas collected by the gas collection system for S-1 shall be abated at all times by the on-site enclosed flares, A-1 or A-2 or shall be vented off-site to the Ameresco Keller Canyon LLC facility (Site # B7667) for gas processing and control.” KCL currently has sufficient capacity to combust all LFG collected from the gas collection system in the flares but is allowed by their BAAQMD Air Permit to vent 1300 scfm to the Ameresco LFGTE for combustion in beneficial use to generate electricity. Once the Ameresco RNG Facility Land Use Permit Amendment is approved, KCL will apply to the BAAQMD to adopt a similar allowance to vent gas to the proposed Ameresco RNG Facility as well. (3) With regards to PM10 emissions, Ameresco continues to work with the BAAQMD outside of the CEQA process to address their concern. In this case, using AP-42 values for PM10 for the RNGPF waste gas gives an extremely high value because the gas is chilled, refrigerated and filtered in multiple processes that removes particulates before being sent to the RNGPF flare and TOX. Regarding the BAAQMD’s assessment, BAAQMD has not completed their engineering evaluation of the Authority to Construct for the proposed project but as part of the ongoing evaluation, the District will be using a PM emission factor of 0.0171 lbs. of PM10/MMBTU. Please note that this emission factor is the same as used by the facility in its initial air district application and in the IS-MND emissions calculations. See response 15-20 (1) above about NMOC concentrations. (4) The GHG emissions were compiled in the same way as the criteria pollutants to establish a baseline of permitted emissions to compared to the proposed project emissions. See response 15- 20 (2) above addressing the reductions in emissions regardless of whether the existing flares are “shuttered” as every cubic foot of LFG that goes to the RNGPF means is one less cubic foot that would be combusted by the KCL flares. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 243 of 276 (5) See response (2/3) above. The applicant has not received authorization from the BAAQMD for the project. Limiting and monitoring fugitive emissions from leaking parts and components will likely be a permit condition. In addition, there will be many safe guards in place to prevent fugitive emissions and leaking. Such safe guards include methane detectors located in strategic locations in the plant, visual cues on certain equipment to detect leakage and periodic component screening of the RNGPF with an FID. (6) See response to comment 15-55. Note that Tier IV means Tier IV final in the MND. Response to Comment 15-21: The applicant will obtain all necessary permits from the BAAQMD, which will include final emission calculations and the applicable inputs used for each phase and piece of equipment associated with the project. It is noted that measures will be taken to mitigate emissions, and it is requested that the impacts prior to the mitigation measures must be described to allow for full evaluation of project. The mitigations included within the MND related to project design, and planned construction and operation. They are incorporated into the plans of the proposed project, as they are measures which help to mitigate emissions, but they are additionally a part of the planned construction and operations. Removing the portions of the construction and operation which are identified as mitigation measures would not accurately represent the proposed project. It would be inaccurate to separate out the mitigation measures and solely evaluate the emissions of the proposed project, as that would over represent the impact of the proposed project but additionally it would inaccurately represent what is being proposed. Response to Comment 15-22: The issue of project emissions from the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario is addressed in Summary Response H, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. Project emissions were calculated to capture all the emissions from all planned phases of the Project. As noted below in the individual responses below (15-23 through 15-27), the assumptions made by the commenter of emissions being omitted are incorrect as the IS -MND fully evaluated the potential impacts from the proposed project. Response to Comment 15-23: No stainless steel is to be utilized in the proposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline is to be comprised of 4.500” OD, 0.237” WT, API 5L Grade B Carbon Steel materials. These materials are anticipated to be joined utilizing manual Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) processes in accordance with API 1104, using cellulosic rods. Specifically, it is expected that E6010 and E7010-P1 rod shall be used in the welding process. While particulate is generated as a result of utilization of cellulosic rod, the particulate matter as it pertains to public health is insignificant as the welding will be done in well ventilated [outdoor] conditions and is not known to travel at distance. Hazards as a result of exposure to welding fumes are generally limited to occupational exposures, and are not seen as a danger to public health. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 244 of 276 i. Pipeline welding: The MND addresses pipeline construction including welding operations, and the mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize PM emissions that could result from travelling on unpaved roads, grading operations etc. With regard to welding, records referenced by the commenter for emissions from welding various materials do not include the material of the pipeline that would be welded for the proposed project. Thus, the material provided by the commenter does not indicate that welding would cause measurable amounts of dangerous particulates. A limited amount of welding will be conducted adjacent to residential properties, primarily at, and adjacent to, the PG&E Line 191-1 tie-in location. The Line 191-1 tie-in is ~70’ generally down-prevailing wind (i.e., north) from the closest property line (see Plats 2 and 5, Revised Project Description). Response to Comment 15-24: ii. Windblown/fugitive dust emissions: Regarding the potential PM emissions resulting from windblown dust, these are reduced using BAAQMD’s best management practices. (BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.) BAAQMD does not have a numeric threshold for fugitive dust. The proposed project has included the best management practices suggested by BAAQMD for managing the fugitive emissions caused by construction. Because there is no numerical threshold for fugitive dust to which to compare the project’s potentials to emit such dust, it is uninformative to calculate the project’s fugitive dust emissions. In addition, such emissions would be low due to the use of BAAQMD’s best management practices. Response to Comment 15-25: iii. Default emissions factors: The issue of the assumptions used in the construction emissions analysis is addressed in Summary Response I, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. Default emissions factors were utilized throughout the CalEEMod calculations as they are best available data for the proposed project and default values typically are more conservative than the actual emissions. No part of the project requires excavation 15-20 feet below ground into the sandy soil layer. In addition, the pipeline route changes no longer require boring beneath the CCWD canal through this sand layer. iv. Jack and bore emissions: Construction emissions associated with Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) have been eliminated with the revised project. The emissions for the CalEEMod estimates presented in the MND include the drill rig and associated mud pump. These two pieces of equipment would not be required under the revised project and therefore the CalEEMod emissions for this equipment was removed from the MND. v. Pipeline trenching: Equipment associated with the pipeline trenching was included in the CalEEMod calculations. Response to Comment 15-26: vi. Worker and vendor trips: The workers and vendors are anticipated to use local motels and hotels during construction based on similar previous projects and therefore would be close in proximity for the duration of the construction. In addition, the June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 245 of 276 project location is not like remote locations of many power plant projects where the nearest source of workers can be 50 or 100 miles away, instead the project is surrounded by a metropolitan area with many construction workers and many hotels and motels. It is speculative to suggest additional emissions from the travel of the workers and vendors to and from the project site would make the emissions for proposed construction potentially significant considering how far below the construction emission are below the thresholds dictated by the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. vii. Worker vehicles: It is a generalization to state construction workers often drive large pickup trucks, and further appears to be an attempt to overstate project’s potential to emit emissions during the construction phase of the proposed project. Without substantial evidence of the type of vehicles which the workers will utilize, the mix of vehicles used in the CalEEMod model provides a reasonable assumption for the potential variation of the vehicles to be driven to the sit e by the workers. viii. Construction equipment emissions: CalEEMod calculations are based on a fleet average emission factor that includes many types of equipment and has been determined to be reasonably accurate based on years of study. CalEEMod is the latest California statewide land use emissions model. The program was released in February 2011 and contains up-to-date, accurate information and local default values. The model includes mitigation measure options (recently developed and adopted by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)). The data-based methodology of CalEEMod makes it the standard for use in estimating construction emissions by most air districts in California, including the BAAQMD, despite the commenter’s assertions. Response to Comment 15-27: Dust control measures described in the MND, such as water sprays and paving surfaces, would be implemented as quickly as possible once construction commences. As the comment notes, historically, the highest wind speed was 110 mph in 2016 and wind speeds have exceeded 50 mph. If wind speeds reach this rate, construction would have to halt as health and safety for the construction workers would be as a concern. If excessive wind speeds were projected during construction all measures would be taken to secure all equipment and minimize emissions. BAAQMD provides numeric thresholds for PM from exhaust emissions and not from dust. Instead, BAAQMD specifies that fugitive emissions are reduced to less than significant levels if a lead agency requires a project to comply with BAAQMD’s best management practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust. The project would not result in significant air quality emissions from fugitive dues because it will follow BAAQMD’s best management practices (BMPs). As there is no numerical threshold for PM from dust, providing a numeric emission estimate for the project’s dust emissions would not yield useful information. Response to Comment 15-28: Inclusion of geotechnical conditions would not increase NOx emissions over the significance threshold. Contrary to the commenter’s claim, the CalEEMod emissions model addressed the following conditions: June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 246 of 276 • 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth to create the level pad and perimeter slopes for the plant; • Earth fills varying in thickness from a few feet up to about 45 feet are planned across the level pad - this is included in the 89,000 cubic yard earthfill work that the commenter acknowledged were addressed in the CalEEMod model. Both reinforced and non-reinforced fill slopes varying from about 25 ft. to 58 ft. in height will be constructed along the northern and western margins of the pad this is included in the 89,000 cubic yard earthfill work that the commenter acknowledged were addressed in the CalEEMod model. • An MSE wall varying from about 5 feet to 20 feet in height will be constructed along the southwestern perimeter. The equipment emissions required to build the MSE wall are included in the 89,000 cubic yard earthfill work as it is part of the fill work that t he commenter acknowledged were addressed in the CalEEMod model. • Remedial removal of soft to firm fine-grained, colluvial soils prior to pad construction - This work will be done concurrently with the fill – the soil removed will be backhauled during the soil import phase. The equipment used was included in the 89,000 cubic yard earthfill work as it is part of the fill work that the commenter acknowledged were addressed in the CalEEMod model. • The commenter also claims that the air emissions modelling should address “severe” corrosion potential to buried ferrous metals. Corrosion potential due to local soil conditions are detailed in the project Geotechnical report. The project does not have any buried ferrous metals other than the pipeline which is wrapped and protected from corrosion as described in the in the Project Description of the MND. Regardless, buried ferrous metal corrosion does not create emission sources as stated by the commenter because the metal is buried 4’ below ground with no path to create air emissions. Response to Comment 15-29: As explained above, the emissions calculations done for the MND used the proper emissions factors. Further, as the commenter’s table shows, even using the commenter’s inflated emissions and assuming onsite and offsite construction occur simultaneously, the project would still result in less than significant NOx emissions with mitigation. To ensure emissions are not significant, onsite and offsite construction will not overlap in time. The proposed project CalEEMod was completed in accordance with the guidelines of CalEEMod and using the best data available. Response to Comment 15-30: The issue of the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario is addressed in Summary Response H, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 247 of 276 The emissions estimates provided in the MND are the maximum emissions based on the most conservative scenario of the potentials to emit. It is expected that upon initial operations the flow to the RNGPF will be less than 4,700 scfm, yet the emissions are estimated at this maximum value to allow for operation up to this rate of flow. In response to this and other comments, an alternative analysis has been prepared assuming a baseline flow of 2,950 scfm, as detailed in the Summary Responses. Over the lifetime of the proposed project, the landfill is projected to generate more than 4,700 scfm at the flares, but is currently generating closer to 2,950 scfm, approximating the startup condition for the RNGPF. The responses to V.B.a above clarify how the baseline of emissions was established to best represent the proposed project and how it compares to the existing flare emissions. Response to Comment 15-31: The issues of the operation of the RNGPF in relation to the existing landfill flares and assumed baseline flow are addressed in Summary Response D and H, respectively, in Section IV. Summary Responses of this Final MND. Additional information on these issues is presented below. (1,2,3) The permitted operation of the existing flares is dependent on the KCL’s choice to submit their own application to amend its BAAQMD Title V permit. It is true that the existing landfill flares are permitted to operate up to ~4,900 scfm. This permit limit should remain because the existing flares would be a necessary back up to the proposed project in the event that unforeseen circumstances would require the landfill to control most or all of the LFG generated from the well field. It is possible, even likely, that KCL will decide to apply for less than continuous operation of their existing flares, which would reduce their annual potentials to emit; however, that decision would be at the discretion of KCL rather than the applicant for the proposed project. Any flow directed to the proposed RNGPF will directly offset flow from the landfill flares. Generation of LFG within the landfill will not be affected by construction of the proposed project any more than it would if KCL replaced an existing flare with a larger one – there is only so much LFG available to collect from the landfill at any given time. In response to this and other comments, an alternative analysis has been prepared assuming a baseline flow of 2,950 scfm, as detailed in the Summary Responses to provide an estimate of emission reductions at the time the proposed RNGPF starts operations. Response to Comment 15-32: The issue of the operation of the RNGPF in relation to the existing landfill flares is addressed in Summary Response D Project Design, respectively, in Section IV. Summary Responses of this Final MND. The comments incorrectly attribute the flare operations referenced on page 65 of the MND to the existing flares owned and operated by KCL. Instead, the 20 percent of operations used to establish criteria pollution limits for operations is for the proposed RNGPF enclosed flare, and are included in the proposed project. Operations of the proposed RNGPF enclosed flare and the gas routed to it will only be for gas volumes that have been diverted from the KCL flares to the RNGPF. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 248 of 276 The IS/MND correctly states that the Project would reduce the use of the two existing landfill enclosed flares, resulting in reduced emissions of criteria pollutants at the Keller Canyon Landfill site in general. The RNGPF’s fuel source will be the same fuel that is currently being destroyed by the existing landfill flares. LFG production within the landfill generally increases over time, and this increase is provided for under KCL’s Title V permit issued by the BAAQMD. KCL is required to have the capacity to handle all LFG volumes produced in the event that either the RNGPF or existing LFGTE power plant are not operational for any reason. In the event the volume of LFG production was to exceed the total capacity of the RNGPF or LFGTE to use, then the existing landfill flares would operate on a continuous basis. This this does not negate the emissions reductions from operating the RNGPF. Instead of combusting 4,700 cfm of LFG in the flares, that gas would be directed to the RNGPF for processing and the methane fraction injected into the RNG pipeline system. Response to Comment 15-33: The process of the RNGPF does require the removal of CO2, H2S, VOCs, and Nitrogen (N2) from the gas stream, but they would not be the source of additional emissions. These compounds are separated in the process to upgrade the landfill gas to RNG which is clearly addressed by the “Description of RNG Processing” on Page 7 of the IS-MND. All other compounds removed in form of waste gases are sent to the TOX and/or RNGPF Flare for thermal destruction. There are no other emission sources. All equipment that are emission sources are accounted for in the IS-MND and will be included in the BAAQMD permit application. Response to Comment 15-34: The IS/MND includes all sources of emissions and supporting documentation as to how those emission levels were calculated. The modeling conforms to standard industry practice and is designed to provide a clear and conservative estimate of the project’s emissions and potential impacts on the environment. Response to Comment 15-35: The issue of the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario is addressed in Summary Response H, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. Table 8-2 on page 153 of the MND and as updated in Summary Response H accurately reflects estimated emissions based on the proposed design and operation of the RNGPF. The IS-MND compares the proposed project’s emissions to local and BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The project is far below those thresholds, including the cumulative effects of construction and operational emissions. Response to Comment 15-36: The issue of the assumed design flow of 4,700 scfm used in the analysis in the MND versus an alternative baseline scenario; and assumptions used for construction emissions are addressed in Summary Responses H and I, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 249 of 276 Construction-related GHG emissions are accurately tabulated in Table 8-3 page 155 of the MND and in the updated Table 8-3 in Summary Response I. The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for GHGs associated with construction activities. The project’s construction emissions are far below this threshold. Response to Comment 15-37: As noted previously, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not currently include thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. The Contra Costa County CAP and AB 32 also do not address construction-related GHG emissions. The proposed project can only be designed and evaluated by its conformance with current plans and policies, and not future undefined plans and polices that may be adopted in the future. In fact, the basis of the policies enacted by State and local government is for projects with long lifespans to achieve a future goal, such as a reduction in emissions. With regard to the comparing the construction emissions to the threshold of 10,000 MT per year of CO2e for stationary-source projects, reference response 15-36 and “Summary Response for Constructions Emissions.” Response to Comment 15-38: Please see responses 15-9, 15-32 and Summary Response H. in Section IV. Summary Responses of this Final MN which addresses the baseline emissions at a flow of 2,950 scfm which is the average 2019 LFG from the landfill as confirmed by BAAQMD. Response to Comment 15-39: The issues of the assumptions used in the baseline construction emissions analysis is addressed in Summary Response I, in Section IV. Summary Responses in this Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. Please see response 15-36. The project GHG construction emissions are below the significance threshold for stationary sources set by SMAQMD and SCAQMD even though the BAAQMD does not have a significance threshold. Response to Comment 15-40: Please see response 15-9. Also, in response to this and other comments, an alternative analysis has been prepared assuming a baseline flow of 2,950 scfm, as detailed in e Summary Response H of Section IV. Summary Responses in this Final MND. Response to Comment 15-41: The issue of the assumptions used in the construction emissions analysis is addressed in Summary Response I, in Section IV. Summary Responses in the Final MND. Additional information related to this comment is provided below. Construction vehicles with Tier 4 Final engines, which are equipped with DPM traps, were used in the emissions calculations. Also, construction emissions are temporary and will end once the construction phase is completed. The revised project reduces the pipeline construction length and the requirement to run the pipeline “immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood” with the pipeline now being thousands of feet away from residences other than at the Line 191 -1 tie-in location. BAAQMD has neither adopted nor recommended methodology for assessing health risk June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 250 of 276 analysis associated with non-stationary short-term sources at construction sites. Health risk assessments are associated with long-term exposure periods of 9, 40, and 70 years. Response to Comment 15-42: The health risk analysis is adequate and does not indicate an EIR is required. See response to comment 15-41. Response to Comment 15-43: Please see 15-9 and 15-41 and response City of Pittsburg Letter comment 11-18. Contrary to the commenter’s assumptions and calculations, the RNGPF will not be increasing emissions of any HAP as the LFG processed by the project is permitted for combustion in the LFG flares. The project as shown in the MND reduces the levels of HAP’s generated from the landfill through RNG processing and increased combustion efficiency of the Thermal Oxidizer. Response to Comment 15-44: This comment refers to the alleged disposal of radioactive material at KCL. This issue is unrelated to the proposed project, is beyond the scope of the MND, and was the subject of a multi-agency review and evaluation, which concluded that the alleged disposal of radioactive materials was “highly unlikely”. Response to Comment 15-45: Please see response 15-44. See Summary Responses regarding preparation of an EIR. Response to Comment 15-46: The MND fully discloses and evaluates the potential for impacts to wetlands and hydrology in the Environmental Checklist Sections 4. Biological Resources and 10. Hydrology and Water Quality. As stated in several sections of the MND, project design features, applicant-proposed control measures, and applicable conditions of approval in KCL LP89-2020 are cited as appropriate in the evaluation of potential significant impacts. No significant impacts were identified; however, in some cases the County has prescribed mitigation measures that will further reduce the potential for significant impacts. The revised pipeline route no longer requires any Horizontal Directional Drilling meaning a frac-out plan is no longer necessary. Response to Comment 15-47: The Lead Agency’s basis for requiring a MND is explained in response 15-1. The basis for requiring additional measures is as described in various environmental issues in the MND. In any case, as stated above in response 15-46, mitigation measures to be imposed will be binding and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting program for the project and/or conditions of approval in the land use permit for the proposed project. Also see Summary Responses regarding preparation of an EIR. Response to Comment 15-48: The MND in Section 8, Project Description, and Environmental Checklist Sections 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 15. Public Services, 19. Public Utilities, and 20. Wildfire addresses the design features, systems, potential impacts, and mitigation measures that address potential risk of upset of hazardous materials, gases, fire, explosion. The RNGPF will have methane detectors in key areas of the facility to monitor for leaks. The project design includes an H2S removal system at the beginning of the process which removes H2S to avoid affecting June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 251 of 276 downstream process equipment. The RNGPF control systems include a high-pressure alarm to alert the operator if pressure has increased beyond the normal operating range and a high-pressure trip condition that will shut the RNGPF down to prevent an un-safe/overpressure condition that could lead to leaks. The plant RNGPF safety systems include spring return, fail closed process valves arranged to transition the RNGPF to a low-energy state in the event of an emergency condition (e.g., fire, seismic, methane leak, etc.). During the emergency condition, both the TOX and process enclosed flare at the plant RNGPF would be automatically shut down. Response to Comment 15-49: The Project Description in the MND includes a wide range of regulatory standards and project design and safety features. These elements serve as the basis for addressing the potential effects of accidents at the proposed RNGPF and pipeline system. The RNGPF is 150’ away from the LFGTE power plant which is not “adjacent” and represents sufficient separation to avoid affecting the other facility or employees at the other facility. The revised pipeline alignment moves the pipeline away from residences and eliminated the associated impacts. See Summary Responses regarding preparation of an EIR and pipeline design and construction standards. Response to Comment 15-50: No significant impacts, individual or cumulative, were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The basis for this finding is explained in Environmental Checklist Section 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance. See Summary Responses regarding cumulative impacts Response to Comment 15-51: The issue of a possible amendment of KCL LP89-2020 is addressed in Summary Response 10 Cumulative Analysis in Section IV. Summary Responses in this Final MND. Additional information is provided below. This comment refers to the possible amendment of the KCL LP89-2020 to allow for possible daily tonnage increase and alteration of the landfill Extent of Waste Placement. The amendment would not expand the landfill’s total capacity or total area designated for disposal. The proposed RNG project involves the use and management of LFG, irrespective of the landfill disposal area or daily tonnage limits. Notwithstanding the above, the permitting action subject of the comment was set aside, rendering any daily tonnage increase or modification of defined operational areas for the landfill as speculative. Even if re-started today, approval of such an amendment would occur after the proposed RNGPFP project is constructed. Response to Comment 15-52: The proposed project would process LFG produced at the KCL and thereby make use of LFG that is already being produced. Rather than the LFG being combusted in the existing landfill flares, the LFG will be processed into a beneficial renewable natural gas that would displace the use of fossil fuel. Future development projects beyond the KCL property have no impact on the proposed project and vice versa. Potential impacts related to existing land uses are presented in the MND (e.g., aesthetics, hazards, noise, public services, transportation). See Summary Response J regarding cumulative impacts. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 252 of 276 Response to Comment 15-53: An assessment was performed on the net effects of the HCP/NCCP, including both the beneficial and adverse effects of all covered development activities and conservation measures, on 59 special-status species that are not covered by the HCP/NCCP, called “CEQA species” (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2015). This “CEQA Species Assessment” considered the extent of habitat and populations of these species that could be affected within areas of anticipated development, as well as in areas that may be preserved, enhanced, and managed for covered species and communities by the HCP/NCCP, to determine the net cumulative impact of the HCP/NCCP on each CEQA species. The cumulative impacts to each CEQA species were categorized into one of four groups: beneficial, neutral, adverse but less than significant, or potentially significant. The CEQA Species Assessment found that the cumulative effects of the HCP/NCCP, including the proposed project, on 57 of the 59 CEQA species fell into one of the first three groups and are therefore less than significant. The CEQA species evaluated in the IS/MND were either evaluated in the CEQA Species Assessment or utilize similar habitats. The proposed project does not support the two species found in the CEQA Species Assessment to have potentially significant effects from the HCP/NCCP covered activities. Because the proposed project is covered by the HCP/NCCP, the CEQA Species Assessment serves as a cumulative impact assessment for all of the CEQA species that may be impacted by the Project. As per the Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND the proposed Project will be implemented in accordance with the HCP/NCCP’s conditions. Through payment of HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation, the Project will contribute to the HCP/NCCP’s conservation strategy, thereby benefiting all CEQA species addressed in the CEQA Species Assessment (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2015). Therefore, with incorporation of HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation and adherence to other HCP/NCCP conditions, this Project’s individual impacts and its contribution to cumulative impacts to CEQA species are less than significant. Participation in the HCP/NCCP is not deferred mitigation and is an enforceable measure in the MND. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with the HCP/NCCP conditions and regulatory agency requirements prior to project implementation. Mitigation through the HCP/NCCP fees and any equivalent mitigation required under the regulatory permits and adherence to the HCP/NCCP conditions ensures mitigation is implemented and impacts to CEQA species are less than significant. The HCP/NCCP conditions include the requirements for planning surveys, preconstruction surveys, general and species-specific avoidance and minimization measures and compensatory mitigation to address impacts. As discussed in the MND, multiple surveys and field assessments were conducted over the course of three years (2017 to 2020) and have been used to inform the need for the preconstruction surveys identified within the IS/MND. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 253 of 276 Mitigation Measure Biology 10 and 11 collectively require the applicant obtain required permits, avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts. The applicant is required through an enforceable measure to comply with the conditions of the permits which will require compensatory mitigation. Also, see Summary Responses regarding cumulative impacts. Response to Comment 15-54: If the proposed project is approved, conditions of approval in LP89- 2020 may be modified by the County to reflect the control measures and mitigation measures incorporated into the land use permit for the proposed project. The applicant will implement the best management practices listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (May 2017) to minimize fugitive dust emissions. While high winds can occur at night, the vast majority of fugitive dust from construction results from the passage of vehicles and equipment, which would only occur during the day when the unpaved roads are being wetted. Also, the majority of the project will be constructed in relatively sheltered areas rather than on ridge-tops or other locations more prone to very high winds. The soil borrow area and related haul roads to be utilized for the proposed RNGPF are existing infrastructure constructed and maintained by KCL, and so are a baseline condition. Taken together, the fugitive dust related to the proposed project will be less than significant with mitigation. Response to Comment 15-55: The comment assumes that all phases of the construction are conducted at the same time. This is not the case. The construction of the RNGPF is a phased project with the planned project sequence starting with phase 1 to complete the mass fill work first to build a pad for the RNGPF construction. The next phase of the RNGPF construction, the RNG processing facility will be built on this pad, so the construction cannot be started until the mass fill is complete. This portion of the project is planned for the winter of 2021-2022. The pipeline portion, the third phase of the project, would follow in the spring to avoid the rainy season. None of the construction segments would overlap because each portion of the project needs to be built before the next is started due to project logistics. The construction phases are clearly delineated in the CalEEMod report. Even with Tier 3 engines, the construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD thresholds. The project will be constructed using equipment with far cleaner Tier 4 and Tier 4 Final engines. Response to Comment 15-56: No significant impacts were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The basis for this finding is explained in Environmental Checklist Section 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance. Also see response 15 -1 regarding why the Lead Agency determined that an EIR is not required. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 254 of 276 VI. STAFF-INITIATED TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND This section includes edits to the text of the draft MND. Received. The associated revised and/or deleted figures are included in the following Section VII. Deleted text is shown with strikethrough text and new text is indicated by double underlined text. Selected portions of text are separated by a line of asterisks (***********). Environmental Checklist (page 1) 4. Project Location: Keller Canyon Landfill, 901 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565 in the Pittsburg area in unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 094-360-008, -019, -020, -022; 094- 080-012; 094-090-002; 094-160-004, -005, -006) ********** Environmental Checklist (pages 2 - 15) 8. Description of Project: (page 2, full paragraph 2) The RNG pipeline would carry the RNG from the new processing facility to a proposed PG&E metering station for connection with the existing PG&E Line 191-1 natural gas transmission pipeline network northeast of the site. The design of the pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. The pipeline would start at the RNG processing facility located on a portion of the KCL Primary Project Area, traverse through the KCL-owned property known as the Special Buffer Area (SBA), and into the contiguous PG&E- owned utility corridor. Within this utility corridor, the pipeline would go under the Contra Costa Canal tie in with existing PG&E Line 191-1. The pipeline would connect to a PG&E metering station and terminate in an interconnect station to be owned and operated by Ameresco. Both facilities would be located on Keller Canyon Landfill property. The interconnect station would then connect with the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline at a PG&E-owned STANPAC 3 valve lot. The estimated total pipeline length is approximately 2.85 3.4 miles. The pipeline would be buried underground with 48 inches of minimum cover and would be a four - inch diameter steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 400 680 pounds per square inch. ********** Proposed RNG System (page 6, full paragraph 1) The proposed RNGPFP would be located west of the existing LFGTE plant and blower/flare station. The project includes RNG processing equipment to separate methane from the balance of the LFG. The proposed RNG processing facility would not be connected to th e operation of June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 255 of 276 the existing LFGTE plant. In addition to the new processing facility, a new pipeline is proposed to connect the RNG processing equipment with the existing PG&E Line 191-1 STANPAC 3 gas pipeline. The proposed RNG pipeline will be buried underground with a minimum 48 inches of cover and will be a four-inch steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 400 680 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The proposed location of the RNG processing facility and transmission pipeline are shown on revised Figure 4. RNG Processing Facility (page 6, full paragraph 2; and partial paragraph 3) The RNG processing facility will operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week and its operation would be overseen by two employees for 40 hours per week. The processing equipment includes compressors, filters, direct fuel recuperative thermal oxidizer, enclosed flare, thermal and pressure swing adsorption units, and media beds to treat LFG to meet PG&E’s Rule 21 standards. The first portion of the treatment process will remove any entrained water vapor and non-methane organic compounds from the LFG. The gas will then be compressed to around 250 psig and processed to remove carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2) and other trace constituents. The process will increase the calorific value (heat content) of the LFG from approximately 480 BTU/standard cubic foot (BTU/scf) to approximately 980 BTU/scf. A polishing unit at the end of the treatment process may be used to ensure that none of the trace constituents (including the carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic and pipeline integrity constituents) meet exceed Rule 21 or other pipeline requirements. The RNG will then be compressed up to pipeline pressure and piped to a nearby existing PG&E natural gas transmission main Line 191- 1. A site plan of the RNG processing facility area is shown on revised Figure 5. A detail of the proposed general arrangement of the equipment and list of major components are shown on revised Figure 6. ********** Step 4. Product Compression (page 8, paragraph 2) After the impurities are removed from the PPRNG, the resulting product is RNG and is sent to product compressors where it is pressurized to approximately 400 680 psig for delivery to existing a PG&E gas transmission line Line 191-1. At the PG&E metering station, the RNG will be metered and analyzed prior to entry into the utility gas line. The RNG leaving the product compressor will be odorized in accordance with regulations before being sent to the RNG pipeline. ********** June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 256 of 276 RNG Pipeline Design Features (page 10, paragraphs 1, 2 and bullets 1, 2, 5) Design of the RNG pipeline would meet and/or exceed all regulatory requirements and/or industry standards. Design features below represent control measure to meet the regulations required for the proposed project. Items to be considered and included in the design are: The pipeline will be designed to meet or exceed Class 4 requirements, a standard that is above and beyond the required criteria for the proposed project; • The pipe itself will be designed to operate under 10 20 percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS). The actual percent SMYS for the other system components will be determined after facility requirements have been specified. If flanges and/or flanged assemblies are required, they may be the pressure limiting factors of the system. The design will ensure that the flanged systems and any other appurtenances meet the design requirements; • The system will be designed to handle a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 400 680 psi. Relief systems outside the pipeline design will be included as required to ensure the pipeline does not over pressure; • The pipe to be used in the Project will be 4.5” outside diameter, 0.237” nominal wall thickness, Grade B, with a MAOP of 400 680 psig. This corresponds to less than 10 about 18.5 percent of SMYS; and ********** RNG Pipeline Route (pages 10 and 11, paragraph 3, bullets 1 and 2) The proposed pipeline will connect the proposed RNG processing facility to a proposed PG&E metering station and the existing PG&E STANPAC 3 gas transmission pipeline Line 191-1. The proposed pipeline plan is shown on revised Figure 9. The proposed pipeline route through the PG&E utility corridor is shown on revised Figure 10. The pipeline will be buried underground and will be a four-inch steel-wrapped pipe designed for operation at an estimated pressure of 400 680 pounds per square inch. The estimated total pipeline length is approximately 15,050 18,030 lineal feet (LF) in plan or about 2.85 3.4 miles. Two main pipeline segments are proposed: • The KCL Segment 1 is located entirely on KCL property and includes approximately 14,015 13,760 LF (2.6 miles) of buried pipeline. The KCL Segment 1 comprises approximately 3,195 3,340 LF (0.6 mile) in the Primary Project Area, and 10,820 10,420 LF (2.1 2 miles) within the SBA. The KCL Segment 1 would connect the proposed RNG processing facility to the PG&E utility corridor located east of, and contiguous with, the KCL property. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 257 of 276 • The PG&E Segment 2 is located entirely within the in PG&E utility corridor and includes approximately 1,030 4,270 LF (0.2 0.8 mile) of buried pipeline. The PG&E Segment 2 would begin at in the PG&E property boundary after at the end of the KCL Segment 1 exits the KCL property and run proceed in an a northerly easterly alignment along an existing paved road to and connect to the proposed PG&E metering station and the existing STANPAC 3 gas pipeline PG&E Line 191-1 located in the City of Pittsburg unincorporated County area. ********** Unnamed Seasonal Stream Crossing (page 12, bullet 2) • Construction of a series of bio-engineered improvements (e.g. log drop-structures) to trap sediment and protect the grade downstream of the road. The type, number, and precise location of these bio-engineered improvements would be determined by the project biologist in coordination with County and State resource agencies. The combination of exclusionary fencing, and bio-engineered solutions would be designed to endure over the projected 20-year lifespan of the proposed project. These erosion control features are intended to be semi-permanent, and will be regularly maintained as part of the overall project maintenance. ********** PG&E Utility Corridor (page 12, paragraphs 1 - 3) An existing PG&E 20-inch diameter L-191-1 gas transmission pipeline runs along the eastern edge of the PG&E-owned utility corridor, east of the SBA. The alignment of the proposed RNG transmission pipeline would run parallel to, and west of, tie-in directly to the existing PG&E Line L-191-1 pipeline along the eastern edge of the PG&E property. The pipeline alignment in the PG&E property is potentially limited by environmental concerns, proximity to existing high voltage transmission lines and water lines, and location of the Contra Costa Canal crossing. A photo of a portion of the PG&E utility corridor is shown on Figure 15. The tie-in pipeline alignment through to the existing PG&E Line 191-1 property will be finalized during detailed design and approved by PG&E and the PUC. Construction through the PG&E utility corridor will require careful consideration regarding the crossing of existing gas and electric transmission lines. The RNG pipeline will adhere to PG&E clearance requirements. The proposed pipeline would cross under the Contra Costa Canal per Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) specifications. The approved canal crossing location will determine the construction method used. Trenchless options such as a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) will be evaluated for use as the selected route is optimized. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 258 of 276 The proposed PG&E metering station and associated Ameresco interconnect station are shown on Figure 16. PG&E will add a metering station on Keller Canyon Landfill property approximately 50 feet to the south of the existing valve lot with a width of approximately 40 feet and length of 100 feet (4,000 square feet) to accommodate the new gas receiving equipment. An isometric view of the PG&E metering station is shown on Figure 17. The metering station Noise and lighting for this expanded area will be similar to the existing station and will be surrounded by an approximately 7-foot tall security fence. PG&E equipment will be powered by electricity so new poles may be necessary to connect the new PG&E equipment to existing electric lines. The new pole height and line configuration will be similar and connect to the existing electrical service pole for the STANPAC 3 valve lot. Attached to the PG&E metering station (or included inside the station depending on PG&E design) will be an Ameresco interconnect station which would have a pipeline riser, valving, and pig receiving station for future pipeline inspections. This equipment would be constructed in a fenced enclosure (if not included within in PG&E’s metering station) of no larger than 45 feet in width x 60 feet in length (2700 square feet). The line from the PG&E metering station will connect to the existing STANPAC 3 valve lot PG&E Line 191-1. ********** Construction (page 13, paragraph 2) The level pad area of the RNG processing equipment would cover an area of approximately 84,000 square feet (1.9 acres), adjacent to the existing LFGTE plant. Construction of the level pad area would require approximately 89,000 cubic yards of imported earth fill. The 4-inch diameter steel pipeline will be installed utilizing an excavator that will create a trench and the pipeline will be placed and backfilled at a depth of four feet in most locations. Under drainages the pipeline will be buried to a depth of at least six feet. Pipeline construction activities will occur within 15 feet on either side of a 15-foot wide workspace centered on the pipe center line. After the pipeline is installed the trench will be backfilled and the site will be re-graded and restored to its approximate original contours. Wherever possible the pipeline will be designed to follow existing ranch/fire roads on the KCL property to minimize temporary and permanent construction impacts. The pipeline trench will be backfilled and restored immediately upon installation of the pipeline to the maximum extent possible. All construction impacts are expected to be temporary. HDD would be required for the pipeline to pass beneath the canal maintained by the CCWD. ********** Construction Access and Staging Areas (page 14, paragraphs 1 and 2) The proposed underground RNG pipeline route spans a variety of terrain ranging from level to hilly. The 2.85 3.4-mile length of the pipeline requires strategic locations for safe and efficient vehicle and equipment access and the staging (laydown) of equipment and construction June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 259 of 276 materials. Proposed access and equipment staging/laydown areas are shown on revised Figure 18. Access for construction on KCL property would be via Bailey Road and internal facility roads. The construction access for the RNG processing facility will be provided by the paved asphalt road and turnaround adjacent to the proposed site. The projected traffic associated with construction of the RNG processing facility and pipeline is an average of approximately 20 inbound trips. During the 8 to 12-month construction period, there would be Access for one staging location off-site of the on Keller Canyon Landfill property for which access may be required from the landowners and for one two locations on the PG&E property would require approvals from the landowners or the City of Pittsburg. These locations include: • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to access a laydown area to be located on Keller Canyon Landfill property; and • Access through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E utility corridor.; and • Access from the parking lot of the former Delta View Golf Course, located at the end of Golf Club Road to provide access to the PG&E valve lot. ********** Contingency (page 15, paragraphs 2 and 3) Unforeseen events could temporarily affect the RNG processing and pipeline operations that could preclude the processing and pipeline export of RNG. These potential events could include: • Local or regional power failure or outage; • Upset in the GCCS systems upstream of the RNG processing facility including collection well failures, blower/flare station upsets; • Equipment shutdown or control issues at the LFGTE plant; • RNG processing facility equipment failure; • Pipeline leakage rupture; and • Natural disaster such as an earthquake. Based on the occurrence of these events, Ameresco would implement the following contingency measures: June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 260 of 276 1. The RNG processing facility control system is designed to operate and maintain the RNG process under normal conditions. If conditions occur outside of the normal operating range, the RNG processing facility will shut down and the any potentially hazardous processing equipment or the pipeline will be depressurized using conditions will be combusted in the enclosed upset flare constructed for that purpose at the RNGPF. ********** Environmental Checklist (page 17) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (full paragraph 1) A portion of the RNG transmission pipeline would be in PG&E property east of, and contiguous to, the SBA. The PG&E property consists of five parcels that total approximately 212 acres, including four parcels in the City of Pittsburg that total approximately 52 acres and one parcel of approximately 160 acres in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The four parcels located in the City of Pittsburg are not included in the proposed project. The PG&E property is open space land that serves as a north-south utility corridor and contains large electrical transmission lattice towers, overhead high-voltage electrical transmission lines, and an underground gas transmission pipeline. The northernmost PG&E parcel includes the STANPAC 3 valve lot. A portion of the Ameresco RNGPFP pipeline would be located on the following PG&E-owned parcels. Location APN County 094-080-012 Pittsburg 094-090-002 094-160-004 095-160-005 095-160-006 ********** Environmental Checklist (page 17 - 18) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 261 of 276 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ********** Environmental Checklist Section 1: Aesthetics (page 46) Applicant Control Measure #2 for Tree Planting (Item #2) 2. Although the project would not be visible from the Santa Maria Drive roadway or sidewalk, this tree planting control measure will further reduce the potential for significant impacts. The applicant shall plant coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) on the KCL property to screen the view from residences located to the north, subject to review and approval by the DCD. The applicant shall coordinate with a landscape designer specializing in visual screening. Minimum height of the planted redwoods shall be 10 feet to 12 feet, at a tree spacing of 15 feet to 25 feet on-center, with 13 to 21 trees, with final number in numbers and locations to be determined. ********** Environmental Checklist Section 4: Biological Resources (pages 91 - 96) Mitigation Measure Biology 3: Golden Eagle (page 91, full paragraph 2) Construction Monitoring: Construction monitoring shall focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the Urban Limit Line (ULL), covered activities inside and outside of the HCP Preserve System designated in the HCP/NCCP have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. The majority of the project activities fall outside of the ULL. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized through direct consultation with USFWS and CDFW on appropriate buffer zones and construction monitoring requirements, a qualified biologist will monitor all activities to ensure the buffer zone is maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. ********** June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 262 of 276 Mitigation Measure Biology 6: San Joaquin Kit Fox (page 93, full paragraph 7 to top of page 94) • Construction Monitoring: If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones shall be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. A qualified biologist shall monitor all activities to ensure exclusion zones are maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. All exclusion zones shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. ********** Mitigation Measure Biology 7: Special Status Bats (page 94, full paragraph 3) • Preconstruction Surveys: If the project does not avoid impacts to suitable habitat for special status bats, a preconstruction survey shall be required to determine whether the sites are occupied immediately prior to construction or whether they show signs of recent previous occupation. Preconstruction surveys are used to determine what avoidance and minimization requirements are triggered before construction and whether construction monitoring is necessary. Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. If occupied habitat is determined present and cannot be avoided, consultation with CDFW shall occur in order to determine the appropriate plan for eviction and compensatory mitigation. ********** Mitigation Measure Biology 9: Special Status Bats (page 95, full paragraph 5 to top of page 96) Biology 9: Develop Temporary Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall develop a Temporary Restoration Plan to ensure the site is restored to pre-project conditions. This may include measures such as topsoil preservation per station segments and reseeding with native seed mixes. The Temporary Restoration Plan will include updated mapping of current Sensitive Natural Communities, monitoring of topsoil preservation in areas that are directly impacted (California buckeye groves and Gum Plant patches) and monitoring and reporting of SNCs that are to be avoided (rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches). The Temporary Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the shall be submitted to the CDD and the ECCCHC for review and approval. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 263 of 276 ********** Environmental Checklist Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials (pages 163 – 170) Applicant Consistency Measure #13 for RNG Pipeline (page 163, Item #13) 13 The pipeline system shall be designed to handle a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 400 680 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Pressure and flow shall be monitored and any change outside of normal operating parameters shall shut off the pipeline and when necessary shut down the RNG processing facility. ********** Potential Impact Radius (PIR) (page 165, paragraphs 1 and 2) Potential Impact Radius (PIR) is a calculation that determines the size of the area that would be impacted if there were to be an incident. The PIR is defined as the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact on people or property and are related to identifying HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192 and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The PIR for the proposed pipeline was calculated as 55 72 feet. PIR = 0.69 x 4.00 x SQRT (400) = 0.69 x 4.00 x 20.00 = 55.20 ~ 55’ Figure 9-1 (Revised) illustrates the relationship of the 55-foot PIR to the proposed pipeline. Figure 9-2 (Revised) (9100) illustrates the 55 72-foot PIR for the entire pipeline system. The PIR is shown in green orange shading. A detailed illustration of the 72-foot PIR for the PG&E property from the point where the pipeline would enter PG&E property to a point just north of the Contra Costa Canal is shown on Figure 9-3 (9101). The section of pipeline from north of the Contra Costa Canal to the PG&E STANPAC facility is shown on Figure 9-4 (9102). ********** Pipe Leakage vs. Rupture of the Proposed Pipeline (page 166, full paragraph 1) Potential rupture failure is a function of pipeline design, MAOP, hoop stress i.e. the percent SMYS of the pipe, pipeline material, installation and welding techniques, the age and condition of the pipe, extent of internal pipe corrosion, and the depth at which the pipeline would be buried. Generally, pipelines operating at a sufficiently low hoop stress (below 20% June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 264 of 276 to 30% SMYS) are less likely to fail in rupture mode and more likely to fail in leak mode. The proposed pipeline would be designed to operate at less than 10 approximately 18.5 percent SMYS. Other factors related to susceptibility of pipe rupture versus leakage included the following: ********** Design Criteria (page 167, bullets 1, 2, 5) • The pipe itself will be designed to operate less than 10 under 20 percent SMYS, which places the proposed pipeline in a lower risk category per federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration guidelines, and requires less stringent test requirements; however, the pipeline will be tested to 1.5 times the MAOP of 400 psig or approximately 600 1,020 psig in accordance with regulations governing design to meet higher risk. If flanges and/or flanged assemblies are required, they may be the pressure limiting factors of the system. The design will ensure that the flanged systems and any other appurtenances meet the design requirements. • The system will be designed to handle a MAOP of 400 680 psig to be consistent with the existing PG&E Line 191-1 pipeline that would receive the RNG. Relief systems at the discharge of the gas compression and before entering the pipeline would be included as required to ensure the pipeline does not experience an over-pressurized event. • The pipe to be used in the project will be 4.500” OD, 0.237” WT, GR B. With a MAOP of 400 680 psig, this corresponds to the pipeline operating at approximately 18.5 percent of SMYS. ********** Pipeline System Sensors (page 168, full paragraph 2) Sensors in the pipeline system would detect an incidence of pipe leakage or rupture. Should either of these events occur, the system would shut down accordingly and the system operators would be notified. Ruptures or explosions are almost always possible only when a pipeline operates at a stress level higher than 20 percent SMYS. In the proposed project, the pipeline would be designed to operate at less than 10 20 percent (at approximately 18.5 percent) SMYS, and therefore, any incidents that might be possible would almost always be a leak rather than a rupture. ********** June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 265 of 276 f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than significant) (page 170, full paragraph 2) During the 8 12 to 12 14-month construction period, there would be one staging location off- site of the on KCL property for which access may be required from the landowners and one two locations on the PG&E property for which access may be required from the landowners or City of Pittsburg. The locations include: • John Henry Johnson Parkway to Ripple Rouge Road (near the Diablo Valley Radio Controllers’ miniature airstrip) to access a laydown area on KCL property; and • Through an existing access gate located near the intersection of Alta Vista Circle and Alta Vista Court to provide access to the PG&E property.; and • Via the parking lot of the former Delta View Golf Course, located at the end of Golf Club Road to provide access to the PG&E valve lot. ********** REFERENCES (page 228) • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Ameresco Keller Canyon, 2018. Project Plans, Proposed Gas Processing and Pipeline Project. • Darwin Myers Associates, 2020. Geologic Peer Review /Geotechnical Reports & CEQA Assessment, LP18-2022/APN 094-360-019, etc. & 094-080-012, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA Project # 3006.20. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Ameresco IS-MND Chp. 2 Project Description. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Aesthetics - Ameresco IS-MND Section 1. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Agricultural and Forest Resources - Ameresco IS- MND Section 2. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Air Quality - Ameresco IS-MND Section 3. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Energy - Ameresco IS-MND Section 6. • Tetra Tech BAS, 2019 and 2020. Geology and Soils – Ameresco IS-MND Section 7. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Greenhouse Gases - Ameresco IS-MND Section 8. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Ameresco IS- MND Section 9. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Public Services - Ameresco IS-MND Section 15. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 266 of 276 • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Transportation - Ameresco IS-MND Section 17. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Utilities and Service Systems - Ameresco IS-MND Section 19. • Environmental Management et al., 2020. Wildfire - Ameresco IS-MND Section 20. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2020. Cultural Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 5. • FirstCarbon Solutions, 2020. Tribal Cultural Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 18. • Illingworth & Rodkin, 2020. Noise - Ameresco IS-MND Section 13. • Swaim Biological Inc. et al., 2020. Biological Resources - Ameresco IS-MND Section 4. • Tetra Tech et al., 2020. Hydrology & Water Quality - Ameresco IS-MND Section 10. June 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2020100267 267 of 276 VII. REVISED MND FIGURES This section includes a list of revised and deleted MND figures associated with the preceding Section VI, followed by the revised figures. List of Revised and Deleted Figures Title/Draft MND Page ......................................................... Revision • Project Area, pg. 6 ......................................................... Revised pipeline alignments • Figure 4 Project Area, pg. 22 ......................................... Revised pipeline alignments • Figure 5 RNGPF Site Plan, pg. 23 ................................. Revised site plan/equipment layout • Figure 6 General Arrangement, pg. 24 .......................... Revised equipment arrangement • Figure 9 Pipeline Plan, pg. 30 ........................................ Revised pipeline alignments • Figure 10 Pipeline in PG&E Property, pg. 31 .............. Replaced with New Figure 10 • Figure 16 PG&E Metering Station, pg. 40 .................... Deleted – location eliminated • Figure 17 PG&E Metering Station ................................ Deleted Isometric View, pg. 41 • Figure 18 Laydown Areas, pg. 42 .................................. Revised for eliminated laydown areas • Figure 9-1 Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG .................... Revised to show new PIR of 55 feet Pipeline PIR of 72 feet, pg. 172 • Figure 9-2 (9100) Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG ........ Replaced with new Figure 9-2 Processing Facility and Pipeline, pg. 173 • Figure 9-3 (9101) Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG ........ Deleted Processing Facility and Pipeline, pg. 174 • Figure 9-4 (9102) Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG ........ Deleted Processing Facility and Pipeline, pg. 175 X X KIRKER PASS ROAD EBRPD SEENO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL EBRPD PG&E PG&E PG&E STATE HIGHWAY 4 AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) PG&E LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA KELLER CANYON LANDFILL KELLER CANYON LANDFILL REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) DISPOSAL AREA LIMIT Green Clean Sustainable. . X X KIRKER PASS ROAD EBRPD SEENO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL EBRPD PG&E PG&E PG&E STATE HIGHWAY 4 AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) PG&E LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA KELLER CANYON LANDFILL KELLER CANYON LANDFILL REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) DISPOSAL AREA LIMIT Green Clean Sustainable. . FI G U R E 6 RN G P R O C E S S I N G F A C I L I T Y G E N E R A L A R R A N G E M E N T ( R E V I S E D ) Gr e e n C l e a n S u s t a i n a b l e . . X X SEENO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PG&E PG&E PG&E AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) DISPOSAL AREA LIMIT Green Clean Sustainable. . OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx Green Clean Sustainable. . C: \ L a n d P r o j e c t s 2 0 0 6 \ A m e r e s c o K e l l e r C a n y o n \ d w g \ 2 0 2 1 F i g u r e s \ F i n a l M N D \ A m - K C L R N G F i g 1 8 ( r e v 0 6 - 0 1 - 2 1 ) . d w g Green Clean Sustainable. . Figure 9-1 Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Pipeline Potential Impact Radius (PIR) of 72 feet 72 ft. 72 ft. RNG Pipeline RNG Pipeline PIR Boundary PIR Boundary Figure 9-1 (Revised) 55 55 55 Source: Ameresco, May 2020. Revised June 2021 X X SEENO LANDFILL ACCESS ROAD BAILEY ROAD BAILEY ROAD PG&E INTERCONNECTION POINT AT STANPAC 3 VALVE LOT (DELETED) AMERESCO RNG FACILITY (PROPOSED) KELLER CANYON LANDFILL SPECIAL BUFFER AREA REVISED ROUTE ~15,050' (PLAN) (~1,035' IN PG&E) KE L L E R C A N Y O N L A N D F I L L SP E C I A L B U F F E R A R E A KELLER CANYON LANDFILL PG&E PG&E PG&E AMERESCO POWER PLANT (EXISTING) LANDFILL ENTRANCE 901 BAILEY RD PITTSBURG, CA REVISED PG&E INTERCONNECTION AT LINE 191-1 PIPELINE ROUTE PROPOSED IN MND (DELETED PORTION) DISPOSAL AREA LIMIT Green Clean Sustainable. . ATTACHMENT 10 MMP FOR MND SCH #2020100267 Mitigation Monitoring Program Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG LLC Renewable Natural Gas Processing Facility and Pipeline Project County File CDLP18-02022 Keller Canyon Landfill 901 Bailey Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 July 13, 2021 Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 2 of 22 SECTION 4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impacts: (a) During project construction, the Ameresco RNGPFP would have potentially significant impacts to certain special status wildlife species including the California red- legged frog and California tiger salamander. (d) Loss of grassland and ruderal habitat would be a potentially significant impact. (f) Non-compliance with HCP/NCCP regulations, requirements, and procedures would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: Biology 1: HCP/NCCP Participation. The applicant shall participate in and receive take coverage under the HCP/NCCP and comply with all conditions of the take coverage. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an HCP/NCCP application and associated fee worksheet to the CDD and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) for review and approval. The temporary and permanent impacts to grassland habitats, jurisdictional waters and wetland resources shall require both temporary and permanent impact fees as defined by the current HCP/NCCP fee schedule at the time of application. Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures as required by the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented to minimize impacts to covered species and jurisdictional resources. The Certificate of Coverage will be issued to the applicant to confirm the fee has been received, that other HCP/NCCP requirements have been met or will be performed and will authorize take of covered species. Participation in the HCP/NCCP will fully satisfy requirements for addressing impacts to the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases; field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor, project biologist, CDD, ECCCHC, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: ECCCHC review and approval of HCP/NCCP application; CDD review and approval of construction documents; ECCCHC certification; verification by contractor, project biologist, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 3 of 22 Potentially Significant Impacts: (a) During project construction, the Ameresco RNGPFP would have potentially significant impacts to certain special status wildlife species including nesting special status bird species, American badger, San Joaquin kit fox, and special status bat species. Mitigation Measures: Biology 2: Burrowing Owl. To avoid and minimize impacts on burrowing owls and potential burrows the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as having potential burrowing owl habitat. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1– August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results will be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. • Avoidance and Minimization and Construction Monitoring: This measure incorporates avoidance and minimization guidelines from CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 – August 31), the applicant shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 – January 31), the applicant shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 4 of 22 During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. Biology 3: Golden Eagle. To avoid and minimize impacts on golden eagles the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to establish whether nests of golden eagles are occupied. If nests are occupied, minimization requirements and construction monitoring will be required. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: Covered activities shall be prohibited within 0.5 mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, although mating and egg incubation occurs late January through August, with peak activity in March through July. If site- specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be implemented, the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. • Construction Monitoring: Construction Monitoring: Construction monitoring shall focus on ensuring that no covered activities occur within the buffer zone established around an active nest. These measures will include consultation with USFWS and CDFW if an active nest is identified, monitoring conducted by a qualified biologist with stop work authority Although no known golden eagle nest sites occur within or near the Urban Limit Line (ULL), covered activities inside and outside of the HCP Preserve System designated in the HCP/NCCP have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites. The majority of the project activities fall outside of the ULL. Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized through direct consultation with USFWS and CDFW on appropriate buffer zones and construction monitoring requirements, a qualified biologist will monitor all activities to ensure Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 5 of 22 the buffer zone is maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Biology 4: Nesting and Migratory Birds. To avoid and minimize impacts on nesting and migratory birds and to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act pre-construction surveys shall be conducted and construction avoidance measures shall be implemented if necessary. • Preconstruction Survey: Riparian vegetation, grassland habitats and trees shall be surveyed prior to commencing with covered activities to evaluate nesting bird habitat. If work is scheduled to take place between February 1 and August 31, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days of construction, covering a radius of 500 feet for non‐listed raptors and 100 feet for non‐listed passerines at all locations. Preconstruction surveys will need to be done in phases as work along the alignment will not be occurring concurrently. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If an active bird nest is found within these buffers, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. If an active nest is present, a minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Biology 5: American Badger. To avoid and minimize impacts on American badgers the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Survey: Prior to commencing with covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey, within the limits of proposed temporary and permanent impact in grassland and ruderal habitat, no less than 14 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect American badger. Copies of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. • Avoidance and Minimization: If potential dens are present, their disturbance and destruction shall be avoided. If potential dens are located within the proposed work area and cannot be avoided during construction, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied or were recently occupied using remote cameras or methodology coordinated with CDFW. If Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 6 of 22 unoccupied, the qualified biologist shall collapse these dens by hand or shall request permission from CDFW to temporarily plug the burrow entrance with sandbags to prevent badgers from re- using them during construction. If occupied, the biologist shall consult with CDFW regarding best practices for encouraging the badger(s) to move to alternate dens outside the work areas. Biology 6: San Joaquin Kit Fox. To avoid and minimize impacts on San Joaquin kit fox the following measures shall be implemented. • Preconstruction Surveys: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas that support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS within five working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the measures described below will be implemented. • Avoidance and Minimization Requirements o If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. o Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. o If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. o If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional five consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 7 of 22 For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). • Construction Monitoring: If dens are identified in the survey area outside the proposed disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances shall be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones shall be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No covered activities shall occur within the exclusion zones. A qualified biologist shall monitor all activities to ensure exclusion zones are maintained and the qualified biologist shall have stop work authority. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens shall be at least 50 feet and shall be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens shall be at least 100 feet and shall be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. A ll exclusion zones shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. Biology 7: Special Status Bats. To avoid and minimize impacts on roosting bats the following measures shall be implemented: • Focused Habitat Assessment: If trees along the access route or within the project site are to be removed a habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if the subject trees have potential habitat. • Preconstruction Surveys: If the project does not avoid impacts to suitable habitat for special status bats, a preconstruction survey shall be required to determine whether the sites are occupied immediately prior to construction or whether they show signs of recent previous occupation. Preconstruction surveys are used to determine what avoidance and minimization requirements are triggered before construction and whether construction monitoring is necessary. Copies of the preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the CDD, the ECCCHC, and CDFW. If occupied habitat is determined present and cannot be avoided, consultation with CDFW shall occur in order to determine the appropriate plan for eviction and compensatory mitigation. • Avoidance and Minimization: If the species is discovered or if evidence of recent prior occupation is established, construction shall be scheduled such that it minimizes impacts on special status bats. Hibernation sites with evidence of prior occupation shall be sealed before the hibernation season (November–March), and nursery sites shall be sealed before the nursery season (April–August). If the site is occupied, then the action shall occur either prior to or after the hibernation season for hibernacula and after August 15 for nursery colonies. Construction shall not take place as long as the site is occupied. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 8 of 22 Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases; field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor, project biologist, CDD, ECCCHC, CDFW, USFWS, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents; ECCCHC certification; CDFW and USFWS certification as required; verification by contractor, project biologist, and Building Inspection Division. Potentially Significant Impacts: (b) A California buckeye grove occurs in the SBA along the existing ranch road and some trees nearly or slightly overhang the road could be damaged by large project equipment. The loss of one or more California buckeye trees would be a potentially significant impact during project construction. (e) Trees protected by the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance are present in the SBA. The trimming of Code-protected trees within the California Buckeye Grove during construction would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: Biology 8: Tree Pruning Overseen by Certified Arborist. Prior to any tree pruning and subject to CDD review, the applicant shall hire a Certified arborist to oversee and/or conduct any native -tree pruning required to access, construct, and implement the Project. Proposed removal of existing pepper trees at the proposed RNG Processing Facility shall be mapped and submitted to the CDD for review. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases; field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor, certified arborist, CDD, ECCCHC, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents; ECCCHC certification as required; verification by contractor, certified arborist, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 9 of 22 Potentially Significant Impact: (b) Gum plant patches occur along the pipeline route and access roads within the SBA. Construction activities that result in direct disturbance to gum plant patches would be potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure: Biology 9: Develop Temporary Restoration Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall develop a Temporary Restoration Plan to ensure the site is restored to pre-project conditions. This may include measures such as topsoil preservation per station segments and reseeding with native seed mixes. The Temporary Restoration Plan will include updated mapping of current Sensitive Natural Communities, monitoring of topsoil preservation in areas that are directly impacted (California buckeye groves and Gum Plant patches) and monitoring and reporting of SNCs that are to be avoided (rock outcrops and associated California match weed patches). The Temporary Restoration Plan shall be submitted to the CDD and the ECCCHC for review and approval. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases; field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor, project biologist, CDD, ECCCHC, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: ECCCHC review and approval of Temporary Restoration Plan; CDD review and approval of construction documents; ECCCHC certification; verification by contractor, project biologist, and Building Inspection Division. Potentially Significant Impact: (c) The applicant will need to submit the Aquatic Resources Delineation to the ECCCHC and as required to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Neglecting to submit the ARD to the permitting agencies would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: Biology 10: Aquatic Resources Delineation. In conjunction with Biology 1, the applicant shall submit the Aquatic Resources Delineation to the ECCCHC for review and approval, and as required, to the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project biologist, CDD, ECCCHC, Army Corps, CDFW, RWQCB. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 10 of 22 Compliance Verification: ECCCHC review and approval of Aquatic Resources Delineation; CDD review and approval of construction documents; ECCCHC certification; Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB certification as required. Potentially Significant Impact: (c) The applicant will need to obtain necessary permits from the Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. Starting construction of the proposed project prior to obtaining the required permits would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: Biology 11: Implement the Permit Conditions of the Aquatic Resource Agencies. Prior to commencing project construction, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Army Corps, CDFW, and/or RWQCB. Avoidance, minimization, and compensation will be determined by these agencies. The agencies will set the permit conditions, which are likely to include onsite enhancement and monitoring of seeps and drainages to ensure groundwater and surface water interruptions do not occur as a result of the project. The applicant shall be responsible to implement the permit conditions, subject to oversight by the agencies. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases; field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project biologist, CDD, ECCCHC, Army Corps, CDFW, RWQCB. and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents; ECCCHC certification; Army Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB certification as required; verification by contractor, project biologist, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 11 of 22 SECTION 5: CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impacts: (a) Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and other earthwork, and therefore, it is possible that buried historical resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Damage or destruction of these historic resources during project construction would be a potentially significant impact. (b) Grading and other earthwork associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Damage or destruction of these archaeological resources during project construction would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources 1: The following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction. 1. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. 2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped unt il a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor, project archaeologist, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents; verification by contractor, project archaeologist, and Building Inspection Division. Potentially Significant Impact: (c) There is a possibility that human remains could be present within the project area and accidental discovery could occur. Consequently, construction activities on the project site could result in a potentially significant impact due to disturbance of human remains. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources 2: Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 12 of 22 has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); field review during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor, County coroner, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents; verification by contractor, County coroner, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 13 of 22 SECTION 7: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impacts: (a)(ii) Strong ground shaking could trigger reactivation of shallow slope failures within the dormant landslide, resulting in a potentially significant impact. (a)(iv) There is a potential for portions of the ancient landslide to be reactivated, which could result in a potentially significant impact on the pipeline within the slide area. (c) There is a potential for liquefaction at the proposed RNG processing facility site and for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline corridor area, which could result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures: Geology 1: To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, implementation of the following measures shall be required: A. Avoid crossing the lower elevations of the slide, where down cutting and potential regressive slope failures adjacent to canyon bottoms. B. Cross landslides where topography is relatively gentle. C. Minimize earthwork in the landslide area by orienting the pipeline crossing so that it parallels the topographic contour. D. Implement a ground movement monitoring program that shall include at least bi-annual monitoring (i.e., before and after the rainy season), and after significant earthquake in accordance with the provisions of an “Inspection and Monitoring Program.” That program shall specify the qualifications of the inspector, identify the segments if the pipeline to be inspected, and provide an inspection form that shall identify the date of the inspection; name, title and contact information for the inspector; descriptions of the features observed; recommendations of inspector for supplemental/ special geotechnical investigations or other corrective work; and indicate the entity/ staff position that is to receive the inspection for Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG, LLC (or its successor). Copies of all inspection reports shall be kept on file by the operator of the facility and shall be made available for review by representatives of Contra Costa County (e.g., during routine mitigation monitoring by the County). E. Include an automatic shut off valve and other safety measures in the pipeline design. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); monitoring during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, County peer review geologist, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 14 of 22 Compliance Verification: County peer review geologist review of construction documents; CDD review and approval of construction documents; County peer review geologist review of bi-annual reports; CDD review and approval of bi-annual reports; verification by contractor, project geotechnical engineer, and Building Inspection Division. Potentially Significant Impacts: (a)(iii) There is a potentially significant impact due to seismic related ground failure at the proposed RNG processing facility site. (c) There is a potential for liquefaction at the proposed RNG processing facility site and for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline corridor area, which could result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures: Geology 2: To mitigate the confirm/ modify the preliminary assessment of liquefaction for the RNG processing facility, the following measures shall be implemented: A. The project geotechnical engineer shall present an updated evaluation of liquefaction potential of the sand body penetrated by boring B-102 from 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface, based on the methodology and parameters required by the CGS for projects located in the Seismic Hazard Zone (SHZ). The seismic parameters peak used in the analysis shall match those provided by SHZ Report 127; the analysis shall reference the methodology selected by the project geotechnical engineer; provide justification the parameters that were inputs into the computer model run(s); and shall clearly demonstrate the analysis is consistent with the standards required for projects in the SHZ. B. The liquefaction analysis presented in response to item 2.A above shall be submitted for review at least 30 days prior to submitting an application for a grading or building permit for the RNG processing facility. That report shall also provide final recommendations for site grading, drainage, and foundation design, including recommendations for reinforced earth, retaining walls, and foundations of proposed structures. It shall also present plan review comments of the project geotechnical engineers, and geologists, outline the recommended observation and testing services during construction. C. The report required by items 2.A and 2.B above shall be subject to review by the County Peer Review Geologist, and review/ approval by the CDD. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); monitoring during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, County peer review geologist, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 15 of 22 Compliance Verification: County peer review geologist review of construction documents and liquefaction reports; CDD review and approval of construction documents and liquefaction reports; verification by contractor, project geotechnical engineer, and Building Inspection Division Potentially Significant Impacts: (a)(iv) There is a potential for portions of the ancient landslide to be reactivated, which could result in a potentially significant impact on the pipeline within the slide area. (c) There is a potential for liquefaction at the proposed RNG processing facility site and for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline corridor area, which could result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures: Geology 3: To mitigate the potential impact of future ground movement/ reactivation of landslide associated with a significant seismic event, the Geology 1 mitigation measures shall be implemented. In addition, the following measures are required: A. The project engineering geologist shall view where landslide deposits are in contact with colluvium of bedrock. This shall occur prior to placement of any bedding/ backfill in the following segments of the trench to determine if weak soil conditions are encountered that would warrant special engineering at such interfaces (e.g., over- excavation of any soft material at the slide/ bedrock contact, and replacement with reinforced earth or other special engineering). The findings of the project engineering geologist shall be documented in the final grading report. The project engineering geologist shall view and document exposed conditions in the pipeline trench where it crosses the boundary of landslides Qls #2, Qls #3 and Qls #4. B. The project engineering geologist shall view exposed conditions in the immediate area of the trench pipeline crossing of the Kirker Pass fault. The fault is a geologic contact, so there is potential for contrasting engineering properties of the rock units on opposite sides of the fault, along with the engineering properties of the fault zone. The fault zone area is a potentially weak, marginally stable area that can be expected to include highly fractured rock, shear planes, possible gouge zone, and possible seepage zone. These are adverse conditions could influence local slope stability. The final grading report shall include mapping of the fault zone and provide an explanation of any special recommendations/ special engineering incorporated into the design. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: After grading but prior to CDD approval of building permit documents; monitoring during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, County peer review geologist, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 16 of 22 Compliance Verification: County peer review geologist review of construction documents and final grading report; CDD review and approval of construction documents and final grading report; verification by contractor, project geotechnical engineer, and Building Inspection Division. Potentially Significant Impacts: (b) There is a potential for substantial soil erosion, which could result in a potentially significant impact at the two identified locations along the pipeline corridor. area. (c) There is a potential for liquefaction at the proposed RNG processing facility site and for landslides and soil creep along the pipeline corridor area, which could result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures: Geology 4: To mitigate the potential for future headward erosion, soil creep, and shallow sloughing to undermine the pipeline, implementation of scour protection measures shall be implemented where the pipeline crosses seasonal water courses. A. Where feasible, the pipeline shall be buried below the potential scour depth. B. Scour assessment shall be performed by the project geotechnical engineer at locations specified in the project geotechnical engineer’s reports. Typical scour protection measures shall be considered for use, including structural and/ or biotechnical erosion control. The selection of the scour protection measures shall be based upon completion of the scour assessment and shall consider environmental constraints. C. During construction, the scour assessment shall be determined by the project geotechnical engineer and may include a plan view, typical section(s), and specifications for the proposed stabilization/ erosion control measures. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: After grading but prior to CDD approval of building permit documents; monitoring during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, County peer review geologist, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: County peer review geologist review of construction documents; CDD review and approval of construction documents; verification by contractor, project geotechnical engineer, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 17 of 22 Potentially Significant Impacts: (d) Expansive and corrosive soils on the project site could result in potentially significant impacts on the proposed RNG processing facility and the pipeline. Mitigation Measures: Geology 5: To mitigate the potential impact of expansive and corrosive soils, implementation of the following measures shall be required: A. For the RNG processing facility, additional soil expansion and corrosion hazard testing shall be required for the on-site and any import earth materials by the project geotechnical engineer. The findings of the testing shall be documented in the final grading report, which shall provide specific standards and criteria for the geotechnical aspects of the RNG processing facility. B. The final grading report required by Geology 5.A shall be subject to review by the Peer Review Geologist, and review and approval by the CDD. C. For the pipeline, a California licensed corrosion engineer shall be retained by the applicant to identify suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits and fittings. D. During pipeline construction, the corrosion potential of the on-site soils shall be verified for each encountered soil type E. Any import fill materials shall be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential. All import must be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to transporting to the project site. F. The corrosion engineer shall review available information on the corrosion hazard and may require additional testing. The corrosion engineer shall document the specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations, and any monitoring recommendations, in a wet signed and stamped letter-report. That report shall be submitted to the CDD prior to placing any pipe. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: After grading but prior to CDD approval of building permit documents; monitoring during construction. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, project corrosion engineer, County peer review geologist, CDD, and Building Inspection Division. Compliance Verification: County peer review geologist review of construction documents, final grading report, and corrosion report; CDD review and Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 18 of 22 approval of construction documents, final grading report, and corrosion report; verification by contractor, project geotechnical engineer, project corrosion engineer, and Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 19 of 22 SECTION 13: NOISE Potentially Significant Impact: (a) Within the PG&E utility corridor, the pipeline would be installed approximately 50 feet from residences to the east. Pipeline construction would be anticipated to occur for relatively short periods of time in any specific location as construction proceeds along the project’s alignment. Nevertheless, noise levels could exceed ambient levels by as much as 26 dBA in the PG&E utility corridor at the nearest residences during daytime periods of construction. As a result, noise from pipeline installation that exceeds the normally acceptable 60 dBA noise level for single-family residences could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation and shall be included on all sets of construction drawings. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. 2. A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the property with the telephone number and person to contact regarding construction-related complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Department of Conservation and Development phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3. Additional noise reduction measures shall be implemented during pipeline installation in the PG&E utility corridor: a. Per City of Pittsburg Municipal Ordinance Section 18.82.040 Noise, no construction event or activity occurring on the PG&E property adjoining existing residential uses shall generate loud noises in excess of 65 decibels measured at the property line, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. b. Per City of Pittsburg General Plan Noise Element Policy 12-P-9, the applicant shall restrict outdoor construction activities in the PG&E utility corridor to the period from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. c. In addition to the foregoing, the applicant shall provide notification to occupants of property directly adjacent to the PG&E utility corridor two weeks prior to, and 24-hours prior to, scheduled construction activity in the PG&E utility corridor. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: During pipeline installation within the PG&E utility corridor; field verification during pipeline installation. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 20 of 22 Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, contractor; Building Inspection Division, and City of Pittsburg. Compliance Verification: Verification by contractor; Building Inspection Division, and City of Pittsburg. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 21 of 22 SECTION 18: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact: (a) Because construction of the proposed project would involve grading and other earthwork, it is possible that buried historical resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Damage or destruction of these historic resources during project c onstruction would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures Cultural Resources 1 would reduce the impact of the future development activities to a less than significant level. Potentially Significant Impact: (b) Grading and other earthwork associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. Damage or destruction of archaeological resources and disturbance of human remains during project construction would be potentially significant impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures Cultural Resources 1 and Cultural Resources 2 would reduce the impact of the future development activities to a less than significant level. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) CDLP18-02022 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 22 of 22 SECTION 20: WILDFIRE Potentially Significant Impact: (d) The proposed project would expose people or structures to potentially significant post-wildfire impacts due to seismic related ground failure, reactivation of ancient landslides, soil erosion, and liquefaction, and unstable geologic units or soil. Implementation of mitigation measures Geology 1, Geology 2, Geology 3, and Geology 4 would reduce the impact of the proposed project to a less than significant level. CDLP18-02022 Ameresco Keller Canyon RNGPFP Board of Supervisors July 13, 2021 1 Map of Ameresco RNGPF and Underground RNG Pipeline 2 RNG Processing Facility Site Plan 3 Three Pipeline Segments Revised 4 RNG Pipeline Connection with PG&E Line 191-1 (Segment 1) 5 Tie-In to PG&E Line 191-1 (Segment 1) 6 RNG Pipeline Moved Farther Away From Property Boundary (Segment 2) 7 RNG Pipeline Realigned (Segment 3) 8 Area Removed From Project 9 RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the County Board of Supervisors: 1. OPEN the public hearing on the Tassajara Parks Residential Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. CERTIFY that the environmental impact report prepared for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors before Project approval, and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis. 3. CERTIFY the environmental impact report prepared for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project. 4. ADOPT the attached CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and statement of overriding considerations for the Project. 5. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 6. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Street, Martinez, California, is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. 7. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Board Chair to execute a preservation agreement APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Sean Tully, (925) 655-2878 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Tassajara Parks Residential Project RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) between the County, the City of San Ramon, and the East Bay Regional Park District. 8. ADOPT a Resolution No. 2021/216, amending the General Plan to change the Urban Limit Line to include the Project’s 30-acre residential development area and to change the land use designation of the Project site to single-family residential, high density (SH); parks and recreation (PR); and public/semi-public (PS) (County File #GP13-0003). 9. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-24, rezoning the Project site from an exclusive agricultural (A-80) district to a planned unit (P-1) district (County File #RZ09-3212). 10. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-23, approving the development agreement between Contra Costa County and FT Land LLC. 11. APPROVE the vesting tentative map for the Project (County File #SD10-9280). 12. APPROVE the preliminary and final development plan for the Project and the associated tree permit and exception requests (County File #DP10-3008). 13. APPROVE the findings in support of the Project. 14. APPROVE the Project conditions of approval. 15. APPROVE the Tassajara Parks Project. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional costs associated with the application process. BACKGROUND: This hearing is to review the General Plan Amendment (CDGP07-00009), Rezoning (CDRZ09-03212), Major Subdivision (CDSD10-09280), Development Plan (CDDP10-03008), Tree Permit, Exception (from provision of Title-9), and Development Agreement elements of the proposed Tassajara Parks Residential Project. As further described below, on June 9, 2021, the County Planning Commission considered the project and passed a motion (4-2), recommending that the County Board of Supervisors deny the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project includes the following initial discretionary approvals by the County: 1. General Plan Amendment (Urban Limit Line Change): Change to the Urban Limit Line to include the 30-acre Residential Area of the Northern Site. This area will incorporate the proposed 125 residential lots and related urban improvements. 2. General Plan Amendment (Land Use Change): Amendment to the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element by way of changing the existing Agricultural Lands (AL) designations of the Project Site to Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Public/Semi-Public (PS) designations. 3, Rezoning: Rezoning of the existing Exclusive Agricultural (A-80) zoning districts within the Project Site to a new project-specific Planned Unit (P-1) district. 4. Vesting Tentative Map: Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the Project Site into 125 single-family residential lots, open space parcels, a community park parcel, a detention basinparcel, a pedestrian staging area parcel, a sanitary sewer pump station parcel, and a San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District parcel. 5. Development Plan: Preliminary and Final Development Plan to allow the construction of the Tassajara Parks Project with associated roadway, infrastructure, utility, and school parking lot improvements consisting of the following elements: Up to 125 single-family residential lots Community Park Pedestrian Staging Area Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Stormwater Detention Basin Roadway Dedications along Camino Tassajara and Finley Road Parking Lot Improvements to Tassajara Hills Elementary School under independent agreement with San Ramon Unified School District Earth moving activities consisting of approximately 300,000 cubic yards 6. Tree Permit: Tree permit to allow the removal of up to 19 trees. 7. Exception: Exception from the following provisions of Title-9 frontage improvements and pavement widening streetlights within one mile of an existing school frontage improvements on the side or sides of the roadway adjacent to the subdivision sidewalks within one mile of an existing school placement of overhead utility distribution facilities underground collect and convey drainage standards 8. Development Agreement : Development Agreement between Contra Costa County and FT Land LLC. Following County approval of the above referenced entitlements, the Project conditions of approval require that the applicant obtain several subsequent approvals including, among others, the following: 9. Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD): Annexation of approximately 125 acres of the Northern Site into the Dougherty Valley GHAD to address geologic hazards as permitted under Public Resources Code section 26500 et seq. 10. Land Transfer to East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD): Convey 118 acres of Northern Site and 609 acres of Southern Site to the (EBRPD) via fee simple transfer. The foregoing approximately 727 acres of land are referred to as the Dedication Area, collectively. This fee simple conveyance to the EBRPD will ensure that the Dedication Area is protected and preserved in perpetuity for the following non-urban uses only: agriculture, open space, parks, recreation, scenic uses, wetland preservation and creation, and habitat mitigation. 11. Trail Easement: Grant of a perpetual trail easement to the EBRPD over a portion of the Northern Site. 12. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) Parcel : Offer of dedication of a 7-acre portion of the Southern Site to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for future public use (this has already been offered; if not accepted pursuant to the terms of the Contingent Offer of Dedication, this parcel will be dedicated to EBRPD). As a necessary precondition to approving the Project, the County is considering approval of a Preservation Agreement. 13. Preservation Agreement : The County, the City of San Ramon, and EBRPD have negotiated a Preservation Agreement for the preservation of land in the Tassajara Valley area of the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban land uses. The City of San Ramon and EBRPD have each adopted a resolution approving the Preservation Agreement. ENVIRONMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The Tassajara Parks Project Site consists of approximately 771 acres of land within the Tassajara Valley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The Project Site comprises four separate parcels that are located along a stretch of Camino Tassajara, just east of the City of San Ramon and Town of Danville limits. The Project Site consists of two areas. The Northern Site is approximately 155 acres and is composed of one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 220-100-023. The Northern Site is surrounded by Mount Diablo State Park and other undeveloped land to the north; rural residences, undeveloped land, and Finley Road to the east; Camino Tassajara to the south, and Tassajara Hills Elementary School and residences of the Blackhawk community to the west. The Southern Site is located less than 0.5 miles to the south and is composed of three parcels and approximately 616 total acres. The Southern Site is bounded by undeveloped land, horse stables, and rural residences to the north; Camino Tassajara, rural residences, a swim school, and a fire training facility to the east; and undeveloped land to the south and west. The 10-acre Tassajara Hills Elementary School site is located immediately west of the Northern Site, and is proposed to be improved as part of the Project. These adjacent parking lot improvements are unrelated to the residential element of the Project and are proposed to ease existing traffic circulation and parking issues on the school property. These are off-site ancillary improvements that have been voluntarily offered by the applicant as an additional community benefit, and thus the 10-acre school site is not included as part of the 771-acre Project Site described above and listed below. Project Site (Approximate Acreage) Northern Site 155 Total Acres1. Residential Development Area: 30 Acres Preservation Area: 118 Acres Other (e.g. detention basin): 7 Acres Southern Site 616 Total Acres2. San Ramon Valley Fire Parcel: 7 Acres Preservation Area: 609 Acres CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): The Department of Conservation and development (DCD) Community Development Division (CDD) determined that an EIR was required for the Project and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 27, 2014. A revised NOP was distributed on June 11, 2014, to reflect changes to the project description, including the elimination of a proposed waterline between the Northern and Southern Sites and the elimination of the proposed Fire Training Facility at the Southern Site. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was released for public review on May 12, 2016, and was available for public review and comment for a period of 68 days, through July 18, 2016. A public hearing to receive comments on the DEIR was held before the Zoning Administrator on June 6, 2016. In response to comments received during the public comment period for the DEIR, additional environmental analysis was completed for the Project. A Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) was released for public review on September 29, 2016, and was available for public review and comment for a period of 63 days, through November 30, 2016. A public hearing to receive comments on the RDEIR was held before the Zoning Administrator on November 14, 2016. The Responses to Comments/Final EIR and attached appendices (collectively, FEIR) was published and distributed on September 14, 2020. The EIR (which consists of the RDEIR and attached appendices and the FEIR) identifies significant unavoidable impacts that would occur if the Project is implemented. The EIR also identifies potentially significant environmental impacts that would occur if the Project is implemented, and recommends feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. All mitigations are included within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which describes the timing and responsibility for monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures. All mitigation measures are included in the recommended conditions of approval. Summary of Environmental Impacts The EIR identifies environmental impacts that would occur if the Project is approved and implemented. Even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, some impacts would not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the following impacts are identified as being significant and unavoidable. 1. Adopted Air Quality Plan Consistency: Since the Project would not achieve the per capita annual GHG emissions threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr established by the BAAQMD even after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to conflicts with the GHG Reduction Goal of the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures; however, these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Greenhouse Gas Operational Emission Threshold : The Project would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr for operational emissions due to sources including, but not limited to, vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, off-site generation of electrical power, energy required to convey water and wastewater, and emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures; however, these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Near-Term Plus Project Freeway Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments and one intersection that would operate at unacceptable LOS levels under Near Term Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments and intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Congestion Management Plan: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain Congestion Management Plan facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce Project impacts to a level of less than significant. The EIR identifies environmental impacts that would occur if the Project is approved and implemented. Potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels were identified in the EIR in the following areas: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use, Population and Housing; Noise; Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Service Systems. 2. Air Quality: Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to: violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and generate direct and indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact. All of the potentially significant impacts listed above can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Biological Resources: Construction of the Project has the potential for having an adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species; and adversely affecting federally protected wetlands. All of the potentially significant impacts listed above can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Cultural Resources: Construction of the Project has the potential for resulting in substantial adverse changes in the significance of previously undiscovered historical resources; substantial adverse changes in the significance of a previously undiscovered archaeological resource; directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature; and disturbing human remains. All of the potentially significant impacts listed above can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Construction of the Project has the potential for exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards; substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; being located on an unstable geologic unit or soil; and being exposed to hazards associated with expansive soils. All of the potentially significant impacts listed above can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Construction of the Project has the potential for creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality : Construction and operation activites associated with the Project have the potential to degrade surface water quality in downstream water bodies. This potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Land Use, Population, and Housing: Construction and operation activities associated with the Project have the potential to conflict with applicable East Bay Municipal Utility District annexation policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Noise: Construction activities and operation of the Project have the potential for exposing persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan, noise ordinance, or other applicable standards of other agencies; and resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. All of the potentially significant impacts listed above can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Transportation and Traffic: Operation of the Project has the potential for substantially increasing hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. This potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Utilities and Service Systems: Operation of the Project has the potential for resulting in a need for additional water supplies, additional treatment capacity, or additional distribution facilities. This potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The attached CEQA Findings summarize the environmental determinations about the Project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation, summarizes the Project’s individual and cumulative impacts, and includes a statement of overriding consideration for those impacts that could not be reduced to a less than significant level. All mitigation measures will be implemented through the conditions of approval. Public Comment : Multiple pieces of correspondence (letters and emails) were received during the public comment periods for the DEIR and RDEIR, as was oral testimony during public hearings held by the Zoning Administrator to receive comments on the DEIR and RDEIR. The County also received public comments prior to the application being deemed complete and throughout the application review process. The County is only required to respond to those comments that raised significant environmental issues and that were received during the public comment periods for the DEIR and RDEIR, as well as those received during the public hearings held to accept comments; those responses are included and responded to in the Final EIR. All other comments have been attached to this report for review and consideration by the County final decision-makers (Board of Supervisors). In the interest of being fully responsive and to facilitate full disclosure, the County determined that it would respond to the original comments provided in connection with the DEIR raising substantial environmental concerns, and comments received in connection with the RDEIR; this is the case even if certain comments are duplicative. Accordingly, the County prepared responses to comments on the DEIR and the RDEIR that duplicative. Accordingly, the County prepared responses to comments on the DEIR and the RDEIR that raised environmental issues, as set forth in more detail in the FEIR. EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO RELEASE OF FEIR September 30, 2020 Planning Commission Hearing : The Tassajara Parks project was initially scheduled to be heard before the County Planning Commission on September 30, 2020. However, the applicant requested that the hearing be postponed to allow time for consideration of comments received from the proposed water purveyor, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), on September 29, 2020. The project was subsequently rescheduled and heard before the County Planning Commission on June 9, 2021. Coordination with EBMUD Staff: Subsequent to the postponement of the September 30, 2020 County Planning Commission hearing, County staff worked with EBMUD staff and the applicant to discuss and address concerns detailed in their September 29, 2020, letter. The discussions between the parties focused on clarifying and providing supportive analysis for the feasibility of proposed conservation measures for offsetting the project’s water demand. The culmination of these discussions is a May 4, 2021, memorandum from the applicant’s consultant, Tully & Young, titled "Tassajara Parks Water Demand Offset Updated Preliminary Feasibility Analysis" (see “Water Conservation Measures Feasibility Memo & Associated EBMUD Comments” Attachment for this report and two related documents). The information in the memorandum is purely additional data to clarify and amplify the feasibility of the accelerated water conservation measures previously discussed in the project EIR and is not significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and recirculation of the project EIR is not required. The rationale for staff’s determination is discussed in further detail below and in the "May 27, 2021 EBMUD Letters" section below. Added Conditions of Approval for Water Demand: Prior to the June 9, 2020, Planning Commission hearing and at the request of EBMUD staff, County staff developed additional recommended project conditions of approval (COAs) pertaining to the procurement of water to serve the project. In summary, the added COAs address the manner and timing in which water can be supplied to the project, final selection of the water conservation measures to be implemented for the project, water demand mitigation fees, provisions of the required agreement between the applicant and EBMUD, and annexation of the project site into EBMUD’s service area. The added conditions have been incorporated as staff’s recommended COAs #80-1 through #80-5. Staff provided a draft of these additional conditions to EBMUD staff, received written comments from EBMUD staff, and attempted to address the comments in the attached revised COAs. May 27, 2021 EBMUD Letters : After the applicant provided its water supply feasibility analysis and staff prepared the augmented COAs, EBMUD and a legal firm representing EBMUD (Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP) submitted letters on May 27, 2021, reiterating EBMUD's opposition to the project and its assertion that the EIR should be recirculated. Specifically, the letters state that the EBMUD Board of Directors recently declared a Stage-1 drought and that the District’s water supplies are deficient for meeting the demand of their existing customers. The letters state that the additional water made available by the conservation measures proposed to accommodate the Project’s water demand must be, by District policy, made available to existing District customers to address supply deficiencies. Staff believes that the letters of EBMUD and their legal counsel do not present significant new information. The EIR and project description identify that water service to the project by EBMUD is subject to either an extraterritorial water service agreement or annexation into the EBMUD service area, and approval by EBMUD’s Board of Directors and the Local Agency Formation Commission. The EIR, at pages 3.9-37 through 3.9-41, identifies and analyzes the EBMUD policies referenced in both letters. Mitigation measure MM USS-1, implemented by recommended COA Nos. 80 and 80-1 through 80-5, requires the applicant to provide proof of water service to the Community Development Division prior to filing any final map. Proof of water service must be in the form of a written communication from EBMUD confirming the availability of water service for the project site. The EBMUD Board of Directors will ultimately determine if and when the project can be provided water service. The EIR includes a robust water supply analysis which accounts for drought conditions due to California’s well-known pattern of dry conditions. Water Supply Assessment requirements established by SB 610 outline the information and analysis that must be included in a CEQA document prepared for certain projects of a specified size and composed of certain land-uses (e.g., subdivisions larger than 500 residential units). For such covered projects, the Water Supply Assessment must assess whether projected water supplies identified to serve a proposed project will be sufficient to meet existing and planned water demands over a 20-year horizon. SB 610 requires the assessment of water supply sufficiency in single-dry years and multiple-dry years—not just under normal, or average, hydrologic conditions. Although the proposed project is not a covered project under SB 610, the EIR’s Water Supply Evaluation (Appendix J) utilized the analytical framework required by SB 610 for Water Supply Assessments, including incorporating drought conditions in the evaluation. Accordingly, the EIR’s Water Supply Evaluation incorporates single-year and multiple-year drought conditions in its analysis of project water demand and water supply sufficiency. County staff has appreciated the opportunity to work with EBMUD staff to better understand their concerns and believes the analysis and new COAs are responsive to these concerns. However, staff believes that significant new information has not been presented such that the EIR would need to be recirculated. Staff also believes that the “Tassajara Parks Water Demand Offset Updated Preliminary Feasibility Analysis” memorandum prepared by the applicant does not present significant new information. The EIR identified the environmental impact of the project’s water demand and identified as a mitigation measure that prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant must demonstrate to the County that all required approvals to implement provision of water to the Project have been obtained. The EIR further analyzed water availability and identified measures that would result in a demand offset of up to 2 million gallons per day. The EIR identified that the water demand offset could be achieved through offsite water conservation measures by accelerating currently planned conservation and/or expanding conservation beyond currently planned levels approved in the Water Supply Management Program 2040 (WSMP) within EBMUD’s service area by an amount that offsets the project’s water demand. The EIR recognized that the applicant, in consultation with EBMUD, would use information from the WSMP 2040 to develop the preferred conservation elements to be accelerated or expanded. The memorandum supplements the information in the EIR by detailing the likely success of certain proposed “Level E” water conservation measures in response to EBMUD comments regarding the feasibility of implementing the conservation measures. Staff’s added COAs do not constitute a new or modified project mitigation, but reinforce what is stated in the EIR—that implementation of offsite water conservation measures to offset the project’s water demand will be done in consultation with and approved by EBMUD. Absent the memorandum and additional COAs, the EIR accurately identifies the project-specific impacts on water demand and a method for reducing those impacts to a less than significant level. EBMUD Resolution: On June 8, 2021, prior to the Project being heard before the County Planning Commission, the EBMUD Board of Directors considered the Project and adopted a resolution that formally declared the District's opposition to annexing the project site into the District's service area, found the Project inconsistent with the District's annexation policies, and made findings and declarations regarding the unavailability of water to serve the Project. The signed resolution has been included as an attachment to this report. San Ramon and EBRPD Approve Preservation Agreement: Both the City of San Ramon and EBRPD have brought the Preservation Agreement before their governing bodies for consideration. The San Ramon City Council unanimously approved Resolution 2020-114 on November 24, 2020, which authorizes the Mayor of San Ramon to execute the Agreement. Similarly, the EBRPD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve Resolution No. 2020-12-286 on December 1, 2020, which authorized their District General Manager to execute the Agreement. The Preservation Agreement is further discussed in the "Preservation Agreement" Section below. Town of Danville Opposition: The Town of Danville has commented that the project EIR is inadequate and that Danville is opposed to the Project. Danville's comments regarding alleged inaccuracies in the Project EIR were provided in letters dated November 30, 2016 and July, 18 2016. The County subsequently provided responses to each of Danville's comments and verified accuracy of the project EIR in the "Response To Comments" Section of the Final EIR, which was released for public review on September 14, 2020. Danville also submitted letters to Conservation and Development staff and the County Planning Commission, dated June 9, 2021 and September 30, 2020, wherein they again challenge the adequacy of the Project EIR. Additionally, on October 20, 2020, the Danville Town Council approved Resolution #72-2020 wherein Danville formally opposes the Tassajara Parks Project, requests that the County reject the FEIR, and requests that the County deny the project and all related actions. The November 30, 2016 and July 18, 2016 Danville letters were included in the "Response To Comments" section of the FEIR, and copies of Danville’s June 9, 2021 and September 30, 2020 letters and adopted Council resolution have been included as attachments to this report. GENERAL PLAN Urban Limit Line and 65/35 Land Preservation Standard: As explained in more detail below, the County’s General Plan includes a 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, which limits urban development to no more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the land in the County and requires that at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the land in the County be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other nonurban uses (“65/35 Land Preservation Standard”). Among other things, Measure C-1990 (approved by the County’s voters) established the County’s Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) to implement and enforce the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The Measure C-1990 ULL was subsequently incorporated into the County General Plan and County Ordinance Code. In 2004, County voters approved Measure J. Among other things, Measure J required the County and all cities within the County to have a voter-approved urban limit line, developed and maintained in accord with the "Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line" (collectively, “Principles”), to receive the sales tax proceeds from Measure C-1988. In November 2006, County voters approved Measure L. Among other things, Measure L: (1) extended the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard to December 31, 2026; and (2) required a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Board (after making one or more specified findings based on substantial evidence) and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than thirty (30) acres. The Project includes a proposal to expand the ULL to include the 30-acre Residential Development Area on the Northern Site (as those terms are defined in the Project’s EIR). Changes to the ULL are governed by the County’s ULL policies that implement the voter-approved ULL and are reflected in Chapters 1 and 4 of the General Plan and in Chapter 82-1 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Section 82-1.018 of the County Code provides that a proposal to expand the ULL by 30 acres or less does not require voter approval, but requires approval by a four-fifths vote of the Board after a public hearing and making one or more of specified findings. One such finding is that a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement. As described in the Project Findings, the County, the City of San Ramon, and the EBRPD are considering entering into a preservation agreement that would support the finding (San Ramon and EBRPD have approved the preservation agreement). Precedent for Repeated ULL Modifications: Approval of this Project or the Preservation Agreement will not directly facilitate any future change to the ULL. Any future proposal to change the ULL must comply with the requirements found in the County’s General Plan and Ordinance Code. Moreover, and as more fully discussed in the Project’s EIR, additional acreage would not be “at risk” of being moved inside the ULL with approval of the Project for the following reasons: 1. Most of the privately-owned parcels abutting the ULL in the area of the project site are inherently unsuitable for urban development due to significant physical constraints; 2. The Project includes growth-deterring components that are unique to the Project Site through the dedication of approximately 727 of acres of land to public entities for preservation in perpetuity. The publicly-owned and/or controlled lands will abut approximately 1.5 miles of the adjusted ULL boundary in the Tassajara Valley. The Project will essentially create a physical “green buffer” along portions of the ULL boundary that will effectively preclude opportunities for future ULL expansions in this area of the County. 3. Many properties that have been identified as purportedly “at risk” of being pursued for inclusion within the ULL are already government-owned and/or controlled. Land Uses: The entire Project Site is located within an Agricultural Lands (AL) General Plan Land Use designation. As part of the proposed Project, the applicant seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the 30-acre Residential Development Area to a Single-Family Residential High Density (SH) designation, the 7-acre San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District portion in the Southern Site to a Public/Semi-Public (PS) designation, and the remaining portions of the Project Site to a Parks and Recreation (PR) designation. The primary uses permitted within the SH designation are detached single-family residences, accessory structures, and duplexes or duets in specified areas with conventional zoning. Secondary uses typically considered to be compatible include home occupations, small residential care and childcare facilities, places of worship, accessory dwelling units, and other uses and structures incidental to the primary uses. The Project proposes the construction of 125 single-family residences, a sanitary sewer pump station, community park, and related on-site street, utility, and landscaping improvements within the 30-acre area to be designated as SH, which will be substantially consistent with the permitted land uses. The PS designation allows for a wide variety of public and private uses including, but not limited to, libraries, fire stations, schools, and public and private transportation and utility corridors. The 7-acre portion of land within the Southern Site that has been contingently offered to the SRVFPD will be designated as PS. This property has been offered for the SRVFPD’s future use in a manner that is consistent with the ULL. The SRVFPD has not yet accepted this contingent offer of dedication nor has it identified a potential future use or timeline for development of this property. However, if and when the District decides to pursue development on this property, a discretionary land use permit approval from the County would be required (as described in the proposed P-1 zoning).If this offer is not accepted by the SRVFPD, then the parcel will be dedicated to EBRPD. Land uses deemed appropriate for establishment within the PR designation are passive and active recreation-oriented activities, and ancillary commercial uses such as snack bars, and restaurants. The primary improvements proposed within the PR-designated areas of the Northern Site include constructing the Pedestrian Staging area, a pedestrian trail, community park, and detention basin. No urban development is proposed for the PR-designated portion of the Southern Site as part of the Project. Only park, recreation, open space, scenic, agriculture, grazing, wetland preservation and creation, and habitat mitigation land uses will be permitted under the proposed General Plan land use designations and P-1 zoning, as further reflected in the recommended conditions of approval and future conservation easement and conveyance instrument to the EBRPD. Density : The SH designation allows for densities between 5.0 and 7.2 single-family units per net acre. Based on the net acreage of 22.40 acres and the proposal for 125 single family lots, the proposed density for the SH-designated portion of the Northern Site is 5.58 units per net acre. There are no density standards applicable within the PS and PR designations. Based on the above, the density of the proposed Project will be consistent with the allowed range detailed in the County General Plan. Property Size: The General Plan Land Use Element indicates that sites within the SH designation can range up to 8,729 square feet. Lots within the 30-acre Residential Development Area will range between 5,000 and 12,744 square feet in area, with 26 of those lots exceeding the listed range. Although the General Plan provides a range of property sizes for the SH designation, it is simply a discussion of the lot sizes that are anticipated in the designation based on the density range, and not a hard standard that prohibits development beyond the range. Additionally, a majority of the proposed lots (approx. 79%) will be 8,729 square feet or less. Both the PR and PS designations lack discussion of a desired or anticipated property size for the designation since residential uses are not permitted within these land use designations. Implementation Measure 3-h (Job/Housing Balance): The General Plan states development applications for residential developments of 100 or more units must address the impact of that development upon the subregional jobs/housing balance (Land Use Implementation Measure 3-h). The proposed Project includes the construction of 125 single-family homes and related improvements with substantial park, recreation, and open space components in the Tassajara Valley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The Central County Region had an estimated 193,693 households and 230,950 jobs in 2010 per the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Projections 2013. To meet the jobs/housing goals provided by ABAG, the Central County area is anticipated to add an additional 41,761 households and 79,924 jobs by 2040. The proposed Project contributes to the anticipated housing development in the Central County subregion. Specific Area Policies: The Land Use Element of the County General Plan provides policies for specific geographic areas of the unincorporated County. These specific area policies focus on providing additional policies that pertain to the unique characteristics and needs of each identified area. Pursuant to Figure 3-2 of the County General Plan, the Project Site is not located within any of the identified specific policy areas. Growth Management Element : The Growth Management Element of the General Plan establishes measures of effectiveness and requirements for the analysis of circulation impacts associated with new land developments. Trip generation calculations for development projects are typically based on resources and methodology contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) publication. However, as explained more fully in the Project EIR, more conservative trip generation rates, provided by the Town of Danville, were used for analyzing the residential element of this Project. Since the ITE lacks similar uses in their Trip generation manualgeneration rates for the pedestrian staging facility was based on a conservative number of associated parking spaces. The total daily trip generation rate for the Project was 1,632 (including consideration of the formerly proposed equestrian staging area, which no longer is included as part of the Project), which necessitated a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Growth Management Program (GMP) of the County General Plan utilizes Level of Service (LOS)data to analyze traffic service standards within the County. LOS is a grading system which qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of traffic ranging from LOS-A indicating free-flow traffic conditions, to LOS-F indicating congested conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity and result in long ques and delays. Policy 4-2 of the GMP indicates that new development shall be deferred unless infrastructure can be provided which meets the traffic LOS and performance standards outlined in Table 4-1, or otherwise assured. Furthermore, Table 4-1 of the GMP identifies minimum traffic standards based on specific land use types. Based on the proposed higher density and relatively small lot configuration, the Growth Management Element identifies the Residential Development Area of the Project Site as an “Urban” area. Pursuant to Table 4-1 (Growth Management Performance Standards) of the GMP, the Peak Hour LOS for “Urban Areas” such as the Project Site shall be a LOS Level of High D or better. As discussed in Section 3.12.6 (Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures) and shown in Table 3.12-7 (Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Delay and LOS) of the RDEIR, the Project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable operations at two intersections. Even after incorporation of a mitigation requiring the payment of Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) fees to contribute to the construction of planned freeway and roadway improvement in the surrounding area, this impact could not be reduced to a less than significant level and thus is considered as a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. The Growth Management Element of the County General Plan requires that new developments demonstrate that fundamental utilities and services can be provided to support the proposed project. Accordingly, the availability of services such as fire protection and police protection, as well as the availability infrastructure for water, sanitary sewer, drainage, and recreational services are analyzed during the application review process. 1.Fire Protection: As explained more fully in the Project EIR, the Project Site is in an area served by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD). The County and the SRVFPD have communicated throughout the application review and CEQA review portions of the Project. The Project EIR analyzed the SRVFPD’s capability to serve the Project Site, and found that there would be no need for the construction of new or expanded facilities. This was based on a nominal anticipated increase in calls for fire protection and emergency medical services, close proximity (0.35 miles) of Station #36, sufficient site access for emergency, and the likeliness that response time goals provided for within the General Plan can be met. 2.Police Protection: As explained more fully in the Project EIR, the Project Site is in an area of the County served by the County Sheriff’s Office. The population increase of 375 people anticipated for the Project represents less than one percent of the Sheriff’s Office current service population and would only result in a nominal increase in calls for law enforcement. In addition, throughout DCD’scommunication with the Sheriff’s Office on the Project, there has been no indication that the Project would result in the need for new or expanded Sheriff facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. 3. Water: The Project Site is not currently located within the service area of a public water supplier, but is physically adjacent to the service area for the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). To ensure the availability of water for the Project, the applicant has proposed to aide EBMUD by funding accelerated or expanded off-site “Level-E” water conservation measures within EBMUD’s existing service area. The accelerated conservation would in turn offset the additional EBMUD water demand created by the Project. EBMUD has not defined a timetable for implementation of Level E measures since this would be heavily dependent upon the availability of funding, among other considerations; nor did it identify specific funding source(s) for same; therefore, acceleration of the implementation of these measures through funding provided by the Project proponent would allow EBMUD to accommodate the estimated Project water demand through its existing supply in a manner that would otherwise not occur. A Water Supply Evaluation (WSE) (see Appendix J) and letter report from an independent third party (see Appendix N to the FEIR) have been prepared, and the FEIR has found that a water demand between 47.9 and 91.7 acre-feet per year (AFY) will be created by the Project. EBMUD’s Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040 contains Level-E conservation measures that, when implemented, could provide water conservation of 2 million gallons per day (mgd) above that which is needed to serve the Project. This water supply strategy is contingent upon Contra Costa LAFCO’s approval of annexing the Project Site into the EBMUD service area, and the EBMUD Board’s approval of an agreement between EBMUD and the applicant to fund the Level-E accelerated conservation measures. Funding will be defined in part by the conservation offset that would be negotiated with EBMUD, and which would be subject to the approval of the EBMUD Board of Directors. The WSE indicates there is sufficient water available to meet Project demands during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years. To further support the proposed water demand offset approach and address concerns raised by EMUD staff, the Applicant has prepared a memorandum titled “Tassajara Parks Water Demand Offset Updated Preliminary Feasibility Analysis”, which details the analysis administered to determine the feasibility of using Level-E accelerated conservation measures to ensure the availability of water in excess of that needed for the Project. Based on supporting empirical data, the analysis utilizes assumptions suggested by EBMUD staff and incorporates assumptions from other water providers that have had success implementing similar water conservation measures (e.g., the cities of San Antonio, Tuscon, and Sacramento). The analysis determined that leak repair assistance programs, program-funded toilet installation, rebates for installation of graywater systems, and programs for onsite water reuse could conserve water to offset the demand for the project. Feasibility of these programs was determined by using the EBMUD-suggested minimum offset threshold of 170 acre-feet per year, analyzing market potential based on current EBMUD Customer Assistance Program enrollment, program cost estimates, and water savings. Because delivery of this water supply will require the approval of other public agencies (i.e., EBMUD and LAFCO), the Project is conditioned to require that all such approvals be obtained prior to proceeding with development. To further ensure impacts are fully mitigated and taking into account the foregoing, the County has conditioned the Project such that the Project developer will be required to enter into the above-referenced binding agreement with EBMUD that provides for the Project to fully accommodate its identified demand at a minimum of 56.3 AFY or the amount ultimately confirmed by EBMUD, whichever is greater. The County also has conditioned the Project on requiring specified water conserving features and limits on total demand to be included as enforceable provisions in the Project’s CC&Rs, and that penalties could be levied against individual homeowners for violating these provisions, to help ensure compliance. This is consistent with the method successfully used in the Alamo Creek development. In the event the County Board of Supervisors approves the project as recommended by staff, the 30-acre Residential Development Area would need to be annexed within EBMUD's sphere of influence, Ultimate Service Boundary, and Service Area prior to public water services being provided. Annexation to these areas would require than an application be submitted to LAFCO, which in this case will likely be in the form of a petition executed by the landowners of the project site. LAFCO boundary change processing procedures indicate that in the event annexation into the territory of a special district is not filed by the district, a copy of the proposal is provided to that district, the proposal is placed on a LAFCO meeting agenda for "information purposes", and then a 60-day waiting period is observed before the proposal is placed on the LAFCO Commission's agenda for action. The 60-day waiting period provides the affected district with an opportunity to request that LAFCO terminate the proceedings. 4. Sanitary Sewer: The Project Site is not currently located within the service area of a public sanitary sewer provider, but is physically adjacent to the service area of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). As explained more fully in the Project EIR, the CCCSD Sanitary District Treatment Plant (SDTP) has a permitted treatment capacity of approximately 53.8 million gallons per day (mgd), and actively treats an average of approximately 45 mgd. The Project is estimated to demand approximately 0.04 mgd once fully operational. This increase would represent less than 0.5 percent of the SDTP’s available 8.8 mgd of available treatment capacity. Based on the above, the Project would not require expansion or the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. The Project includes an on-site pump station and a new underground connection that would link the Residential Development Area to an existing eight-inch sewer line located within Camino Tassajara. The implementation of this public sanitary sewer service design is contingent upon Contra Costa LAFCO approval to annex the Project Site in to the CCCSD service area. 5. Drainage: The majority of the Project Site would be left undeveloped, and thus the existing drainage patterns in those areas would not be modified. Construction of the proposed residences, streetscape improvements, and the Pedestrian Staging Area will require the installation of a new on-site storm drainage system. The new drainage system will consist of street gutters, inlets, basins, and underground piping that will convey runoff to the proposed drainage detention basin. In addition, drainage from the hillside north of the Residential Development Area will be collected and conveyed to the proposed detention basin via a concrete V-ditch. Any outfall or overflow from the detention basin will drain to an existing swale alongCamino Tassajara and metered to pre-project levels in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements. With implementation of the storm drainage system described above and as explained more fully in the EIR, the Project will not result in a need for new or expanded unplanned off-site storm drain facilities. 6. Recreational Services: The California Department of Parks and Recreation, the East Bay Regional Parks District, County, and incorporated cities in the vicinity of the Project Site each maintain state, County, or local parks, trails, and/or community recreational facilities throughout the County for public use. To ensure sufficient recreational areas are established to serve the County, the General Plan’s Growth Management Element and the County Ordinance Code (Section 920-6.202) require three acres of neighborhood parks and recreational facilities per 1,000 members of the population. Alternatively, Section 920-6.204 of the County Ordinance Code allows a development to provide a fee in lieu of land dedication or provision of on-site park and recreational facilities. In addition to the Project’s dedication of approximately 727 acres in fee to the EBRPD to be permanently protected and preserved for open space, park, recreation and other non-urban uses, as a condition of the project (COA #28), the applicant will be required to pay a per unit Park Dedication/Impact fee prior to the issuance of building permits for any residence. 7. Utilities : Agencies such as the SRVFPD, Contra Costa County Sheriff, SRVUSD, EBMUD, and CCCSD were consulted, and these agencies have provided information and guidance as to the procedures and improvements required as part of the project to ensure their services can be provided to the Project. Further discussion and details pertaining to the consulted agencies and their ability to provide services for the Project are provided in Sections 3.11 (Public Services & Recreation) and 3.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the RDEIR, relevant sections of the FEIR, and Growth Management Findings Section of this staff report. Traffic and Circulation Element: As part of the Project, various on-and off-site improvements and dedications will be made to As part of the Project, various on-and off-site improvements and dedications will be made to accommodate the additional circulation and access demands created by the proposed Project. Camino Tassajara would be modified at the intersection with the Mustang Soccer Complex to include a new fourth access along the northern edge of the roadway. The fourth access, identified as “A” Street, would serve as the primary entrance to the Residential Development Area and the pedestrian staging area. An internal network of two-lane streets is proposed for access to the 125 residential lots, and additional dedications and minor improvements are proposed along Camino Tassajara and Finley Road for improved functionality and safety. Lastly, the applicant has also proposed off-site modifications to the configuration of the Tassajara Hills Elementary School parking lot to improve access from Camino Tassajara and circulation on the property during the busy student pick-up and drop-off times. In part, the purpose of the Traffic and Circulation Element is to assure that the transportation system of the County will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth within the County for the near future. To achieve this purpose, the Traffic and Circulation Element consists of numerous policies and implementation measures that help guide development at both the project and policy levels. The Project consists of on- and off-site physical improvements along Camino Tassajara and Finley Road, which are intended to increase safety, accommodate additional demand created by the Project, and to minimize adverse impacts to the County’s roadway network in the area of the Project. The traffic analysis evaluated the Project for its potential to contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Existing Plus Project, Near-Term Plus Project, and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios. The analysis determined that the Project-generated traffic will impact traffic operations in the Project vicinity, some of which will still allow for intersection and freeway segment operation that are within acceptable LOS standards. However, the study also found that in Near-Term Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios, the Project will either result in unacceptable operations or further contribute to existing unacceptable operations. These scenarios will be in conflict with applicable regulatory thresholds of the County General Plan, as well as those of CalTrans and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and thus are characterized under CEQA as significant impacts. As such, mitigations will be imposed on the Project to better align the proposed development with the purpose and goals of the Traffic and Circulation Element, and to mitigate those impacts to the extent feasible. Further details regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable policies and implementation measures of the Transportation and Circulation Element can be found in RDEIR Section 3.12. Housing Element: The Housing Element of the County General Plan has two purposes, which are to provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs; and 2) to provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs. To implement and address the County’s housing needs and challenges, there are seven focus areas that are identified. The seven focus areas pertain to providing adequate housing sites, development of affordable housing, easing governmental constraints to housing investment, improving housing and neighborhoods, preserving assisted housing developments, promoting fair and equal housing opportunities, and encouraging energy conservation. Some of the goals associated with these areas of focus are implemented at the regional level, policy level, program level, or for existing developments, and thus would not be applicable at the project level for a new development such as the Tassajara Parks Project. However, as part of the County’s review of the Project, compliance with the three applicable goals were analyzed. Providing adequate housing sites: The Residential Development Area will consist of up to 125 single-family residential lots. The lots will range in size from 5,000 square feet to approximately 12,744 square feet in area, which will be more than adequate to 1. accommodate a typical single-family residence with additional yard area. Each lot will be located in a portion of the Residential Development Area that is relatively flat, and thus no major grading will be required in order to create building pads. The lots will all have direct access from one of the internal streets proposed as part of the Project, which also provide easy access to the Camino Tassajara public roadway and public transit corridor. Lastly, each lot will have direct connections to public utilities such as water, sanitary sewer, and electricity. Assisting in the development of affordable housing: The Project is subject to the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Section 822-4) that is in effect on the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, which requires a residential development of 125 for-sale units to reserve a minimum of fifteen percent of the for-sale units (18.75 units) to be constructed and sold as inclusionary units, or units that are sold at an affordable sales price to households meeting certain criteria.However, as afforded under Section 822-4.404 (In-lieu Fee) of the ordinance, the applicant has elected to exercise the option of paying a non-refundable in-lieu fee of$484,361.25. This fee will be paid directly to the County prior to issuance of the first building permit, and deposited into a fund designated for the purchase of land and construction of affordable housing within the County 2. Encouraging energy conservation: The County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is designed to reduce local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while improving community health. The CAP consists of a GHG reduction strategy that is an implementation measure structured around six topics, one of which is Energy Efficiency and Conservation. To assist planning staff with implementation of the GHG Reduction Strategy, the CAP includes a development checklist (Appendix-E) which, when completed, identifies a project’s consistency with the CAP. Among others, the checklist includes the following standards that pertain to energy efficiency: 3. Installation of high-efficiency appliances and insulation to prepare for the statewide transition to zero net energy. New residential and non-residential development will meet the standards to be solar ready as defined by the California Building Standards. New single-family houses and multi-family units with private attached garages or carports will provide prewiring for EV charging stations inside the garage or carport. The Project will be conditioned (COA #42) to require that staff of the County Building Inspection and Community Development Divisions verify compliance with the Appendix-E standards mentioned above, prior to approval of building permits for the proposed residences. Furthermore, California Code of Regulations Title 24 (Part 6, Energy Code) and Title 20 (Appliance Efficiency Regulation) will also apply to residence design at the project site. 4. Safety Element: Since the Safety Element has the potential for affecting land use policies within the County, the policies, goals, and implementation measures of the Safety Element are closely coordinated with that of the Land Use Element. For example, seismic safety considerations in an area may be cause for additional consideration with respect to lowering density or altering design standards on hillsides. During the environmental review phase of the Project, existing characteristics of the site were analyzed by the County to identify potential safety hazards. In addition, agencies including, but not limited to the County Sheriff, SRVFPD, and County Health Services Department, reviewed the Project during the environmental review phase to determine the potential existence of safety risks. There has been no indication from the reviewing agencies that the proposed Project would result in a significant safety hazard associated with the services and regulations under their purview. County staff’s analysis and as further described in the EIR, determined that fire protection response times, facility capacity to serve, and compliance with other General Plan standards will not be adversely impacted due to the proximity of the SRVFPD other General Plan standards will not be adversely impacted due to the proximity of the SRVFPD Station #36, and the applicant’s requirement to pay applicable development impact fees. The Project has also been conditioned (COA #30) to require that an annual special tax be assessed on each residential lot of the development to maintain and augment the law enforcement services to be provided by the County Sheriff’s Department. Noise Element: The Noise Element of the County General Plan discusses, among other things, the County’s goal of improving the overall environment in the County by reducing annoying and physically harmful levels of noise. Figure 11-6 (Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments) of the Noise Element categorizes ambient noise levels up to 60 dBA (A-weighted decibels) Ldn(day-night average level) as being “normally acceptable” for single-family land uses, levels between 60 and 70 dBA Ldn as being “conditionally acceptable”, and levels above 70 dBA Ldn as being “normally or clearly unacceptable”. Furthermore, Figure 11-6 indicates that new development should only be undertaken in areas with “conditionally acceptable” levels after a detailed noise analysis has performed, and necessary noise reduction features have been included in the design. 5. With respect to the Project’s potential noise impacts on the surrounding environment, the Project EIR found that construction activities could result in temporary worst-case construction noise levels ranging up to 78.9 Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) and 77.2 dBA Lmax (maximum noise level) at the property boundary of the Northern Site. To mitigate these potential noise impacts in compliance with the Noise Element, Mitigation Measure NOI-1a pertaining to the equipment type, timing, and geographic location of construction activities, will be imposed on the Project. In addition to the noise impacts the Project could have on the nearby sensitive receptors, the Project EIR also analyzed the potential for impacts to future residents of the Project as a result of ambient noise levels from the surrounding land uses as well as on- and off-site traffic. A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was used to predict traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site. The model predicted that the Northern Site would be exposed to traffic noise levels ranging up to approximately 68.8 dBA Ldn at fifty feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane of Camino Tassajara, and approximately 67.5 dBA Ldn as measured from the nearest proposed residential property line which is 68 feet from the centerline of Camino Tassajara. As mentioned above, these levels are less than 70 dBA Ldn, and thus would be considered as “conditionally acceptable” for a new residential development. In addition to the Noise Element’s identification of noise level compatibility on a land use basis, it also provides for a standard outdoor noise level of 60 dBA Ldn (Policy 11-2) for residential areas, and an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn or less for new single family projects. The FHWA noise model predicts that the noise levels from the centerline of Camino Tassajara would attenuate from 68.8 dBA Ldn down to below 60 dBA Ldn at a distance of approximately 216 feet. Therefore, any residence located less than 216 feet from the centerline of Camino Tassajara would be subject to exterior noise levels in excess of that which is considered to be “normally compatible” for new single-family development. The combination of walls, doors, windows, and other standard construction compliant with California building code will provide an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 15 dBA with windows open, and approximately 25 dBA with the windows closed. As such, any residences constructed per applicable building code standards and at least 216 feet from the centerline of Camino Tassajara will be consistent with the interior and exterior noise standards discussed above. For those residences within that 216 foot area, Mitigation Measure NOI-1b requiring alternate forms of ventilation (such as air conditioning) will be imposed on the Project to allow for the closure of windows for prolonged periods, in order to achieve the 25 dBA Ldn of attenuation. This will reduce the interior noise levels for these residences to a 45 dBA Ldn or less. For compatible exterior noise levels on properties within the 216 foot distance, the County has conditioned (COA #70) the Project such that it will be required to construct a wall along the Camino Tassajara frontage, as designed and deemed necessary by an acoustical specialist, to reduce outdoor noise levels on all residential lots within 216 feet of the centerline of Camino Tassajara, to a level of 60 dBA Ldn or lower. ZONING The applicant proposes to rezone the entire Project Site to a project-specific Planned Unit (P-1) zoning district. If approved, the new P-1 district will allow for flexibility of applicable development standards, provided that substantial consistency with the General Plan as well as the intent of the County Ordinance Code, is maintained with respect to public health, safety, and general welfare. Currently, the Project Site is undeveloped and located entirely within an Exclusive Agricultural District (A-80), which is very limited with respect to land uses unrelated to the raising of crops or livestock, that can be established. However, the Project Site is immediately adjacent to urban areas of Danville and Blackhawk, which help to ensure compatibility between these adjacent areas and the Project. The Project Site is also located along Camino Tassajara, which is a major roadway providing direct access to Interstates 580 and 680, as well as public transit routes. Allowing the Project Site to be rezoned and developed under the proposed P-1 district will allow for development in a manner substantially similar to that of the areas immediately surrounding the Project. The 125 residences proposed for the 30-acre Residential Development Area will continue the single-family residential character of the adjacent Blackhawk and Alamo Creek developments, and provide much needed housing for the County. Approximately 727 acres of the Project Site will be dedicated in fee to the EBRPD for the permanent protection and preservation of these lands for non-urban uses including park and recreational uses (including a connecting trail and a staging area), and as open areas intended for agricultural, preservation, and other non-urban uses. The Project-specific P-1 district will also dictate that these areas be utilized and developed only in a manner that is consistent with the EBRPD’s Master Plan, adopted and amended by their Board. Residential Lots: The Project includes an application for approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map, which will allow the creation of up to 125 residential lots and other special use lots within the designated 30-acre Residential Development Area. The proposed lots will range in size from 5,000 square feet to approximately 12,744 square feet in area, and will be developed with single-family residences constructed in compliance with the design standards of the project-specific P-1 district. The floor plan designs will consist of at least four floor plan elevations, and the applicable setbacks, yards, and building heights will vary based on the size and location characteristics of each lot. Except as explicitly modified by the design standards of the P-1 district, development of the residential lots will be guided by standards set forth in the R-6 Single-Family Residential zoning district. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The Northern Site of the subject subdivision takes access from Camino Tassajara. The northeast corner of the Northern Site has frontage along Finley Road. The Southern Site has frontage along the south and west side of Camino Tassajara. The original right of way width of Camino Tassajara in 1891 was 66-feet (one surveyor’s chain) and included angle points. Over the intervening period, the County acquired additional right of way to accommodate various road improvement projects and subdivisions. The County Ordinance Code requires dedication of the ultimate right of way in accordance with the General Plan and roadway classifications as defined in said Code. Per the current General Plan and its predecessor, it is planned to have a basic right of way width of 100 feet to accommodate 4 lanes of traffic, bike lanes/shoulders, a median and stormwater treatment facilities. The configuration and alignment of Camino Tassajara as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map along the Northern Site satisfies these requirements. As for the Southern Site, a more detailed alignment study along the frontage will need to be prepared as part of the final map process for County review to confirm right of way dedication needs to meet the General Plan and Code requirements. This would generally be 50 feet west of the ultimate centerline alignment, with possible additional widening at the intersections with Highland and Johnston Roads. The County Ordinance Code also requires construction of frontage improvements along the frontage of all County roads. Frontage improvements include pavement widening, longitudinal and transverse drainage facilities appurtenant to the roadway improvements, signage, striping, safety improvements and undergrounding of overhead utilities. Within certain zoning districts or proximity to schools, frontage improvements also include curb, sidewalk and streetlights. The latter requirements would be applicable to the entire Northern Site. In addition to Camino Tassajara, a portion of the subdivision fronts Finley Road. Finley Road is a 21-foot wide road in a 50-foot easement. It is planned to be a 40-foot road in a 60-foot right of way. The Applicant will be required to dedicate a 30-foot half width right of way consistent with the previous dedication on the adjacent southern parcel. This width shall be adjusted accordingly to eliminate the angle points in the existing easement. The minimum centerline radius required for arterial streets per the County Ordinance Code is 650 feet. Said Code also requires construction of a 20-foot wide half-width street along the Project frontage of Finley Road. The project’s Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) cites several mitigation measures relative to traffic impacts resulting from this Project. These have been included in the recommended conditions of approval (attached) and noted with the corresponding mitigation measure cross-reference (MM TRANS-XX). Taking into consideration that only a relatively small 30-acre portion of the Project Site is proposed to be developed and the vast majority of the Project Site will remain undeveloped and outside the Urban Limit Line, the applicant is seeking several exception requests (as referenced above); the standards for which the applicant is seeking these exceptions are focused on roadway and related improvements that are not typically imposed on rural subdivisions such as the Project. These include: Section 96-14.002 Improvement of County Streets Chapter 96-6 Street Lighting Section 96-12.202 Conditions Requiring Curbs Section 96-8.402 Locations (Sidewalks) Chapter 96-10 Underground Utilities Section 914-2.004 Offsite Collect and Convey Requirements Support for these exception requests are included in responses to the three required findings prescribed by the Ordinance Code. As explained more fully in the attached findings, the basis for the requested exceptions focus on the following: the typical standards, which are intended for urban development, should not be applied to improvements beyond the ULL, and would otherwise be inconsistent with County precedent relative to road improvements in agricultural areas and the goal of maintaining the general vicinity in its rural residential nature. In general, Public Works is not opposed to the granting of these exceptions provided the exceptions specify the limits as to where these exceptions are applicable. The Vesting Tentative Map includes off-site access modifications and improvements to the parking lot serving Tassajara Hills Elementary School immediately west of the subdivision. These improvements including signal modifications will need to be coordinated with the School District, State Department of General Services (DGS) - Division of the State Architect, and the County Public Works Department. DRAINAGE Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on the Project Site to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. Storm waters on the Northern Site originate in the hillside to the north and generally sheet-flow southerly to a tributary of Tassajara Creek north of Camino Tassajara. This tributary flows southeasterly, parallel with Camino Tassajara, where it joins Tassajara Creek east of Finley Road. With the residential development of the Northern Site, the Applicant proposes to install a detention basin to reduce overall peak flow rates to 20% below existing runoff rates and provide the necessary hydromodification required per the applicable provisions of the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (see below). Said detention basin shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable County Flood Control District’s Detention Basin Guidelines. This basin will NOT be maintained by the County. The GHAD or an alternate maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department will accept this facility for maintenance. The September 3, 2019 exception requests previously referenced include an exception from Section 914.2.4 “Offsite collect and convey requirements” citing the mitigation provided by the detention basin and the desire to maintain the existing drainage pattern which sustains existing jurisdictional wetlands. Considering the significant overall reduction in runoff resulting from the proposed detention basin, Public Works is not opposed to the granting of this exception. Chapter 914-14,- "Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the County Subdivision Ordinance is applicable to the Project and requires relinquishment of “development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of adjoining creeks. This requirement would be applicable to portions of the Northern Site near Finley Road, as well as two Tassajara Creek tributaries that traverse the Southern Site. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications if at least 10,000 square feet of area can be identified for development. A SWCP was received March 1, 2016 for the review and approval of the Public Works Department, in compliance with the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014), and the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This report has been deemed “preliminarily complete”. A portion of the Southern Site has been offered for dedication to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for possible future development. If this 7-acre parcel is accepted and subject to future development, a separate Stormwater Control Plan specific to that development will be required concurrent with the land use permit process that would be considered by the County in connection therewith. Provision C.10, Trash Load Reduction, of the County’s NPDES permits requires control of trash in local waterways. To prevent or remove trash loads from municipal storm drain systems, trash capture devices shall be installed in catch basins (excludes those located within a bioretention/stormwater treatment facility). Devices must meet the County’s NPDES permits and their design and location must be approved by the Public Works Department FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT A small portion of northeast corner of the Northern Site lies within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared by FEMA. In the event any structures or utilities are constructed within the SFHA, they would be subject to the applicable special requirements outlined in the County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance and applicable FEMA Technical Bulletins. LIGHTING DISTRICT ANNEXATION The Project Site is not annexed into the lighting district. The Applicant will be required, as a condition of approval (COA #103), to annex into the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for the Countywide Street Light Financing AREA OF BENEFIT FEE ORDINANCE The Applicant will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the South County, Tri-Valley Transportation, Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Sub Regional and SCC Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. DRAINAGE FEE ORDINANCE The Project Site lies within “unformed” Drainage Area 102. This area is not subject to any special drainage fee ordinance or related fees. PRESERVATION AGREEMENT The County, the City of San Ramon, and EBRPD are or have been considering an Agricultural Preservation Agreement to preserve and enhance agriculture uses with the Tassajara Valley. In addition to establishing a “green buffer” with approval of the Project and the related conveyance of 727 acres of land to the EBRPD for permanent preservation and protection for open space, park, recreational and other non-urban uses, the Preservation Agreement provides that its parties will work together to support, develop, and implement policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses consistent with the parties’ respective existing land use policies and plans. These actions will be facilitated through the irrevocable donation of Four Million Dollars ($4 million) by the applicant paid as set forth in the Development Agreement. Pursuant to County Ordinance Code Section 82-1.018(a)(3), the County Board of Supervisors may approve, by a four-fifths vote, an expansion of the ULL of 30 acres or less after finding that a majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the County have approved a change to the ULL affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement. The Preservation Agreement provides that the County is authorized to find that the Agreement satisfies Section 82-1.018(a)(3). With respect to EBRPD participating as a party to the Preservation Agreement, the Project will result in the conveyance of approximately 727 acres of the Project Site (referred to as the Dedication Area) to EBRPD by fee simple transfer, subject to a conservation easement on a portion of the Southern Preservation Area (as that term is defined in the RDEIR). The fee simple conveyance to EBRPD will ensure that the 727-acre Dedication Area is protected and preserved in perpetuity for non-urban uses only. Because EBRPD will accept the Dedication Area for parkland, recreational, and open space uses as part of the Project, EBRPD is an appropriate party to the Preservation Agreement. Subsequent to the postponement of September 30, 2020, County Planning Commission meeting, both the City of San Ramon and EBRPD brought the Preservation Agreement to their governing bodies. The San Ramon City Council unanimously approved Resolution 2020-114 on November 24, 2020, which authorizes the Mayor of San Ramon to execute the Agreement. The project site is adjacent to San Ramon city limits. Similarly, the EBRPD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve Resolution No. 2020-12-286 on December 1, 2020, which authorized their District General Manager to execute the Agreement. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant has requested that the County approve and enter into a Development Agreement with the property owner. The Development Agreement addresses matters including but not limited to land preservation, community benefit obligations, fees, and vested development rights. JUNE 9, 2021 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING The County Planning Commission considered the Project at a public hearing on June 9, 2021. During the public hearing, testimony was accepted from the applicant, representatives of responsible agencies (e.g., EBMUD, EBRPD, and CCC LAFCO), and various members of the public. After receiving all testimony and closing the public hearing, the County Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the County Board of Supervisors deny the project, based on the following: 1. Modifying the Urban Limit Line is not in the public interest. 2. Concerns over the availability of water to serve the project. 3. The Project is inconsistent with the County General Plan. 4. "Overwhelming opposition" to the Project from members of the public. CONCLUSION The proposed Project will be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and also with the intent of the proposed P-1 district. In addition, implementation of the Tassajara Parks project would result in various benefits for both residents and visitors of Contra Costa County, including: Preserve 727-acres of land in the Tassajara Valley, which has faced decades of urban development pressure, at favorable ratio of 24 acres of preservation for each acre developed. The land will be dedicated to EBRPD in fee simple and will include a new staging area and an ongoing commitment of maintenance funding, thereby ensuring permanent preservation of the land and access to it by the public. Provide 125 new homes that will help address the urgent need for housing in the region and the County. Provide significant, additional community benefits, including but not limited to: Improvements to parking lot and circulation of Tassajara Hills Elementary school Dedication to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District $4 million contribution to an Agricultural Enhancement Fund for the Tassajara Valley area $2.5 million for the Livable Communities trust Help to resolve a long-standing development debate by means of compromise between development and conservation that is consistent with the voter-approved ULL measure and will, in the view of staff, reduce pressure for additional expansion of urban development in the area. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Board of Supervisors approve the Project as proposed. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: In the event that the proposed project is not approved, the applicant will not obtain the required General In the event that the proposed project is not approved, the applicant will not obtain the required General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Plan entitlements needed to allow the proposed Tassajara Parks Residential Project. Additionally, 727 acres of land will not be dedicated the EBRPD for non-urban uses, the County would not receive a $2.5 million contribution to the Contra Costa County Livable Communities Trust, and a $4 million dedication will not be made to an Agricultural Enhancement Fund for the Tassajara Valley area. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This application is a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision, and Development Plan entitlements to allow the establishment of a residential development. Due to the number of proposed residential units within the development, an increased demand for childcare and public school services will occur once the units are established. The project would be required to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 50, which fully mitigates the potential effect of new student population that may be generated by the project on public school facilities. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers in support: Vice Mayor of San Ramon, Scott Perkins; Taylor Johnson; Danville; Mike Anderson, Danvile; Chris Hoffman, San Ramon; Brian Holtz, Chief of Planning, East Bay Park District; former city councilmember of San Ramon; Rachel Schumaker, Assistant Business Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Director, San Ramon City Council; Bob Doyle; Tom Lawson, Business Manager, Plumbers and Steamfitters UA Local 159; Joe Gorton, City Manager, San Ramon; Beverly Lane, East Bay Park District; Seth Adams, Land Conservation Director, Save Mt. Diablo; Speakers in opposition: Kevin Liu; Sue McKenny, San Ramon; Kim McKnight, Danville; Carol Weed; Ilsa; Jim Blickenstaff, Sierra Club; Susie; Dave, Water Division, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); Karen Rosenberg; Richard Fischer, Tassajara Valley; Gretchen Logue, co-founder of the Tassajara Valley Preservation Association, Joe Calabrigo, Town Manager, Danville; Corrine Fisher; Linda, Alamo Creek; Donna Gerber, former Supervisor of District 3; Zaynab Jawaid, Danville; Sandee Wiedemann. APPROVED staff recommendations with the following additional Conditions of Approval or amendments to a Condition of Approval: 1. A building permit will not be requested by the applicant or issued by the County during any water shortage emergency declared by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Board of Directors that requires customer demand reductions of 20% or more pursuent to EBMUD's policy 9.03 or equivalent; 2. Amending COA #44 to add that a) all new residences shall be constructed to be exclusively electric and shall not have natural gas plumbing or appliances, and b) that all new residences shall be constructed with rooftop solar panels, battery storage, and all wiring and equipment necessary for electric vehicle charging; 3. Amending COA #43 The Development Agreement, Section 3.02 Contribution to Contra Costta Livable Communities Trust Fund: The $2.5M LCTF Contribution , and all CPI increases to said contribution, which payment sall be made within five days after the recordation of the Project's first final map; 4. DELETE the COA that prohibits woodburning fire places in favor of natural gas ones; 5. Prior to recordation of the first final map, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, restrictive covenant or similar instrument reflecting that no urban land uses shall be undertaken on the project site outside the Urban Limit LIne (ULL). 6. The Development Agreement will be edited to align and be consistent with the new and amended Conditions of Approval. The Applicant states for the record acceptance of these changes and additions. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/216 Project Findings Conditions of Approval ULL Change Map General Plan Land Use Designation Change Map Zoning Change Map Rezoning Ordinance Map Preservation Agreement Development Agreement Development Agreement Ordinance Indemnity Agreement Vesting Tentative Map / Preliminary & Final development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Mitigation, Monitoring, & Reporting Program Water Conservation Feasibility Study & EBMUD Comments Letter of EBMUD Dated May 27, 2021 EBMUD Resolution Letter of EBMUD Legal Counsel Dated May 27, 2021 Town of Danville Letters and Resolution Public Comments Slide Presentation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Public Comments July 12 2021 Letter Town of Danville to Board of Supervisors Correspondence Received - 1 Correspondence Received - 2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/216 Approving a General Plan Amendment (County File #CDGP07-00009) for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on July 13, 2021, to consider the Tassajara Parks Residential Project, proposed for the unincorporated Tassajara Valley Area just east of the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon limits. The Project includes the certification of an EIR and adoption of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the Project, a General Plan Amendment (County File #CDGP07-00009), a rezoning ordinance (County File #CDRZ09-03212), a major subdivision (County File #CDSD10-09280), a Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #CDDP10-03008), and a Development Agreement. 1. The General Plan Amendment for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project changes the Urban Limit Line to include a 30-acre Residential Area consisting of 125 residential lots and related urban improvements. 2. The General Plan Amendment for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project reclassifies land from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Public/Semi-Public (PS). 3. The General Plan Amendment for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project is the second General Plan Amendment for calendar year 2021. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors resolves as follows: The Board of Supervisors makes the following General Plan Amendment findings:1. A.Section 82-1.018(a) of the County Ordinance Code (Changes to the Urban Limit Line) allows for expansions of the Urban Limit Line as long as an expansion does not exceed 30 acres, does not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and is approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors also must make one of the findings specified in Section 82-1.018(a). The Board may authorize an expansion of the Urban Limit Line if it finds as follows: “A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement.” As set forth in Section 82-1.024 of the County Ordinance Code, a “preservation agreement” is an agreement designed to preserve certain land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. The County, City of San Ramon, and the EBRPD have negotiated a Preservation Agreement. The Preservation Agreement covers 17,667 acres in the Tassajara Valley area and includes the Project Site and a 727-acre Dedication Area to be permanently preserved through fee title conveyance to EBRPD following Project approval by the County. The Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area (as defined in the proposed Preservation Agreement) is generally not appropriate for urban growth because of its physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors. In recognition of those facts, the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement is designed to preserve the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses. Under the Preservation Agreement, the parties memorialize and reaffirm each party’s respective commitment to preserving land in the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area consistent with the parties’ respective existing policies and principles and requiring urban development to be effectively buffered from land planned for agricultural, open space, parks, recreation or other non-urban uses. The parties’ commitments to these existing policies and principles would preserve the existing non-urban state of the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area by reinforcing a buffer of lands that may only be used for non-urban purposes consistent with existing ULL/UGB principles and policies. The Preservation Agreement will protect and enhance agriculture and preserve and enhance open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses. The Board therefore finds that the Preservation Agreement satisfies Section 82-1.018(a)(3). The Board has evaluated the Project’s ULL change and General Plan Amendment in the context of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Based on the County’s Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) mapping system, only approximately 30 percent of the total land within the County is currently designated for urban land uses. There are over 8,000 acres of non-urban designated land within the ULL that could be converted to urban land use designations without causing the County to exceed the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. As such, including the 30-acre Residential Development Area of the Project Site within the ULL will not cause the County to violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The Board has determined that approval of the ULL change and adoption of this General Plan Amendment to re-designate the 30-acre Residential Development Area from Agricultural Lands (a non-urban land use designation) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) (an urban land use designation) will not conflict with or otherwise impair the County’s ability to maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The Board has also evaluated the rezoning in the context of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and determined that rezoning the entire Project Site from Exclusive Agricultural (A-80) to Planned Unit District (P-1) will not conflict with or otherwise impair the County’s ability to maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The other portions of the Project Site that would be re-designated to PR (Parks and Recreation) and PS (Public and Semi-Public) and re-zoned to P-1 would allow only non-urban development and thus would not conflict with or otherwise impair the County’s ability to maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. B. The Tassajara Valley has been the subject of intense development pressure for decades, in part because the ULL presently ends at Tassajara Hills Elementary School with privately-owned land immediately adjacent to and outside the ULL. The Project and its substantial land dedication of land in fee to EBRPD will facilitate permanent resolution of this issue by preserving and protecting approximately 727 acres of land from the possibility of future urban development. Portions of the conveyed acreage within the Southern Preservation Area will also be subject to a conservation easement, as further described in Section 3.4 of the RDEIR, for purposes of mitigating habitat impacts identified in the RDEIR, all of which will prevent future urban development. The 727 acres of protected land comprises approximately 94% of the Project Site and ensures the permanent preservation of open space, wetlands, hillsides, ridgelines, wildlife and plant habitat, and unique scenery in the Tassajara Valley, consistent with and further implementing the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. This land dedication to EBRPD will result in the imposition of legal and physical constraints that will effectively establish a “green buffer” to prevent additional urban development in this area C. The 30-acre Residential Development Area is in a location of relatively minimal topographical relief and will not extend north to the adjacent hilltops and ridgelines. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.1 of the RDEIR, the improvements proposed within the Residential Development Area will be consistent with existing surrounding communities by avoiding urban development on hillsides and ridgelines. This would in turn preserve foothill and valley views that are visible from adjacent scenic ridgelines and Camino Tassajara. Including the Residential Development Area within the ULL will also constitute a logical extension of urbanized development and services into a relatively flat, geologically stable area that is surrounded by rolling hills and ridges. Moreover, this 30-acre area is devoid of any significant agricultural value or natural resources, as discussed more fully in Section 3.3 of the RDEIR. The permanent preservation of approximately 727 acres of land for non-urban uses will discourage grid-like land division, permanently alleviate the pressure for urban development in this area, and protect the Tassajara Valley from more intensive levels of urban development that might occur as a result of changes in the law that may otherwise facilitate urban development. D. All the Project’s urban land uses will be located within the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) land use designation and within the 30-acre change to the ULL, as allowed by Ordinance Code section 82-1.018(a). E. The General Plan describes a broad range of non-urban uses under the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, including open space, agricultural, recreational, and public/semi-public uses such as schools, public offices, highways, major flood control rights-of-way, and railroads. (General Plan at p. 3-33.) Section 82-1.032 of the County Ordinance defines “nonurban uses” as “rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated, which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or Federal law.” Section 82-1.006 also characterizes agriculture, open space, wetlands, and parks as a non-exhaustive list of examples of non-urban uses. Accordingly, and consistent with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and with the County’s historical land use practice and as discussed more fully in the FEIR, the Project’s proposed uses located outside the ULL (including ongoing agriculture in the form of grazing, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, stormwater detention basin, staging area, trail, and grading) are all non-urban in nature. By rezoning the site from A-80 (Exclusive Agricultural) to a project-specific P-1 (Planned Unit) zoning district, the Project will substantially reduce the number and intensity of non-urban land uses allowed at the Project Site. Such reduction in intensity is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. F. For example, the project-specific P-1 zoning district will allow development of 125 single-family homes, interior roadways, landscaping and utilities, all within the 30-acre Residential Development Area. The respective P-1 district will also allow approximately 27.29 acres of non-urban uses such as a detention basin, a pump station, one pedestrian staging area, a trail, and related grading. Lastly, the respective P-1 zoning district will designate the approximately 118-acre balance of the Northern Site for non-urban uses such as agriculture (including grazing), open space, scenic uses, parks, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation. The ability to establish higher-impact commercial agricultural land uses, such as wholesale horticulture and floriculture, dairying, livestock production, poultry raising, livestock breeding, aviaries, apiaries, and forestry are permitted by right within the existing A-80 zoning. However, with the project-specific P-1 zoning district, establishment of the uses listed above would require a discretionary review and modification of the P-1 district. The respective P-1 zoning district will preserve approximately 609 acres of the Southern Site by designating the area for uses such as land for agriculture (including grazing), open space, scenic uses, park, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation. This will in turn prevent the establishment of urban uses and any incompatible land uses within the boundaries of the Southern Site. The P-1 zoning district will also identify a 7-acre area for a potential future public/semi-public use (San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District) in accordance with the County’s Urban Limit Line and other relevant County provisions. G. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), the General Plan may be amended if the Board of Supervisors deems the amendment to be in the public interest. The General Plan Amendment will promote public health, safety, and welfare, and provide benefits beyond those that could be achieved under the current General Plan. Re-designating the Project to SH (Single-Family Residential, High Density), PR (Parks and Recreation), and PS (Public and Semi-Public) designations will allow the Project to implement and promote the General Plan policies and provisions noted in the "General Plan" section of the Board Order prepared for the Project. The Project will provide extensive public benefits via: (1) permanent preservation of approximately 727 acres of land for non-urban uses; (2) creation of a “green buffer” between existing urban and non-urban uses that will alleviate long-standing development pressures for the Tassajara Valley area; (3) dedication of land and related improvements to EBRPD for a pedestrian staging area that will connect trails; (4) dedication of an approximately 7-acre site for a potential future fire station training facility; (5) installation of circulation and parking improvements at the adjacent Tassajara Hills Elementary School to address existing deficiencies; (6) an irrevocable four million dollar ($4,000,000) contribution to an agricultural enhancement fund established by the County; and (7) a non-refundable $2,500,000 contribution to the County Livable Communities Trust Fund. The Board of Supervisors hereby adopts the General Plan Amendment for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project. The General Plan Amendment for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project changes the Urban Limit Line to include a 30-acre Residential Area consisting of 125 residential lots and related urban improvements, and reclassifies land from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Public/Semi-Public (PS). 2. . Contact: Sean Tully, (925) 655-2878 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Findings Page 1 of 84 FINDINGS FOR COUNTY FILES #CDGP07-0009, #CDRZ09-3212, #CDSD10-9280, and #CDDP10-3008 (TASSAJARA PARKS) CEQA FINDINGS I. In General: CEQA Requirements A. The County is the lead agency for the Tassajara Parks Project for purposes of environmental review. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Project’s EIR and other relevant information in the administrative record of proceedings, the County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) hereby finds and adopts the following findings in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Pub. Res. § 15000 et seq.), and sections of the County Ordinance pertaining to CEQA (collectively, “CEQA”). B. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified, that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more findings for each of those significant impacts that is also accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, are as follows: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment; 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency; 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; For those impacts that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. II. PROJECT AND EIR RECITALS A. This proposal involves approximately 771 acres of land consisting of four parcels on two sites located in the Tassajara Valley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County (APN: 220-100-023, 206-030-065, 223-020-018, 223-020-021). This land is adjacent to and outside of the existing Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (“ULL”), and located east of the City of San Ramon and Town of Danville. Approximately 155 acres of the above-referenced land is commonly known as the “Northern Site,” while the remaining approximately 616 acres is commonly known as the “Southern Site.” The Northern Site and Southern Site are located less than 0.5 mile apart and are separated by intervening properties along the Camino Tassajara roadway. For purposes of these Page 2 of 84 Findings, the Northern Site and the Southern Site are collectively referred to herein as the “Project Site.” B. As further described in detail in the RDEIR, the Tassajara Parks Project (“Project”) involves the construction of 125 single-family homes on a 30-acre portion of the Northern Site, along with related on-site infrastructure and improvements, including interior roadways, landscaping, and utilities (within interior roads). For the purposes of these Findings, this 30-acre area within which the proposed urban development portion of the Project will occur is referred to as the “Residential Development Area,” and has a density of approximately 5.58 units per net acre. C. Aside from that which is required for a future trail, a large portion (approximately 101 acres) of the Northern Site that is located outside of the Residential Development Area (“Northern Preservation Area”) will not involve any ground disturbance. The 101-acre Northern Preservation Area, along with an additional approximately 17 acres within the Northern Site, will also be permanently protected from urban development via Applicant’s dedication, in fee, to the EBRPD. A portion of the Northern Site will also be subject to a perpetual maintenance easement for GHAD purposes of maintaining slope stability and otherwise addressing any geotechnical issues consistent with an approved Plan of Control pursuant to GHAD Law (Pub. Res. Code § 26500 et seq.). The Project Applicant will construct the Pedestrian Staging Area pursuant to EBRPD requirements and design standards and, when completed, will convey the Pedestrian Staging Area to EBRPD by fee simple transfer. D. No urban development will be established within any portion of the Southern Site. The Project’s conditions of approval (collectively, “COAs”) and Development Agreement will require the transfer of a total of 727 acres of the Project Site to EBRPD through fee simple conveyance. Transfer of the foregoing 727 acres (referred to herein as the Dedication Area) to EBRPD will ensure permanent preservation and protection for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses. E. The Project includes the Applicant’s contingent offer of dedication of an approximately 7‐acre parcel to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (“SRVFPD”) (“Potential Future Fire District Parcel”). This parcel is intended for potential future public use in a manner consistent with the ULL and the project-specific Planned Unit (P-1) zoning, and any future development thereon by the SRVFPD will be subject to the County’s discretionary land use permit process. F. The Project also involves the installation of circulation and parking lot improvements for the benefit of the Tassajara Hills Elementary School adjacent to the Northern Site. These improvements are intended to improve existing circulation problems in the parking lot and the adjacent intersection, particularly at school drop off and pick up times. III. Procedural Recitals A. Based on the nature and scope of the Project accompanied by substantial evidence, the County determined that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) was prepared, Page 3 of 84 noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), as follows: 1. A Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for review and comment by responsible and trustee agencies and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals was circulated by the County from May 28, 2014, through June 26, 2014. 2. A revised NOP for review and comment by responsible and trustee agencies and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals was circulated by the County from June 11, 2014, through July 11, 2014. 3. Scoping sessions were held on June 16, 2014, and July 7, 2014, at which interested agencies, organizations, and individuals had an opportunity to submit oral and written comments pertaining to environmental concerns related to the Project and the proposed scope of environmental review. 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21161 and 21092, and CEQA Guidelines sections 15085 and 15087(b), on May 12, 2016, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”)/Notice of Availability (“NOA”) document and copies of the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) were distributed to the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse, those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project or that exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the Project, and to other interested agencies, organizations and individuals as required by applicable law. The NOC/NOA document was also mailed to all owners and occupants of property located within 300 feet of the Project Site, and to others who requested notice, and the NOC/NOA was published in the East Bay Times newspaper pursuant to applicable noticing requirements. The NOC/NOA document stated that the County had completed the DEIR and that copies of the DEIR (including all appendices) were available at: www.cccounty.us/tassajaraparks and at the Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553. These documents were also available in hard copy at the Danville Library, San Ramon Library, Dougherty Station Library, Pleasant Hill Library, and Office of County Supervisor Candace Andersen. 5. A public hearing was held on June 6, 2016, in front of the County Zoning Administrator, at which time interested agencies, organizations, and individuals had an opportunity to submit oral and written comments pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR. 6. Subsequent to the issuance of the NOC/NOA document for the DEIR, new information arose about the lack of a recycled water supply for expanded use after EBMUD staff provided supplemental information about where recycled water use could (and could not) be feasibly expanded. Accordingly, the Project Applicant eliminated the recycled water option and developed an off-site water conservation option to replace it. This constituted significant new information and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, the County decided to prepare a Recirculated Draft EIR (“RDEIR”) in order to allow interested agencies, organizations, and individuals a meaningful opportunity to comment on this new information. In addition, the County decided to include updated information in the RDEIR Page 4 of 84 regarding: (a) a modified finding of a significant and unavoidable impact as a result of conflicts with the GHG Reduction Goal of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Clean Air Plan; and (b) an Agricultural Preservation Agreement (previously referred to as a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)) relating to the agricultural preservation and enhancement of the broader Tassajara Valley. Furthermore, in preparing the RDEIR, the County also took that opportunity to amplify and clarify, as appropriate, information related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, land use, noise, public services, and transportation. 7. An updated NOC/NOA document and copies of the RDEIR were distributed to the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse, those public agencies that have jurisdiction by applicable law with respect to the Project or that exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the Project, and to other interested agencies, organizations and individuals as required by applicable law on September 29, 2016. A copy of the NOC/NOA document was also distributed to all owners and occupants of property within 300-feet of the Project Site, and others who requested this notice. 8. The County released the RDEIR for a 45-day public review period between September 29, 2016 and November 14, 2016. Although not required to do so by applicable laws and regulations, the County subsequently extended the comment period through November 30, 2016. 9. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2016 in front of the County Zoning Administrator, at which interested agencies, organizations, and individuals had an opportunity to submit oral and written comments pertaining to the adequacy of the RDEIR. 10. The County received and evaluated numerous comments from interested public agencies, organizations, and individuals who reviewed the DEIR and RDEIR. Under CEQA, when an EIR is substantially revised and the entire document is recirculated (as is the case here), the law does not require the lead agency to respond to comments received in connection with a recirculated draft EIR if and to the extent those same comments were made in connection with the original draft EIR. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the County voluntarily elected to respond to comments on the DEIR and the RDEIR, all of which are reflected in the FEIR (as that term is defined below). 11. The FEIR was prepared and published on September 14, 2020, and consisted of an edited list of revisions to the RDEIR and responses to comments on the RDEIR and Draft EIR. In accordance with applicable CEQA requirements, the responses to comments address all written and verbal comments on environmental issues received during the public review and comment period for the DEIR and RDEIR. 12. For purposes of these Findings, the Project EIR consists of the RDEIR, the FEIR, and all appendices attached to the RDEIR and FEIR, and the remaining relevant portions of the administrative record for this matter. The Board finds that the Project EIR was prepared, published, circulated, reviewed, and considered in accordance with the applicable requirements of CEQA, and constitutes an Page 5 of 84 accurate, adequate, objective and complete EIR. This Board has exercised its independent judgment and analysis in evaluating the Project EIR. In exercising this judgment, this Board has reviewed and considered the Project EIR and other relevant information in the administrative record, including, without limitation, public testimony. IV. Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and MMRP A. The Project EIR concludes that implementation of the Project could result in potentially significant and adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the County has made findings with respect to these impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091. The findings summarize the environmental determinations about the Project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation and summarize the Project’s individual and cumulative impacts. They provide a summary description of each potentially significant and significant impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR and adopted by the County, and state the Project EIR’s conclusions on the significance of each impact after imposition of the identified mitigation measures. B. This Board adopts, and incorporates as enforceable conditions of approval of the Project, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) (see attachment), which has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15097. This Board adopts this MMRP as it pertains to the Project, and finds that the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP will reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project to the extent feasible for the reasons described in the Project EIR. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Project EIR has inadvertently been omitted from the MMRP, this Board hereby adopts such mitigation measure as stated in the Project EIR and incorporates said mitigation measure in these Findings by reference. C. The mitigation measures as set forth in the MMRP are being made enforceable as conditions of approval. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Project EIR. The Project has several significant and unavoidable impacts, as explained in more detail in Section VII.B below. D. Various measures were suggested by commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures or modifications to the mitigation measures identified by the Project EIR. Other comments requested mitigation measures for impacts that were less than significant or requested additional mitigation measures for impacts that were already reduced to levels less than significant by the proposed mitigation measures. These requests are declined as unnecessary. This Board hereby adopts the reasons set forth in the responses to comments contained in the Project EIR and as otherwise further supported by materials and information in the administrative record as its grounds for rejecting adoption of those mitigation measures. E. This Board hereby finds the Project will have no significant growth-inducing impacts, for the following reasons and as described more fully in the Project EIR. The Project will develop 125 residential units and will be expected to result in a population of 375 persons. This amount of population growth is considered negligible, and, therefore, direct population growth will be less than significant. Additionally, while urban Page 6 of 84 infrastructure will be extended to the 30‐acre Residential Development Area and Pedestrian Staging area, adjacent areas will remain outside of the ULL and owned in fee by public agencies (i.e., EBRPD, SRVFPD), thereby prohibiting further urban expansion. The Project’s commitment to permanently preserve and protect the vast majority of the Project Site for open space, park, recreational, grazing, scenic, wetlands, and habitat mitigation purposes through the dedication of approximately 727 acres of the Project Site in fee to EBRPD will further ensure that no additional urban expansion would occur. As such, development of the Project will not remove a physical barrier to growth, and thus no indirect growth inducement will occur. F. This Board further finds that, for the reasons set forth in the Project EIR and as otherwise documented in the administrative record, assertions that expanding the ULL as proposed will lead to approval of numerous additional ULL expansions, whether in the Tassajara Valley area or Countywide, are unfounded for the following reasons: 1. Most parcels abutting the ULL are inherently unsuitable for urban development. Most abutting parcels have physical characteristics, such as steep slopes, a lack of infrastructure, or the presence of sensitive species or habitat, which make them poor sites for urban development; 2. The Project includes growth-deterring components such as the dedication of approximately 727 acres to EBRPD, which creates a “green buffer” along approximately 1.5 miles of the ULL; 3. Many properties identified as “at risk” for urban conversion by Project opponents are already protected in perpetuity and government-controlled by entities such as the U.S Department of Defense, State of California, Contra Costa County, EBRPD, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District; and 4. The County cannot approve unlimited ULL adjustments. A ULL adjustment is an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which is one the seven State-mandated General Plan elements that can be amended a maximum of four times annually, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65358(b). G. With respect to the potential for significant and irreversible environmental effects of the Project, this Board hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Project EIR, particularly Section 3.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) and Section 6.4 (Other CEQA Considerations – Energy Conservation) of the RDEIR, based upon the evidence and reasoning they reflect. The Project will require the use of energy and will commit resources to the buildings and other Project components, including the use of energy and other resources produced from non-renewable resources. However, the Project will incorporate energy-conserving features in all new residential development, which will be subject to the latest adopted edition of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards. In addition, there are no unusual characteristics that will directly or indirectly cause construction activities to be any less efficient than would otherwise occur elsewhere (e.g., restrictions on equipment, labor, types of activities, etc.). Furthermore, the Project will be located directly adjacent to a developed suburban area and will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access to adjacent areas, which will help ensure Page 7 of 84 that the Project will not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy during operational activities. H. In making its decision to certify the Project EIR and approve the Project, this Board hereby recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinions exist with respect to certain environmental issues. These issues include, among others, water demand and the feasibility and availability of an adequate water supply; the methodology used to evaluate certain impacts such as those relating to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, and utilities; and the applicable significance threshold to be used in evaluating certain impacts such as those relating to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. This Board has acquired a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the range of these technical and scientific opinions by its review of the Project EIR, information provided by the experts who prepared the Project EIR; the County's staff and other consultants; other relevant materials in the administrative record, and its own experience and expertise in these matters. The materials reviewed by this Board include conflicting expert opinions and statements of facts, as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the Project EIR. This comprehensive review has enabled this Board to make its determinations after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. As a result, this Board has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence, and not public controversy or speculation. Accordingly, this Board certifies that its findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained in the Project EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the environmental impacts of the Project, and hereby elects to rely on the opinions set forth in the Project EIR. V. Project Alternatives A. Background: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the Project EIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the Project. The primary purpose of this analysis is to provide decision makers, interested agencies, organizations, and individuals with information about a reasonable range of potentially feasible Project alternatives, which could avoid or reduce any of the Project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for this alternatives analyses are noted below: 1. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; 2. An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process; 3. Reasons for rejecting an alternative include: a) Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; b) Infeasibility; or c) Inability to avoid significant environmental effects. Page 8 of 84 B. Summary of Reasonable Range of Alternatives and Basis for Rejection: Because not all significant effects can be substantially reduced to a less than significant level by either adoption of mitigation measures or by standard conditions of approval, the Project EIR considered the feasibility of Project alternatives compared to the Project. As explained below, these Findings summarize the alternatives studied (as well as the alternatives that were initially considered and then dismissed from further evaluation) and summarizes the basis for rejecting each one of the Project alternatives. Further evidence supporting these Findings is set forth in Section 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the RDEIR and in various responses to comments in the FEIR. This Board hereby determines that the Project EIR evaluated a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, which is sufficient to permit informed decision-making and public participation. This Board recognizes that commenters suggested additional alternatives and stated that additional detail should be provided for the alternatives that were studied. For the reasons set forth in the Project EIR and other relevant evidence in the administrative record, none of the requested information is necessary to ensure that a reasonable range of alternatives was studied at a sufficient level of detail. For the reasons documented in the Project EIR and summarized below, this Board hereby rejects each of the alternatives and approves the Project, based on the specific legal, economic and other considerations that make each of the below-identified alternatives infeasible. 1. Project Objectives a) Serve as a buffer and transition zone between existing urban and non-urban uses. b) Strengthen the ULL’s fundamental purpose by establishing a “green wall” of permanent physical and legal constraints to additional development in the Tassajara Valley. c) Permanently protect and preserve agricultural, open space, scenic, wetlands, and other non-urban characteristics of the vast majority of the Project Site. d) Provide substantial and contiguous amounts of publicly accessible open space that would be protected and preserved in perpetuity for park, recreational, open space, scenic, agriculture, grazing, wetland preservation and creation, and habitat mitigation purposes. e) Preserve opportunities for ongoing agricultural uses (such as grazing) on the Southern Site. f) Contribute to the supply of high-quality housing in the County that is close to existing transportation corridors and utility infrastructure, and that is compatible with existing adjacent land uses. g) Efficiently utilize the compact 30-acre development envelope (as opposed to traditional "ranchettes"), while ensuring consistency with surrounding Page 9 of 84 residential uses and taking into account the topographical constraints of the Project Site. h) Minimize grading, as feasible, by developing all residential uses on the least topographically constrained portions of the Project Site. i) Provide circulation and parking improvements to Tassajara Hills Elementary School to help remedy existing deficiencies and enhance ease of use and safety of drop off and pick up of students. 2. Summary of Alternatives Evaluated a) Alternative 1 - No Project: Under this alternative, the Project would not be implemented. The 125 residential units and related improvements would not be constructed, and a ULL adjustment, rezone, or General Plan amendment would not be adopted and implemented. No land would be offered to EBRPD for its permanent preservation and thus no acreage would be permanently protected for park, recreation, open space, agricultural, scenic, wetlands, and habitat mitigation uses, and thus there would be no “green buffer” to serve as a permanent legal, practical, and physical barrier to urban development. The circulation and parking lot improvements for Tassajara Hills Elementary School would not be constructed; the land and/or related improvements for the Pedestrian Staging Area and the Dedication Area would not be offered for dedication to EBRPD; and the contingent offer of dedication to SRVFPD for a potential Future Fire Station Training Facility would be extinguished. The Project Site would stay in its existing condition, and therefore it is assumed that it would continue to be used consistent with the existing agricultural and open space uses for the foreseeable future. b) Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity Alternative: Under this alternative, only the southwestern portion of the Residential Development Area would be developed with a total of 65 units and associated improvements. Non-urban infrastructure (detention basin, grading, pump station, etc.) located adjacent to but outside of the Residential Development Area would be similarly downsized. This alternative assumes that the Pedestrian Staging Area (and the former equestrian staging area, which is no longer proposed) and the proposed trail (along with the other land within the Northern Preservation Area) would be conveyed in fee to EBRPD similar to the Project, and that the Northern Preservation Area (along with an additional 17 acres) would be permanently preserved for park, recreation, open space, agricultural, scenic and habitat mitigation purposes. In addition, similar to the Project, this Alternative would provide the circulation and parking improvements on the adjacent elementary school. However, this alternative assumes that none of the land on the Southern Site would be offered for dedication to EBRPD. Similar to the Project, this alternative would also require legislative approvals (i.e., ULL adjustment, General Plan Amendment, rezone). The Reduced Intensity Alternative would avoid the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to operational greenhouse gas emissions, but would still result in significant unavoidable traffic impacts (related to freeway Page 10 of 84 segments). As described more fully in Section 5.0 of the RDEIR, this alternative would reduce, to a certain extent, the intensity of population-related impacts (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation, transportation, and utility and service systems), and footprint-related impacts (e.g., aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality). However, under both this Alternative and the Project, most of the identified impacts would remain less than significant or less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. c) Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration: Numerous additional alternatives were initially considered, but rejected from further consideration for the reasons summarized below and described more fully in the Project EIR. i. Modified Development Footprint: Under this alternative, six residential lots in the northeastern corner of the Residential Development Area on the Northern Site would not be developed and would instead become a part of the Northern Preservation Area. The Non‐Urban Development Area, trail, and trail heads would be constructed as would occur under the Project. Similar to the Project, this alternative would require a ULL adjustment, rezoning, and General Plan amendment. The Modified Development Footprint would avoid encroachment upon approximately 4,312 square feet of an existing wetland feature, resulting in an approximately 27 percent reduction in wetland feature impacts compared with the Project. However, because of this avoidance, the creation of high‐quality wetlands at a minimum 2:1 ratio would not occur under this Alternative to the same extent. The reduction in total housing units (from 125 to 119) would also result in small decreases in certain development footprint impacts such as those relating to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, required public service and utility needs, and total grading area, but would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts. This alternative would meet all of the Project objectives, although to a somewhat lesser extent than the Project since it would develop six fewer residential lots. Furthermore, under both this Alternative and the Project, impacts to wetlands would be less than significant in any event. Because this alternative is substantially similar to the Project and would result in similar impact levels and would not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts, it was rejected from more detailed analysis and further consideration. ii. Alternative Location: The CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of an alternative location: • site suitability, • economic viability, • availability of infrastructure, Page 11 of 84 • General Plan consistency, • other plans or regulatory limitations, • jurisdictional boundaries, and • whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines establish that only those locations that can avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts should be considered. For the reasons described in Section 5.0 of the RDEIR and various responses to comments set forth in the FEIR, only sites located within or directly adjacent to the ULL in the San Ramon, Danville, and/or Blackhawk areas that are currently designated for agricultural uses were considered. As is the case with the Project, changes to the ULL are allowable under certain conditions; therefore, alternative sites adjacent to the ULL were considered. For sites within the existing ULL, the primary constraint is that the Applicant does not own, control, or otherwise have access to any other sites. Undeveloped properties may be available for purchase within the ULL, and could conceivably be acquired; however, it is unlikely that any alternative site within the ULL would be large enough to be able to commit to dedicate and permanently preserve lands to the same extent proposed by the Project. Furthermore, dedication of open space areas within the ULL may not provide the same biological resource, open space, and agricultural resource benefits as those outside the ULL with respect to connectivity to other open space and preserved lands, and would not serve to create a “green buffer” to prevent future urban development beyond the approved ULL. However, because the residential portion of the Project Site could theoretically be developed on an alternative site within the ULL without the accompanying dedication of lands, two alternative sites were considered and rejected from further evaluation for the reasons set forth in Section 5.0 of the RDEIR and the FEIR. Similarly, for sites directly adjacent to, but entirely outside of the ULL, the primary constraint is that the Applicant does not own, control, or otherwise have access to any other sites. Further, obtaining approval for adjustment of the ULL is dependent upon the Board making the required findings, and thus alternative sites outside of the ULL may not qualify for inclusion in the ULL. Therefore, sites entirely outside of the ULL were not considered for alternative Project locations. Two sites, located in the unincorporated San Ramon area and partially within the ULL, have been identified by the County as potentially obtainable, and are considered, but were ultimately rejected for the reasons set forth in the Project EIR: i. Norris Canyon Alternative Site ii. Chapparal Court Alternative Site In addition to the above, to ensure robust consideration of potential alternative sites, further searches were conducted for sites readily available on the real Page 12 of 84 estate market that could potentially accommodate the Project. Most available, undeveloped sites in the San Ramon, Danville, and Blackhawk area were not large enough to accommodate the entirety of the Project, and/or would not satisfy the findings necessary to modify the ULL. Therefore, these alternative sites were also determined to be infeasible and were rejected from further consideration. d) Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the Project were summarized in Table 5‐2 (Summary of Alternatives) of the RDEIR, which showed that the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts in all environmental topic areas. The No Project Alternative would result in the greatest reduction in impacts, as this alternative would leave the Project Site undeveloped for the foreseeable future, thereby avoiding all of the Project’s significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Since the No Project Alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the RDEIR is required to select another and thus identified the Reduced Intensity Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce impacts in all environmental topic areas with the exception of hazards and land use and would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact related to operational greenhouse gas emissions. e) Basis for Rejecting the Alternatives Studied: Section 5.0 of the RDEIR and the FEIR provide detailed information regarding the basis for rejecting each of the alternatives studied in the Project EIR. In summary: i. No Project Alternative: This alternative would not satisfy any of the Project objectives and would not eliminate all of the significant and unavoidable impacts. ii. Reduced Intensity Alternative: This alternative would meet some of the Project objectives to a certain degree, but it would not efficiently use the 30‐acre development envelope or enhance the ULL’s fundamental purpose by creating a “green buffer.” In addition, it would not permanently protect agriculture, open space, wetlands, and other non‐urban characteristics on the Southern Site, and it would not preserve opportunities for ongoing agricultural uses on the Southern Site. Lastly, while certain significant impacts would be reduced to a certain degree (although under both this Alternative and the Project, the identified impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation) and significant and unavoidable impacts relating to greenhouse gas Page 13 of 84 emissions would be avoided, it would not eliminate significant and unavoidable traffic-related impacts (freeway segments). VI. Absence of Significant New Information A. After the RDEIR was published, the County received additional information that is not included in the RDEIR. County staff and consultants involved in preparing the various studies, reports and analyses included in the Project EIR have also presented additional information since the publication of the RDEIR. Some of this information was contained in comments submitted on the RDEIR, and in responses to those comments contained in the FEIR. Other information was presented at or before public meetings/hearings on the Project EIR. The Project EIR incorporates additions, clarifications, modifications, and other changes, in response to comments, and as determined appropriate by County staff and required under CEQA. Additional information was also submitted to the County regarding the Project that is not contained in the Project EIR. B. This Board has considered the opinions of interested agencies, organizations and individuals, including, among others, opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and conclusions in the Project EIR. The entirety of the Project EIR is incorporated into these findings by reference. This Board hereby ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analyses and explanations in the Project EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the Project EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures. C. Having reviewed all the information in the record of proceedings, this Board finds that this additional information does not constitute significant new information requiring another recirculation. The additional information merely clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR. Specifically, the additional information, including the changes described above, does not show any of the following triggers identified in CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5: 1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. 2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project (or an alternative), but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. 4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. VII. Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Introduction: Contra Costa County is the lead agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Project EIR. As the lead agency, the County is also Page 14 of 84 responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, which of those impacts are significant, and which impacts can be mitigated through imposition of feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize such impacts to a level of “less than significant.” CEQA requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. In particular, Public Resources Code section 21081(a) provides that no public agency may approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more of three findings with respect to each significant effect. Public Resources Code section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the lead agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If a lead agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The statement of overriding considerations does not substitute for, and is in addition to, findings required by CEQA Guidelines section 15091. B. Summary of Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts: Although most of the Project’s significant impacts can be substantially avoided or mitigated, some significant impacts remain for which complete mitigation is not feasible. In particular, for some impacts, the Project EIR identified feasible mitigation measures; however, even with implementation of these measures, the Project EIR concluded that the impact could not be reduced to a level of “less than significant.” Specifically, the Project EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project: 1. Adopted Air Quality Plan Consistency: Given that the Project would not achieve the per capita annual GHG emissions threshold of 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (MTCO2e/SP/yr) established by the BAAQMD even after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to conflicts with the GHG Reduction Goal of the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. Mitigations requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures are proposed; however, these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Page 15 of 84 2. Greenhouse Gas Operational Emission Threshold: The Project would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr for operational emissions. Mitigations requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures are proposed; however, these measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. 3. Existing Plus Project Freeway Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments that would operate at unacceptable LOS under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce Project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. 4. Near-Term Plus Project Freeway and Intersection Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments and one intersection that would operate at unacceptable LOS under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce Project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. 5. Cumulative Plus Project Freeway and Intersection Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments and intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Mitigations are proposed; however, they would not fully reduce Project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. 6. Congestion Management Plan: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain Congestion Management Plan facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels. Mitigations are proposed; however, they would not fully reduce Project impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. In addition, as discussed more fully in the Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and MMRP Section above, the Project EIR identified two alternatives to the Project (the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative) and analyzed whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed Project. While the No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project, it would not meet any Project objectives. Similarly, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would lessen some of the unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project, but it would not meet the majority of the Project objectives because it would not efficiently utilize the entire 30-acre development envelope; it would not permanently protect agriculture, open space, wetlands, and other non-urban characteristics on the Southern Site; it would not create a “green buffer” to enhance the ULL’s fundamental purpose; and it would not preserve opportunities for ongoing agriculture uses on the Southern Site. Consequently, for the reasons set forth in the Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and MMRP Section of these Findings and Section 5.0 of the RDEIR, neither of the Project alternatives is feasible. Page 16 of 84 C. Overriding Considerations: As required under Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, this Board, having reviewed and considered the Project EIR, all other written materials within the administrative record, and all oral testimony presented at public hearings and other public meetings on the Project EIR, has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the identified unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project, and hereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to such impacts, certifies the Project EIR, and approves the Project. This Board has also examined alternatives to the Project, neither of which is feasible, meets the majority of the Project objectives, or is environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Section (V.B.2) and the Project EIR. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, this Board has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above are acceptable due to the following specific considerations in the record, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. Each of the considerations in the record, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA. The Project will have all the following direct public benefits: 1. Provide a contribution of $4 million (in connection with the Agricultural Preservation Agreement discussed further below) to an agricultural enhancement fund established by the County, which will be available to support, develop, and implement a broad array of policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses in the Preservation and Enhancement Area (as that term is defined therein) and Dedication Area as follows: a) Encouraging and promoting the purchase of land or conservation easements from willing sellers, to protect and enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non‐urban uses; b) Continuing the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (“Williamson Act”) (Gov’t Code § 51200 et seq.) program to provide tax incentives for property owners who agree not to develop their land; c) Encouraging the lease of public land for agricultural activities such as grazing; d) Encouraging and promoting enhanced ground water management for agriculture and rural use, including technical support for more efficient water application and cooperative ground water management and extraction; e) Encouraging and promoting enhanced marketing for locally‐grown agricultural goods, including better connecting farmers to local markets; Page 17 of 84 f) Encouraging continuation and augmentation of the technical support available to farmers, especially in the areas of financing, weed abatement and management, soil conservation, and range management; g) Exploring and pursuing a range of funding opportunities for agricultural enhancement and preservation of open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non‐urban uses through activities such as grants, allocations from funding measures, and appropriations from density transfer programs and mitigation programs; h) Cooperating with stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the future of the Tassajara Valley; i) Encouraging public beautification projects, public signage, way-finding signage, and traffic regulations and improvements that enhance agricultural activities in the Tassajara Valley, or the rural character of the Tassajara Valley. 2. A $2,500,000 contribution (“$2.5M LCTF Contribution”) to the existing Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust Fund to be used by the County in its discretion in accordance with any adopted guidelines for the use of fund revenues. 3. Construction of off-site improvements on the adjacent Tassajara Hills Elementary School parking lot/entrance to improve existing parking and circulation deficiencies, particularly during drop off and pick up times. 4. Dedication of approximately 118 acres of the Northern Site and approximately 609 acres of the Southern Site (collectively, “Dedication Area”) to the EBRPD in fee to be permanently preserved for non-urban uses such as open space, parks, recreation, agriculture (including grazing), scenic areas, wetland preservation and creation, and habitat mitigation. 5. Dedicate land in fee to EBRPD, along with funding and constructing of the Pedestrian Staging Area thereon. 6. Dedicate to SRVFPD an approximately 7-acre parcel for potential future public use; if not accepted by SRVFPD, then this land will be dedicated to EBRPD. The commitment to provide the public benefits mentioned above, coupled with support of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement and the related principles (described below), will establish a substantial “green buffer” of public land that surrounds the ULL in this part of the Tassajara Valley. This buffer will effectively impose legal, physical, and practical constraints to any further urban development in Tassajara Valley, and thus substantially advance the primary objective of the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Plan. D. In addition to the above commitments, the Agricultural Preservation Agreement is designed to preserve certain land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses, consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan; this would occur through the memorialization of each signatory Page 18 of 84 agency’s respective commitment to endeavor to preserve and enhance agricultural and other non-urban land uses within an approximately 17,667- acre area in Tassajara Valley (“Preservation and Enhancement Area”) by agreeing to apply each party’s existing land preservation policies, as codified in existing zoning regulations and general plan policies, to this area. In the Agricultural Preservation Agreement negotiated among the County, City of San Ramon, and East Bay Regional Park District, once executed by the parties, they will have agreed to cooperate with respect to the continuing implementation of existing policies such as the following: 1. Memorialize and reaffirm each party’s respective commitment to preserving land in the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Enhancement Area by agreeing to apply each party’s existing land preservation policies as codified in existing general plan, zoning policies and master planning documents and agreeing that the Preservation and Enhancement Area and the Dedication Area (as those terms are defined therein) are outside the ULL/UGB, both of which prevent urban development. 2. EBRPD agreeing that following County certification of the Project EIR and Project approval, it will accept fee title to the Dedication Area, either directly from the Developer or through a dedication from the Regional Parks Foundation. 3. Support the addition of the Preservation and Enhancement Area and the Dedication Area to the Association of Bay Area Government’s list of Priority Conservation Areas to improve access to grant funding for acquisition of land or easements from willing sellers. 4. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing not to support any proposal to annex all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area into a municipality or a utility services district unless the annexation serves non-urban uses. 5. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing not to support any proposal to modify the sphere of influence of any municipality or utility services district to include all or any portion of either the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless the modification serves non-urban uses. 6. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing not to support any proposal to extend, expand, or connect to urban infrastructure or service to all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless (a) the extension, expansion, or connection serves non-urban uses; or (b) the extension, expansion, or connection (i) is the minimum necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property, (ii) is the minimum necessary to comply with state or federal law, or (iii) is the minimum necessary to avoid specific, adverse impacts upon public health and safety. 7. Cooperating to cause the County General Plan land use designation for the Dedication Area to be changed to Parks and Recreation (PR). Page 19 of 84 8. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party understanding that the County does not support amending the General Plan Land Use designation for all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless such proposed amendment is for one or more of the following County General Plan Land Use designations: Agricultural Lands, Public and Semi-Public, Open Space, or Parks and Recreation; or other non-urban uses. 9. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party understanding that the County does not support amending the zoning designations in the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area to change the zoning to a non-agricultural designation or other designation that is not compatible with agriculture, open space, park, recreation and other non-urban uses. 10. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party understanding that it does not support any future urban development in the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area. 11. Agreeing to work together to support, develop, and implement policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses in the Preservation and Enhancement Area. For the foregoing reasons and as otherwise supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, this Board hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”), which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching a decision to approve the Project. VIII. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before the County includes the following:  The RDEIR and all appendices to the RDEIR;  The FEIR and all appendices to the FEIR;  All notices required by CEQA, staff reports, and presentation materials related to the Project;  All studies conducted for the Project and contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the RDEIR, or the FEIR, or appendices attached thereto;  All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the County and other agencies;  All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, public meetings, study sessions, and workshops and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project, the RDEIR, and the FEIR;  For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents, Page 20 of 84 findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area; and  Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law. The Project EIR is incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. PROJECT FINDINGS IX. General Plan Consistency A. Overall General Plan Consistency 1. The General Plan is comprised of numerous goals, objectives, policies, principles, implementation measures, programs, and performance standards (collectively "General Plan Components"). At times, these General Plan Components necessarily compete with each other. For example, the General Plan promotes managed growth while simultaneously promoting protection of undeveloped land. As part of approving the Tassajara Parks project (“Project”), the Board has considered all applicable General Plan Components and the extent to which the Project conforms to each. 2. The General Plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the County. The Project is consistent with, in harmony with, and implements the General Plan and zoning, as amended by the Project, as well as all other applicable County plans, policies and regulations. The Board adopts the analysis of Project consistency contained in the Project’s EIR (including, without limitation, the detailed consistency analysis set forth in Section 3.9 of the RDEIR) and in staff reports as well as other relevant materials in the administrative record, as supplemented and clarified in these findings, with said analysis being incorporated herein by this reference. Nothing in the General Plan Amendment included in the Project’s entitlements will cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts and endorses the conclusions, reasoning, and findings regarding General Plan consistency set forth in the Project’s EIR and staff reports as well as other relevant materials in the administrative record. 3. The financial impacts of the Project have been determined during the review process based upon the materials in the administrative record. The Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Components set forth in the Growth Management Element as stated above and as further described in these findings. As required by the Growth Management Element, the Project will satisfy standard requirements and conditions that assure adequate infrastructure and services will be available. Accordingly, the Project complies with Public Facility and Services Element Policy 7-4. See also the detailed consistency discussion in Section 3.9 of the RDEIR as it relates to the nine relevant General Plan policies relating to growth management, the 65/35 Land Plan (or Ordinance), and the ULL. Page 21 of 84 4. Land Use Element Consistency: The Project will implement and promote the following General Plan Components set forth in the Land Use Element, which are stated without any intent to diminish or ignore other provisions that are implemented and promoted by the General Plan: Relevant Land Use Goals include the following: a) 3‐A: To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agriculture and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County’s quality of life. In such an environment, all residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural activities may take place in safety, harmony, and to mutual advantage. b) 3‐C: To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County. c) 3-D: To recognize and support existing land use densities in most communities, while encouraging higher densities in appropriate areas, such as near major transportation hubs and job centers. d) 3‐F: To permit urban development only in locations of the County within identified outer boundaries of urban development where public service delivery systems that meet applicable performance standards are provided or committed. Relevant Land Use Policies including the following: a) 3‐5: New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with the growth management. b) 3‐6: Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential community services or facilities including, but not limited to, roads, law enforcement and fire protection services, schools, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. c) 3‐7: The location, timing and extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing (i.e., a capital improvement program, assessment districts, impact fees, and developer contributions) to prevent infrastructure, facility and service deficiencies. d) 3‐10: The extension of urban services into agricultural areas outside the Urban Limit Line, especially growth‐inducing infrastructure, shall be generally discouraged. Page 22 of 84 e) 3‐11: Urban uses shall be expanded only within an Urban Limit Line where conflicts with the agricultural economy will be minimal. f) 3‐12: Preservation and buffering of agricultural land should be encouraged as it is critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and assuring a balance of land uses. Preservation and conservation of open space, wetlands, parks, hillsides and ridgelines should be encouraged as it is crucial to preserve the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife and plants, to protect unique scenery and provide a wide range of recreational opportunities for County residents. g) 3‐14: Protect prime productive agricultural land from inappropriate subdivisions. h) 3‐18: Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. i) 3‐24: Housing opportunities shall be improved through encouragement of distinct styles, desirable amenities, attractive design and enhancement of neighborhood identity. j) 3‐25: Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment. k) 3‐28: New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. l) 3‐29: New housing projects shall be located on stable and secure lands or shall be designed to mitigate adverse or potentially adverse conditions. Residential densities of conventional construction shall generally decrease as the natural slope increases. 5. Transportation and Circulation Element Consistency: No portion of the Project will jeopardize or adversely impact the Land Use Element’s correlation with the Transportation and Circulation Element. See Section XIX.A of these findings for additional information regarding the Project’s consistency and compliance with applicable traffic and transportation standards. In addition, as detailed more fully in the Project’s EIR and other relevant materials in the administrative record, the Project will implement and promote the following General Plan Components set forth in the Transportation and Circulation Element, which are stated without any intent to diminish or ignore other provisions that are implemented and promoted by the General Plan: Page 23 of 84 Relevant Roadway and Transit Goals include the following: a) 5-A: To provide a safe, efficient and integrated multimodal transportation system. b) 5-E: To permit development only in locations of the County where appropriate traffic level of service standards are ensured. c) 5-G: To provide access to new development while minimizing conflict between circulation facilities and land uses. Relevant Roadway and Transit Policies include the following: a) 5-3: Transportation facilities serving new urban development shall be linked to and compatible with existing and planned roads, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and pathways of adjoining areas, and such facilities shall use presently available public and semi‐ public rights of way where feasible. b) 5-4: Development shall be allowed only when transportation performance criteria are met and necessary facilities and/or programs are in place or committed to be developed within a specified period of time. c) 5-11: The use of freeways for community circulation shall be minimized by prioritizing transit circulation, safe, direct non‐motorized routes, and secondarily by additional arterials and expressways. d) 5-12: The use of local and collector roadways for neighborhood circulation shall be encouraged. e) 5-13: The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit. f) 5-17: Emergency response vehicles shall be accommodated in development project design. g) 5-18: The design and the scheduling of improvements to arterials and collectors shall give priority to intermodal safety over other factors including capacity. h) 5-21: New development shall contribute funds and/or institute programs to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities where feasible. i) 5-24: Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. Page 24 of 84 Relevant Roadway and Transit Implementation Measures include the following: a) 5-j: Design local streets so that the widths and curvatures fit the needs of all users, the appropriate speed of travel, and the character of the surrounding site. b) 5-k: Design a system of local and collector streets within a development to connect pedestrians and bicyclists with transit stops, activity centers and adjacent neighborhoods. Relevant Pedestrian Facilities and Bikeways Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures include the following: a) 5-O: Plan for the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. b) 5-L: Expand, improve and maintain facilities for walking and bicycling c) 5-M: Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. d) 5-37: Identify gaps in the bicycle network and needed improvements to pedestrian districts and key activity centers and define priorities for eliminating these gaps and making needed improvements. Facilities shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines. e) 5-39: Reduce conflicts among motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. f) 5-45: Accommodate and encourage other agencies to accommodate the needs for mobility, accessibility and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians when planning, designing and developing transportation improvements. g) 5-aj: Where possible, roads selected for the comprehensive bikeway system should be 35 mph or less. h) 5-al: Ensure that pedestrian connectivity is preserved or enhanced in new developments by providing short, direct pedestrian connections between land uses and to building entrances. i) 5-an: Promote planning and coordination of pedestrian and bicycle facilities among cities, transit agencies and public utilities. j) 5-ar: Streetscape improvements should be included in the design of high usage pedestrian facilities to encourage pedestrian activity. This would include improvements such as benches, public art, drinking fountains and pedestrian‐scale lighting fixtures. k) 5-at: Traffic calming measures should be designed so they improve pedestrian and bicycle movement in residential neighborhoods and commercial districts as well as strategic corridors between them that help form the comprehensive bicycle network. Page 25 of 84 l) 5-ax: Use traffic control devices such as signs, signals or lights to warn motorists that pedestrians or bicyclists are in the roadway. m) 5-ay: Provide buffers between roads and sidewalks utilizing planter strips or buffer zones that provide streetscape improvements. n) 5-be: Incorporate sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian cut-throughs, or other bicycle pedestrian improvements into new projects. o) 5-bg: Accommodate cyclists and pedestrians during construction of transportation improvements and other development projects. Relevant Scenic Routes Policies include the following: a) 5-54: For lands designated for urban use along scenic routes, planned unit developments shall be encouraged in covenant with land development projects. Relevant Scenic Routes Implementation Measures include the following: a) 5-bj: Consider the visual qualities and character of the corridor in reviewing plans for new roads, road improvements, or other public projects. This should include width, alignment, grade, slope and curvatures of traffic islands and side paths, drainage facilities, additional setbacks, and landscaping. X. Urban Limit Line Change A. Section 82-1.018(a) of the County Ordinance Code (Changes to the Urban Limit Line) allows for changes to the ULL provided that the changes do not violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, there is a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors, and one or more of seven requisite findings exist based on substantial evidence in the record. One of the seven findings pertains to the execution of a preservation agreement, and reads as follows: “A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement.” As set forth in Section 82-1.024 of the 65/35 Ordinance, a “preservation agreement” is an agreement with the County and one or more cities in the County designed to preserve certain land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. The foregoing is intended to reflect the desired relevant interagency collaboration on land use issues while respecting the scope of legal authority granted to such agencies in relation thereto, particularly in areas that have been long-subject to disputes in this regard. The County, City of San Ramon, and the EBRPD have negotiated a Preservation Agreement under Section 82-1.024 of the 65/35 Ordinance. The Preservation Agreement covers 17,667 acres in the Tassajara Valley area and includes the Project Page 26 of 84 Site. The Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area (as defined therein) is generally not appropriate for urban growth because of its physical unsuitability for development, unstable geological conditions, inadequate water availability, lack of appropriate infrastructure, distance from existing development, likelihood of substantial environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat, and other similar factors. In recognition of those facts, the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement is designed to preserve the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses by committing the parties thereto to numerous principles, including, among others, memorializing and reaffirming each party’s respective commitment to preserving land in the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area consistent with the parties’ respective existing policies and principles and requiring urban development to be effectively buffered from land planned for agricultural, open space, parks, recreation or other non-urban uses. The parties’ commitments to these existing policies and principles would preserve the existing non-urban state of the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Preservation and Enhancement Area by reinforcing a buffer of lands that may only be used for non- urban purposes consistent with existing ULL/UGB principles and policies. To reiterate, this merely reflects an ongoing commitment to the parties’ existing land use principles and policies related to urban sprawl and growth management. As described above, once executed by the parties, the Preservation Agreement will protect and enhance agriculture and preserve and enhance open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses. The Preservation Agreement provides that the County is authorized to find that the Agreement satisfies Section 82- 1.018(a)(3). B. The Preservation Agreement reflects agreement, among other things, on the following: 1. Memorialize and reaffirm each party’s respective commitment to preserving land in the Preservation and Enhancement Area and Dedication Area by agreeing to apply each party’s existing land preservation policies as codified in existing General Plan, zoning policies and master planning documents and agreeing that the Preservation and Enhancement Area and the Dedication Area (as those terms are defined therein) are outside the ULL/UGB, both of which prevent urban development. 2. EBRPD agreeing that following County certification of the Project EIR and Project approval, it will accept fee title to the Dedication Area, either directly from the Developer or through a dedication from the Regional Parks Foundation. 3. Support the addition of the Preservation and Enhancement Area and Dedication Area to the Association of Bay Area Government’s list of Priority Conservation Areas to improve access to grant funding for acquisition of land or easements from willing sellers. 4. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing not to support any proposal to annex all or any portion of the Page 27 of 84 Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area into a municipality or a utility services district unless the annexation serves non-urban uses. 5. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing not to support any proposal to modify the SOI of any municipality or utility services district to include all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless the modification serves non-urban uses. 6. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing not to support any proposal to extend, expand, or connect to urban infrastructure or service to all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless the extension, expansion, or connection serves non-urban uses; or (b) the extension, expansion, or connection (i) is the minimum necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property, (ii) is the minimum necessary to comply with state or federal law, or (iii) is the minimum necessary to avoid specific, adverse impacts upon public health and safety. 7. Cooperating to cause the County General Plan land use designation for the Dedication Area to be changed to Parks and Recreation (PR). 8. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party understanding that the County does not support amending the General Plan land use designation for all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless such proposed amendment is for one or more of the following County General Plan land use designations: Agricultural Lands, Public and Semi-Public, Open Space, or Parks and Recreation Uses; or other non-urban uses. 9. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party understanding that the County does not to support amending the zoning designations in the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area to change the zoning to a non-agricultural designation or other designation that is not compatible with agriculture, open space park, recreation or other non-urban uses. 10. Consistent with the existing policies and except as otherwise provided therein, each party agreeing that it does not support any future urban development in the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area. 11. Agreeing to work together to support, develop, and implement policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses in the Preservation and Enhancement Area. C. The Preservation Agreement satisfies the requirements of Sections 82-1.018(a)(3) and 82-1.024 of the County Ordinance Code and applicable provisions of the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. The parties’ commitments to the foregoing principles, coupled with the approval of the Project by the County (as well as other agencies having legal authority over aspect(s) of the Project), will help to preserve the Page 28 of 84 existing non-urban state of the Tassajara Valley. This is accomplished by permanently preserving approximately 727 acres through conveyance to the EBRPD in fee, and by establishing a “green buffer” (including a significant amount of land owned and/or controlled by public entities) to serve as a permanent legal, practical, and physical barrier to urban development, beyond which the construction or extension of urban services will be inconsistent with the General Plan, thereby ensuring that no further urbanization of the Tassajara Valley occurs. Together, the Preservation Agreement and the Project will directly and substantially advance the primary objective of the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. XI. 65/35 Land Preservation Standard A. The Board has evaluated the Project’s ULL change and General Plan Amendment in the context of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. It has been determined that approval of the ULL change and adoption of this General Plan Amendment to re- designate the 30-acre Residential Development Area from Agricultural Lands (a non- urban land use designation) to Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) (an urban land use designation) will not conflict with or otherwise impair the County’s ability to maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The Board has also evaluated the rezoning in the context of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and determined that rezoning the entire Project Site from Exclusive Agricultural (A-80) to Planned Unit District (P-1) will not conflict with or otherwise impair the County’s ability to maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The other portions of the Project Site that would be re-designated to PR (Parks and Recreation) and PS (Public and Semi- Public) and re-zoned to P-1 would allow only non-urban development and thus would not conflict with or otherwise impair the County’s ability to maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. B. As indicated by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development’s Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) mapping system, there are over 8,000 acres of non-urban designated land within the ULL that could be eligible for conversion to urban land use designations without causing the County to exceed the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard (Contra Costa County 2013). Currently, only approximately 30 percent of the total land within the County is designated for urban land uses. As such, including the 30-acre Residential Development Area of the Project Site within the ULL will not cause the County to violate the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Furthermore, consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, the Project will ensure the permanent protection and preservation of approximately 727 acres of land for non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, parks, recreation, scenic uses, wetland preservation and creation, and habitat mitigation. C. The Tassajara Valley has been the subject of intense development pressure for decades, in part because the ULL presently ends at Tassajara Hills Elementary School with privately-owned land immediately adjacent to and outside the ULL. The Project and its substantial land dedication in fee to EBRPD will facilitate permanent resolution of this issue by removing approximately 727 acres of land from any possibility of future urban development in perpetuity. This protected land comprises approximately 94% of the Project Site and ensures the permanent preservation of open space, wetlands, hillsides, ridgelines, wildlife and plant habitat, and unique scenery in the Tassajara Valley, consistent with and further implementing the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Page 29 of 84 D. Land preservation will be accomplished by including the 30-acre Residential Development Area within the adjusted ULL and the accompanying conveyance to EBRPD of approximately 727 acres of land outside the ULL and within the Northern and Southern Sites in fee to be protected in perpetuity for park, recreation, open space and other non-urban uses. Portions of the conveyed acreage within the Southern Preservation Area will also be subject to a conservation easement, as further described in Section 3.4 of the RDEIR, for purposes of mitigating habitat impacts identified in the RDEIR, all of which will prevent future urban development. Most of the Project Site (approximately 94%) will thus permanently remain in its predominantly natural, scenic, agricultural, and open space condition. By allowing the Project to proceed, the accompanying dedication of 727 acres of land results in that land immediately adjacent to and outside the ULL being publicly owned, rather than privately owned, thus alleviating the urban development pressures in this area. This land dedication to EBRPD will result in the imposition of legal and physical constraints that will effectively establish a “green buffer” to prevent additional urban development in this area. E. The 30-acre Residential Development Area is in a location of relatively minimal topographical relief and will not extend north to the adjacent hilltops and ridgelines. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.1 of the RDEIR, the improvements proposed within the Residential Development Area will be consistent with existing surrounding communities by avoiding urban development on hillsides and ridgelines. This would in turn preserve foothill and valley views that are visible from adjacent scenic ridgelines and Camino Tassajara. Including the Residential Development Area within the ULL will also constitute a logical extension of urbanized development and services into a relatively flat, geologically stable area that is surrounded by rolling hills and ridges. Moreover, this 30-acre area is devoid of any significant agricultural value or natural resources, as discussed more fully in Section 3.3 of the RDEIR. The permanent preservation of approximately 727 acres of land for non-urban uses will discourage grid-like land division, permanently alleviate the pressure for urban development in this area, and protect the Tassajara Valley from more intensive levels of urban development that might occur as a result of changes in the law that may otherwise facilitate urban development. F. All the Project’s urban land uses will be located within the Single-Family Residential- High Density (SH) land use designation and within the 30-acre change to the ULL, as allowed by Ordinance Code section 82-1.018(a). The General Plan describes a broad range of non-urban uses under the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, including open space, agricultural, recreational, and public/semi-public uses such as schools, public offices, highways, major flood control rights-of-way, and railroads. (See, e.g., General Plan at p. 3-33.) All Project features outside of the Residential Development Area are non-urban in nature. The Contra Costa County Ordinance defines “nonurban uses” as “rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoning and facilities for public purposes, whether privately or publicly funded or operated, which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or Federal law.” Chapter 82-1 also characterizes agriculture, open space, wetlands, and parks as a non-exhaustive list of examples of non-urban uses. Accordingly, and consistent with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and with the County’s historical land use practice and as discussed more Page 30 of 84 fully in the FEIR, the Project’s proposed uses located outside the ULL (including ongoing agriculture in the form of grazing, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, stormwater detention basin, staging area, trail, and grading) are all non-urban in nature. G. By rezoning the site from A-80 (Exclusive Agricultural) to a project-specific P-1 (Planned Unit) zoning district, the Project will substantially reduce the number and intensity of non-urban land uses allowed at the Project Site. Such reduction in intensity is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and the purposes behind it. For example, the project-specific P-1 zoning district will allow development of 125 single-family homes, interior roadways, landscaping and utilities, all within the 30-acre Residential Development Area. The respective P-1 district will also allow approximately 27.29 acres of non-urban uses such as a detention basin, a pump station, one pedestrian staging area, a trail, and related grading. Lastly, the respective P-1 zoning district will designate the approximately 118-acre balance of the Northern Site for non-urban uses such as agriculture (including grazing), open space, scenic uses, parks, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation. The ability to establish higher-impact commercial agricultural land uses, such as wholesale horticulture and floriculture, dairying, livestock production, poultry raising, livestock breeding, aviaries, apiaries, and forestry are permitted by right within the existing A-80 zoning. However, with the project-specific P-1 zoning district, establishment of the uses listed above would require a discretionary review and modification of the P-1 district. The respective P-1 zoning district will preserve approximately 609 acres of the Southern Site by designating the area for uses such as land for agriculture (including grazing), open space, scenic uses, park, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation. This will in turn prevent the establishment of urban uses and any incompatible land uses within the boundaries of the Southern Site. The P-1 zoning district will also identify a 7-acre area for a potential future public/semi-public use (San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District) in accordance with the County’s Urban Limit Line and other relevant County provisions. XII. General Plan Map Amendment A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(a), the General Plan may be amended if deemed to be in the public interest. The General Plan Amendment will promote public health, safety, and welfare, and provide benefits beyond those that could be achieved under the current General Plan. Re-designating the Project to SH (Single- Family Residential, High Density), PR (Parks and Recreation), and PS (Public and Semi-Public) designations will allow the Project to implement and promote the General Plan policies and provisions noted in Section VIII of these Findings. The Project will provide extensive public benefits via: (1) permanent preservation of approximately 727 acres of land for non-urban uses; (2) creation of a “green buffer” between existing urban and non-urban uses that will alleviate long-standing development pressures for the Tassajara Valley area; (3) dedication of land and related improvements to EBRPD for one pedestrian staging area that will connect trails; (4) dedication of an approximately 7-acre site for a potential future fire station training facility; (5) installation of circulation and parking improvements at the adjacent Tassajara Hills Elementary School to address existing deficiencies; (6) an irrevocable four million dollar ($4,000,000) contribution to an agricultural enhancement fund established by Page 31 of 84 the County; and (7) a non-refundable $2,500,000 contribution to the County Livable Communities Trust Fund. XIII. Annual Statutory Limit on General Plan Amendments Pursuant to Government Code Section 65358(b), no mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended more than four times per calendar year. The proposed General Plan Amendment affects the Land Use Element, a mandatory element, and constitutes the third amendment to such element for calendar year 2020. XIV. Rezoning and Final Development Plan Findings Rezoning the Project Site from an Exclusive Agriculture (A‐80) to a Planned Unit (P-1) zoning district will promote public health, safety and welfare, and provide benefits beyond those that could be achieved under the current zoning. Rezoning the Project Site as proposed will eliminate the ability to perform certain higher-impact commercial agricultural activities that would otherwise be permitted as of right under the existing A-80 zoning. This includes uses such as wholesale horticulture and floriculture, wholesale nurseries and greenhouses, mushroom rooms, dairying, livestock production, fur farms, poultry raising, animal breeding, aviaries, apiaries, forestry, and similar agricultural uses. This reduction in intensity is consistent with the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and the purposes behind it. In addition, rezoning the Project Site to a project-specific P-1 district contributes to the preservation and permanent protection of approximately 727 acres of land for agriculture (including grazing), open space, scenic uses, park, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation by preventing the establishment of urban uses and any incompatible land uses thereon, as well as providing areas where other potential public/semi-public uses may be pursued by certain public entities in the future if such uses are in accordance with the County’s Urban Limit Line and other relevant County provisions. The following will occur through offers to dedicate the foregoing lands in fee to EBRPD (and to SRVFPD for purposes of a 7-acre parcel). A. Rezoning Findings 1. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The project-specific P-1 zoning district will allow for the development of 125 single-family residential lots and associated improvements, the Pedestrian Staging Area, park/recreation areas, potential future SRVFPD facility improvements, and habitat mitigation areas. The residential component will be consistent with the SH designation of the 30-acre portion of the Northern Site (Residential Development Area) within which it will be located. Any potential future SRVFPD use and improvements will be consistent with the PS (Public/Semi- Public) designation of the 7-acre portion of the Southern Site (and subject to the County’s discretionary land use permit process if and when SRVFPD accepts the offer of dedication and elects to proceed to develop some type of fire facility), and the remaining park, recreational, open space, wetland creation, and habitat uses will all be consistent with uses allowed within the remaining area that are designated as PR (Parks and Recreation). In addition to their compliance with their respective General Plan Land Use designations, the uses permitted under the project-specific P-1 will also be consistent with various other applicable policies Page 32 of 84 and goals of the General Plan associated with the 65/35 Land Preservations Standard, transportation, utilities, conservation, and safety. The Project’s compliance with these policies and goals, with respect to the uses allowed with the project P-1, are described in further detail above in the “General Plan Consistency” section of these findings as well as in Section 3.9 of the RDEIR and the FEIR. 2. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district, and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Finding: The project-specific P-1 zoning district will allow for the development of 125 single-family residential lots and associated improvements, pedestrian staging area, park/recreation areas, potential future SRVFPD facility improvements, and habitat mitigation areas. Generally speaking, parks and recreational areas are intended to serve urbanized areas of the County and are essential to the physical and mental well-being of their residents. The Residential Development Area will be in close proximity and have easy access to, the Pedestrian Staging Area and the Northern Site’s park/recreation area. This configuration encourages commingling of, and reaffirms the compatibility of, the two land uses. Any potential future SRVFPD facility improvements will be compatible with all allowed uses within the district due to its sole purpose of contributing towards providing fire protection services in the surrounding area and will be subject to the County’s discretionary land use permit process. The wetland preservation/creation and habitat mitigation uses will be located at the Southern Site along with parks and recreation, open space, and potential future fire protection services uses. If the offer of dedication is accepted by the SRVFPD, any future improvements or uses on that parcel will be limited to those of a fire protection nature, which will have little potential for conflict with the adjacent wetland preservation/creation and habitat mitigation areas. The residential and open space/recreational uses within the Northern Site will be surrounded by the Tassajara Hills Elementary School, similar residential uses associated with the Blackhawk and Alamo Creek communities, SRVFPD Station #36, undeveloped agricultural lands, and agriculturally zoned parcels with low- density residential development. These uses are all residential in nature, and thus will be compatible, as further discussed in Sections 3.2, 3.9 of the RDEIR and the FEIR. The residential uses are located in an area of minimal topographical relief and will not extend north to the on‐site hilltops. The Project’s residential uses will be consistent with the aesthetics of the surrounding residential and urban areas, and will be compatible with the dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity of adjacent urban land uses (i.e., residences, Tassajara Elementary School, Fire Station, and soccer complex) located directly to the west and southwest. The residential component of the Project has been designed to complement surrounding architectural styles and will include building materials similar to those used in the Project vicinity. In addition, the Residential Development Area will be consistent in scale and size with other development in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, including one- and two- story residences. Conformance with applicable regulations Page 33 of 84 and policies set forth by Contra Costa County requiring design review, such as Ordinance Code 84-66.1402 (design objectives for P-1 planned unit districts), will further ensure that the visual character and quality of the Residential Development Area is consistent with community standards. Furthermore, once all necessary approvals have been obtained and the Project is constructed, it will include all required and desirable fundamental elements such as public water and wastewater services, fire protection infrastructure, a storm drainage system, solid waste collection, and basic utilities (i.e. gas, electricity) needed to safely operate a development of this size and nature. In addition, the Project will include the following amenities: areas permanently preserved and protected for open space, agriculture, scenic uses, parks, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation; a pedestrian staging area and related improvements to be offered for dedication to EBRPD; and circulation and parking improvements to be installed on the adjacent school site to address existing deficiencies. The Project’s limited urban development on a small portion of the overall Project Site (with approximately 94% of the Project Site being permanently protected for non-urban uses) reflects an efficient and thoughtful utilization of the Project Site, which will result in the permanent preservation and protection of the vast majority of the Project Site for open space, agriculture, scenic uses, parks, recreation, wetlands, and habitat mitigation and other non-urban uses. 3. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: There is an increasing and continuous demand for additional housing stock within Contra Costa County, which the Project’s residential uses will contribute towards reducing. In addition, the Project’s substantial contribution of open space lands for permanent protection and preservation helps sustain the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Furthermore, the Project’s dedication of land and/or improvements to the EBRPD, SRVFDP, and San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) properties will result in significant contributions to facilitate the broader community needs as they relate to park and recreational uses, fire protection facilities, and school site improvements. B. Planned Unit (P-1) District Findings 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one- half years from effective date of zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding: Representatives of the Applicant have publicly stated an intent to start construction as quickly as feasible and within two years of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement (as that term is defined therein). However, the anticipated construction date is subject to obtaining all necessary approvals from other public agencies and depends on market and other considerations. 2. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Page 34 of 84 Project Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan as explained in detail above in the "General Plan Consistency" section of these Findings. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. Project Finding: The Residential Development Area will be located in a small portion of the southwest corner of the Northern Site and focused in an area of minimal topographical relief that would not extend north to the adjacent rolling hills. The Project’s residential uses will be consistent with the aesthetics of the existing residential and urban character of the areas to the west, southwest, and south; and will be compatible with the dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity of adjacent urban land uses (i.e., residences, Tassajara Elementary School, Fire Station, and soccer complex) located directly to the west and southwest. The residential component of the Project has been designed to complement surrounding architectural styles and will include building materials similar to those used in residential developments in the Project vicinity. In addition, improvements within the Residential Development Area will be consistent, in scale and size, with other development in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, including one- and two-story residences. Conformance with applicable regulations and policies set forth by Contra Costa County that require design review, such as Ordinance Code 84-66.1402 (design objectives for P-1 planned unit districts), will ensure that the visual character and quality of the Residential Development Area is consistent with community standards. 4. Required Finding: In the case of the commercial development, it is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed, and that traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed center, or will be obviated by presently projected improvements and by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances and exits, and by internal provisions for traffic and parking, and that the development will be an attractive and efficient center which will fit harmoniously into and will have no adverse effects upon the adjacent or surrounding development. Project Finding: The Project does not involve a commercial element. 5. Required Finding: In the case of proposed industrial development, it is fully in conformity with the applicable performance standards, and will constitute an efficient and well organized development, with adequate provisions for railroad and/or truck access service and necessary storage, and that such development will have no adverse effect upon adjacent or surrounding development. Project Finding: The Project does not involve an industrial element. 6. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of this code. Page 35 of 84 Project Finding: The Project Site consists of various unique characteristics that warrant adoption of a Planned Unit zoning district. Portions of the Northern Site consists of very steep slopes, documented landslide areas, and valuable sensitive habitat resources that limit suitable development areas. In addition, the Applicant has included a substantial land preservation and dedication component as part of the Project, which will be more easily executed and managed given the more contiguous configuration of the land to be preserved. When the unique characteristics of the land, the goal of reducing impacts to environmental resources, and a desire for the most contiguous and publicly accessible preserved lands configuration were considered together, the proposed residential development within a portion of the Northern Site is restricted to a 30-acre area in the southwest region of the Project Site. To efficiently utilize this compact 30-acre development envelope while also maintaining consistency with surrounding residential developments, the Project design requires exceptions and/or variations from the standard lot dimension, structure yard and setback, and other development standards of the County’s standard residential zoning districts. XVI. Vesting Tentative Map Findings A. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: The Project’s Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTM) application has been reviewed along with all other submitted plans, and for compliance with applicable regulations in effect on the date the application was deemed complete. The development shown on the VTM, as a whole, is consistent with the General Plan as explained in further detail in the "General Plan Consistency" section of these findings. There is no specific plan that covers the Project Site. B. Required Finding: The advisory agency shall make findings as required concerning the fulfillment of construction requirements. Project Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision within the meaning of Government Code section 66473.1. The Project will be subject to then- current building codes that require energy efficiency pursuant to applicable State of California Green Building standards. The VTM has been conditioned to require the undergrounding of all new utility distributions within the 30-acre Residential Development area. Any relevant undergrounding would be subject to Government Code section 66473.6, addressing reimbursements for relocating or undergrounding certain utilities. Lastly, the Project has been conditioned in a manner that requires the Applicant to complete most of the construction requirements (i.e. roadway improvements, drainage improvements) prior to recordation of the Final Map unless construction of said improvements is guaranteed with sufficient security in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the County’s Subdivision Ordinance. Page 36 of 84 XVII. Development Agreement Findings A. In accordance with State law, the County adopted Resolution No. 85/412 and Ordinance No. 92-73 establishing rules, regulations, procedures, and requirements for consideration and adoption of development agreements (“Development Agreement Regulations”). The Development Agreement for the Project has been processed, considered, and executed in accordance with the Development Agreement Regulations and State law. B. As detailed more fully therein, the Development Agreement for the Project vests the ability to build the Project in accordance with Applicable Law (as that term is defined therein), and provides an additional enforcement mechanism (in addition to the COAs) to ensure satisfaction of the Project’s various funding and dedication obligations and provision of identified community benefits. C. The Development Agreement is consistent with and in compliance with the County’s General Plan for the reasons set forth in these Findings. D. The Development Agreement promotes public health, safety and welfare by granting certainty to enable the Project to be pursued under an established set of local plans and regulations, which will also ensure that the public benefits (as described more fully in the Development Agreement, COAs, and these Findings), provided that the Project occurs. XVIII. Tree Removal Findings The County decision-making body is satisfied that the following factors, as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit, have been satisfied as stated below: • Reasonable development of the Project Site as proposed by the Project would require removal and/or work within the dripline of code-protected trees, and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. Even though there are relatively few trees located within its 155-acre area, the large majority of existing trees on the Northern Site are clustered in the southwestern and northeastern regions. In the interest of avoiding steep slopes and documented landslide areas, avoiding sensitive habitat areas to reduce the level of environmental impacts, and providing easy roadway access, development of the proposed 125 residences, related on- site improvements and Pedestrian Staging Area have been focused in these two regions of the Northern Site. Because these are the most suitable locations for development, existing trees must be altered or removed. XIX. Exception Findings A. Exception from requirement from frontage improvements and pavement widening. 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Page 37 of 84 Project Finding: Given the nature of the Project’s residential component (which is limited to the 30-acre Residential Development Area), there are no frontage improvements proposed beyond “A” Street and no other frontage improvements in the area to which the new Project improvements would be connected. In addition, no new public improvements will be allowed in the future because this is the last private property along Camino Tassajara with the potential to be subdivided following a 30-acre change to the ULL. Granting the requested exception further helps to ensure the preservation of the vast majority of the Project Site for non- urban uses and maintains the rural residential nature of the Project vicinity generally. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Project Finding: The requirement to construct frontage improvements beyond “A” Street would be inconsistent with the ULL and with the Project objectives, such as serving as a buffer and transition zone between existing urban and permanently protecting the non‐urban uses and non‐urban characteristics of the vast majority of the Project Site. 3. Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: Granting the requested exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area because the Project will not develop urban land uses east of the Residential Development Area on the Northern Site. Moreover, granting the requested exception will be consistent with existing development patterns in the Project vicinity that are rural residential in character generally. B. Exception from the requirement for streetlights within one mile of an existing school. 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: Given the nature of the Project’s residential component (which is limited to the 30-acre Residential Development Area), there are no street lights proposed beyond “A” Street and no other street lights in the area to which the new Project improvements would be connected. In addition, no new streetlights will be allowed in the future because this is the last private property along Camino Tassajara with the potential to be subdivided following a 30-acre change to the ULL. Granting the requested exception further helps to ensure the preservation of the vast majority of the Project Site for non-urban uses and maintains the rural residential nature of the Project vicinity generally. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Page 38 of 84 Project Finding: The requirement to install streetlights beyond “A” Street would be inconsistent with the ULL and with the Project objectives, such as serving as a buffer and transition zone between existing urban and permanently protecting the non‐urban uses and non‐urban characteristics of the vast majority of the Project Site. 3. Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: Granting the requested exception will not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area because the Project would not develop urban land uses east of the Residential Development Area on the Northern Site. Moreover, granting the requested exception will be consistent with existing development patterns in the Project vicinity, which are rural residential in character generally. C. Exception to the requirement for frontage improvements on the side or sides of the roadway adjacent to the subdivision. 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: Given the nature of the Project’s residential component (which is limited to the 30-acre Residential Development Area), there are no frontage improvements proposed beyond “A” Street and no other frontage improvements in the area to which the new Project improvements would be connected. In addition, no new public improvements would be allowed in the future because this is the last private property along Camino Tassajara with the potential to be subdivided following a 30-acre change to the ULL. Granting the requested exception further helps to ensure the preservation of the vast majority of the Project Site for non- urban uses and maintains the rural residential nature of the Project vicinity generally. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Project Finding: The requirement to construct frontage improvements beyond “A” Street would be inconsistent with the ULL and with the Project objectives, such as serving as a buffer and transition zone between existing urban and permanently protecting the non‐urban uses and non‐urban characteristics of the vast majority of the Project Site. 3. Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Page 39 of 84 Project Finding: Granting the requested exception will not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area because the Project would not develop urban land uses east of the Residential Development Area on the Northern Site. Moreover, granting the requested exception would be consistent with existing development patterns in the Project vicinity, which are rural residential in character generally. D. Exception to the requirement for sidewalks within one mile of an existing school. 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: Given the nature of the Project’s residential component (which is limited to the 30-acre Residential Development Area), there are no sidewalks proposed beyond “A” Street and no other sidewalks in the area to which the new Project improvements would be connected. In addition, no new sidewalks will be allowed in the future because this is the last private property along Camino Tassajara with the potential to be subdivided following a 30-acre change to the ULL. Granting the requested exception further helps to ensure the preservation of the vast majority of the Project Site for non-urban uses and maintains the rural residential nature of the Project vicinity generally. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Project Finding: The requirement to construct frontage improvements beyond “A” Street would be inconsistent with the ULL and with the Project objectives, such as serving as a buffer and transition zone between existing urban and permanently protecting the non‐urban uses and non‐urban characteristics of the vast majority of the Project Site. 3. Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: Granting the requested exception will not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area because the Project would not develop urban land uses east of the Residential Development Area on the Northern Site. Moreover, granting the requested exception would be consistent with existing development patterns in the Project vicinity, which are rural residential in character generally. E. Exception to the requirement for the placement of overhead utility distribution facilities within any subdivision to be place underground. 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Page 40 of 84 Project Finding: Given the nature of the Project’s residential component (which is limited to the 30-acre Residential Development Area), there are few undergrounded utilities along Camino Tassajara east of “A” Street, if any, that the required underground utility improvements would be connected to, and none are expected in the future as this is the last property along Camino Tassajara with the potential for being subdivided following a 30-acre change to the ULL. Therefore, overhead utilities are a well-established characteristic in the neighborhood. Granting the requested exception further helps to ensure the preservation of the vast majority of the Project Site for non-urban uses and maintains the rural residential nature of the Project vicinity generally. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Project Finding: The requirement to underground existing utilities along Camino Tassajara would be an inequitable cost imposed on the Applicant, as noted further below in finding (3). 3. Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: As the existing overhead utilities along the Project frontage east of “A” Street are compatible with the rest of those along Camino Tassajara, there would be no perceived detriment to the public welfare resulting from the exception. In addition to exceptions from the infrastructure improvements above, the Applicant also requests an exception from Section 914-2.004 – “Offsite collect and convey requirements” for those portions of the Project outside the ULL as modified by the Project. Historically, large rural acreages in the County with little or no new impervious surfaces being created have been granted exceptions to this requirement. The additional peak runoff rate being generated by the Project within the ULL will be mitigated to at or below pre-development rates in accordance with applicable standards and requirements, thus downstream drainage conditions will not be worsened. F. Exception to the requirement to meet all “collect and convey” standards. 1. Required Finding: That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: The existing tributary for the Northern Site drains all surface runoff to the southern portion of the Northern Site along Camino Tassajara into an area of existing jurisdictional wetlands. 2. Required Finding: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Page 41 of 84 Project Finding: The requirement to continue the Project’s stormwater system any further to the southern boundary of the Northern Site would create additional otherwise unnecessary impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, contrary to the Project’s objective of protecting and preserving wetlands. 3. Required Finding: That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: The potential for runoff discharge in excess of the existing condition for the Project will be mitigated by the fact the Project will collect and convey all onsite runoff to the proposed detention basin area at the southeast corner of the Residential Development Area. No additional downstream improvements to adjacent properties are required. XX. Growth Management Element Policies And Performance Standards The County is eligible to receive local street maintenance and improvement funds generated by Measure C-1988 (and as extended via Measure J), only if the County (as well as each city within the County) develops a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan. The purpose of the County’s General Plan Growth Management Element is to establish policies and standards for traffic levels of service and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water, and flood control to ensure that public facilities consistent with adopted standards are provided. The Project is consistent with and complies with the applicable Growth Management Element policies and performance standards, as stated in these findings, the Project staff reports, the Project EIR, and other relevant materials in the administrative record. The Board has considered the Project's compliance with the traffic service objectives of Measure C-1988 and Measure J - 2004, the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program, and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. Measure C-1988 established a Growth Management Program, "to assure that future residential, business, and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth." The Growth Management Program requires the County to adopt Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Standards keyed to types of land use, and to comply with the adopted standards; to "adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth;" to participate in the forum established by the Authority to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts, using the CCTA computer model; and to develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. Measure J 2004 amended Measure C-1988 to continue the transportation sales tax to fund transportation projects within the County. The County has complied with all these requirements, as described more fully herein and as otherwise set forth in the administrative record. Most importantly, the County is achieving Measure C-1988 and Measure J- 2004's overarching goal that development pay its own way. A. Traffic: The County's Growth Management Plan (as part of voter-approved Measure C-1988 and Measure J-2004) requires the County to evaluate the impacts of proposed development projects on the local, regional, and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided. As part Page 42 of 84 of this evaluation, it is necessary to prepare a full transportation impact study when a proposed development, such as the Project, would be expected to generate more than 100 peak hour trips. In compliance with these requirements, the County retained the transportation firm, Kimley-Horn & Associates, to prepare a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for evaluation of the Project’s potential construction- and operation-phase impacts. The TIA was prepared in consultation with representatives of Contra Costa County, the Town of Danville, the City of Dublin, and the City of San Ramon; and with the goal of coming to a consensus with respect to the definition of the study network and agreeing upon the appropriate methodology to utilize in the analysis. In general, the Contra Costa Transit Authority’s (CCTA) Technical Procedures Guide provided the basis for the selection of intersections and the methodology for the analysis, although the TIA also includes a more conservative trip generation rate for the residential uses, in accordance with a request made by the Town of Danville. As discussed more fully in the TIA and in the Project EIR, the analysis expressly considered the requirements of the applicable regulatory framework. This analysis included requirements from the 2013 CCTA Growth Management Program (GMP), 2009 Tri‐Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, 2013 CCTA Congestion Management Program (CMP), 2013 CCTA Technical Procedures, Measure C/Measure J, Tri‐Valley Transportation Council’s Tri‐Valley Transportation Development Fee, Alameda County Transportation Commission 2013 Congestion Management Program, and numerous County General Plan Components. In summary, the TIA evaluated the Project’s potential impacts under three different scenarios (Existing, Near-Term Future, and Cumulative), and determined that all significant impacts could be sufficiently mitigated except for those at several intersections and on certain freeway segments. These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable because the implementation and timing of the identified mitigating improvements are beyond the County’s control. Nevertheless, the Project Applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to implement the mitigation identified in the Project’s EIR. Specifically, the Project proponent will be required to build certain improvements; contribute funding to support public transit for the area (through creation of a new Community Service Area (CSA) or similar funding mechanism); fund the optimization of signal timing at impacted intersections; and pay the applicable Tri‐Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) fees. The foregoing obligations will be imposed on the Project as enforceable conditions of approval. Payment of the TVTD fees will contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvements. The TIA also found that certain design features of the Project, which the Project proponent voluntarily agreed upon as an additional community benefit, will help to avoid significant traffic hazards. These improvements include: (a) the reconfiguration and expansion of the existing Tassajara Hills Elementary School driveway and parking lot to facilitate efficient circulation and parking in order to help remedy existing deficiencies; (b) installation of five‐foot sidewalks along the Project’s Camino Tassajara frontage to connect the Project driveway to the Lusitano Street intersection; and (c) striped crosswalks at the main Project entrance. B. Water: Subject to approval by the Board of Directors of East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) of an acceptable agreement with the Project proponent, the Project will augment the availability of potable water from EBMUD by facilitating and Page 43 of 84 accelerating the implementation of currently planned water conservation measures and/or expanding conservation beyond currently planned levels within EBMUD’s service area by an amount sufficient to offset the Project’s water demand. Because the Project Site is adjacent to EBMUD’s existing service area, upon the County’s approval of the requested land use entitlements, the Project proponent will then request that EBMUD enter into a mutually acceptable arrangement whereby the developer funds “Level E” conservation measures or other substantially similar conservation measure(s) approved by EBMUD’s Board of Directors that could provide the required conservation to accommodate the demand needed to serve the Project. EBMUD has not defined a timetable for implementation of Level E measures since this would be heavily dependent upon the availability of funding, among other considerations; nor did it identify specific funding source(s) for same; therefore, acceleration and/or other facilitation of the implementation of these measures through funding provided by the Project proponent would allow EBMUD to accommodate the estimated Project water demand through its existing supply in a manner that would otherwise not occur. As documented in the Water Supply Evaluation (WSE) and explained more fully in the FEIR, the supplemental feasibility analysis and as otherwise set forth in the administrative record, the preferred conservation elements are to be developed and confirmed through negotiations with EBMUD, and are subject to the discretion and approval of EBMUD’s Board of Directors as memorialized in a binding agreement. Funding will be defined in part by the conservation offset that would be negotiated with EBMUD, and which would be subject to the approval of the EBMUD Board of Directors. The WSE indicates there is sufficient water available to meet Project demands during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years. Because delivery of this water supply will require the approval of other public agencies (i.e., EBMUD and LAFCO), the Project is conditioned to require that all such approvals be obtained prior to proceeding with development. To further ensure impacts are fully mitigated and taking into account the foregoing, the County has conditioned the Project such that, among other things, the Project developer will be required to enter into the above-referenced binding agreement with EBMUD that provides for the Project to fully accommodate its identified demand at a minimum of 56.3 AFY or the amount ultimately confirmed by EBMUD, whichever is greater. The County also has conditioned the Project on requiring specified water conserving features and limits on total demand to be included as enforceable provisions in the Project’s CC&Rs, and that penalties could be levied against individual homeowners/Homeowners’ Association for violating these provisions to help ensure compliance. This is consistent with the method successfully used in the Alamo Creek development. C. Sanitary Sewer: Upon annexation of the Residential Development Area and Pedestrian Staging Area (and related sphere of influence amendment) into its service area (which will require approval by LAFCO), the Project will be provided with wastewater collection and treatment services by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (“CCCSD”). As explained more fully in the Project EIR, the Project is estimated to demand between 47.9 and 91.7 acre feet (af) of water use on an annual basis. This equates to between approximately 41,959 and 81,234 gallons on a daily basis (0.04 and 0.08 mgd). If it were conservatively assumed that all domestic water would ultimately be discharged to the wastewater system, the Project would increase treatment demand at the CCCSD’s Sanitary District Treatment Plant (SDTP) between 0.04 and 0.08 mgd. At the high end of this range, this increase represents approximately 0.30 percent of the 26 mgd of available treatment capacity identified by Page 44 of 84 the CCCSD in May of 2016. As such and as explained more fully in Section 3.13 of the RDEIR, the SDTP is expected to accept the Project’s increase in effluent without needing to expand existing or construct new facilities. Therefore, the Project will not require or result in the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing off‐site facilities. D. Fire Protection and Emergency Services: The Project Site is located in an area served by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD), and directly across Camino Tassajara from Station #36 (2001 Lusitano Street). SRVFPD and emergency personnel will likely be able to reach the Residential Development Area in less than two minutes, or entrance to the Southern Site at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Highland Road in approximately three minutes. These times are well within the response time goals for urban, suburban, and rural areas. As discussed more fully in Section 3.11 of the RDEIR, the combination of the proximity of Station #36, a relatively small population increase (anticipated at 375 persons), and the public and emergency vehicle access provided by the Project, will ensure that no additional SRVFPD and Emergency Services new or altered facilities will be required to serve the Project. Furthermore, the comments and requirements provided by the SRVFPD in its review of the Project application will be incorporated into the Project to ensure appropriate access and compliance with all applicable codes and standards. The Applicant will pay all applicable review and development impact fees to the SRVFPD. Lastly, in addition to conveying the Dedication Area to EBRPD for permanent preservation, the Project Applicant has offered for dedication, an approximately 7-acre parcel on the Southern Site to the SRVFPD for their potential future use in a manner consistent with the ULL. E. Public Protection: The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office will provide law enforcement services to the Project Site. Construction of the Project will generate a population increase of approximately 375 persons, which represents less than one percent of the Sheriff Office’s current service population. Response times are broken down into five category levels ranging from 11 minutes 24 seconds to 16 minutes 46 seconds. The Residential Development Area is located approximately 10 miles from the nearest Sheriff Station. However, responses to calls will likely originate from Sheriff officers who are currently patrolling the local beat and not from the station. If response calls originated from the Sheriff Station, response would be approximately 17 minutes based on drive time. As previously indicated, because there are many factors considered in evaluating response times, the Sheriff’s Office does not set a specific goal for emergency call response times. However, General Plan Policy 7-59 indicates that when making staffing and beat configuration decisions, the Sheriff should strive for a maximum response time for priority 1 or 2 calls of five minutes for 90 percent of all emergency responses in central business district, urban, and suburban areas. The General Plan Policy’s indicated response time is a goal, not a requirement. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office has reviewed the Project and did not indicate there would be a need for new or expanded Sheriff facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. As such and as further evaluated in Section 3.11 of the RDEIR, it is not expected that the Project will significantly affect service ratios or response times, or increase the use of existing law enforcement facilities such that substantial physical deterioration, alteration, or expansion of these facilities would be required. Pursuant to the COA #29 for the Project, an annual special tax will be assessed on each lot created by the subdivision. The tax funding will be used to maintain and augment law enforcement services Page 45 of 84 provided to the Project. In addition, the Project Applicant will be required to pay all applicable review and development impact fees to the Sheriff’s Office. F. Parks and Recreation: County park and recreation facility standards are established in the County’s General Plan. Specifically, Goal 9-K of the General Plan, is to achieve a level of park facilities equal to four acres per 1,000 members of the population, or 0.004 acre per person. The Project is expected to generate a population increase of approximately 375 persons (at 3 persons per household), resulting in the need for 1.5 acres of park facilities to assist in the County’s parkland goal. The Project will contribute towards the County’s parkland facilities goal by the conveyance of approximately 0.19 acre to the EBRPD on the Northern Site for the Pedestrian Staging Area (along with constructing improvements thereon), for the benefit of the community and the granting of a perpetual easement to EBRPD for the purpose of a future trail alignment (approx. 0.40 acre). In addition, approximately 609 acres of the Southern Site as well as approximately 118 acres of the Northern Site – for a total of approximately 727 acres – will be dedicated to EBRPD in fee so that the foregoing lands will be permanently preserved and protected for park, recreation, open space and other non-urban uses.1 Therefore, the Project will make significant contributions to the development of on-site open space, trail, and staging areas for use by the Project residents and the general public, which will greatly outweigh any potential increase in the use of existing neighborhood, regional, or state recreational facilities. G. Flood Control and Drainage: The Project site is not located within an area of the County that has been identified as a 100-year flood-plain, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Furthermore, no element of the Project requires removal or alteration of any existing dam, levee, or other flood control infrastructure located within the County. The Project has been reviewed by the County Public Works Department and will be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. The combination of the Project's compliance with the Hydrological and Water Quality mitigations described in the Project’s EIR and all other applicable laws and regulations; the Project's compliance with the added drainage conditions of approval from the County Public Works Department; and the installation of on-site drainage improvements as shown on the approved Project plans, will ensure that on-site and off-site drainage is adequate and meets applicable performance standards and requirements. 1 The RDEIR and certain other Project materials reference dedication of approximately 710 acres to EBRPD. This amount has been increased to approximately 727 acres, calculated as follows: 609 acres (on the Southern Site) and 117.82 acres (Parcel E of the Northern Site) and a total of 0.47 acre (Parcels D, K, J of the Northern Site). Conditions of Approval Page 46 of 84 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILES #CDGP07-0009, #CDRZ09-3212, #CDSD10-9280, and #CDDP10-3008 (TASSAJARA PARKS) Administrative 1. These conditions of approval pertain to the Tassajara Parks project (“Project”), as approved in County Files #GP07-0009, #RZ09-3212, #SD10-9280, and #DP10-3008. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval set forth herein. As used in these conditions, “Applicant” means: a) for conditions that must be satisfied before filing of a Final Map, the entity(ies) submitting the Final Map for recordation and/or the owner(s) of the land subject to that Final Map; and b) for the conditions that are to be satisfied after filing of the Final Map, the landowner(s) and/or HOA or equivalent owner’s association. References to the Project sponsor or developer shall be deemed to be references to the Applicant. 3. Whenever these conditions refer to approval or satisfaction of the CDD or Public Works Department, that approval or satisfaction may be provided by staff, and staff may refer the matter to a County official (Zoning Administrator or department director) if deemed appropriate. 4. Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted to subdivide the Northern Site into no more than 125 single-family residential lots and 10 parcels for non-urban development, and to subdivide the Southern Site into no more than two parcels (if San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District land offer is accepted, and if not, then this 7-acre parcel will be dedicated to EBRPD), as more particularly shown on VTM/PDP/FDP (SD 9280). 5. Preliminary and Final Development Plan approval is granted to allow for the construction of the Tassajara Parks Project with associated infrastructure, utility, and roadway improvements consisting of the following primary elements, generally as shown on plans submitted to the County on August 19, 2020: a) Up to 125 single-family residences; b) Pedestrian staging area; c) Stormwater detention basin; d) Grading activities of approximately 300,000 cubic yards for site preparation and mitigation of landslide hazards; e) Roadway dedications along Finley Road and Camino Tassajara; f) Wetlands creation; g) Sewer pump station; h) Granting of a trail easement to the East Bay Regional Park District; and i) Off-site circulation improvements at the Tassajara Hills Elementary School Parking Lot. 6. Tree Permit approval is granted to allow for the removal of up to 19 code-protected trees. 7. Exceptions to the following Title 9 requirements are granted as part of this approval: a) Requirement for frontage improvements and pavement widening b) Requirement for streetlights within one mile of an existing school Page 47 of 84 c) Requirement for frontage improvements on the side or sides of the roadway adjacent to the subdivision d) Requirement for sidewalks within one mile of an existing school e) Requirement for the placement of overhead utility distribution facilities within any subdivision to be place underground f) Requirement to meet all “collect and convey” drainage standards 8. The maximum number of single-family residential lots approved as part of the Project is 125. Urban Limit Line Change 9. The 30-Acre Modification to the ULL to Incorporate the Residential Development Area (“ULL Modification”) is approved. This Board, having fully considered the matter, has approved the minor modification to the ULL as described herein pursuant to Chapter 82-1 of the Ordinance Code by the four-fifths vote requirement of section 82-1.018(a)(3) and (4). This approval is based on substantial evidence in the record, including, without limitation, the County Planning Commission recommendations, the reports on the Project to both the County Planning Commission and the Board from the Department of Conservation and Development, the Project EIR, the testimony and comments received in connection with this matter, and other relevant materials in the administrative record. 10. In accordance with Section 2.07(b) of the Development Agreement, if the Developer has not filed its first final map by the end of the Initial Term plus any extensions obtained under Section 1.05 of the Development Agreement (as those terms are defined therein), the Board shall have the right, but not the obligation, to rescind the ULL Modification, General Plan Amendments, and the Rezoning (if necessary) pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code §§ 65000-66035). Project Phasing / Filing of Multiple Final Maps 11. The filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps must conform with sections 66456.1 & 66463.1 of the Subdivision Map Act and is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Division and the Public Works Department pursuant to the County’s Subdivision Ordinance and the state Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, the Applicant must satisfy certain conditions before filing the first Final Map, as more particularly described in the Development Agreement and as set forth herein. Contra Costa County has the authority to impose reasonable conditions relating to the filing of multiple Final Maps or multiple Parcel Maps as set forth in these conditions of approval, and these conditions of approval for this subdivision shall apply to each subdivision phase unless otherwise expressly indicated. If multiple subdivision maps will be filed, the conditions of approval for this subdivision must be satisfied for each phase prior to recordation of individual maps, and a separate compliance review application will be required for each subdivision phase to determine the status of the conditions of approval for that phase. GHAD Annexation/Creation 12. Prior to filing the first Final Map, in addition to other requirements, the Applicant or property owner shall identify an existing Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), or establish a new GHAD for the Project to address the prevention, mitigation, abatement, and control of geological hazards in accordance with Public Resources Code section 26500 et seq. (“GHAD Law”). Prior to annexation into an existing GHAD or formation of the new GHAD, Page 48 of 84 a draft “Plan of Control” prepared by a Engineering Geologist certified pursuant to Section 7822 of the California Business and Professions Code shall be provided to the CDD, which shall contain the contents set forth in Public Resources Code section 26553. Consistency 13. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Map is contingent upon the Board of Supervisors also approving the ULL Modification, General Plan Amendments (GP07-0009), and rezoning elements (#RZ09-3212) of the Project. 14. The Vesting Tentative Map, preliminary/final development plans, and tree permit approvals are based on and as generally shown on the following documents: a) Major subdivision application received by the CDD; b) Development Plan Application received by the CDD; c) Vesting tentative map and development plans of Carlson, Barbee and Gibson, Inc. received by the CDD on August 19, 2020; d) Landscape plans of David Babcock and Associates dated February 9, 2015; and e) Arborist report of HortScience Inc. dated May 15, 2015 Duration 15. If the Board of Supervisors does not adopt Ordinance No. _____ approving the Development Agreement, the Vesting Tentative Map is granted for a period of three years, which may be extended upon proper request(s) for extension, and review and approval of the CDD, or as otherwise extended pursuant to applicable laws, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the County’s Subdivision Ordinance. If the Board of Supervisors adopts Ordinance No. _______ approving the Development Agreement, then the duration of the Vesting Tentative mMap is as specified in the Development Agreement. Indemnity 16. The Applicant shall enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the County, and the Applicant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the County), and hold harmless the County, its boards, commissions, officers, employees, and agents (collectively “County Parties”) from any and all claims costs, losses, actions, fees, liabilities, expenses, and damages (collectively, “Liabilities”) arising from or related to the Project, the Applicant’s applications for a land use entitlement, the County’s discretionary approvals for the Project, the County’s actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and planning and zoning laws, or the construction and operation of the Project, regardless of when those Liabilities accrue. The scope of indemnity provided by the Applicant is more specifically described in the Indemnification Agreement. Fees 17. This Project is subject to initial application deposits of $85,400 for the General Plan Amendments, $20,063 for the rezoning review, $2,698 for the vesting tentative map review, and $3,500 for the development plan review, which were paid with the application submittals, plus time and materials costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Development Agreement or the Page 49 of 84 conditions set forth herein, any additional costs due under applicable County laws and regulations must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, within 60 days of the permit’s effective date, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013-340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due from the date of approval, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%). The Applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the Project planner. If the Applicant owes any additional costs, a bill will be sent to the Applicant shortly after permit issuance. 18. No later than five days after Project approval, the Applicant shall pay the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) CEQA filing fee of $3,445.25 and a County Clerk processing fee of $50, as mandated by State law. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3), the Project will not be operative, vested, or final, and local government permits for the Project shall not be valid until the filing fees required pursuant to the foregoing section are paid. A Notice of Determination, which commences the running of a 30-day statute of limitations for CEQA purposes, cannot be filed absent payment of these fees. 19. In the event that the County elects to use a third-party consultant to assist in the monitoring of environmental mitigation measures set for the in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and other requirements of these conditions, then the Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all actual fees associated with the consultant’s contract. 20. In the event the Board of Supervisors adopts Ordinance No. _____ approving the Development Agreement, the Applicant or property owner shall pay a deposit of $1,000 to cover staff time needed for each subsequent review (i.e., annual review) or proposed modification of that agreement (if any such modification is requested by the Applicant). The required fee shall be paid to the CDD no less than fourteen days prior to the anniversary date for initiation of each annual review, or shall be submittal with any request for modification of the Development Agreement. Compliance Report 21. Prior to each of the following events: a) recordation of a Final Map; b) CDD stamp- approval of plans for issuance of a building or grading permit; and c) commencement of construction-related activities, the Applicant shall submit an application for Condition of Approval compliance verification to confirm compliance with conditions relevant to that event. The initial deposit for a project of this size is $10,000, which is subject to staff time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional payment will be required in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Applicant shall submit a report in compliance with the conditions of approval set forth herein for review and approval of the CDD. The report shall list each condition followed by a description of what has been provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. The CDD may reject the report if it is not reasonably comprehensive with respect to the applicable requirements for the requested approval, and the Applicant shall re-submit this compliance verification with changes made in response to comments received by the CDD. This condition will remain active throughout the construction phase of the Project, and additional submittals may be required to ensure compliance with each sub-phase (e.g., demolition, grading, building) or subsequent Project element (i.e., land conveyance). Page 50 of 84 Permitted Land Uses 22. For purposes of the project-specific P-1 district, the permitted land uses are as follows: a) detached single-family residences and secondary uses normally incidental to them b) pedestrian staging area c) sewer pump station d) detention basin for drainage purposes e) public or private park or recreational areas f) fire protection district services and activities g) agriculture h) grazing i) wetland preservation and creation j) habitat mitigation k) open space Inclusionary Housing 23. This Project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in place as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement (as that term is defined therein) pursuant to Section 2.04(b) thereof. Pursuant to Section 822-4.402 of the County Ordinance, a residential development of one hundred twenty-five for-sale units shall require at least fifteen percent of the for-sale units to be developed and sold as inclusionary units unless an in-lieu fee is paid, as further explained below. As an alternative to the requirement to construct inclusionary housing, the Applicant has proposed the payment of an in-lieu fee. This alternative for the collection of an in-lieu fee, as established in DCD’s fee schedule, has been accepted by the County. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall pay to the County the full amount of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in-lieu fee of $484,361.25. This in-lieu fee is non-refundable. 24. Should the Applicant choose not to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance via the full payment of the above-referenced in-lieu fee, the Applicant shall comply with County Ordinance Chapter 822-4 by constructing the required number of inclusionary units either on- site, off-site, or via a combination of both on-site and off-site construction. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions 25. The Applicant shall record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that requires the owner’s association to maintain all common areas, emergency vehicle access ways (those not under County ownership), and private roadways, within the development beginning when the Applicant assigns the maintenance agreement to the owner’s association. A copy of the foregoing relevant provisions of the Project’s CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval of the CDD prior to recordation of the first Final Map. 26. The CC&Rs shalladdress, to the reasonable satisfaction of the CDD, the following: a) Funding for maintenance of common areas; b) Residential Design Guidelines consistent with the Project approvals; and Page 51 of 84 c) Provisions for incorporation of on-site water conservation measures. 26-1. On-site water conservation measures required by EBMUD for the Project (detailed in COA #80-3 below) shall be included in all the CC&Rs for every residential unit included in the Project. The CC&Rs shall also require that the on-site water conservation measures listed in the CC&Rs be in place at the time of resale. Further, the CC&Rs shall provide that the provision(s) incorporating on-site water conservation measures recorded in the CC&Rs may not be changed without prior written approval from EBMUD. 27. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a proposed deed disclosure statement to satisfy this COA 27 for review and approval of the CDD. This disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of property within the subdivision, to the existence and terms of the recorded CC&Rs. EBRPD Dedication 28. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Developer shall provide the CDD with copies of the fully executed EBRPD Dedication Agreement and the approved Acceptance of Offer of Dedication to dedicate the approximately 609-acre Southern Preservation Area in fee (subject to any required conservation easement in favor of the resource agencies for habitat purposes) and approximately 118 acres of the Northern Site in fee (subject to any GHAD maintenance and public access easement(s)), to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) (or the Regional Parks Foundation, at EBRPD’s request), both for park and recreational purposes, and subject to any other terms that are mutually acceptable to the EBRPD and the Developer. As part of the foregoing offers of dedication, the Developer shall establish a perpetual funding mechanism for the EBRPD’s benefit to provide ongoing funding for maintenance of the foregoing lands in the total amount of one hundred dollars ($100) per unit plus an annual inflationary increase consistent with the Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area (CPI). The foregoing offer of dedication for the referenced portions of the Northern Site include an approximately 0.19-acre portion for purposes of the Pedestrian Staging Area. Prior to CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of the building permit for the first residential unit, the Developer shall improve the Pedestrian Staging Area in a manner reasonably acceptable to the EBRPD as reflected in a mutually acceptable agreement between the Developer and the EBRPD. Park Impact/Park Dedication Fees 29. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall pay a per unit Park Impact/Park Dedication fee of $8,129. This fee amount is the current rate at the time of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. Pursuant to Section 2.04(b) of the Development Agreement, the actual amount due for each unit shall be that which is in effect on the Effective Date of the Development Agreement for a period of ten years; after the expiration of this 10-year period, the Developer shall be required to pay a per unit Park Impact/Park Dedication fee in the amount in effect at the time of building permit issuance for that unit. Law Enforcement Services 30. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment law enforcement services by voting to approve a special tax Page 52 of 84 for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be an annual amount per lot (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. As of the date of approval of this Project, the annual fee is $200.00 per lot. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to recordation of the first Final Map. The Applicant shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is requested by the Applicant. A minimum of three to four months should be allowed for processing. Tree Preservation 31. Up to 19 code-protected trees may be removed as identified in the May 15, 2015, arborist report of HortScience Inc. (Appendix C.3 of the DEIR/RDEIR). 32. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the first residential unit, the Applicant shall plant at least 19 trees measuring no less than 24-inch box size, to replace the trees approved for removal. To avoid burdening future buyers of residential lots with responsibility of maintaining their health, the 19 trees shall be planted in areas of the Project Site that are to be conveyed to the EBRPD or any other areas owned and maintained by the owner’s association. 33. Required restitution for Approved Tree Removal – The following measures shall be implemented to provide restitution for the protected trees that have been approved for removal. a) Tree Restitution Planting/Irrigation Plan: Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of the CDD. The plan shall identify protected trees that are to be removed or preserved. Removed code-protected trees shall be replaced with minimum 24-inch box size California Black Walnut trees, or an alternate tree of a native and drought-tolerant species. The plan shall be accompanied by an estimate, prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist, or the materials and labor costs to complete the replacement of the protected trees. b) Required Security to Assure the Completion of Plan Improvements: Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit or other financial instrument) that is acceptable to the CDD. The security shall include the amount of the approved cost estimate for replacement and planting, plus a 20% inflation surcharge. c) Initial Fee Deposit for Processing of a Security: The County Ordinance Code requires that the Applicant pay fees for all time and materials costs of staff for processing a landscape improvement security. At the time of submittal of the security, the Applicant shall pay a deposit of $100. d) Duration of Security: Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first residential unit, the consulting arborist shall verify that the required replacement trees have been properly planted, and when verified, notify the CDD in writing. The security shall be retained by the County for a minimum on 12 months, and up to 24 months, beyond the date of receipt of the written verification of installation. A prerequisite of releasing the Page 53 of 84 bond between 12 and 24 months shall be to have the Applicant arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the required replacement trees and to prepare a report on the trees’ health. In the event the CDD determines that the required replacement trees have been damaged or have died, and determines that the Applicant has not been diligent in providing a replacement, then the CDD may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for replacement of the dead or damaged tree(s). e) Integration with Final Landscape Plan: The tree restitution planting and irrigation plans described in Subsection(a) above may be incorporated as part of the “Final Landscape Plan” required below. However, the restitution planting and irrigation plan shall identify the replacement trees required to replace protected trees, and that are intended to satisfy this condition. In addition, the estimate required pursuant to Subsection-(a) above shall only cover materials and labor associated with the implementation of the required tree restitution, and not the full Final Landscape Plan. Final Landscape Plan 34. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, a final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. The plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary landscape plans of David Babcock and Associates, dated February 9, 2015. The Final Landscape Plan shall be compliant with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (or the County’s landscape ordinance if one has been adopted). Residence Design Standards 35. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the first residential unit, the Project sponsor shall submit architectural plans detailing each of the different residence floor plans proposed for construction. At minimum, the submitted plans shall include exterior elevations, floor layouts, and exterior materials; which all shall be subject to review and approval of the CDD. The following approved design guidelines shall be included as a note on the approved Final Map. All residential structures shall be subject to the following design guidelines: a) Except as modified by these conditions of approval and related Project entitlements, the guide for development shall be the R-6 Single-Family Residential Zoning District. b) Residential lot yard and setback standards shall be as follows: Lot Size Rear Yard 20 15 5 10 15 2 20 15 5 15 15 20 15 10 20 15 c) The Residential Development Area shall consist of no less than four different floor plans, which shall be varied at roadway intersections. Page 54 of 84 d) For a gradual transition between the development and the adjacent low-lying wetland area, residences on Lots 67 - 77 of the development shall be limited to one-story. e) Residences on Lots 1-12 and 67 – 77 shall vary in design, massing, and roof pitch due to their visibility from Camino Tassajara. Residences on Lots 1-12 shall also be limited to one story. f) The rear and side yard fencing of lots adjacent to the protected wetlands, pedestrian staging area, and adjacent EBRPD lands shall be of an open-rail or open-wire design, and no more than three-feet in height. g) Each residential lot shall provide a minimum of two off-street parking spaces within an enclosed garage, and one additional off-street parking space for guests. h) Residential designs for corner lots shall include architectural features to provide a frontage appearance from both sides. 36. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a proposed deed disclosure statement addressing this COA 36 for the review and approval of the CDD. This disclosure statement shall advise prospective buyers of residential lots that all residences within the subdivision are subject to the residence design standards listed in the condition above. Residential Development Area Design 37. In order to preserve public access to the Pedestrian Staging Area, installation of a private entry gate at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and “A” Street shall be prohibited. Notation of this restriction shall be included on the approved Final Map. 38. The parcels intended to provide access to the Tassajara Hills Elementary School (Parcel-C, - L, and –M) and to the adjacent recreational areas (Parcel-D, -K) shall remain as access throughout the life of the development, and shall not be converted to or combined with residential lots. Notation of this restriction shall be included on the approved Final Map. 39. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit an on-street parking “fit plan” for all lots west of A Street, for review and approval of the CDD. The plan shall identify locations for on-street parking (consistent with minimum dimension requirements pursuant to Section 82-16.404(b) of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance) that can be accommodated when considering site distance, driveway cuts, fire hydrants, and other sidewalk/roadway improvements. The approved fit plan shall be included with the Final Plan for recordation. 40. Signs or red-painted curbs shall be located at the C Street frontages of Parcels-M, -L, and – B to discourage temporary parking for the dropping-off or picking-up of students from the adjacent elementary school. Private Entry Gate 41. The use of a private entry gate is expressly prohibited. An exception shall be made for gates intended to control access along emergency vehicle access roads. Page 55 of 84 Community Benefit 42. No later than five days after recordation of the first Final Map (1st Installment) and prior to issuance of the first building permit excluding models (2nd Installment), pursuant to Section 3.01 of the Development Agreement, the Applicant shall make the first of two installments for a non-refundable contribution of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) (“$4M Ag Contribution”) in an agricultural enhancement and preservation fund established by the County to support, develop, and implement a broad array of policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses in the Tassajara Valley, with the second installment of the $4M Ag Contribution being made prior to issuance of the first building permit (excluding models). Inflationary increases shall be based on any change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) (“CPI”) for the 12-month period ending on the December 31 immediately prior to the March 1 when the increase is effective. The timing and increments in which the Applicant shall provide the $4M Ag Contribution and any CPI increases accrued on the contribution, shall be consistent with that which is stated in Section 3.01 (Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement Contribution) of the Development Agreement. 43. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, pursuant to Section 3.02 of the Development Agreement, the Applicant shall make a non-refundable contribution of Two Million-Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) to the County’s existing Livable Communities Trust Fund. The timing and increments in which the contribution is made shall be consistent with Section 3.02 (Contribution to Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust) of the Development Agreement. Climate Action Plan Consistency 44. Prior to CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of the first buildingpermit, the Applicant shall provide evidence (construction plan details/notes) that the proposed Project meets minimum applicable standards listed in Table-E.1 (Standards for CAP Consistency – New Development) of the County Climate Action Plan’s Appendix-E, as follows: a) All appliances and insulation installed by the Applicant in residential units shall be rated high efficiency. b) All residences shall meet the standards to be solar ready as defined by the applicable provisions of the then-current California Building Code. c) All garages attached to residences shall be pre-wired for EV charging stations. Air Quality 45. During construction, the following air pollution control measures (consistent with BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures) shall be implemented (MM AIR-2): • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered Page 56 of 84 • All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified vehicle emissions evaluator. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders were used. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the County of Contra Costa regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 46. Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off-road emissions standards to the extent feasible. The Project Applicant shall include in all construction contracts a clause reflecting this requirement. (MM AIR-3) 47. Prior to CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of building permits, the following measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions shall be implemented to the extent feasible (MM AIR-6): a) Only natural gas hearths shall be installed throughout the development. b) Install solar or tankless water heaters throughout the development. c) Install energy-efficient ceiling/whole-house fans. d) Install on-site generation of renewable energy, such as solar to meet a minimum of 10 percent of the Project’s total energy demand. e) Comply with California Green Building standards to reduce both indoor and outdoor water consumption. Biology 48. All of the biological mitigations listed below shall be included as a note on each approved Final Map. Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale 49. Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale. In order to offset impacts to Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale, the Project Applicant shall implement the following measures (MM BIO-1a): a) Populations of special-status species shall be avoided to the maximum degree practical. If avoidance is not practicable, the Ground Disturbance Areas should be reviewed to see if it can be feasibly adjusted to avoid the special-status plants while still meeting the Project’s objectives. Page 57 of 84 b) A Rare Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the County and CDFW within a minimum of 30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing related activities. c) Prior to disturbing any area that supports Congdon’s Tarplant or San Joaquin Spearscale, a qualified botanist shall collect the seeds or oversee the seed collection of both species by a qualified seed collection crew. This seed shall be stored either by Monk and Associates, or by a native seed company, until construction is complete and the Special-Status Plant Mitigation Area(s), on the Southern Site, have been identified, prepared and the collected seed can be distributed. The seeds of Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale shall be collected at the appropriate time of year. A percentage of the collected seed shall remain in storage for subsequent, supplemental seeding if deemed necessary, to ensure successful replanting of Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale in the special-status plant mitigation areas. The remaining amount of collected seed of Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale shall be planted at the appropriate time of year (late-fall months) in suitable areas within the Conservation Easement area on the Southern Site. Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale typically grow in valley and foothill grassland on alkaline, clay soils at 300 meters or lower in elevation. Common associates that co-occur on-site with these special-status species are a mix of annual grassland species that demonstrate some amount of mesic influence including Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). Common halophytic associates of Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale include hastate orache (Atriplex prostrata), Boccone’s sand spurrey (Spergularia bocconi), alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) that co-occur with the special-status species on-site. According to the CNDDB (2015), Congdon’s Tarplant has often been found on the following soil series: Clear Lake Clay, Diablo Clay, Cropley Clay, and Conejo Clay Loam, whereas San Joaquin Spearscale occurs on high clay, alkaline soils such as Pescadero Clay. Most occurrences of these species have occurred on flat areas, depressions, swales and low hills where high clay content soils are present (CNDDB 2015). The most suitable special-status plant mitigation area on the Southern Site occurs on Clear Lake Clay (0-2% slopes) and Pescadero Clay Loam (0-2% slopes). d) To preserve the seedbank of both common, special-status and federally listed plant species, the upper 3 inches of topsoil or to the depth of the organic horizon (A Horizon) shall be scalped and temporarily stockpiled in uplands within the work area separately from excavated sub-soils. All other excavated material shall be separately stored in upland habitat areas. Upon completion of grading and recontouring, the organic horizon soil shall be redistributed as a topcoat over the disturbed areas that shall not be developed to disseminate the original seed bank. e) The designated special-status plant mitigation area shall be fenced to exclude humans and cattle during the first three years of establishment to ensure germination and seed set to continue the population. Once it has been determined that the population is successfully established, the fence may be removed so that seasonal grazing of the population can be managed within the special-status plant mitigation area. A Grazing Management Plan shall be prepared to allow for the continued benefit of special-status species. Appropriate grazing Page 58 of 84 measures shall ensure that Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale shall not be outcompeted by non-native Mediterranean grass species. f) The Applicant’s qualified botanist shall conduct annual monitoring of the transplanted populations for a five year period as outlined in the Rare Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and shall prepare annual monitoring reports to document the success or failure the transplanting effort. These reports shall be submitted to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development and CDFW no later than December 1 of each monitoring year. California Tiger Salamander 50. To ensure that impacts to approximately 58.47 acres of potential upland California Tiger Salamander over-summering habitat are offset, all permanent impacts shall be mitigated as follows (MM BIO-1b): a) The Applicant proposes to preserve 175.4 acres of the Southern Site via a Conservation Easement as habitat mitigation (as approved by USFWS). This provides a 3:1 mitigation ratio to satisfy the resource agency mitigation requirements for impacts to potential upland California Tiger Salamander over-summering. The Mitigation Land shall be protected in perpetuity via a recorded conservation easement or other appropriate legal mechanism that shall be managed for the benefit of the California Tiger Salamander and other special-status species. A Habitat Management Plan shall be incorporated into the conservation easement deed as an exhibit and shall detail management and maintenance goals for the Mitigation Land. In addition, the Habitat Management Plan would detail the permanent funding source for the management of the Mitigation Lands and shall list the “Allowed and Prohibited Uses” of the conservation easement areas. b) The Mitigation Land managed for California Tiger Salamander shall be contiguous with other dedicated open space areas to the west as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk & Associates, dated January 5, 2016. The connectivity of the proposed Mitigation Land to other dedicated open space areas further increases the value of this dedicated Mitigation Land since this creates a protected corridor that includes several watersheds. c) The Applicant shall obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS and CDFW prior to Project construction, and implement any additional requirements identified by USFWS and CDFW as necessary to protect the California Tiger Salamander. Any final mitigation compensation ratio established by the CDFW and USFWS for Project-related impacts to listed species shall also become Contra Costa County “Conditions of Approval.” Such mitigation ratios or prescriptions shall be set forth in the Biological Opinion prepared by USFWS during the Section 7 consultation by and between the USACE and USFWS. d) Additional avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that no California Tiger Salamanders are adversely impacted by Project construction activities include: • Education Program: An education program shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to explain the endangered species concerns to contractors working at the Project Site. This education/training program shall include a description of the California Tiger Page 59 of 84 Salamander and its habitat, a review of the Endangered Species Act and the federal and state listing of the salamander, the general protection measures to be implemented to protect the salamander and minimize take, and a delineation of the limits of the work area. • Biological Monitoring: A USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall be on-site during grading activities, or other earth-moving activities when amphibians could be unearthed. The biological monitor shall be available to stop work should any California Tiger Salamanders be observed in the Project Site work areas. California Red-legged Frog 51. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure that impacts to approximately 58.47 acres of potential California Red-legged Frog upland dispersal/migration habitat shall be appropriately offset. The mitigation shall include (MM BIO-1c): a) The Applicant proposes to preserve 175.4 acres of the Southern Site via a Conservation Easement as habitat mitigation (as approved by USFWS). This provides a 3:1 mitigation ratio to satisfy the resource agency mitigation requirements for potential impacts to California Red-legged Frog upland dispersal/migration habitat. b) The Mitigation Land shall be contiguous with other dedicated open space areas to the west, including the Alamo Creek Kawar Valley Open Space, and the Hidden Valley Open Space associated with the Windemere development (as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk & Associates, dated January 5, 2016) that shall provide connectivity of the proposed Mitigation Land to other dedicated open space areas that support California Red-legged Frog populations. c) This Mitigation Land shall be managed in perpetuity for the benefit of California Red- legged Frog. A Conservation Easement, or other appropriate legal mechanism, shall be recorded to ensure that the Mitigation Lands shall be protected in perpetuity. As required by MM BIO-1b, a Habitat Management Plan shall be incorporated into the easement deed as an exhibit and shall detail management and maintenance goals for the Mitigation Land, including recreational guidelines, livestock grazing guidelines, and other management efforts that shall benefit the California Red-legged Frog. In addition, the Habitat Management Plan would detail the funding source for the management of the Mitigation Land and shall list the “Allowed and Prohibited Uses” of the conservation easement area. d) The USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog states that populations are “most likely to persist where multiple breeding areas are embedded within a matrix of habitats used for dispersal. The primary constituent elements for California Red-legged Frogs are aquatic and upland areas where suitable breeding and non-breeding habitat is interspersed throughout the landscape and is interconnected by unfragmented dispersal habitat” (USFWS 2002). Thus, the proposed Mitigation Land shall serve to protect and preserve important California Red-legged Frog populations in this area of Contra Costa County. It is important to note that the Project Site is located in the East San Francisco Bay—Core Area #16—in the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, and the Project Site represents a “priority watershed” for focused recovery efforts. By preserving 175.4 acres of Mitigation Land that shall be managed for the benefit of this species, the Project shall satisfy some of the goals detailed in the USFWS’s Recovery Page 60 of 84 Plan for the California Red-legged Frog and thereby contribute to the recovery of this species. e) Obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS prior to Project construction and implementing any additional requirements identified by USFWS as necessary to protect the California Red-legged Frog. f) Additional avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that no California Red-legged Frogs are adversely impacted by Project construction activities include: • Preconstruction Survey: In order to minimize and avoid any impacts to the federally listed threatened California Red-legged Frog, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for this species within the areas of impact prior to the commencement of any work on the Project Site. Any California Red-legged Frogs that are found during these surveys shall be salvaged and relocated to California Red- legged Frog habitat within the Mitigation Land. No salvage and/or relocation shall occur until such time that the Applicant receives incidental taking authorization from the USFWS. Proof of an incidental take permit (such as a Biological Opinion) from the USFWS shall be provided to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development prior to any earth-moving on the Project Site. • Exclusion Fencing: Wildlife exclusion fencing shall be installed around suitable aquatic habitats (Tassajara Creek) adjacent to proposed impacted areas to prevent the California Red-legged Frog from entering areas of impact. This fence shall be installed prior to the time any site grading or other construction-related activities are implemented. The fence shall remain in place during site grading or other construction-related activities. Wildlife exclusion fencing shall consist of a 4-foot wall of 0.25-inch welded mesh (not woven wire), galvanized wire. The fence shall be buried along the bottom margin 4 inches into the ground. The next approximate 3 feet of fencing above the ground shall be anchored to staking with wire. Finally, the top 6 inches shall be bent over in a semi-circle towards the outside of the fence to ensure that the fence cannot be climbed. • Education Program: An education program shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to explain the endangered species concerns to contractors working at the Project Site. This education/training program shall include a description of the California Red-legged Frog and its habitat, a review of the Endangered Species Act and the federal listing of the frog, the general protection measures to be implemented to protect the frog and minimize take, and a delineation of the limits of the work area. • Biological Monitoring: A USFWS-approved biologist shall be on-site during grading activities, or other earth-moving activities when amphibians could be unearthed. The biological monitor shall be responsible for ensuring that the wildlife exclusion fencing is not compromised, and shall be available to stop work should any California Red- legged Frogs be observed in the Project Site work areas. Each morning all exclusion fencing shall be patrolled for frogs that may be trapped against the fence. • Best Management Practices: All trash that might attract predators to the Project Site shall be properly contained and removed from the site and disposed of regularly. All construction debris and trash shall be removed from the site when construction activities Page 61 of 84 are complete. All fueling and maintenance of equipment and vehicles, and staging areas shall be at least 20 meters from creek channels, wetlands, and tributaries. The construction personnel shall ensure that contamination of California Red-legged Frog habitat does not occur and shall have a plan to promptly address any accidental spills. San Joaquin Kit Fox 52. To ensure that impacts to approximately 58.47 acres of potential San Joaquin Kit Fox migration/dispersal habitat are offset, the following mitigation measures are proposed (MM BIO-1d): a) The Applicant proposes to preserve 175.4 acres of the Southern Site via a Conservation Easement as habitat mitigation (as approved by the USFWS). This provides a 3:1 mitigation ratio to satisfy the resource agency mitigation requirements for impacts to potential upland migration/dispersal habitat for the San Joaquin Kit Fox. The Mitigation Land that shall be preserved in perpetuity as part of the Project consists of grassland habitat that includes numerous rodent burrows and supports a potential prey base for the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Perpetual preservation and management of the Mitigation Land for the benefit of the San Joaquin Kit Fox shall help ensure that viable habitat is maintained for this species. The Mitigation Land shall be contiguous with other dedicated open space areas to the west, as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk & Associates, dated January 5, 2016, further benefitting this species. b) Should the USFWS determine that the Project may adversely affect the San Joaquin Kit Fox, the Applicant shall comply with any additional requirements determined to be necessary through a formal Section 7 consultation for potential impacts to potential San Joaquin Kit Fox migration habitat. c) The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to ensure that no San Joaquin Kit Fox are adversely impacted by Project construction activities: • Education Program: An employee training program shall be conducted before groundbreaking to explain the Federal Endangered Species Act and any endangered species concerns to contractors working in the area. • Preconstruction Survey: Qualified biologists shall conduct preconstruction den surveys within the Ground Disturbance Areas no more than 14 days prior to grading activities to ensure that potential kit fox dens are not disrupted. If “potential dens” are located, infrared camera stations shall be set up and maintained for 3 consecutive nights at den openings to determine the status of the potential dens. If no kit fox is found to be using the den during this timeframe, the grading activities can proceed unhindered. However, if a kit fox is found using a den site within an area of influence of the grading activities, the USFWS shall be promptly notified. • Vehicle Restrictions: Prior to initiating grading activities, the vehicle and equipment access routes and work area shall be delineated using construction fencing. This shall minimize the Project-related disturbance to potential San Joaquin Kit Fox habitat to the maximum extent feasible. During the grading activities, all Project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads or access routes, and shall observe a Page 62 of 84 20-mile-an-hour speed limit within the work areas, except on County roads and highways. • Biological Monitoring: A biological monitor shall be present during all grading activities that could result in injury to San Joaquin Kit Fox. The biologist shall have the authority to halt construction in the impacted area(s), if necessary, to protect the kit fox. If San Joaquin Kit Fox are identified in the work area at any time, the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be notified and consulted before work activities resume. • Best Management Practices: All trash items shall be removed from the Project Site’s disturbance areas each day to reduce the potential for attracting San Joaquin Kit Fox predators. Contractors shall be prohibited from bringing firearms and pets to the job site. To prevent harm to San Joaquin Kit Fox, any steep-walled holes and/or trenches excavated for the proposed development Project shall be completely covered at the end of each workday, or escape ramps shall be provided to allow any entrapped animals to escape unharmed. All pipe sections stored on the Project Site overnight that are 4 inches in diameter or greater shall be inspected for San Joaquin Kit Fox before the pipes are moved or buried. • Exclusion Fencing: Exclusion fencing shall be installed prior to the time any site grading or other construction-related activities are implemented. The fence would remain in place during site grading or other construction-related activities. Exclusion fencing shall be installed as described above. Burrowing Owl 53. Based on the number of records for this species on-site and in the Project vicinity, the high density of ground squirrel burrows, and the habitats found on the Project Site, surveys for Burrowing Owls shall be conducted within any areas of the Project Site that will be disturbed by Project activities, including a 150-meter buffer. Burrowing Owl surveys conducted according to the methodology prescribed by CDFW in their 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) are more likely to be accepted by CDFG. The prescribed survey methodology is included in this document. The mitigation measures shall include (MM BIO-1e): a) Breeding season surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist as per the CDFW Staff Report (CDFG 2012) for Western Burrowing Owl when Project construction is proposed to begin and again 14 days prior to breaking ground. In accordance with the 2012 Staff Report, four site surveys need to be completed. One site survey shall occur between February 15 and April 15, and a minimum of three site surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15 must be conducted. At least one of the three site surveys between April 15 and July 15 must occur after June 15. Non-breeding season surveys (September 1 through January 31) may provide information about site occupancy but this should not substitute for breeding season surveys. Should non-breeding season surveys be warranted, four surveys spread evenly throughout the non-breeding season should occur according to the same protocol as breeding season surveys. The Staff Report 2012 states that take avoidance (preconstruction) surveys should be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As Burrowing Owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between Project activities trigger Page 63 of 84 subsequent take avoidance surveys, including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. If no owls are found during these surveys, no further surveys shall be necessary. b) Burrowing Owl surveys should be conducted by walking suitable habitat in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) of the Ground Disturbance Areas. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the Project Site that may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during Project construction. Pedestrian survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. To effectively survey large projects (100 acres or larger), two or more surveyors should be used to walk adjacent transects. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect Burrowing Owls thus, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows should be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) wherever practical to avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows should be avoided during all seasons. c) If Burrowing Owls are detected on the Project Site, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances are recommended per the Staff Report (CDFG 2012). From February 1 through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities should have a 200 meter buffer while high disturbance activities should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests. From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities should have a 50 meter buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100 meter buffer, and high disturbance activities should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests. No earth-moving activities or other disturbance should occur within the afore-mentioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones should be fenced as well. If Burrowing Owls are found in the Project Site, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of Burrowing Owl habitat. d) The Mitigation Land that shall be preserved in perpetuity as part of the proposed Project as mitigation for special-status species supports grassland habitat that includes numerous rodent burrows that provide nesting habitat, as well as foraging habitat for Western Burrowing Owl. The Mitigation Land shall more than adequately offset any impacts to suitable Burrowing Owl habitat should this species be found during surveys. The preservation of Western Burrowing Owl habitat would fully compensate for impacts to potential Western Burrowing Owl habitat resulting from the Project. American Badger 54. To ensure that potential impacts to American Badger migration and dispersal habitat are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented (MM BIO-1f): a) A preconstruction survey for the American Badger shall be conducted within the Ground Disturbance Areas within 7 days prior to grading thereon. Surveys shall be conducted by a wildlife biologist with experience identifying badger burrows. Survey methods would include conducting parallel transects through the grassland community looking for badger burrows. Any badger burrow identified shall be mapped with a global positioning system (GPS) and shown on all Project development plans and grading plans. Page 64 of 84 b) If active badger burrows are identified within the Ground Disturbance Areas, they shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, a biologist should determine if the burrow is being used for breeding. If young are determined to be present, the burrow shall be avoided until young vacate the burrow. If the burrow is being used as refugia by the badger, as approved by CDFW, a one-way eviction door shall be installed to passively relocate the badger from its burrow. If it digs back into the burrow, as approved by CDFW, live traps shall be established at the burrow entrances to trap and remove badgers from the area of impact. c) The Project includes the perpetual preservation of Mitigation Land that shall be preserved in perpetuity to mitigate impacts to California Tiger Salamander, California Red-legged Frog, and San Joaquin Kit Fox. Since the American Badger has similar habitat requirements as the kit fox, the Mitigation Land would also fully mitigate any potential impacts to the American Badger. Alameda Whipsnake 55. To ensure that any significant impacts to Alameda Whipsnake are avoided, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented (MM BIO-1g): a) Wildlife exclusion fencing shall be installed around the work areas to prevent snakes and other wildlife from entering the construction area. This fence would be installed prior to the time any site grading or other construction-related activities commenced. The fence would remain in place during site grading or other construction-related activities. Wildlife exclusion fencing shall consist of a 4-foot wall of quarter-inch mesh, galvanized, welded wire (i.e., hardware cloth—it cannot be woven wire). If the fence cannot be buried along the bottom edge in a 6-inch deep trench, then the bottom 6 inches of fence shall be landscaped stapled every 3 inches along the entire run of fence. Any voids in the soil beneath the fence shall be filled. The first 3 feet of fencing above the ground would be anchored to staking with wire. Finally, the top 6 inches of wire shall be bent over in a semi-circle towards the outside of the fence to ensure that the fence cannot be climbed. b) Mitigation land set-aside as part of MM BIO-1b to mitigate impacts to California Tiger Salamander, California Red-legged Frog, and San Joaquin Kit Fox would also provide appropriate mitigation for impacts to potential Alameda Whipsnake dispersal habitat. c) The Applicant shall obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS prior to Project construction and shall implement any additional requirements identified by USFWS as necessary to protect the Alameda Whipsnake. By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Western Pond Turtle 56. To ensure that impacts to western pond turtle upland nesting habitat are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented (MM BIO-1h): a) Prior to commencement of any earth-moving activity on-site, all potential suitable Western Pond Turtle upland nesting habitat shall be surveyed. This shall include all areas within 100 feet of Tassajara Creek on the Northern Site. Preconstruction surveys for turtles and their nests shall be conducted 30 days prior to any grading activities. Page 65 of 84 b) If nest sites are located adjacent to a proposed work area, the nest site plus a 50-foot buffer around the nest site shall be fenced to avoid impacts to the eggs or hatchlings which overwinter at the nest site. In addition, a clear path (buffer area) between the nest site and adjacent creek or ponds shall be left undisturbed and demarcated with orange construction fencing so that dispersing young turtles can migrate to the creek without being deterred/impacted by construction/earth-moving activity. c) If nest(s) are located during surveys, moth balls (naphthalene) should be sprinkled around the vicinity of the nest (no closer than 10 feet) to mask human scent and discourage predators. d) Construction at the nest site and within the 50-foot buffer area and path to the off-site waterway shall be delayed until the young leave the nest (this could be a period of months) or as otherwise advised and directed by CDFW, the agency responsible for overseeing the protection of the Western Pond Turtle. e) If CDFW allows translocation of any nestling pond turtles, this shall be completed by a qualified biologist under the direction of CDFW. Nesting Raptors 57. To ensure that impacts to nesting raptors are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented (MM BIO-1i): a) In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors, nesting surveys shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist prior to commencing with earth-moving or construction work, if this work would commence between February 1 and August 31. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees within 500 feet of the Ground Disturbance Areas on the Northern Site. b) If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree must be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the Project Site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree must be staked with orange construction fencing. If the tree is located off the Project Site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the Project Site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If a qualified biologist is not hired to watch the nesting raptors, then the buffers shall be maintained in place through the month of August and work within the buffer can commence on September 1. c) Two surveys may be required to address both early and later nesting raptor species. Great Horned Owls and American Kestrels begin nesting in February while Northern Harriers, Red-tailed Hawks, and Red-shouldered Hawks begin nesting in early April. Thus, an early Page 66 of 84 survey should be conducted in February if earth-moving work or construction is proposed to commence between February 1 and April 1. If construction has not commenced by the end of March, a second nesting survey shall be conducted in April/May, whichever month is within 30 days of the commencement of construction. If construction would commence after May but before September 1, then the second survey shall be conducted within the 30-day period prior to site disturbance. d) If the early nesting survey identifies a large stick or other type of raptor nest that appears inactive at the time of the survey, but there are territorial raptors evident in the nest site vicinity, a protection buffer (as described above) shall be established around the potential nesting tree until the qualified raptor biologist determines that the nest is not being used. In the absence of conclusive observations indicating the nest site is not being used, the buffer shall remain in place until a second follow-up nesting survey can be conducted to determine the status of the nest and eliminate the possibility that the nest is utilized by a late-spring nesting raptor (for example, Red-tailed Hawk). This second survey shall be conducted even if construction has commenced. If during the follow-up late season nesting survey a nesting raptor is identified utilizing the nest, the protection buffer shall remain until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction zones. If the nest remains inactive, the protection buffer can be removed and construction and earth-moving activities can proceed unrestrained. Nesting Birds 58. To ensure that impacts to nesting passerine birds and nesting special-status birds are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented (MM BIO-1j): a) A nesting survey shall be conducted within all Ground Disturbance Areas and a surrounding 500-foot buffer 15 days prior to commencing construction/grading or tree removal activities, if this work would commence between March 1 and September 1. If special-status birds (such as Loggerhead Shrike) are identified nesting on the Project Site, a 50-foot radius around the nest must be staked with bright orange construction fencing. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within this 50-foot buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist. b) If common (not special-status) passerine (perching birds such as Anna’s Hummingbird [Calypte anna] and Mourning Dove [Zenaida macroura]) birds are identified nesting on the Project Site, grading or tree removal activities in the vicinity of the nest shall be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area. The size of the nest protective buffer required to ensure that the Project does not result in take of nesting birds, their eggs or young shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist. Typically, most passerine birds can be expected to complete nesting by June 15, with young attaining sufficient flight skills by early July. Page 67 of 84 Special-Status Bats 59. In order to avoid impacts to roosting special-status bats, a biologist shall survey trees and buildings to be disturbed by Project activities, including those near the proposed Future Equestrian Staging Area, 15 days prior to commencing with any removal or demolition. All bat surveys shall be conducted by a biologist with known experience surveying for bats. If no special-status bats are found during the surveys, then no further action would be required. If special-status bat species are found on the Project Site, a determination shall be made if there are young bats present. If young are found roosting in any tree or building, impacts to the tree or building shall be avoided until the young have reached independence. A non- disturbance buffer fenced with orange construction fencing shall also be established around the maternity site. The size of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified bat biologist at the time of the surveys. If adults are found roosting in a tree or building on the Project Site but no maternal sites are found, then the adult bats can be flushed or a one-way eviction door can be placed over the tree cavity (or building access opening) prior to the time the tree or building in question would be removed or disturbed. No other mitigation compensation would be required. Waters of the U.S. and State 60. To ensure that impacts to waters of the U.S. and State offset, the following mitigation measures will be implemented (MM BIO-3): a) Obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE and a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB prior to Project construction and implementing any additional mitigation measures identified by the USACE or RWQCB as part of these permits. b) At a minimum, all impacts to waters of the U.S. and State would be compensated for via creation and preservation of new waters of the U.S. and State at a minimum of 2:1 (creation to impact) ratio or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions imposed by the USACE and RWQCB. The Applicant proposes to create at least 0.80 acre of new wetland to mitigate for Project-related impacts to waters of the U.S. and State. c) The Applicant is proposing to compensate for impacts to waters of the U.S. and State by creating wetlands on the Southern Site. A detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan will be prepared for the Project that shows the location, materials, and construction methods for creation of the wetlands. The Wetland Mitigation Plan will include specific success criteria and performance standards to measure the success of the mitigation wetlands. The success of the mitigation wetlands will be based upon how well it replaces the functions and services provided by seasonal wetlands that will be impacted by the Project. To be judged successful, the created wetlands must support a self-sustaining hydrophytic plant community that includes representative wetland taxa (i.e., wetland plant genera and species). A 5-year monitoring program will be implemented to monitor the progress of the wetland mitigation toward the established goals. At the end of each monitoring year, an annual report will be submitted to the USACE, RWQCB, and other resource agencies. This report will document the hydrological and vegetative condition of the mitigation wetland(s) and will recommend remedial measures as necessary to correct deficiencies. d) When implemented, creation of the wetlands (or purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits) will fully compensate for impacts to regulated waters of the U.S. (and State) Page 68 of 84 resulting from construction of the Project. The Mitigation Land on the Southern Site will be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a conservation easement, or other appropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the mitigation wetlands are located within the permanently preserved open space area that will be maintained in perpetuity. e) In lieu of creating waters of the U.S. and State on the Project Site, the Applicant may also choose to purchase mitigation credits from a qualified wetland mitigation bank as approved in advance by the USACE and RWQCB. f) Grading impacts associated with the creation of mitigation wetlands on the Southern Site shall also be minimized by the use of Best Management Practices to protect preserved wetlands and to ensure water quality in wetlands and other waters within the watershed. These practices can include installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other protective measures. During Project construction, a biological monitor shall be on-site to monitor the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters. Cultural Resources 61. If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during Project construction or related activities, all activities within a 50-foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the find for its significance in terms of CEQA criteria. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate measures that will be implemented to protect the resource, including, but not limited to, excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Cultural resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone, wood, or shell artifacts, structural remains, privies, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the Project Site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. (MM CUL-1) 62. A qualified cultural resources monitor shall be on-site during all grading and excavation activities. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading or construction of the Project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the applicable Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, and assessed for significance under CEQA. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. (MM CUL-3) 63. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. In addition, if during the course of grading or construction there is an inadvertent discovery of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken (MM CUL-4): a) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the find until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission Page 69 of 84 (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. b) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the Project Site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Geology, Soils, Seismicity 64. Prior to CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of the first grading permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to Contra Costa County for review and approval of the County Peer Review Geologist. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code’s geologic, soils, and seismic requirements. The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the Project plans. (MM GEO-1) A deposit of $750 shall be submitted along with the Geological Investigation report required above, to cover the cost of the County Peer Review Geologist’s review. 65. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall submit a proposed deed disclosure statement to address this COA 65 for the review and approval of the CDD. This disclosure statement shall acknowledge the CDD-approved design-level geotechnical investigation by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations and noting that the report is available from the seller. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 66. Prior to the demolition of any on-site structure constructed prior to 1978, or any structure suspected to contain asbestos or lead containing materials, the property owner or Applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint. If either material is found to be present, the property owner or Applicant shall retain a certified hazardous waste contractor to properly remove and dispose of all materials containing asbestos or lead paint in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The property owner or Applicant shall Page 70 of 84 submit documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that this contractor has been retained as part of the demolition permit application. Upon completion of removal and disposal of materials, the Project Applicant shall provide documentation to Contra Costa County reasonably demonstrating that these activities were successfully completed. Hydrology and Water Quality 67. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the DCD shall verify that the Applicant has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the then most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. (MM HYD-1) Noise 68. To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measures shall be implemented for the Project (MM NOI-1a): • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment are equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction disturbance area. In addition, the Project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall locate, to the maximum extent practical, on-site equipment in staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site during all Project construction. • For any construction work associated with implementation of the project that would occur within the City of San Ramon (such as the potential recycled water pipeline installation), such activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, prior to 7:30 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. on each day and on Saturdays and Sundays, prior to 9:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. • All construction activities associated with implementation of the project that will occur within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to Page 71 of 84 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the State or Federal government as listed below: New Year’s Day (State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal) Lincoln’s Birthday (State) Cesar Chavez Day (State) Memorial Day (State and Federal) Independence Day (State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day (State and Federal) Veterans Day (State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the State and Federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal holidays: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal- holidays/#url=2019 California holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml • At least 10 days prior to the issuance of any grading permit, signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems. • An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and or dust and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints. • At least one week prior to commencement of any grading or construction activities for each major phase of construction, the Applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the Page 72 of 84 Northern Site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24- hour emergency number shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the Project and a copy shall be mailed to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. 69. All proposed residential units located within 216 feet of the centerline of Camino Tassajara shall include an alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning system, in order to ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. The building plans approved by the County shall reflect this requirement. (MM NOI-1b) 70. A sound wall shall be constructed along the Camino Tassajara frontage and the rear boundary of Lots 67-77, as designed and deemed necessary by an acoustical specialist, to reduce the noise levels of all outdoor areas on residential lots within 216 feet of the centerline of Camino Tassajara, to a level of 60 dBA Ldn or lower. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the sound wall, proposed materials and color palettes shall be submitted for review and approval by the County. The sound wall shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any residence on a lot that is within 216 feet of the centerline of Camino Tassajara. Transportation and Traffic 71. The Project Applicant shall pay the applicable per lot Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees, which shall serve as partial mitigation for the impact to freeway segments. The fees contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvements, including (among others) the BART extension to Livermore. Impact fees are due at time of issuance of building permits. Payment of these fees would partially mitigate the incremental impact. (MM TRANS-1) 72. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project Applicant shall fund the optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive- Lawrence Road (Intersection #5). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane-Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. Updated timing and signal coordination shall be physically implemented prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 123rd on-site residential unit. (MM TRANS-2) 73. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project Applicant shall fund optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive- Lawrence Road (Intersection #5). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane-Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. (MM TRANS-3b) Page 73 of 84 74. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project Applicant shall fund optimization of the intersection signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Buckingham Drive-Rassani Drive (Intersection #8). This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. (MM TRANS-3c) 75. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project Applicant shall fund optimization of the intersection signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Ranch Drive (Intersection #10). This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. (MM TRANS-3d) County Service Area (CSA) 76. The Applicant shall provide and fund public transit and/or school bus services to the Tassajara Parks Project by: (1) participating with the County in the formation of a County Service Area, subject to LAFCO approval; and (2) approving the levy of benefit assessments on parcels within the subdivision or, at the County's option, approving and implementing another equivalent funding mechanism acceptable to the Board of Supervisors. The County Service Area shall be formed and the benefit assessments (or an equivalent funding mechanism acceptable to the Board of Supervisors) shall be approved and levied before the first final map is filed for any portion of the Project. 77. To facilitate formation of the County Service Area, the Applicant shall participate in and fund the preparation of an Engineer's Report by the County, which report shall include the following elements: (1) evaluation and definition of the appropriate base level and type of public transit and/or school bus services that would be extended to the Tassajara Parks Project during, at minimum, the peak hour commute periods (6:30 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 6:30 p.m.) and/or school bell times; (2) the identification of the capital and operating expenses associated with the appropriate base level of public transit/school bus services, which would, in the case of public transit, either operate as a subscription, demand response or other undefined system, or in the case of fixed route service, have a goal of twenty (20) minute headways for the peak hour commute periods, or alternatively, on headways that provide an equivalent of high quality and responsive service to residents of the Project for the peak commute periods, and as defined in the Engineer's Report; (3) the fair share of apportionment of these public transit/school bus capital and operating expenses for the Tassajara Parks Project; (4) the formation of a benefit assessment district for the County Service Area to assess all parcels within the Tassajara Parks Project (or an equivalent funding mechanism acceptable to the Board of Supervisors) to fund the Project's fair share contribution for this extended public transit/school bus service; (5) any imposition of such an assessment on a parcel within Tassajara Parks for the purposes described above would begin following the issuance of an occupancy permit, and thereafter, the annual assessment imposed on a parcel would be reviewed and, as necessary, adjusted to reflect increased costs in operating this service; and, (6) the operation of the public transit/school bus service as described above would begin at the 123rd unit of the Project. Page 74 of 84 The Engineer's Report, which should be prepared in consultation with and with advice from the local public transit provider (Central Contra Costa Transit Authority), and TRAFFIX (a joint powers administering congestion reduction focused school bus service in the area), should specifically evaluate and recommend the appropriate level and type of public transit service for the Project between the Project Site and the major employment/activity centers and transit hubs as determined by an origin-destination analysis conducted as a part of the Engineers Report. In the case of school bus service for the Project, the report shall recommend which schools to serve. The service area for the Engineer's Report shall include all development in the Tassajara Parks Project. The Engineer's Report shall establish pro-rata fair shares among the Applicant(s) in the subdivision for the recommended level and type of public transit and school bus service for the Project. 78. Upon completion of the Engineer's Report, the Applicant, at the Applicant's expense, in coordination with the County and LAFCO, shall take all appropriate actions to implement the report's recommendations, including: (1) the formation of a County Service Area, subject to approval by County and LAFCO, to provide public transit and school bus services and the approval and levy of benefit assessments on all parcels within the Tassajara Parks Project (or an equivalent funding mechanism acceptable to the Board of Supervisors) to provide permanent funding for the services; and, (2) prior filing of the first final map, the Applicant shall deposit with the County the Project’s pro rata fair share of the capital costs necessary for the purchase of the transit vehicles or other capital costs, to be used for the public transit and/or school bus service that would be extended to the Tassajara Parks Project under the County Service Area pursuant to the approved Engineer’s Report. 79. The County and LAFCO will need to approve the formation of the above-referenced County Service Area in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. So long as the Applicant complies with all of its obligations set forth in COA 76 through 78, the Applicant shall be deemed to have satisfied the foregoing conditions even if the County and/or LAFCO do not ultimately approve the formation of the above-referenced County Service Area. Utilities and Services Systems 80. Prior to the filing of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall provide proof of water service for the Project to the CDD. (MM USS-1) Proof of water service must be provided in the form of a written communication from EBMUD confirming the availability of water service for the Project Site. 80-1. Prior to the filing of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the recorded Certificate of Completion for annexation of the Residential Development Area and the Pedestrian Staging Area (as those terms are described in the Project EIR) into EBMUD's service area. Consistent therewith, and subject to the EBMUD Board of Director’s discretion, no water from EBMUD shall be provided to any portion of the Project Site that is located outside the County's Urban Limit Line (as modified by the Project) except for the Pedestrian Staging Area, which shall be provided water service consistent with the applicable adopted Regulations Governing Water Service to Customers of the EBMUD, and may require a main line extension to serve the Project. Landscaping within the Residential Development Area and the Pedestrian Staging Area shall be designed to receive recycled water if and to the extent recycled water is available, as determined by EBMUD, to serve the Residential Development Area and the Pedestrian Staging Area, consistent with the applicable adopted Regulations Governing Water Service to Customers of the EBMUD. Page 75 of 84 80-2. Subject to the EBMUD Board of Director’s discretion, water provided to the Pedestrian Staging Area shall be limited to that necessary to maintain any landscaping in the Pedestrian Staging Area and water use incidental to recreation, such as drinking fountains, toilets, and hand washing station(s). This limitation shall be included in and made a condition of any conveyance of the Pedestrian Staging Area to any party. Subject to the EBMUD Board of Director’s discretion, neither the Applicant nor any future owner of the Pedestrian Staging Area shall be provided water service to the Pedestrian Staging Area until payment of (1) any charges or fees of general applicability that EBMUD may impose on the Project under applicable laws and regulations, and (2) any additional charges or fees imposed on the Project by EBMUD pursuant to the EBMUD Agreement required by COA #80-4, below. 80-3. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the Project’s first residential unit, the Applicant shall document to the County’s reasonable satisfaction that the following on-site water conservation measures are or will be implemented for all residential units (including models). Final selection of on-site water conservation measures to be implemented by the Applicant shall be those identified and approved by EBMUD. Potential on-site water conservation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:  Installation of water efficient irrigation systems for all residential units and common areas that include efficient sprinkler heads and drip irrigation;  Installation of ultra-low and dual flush flow toilets as required by applicable state law;  High-efficiency clothes washing machines (if installed);  Installation of evapotranspiration controllers in landscaping for all residential units and common areas;  Utilization of drip irrigation for each residential lot and common areas;  Installation of drought-tolerant landscaping for each residential lot and common areas in accordance with applicable provisions of the state’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (or the County’s Landscape Ordinance if adopted); and  Plumbing of the irrigation system for common landscaped areas so that it can be separated from the potable water system if and to the extent recycled water is available to serve the Residential Development and the Pedestrian Staging Area. The Applicant’s obligation to install the above-referenced on-site conservation measures shall also be reflected in the EBMUD Agreement (as defined in COA #80-4). The Project will be subject to applicable adopted EBMUD regulations aimed at encouraging efficient water use, such as Sections 29 and 31 of Regulations Governing Water Service to Customers of the EBMUD. Section 29, “Water Use Restrictions,” promotes efficient water use by District customers and prohibits certain uses of potable water. Section 31, “Water Efficiency Requirements,” identifies the types of water efficiency requirements (i.e., maximum flow rates for flow control devices) for water service. Subject to the EBMUD Board of Director’s discretion, water service shall not be furnished to the Project unless all the applicable water-efficiency measures described in EBMUD’s applicable adopted regulations are installed at the Applicant’s expense. 80-4. In addition to any rates, charges, fees, or regulations of general applicability that EBMUD may impose on the Project under applicable laws and regulations, the Applicant shall pay to EBMUD a "water demand mitigation fee" in an amount agreed upon by the EBMUD Page 76 of 84 Board of Directors, in its discretion, in exchange for a commitment to serve the Project. The amount of the water demand mitigation fee must be sufficient, as determined by the EBMUD Board of Directors, to fund offsite conservation programs to fully and sufficiently offset the Project’s water demand at a ratio of at least 2:1 (i.e., 2 gallons in conservation savings for every one gallon of Project water demand). The water demand mitigation ratio and the suite of potential offsite conservation programs forming the basis for calculation of the water demand mitigation fee shall be determined by EBMUD. The water demand mitigation fee shall be memorialized in a binding agreement between the Applicant and EBMUD and approved by the EBMUD Board of Directors (“EBMUD Agreement”). The subject water demand mitigation fee shall be charged on a per-residential-unit basis; and shall be payable for each connection prior to the issuance of the building permit for each residential unit. The EBMUD Agreement may also include the following provisions, all as determined by the EBMUD Board of Directors and to the satisfaction of EBMUD in its discretion:  A statement of the Project’s water demand, as determined by EBMUD;  An identification of the specific on-site water conservation measures EBMUD would require to be implemented as part of Project construction, and related obligations for Applicant to install the same;  A statement of the total water budget for the Project, as determined by EBMUD, for purposes of the imposition of water budget exceedance fees or penalties on the Project’s homeowners’ association if said budget is exceeded, and related monitoring and enforcement provisions for purposes of imposing said fees or penalties;  A requirement that the Project’s homeowners’ association shall enforce all recorded CC&R provisions related to water conservation measures to help ensure continued implementation of all on-site indoor and outdoor conservation measures required by EBMUD as reflected in those CC&Rs;  A requirement that, if actual annual water usage for the Project exceeds one hundred percent (100 percent) of the total water budget for the Project, the Project’s homeowners’ association shall be subject to and responsible for payment of any additional water budget exceedance fees or penalties in the agreed-upon amount set forth in the EBMUD Agreement for the year in which the exceedance occurred; and  A requirement that the Applicant shall expressly include the on-site water conservation measures, water budget requirements, and EBMUD’s ability to impose any applicable water budget exceedance fees or penalties on the Project’s homeowner’s association in the recorded CC&R's for the Project, including provisions that (1) such requirements shall be in place at the time of resale and shall not be revised, amended, or deleted without EBMUD's prior written approval, and (2) EBMUD shall be treated as an intended third party beneficiary under the CC&Rs with the authority to enforce the same. The EBMUD Agreement shall also require the Applicant to fund EBMUD 's actual costs to develop the information necessary for each of the determinations described above. Page 77 of 84 The foregoing binding agreement between the Applicant and EBMUD shall be fully executed prior to the filing of the first Final Map. Prior to the filing of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall provide a fully executed copy of the EBMUD Agreement to the CDD. 80-5. Annexation of the Project into EBMUD’s service area shall be conditioned upon inclusion of the Residential Development Area and the Pedestrian Staging Area within the Contractor’s Service Area set forth in EBMUD’s Central Valley Project (CVP) contract with the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). If LAFCO approves the annexation of the Project into EBMUD’s service area, immediately following that LAFCO approval the Applicant shall work with EBMUD to apply for the above CVP inclusion. The Applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with obtaining Reclamation approval. No water service shall be provided to the Residential Development Area and Pedestrian Staging Area until after Reclamation approves the request to include the Residential Development Area and the Pedestrian Staging Area within the Contractor’s Service Area under EBMUD’s CVP contract. 81. All existing wells (if any) located within the Residential Development Area shall be abandoned with permits as required by the County Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, evidence shall be provided to the DCD indicating that the required permits (if any) have been obtained, or that an application for a permit is being processed. 82. Prior to recordation of the first Final Map, the Project sponsor shall provide evidence that adequate public sanitary sewer services can be provided for the development. Tassajara Hills Elementary Parking Lot Improvements 83. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the CDD indicating that an agreement and timeline for completion of the proposed improvements to the Tassajara Hills Elementary School parking lot have be finalized. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Applicant shall comply with the applicable requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval; all such exceptions are set forth herein. These Conditions of Approval are based on the Final Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Map submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on August 19, 2020. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FIRST FINAL MAP, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. General Requirements 84. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement; all such exceptions Page 78 of 84 are set forth herein. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Final Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on August 19, 2020. 85. The Applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance Code and these conditions of approval. The below conditions of approval are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (Frontage) 86. Northern Site - The Applicant is granted an exception from the installation of frontage improvements along Camino Tassajara east of “A” Street excepting any improvements necessary to accommodate intersection channelization/transitions or a bus stop (if deemed necessary). 87. Southern Site - The Applicant is granted an exception from the installation of frontage improvements along the Southern Site frontage of Camino Tassajara. Roadway Improvements (Off-Site) 88. Updated timing and signal coordination shall be physically implemented prior to accepting the subdivision improvements as complete and releasing all related bonds and security. 89. The Applicant shall construct access modifications and improvements to the parking lot serving Tassajara Hills Elementary School subject to the Applicant and School District reaching mutual agreement on the scope and timing of same. These improvements, including signal modifications, must be coordinated with the School District, DGS - Division of the State Architect, and the County Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (On-Site) 90. The Applicant shall construct the on-site road system to applicable County public road standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding right of way. 91. The Applicant shall incorporate traffic calming measures in the design of on-site streets. These may include curb “bulb-outs” at the intersections of ‘A’ and ‘D’ Streets and ‘A’ and ‘C’ Streets to facilitate pedestrian access to Parcels ‘K’ and ‘J’. Additional or alternate measures (e.g. speed bumps) may also be required subject to approval by both the Fire District and Public Works Director or designee. 92. The Applicant shall construct the proposed “mini-roundabout” at the intersection of ‘A’ and ‘E’ Streets per the latest Technical Summary published by the FHWA (FHWA-SA-10-007) as directed by the Fire District and Public Works Department. Page 79 of 84 93. The Applicant shall construct all on-site internal intersections to be side-street stop-controlled or yield controlled intersections at the minor approaches. MM TRANS-6a Access to Adjoining Property 94. Proof of Access: The Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements as may be necessary (if any). 95. Encroachment Permit: Prior to filing of the first Final Map or CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Camino Tassajara and Finley Road. Abutter’s Rights 96. Property owner(s) shall relinquish abutter’s rights of access along Camino Tassajara with the exception of the proposed intersection at ‘A’ Street. Road Alignment/Intersection Design/Sight Distance 97. Sight Distance: The Applicant shall provide sight distance at all intersections with Camino Tassajara for a design speed of 50 miles per hour. 98. Sight Distance: The Applicant shall submit a preliminary alignment study to the Public Works Department for review showing the ultimate road improvements per the County General Plan along the Southern Site frontage of Camino Tassajara. This “sketch plan” shall be to scale, show horizontal and vertical alignments, transitions, curb lines, lane striping, storm water treatment facilities and cross sections. Sight distance for the plan shall be based on a design speed of 50 miles per hour. The plan shall extend a minimum of 200-feet beyond the limits of the proposed work. The typical section shall include an 80-foot roadway section within a 100- foot right of way. The road will include two lanes in each direction, bike lanes/shoulders and a 16-foot median area that may also serve as a two-way left turn lane. Additional section width may be necessary at the intersections with Highland and Johnston Roads to accommodate turning movement channelization. AOB Reimbursements 99. The Applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact the Public Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or reimbursements against the area of benefit fees. Road Dedications 100. Camino Tassajara - Property owner(s) shall convey to the County, by separate instrument, and irrevocable Offer of Dedication for right of way consistent with the proposed improvements and “sketch plans” previously noted within these conditions of approval. Page 80 of 84 101. Finley Road - Property owner(s) shall convey to the County, by separate instrument, an irrevocable Offer of Dedication, for a 30-foot half width right of way consistent with the previous dedication on the adjacent southern parcel. This width shall be adjusted accordingly to eliminate the angle points in the existing easement. The minimum centerline radius required for arterial streets per the County Ordinance Code is 650 feet. Street Lights 102. Street lights shall be installed along all public street frontages in accordance with County Ordinance Code requirements and Public Works Department Street Light Design Guidelines; provided, however, that no street lights within one mile of an existing school shall be required pursuant to the exception granted herein. 103. Property owner(s) shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Landscaping 104. The Applicant shall install (or cause to be installed) and warrant all landscaping and automatic irrigation facilities in the public right of way. The landscape facilities shall be maintained by the Developer: a) for a minimum of 90 days after installation, b) until the plants have become established, and c) until maintenance funding and a license agreement is established between the County and Homeowner’s Association. 105. For all landscaping in the public right of way, the Applicant shall submit four sets of landscape and automatic irrigation plans and cost estimates, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, to the Public Works Department for review and to the CDD for review and approval, prior to filing of the first Final Map. Applicant shall pay appropriate fees in accordance with County Ordinance. Bicycle - Pedestrian Facilities 106. Curb ramps and driveways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with then- current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Adequate right of way shall be dedicated at the curb returns to accommodate the returns and curb ramps and accommodate a minimum 4-foot landing on top of any curb ramp proposed. 107. The Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with applicable provisions of Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps. 108. Proposed pedestrian paths connecting to the school site must be coordinated with the School District, State Department of General Services (DGS) - Division of the State Architect, and the Public Works Department. Page 81 of 84 Utilities/Undergrounding 109. The Applicant is granted an exception from the underground utility requirements along Camino Tassajara east of ‘A’ Street and along Finley Road. Maintenance of Facilities 110. The subdivider shall insure the maintenance of the detention basin facility through either an existing public maintenance entity or by the creation of another maintenance entity (e.g., GHAD, HOA). The entity shall have an adequate revenue source to assure perpetual maintenance. 111. The maintenance obligation of all common and open space areas, parks, private landscaped areas, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage, detention and stormwater treatment facilities shall be included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The language to comply with this condition shall be submitted for the review and approval of the DCD and the Public Works Department at least 60 days prior to filing of the first Final Map. 112. Maintenance operations of landscaping or other facilities within public street rights of way shall be subject to obtaining an encroachment permit for the County. Ongoing operations will necessitate entering into a license agreement with the County. Drainage Improvements 113. Collect and Convey: The Applicant is granted an exception from the “collect and convey” requirements of the County Ordinance Code provided the proposed detention/stormwater management basin is designed to reduce pre-project peak stormwater discharge rates by at least 10% for 10, 25 and 100-year storm events of 3, 6, 12 and 24-hr. duration. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 114. The Applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the applicable provisions of the County Ordinance Code, Public Works Department design standards, and Flood Control District Detention Basin Guidelines. 115. The Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner in accordance with applicable requirements and standards. 116. The property owner shall offer to dedicate a public drainage easement over any man-made drainage system which conveys storm water run-off from public streets. 117. A private storm drain easement, conforming to the width specified in Section 914-14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be offered for dedication over the proposed storm drain line traversing the site, and other facilities to be maintained by a third party other than the property owner or Homeowners Association (e.g., a GHAD). Page 82 of 84 Creek Banks and Creek Structure Setbacks 118. The Property owner shall relinquish "development rights" over those portions of the site that are within the structure setback area of natural creeks. The structure setback area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks," of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 119. The Applicant shall be required to comply with all applicable rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The Project design shall incorporate, wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water: • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. • Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permits. • Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. • Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run- off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. • Shallow roadside and on-site swales. • Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot specific IMPs to buyers. • Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by the Public Works Department. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance 120. The Applicant shall submit a final Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be deemed consistent with applicable provisions of the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the first Final Map. To the extent required by the NPDES Permit, the Final Stormwater Control Plan and the O+M Plan will be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and O+M Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and the O+M Plan shall be borne by the Applicant. Page 83 of 84 121. Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP and compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014). 122. Storm water management facilities shall be subject to inspection by Public Works Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of stormwater management facilities shall be borne by the Applicant. 123. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility for and related to operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities, and grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities. 124. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities by property owners. 125. Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District. ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq., the Applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90-day period that begins on the date that this Project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the DCD is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. The Applicant should be aware of applicable expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to recording the first Final Map. C. Prior to commencement of the use approved under this permits and approvals, the Applicant may wish to contact the following agencies to determine if additional requirements and/or additional permits are required as part of the proposed Project: • County Building Inspection Division • East Bay Municipal Utility District • San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Page 84 of 84 • Central Contra Costa Sanitary District • Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) • East Bay Regional Park District • U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife • California Department of Fish and Wildlife D. The Applicant will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the South County, Tri-Valley Transportation, Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Sub Regional and SCC Regional Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. E. Portions of the Project lie within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year flood boundary) as designated on the Federal Management Emergency Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The Applicant shall be aware of the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. F. This Project may be subject to the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the Applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. G. This Project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the Applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. H. Although the Stormwater Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily complete, if it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of improvement plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 stormwater requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the County approval, and the Project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may significantly increase the time and Applicant’s costs associated with approval of the application. ULL Change Map Camino Tassaj a r a Lusitano St KingswoodDr Angora Ct Cashmere StSH PS PR OS ML MH AL Map Created 08/25/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI05001,000250 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Tassajara Parks: General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009) Camino Tassa j a r a Lusitano St KingswoodDr Cashmere St Angora Ct PR AL SH PS OS PR ML MH SH SH Current Urban Limit Line Proposed Urban Limit Line Urban Limit Line Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) General Plan Land Use Designation Change Map Camin o T a s s a j a r a F i n l e y R d JosephLn LusitanoSt OldSchoolRd KingswoodDr CountryLn DeerRidgeRd Cashmere St AL SL SH PS PR OS ML PR MH PR Map Created 08/25/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,000 2,000500 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Tassajara Parks: General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009) Camino Tassa j a r a F i n l e y R d JosephLn Lusitano St KingswoodDr OldSchoolRd CountryLn DeerRidgeRd Cashm ere St AL SL SH PS PR OS PR ML PR MH SH PR SH OS AL AL PR Current General Plan Proposed General Plan SITE SITE GPA Amendment Site Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a Johnston Rd HighlandRd C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a AL OS SHSH SL SL PS OSSH OS PS PR PR SAN RAMON DANVILLE Map Created 08/25/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI02,000 4,0001,000 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Tassajara Parks: General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009) C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a Johnston Rd HighlandRd MassaraSt CharbraySt AL OS SHSH PS SLSL PS PR PR PR PS AL AL AL AL AL SAN RAMON DANVILLE Current General Plan Proposed General Plan SITE SITE City Limit GPA Amendment Site Parcels General Plan Landuse Designation SL (Single Family Res - Low) SH (Single Family Res - High) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) Zoning Change Map Camin o T a s s a j a r a F i n l e y R d JosephLn LusitanoSt OldSchoolRd KingswoodDr CountryLn DeerRidgeRd Cashmere St A-80 A-2 P-1 A-3 A-40 Map Created 08/25/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI01,000 2,000500 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Tassajara Parks: (GP07-0009, RZ09-3212) P-1 P-1 P-1 Camino Tassa j a r a F i n l e y R d JosephLn Lusitano St KingswoodDr OldSchoolRd CountryLn DeerRidgeRd Cashm ere St A-80 A-2 P-1 A-3 A-40 Current Zoning Proposed Zoning SITE SITE Rezoning Site Parcels Zoning A-2 (General Agriculture) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-40 (Exclusive Agriculture) A-80 (Exclusive Agriculture) P-1 (Planned Unit) A-80 A-80 A-80 C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a Johnston Rd HighlandRd C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a A-80 P-1 A-2 A-40 A-2 A-20 A-3 SAN RAMON DANVILLE Map Created 08/25/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI02,000 4,0001,000 Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Tassajara Parks: (GP07-0009, RZ09-3212) P-1 A-80 A-80 A-80 A-80 A-80 A-80 C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a Johnston Rd HighlandRd A-80 P-1 A-2 A-40 A-2 A-20 A-3 SAN RAMON DANVILLE Current Zoning Proposed Zoning SITE SITE City Limit Rezoning Site Parcels Zoning A-2 (General Agriculture) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-20 (Exclusive Agriculture) A-40 (Exclusive Agriculture) A-80 (Exclusive Agriculture) P-1 (Planned Unit) Rezoning Ordinance Map A-80 A-2 A-3 A-2 P-1 P-1 A-80 Camino T a s s a j a r a F i n l e y R d CountryLn Damani St ORDINANCE NO._____________ (Re-Zoning Land in the __________________________ Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: Pages _______________ of the County's 2005 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 2005-03) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Department of Conservation and Development File No. _____________________ .) FROM: Land Use District ______________ (_______________________________________) TO: Land Use District ______________ (_______________________________________) and the Department of Conservation and Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.002. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the __________________________________ , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ________________by the following vote: Supervisor SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. SECTION I: Aye No Absent Abstain 1. J. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. C. Andersen ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. D. Burgis ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. K. Mitchoff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F.D. Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors __________________________________________________ Chairman of the Board By__________________________________, Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ09-3212 - FT Land, LLC 2020 - ?? Tassajara Valley U-20, V-19, V-20,W-19, W-20 RZ09-3212 A-80 P-1 (Exclusive Agriculture) (Planned Unit) 2020 - ?? Page 1 of 2 A-80 A-2 P-1 A-3 A-40 A-2 A-80 A-80 City of SanRamon C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a C a m i n o T a s s a j a r a CharbraySt BruceDr E n d e r b y S t GritstoneSt Johnston Rd Drysdale St BelarusSt KerryHillSt HighlandRd Penny Ln CharbraySt Rd ORDINANCE NO._____________ (Re-Zoning Land in the __________________________ Area) ORDINANCE NO._____________ RZ09-3212 - FT Land, LLC 2020 - ?? Tassajara Valley 2020 - ?? Page 2 of 2 Preservation Agreement DRAFT 9/4/20 AGREEMENT REGARDING PRESERVATION AND AGRICULTURAL ENHANCEMENT IN THE TASSAJARA VALLEY This Agreement Regarding Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement in the Tassajara Valley (“Agreement”) is entered into on __________, 2020 (“Effective Date”) by and among the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), the City of San Ramon, a California municipal corporation (“San Ramon”), and the East Bay Regional Park District (“EBRPD”), a regional park district formed pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code. The County, San Ramon, and EBRPD are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. The Parties enter into this Agreement for the purpose of cooperating to preserve and enhance agricultural uses within the Tassajara Valley. This Agreement is intended to be a “preservation agreement” under the Land Use Element (Chapter 3) of the County of Contra Costa General Plan 2005-2020 (“County General Plan”) and Section 82-1.018 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code (“County Ordinance Code”). This Agreement is also intended to protect the economic viability of agricultural land within the Tassajara Valley and accomplish the dedication and permanent preservation of certain land therein. B. The general plans of the County and San Ramon, and the EBRPD Master Plan, (collectively, “Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies”) contain provisions intended to protect agricultural lands and open space. The Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies include the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) and the San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”). C. In November 1990, voters approved Measure C-1990, the Contra Costa County 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance (Ordinance Code Chapter 82-1). The 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance limits urban development to no more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the land in the County and requires that at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the land in the County be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non- DRAFT 9/4/20 2 urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established the County’s ULL to enforce the 65/35 standard. D. In 2004, County voters approved Measure J. Among other things, Measure J requires the County and all cities within the County to have a voter-approved urban limit line, developed and maintained in accord with the "Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line" (“Principles”), to receive the sales tax proceeds from Measure C-1988. E. In November 2006, County voters approved Measure L, which extended the term of the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance to December 31, 2026, and required a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Board of Supervisors and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than thirty (30) acres. F. In 1999, San Ramon voters approved a growth management initiative known as Measure G, initiating a general plan update that created a UGB that protects visible hillsides and ridgelines from development, protects significant agricultural resources, preserves open space, encourages infill development and workforce housing, and encourages efficient provision of municipal services such as sewer and water. Land beyond the UGB is intended to remain rural in nature until such time as the UGB is reevaluated to assess the city’s future needs for housing and employment. G. In November 2010, San Ramon voters disapproved Measure W, a ballot initiative that would have amended the city’s general plan to add a portion of the Tassajara Valley and lands in the west side of the city within its UGB. With the defeat of Measure W, the Tassajara Valley remains outside of San Ramon’s UGB and San Ramon’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) and under the jurisdiction of the County. J. EBRPD’s jurisdiction includes all of the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa and provides regional park facilities and activities within this two-county area. EBRPD has a broad mandate under Public Resources Code section 5541 to “plan, adopt, lay out, plant, develop, and otherwise improve, extend, control, operate, and maintain a system of public parks, playgrounds, golf courses, beaches, trails, natural areas, ecological and open space preserves, parkways, scenic drives, boulevards, and other facilities for public recreation, for the use and enjoyment of all the inhabitants of the district.” DRAFT 9/4/20 3 K. Through this Agreement the Parties express their interest in endeavoring to preserve and enhance agricultural and other non-urban land uses within an approximately seventeen thousand six hundred sixty seven (17,667)-acre area in the Tassajara Valley, located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, as more particularly shown on Exhibit A (“Preservation and Enhancement Area”). L. The Parties also agree to support the dedication and permanent preservation of land at two locations comprising approximately seven hundred twenty seven (727) acres in the Tassajara Valley, as shown on Exhibit B, (collectively, “Dedication Area”). Following project approval by the County, the Dedication Area will be permanently preserved through fee title conveyance to EBRPD or Regional Parks Foundation. M. The Preservation and Enhancement Area and the Dedication Area are outside of the County’s ULL and the San Ramon UGB. The Preservation and Enhancement Area and Dedication Area do not fall within any municipality’s SOI, and they are outside of the current service areas and SOIs for all special districts providing water and sewer service in adjacent areas. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, which are true and correct and incorporated by this reference, the Parties agree to the following understandings: AGREEMENT 1. Each Party hereby expressly reaffirms its commitment to the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies adopted by each respective Party’s legislative body for all land within the Party’s respective jurisdiction, including but not limited to the County’s ULL and the San Ramon UGB (referred to collectively as the “ULL/UGBs”). Each Party acknowledges and agrees that the Preservation and Enhancement Area and Dedication Area are outside the ULL/UGBs, both of which prevent urban development. 2. The Parties acknowledge and agree that, under the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies, no new urban development will be allowed in the DRAFT 9/4/20 4 Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 3. The Parties agree to support the addition of the Preservation and Enhancement Area and Dedication Area to the Association of Bay Area Government’s list of Priority Conservation Areas to improve access to grant funding for acquisition of land or easements from willing sellers. 4. Consistent with the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies for their respective jurisdictions, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party agrees not to support any proposal to annex all or any portion of the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area into a municipality or a utility services district unless the annexation serves non-urban uses, such as agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses. EBRPD agrees that following County certification of the EIR (as defined below) and Project approval (as defined below), it will accept fee title to the Dedication Area, either directly from the Developer or through a dedication from the Regional Parks Foundation. The Parties will also cooperate to cause the County General Plan land use designation for the Dedication Area changed to Parks and Recreation (-PR). 5. Consistent with the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies for their respective jurisdictions, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party agrees not to support any proposal to modify the SOI of any municipality or utility services district to include all or any portion of either the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless the modification serves non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses in the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area. 6. Consistent with the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies for their respective jurisdictions, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party agrees not to support any proposal to extend, expand, or connect to urban infrastructure or service, all or any portion of either the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless: (a) the extension, expansion, or connection serves non-urban uses such as agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban DRAFT 9/4/20 5 uses; or (b) the extension, expansion, or connection (i) is the minimum necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property, (ii) is the minimum necessary to comply with state or federal law, or (iii) is the minimum necessary to avoid specific, adverse impacts upon public health and safety. 7. Consistent with the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies for their respective jurisdictions, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party understands that the County does not support amending the General Plan land use designation for all or any portion of either the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, unless such proposed amendment is for one or more of the following County General Plan land use designations: Agricultural Lands, Public and Semi-Public, Open Space, or Parks and Recreation Uses, or other non-urban uses. 8. Consistent with the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies for their respective jurisdictions, and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party understands that the County does not support amending the zoning designations in either the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area to a non-agricultural designation or other designation that is not compatible with agriculture, open space, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses. 9. Consistent with the Existing Agricultural and Open Space Protection Policies for their respective jurisdictions, each Party agrees that it does not support any future urban development in either the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 10. The Parties agree to work together to support, develop, and implement policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses in the Preservation and Enhancement Area. Actions which include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Encouraging and promoting purchase of land or conservation easements, from willing sellers, to protect and enhance agriculture and to preserve and enhance open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses; DRAFT 9/4/20 6 (b) Continuing the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (“Williamson Act”; Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.) program to provide tax incentives for property owners who agree not to develop their land; (c) Encouraging lease of public land for agricultural activities such as grazing; (d) Encouraging and promoting enhanced ground water management for agriculture and rural use, including technical support for more efficient water application and cooperative groundwater management and extraction; (e) Encouraging and promoting enhanced marketing for locally-grown agricultural goods, including better connecting farmers to local markets; (f) Encouraging continuation and augmentation of the technical support available to farmers, especially in the areas of financing, weed abatement and management, soil conservation, and range management; (g) Exploring and pursuing a range of funding opportunities for agricultural enhancement and preservation of open space, wetlands, parks, recreation and other non-urban uses through activities such as grants, allocations from funding measures, and appropriations from density transfer programs and mitigation programs; (h) Cooperating with stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the future of the Tassajara Valley; (i) Encouraging public beautification projects, public signage, way-finding signage, and traffic regulations and improvements that enhance agricultural activities in the Tassajara Valley, or the rural character of the Tassajara Valley. DRAFT 9/4/20 7 11. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Parties agree that the County is authorized, in its sole discretion, to find that this Agreement satisfies the requirements of Section 82-1.018(a)(3) of the County Ordinance Code, provided that the County, in its sole discretion as Lead Agency, (a) certifies an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for the Tassajara Parks housing development project (“Project”), where the Project would be required to both (i) permanently preserve the Dedication Area, and (ii) provide an irrevocable contribution of at least $4 million (“Ag Contribution”) to an agricultural enhancement fund established by the County (“Fund”) following Project approval. 12. If the County finds that this Agreement satisfies the requirements set forth in Section 11 of this Agreement and the Fund is established and funded with the Ag Contribution, the monies in the Fund shall not be commingled with other moneys held by the County. The County agrees to expend monies in the Fund solely for one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement. Subject to the County’s identification of willing sellers, the County will endeavor to dedicate up to approximately ninety percent (90%) of the Fund to the purchase, from willing sellers, (a) fee title to property, and (b) conservation easements in furtherance of one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement. Any interest income earned by monies in the Fund shall also be deposited into the Fund and shall be expended solely for one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement. 13. The County Administrator, or designee, shall administer the Fund consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 14. When it makes or receives a proposal to expend the monies in the Fund, the County Administrator, or designee, will meet and consult with representatives from the Parties. The consultation will be considered concluded when the Parties’ representatives mutually agree on the expenditure of monies in the Fund, consistent with one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement, or when the County Administrator, or designee, determines that mutual agreement cannot be reached despite good faith efforts to reach mutual agreement and resolve the identified issues of disagreement. DRAFT 9/4/20 8 15. The Parties agree that this Agreement is not intended to facilitate additional urban development within the Preservation and Enhancement Area or Dedication Area. The Parties agree that this Agreement is not intended to limit, and does not limit, the authority of the voters to elect to extend or not extend the life of the ULL. If the voters ever elect to not extend the life of the ULL, this Agreement shall only apply to the Dedication Area. 16. The Parties agree to cooperate in all matters relating to the interpretation and implementation of this Agreement. 17. The Parties intend that this Agreement be broadly construed to achieve its stated purposes. 18. The Parties do not intend for this Agreement to modify any existing laws, regulations, or policies regarding the Preservation and Enhancement Area nor to limit any jurisdiction’s power conferred under Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. 19. There are no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. 20. If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held in a judicial proceeding to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby, provided that the purpose of this Agreement remains legal and enforceable. 21. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts. [Remainder of page left blank. Signatures on following pages.] DRAFT 9/4/20 9 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By ___________________________ Chair, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM By ___________________________ County Counsel CITY OF SAN RAMON By ___________________________ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM By ___________________________ City Attorney EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT By ___________________________ President APPROVED AS TO FORM DRAFT 9/4/20 10 By ___________________________ District Counsel SMS Lo s V a q u e r o s R d OldSchoolRd SkyRanch DrCountry Ln TwinOaks Ln StorybookLn Penny Ln Cami no T assajara WindemerePkwy BollingerCanyonRd Highland Rd MorganTerritoryRd E B ranchPkwy Fin l e y R d JohnstonRd Ma r c i e l R d BruceDr ManningRd Ca r n e a l R d Vi c t o r i n e R d Do u b l e t r e e L n JosephLnCaminoTassajara CollierCanyonRd Camino- Tassajara Blackhawk AlamedaCounty Los VaquerosReservoirWatershed Land Morgan TerritoryRegional Park DANVILLE SAN RAMON Mt DiabloState Park Camp Parks(USA) 0 0.5 1 Miles Map created 08/21/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W ® County Urban Limit Line Contra Costa/Alameda County Line This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary 17,667acres Proposed Preservation and Enhancement Area Exhibit A:ProposedPreservation and Enhancement Area 727acres Proposed Dedication Area SAN RAMON Camino-Tassajara Blackhawk Ca m i n o T a s s a j a r a Camino Tassajara Ca m i n o T a s s a j a r a Fin l e y R d Bruce Dr CharbraySt LusitanoSt BlackhawkDr Joh nston Rd MassaraSt BengaliSt DeerRidgeRd Enderby St Highland Rd Ariel Dr JosephLn OldSchoolRd DrysdaleSt CountryLn BelarusStGritstoneSt Casa blancaSt KerryHillSt Penny Ln Angora Ct Ki n g s w o o d L n RobertDuchiWay Gr i f f o n C t Channi Ct CharbraySt Massara St Alam o C r e e k Tassajara C r e e k Ta s s a j a r a C r e e k Exhibit B: ProposedDedication Area ® 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Map created 08/21/2020 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Proposed Dedication Area County UrbanLimit Line San Ramon UrbanGrowth Boundary 727 ac Development Agreement RECORDING REQUESTED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Record at the request and for the benefit of the County of Contra Costa pursuant to Government Code §§ 6301 and 27383 Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FT LAND, LLC RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS TASSAJARA PARKS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FT LAND, LLC, RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS TASSAJARA PARKS “Agreement” “County” “Developer” “Party”“Parties ” RECITALS et seq. “Development Agreement Statute” “Development Agreement Regulations” “Subject Property” “Northern Site,” “Southern Site ” “Tassajara Parks Project Project” (collectively, “Dedication Areas”). “EBRPD” (“EBRPD Dedication Agreement”) 2015 (“Contingent Offer of Land Dedication”) Fire Protection District (“SRVFPD”); if S As more particularly described in the Project’s conditions of approval, As more particularly described in the Project’s conditions of approval, (“Board”) 2014052089) (“EIR”) and “Approval”“Approvals” Both of the following (together, “General Plan Amendments”): (a) a Ge (“Rezoning”) (“Residential Development Area”) (“PDP/FDP”). A tree permit (“Tree Permit”) to remove 19 trees on the Northern Site, as more (“ULL Modification”) et seq et seq.; “CEQA”) “MMRP” a preservation agreement (“Preservation Agreement”) “Term” “Subsequent Approvals” “Regulatory Approvals” (each a “Subsequent Approval” and “Subsequent Approvals”). County’s General Plan and the County Ordinance Code, both as amended by the Approvals. AGREEMENT ARTICLE I.DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND TERM. Section 1.01. Description of Subject Property. Section 1.02. Proposed Development. as the “Residential Development Area ” “Tassajara Parks Project” Section 1.03. Effective Date. “Effective Date ” Section 1.04. Initial Term. “Initial Term” Section 1.05. Extended Term. “Term ” . Mandatory Extensions year period (“First Mandatory Term Extension”) “Discretionary Term Extension ” as defined below, year period (“Second Mandatory Term Extension”) that commences Discretionary Extension. “Discretionary Term Extension” . Extension for Enforced Delay. (“Director”) “Enforced Delay” ’ Tolling for Third-Party Lawsuit. ’ “Third-Party Lawsuit” “Tolling Notice” ’ Tolling for Initiative or Referendum. ARTICLE II. STANDARDS, LAWS, AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Section 2.01. Vested Right to Develop. ’ Section 2.02. Development Standards. “Development Standards” Section 2.03. Applicable Law. “Applicable Law” Section 2.04. Fees, Charges, Exactions, and Dedications. “Processing Fees”) e.g. Section 2.05. No Conflicting Enactments. “Later Enactment”“Later Enactments” ’ Section 2.06. Conflict of State or Federal Laws. Section 2.07. Life of Approvals; Modification of the ULL. “Released Entities”) from whatsoever (collectively, “Liabilities”) that “A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.” Section 2.08. Timing of Construction and Completion. Developer’s control ay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) Section 2.09. Processing Subsequent Approvals. Developer’s rights hereunder, Section 2.010. Actions by Third Parties Necessary to Implement the Approvals; Final Map Approval and Recordation. Developer’s sole (together, “Regulatory Approvals”) States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), of Engineers (“ACOE”), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”), on Commission (“LAFCO”), District (“CCCSD”), Dedication (“EBRPD Acceptance”), which shall be held in escrow until its recordation concurrent with the recordation of the Project’s fi Upon the County’s receipt conditions of approval that may be necessary prior to the County’s approval of the Section 2.011. No Limitation on Future Discretionary Actions. ARTICLE III.DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS. Section 3.01. Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement Contribution. (“$4M Ag Contribution”) yward Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) (“CPI”) the recordation of the Project’s first final map Section 3.02. Contribution to Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust Fund. contribution (“$2.5M LCTF Contribution”) Section 3.03. County Service Area. Section 3.04. Offer of Dedication of Preservation Land. record the Project’s first final map until all requirements set forth in Section 2.10 ARTICLE IV. AMENDMENTS. Section 4.01. Amendment of this Agreement. Section 4.02. Amendments of Approvals or Subsequent Approvals. ARTICLE V.DEFAULTS; PERIODIC REVIEW. Section 5.01. Default and Litigation. . . “Dispute Notice” . Section 5.02. Periodic Review. ’ ’ County’s termination of this Agreement under Section 5.03. Termination. . Developer’s ’ . Developer’s exhaustion of any appeals affects Developer’s obligations under the Preservation Agreement or this Agreement Section 5.04. Attorney’s Fees. ’ Section 5.05. Notice of Compliance. ’ “Notice of Compliance” ’ ’ ARTICLE VI.INDEMNITY. and expenses, including attorney’s and expert’s fees (collectively, “Liabilities”) that arise fro Developer’s obligations under thi operation of public improvements and facilities following the County’s acceptance of those (“Indemnity Agreement”). If this Article VI conflicts with ARTICLE VII.NO AGENCY, JOINT VENTURE, OR PARTNERSHIP. ARTICLE VIII.SALE, ASSIGNMENT, OR TRANSFER. Section 8.01. Approval of Sale, Assignment, or Transfer. ’ ’’ ’ ’’’ (“Assignment and Assumption Agreement”) Section 8.02. Sale, Assignment, or Transfer to Affiliate. “Affiliate” ’ Section 8.03. Continuing Obligations. ’ ARTICLE IX.NOTICES. ’ ARTICLE X. INSURANCE. Section 10.01. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. Section 10.02. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. maintain workers’ compensation insurance for all persons employed by similarly to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employe Developer’s failure to maintain any Section 10.03. Evidence of Insurance. ARTICLE XI. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. Section 11.01. Mortgage Protection. this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Subject Property, , by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. Section 11.02. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Section 11.03. Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. County receives notice from a Mortgagee, with Mortgagee’s address, requesting a copy of any ARTICLE XII.MISCELLANEOUS. Section 12.01. Capitalized Terms. Section 12.02. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. Section 12.03. Governing Law and Legal Remedies. Section 12.04. Severability. Section 12.05. Covenants Running with the Land. Section 12.06. Further Acts. Section 12.07. Counterparts. Section 12.08. Recordation of Agreement. ’ Section 12.09. Appeals. ’ Section 12.010. Waiver. Section 12.011. Signatures. DEVELOPER: COUNTY: – First American Title Insurance Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: Parcel One: A portion of the North 1/2 of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the line between the North 1/2 and South 1/2 of Section 33, (said point bears West about 1347.72 feet from the 1/4 Section corner between Sections 33 and 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, MDB&M). From the point of beginning a White Oak Tree two feet in diameter bears North 74° West 67.98 feet distant, said point is also the Southwest corner of a tract of land containing 12.6 acres; conveyed to Manuel Enos Pereira; thence North 27° East following West line of the land of the said Pereira, 849.42 feet to station post in center of a ravine or gulch; thence meandering up and along the center of said gulch, as follows: North 63° 1/2' West 266.64 feet to station North 49-1/2" West 66 feet to station North 74-1/4" West 132 feet to station South 86° West 112.20 feet to station, North 42-1/2" West 66 feet to station, North 74-3/4" West 66 feet to station North 64-3/4" West 122.10 feet to station North 11° West 59.40 feet to station, North 55° West 132 feet to station, North 61° West 46.86 feet to station North 4-3/4" West 101.64 feet to station, North 71-1/2" West 66 feet to station, North 54- 1/2" West 330 feet to station, North 81-3/4" West, 66 feet to station, South 74-1/4" West 99 feet to Station P.A.2; thence leaving said gulch South 29-1/2" West ascend 714.12 feet a White Oak Tree 32 inches in diameter; thence South 32° West 137.28 feet to station; thence South 24° 50' West 861.30 feet to station in line of fence between the North 1/2 and South 1/2 of Section 33; thence East 1804.44 feet to place of beginning, and being the same property that was described in that certain Deed dated November 21, 1898 and recorded in Book 81 of Deeds, Page 70. Also: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly side of the public road leading from Tassajara to Clayton, nearly opposite the Tassajara Public Schoolhouse; thence Northerly to a bridge over a creek following Southerly, to the Southeasterly corner of the lands of Manuel Elias Pereira; thence along the Northeasterly side of said Pereira's land and following the fence thereon to the Northwesterly terminus thereof; and thence Westerly to a small stream in a gulch 175 feet, more or less. To be used as a right of way and private road by Antone Petersen, his heirs, successors and assigns, and Manuel E. Pereira, his heirs, successors and assigns. And it is distinctly understood and agreed that said road and right of way shall be at most 20 feet wide and no more. This being the same property described in that certain Deed dated October 12, 1901, and made by Peter Andersen and Emilie Andersen to Antone Petersen, and recorded October 17, 1901, in Book 90 of Deeds, Page 329. This description is taken therefrom verbatim. Parcel Two: A portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of section of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, M.D.B.& M., said point of beginning being on the line dividing lands of McPherson and T. C. Johnston; thence South 0° 50' East, 1320 feet to a point in the center of Tassajara Road; thence South 79° East along the center line of said Tassajara Road, 1657.92 First American Title Insurance Company feet to a station; thence South 65° 10' East 1016.40 feet to a station; thence North along the line fence dividing lands of Antone Petersen and lands of T. C. Johnston, 2066.46 feet to station in line fence dividing lands of Andersen and said T. C. Johnson; thence West along line fence dividing lands of Andersen and said T. C. Johnson, 2580.60 feet to the place of beginning and being the same property that was described in Deed dated September 30, 1910 and recorded in Book 15 of Deed, Page 149. Excepting therefrom: That portion that was conveyed to Contra Costa County by Deed recorded on July 20, 1992 in Book 17677, Page 236, Instrument No. 1992-182504 Official Records. Excepting therefrom portion was conveyed to Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of California by Grant Deed recorded on January 16, 2014 as Instrument No. 2014-0008430 of Official records. Parcel Three: A portion of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point where the South line of said 1/4 section crosses the centerline of public road; from said point the 1/4 section corner between Sections 33 and 34 bears East about 311.52 feet; the Southeast corner of main building of Tassajara Schoolhouse bears North 73° 10" East, 260.70 feet; thence along center line of Public Road North 41-1/2° East 217.80 feet to station; thence North 11-1/2° East 93.06 feet to station in road; thence North 77-3/4" West at 24.42 feet leave road, at 33 feet bank of creek 76.56 feet White Oak Tree 6 inches in diameter on bank of creek 181.50 feet station; thence North 50-3/4° West at 174.90 feet pass 17.82 feet North of pass of house 792 feet to station; thence South 27° West at 38.28 feet brook; 821.70 feet to station in fence line of South boundary of the Northeast 1/4 section of Section 33; from said point of White Oak Tree 2 feet diameter bears North 74° West 67.98 feet; thence along fence line and along line between the Northeast and Southeast 1/4 section of Section 33 at 945.12 feet crop Tassajara Creek 1036.20 feet into place of beginning and being the same property that was described in Deed dated October 18, 1893 and recorded in Book 68 of Deeds, Page 76. Also right of way for wagon road purposes is hereby granted from County Road across private bridge now belonging to Anderson and extending in a Westerly direction for about 300 feet to boundary line herein described. APN: 220-100-023-5 (Portion) FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 155.1± AC (TOTAL) FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 FI N L E Y R O A D CA M I N O T A S S A J A R A CAMINO TASSAJARA ALAMO CREEK BLACKHAWK & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-02.DWG EXISTING BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS - NORTH DETAIL A 2 0'600'200'800' 1" = 200'SCALE: TH LAND LLC 223-020-016 BI LAND LLC 223-020-018 MEACH LLC 223-030-065 616.0 AC (TOTAL) CAMIN O T A S S A J A R A JO H N S T O N R O A D PE N N Y L A N E BR U C E D R I V E & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-03.DWG EXISTING BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS - SOUTH DETAIL A 3 0'900'300'1,200' 1" = 300'SCALE: SAN RAMON Camino-Tassajara Blackhawk Ca m i n o T a s s a j a r a Camino Tassajara Ca m i n o T a s s a j a r a Fin l e y R d Bruce Dr CharbraySt LusitanoSt BlackhawkDr Joh nston Rd MassaraSt BengaliSt DeerRidgeRd Enderby St Highland Rd Ariel Dr JosephLn OldSchoolRd DrysdaleSt BelarusSt CountryLn GritstoneSt Casa blancaSt KerryHillSt Penny Ln Angora Ct Ki n g s w o o d L n RobertDuchiWay Gr i f f o n C t Channi Ct Massara St CharbraySt Alam o C r e e k Tassajara C r e e k Ta s s a j a r a C r e e k Exhibit C: ProposedDedication Area ® 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Map created 07/08/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Proposed Dedication Area County UrbanLimit Line San Ramon UrbanGrowth Boundary 727 ac Development Agreement Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 2021-23 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 2021-23 (Uncodified) (Development Agreement for the Tassajara Parks Project) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Summary and Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to approve a development agreement for the Tassajara Parks Project, located in the unincorporated Tassajara Valley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. SECTION 2. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ Resolution No. 85/412, which establishes the County’s procedures for the consideration of development agreements. SECTION 3. Recitals. (a) FT Land, LLC, (“Applicant”) desires to develop the Tassajara Parks Project (the “Project”) in the Tassajara Valley area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The Project includes the preservation of an approximately 118-acre portion of the “Northern Site,” and an approximately 609-acre portion of the “Southern Site.” The Project also includes the development of up to approximately 125 single-family homes on an additional approximately 30 acres of the Northern Site. The Project and the location of the Project are more particularly described in the “Development Agreement by and between Contra Costa County and FT Land, LLC, Relating to the Development Commonly Known as Tassajara Parks,” which is attached as Exhibit 1 (the “Development Agreement”). (b) The following discretionary approvals (collectively, the “Discretionary Approvals”) are required for the Project: a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation for the Northern Site from Agricultural Lands (AL) to a combination of Parks and Recreation (PR) and Single Family Residential High Density (SH); a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation for the Southern Site from Agricultural Lands (AL) to a combination of Parks and Recreation (PR) and Public/Semi-Public (PS); a rezoning ordinance to rezone the Northern Site and Southern Site to a Planned Unit (P- 1) zoning district; a vesting tentative map to subdivide an approximately 30-acre portion of the Northern Site into 125 single-family residential parcels; preliminary and final development plans to allow for construction of the Tassajara Parks Project and associated infrastructure, utility, and roadway improvements, two staging areas, and an earthen trail; the approved removal of 19 trees on the Northern Site; and exceptions from the provisions of Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-23 -2- (c) An environmental impact report and its related CEQA mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been prepared for the Project. (d) On June 9, 2021, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Applicant’s application for the Development Agreement. Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Board of Supervisors’ Resolution No. 85/412. After the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt this ordinance to approve the Development Agreement. (e) Notice of the public hearing for the Board of Supervisors to consider the Applicant’s application for the Development Agreement, and to consider adopting this ordinance approving the Development Agreement, was given in accordance with Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5, and Board of Supervisors’ Resolution No. 85/412. SECTION 4. Findings. The Board of Supervisors has independently reviewed the Development Agreement and finds as follows: (a) The provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the Contra Costa County 2005-2020 General Plan. (b) The Development Agreement satisfies the requirements of Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Board of Supervisors’ Resolution No. 85/412. Government Code sections 65867.5(b) and 66473.7 do not apply to the Development Agreement because the Project does not include a “subdivision” as that term is defined in Government Code section 66473.7. SECTION 5. Approval of Development Agreement. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the Development Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, without modification. The Board of Supervisors authorizes the Director of Conservation and Development to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the County. SECTION 6. Recording of Development Agreement. Within 10 days after the Development Agreement is fully executed, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall record the Development Agreement in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder pursuant to Government Code section 65868.5. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-23 -3- SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after passage. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation published in this County. PASSED and ADOPTED on ________________________by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Board Chair ATTEST: MONICA NINO, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By _________________________ Deputy Attachment: Exhibit 1 – Development Agreement SMS H:\Client Matters\Cons & Dev\Tassajara Parks\Ordinance 2021-23 (Tassajara Development Agreement).docx RECORDING REQUESTED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Record at the request and for the benefit of the County of Contra Costa pursuant to Government Code §§ 6301 and 27383 Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FT LAND, LLC RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS TASSAJARA PARKS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FT LAND, LLC, RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS TASSAJARA PARKS “Agreement” “County” “Developer” “Party”“Parties ” RECITALS et seq. “Development Agreement Statute” “Development Agreement Regulations” “Subject Property” “Northern Site,” “Southern Site ” “Tassajara Parks Project Project” (collectively, “Dedication Areas”). “EBRPD” (“EBRPD Dedication Agreement”) 2015 (“Contingent Offer of Land Dedication”) Fire Protection District (“SRVFPD”); if S As more particularly described in the Project’s conditions of approval, As more particularly described in the Project’s conditions of approval, (“Board”) 2014052089) (“EIR”) and “Approval”“Approvals” Both of the following (together, “General Plan Amendments”): (a) a Ge (“Rezoning”) (“Residential Development Area”) (“PDP/FDP”). A tree permit (“Tree Permit”) to remove 19 trees on the Northern Site, as more (“ULL Modification”) et seq et seq.; “CEQA”) “MMRP” a preservation agreement (“Preservation Agreement”) “Term” “Subsequent Approvals” “Regulatory Approvals” (each a “Subsequent Approval” and “Subsequent Approvals”). County’s General Plan and the County Ordinance Code, both as amended by the Approvals. AGREEMENT ARTICLE I.DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND TERM. Section 1.01. Description of Subject Property. Section 1.02. Proposed Development. as the “Residential Development Area ” “Tassajara Parks Project” Section 1.03. Effective Date. “Effective Date ” Section 1.04. Initial Term. “Initial Term” Section 1.05. Extended Term. “Term ” . Mandatory Extensions year period (“First Mandatory Term Extension”) “Discretionary Term Extension ” as defined below, year period (“Second Mandatory Term Extension”) that commences Discretionary Extension. “Discretionary Term Extension” . Extension for Enforced Delay. (“Director”) “Enforced Delay” ’ Tolling for Third-Party Lawsuit. ’ “Third-Party Lawsuit” “Tolling Notice” ’ Tolling for Initiative or Referendum. ARTICLE II. STANDARDS, LAWS, AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Section 2.01. Vested Right to Develop. ’ Section 2.02. Development Standards. “Development Standards” Section 2.03. Applicable Law. “Applicable Law” Section 2.04. Fees, Charges, Exactions, and Dedications. “Processing Fees”) e.g. Section 2.05. No Conflicting Enactments. “Later Enactment”“Later Enactments” ’ Section 2.06. Conflict of State or Federal Laws. Section 2.07. Life of Approvals; Modification of the ULL. “Released Entities”) from whatsoever (collectively, “Liabilities”) that “A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.” Section 2.08. Timing of Construction and Completion. Developer’s control ay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) Section 2.09. Processing Subsequent Approvals. Developer’s rights hereunder, Section 2.010. Actions by Third Parties Necessary to Implement the Approvals; Final Map Approval and Recordation. Developer’s sole (together, “Regulatory Approvals”) States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), of Engineers (“ACOE”), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”), on Commission (“LAFCO”), District (“CCCSD”), Dedication (“EBRPD Acceptance”), which shall be held in escrow until its recordation concurrent with the recordation of the Project’s fi Upon the County’s receipt conditions of approval that may be necessary prior to the County’s approval of the Section 2.011. No Limitation on Future Discretionary Actions. ARTICLE III.DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS. Section 3.01. Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement Contribution. (“$4M Ag Contribution”) yward Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) (“CPI”) the recordation of the Project’s first final map Section 3.02. Contribution to Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust Fund. contribution (“$2.5M LCTF Contribution”) Section 3.03. County Service Area. Section 3.04. Offer of Dedication of Preservation Land. record the Project’s first final map until all requirements set forth in Section 2.10 ARTICLE IV. AMENDMENTS. Section 4.01. Amendment of this Agreement. Section 4.02. Amendments of Approvals or Subsequent Approvals. ARTICLE V.DEFAULTS; PERIODIC REVIEW. Section 5.01. Default and Litigation. . . “Dispute Notice” . Section 5.02. Periodic Review. ’ ’ County’s termination of this Agreement under Section 5.03. Termination. . Developer’s ’ . Developer’s exhaustion of any appeals affects Developer’s obligations under the Preservation Agreement or this Agreement Section 5.04. Attorney’s Fees. ’ Section 5.05. Notice of Compliance. ’ “Notice of Compliance” ’ ’ ARTICLE VI.INDEMNITY. and expenses, including attorney’s and expert’s fees (collectively, “Liabilities”) that arise fro Developer’s obligations under thi operation of public improvements and facilities following the County’s acceptance of those (“Indemnity Agreement”). If this Article VI conflicts with ARTICLE VII.NO AGENCY, JOINT VENTURE, OR PARTNERSHIP. ARTICLE VIII.SALE, ASSIGNMENT, OR TRANSFER. Section 8.01. Approval of Sale, Assignment, or Transfer. ’ ’’ ’ ’’’ (“Assignment and Assumption Agreement”) Section 8.02. Sale, Assignment, or Transfer to Affiliate. “Affiliate” ’ Section 8.03. Continuing Obligations. ’ ARTICLE IX.NOTICES. ’ ARTICLE X. INSURANCE. Section 10.01. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. Section 10.02. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. maintain workers’ compensation insurance for all persons employed by similarly to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employe Developer’s failure to maintain any Section 10.03. Evidence of Insurance. ARTICLE XI. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. Section 11.01. Mortgage Protection. this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Subject Property, , by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. Section 11.02. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Section 11.03. Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. County receives notice from a Mortgagee, with Mortgagee’s address, requesting a copy of any ARTICLE XII.MISCELLANEOUS. Section 12.01. Capitalized Terms. Section 12.02. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. Section 12.03. Governing Law and Legal Remedies. Section 12.04. Severability. Section 12.05. Covenants Running with the Land. Section 12.06. Further Acts. Section 12.07. Counterparts. Section 12.08. Recordation of Agreement. ’ Section 12.09. Appeals. ’ Section 12.010. Waiver. Section 12.011. Signatures. DEVELOPER: COUNTY: – First American Title Insurance Company LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the unincorporated area of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: Parcel One: A portion of the North 1/2 of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the line between the North 1/2 and South 1/2 of Section 33, (said point bears West about 1347.72 feet from the 1/4 Section corner between Sections 33 and 34, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, MDB&M). From the point of beginning a White Oak Tree two feet in diameter bears North 74° West 67.98 feet distant, said point is also the Southwest corner of a tract of land containing 12.6 acres; conveyed to Manuel Enos Pereira; thence North 27° East following West line of the land of the said Pereira, 849.42 feet to station post in center of a ravine or gulch; thence meandering up and along the center of said gulch, as follows: North 63° 1/2' West 266.64 feet to station North 49-1/2" West 66 feet to station North 74-1/4" West 132 feet to station South 86° West 112.20 feet to station, North 42-1/2" West 66 feet to station, North 74-3/4" West 66 feet to station North 64-3/4" West 122.10 feet to station North 11° West 59.40 feet to station, North 55° West 132 feet to station, North 61° West 46.86 feet to station North 4-3/4" West 101.64 feet to station, North 71-1/2" West 66 feet to station, North 54- 1/2" West 330 feet to station, North 81-3/4" West, 66 feet to station, South 74-1/4" West 99 feet to Station P.A.2; thence leaving said gulch South 29-1/2" West ascend 714.12 feet a White Oak Tree 32 inches in diameter; thence South 32° West 137.28 feet to station; thence South 24° 50' West 861.30 feet to station in line of fence between the North 1/2 and South 1/2 of Section 33; thence East 1804.44 feet to place of beginning, and being the same property that was described in that certain Deed dated November 21, 1898 and recorded in Book 81 of Deeds, Page 70. Also: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly side of the public road leading from Tassajara to Clayton, nearly opposite the Tassajara Public Schoolhouse; thence Northerly to a bridge over a creek following Southerly, to the Southeasterly corner of the lands of Manuel Elias Pereira; thence along the Northeasterly side of said Pereira's land and following the fence thereon to the Northwesterly terminus thereof; and thence Westerly to a small stream in a gulch 175 feet, more or less. To be used as a right of way and private road by Antone Petersen, his heirs, successors and assigns, and Manuel E. Pereira, his heirs, successors and assigns. And it is distinctly understood and agreed that said road and right of way shall be at most 20 feet wide and no more. This being the same property described in that certain Deed dated October 12, 1901, and made by Peter Andersen and Emilie Andersen to Antone Petersen, and recorded October 17, 1901, in Book 90 of Deeds, Page 329. This description is taken therefrom verbatim. Parcel Two: A portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of section of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, M.D.B.& M., said point of beginning being on the line dividing lands of McPherson and T. C. Johnston; thence South 0° 50' East, 1320 feet to a point in the center of Tassajara Road; thence South 79° East along the center line of said Tassajara Road, 1657.92 First American Title Insurance Company feet to a station; thence South 65° 10' East 1016.40 feet to a station; thence North along the line fence dividing lands of Antone Petersen and lands of T. C. Johnston, 2066.46 feet to station in line fence dividing lands of Andersen and said T. C. Johnson; thence West along line fence dividing lands of Andersen and said T. C. Johnson, 2580.60 feet to the place of beginning and being the same property that was described in Deed dated September 30, 1910 and recorded in Book 15 of Deed, Page 149. Excepting therefrom: That portion that was conveyed to Contra Costa County by Deed recorded on July 20, 1992 in Book 17677, Page 236, Instrument No. 1992-182504 Official Records. Excepting therefrom portion was conveyed to Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of California by Grant Deed recorded on January 16, 2014 as Instrument No. 2014-0008430 of Official records. Parcel Three: A portion of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point where the South line of said 1/4 section crosses the centerline of public road; from said point the 1/4 section corner between Sections 33 and 34 bears East about 311.52 feet; the Southeast corner of main building of Tassajara Schoolhouse bears North 73° 10" East, 260.70 feet; thence along center line of Public Road North 41-1/2° East 217.80 feet to station; thence North 11-1/2° East 93.06 feet to station in road; thence North 77-3/4" West at 24.42 feet leave road, at 33 feet bank of creek 76.56 feet White Oak Tree 6 inches in diameter on bank of creek 181.50 feet station; thence North 50-3/4° West at 174.90 feet pass 17.82 feet North of pass of house 792 feet to station; thence South 27° West at 38.28 feet brook; 821.70 feet to station in fence line of South boundary of the Northeast 1/4 section of Section 33; from said point of White Oak Tree 2 feet diameter bears North 74° West 67.98 feet; thence along fence line and along line between the Northeast and Southeast 1/4 section of Section 33 at 945.12 feet crop Tassajara Creek 1036.20 feet into place of beginning and being the same property that was described in Deed dated October 18, 1893 and recorded in Book 68 of Deeds, Page 76. Also right of way for wagon road purposes is hereby granted from County Road across private bridge now belonging to Anderson and extending in a Westerly direction for about 300 feet to boundary line herein described. APN: 220-100-023-5 (Portion) FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 155.1± AC (TOTAL) FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 FI N L E Y R O A D CA M I N O T A S S A J A R A CAMINO TASSAJARA ALAMO CREEK BLACKHAWK & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-02.DWG EXISTING BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS - NORTH DETAIL A 2 0'600'200'800' 1" = 200'SCALE: TH LAND LLC 223-020-016 BI LAND LLC 223-020-018 MEACH LLC 223-030-065 616.0 AC (TOTAL) CAMIN O T A S S A J A R A JO H N S T O N R O A D PE N N Y L A N E BR U C E D R I V E & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-03.DWG EXISTING BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS - SOUTH DETAIL A 3 0'900'300'1,200' 1" = 300'SCALE: SAN RAMON Camino-Tassajara Blackhawk Ca m i n o T a s s a j a r a Camino Tassajara Ca m i n o T a s s a j a r a Fin l e y R d Bruce Dr CharbraySt LusitanoSt BlackhawkDr Joh nston Rd MassaraSt BengaliSt DeerRidgeRd Enderby St Highland Rd Ariel Dr JosephLn OldSchoolRd DrysdaleSt BelarusSt CountryLn GritstoneSt Casa blancaSt KerryHillSt Penny Ln Angora Ct Ki n g s w o o d L n RobertDuchiWay Gr i f f o n C t Channi Ct Massara St CharbraySt Alam o C r e e k Tassajara C r e e k Ta s s a j a r a C r e e k Exhibit C: ProposedDedication Area ® 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Map created 07/08/2021 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, GIS Group 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 37:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization's tax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Proposed Dedication Area County UrbanLimit Line San Ramon UrbanGrowth Boundary 727 ac Indemnity Agreement Nadia L. Costa Attorney for FT Land, LLC Vesting Tentative Map / Preliminary and Final Development Plan PARCEL 'H' DETENTION BASIN 2.95 Acs. PARCEL 'G' FINLEY ROAD DEDICATION 0.18 Acs. PARCEL 'J' STAGING A R E A 0.19 Acs. 1234567 89101112 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4546474849 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 67686970717273 74 75 7677 78 79 80 8182 83 84 85 90919293949596 97 98 99 119 120 121 125 100 PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. CAMINO TA S S A J A R A 'C' STREET 'C ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET 'E' STREET 'B' STREET 'F ' S T R E E T PARCEL 'C' 0.13 Acs. PARCEL 'D' 0.09 Acs. PARCEL 'A' 0.02 Acs. PARCEL 'B' 0.12 Acs. FI N L E Y R O A D PROPOSED 3' EARTH TRAIL PROPOSED 3' EARTH TRAIL KI N G S W O O D D R PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. 'E' STREET 'A ' S T R E E T 'A ' S T R E E T PARCEL 'K' 0.19 Acs. 86 87 88 89 101 102103104105106107108109110111112113 114 115 116 117 118 122 123 124 'D' STREET PARCEL 'L' 0.11 Acs. PARCEL 'M' 0.07 Acs. PARCEL 'E ' OPEN SPAC E 117.82 Acs. 61 15 LU S I T A N O S T R E E T PARCEL 'N' COMMUNITY PARK 0.66 Acs. BRUCE DRIVE PENNY LANE JOHNSTON ROAD CA M I N O T A S S A J A R A PARCEL 'F' CAMINO TASSAJARA DEDICATION 3.00 Acs. OPEN SPACE PARCEL B-2 609.0 Acs. FIRE TRAINING FACILITY PARCEL A-2 7.0 Acs. 12 VICINITY MAP 680 580 SITE 1 PROPOSED USE - NORTH ACREAGE TITLE SHEET & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-01.DWG GENERAL NOTES ABBREVIATIONS: LAND USE SUMMARY LEGEND: SHEET INDEX: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS POPULATION CALCULATIONS 0'1,500'500'2,000' 1" = 500'SCALE: PROPOSED USE - SOUTH ACREAGE PROJECT SITE FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 155.1± AC (TOTAL) FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 FT LAND LLC APN 220-100-023 FI N L E Y R O A D CA M I N O T A S S A J A R A CAMINO TASSAJARA ALAMO CREEK BLACKHAWK & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-02.DWG EXISTING BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS - NORTH DETAIL A 2 0'600'200'800' 1" = 200'SCALE: TH LAND LLC 223-020-016 BI LAND LLC 223-020-018 MEACH LLC 223-030-065 616.0 AC (TOTAL) CAMIN O T A S S A J A R A JO H N S T O N R O A D PE N N Y L A N E BR U C E D R I V E & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-03.DWG EXISTING BOUNDARY AND EASEMENTS - SOUTH DETAIL A 3 0'900'300'1,200' 1" = 300'SCALE: LOT AREA LOT AREA (SF) 1 6,413 2 5,000 3 5,000 4 5,000 5 5,000 6 5,000 7 5,500 8 5,400 9 5,000 10 5,000 11 5,038 12 8,091 13 10,017 14 6,875 15 6,875 16 6,875 17 6,875 18 6,875 19 6,875 20 6,875 21 6,875 22 9,290 23 11,275 24 7,851 25 7,875 26 7,875 27 7,875 28 7,875 29 7,875 30 7,875 31 7,875 32 8,132 33 8,749 34 8,749 35 8,749 36 8,394 37 8,252 38 9,536 39 9,208 40 8,469 41 7,674 42 7,500 LOT AREA LOT AREA (SF) 43 7,505 44 8,396 45 7,914 46 7,500 47 7,500 48 7,742 49 8,438 50 8,616 51 8,596 52 9,151 53 11,373 54 10,445 55 7,564 56 7,500 57 7,588 58 12,744 59 11,453 60 10,244 61 9,896 62 8,793 63 8,625 64 8,625 65 8,625 66 9,114 67 8,243 68 7,501 69 7,500 70 7,500 71 7,500 72 7,500 73 8,346 74 8,536 75 8,608 76 10,329 77 9,487 78 8,964 79 9,593 80 9,806 81 12,061 82 9,752 83 8,963 84 8,391 LOT AREA LOT AREA (SF) 85 8,714 86 5,964 87 5,500 88 7,107 89 6,050 90 5,964 91 5,775 92 5,000 93 5,000 94 5,000 95 5,000 96 5,414 97 7,968 98 8,037 99 7,711 100 8,319 101 9,494 102 6,088 103 5,000 104 5,000 105 5,000 106 5,000 107 5,000 108 5,579 109 5,500 110 5,500 111 5,500 112 5,500 113 7,094 114 8,233 115 5,750 116 5,750 117 5,750 118 5,750 119 5,750 120 5,750 121 5,750 122 5,750 123 5,750 124 5,750 125 7,389 CAMINO T A S S A J A R A PARCEL 'H' DETENTION BASIN 2.95 Acs. PARCEL 'J' STAGING AREA 0.19 Acs. PARCEL 'A' 0.02 Acs. PARCEL 'B' 0.12 Acs. PARCEL 'C' 0.13 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'L' 0.11 Acs. PARCEL 'M' 0.07 Acs. 123456 89101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 6665 4647 64 48 63 62 49 50 61 60 51 59 52 58 5355 56 57 54 81 80 82 83 84 79 78 85 90 89 88 87 86 101 9192 10099 9394 98 9596 97 67686970717273 74 75 7677 102 125 103 124 104 123 105 122 106 121120 107108 119118 109110 117116 111112 115114 113 A 'C' STREE T 'C ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET 'E' STREE T 'B ' S T R E E T 'F ' S T R E E T 'E' STREE T 'A ' S T R E E T 'A ' S T R E E T 'D' STREE T C C D D E E B PARCEL 'D' 0.09 Acs.PARCEL 'K' 0.19 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. 7 PARCEL 'F' - CAMINO TASSAJARA DEDICATION 3.00 Acs. LU S I T A N O S T R E E T offdrop offdrop offdrop offdrop PARCEL 'N' COMMUNITY PARK 0.66 Acs. SECTION A SECTION C SECTION B SECTION D SECTION E SITE PLAN - NORTH TYPICAL KNUCKLE DETAIL 4 SEE SHEET TM 4 & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-04.DWG TYPICAL 56' RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION NOTES: 0'300'100'400' 1" = 100'SCALE: FI N L E Y R O A D FI N L E Y R O A D SEE SHEET TM3 PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'G' FINLEY ROAD DEDICATION 0.18 Acs. & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-05.DWG SITE PLAN - NORTH 5 0'300'100'400' 1" = 100'SCALE: offdrop offdrop offdrop offdrop + + + + + + + + + + X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CAMIN OTASSA J A R A PARCEL 'H' 2.95 Acs. PARCEL 'J' STAGING AREA 0.19 Acs. PARCEL 'D' 0.09 Acs. PARCEL 'B' 0.12 Acs. PARCEL 'C' 0.13 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. 123456 89101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 96 97 98 113 112 114 115 116 111 110 109 108 117 118 119 120 107 106 105 121 122 104 123 103 124 102 125 99 100 101 86 87 88 89 90 9192939495 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 8182 83 84 85 78 79 80 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45464748 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 44 67686970717273 74 75 76 77 60 PARCEL 'L' 0.11 Acs. PARCEL 'M' 0.07 Acs. PARCEL 'K' 0.19 Acs. PARCEL 'A' 0.02 Acs. 'C' STREET 'C ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET 'E' STREET 'B ' S T R E E T 'F ' S T R E E T 'E' STREET 'A ' S T R E E T 'A ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET PARCEL 'F' - C A M I N O T A S S A J A R A D E D I C A T I O N 3 . 0 0 A c s . PARCEL 'N' COMMUNITY PARK 0.66 Acs. SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C SECTION D-D X SECTION E-E X SECTION F-F SECTION G-G SECTION H-H SECTION I-I & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-06.DWG 6 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN - NORTH 12 LEGEND: 0'300'100'400' 1" = 100'SCALE: NOTES: 123456 89101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 97 98 99 100 101 109110111112113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 103104105106107108 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 8290 919293949596 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 32 33 34 35 36 81 80 79 78 57 56 55 58 53 52 51 59 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 48 49 50 454647 66656463 6261 60 67686970717273 74 75 76 77 102 125 CAMI N O T A S S A J A R A PARCEL 'H' 2.95 Acs. PARCEL 'J' STAGING AREA 0.19 Acs. PARCEL 'D' 0.09 Acs. PARCEL 'A' 0.02 Acs. PARCEL 'B' 0.12 Acs. PARCEL 'C' 0.13 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'F' - C A M I N O T A S S A J A R A D E D I C A T I O N 3 . 0 0 A c s . PARCEL 'L' 0.11 Acs. PARCEL 'M' 0.07 Acs. PARCEL 'K' 0.19 Acs. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 'C' STREET 'C ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET 'E' STREET 'B' STREET 'F ' S T R E E T 'E' STREET 'A ' S T R E E T 'A ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET LU S I T A N O S T R E E T PARCEL 'N' COMMUNITY PARK 0.66 Acs. & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-07.DWG 7 NOTES: 12 LEGEND: UTILITY PLAN - NORTH 0'300'100'400' 1" = 100'SCALE: IMP 1 DETENTION BASIN 123456 124 125 123 119 122121120 118 116 117 115114 103 102 105 104 106 108 107 109110111 113 112 18 22 21 20 19 14 17 16 15 13 8 11 10 9 12 100 90 89 91 86 87 88 101 929695 98 94 99 93 97 28 33233230242529263127 80 78 79 81 85 84 83 82 36 53 51 59 52 54 57 56 58 55 34 35 39 40 4241 43 37 38 44 60 666564 47 46 45 63 6261 48 49 50 76 77 74 75 73 71 6970 72 68 67 CAMI N O T A S S A J A R A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 'C' STREET 'C ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET 'E' STREET 'B' STREET 'F ' S T R E E T 'E' STREET 'A ' S T R E E T 'A ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET DMA 1 DMA 2 LU S I T A N O S T R E E T DMA SUMMARY TABLE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA 1 (DMA 1) CONVENTIONAL ROOF ASPHALT 262,116 SF 573,659 SF DRAINS TO IMP 1 IMP CALCULATIONS WERE COMPLETED USING THE FIFTH EDITION IMP SIZING CALCULATOR PER THE SIXTH EDITION C.3 MANUAL PROVIDED BY THE CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM. NOTE: CONCRETE 120,615 SF LANDSCAPING 334,634 SF SELF RETAINING AREA (DMA 2) CONVENTIONAL ROOF ASPHALT 0 SF 0 SF DRAINS TO STORM DRAIN CONCRETE 5,850 SF LANDSCAPING 304.111 SF IMP SUMMARY TABLE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PRACTICE 1 (IMP 1) FACILITY TYPE BIO-RETENTION AREA PROPOSED AREA (A)40,937 SF REQUIRED AREA (A)-TREATMENT ONLY IMP SIZING 39,594 SF & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-08.DWG 8 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 12 LEGEND: 0'300'100'400' 1" = 100'SCALE: PARCEL 'N' COMMUNITY PARK 0.66 Acs. CAMINO T A S S A J A R A PARCEL 'H' DETENTION BASIN 2.95 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'J' STAGING AREA 0.19 Acs. PARCEL 'A' 0.02 Acs. PARCEL 'B' 0.12 Acs. PARCEL 'C' 0.13 Acs. PARCEL 'D' 0.09 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'E' OPEN SPACE 117.82 Acs. PARCEL 'L' 0.11 Acs. PARCEL 'M' 0.07 Acs. PARCEL 'K' 0.19 Acs. 'C' STREE T 'C ' S T R E E T 'D' STREET 'E' STREE T 'B' STREET 'F ' S T R E E T 'E' STREE T 'A ' S T R E E T 'A ' S T R E E T 'D' STREE T offdrop offdrop offdrop offdrop LU S I T A N O S T R E E T 9 LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5,000' MINIMUM LOT SETBACKS SEE SHEET TM 4 & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-09.DWG CORNER LOTSTANDARD LOT 7,500' MINIMUM LOT SETBACKS CORNER LOTSTANDARD LOT 0'300'100'400' 1" = 100'SCALE: OPEN SPACE PARCEL B-2 (609.0 AC) SOUTH SITE 616.0 AC (TOTAL) CAMIN O T A S S A J A R A JO H N S T O N R O A D PE N N Y L A N E BR U C E D R I V E FIRE TRAINING FACILITY PARCEL A-2 7.0 AC & Gibson, Inc. Carlson, Barbee CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA TASSAJARA PARKS DATE: AUGUST 18 , 2020 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS TEL (925) 866-0322 & VESTING TENTATIVE MAP PRELIMINARY & FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION 9280 TM G:\1538-10\ACAD\TM\TM-10.DWG SITE PLAN - SOUTH DETAIL A 10 0'900'300'1,200' 1" = 300'SCALE: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Tassajara Parks Project is available for review and download by accessing the “Environmental Impact Report” tab on the County’s Tassajara Parks Project webpage via the link below : https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4552/Tassajara-Parks Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) FTLL-48806\2291349.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Tassajara Parks Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Contra Costa County, California State Clearinghouse Number 2014052089 Prepared for: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 County File Numbers: GP07-0009 RZ09-3212 SD10-9280 DP10-3008 Date: September 11,2020 Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 1 Table 1: Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Section 3.3—Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM AIR-2: During construction, the following air pollution control measures (consistent with BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures) shall be implemented: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time t o 5 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified vehicle emissions evaluator. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders were used. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the County of Contra Costa regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management Incorporation into project construction documents Submittal of proof of implementation of control measures during construction Prior to Construction Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 2 District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM AIR-3: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off-road emissions standards to the extent feasible. The Project applicant shall include in all construction contracts a clause reflecting this requirement. Incorporation into bid documents; on-site inspection Prior to issuance of building permit; prior to any fuel powered grading or construction activities Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development MM AIR-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the following measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions shall be implemented to the extent feasible: a) Only natural gas hearths shall be installed throughout the development. b) Install solar or tankless water heaters throughout the development. c) Install energy-efficient ceiling/whole-house fans. d) Install on-site generation of renewable energy, such as solar to meet a minimum of 10 percent of the Project’s total energy demand. e) Comply with California Green Building standards to reduce both indoor and outdoor water consumption. Incorporation into Project construction documents Prior to the issuance of building permits; during construction Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Section 3.4—Biological Resources MM BIO-1a: Congdon’s Tarplant and San Joaquin Spearscale. In order to offset impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale, the Project applicant shall implement the following measures: (a) Populations of special-status species shall be avoided to the maximum degree practical. If avoidance is not practicable, the Ground Disturbance Areas should be reviewed to see if it can be feasibly adjusted to avoid the special-status plants while still meeting the Project’s objectives. Preconstruction survey by a qualified biologist; results and submittal of survey documents for review and approval Preparation and submittal of Rare Plant Mitigation Prior to ground disturbance Minimum of 30 days prior to the start of Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 3 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial (b) A Rare Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the County and CDFW within a minimum of 30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing related activities. (c) Prior to disturbing any area that supports Congdon’s tarplant or San Joaquin spearscale, a qualified botanist shall collect the seeds or oversee the seed collection of both species by a qualified seed collection crew. This seed shall be stored either by M&A, or by a native seed company, until construction is complete and the Special - Status Plant Mitigation Area(s), on the Southern Site, have been identified, prepared and the collected seed can be distributed. The seeds of Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale shall be collected at the appropriate time of year. A percentage of the collected seed shall remain in storage for subsequent, supplemental seeding if deemed necessary, to ensure successful replanting of Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale in the special-status plant mitigation areas. The remaining amount of collected seed of Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale shall be planted at the appropriate time of year (late-fall months) in suitable areas within the Conservation Easement area on the Southern Site. Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale typically grow in valley and foothill grassland on alkaline, clay soils at 300 meters or lower in elevation. Common associates that co-occur on-site with these special-status species are a mix of annual grassland species that demonstrate some amount of mesic influence including Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and bristly ox-tongue and Monitoring Plan by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation Proof of collection, storage, and planting of Congdon’s tarplant or San Joaquin spearscale seeds by a qualified botanist Inspection of transplanted populations by a qualified botanist ground-disturbing activities Prior to disturbance of any area that supports Congdon’s tarplant or San Joaquin spearscale; after planting Monthly for 5 years Department of Conservation; CDFW (as appropriate) Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 4 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial (Helminthotheca echioides). Common halophytic associates of Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale include hastate orache (Atriplex prostrata), Boccone’s sand spurrey (Spergularia bocconi), alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) that co-occur with the special- status species on-site. According to the CNDDB (2015), Congdon’s tarplant has often been found on the following soil series: Clear Lake Clay, Diablo Clay, Cropley Clay, and Conejo Clay Loam, whereas San Joaquin spearscale occurs on high clay, alkaline soils such as Pescadero Clay. Most occurrences of these species have occurred on flat areas, depressions, swales and low hills where high clay content soils are present (CNDDB 2015). The most suitable special- status plant mitigation area on the Southern Site occurs on Clear Lake Clay (0-2% slopes) and Pescadero Clay Loam (0- 2% slopes). (d) To preserve the seedbank of both common, special-status and federally listed plant species, the upper 3 inches of topsoil or to the depth of the organic horizon (A Horizon) shall be scalped and temporarily stockpiled in uplands within the work area separately from excavated sub-soils. All other excavated material shall be separately stored in upland habitat areas. Upon completion of grading and recontouring, the organic horizon soil shall be redistributed as a topcoat over the disturbed areas that shall not be developed to disseminate the original seed bank. (e) The designated special-status plant mitigation area shall be fenced to exclude humans and cattle during the first three years of establishment to ensure germination and seed set to continue the population. Once it has been determined that the population is successfully established, the fence may be removed so that seasonal grazing of the population can be managed within the special-status plant mitigation Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 5 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial area. A Grazing Management Plan shall be prepared to allow for the continued benefit of special-status species. Appropriate grazing measures shall ensure that Congdon’s tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale shall not be outcompeted by non-native Mediterranean grass species. (f) The applicant’s qualified botanist shall conduct annual monitoring of the transplanted populations for a five year period as outlined in the Rare Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and shall prepare annual monitoring reports to document the success or failure the transplanting effort. These reports shall be submitted to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and CDFW no later than December 1 of each monitoring year. MM BIO-1b: California Tiger Salamander. To ensure that impacts to approximately 58.47 acres of potential upland California tiger salamander over-summering habitat are offset, all permanent impacts shall be mitigated as follows: (a) The applicant proposes to preserve 175.4 acres of the Southern Site via a Conservation Easement as habitat mitigation (as approved by USFWS). This provides a 3:1 mitigation ratio to satisfy the resource agency mitigation requirements for impacts to potential upland California tiger salamander over-summering. The Mitigation Land shall be protected in perpetuity via a recorded conservation easement or other appropriate legal mechanism that shall be managed for the benefit of the California tiger salamander and other special-status species. A Habitat Management Plan shall be incorporated into the conservation easement deed as an exhibit and shall detail management and maintenance goals for the Mitigation Land. In addition, the Habitat Management Plan would detail the permanent funding source for the Inspection of proposed preserved conservation easement Recordation of conservation easement or other appropriate legal mechanism Review of the Habitat Management Plan incorporated into the conservation easement deed Obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS and CDFW Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; CDFW and USFWS (as appropriate) Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 6 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial management of the Mitigation Lands and shall list the “Allowed and Prohibited Uses” of the conservation easement areas. (b) The Mitigation Land managed for California tiger salamander shall be contiguous with other dedicated open space areas to the west as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk & Associates, dated January 5, 2016. The connectivity of the proposed Mitigation Land to other dedicated open space areas further increases the value of this dedicated Mitigation Land since this creates a protected corridor that includes several watersheds. (c) The applicant shall obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS and CDFW prior to Project construction, and implement any additional requirements identified by USFWS and CDFW as necessary to protect the California tiger salamander. Any final mitigation compensation ratio established by the CDFW and USFWS for Project-related impacts to listed species shall also become Contra Costa County “Conditions of Approval.” Such mitigation ratios or prescriptions shall be set forth in the Biological Opinion prepared by USFWS during the Section 7 consultation by and between the USACE and USFWS. (d) Additional avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that no California tiger salamanders are adversely impacted by Project construction activities include: • Education Program. An education program shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to explain the endangered species concerns to contractors working at the Project Site. This education/training program shall include a description of the California tiger salamander and its habitat, a review of the Endangered Species Act and the federal and state listing of the salamander, the Submittal of proof of implementation of education program by a qualified biologist Qualified biologist’s construction survey results and submittal of survey documents Prior to project construction During grading or earth-moving activities Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 7 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial general protection measures to be implemented to protect the salamander and minimize take, and a delineation of the limits of the work area. • Biological Monitoring. A USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall be on-site during grading activities, or other earth-moving activities when amphibians could be unearthed. The biological monitor shall be available to stop work should any California tiger salamanders be observed in the Project Site work areas. MM BIO-1c: California Red-Legged Frog. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure that impacts to approximately 58.47 acres of potential California red-legged frog upland dispersal/migration habitat shall be appropriately offset. The mitigation shall include: (a) The applicant proposes to preserve 175.4 acres of the Southern Site via a Conservation Easement as habitat mitigation (as approved by USFWS). This provides a 3:1 mitigation ratio to satisfy the resource agency mitigation requirements for potential impacts to California re-legged frog upland dispersal/migration habitat. (b) The Mitigation Land shall be contiguous with other dedicated open space areas to the west, including the Alamo Creek Kawar Valley Open Space, and the Hidden Valley Open Space associated with the Windemere development (as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk & Associates, dated January 5, 2016) that shall provide connectivity of the proposed Mitigation Land to other dedicated open space areas that support California red-legged frog populations. (c) This Mitigation Land shall be managed in perpetuity for the benefit of California red-legged frog. A Conservation Easement, or other appropriate legal mechanism, shall be Inspection of proposed preserved conservation easement Recordation of conservation easement or other appropriate legal mechanism Review of Habitat Management Plan Obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS Submittal of proof of implementation of education program by a qualified biologist Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Prior to project construction Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; USFWS (as appropriate) Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 8 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial recorded to ensure that the Mitigation Lands shall be protected in perpetuity. As required by MM BIO-1b, a Habitat Management Plan shall be incorporated into the easement deed as an exhibit and shall detail management and maintenance goals for the Mitigation Land, including recreational guidelines, livestock grazing guidelines, and other management efforts that shall benefit the California red-legged frog. In addition, the Habitat Management Plan would detail the funding source for the management of the Mitigation Land and shall list the “Allowed and Prohibited Uses” of the conservation easement area. (d) The USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog states that populations are “most likely to persist where multiple breeding areas are embedded within a matrix of habitats used for dispersal. The primary constituent elements for California red-legged frogs are aquatic and upland areas where suitable breeding and non-breeding habitat is interspersed throughout the landscape and is interconnected by unfragmented dispersal habitat” (USFWS 2002). Thus, the proposed Mitigation Land shall serve to protect and preserve important California red-legged frog populations in this area of Contra Costa County. It is important to note that the Project Site is located in the East San Francisco Bay— Core Area #16—in the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog, and the Project Site represents a “priority watershed” for focused recovery efforts. By preserving 175.4 acres of Mitigation Land that shall be managed for the benefit of this species, the Project shall satisfy some of the goals detailed in the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog and thereby contribute to the recovery of this species. Inspection of exclusionary fencing Qualified biological monitor to be present at the project construction site Inclusion of Best Management Practices in project construction documents Prior to and during project construction During construction Prior to construction Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 9 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial (e) Obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS prior to Project construction and implementing any additional requirements identified by USFWS as necessary to protect the California red-legged frog. (f) Additional avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that no California red-legged frogs are adversely impacted by Project construction activities include: • Preconstruction Survey. In order to minimize and avoid any impacts to the federally listed threatened California red-legged frog, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for this species within the areas of impact prior to the commencement of any work on the Project Site. Any California red-legged frogs that are found during these surveys shall be salvaged and relocated to California red-legged frog habitat within the Mitigation Land. No salvage and/or relocation shall occur until such time that the applicant receives incidental taking authorization from the USFWS. Proof of an incidental take permit (such as a Biological Opinion) from the USFWS shall be provided to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development prior to any earth-moving on the Project Site. • Exclusion Fencing. Wildlife exclusion fencing shall be installed around suitable aquatic habitats (Tassajara Creek) adjacent to proposed impacted areas to prevent the California red-legged frog from entering areas of impact. This fence shall be installed prior to the time any site grading or other construction-related activities are implemented. The fence shall remain in place during site grading or other construction-related activities. Wildlife exclusion fencing shall consist of a 4-foot wall of 0.25-inch welded mesh (not woven wire), galvanized wire. The Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 10 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial fence shall be buried along the bottom margin 4 inches into the ground. The next approximate 3 feet of fencing above the ground shall be anchored to staking with wire. Finally, the top 6 inches shall be bent over in a semi-circle towards the outside of the fence to ensure that the fence cannot be climbed. • Education Program. An education program shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to explain the endangered species concerns to contractors working at the Project Site. This education/training program shall include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, a review of the Endangered Species Act and the federal listing of the frog, the general protection measures to be implemented to protect the frog and minimize take, and a delineation of the limits of the work area. • Biological Monitoring. A USFWS-approved biologist shall be on-site during grading activities, or other earth- moving activities when amphibians could be unearthed. The biological monitor shall be responsible for ensuring that the wildlife exclusion fencing is not compromised, and shall be available to stop work should any California red-legged frogs be observed in the Project Site work areas. Each morning all exclusion fencing shall be patrolled for frogs that may be trapped against the fence. • Best Management Practices. All trash that might attract predators to the Project Site shall be properly contained and removed from the site and disposed of regularly. All construction debris and trash shall be removed from the site when construction activities are complete. All fueling and maintenance of equipment and vehicles, and staging areas shall be at least 20 meters from creek channels, Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 11 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial wetlands, and tributaries. The construction personnel shall ensure that contamination of California red-legged frog habitat does not occur and shall have a plan to promptly address any accidental spills. MM BIO-1d: San Joaquin Kit Fox. To ensure that impacts to approximately 58.47 acres of potential San Joaquin kit fox migration/dispersal habitat are offset, the following mitigation measures are proposed: (a) The applicant proposes to preserve 175.4 acres of the Southern Site via a Conservation Easement as habitat mitigation (as approved by the USFWS). This provides a 3:1 mitigation ratio to satisfy the resource agency mitigation requirements for impacts to potential upland migration/dispersal habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. The Mitigation Land that shall be preserved in perpetuity as part of the Project consists of grassland habitat that includes numerous rodent burrows and supports a potential prey base for the San Joaquin kit fox. Perpetual preservation and management of the Mitigation Land for the benefit of the San Joaquin kit fox shall help ensure that viable habitat is maintained for this species. The Mitigation Land shall be contiguous with other dedicated open space areas to the west, as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Monk & Associates, dated January 5, 2016, further benefitting this species. (b) Should the USFWS determine that the Project may adversely affect the San Joaquin kit fox, the applicant shall comply with any additional requirements determined to be necessary through a formal Section 7 consultation for potential impacts to potential San Joaquin kit fox migration habitat. Incorporation of preservation area in construction documents Submittal of USFWS consultation documentation Submittal of proof of implementation of education program Submittal of qualified biologist’s preconstruction survey results and verification of speed limit signage Submittal of proof of inspection of project site access routes and restrictions Prior to ground disturbance Prior to ground disturbance Prior to ground disturbance No more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance Prior to grading activities Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; and CDFW (as appropriate) Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 12 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial (c) The following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to ensure that no San Joaquin kit fox are adversely impacted by Project construction activities: • Education Program. An employee training program shall be conducted before groundbreaking to explain the Federal Endangered Species Act and any endangered species concerns to contractors working in the area. • Preconstruction Survey. Qualified biologists shall conduct preconstruction den surveys within the Ground Disturbance Areas no more than 14 days prior to grading activities to ensure that potential kit fox dens are not disrupted. If “potential dens” are located, infrared camera stations shall be set up and maintained for 3 consecutive nights at den openings to determine the status of the potential dens. If no kit fox is found to be using the den during this timeframe, the grading activities can proceed unhindered. However, if a kit fox is found using a den site within an area of influence of the grading activities, the USFWS shall be promptly notified. • Vehicle Restrictions. Prior to initiating grading activities, the vehicle and equipment access routes and work area shall be delineated using construction fencing. This shall minimize the Project-related disturbance to potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat to the maximum extent feasible. During the grading activities, all Project- related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads or access routes, and shall observe a 20-mile-an- hour speed limit within the work areas, except on County roads and highways. • Biological Monitoring. A biological monitor shall be present during all grading activities that could result in Qualified biological monitor to be present at the project construction site Submittal of proof of implementation of BMPs during construction Inspection of exclusionary fencing During construction Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Prior to and during construction activities Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 13 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial injury to San Joaquin kit fox. The biologist shall have the authority to halt construction in the impacted area(s), if necessary, to protect the kit fox. If San Joaquin kit fox are identified in the work area at any time, the USFWS and/or CDFW shall be notified and consulted before work activities resume. • Best Management Practices. All trash items shall be removed from the Project Site’s disturbance areas each day to reduce the potential for attracting San Joaquin kit fox predators. Contractors shall be prohibited from bringing firearms and pets to the job site. To prevent harm to San Joaquin kit fox, any steep-walled holes and/or trenches excavated for the proposed development Project shall be completely covered at the end of each workday, or escape ramps shall be provided to allow any entrapped animals to escape unharmed. All pipe sections stored on the Project Site overnight that are 4 inches in diameter or greater shall be inspected for San Joaquin kit fox before the pipes are moved or buried. • Exclusion Fencing. Exclusion fencing shall be installed prior to the time any site grading or other construction - related activities are implemented. The fence would remain in place during site grading or other construction-related activities. Exclusion fencing shall be installed as described above. Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 14 MM BIO-1e: Burrowing Owl. Based on the number of records for this species on-site and in the Project vicinity, the high density of ground squirrel burrows, and the habitats found on the Project Site, surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted within any areas of the Project Site that will be disturbed by Project activities, including a 150-meter buffer. Burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodology prescribed by CDFW in their 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) are more likely to be accepted by CDFG. The prescribed survey methodology is included in this document. The mitigation measures shall include: (a) Breeding season surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist as per the CDFW Staff Report (CDFG 2012) for western burrowing owl when Project construction is proposed to begin and again 14 days prior to breaking ground. In accordance with the 2012 Staff Report, four site surveys need to be completed. One site survey shall occur between February 15 and April 15, and a minimum of three site surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15 must be conducted. At least one of the three site surveys between April 15 and July 15 must occur after June 15. Non-breeding season surveys (September 1 through January 31) may provide information about site occupancy but this should not substitute for breeding season surveys. Should non-breeding season surveys be warranted, four surveys spread evenly throughout the non-breeding season should occur according to the same protocol as breeding season surveys. The Staff Report 2012 states that take avoidance (preconstruction) surveys should be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys, including but not limited to a final Submittal of preconstruction survey results conducted by a qualified biologist If burrowing owls are identified onsite: Onsite inspection and/or submittal of proof of appropriate buffers Prior to ground disturbing activities During construction Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; and CDFW (as appropriate) Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 15 survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. If no owls are found during these surveys, no further surveys shall be necessary. (b) Burrowing owl surveys should be conducted by walking suitable habitat in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) of the Ground Disturbance Areas. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the Project Site that may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during Project construction. Pedestrian survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. To effectively survey large projects (100 acres or larger), two or more surveyors should be used to walk adjacent transects. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows should be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approximately 160 feet) wherever practical to avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows should be avoided during all seasons. (c) If burrowing owls are detected on the Project Site, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances are recommended per the Staff Report (CDFG 2012). From February 1 through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities should have a 200 meter buffer while high disturbance activities should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests. From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities should have a 50 meter buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100 meter buffer, and high disturbance activities Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 16 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial should have a 500 meter buffer from occupied nests. No earth-moving activities or other disturbance should occur within the afore-mentioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones should be fenced as well. If burrowing owls are found in the Project Site, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat. (d) The Mitigation Land that shall be preserved in perpetuity as part of the proposed Project as mitigation for special- status species supports grassland habitat that includes numerous rodent burrows that provide nesting habitat, as well as foraging habitat for western burrowing owl. The Mitigation Land shall more than adequately offset any impacts to suitable burrowing owl habitat should this species be found during surveys. The preservation of western burrowing owl habitat would fully compensate for impacts to potential western burrowing owl habitat resulting from the Project. MM BIO-1f: American Badger. To ensure that potential impacts to American badger migration and dispersal habitat are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: (a) A preconstruction survey for the American badger shall be conducted within the Ground Disturbance Areas within 7 days prior to grading thereon. Surveys shall be conducted by a wildlife biologist with experience identifying badger burrows. Survey methods would include conducting parallel transects through the grassland community looking for badger burrows. Any badger burrow identified shall be mapped with a global positioning system (GPS) Submittal of preconstruction survey conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist If American Badgers are identified onsite: Submittal of proof of avoidance and/or relocation Prior to ground disturbing activities Prior to and during ground disturbing activities Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; and Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 17 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial and shown on all Project development plans and grading plans. (b) If active badger burrows are identified within the Ground Disturbance Areas, they shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, a biologist should determine if the burrow is being used for breeding. If young are determined to be present, the burrow shall be avoided until young vacate the burrow. If the burrow is being used as refugia by the badger, as approved by CDFW, a one-way eviction door shall be installed to passively relocate the badger from its burrow. If it digs back into the burrow, as approved by CDFW, live traps shall be established at the burrow entrances to trap and remove badgers from the area of impact. (c) The Project includes the perpetual preservation of Mitigation Land that shall be preserved in perpetuity to mitigate impacts to California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and San Joaquin kit fox. Since the American badger has similar habitat requirements as the kit fox, the Mitigation Land would also fully mitigate any potential impacts to the American badger. CDFW (as appropriate) MM BIO-1g: Alameda Whipsnake. To ensure that any significant impacts to Alameda whipsnake are avoided, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: (a) Wildlife exclusion fencing shall be installed around the work areas to prevent snakes and other wildlife from entering the construction area. This fence would be installed prior to the time any site grading or other construction-related activities commenced. The fence would remain in place during site grading or other construction-related activities. Wildlife exclusion fencing shall consist of a 4-foot wall of quarter-inch mesh, Incorporation of wildlife exclusion fencing into construction documents; onsite inspection of fencing Obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS Prior to site grading or other construction related activities and during construction Prior to project construction Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 18 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial galvanized, welded wire (i.e., hardware cloth—it cannot be woven wire). If the fence cannot be buried along the bottom edge in a 6-inch deep trench, then the bottom 6 inches of fence shall be landscaped stapled every 3 inches along the entire run of fence. Any voids in the soil beneath the fence shall be filled. The first 3 feet of fencing above the ground would be anchored to staking with wire. Finally, the top 6 inches of wire shall be bent over in a semi-circle towards the outside of the fence to ensure that the fence cannot be climbed. (b) Mitigation land set-aside as part of MM BIO-1b, 1c, and 1d to mitigate impacts to California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and San Joaquin kit fox would also provide appropriate mitigation for impacts to potential Alameda whipsnake dispersal habitat. (c) The applicant shall obtain an incidental take permit from USFWS prior to Project construction and shall implement any additional requirements identified by USFWS as necessary to protect the Alameda whipsnake. By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Development; USFWS MM BIO-1h: Western Pond Turtle. To ensure that impacts to western pond turtle upland nesting habitat are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: (a) Prior to commencement of any earth-moving activity on- site, all potential suitable western pond turtle upland nesting habitat shall be surveyed. This shall include all areas within 100 feet of Tassajara Creek on the Northern Site. Preconstruction surveys for turtles and their nests shall be conducted 30 days prior to any grading activities. Submittal of preconstruction survey results If nest sites are located: Onsite inspection and/or submittal of proof of Prior to commencement of any earth-moving activity (at least 30 days prior to any grading activity) Prior to ground disturbing activities Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 19 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial (b) If nest sites are located adjacent to a proposed work area, the nest site plus a 50-foot buffer around the nest site shall be fenced to avoid impacts to the eggs or hatchlings which overwinter at the nest site. In addition, a clear path (buffer area) between the nest site and adjacent creek or ponds shall be left undisturbed and demarcated with orange construction fencing so that dispersing young turtles can migrate to the creek without being deterred/impacted by construction/earth-moving activity. (c) If nest(s) are located during surveys, moth balls (naphthalene) should be sprinkled around the vicinity of the nest (no closer than 10 feet) to mask human scent and discourage predators. (d) Construction at the nest site and within the 50-foot buffer area and path to the off-site waterway shall be delayed until the young leave the nest (this could be a period of months) or as otherwise advised and directed by CDFW, the agency responsible for overseeing the protection of the western pond turtle. (e) If CDFW allows translocation of any nestling pond turtles, this shall be completed by a qualified biologist under the direction of CDFW. appropriate buffers and use moth balls Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 20 MM BIO-1i: Nesting Raptors. To ensure that impacts to nesting raptors are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: (a) In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors, nesting surveys shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist prior to commencing with earth-moving or construction work, if this work would commence between February 1 and August 31. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees within 500 feet of the Ground Disturbance Areas on the Northern Site. (b) If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree must be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the Project Site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree must be staked with orange construction fencing. If the tree is located off the Project Site, then the buffer shall be demarcated per above where the buffer occurs on the Project Site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If a qualified biologist is not hired to watch the nesting raptors, then the buffers shall be maintained in place through the month of August and work within the buffer can commence on September 1. (c) Two surveys may be required to address both early and later nesting raptor species. Great horned owls and American kestrels begin nesting in February while northern harriers, red-tailed hawks, and red-shouldered hawks Submittal of preconstruction nesting surveys conducted by a qualified biologist If nesting raptors are identified onsite: Onsite inspection and/or submittal of proof of fencing/protection buffers Prior to construction Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 21 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial begin nesting in early April. Thus, an early survey should be conducted in February if earth-moving work or construction is proposed to commence between February 1 and April 1. If construction has not commenced by the end of March, a second nesting survey shall be conducted in April/May, whichever month is within 30 days of the commencement of construction. If construction would commence after May but before September 1, then the second survey shall be conducted within the 30-day period prior to site disturbance. (d) If the early nesting survey identifies a large stick or other type of raptor nest that appears inactive at the time of the survey, but there are territorial raptors evident in the nest site vicinity, a protection buffer (as described above) shall be established around the potential nesting tree until the qualified raptor biologist determines that the nest is not being used. In the absence of conclusive observations indicating the nest site is not being used, the buffer shall remain in place until a second follow-up nesting survey can be conducted to determine the status of the nest and eliminate the possibility that the nest is utilized by a late- spring nesting raptor (for example, red-tailed hawk). This second survey shall be conducted even if construction has commenced. If during the follow-up late season nesting survey a nesting raptor is identified utilizing the nest, the protection buffer shall remain until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction zones. If the nest remains inactive, the protection buffer can be removed and construction and earth-moving activities can proceed unrestrained. Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 22 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM BIO-1j: Nesting Birds. To ensure that impacts to nesting passerine birds and nesting special-status birds are avoided or offset, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: (a) A nesting survey shall be conducted within all Ground Disturbance Areas and a surrounding 500-foot buffer 15 days prior to commencing construction/grading or tree removal activities, if this work would commence between March 1 and September 1. If special-status birds (such as loggerhead shrike) are identified nesting on the Project Site, a 50-foot radius around the nest must be staked with bright orange construction fencing. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within this 50-foot buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid Project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist. (b) If common (not special-status) passerine (perching birds such as Anna’s hummingbird [Calypte anna] and mourning dove [Zenaida macroura]) birds are identified nesting on the Project Site, grading or tree removal activities in the vicinity of the nest shall be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area. The size of the nest protective buffer required to ensure that the Project does not result in take of nesting birds, their eggs or young shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist. Typically, most passerine birds can be expected to complete nesting by June 15, with young attaining sufficient flight skills by early July. Submittal of nesting bid survey conducted by a qualified biologist If special-status nesting birds are identified onsite: Onsite inspection and/or submittal of appropriate fencing. If common passerine nesting birds are identified onsite: Onsite inspection and/or submittal of appropriate fencing; Submittal of documentation of construction postponement by a qualified ornithologist Prior to commencement of construction, grading, or tree removal activities (if occurring between March 1 and September 1) Prior to grading or tree removal activities Prior to grading or tree removal activities Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 23 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM BIO-1k: Special-Status Bats. In order to avoid impacts to roosting special-status bats, a biologist shall survey trees and buildings to be disturbed by Project activities, including those near the proposed Future Equestrian Staging Area 15 days prior to commencing with any removal or demolition. All bat surveys shall be conducted by a biologist with known experience surveying for bats. If no special-status bats are found during the surveys, then no further action would be required. If special-status bat species are found on the Project Site, a determination shall be made if there are young bats present. If young are found roosting in any tree or building, impacts to the tree or building shall be avoided until the young have reached independence. A non-disturbance buffer fenced with orange construction fencing shall also be established around the maternity site. The size of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified bat biologist at the time of the surveys. If adults are found roosting in a tree or building on the Project Site but no maternal sites are found, then the adult bats can be flushed or a one-way eviction door can be placed over the tree cavity (or building access opening) prior to the time the tree or building in question would be removed or disturbed. No other mitigation compensation would be required. Submittal of qualified biologist’s survey of trees and buildings If special-status bat species are identified onsite: Submittal of proof of avoidance, fencing, and/or flushing/eviction Prior to commencement of tree removal or demolition Prior to commencement of tree removal or demolition Project’s qualified biologist contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 24 MM BIO-3: Waters of the U.S. and State. To ensure that impacts to waters of the U.S. and State are offset, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: (a) Obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE and a Section 401 permit from the RWQCB prior to Project construction and implementing any additional mitigation measures identified by the USACE or RWQCB as part of these permits. (b) At a minimum, all impacts to waters of the U.S. and State would be compensated for via creation and preservation of new waters of the U.S. and State at a minimum of 2:1 (creation to impact) ratio or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions imposed by the USACE and RWQCB. The applicant proposes to create at least 0.80 acre of new wetland to mitigate for Project-related impacts to waters of the U.S. and State. (c) The applicant is proposing to compensate for impacts to waters of the U.S. and State by creating wetlands on the Southern Site. A detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan will be prepared for the Project that shows the location, materials, and construction methods for creation of the wetlands. The Wetland Mitigation Plan will include specific success criteria and performance standards to measure the success of the mitigation wetlands. The success of the mitigation wetlands will be based upon how well it replaces the functions and services provided by seasonal wetlands that will be impacted by the Project. To be judged successful, the created wetlands must support a self-sustaining hydrophytic plant community that includes representative wetland taxa (i.e., wetland plant genera and species). A 5- year monitoring program will be implemented to monitor the progress of the wetland mitigation toward the established goals. At the end of each monitoring year, an annual report will be submitted to the USACE, RWQCB, and other resource agencies. This report will document the hydrological and vegetative condition of the mitigation wetland(s) and will recommend remedial measures as necessary to correct deficiencies. Submittal of Section 404 and 410 permit documentation and inclusion of permit regulations into construction documentation Inclusion of creation and preservation of new waters of the U.S. and State at a minimum of 2:1 ratio or as specified in USACE and RWQCB permitting conditions into construction documentation OR proof of purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits Submittal of detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan Recordation of conservation easement or other appropriate legal mechanism Inclusion of Best Management Practices in construction plans Prior to construction Prior to construction Prior to construction Prior to construction Prior to construction Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; USACE; RWQCB Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 25 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial (d) When implemented, creation of the wetlands (or purchase of wetland mitigation bank credits) will fully compensate for impacts to regulated waters of the U.S. (and State) resulting from construction of the Project. The Mitigation Land on the Southern Site will be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a conservation easement, or other appropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the mitigation wetlands are located within the permanently preserved open space area that will be maintained in perpetuity. (e) In lieu of creating waters of the U.S. and State on the Project Site, the applicant may also choose to purchase mitigation credits from a qualified wetland mitigation bank as approved in advance by the USACE and RWQCB. (f) Grading impacts associated with the creation of mitigation wetlands on the Southern Site shall also be minimized by the use of Best Management Practices to protect preserved wetlands and to ensure water quality in wetlands and other waters within the watershed. These practices can include installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other protective measures. During Project construction, a biological monitor shall be on-site to monitor the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters. Section 3.5—Cultural Resources MM CUL-1: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during Project construction or related activities, all activities within a 50-foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the find for its significance in terms of CEQA criteria. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate measures that Submittal of proof of discovery clause in construction contracts If cultural resources are identified onsite: Prior to construction During construction Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (contracted by Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 26 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial will be implemented to protect the resource, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Cultural resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone, wood, or shell artifacts, structural remains, privies, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the Project Site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. project applicant to notify CCC of materials encountered and provide archeologist’s submittal of findings and documentation; Section 15064.5 permit(s); copy of DPR 523 forms; project applicant, reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development); Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development MM CUL-3: A qualified cultural resources monitor shall be on- site during all grading and excavation activities. In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading or construction of the Project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with the applicable Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, and assessed for significance under CEQA. The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Submittal of proof of discovery clause in construction contracts Submittal of documentation of on-site inspection and monitoring If fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are identified onsite: project applicant to notify CCC of materials encountered and provide findings and documentation of avoidance or data recovery plan Prior to construction During grading and excavation activities During grading and excavation activities Project’s qualified Paleontological monitor (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) contracted by Project applicant reporting to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 27 MM CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. In addition, if during the course of grading or construction there is an inadvertent discovery of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the find until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the Project Site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: - The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. - The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. - The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Project applicant to notify County Coroner if human remains are encountered; County Coroner contacts NAHC and submits NAHC correspondence to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development During construction in the event human remains are discovered Project applicant; Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff: Coroner’s Division; NAHC; Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Section 3.6—Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 28 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM GEO-1: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to Contra Costa County for review and approval of the County Peer Review Geologist. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code’s geologic, soils, and seismic requirements. The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the Project plans. Submittal of design-level geotechnical report for the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development and County Geologist’s review and approval; approval of final grading and building plans by the County Geologist At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; Contra Costa County Geologist Section 3.7—Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1: Prior to the demolition of any on-site structure constructed prior to 1978 or suspected to contain asbestos or lead containing materials, the property owner or applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint. If either material is found to be present, the property owner or applicant shall retain a certified hazardous waste contractor to properly remove and dispose of all materials containing asbestos or lead paint in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The property owner or applicant shall submit documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that this contractor has been retained as part of the demolition permit application. Upon completion of removal and disposal of materials, the Project applicant shall provide documentation to Contra Costa County demonstrating that these activities were successfully completed. Submittal of qualified contractor ’s determination of presence or absence of asbestos or lead containing materials If asbestos or lead containing materials are found onsite: Submittal of documentation including a certified hazardous waste contractor in demolition plans Prior to the issuance of demolition permits Prior to the issuance of demolition permits Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Section 3.8—Hydrology and Water Quality Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 29 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM HYD-1: Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the Project, the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development shall verify that the applicant has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the then most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. Submittal of a project specific SWPPP prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Submittal of construction plans that incorporate implementation of SWPPP requirements; on-site verification Prior to the issuance of grading permits Prior to and during all construction activities Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 30 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Section 3.10—Noise Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 31 MM NOI-1a: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the Project: • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment are equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise- generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction disturbance area. In addition, the Project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall locate, to the maximum extent practical, on-site equipment in staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project Site during all Project construction. • For any construction work associated with implementation of the project that would occur within the City of San Ramon (such as the potential recycled water pipeline installation), such activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, prior to 7:30 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. on each day and on Saturdays and Sundays, prior to 9:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. • All construction activities associated with implementation of the project that will occur within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: - New Year’s Day (state and federal) - Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (state and federal) - Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (state and federal) - Lincoln’s Birthday (state) Submit construction plans that incorporate noise reduction mitigation Periodic on-site inspection. Prior to issuance of building permits During construction Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 32 - Cesar Chavez Day (state) - Memorial Day (state and federal) - Independence Day (state and federal) - Labor Day (state and federal) - Columbus Day (state and federal) - Veterans Day (state and federal) - Thanksgiving Day (state and federal) - Day after Thanksgiving (state) - Christmas Day (state and federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/201 1.asp California holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml • At least 10 days prior to the issuance of grading permits signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems. • An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise and or dust and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints. Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 33 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial • At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the Project Site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. MM NOI-1b: All proposed residential units located within 216 feet of the centerline of Camino Tassajara shall include an alternate form of ventilation, such as an air conditioning system, in order to ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. The building plans approved by the County shall reflect this requirement. Inclusion in project plans; submit evidence of compliant ventilation system for approval by Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division (BID) Prior to final project inspection Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development; BID Section 3.12—Transportation and Traffic MM TRANS-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall pay the applicable Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees, which shall serve as Payment of applicable fees Prior to the issuance of building permits Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 34 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial partial mitigation for the impact to freeway segments. The fees contribute to the construction of planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, interchange improvements as well as other regional transportation improvements, including (among others) the BART extension to Livermore. Impact fees are due at time of issuance of building permits. Payment of these fees would partially mitigate the incremental impact. Development, Tri- Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) MM TRANS-2: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund the optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive-Lawrence Road (Intersection #5). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane-Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. Updated timing and signal coordination shall be physically implemented prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 123rd on-site residential unit. Provision of funding Confirmation of signal optimization Prior to the issuance of the first building permit Prior to the issuance of the 123rd on-site residential unit Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FTLL-48806\2291349.1 C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 35 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-3a: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara/Hansen Lane-Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway (Intersection #4). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #5: Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive-Lawrence Road. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. MM TRANS-3b: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Oak Gate Drive-Lawrence Road (Intersection #5). This will require signal coordination with Intersection #4: Camino Tassajara and Hansen Lane-Diablo Vista Middle School Driveway. Both intersections are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. Provision of funding Prior to the issuance of the first building permit Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development MM TRANS-3c: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the intersection signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Buckingham Drive-Rassani Drive (Intersection #8). This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. Provision of funding Prior to the issuance of the first building permit Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County—Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program C:\Users\stully\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\4VGKPFRZ\26480008 Tassajara Parks MMRP_clean_09112020 (002).docx 36 Table 1 (cont.): Tassajara Parks Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM TRANS-3d: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project applicant shall fund optimization of the intersection signal timing at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Ranch Drive (Intersection #10). This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Danville. Modifications to signal timing shall be reviewed by and meet the approval of the Town of Danville and Contra Costa Public Works Department prior to implementation. Provision of funding Prior to the issuance of the first building permit Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development MM TRANS-3e: Prior to the opening of the Future Equestrian Staging Area, the Project applicant shall add a 50-foot southbound right-turn pocket to the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Finley Road (Intersection #17). MM TRANS-6a: The Project applicant shall construct all on-site internal intersections to be side-street stop-controlled or yield controlled intersections at the minor approaches. Inclusion in project plans Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development MM TRANS-6b: Prior implementation of any improvements at the Future Equestrian Staging Area, the Project applicant shall clear brush and any obstructions that limit the sight distance within the horizontal radius of Finley Road to ensure that adequate sight distance (i.e., ≥ 187 feet) is provided in the northerly direction from the Future Equestrian Staging Area’s access driveway. 3.13—Utilities and Service Systems MM USS-1: Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the Project applicant must demonstrate to the DCD that all required approvals are obtained to implement provision of water to the Project Site via the selected water supply. Evidence that required approvals have been obtained Prior to recordation of the Final Map Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, DCD Water Conservation Measures Feasibility Memo & Associated EBMUD Comments FTLL-48806\2435037.1 1 965 University Avenue, Suite 222 Sacramento, California 95825 (916) 669-9356 MEMORANDUM To: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Date: May 4, 2021 From: Greg Young, P.E. Galen Davis Subject: Tassajara Parks Water Demand Offset Updated Preliminary Feasibility Analysis _____________________________________________________________________________ This Water Demand Offset Updated Preliminary Feasibility Analysis (Analysis) sets forth an updated evaluation to the preliminary draft Memo (Draft Memo) submitted on February 24, 2021 by Tully & Young, Inc., including, among other items, further development of a market analysis and related provision of preliminary cost estimates for implementing the water demand offset approach described and analyzed in the Tassajara Parks Project (Project) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2014052089) as well as specific responses to comments received on the Draft Memo from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD or District). I. INTRODUCTION By way of brief background, Contra Costa County (County) prepared an EIR for the Tassajara Parks Project (Project EIR) pursuant to the requirements of CEQA that contained a Water Supply Evaluation (WSE), conducted an impact analysis, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of water conservation measures, through the funding, facilitation, and acceleration of those measures, which would offset the proposed Project’s water demand, with an additional ample “margin of safety.” The Draft Memo was prepared to address questions raised by District staff in terms of the feasibility of the proposed offset strategy identified in the Project EIR. In response to the Draft Memo, EBMUD staff submitted to the County comments dated March 15, 2021 (Comment Letter), which included recommendations regarding the incorporation of different and/or additional assumptions (collectively, EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions). In particular, and as detailed more fully below, the Comment Letter sets forth certain assumptions that could be construed as narrowing potential conservation offset opportunities, consistent with District staff’s stated goal of managing uncertainties to help ensure that risk is not shifted to existing EBMUD customers. 2 District staff’s concerns in this regard are appropriate, and therefore this Analysis evaluates feasibility utilizing those assumptions. That said, in addition to the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions, this Analysis includes an evaluation that utilizes other reasonable assumptions and augmented methodologies supported by review of available empirical data, information, and materials from the District and other public water entities that have successfully implemented water conservation programs in California and other locations throughout the nation. In so doing, this Analysis is not intended to dictate specific details of a final water conservation offset proposal since the decision whether to pursue such a strategy and the particular measures included in such a program will ultimately be within the discretion and purview of EBMUD’s Board of Directors; and any such decision would only come after the County Board of Supervisors first exercises its local land use authority over the Project. Accordingly, this Analysis expressly acknowledges the following: (1) EBMUD’s Board of Directors must ultimately approve the Project’s water conservation offset program, as memorialized in a binding agreement between EBMUD and the Project applicant; and (2) the County, as the lead agency for CEQA purposes, retains the discretion to determine the adequacy of the analysis set forth in the Project EIR. Further, the purpose of this Analysis is to provide the District and the County with additional information, data, and supporting evaluation that amplifies and clarifies the Project EIR’s basis for confirming that the proposed Project’s water demand offset approach is feasible. Specifically, this Analysis considers the comments and methodologies suggested in the Comment Letter from EBMUD staff, and is organized as follows: S It summarizes each key issue raised by the Comment Letter; S It provides a detailed response to each key issue; and S It contains two refined evaluations: (a) one using only the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions, and (b) one using a blend of assumptions, including those recommended by EBMUD staff as well as those supported by empirical data from EBMUD and other public water entities that have successfully implemented similar water conservation programs in California and elsewhere in the nation. Comments from EBMUD staff as set forth in the Comment Letter and other comments received from the District in response to the Project EIR are appreciated. These comments help ensure that a thoughtful and robust water supply evaluation is conducted for purposes of informed decision making. In addition, a collaborative approach among the District, the County, and the Project team will provide opportunities for a meaningful water conservation strategy that offsets the proposed Project’s water demand, with an additional ample “margin of safety,” in a manner that can be effectively and feasibly implemented. We look forward to continuing productive dialogue with the District and County on this matter. 3 Section 1 – Comment Summaries and Responses The following provides summaries of EBMUD staff’s comments on key issues provided in the Comment Letter accompanied by responses identifying how the comment(s) are addressed and/or otherwise incorporated into the two refined evaluations included under Section 2 and Section 3 below. The organization of this Section 1 is intended to track the order of the comments set forth in the Comment Letter for ease of reference. I. GLOBAL COMMENTS A. Conservation Offset Target 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Analysis should target 170 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water conservation offset, derived from a 2:1 offset ratio for EBMUD staff’s recommended estimate of Project water demand of 85 AFY at build-out. 2. Tully & Young Response: The importance of a thorough evaluation of the feasibility of conservation offsets is critical to ensure impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level and also to confirm that the ultimate conservation offset program does not shift potential water supply-related risks and costs to EBMUD and its existing customers. Therefore, these are treated as fundamental goals in evaluating the feasibility of potential conservation measures. The Project EIR details conclusions about the estimated water demand; the basis for these conclusions are set forth more fully therein. However, as noted in the Project EIR, it is acknowledged that the EBMUD Board of Directors will need to concur with the demand figure that would ultimately be utilized in developing the water conservation offset program. Accordingly, the two updated evaluations that follow in Section 2 and Section 3 incorporate the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumption of an offset of 170 AFY in water savings for purposes of evaluating feasibility, which can be achieved in a number of ways as described herein. B. Consideration of Conservation Program Market Potential 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Analysis should reflect a reasonable market potential for conservation program participation; in conducting this evaluation, market potential should be limited to the current Customer Assistance Program (CAP)-enrolled subset of customers of 6,000 – 8,000 households. 2. Tully & Young Response: The Project applicant has proposed to focus the Project’s conservation program by targeting lower-income households1 in EBMUD’s service area. Doing so would have dual goals: (1) identifying a targeted, although appropriately broad, population for purposes of 1 Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5, a lower income household is defined as having an annual income below 80% of area median income. 4 effectively achieving the required offset; and (2) supporting conservation efforts for lower- income households through adequate subsidies to facilitate implementation. EBMUD serves nearly 1.45 million people,2 with nearly 390,000 total connections – the overwhelming majority of which are residential connections. Based on available data from EBMUD, there are likely approximately 69,000 households that qualify for the District’s water rate relief program referred to as the CAP, although currently only about 7,000 households (i.e., about 10% of total estimated eligible households) are actually participating even though EBMUD has extensive outreach to attract participants. Therefore, EBMUD staff suggests the Project’s conservation program focus should be limited to the existing 7,000 CAP households. In response, one of the two refined evaluations provided below utilizes this EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumption; i.e., limiting the feasibility analysis to this subset of existing CAP-eligible households. In addition, this Analysis evaluates feasibility if the program were to extend beyond the limited sub-set of 7,000 existing enrolled households in the EBMUD CAP. Doing so would be acceptable for several reasons, as follows. As a preliminary matter, limiting the feasibility analysis to 7,000 of the 69,000 eligible households is an unnecessary filter. While there may be overlap with CAP-enrolled households, conservation programs could easily gain one-time participants from other low-income households that may not otherwise enroll in CAP. Additionally, it is likely that there are more than 69,000 lower income households within the EBMUD service area that could be eligible for an income-targeted conservation program. For example, the City of Richmond alone has approximately 37,000 households3 with a median annual income of $72,000.4 According to available Census data, 32% of the households in Richmond are below the 80% level of the area median income, equating to nearly 12,000 Richmond households that would be presumed to qualify for a lower-income program. Census data for Oakland shows similar results, with approximately 162,000 households having a median annual income at $82,000.5 Moreover, 40% of Oakland households would be considered lower-income households6 since they earn an average of $65,000 or less annually. These figures would equate to nearly 65,000 households in the city of Oakland that would qualify as lower-income under the State’s definition. Based on these figures, there are approximately 77,000 lower-income households in the cities of Richmond and Oakland alone. These figures show that conservation programs could target a wider array of low-income households than may qualify pursuant to the District’s current CAP rules. Moreover, with respect to barriers that prevent households from participating in the CAP and other water rate assistance programs, it is important to note the fundamental differences between this type of program and water conservation programs. The barriers to enrollment of water rate assistance 2https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=31&tinwsys_st_code= CA&wsnumber=CA0110005. 3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/richmondcitycalifornia. 4 https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0660620-richmond-ca/. 5 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oaklandcitycalifornia/HSD410219#HSD410219 . 6 Based on available census data, the 80% threshold in Oakland would be met by those households earning less than $65,000 annually. 5 programs are well documented by both EBMUD and other sources, and thus EBMUD’s comments regarding CAP participation are acknowledged. A SPUR report, Keeping the Water On, January 2021, outlines barriers to enrollment for CAP and other rate reduction programs. Examples of such barriers include: Complex application processes; additional documentation; and limiting low income thresholds. The EBMUD CAP program application requires verification of gross income for all members of the household in the form of tax returns and/or applicable benefit statements for up to twelve different sources of income. Proof of identity is also required for every member of the household, including minors; Social Security cards are not accepted, only Driver’s License or California ID for adults, and medical card or school ID for minors. Appropriate income thresholds are also particularly important in a high-cost region like the Bay Area. A higher income threshold is important in a high-cost region such as the Bay Area, where even households making more than average may struggle with the cost of living. The SPUR report estimates 89,746 eligible low-income households in the EBMUD service area. As evidenced by the success of programs in other service areas, streamlined application processes and less rigid qualification requirements for water conservation programs can increase program participation. For example, the City of Sacramento’s (Sacramento) leak repair assistance program only requires that participants live within a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) as identified by a map published alongside the online application. They will soon be loosening the DAC map requirement to include low income qualified households located anywhere within the service area. The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) application process for their leak repair assistance program is equally streamlined. Further, since participation in a conservation program is a one-time activity, continued enrollment, as is required for a rate assistance program, is unnecessary, which may further encourage participation. Other types of assistance programs also provide helpful models for increasing program adoption. As noted in the SPUR report: “Enrollment rates in other assistance programs are useful as benchmarks for the kinds of penetration that are possible in assistance programs. CalFresh, the state system to provide food aid, is generally considered to have a dismal enrollment rate compared to most assistance programs but still reaches 71% of eligible customers. CARE reaches 84% of eligible customers. This suggests that water assistance programs could reach more people with more resources and more streamlined application processes.” - SPUR report, Keeping the Water On, January 2021. For the refined evaluation in Section 2, the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumption to limit the potential participants to the 7,000 CAP enrollees is used. However, the analysis in Section 3 does not artificially limit offset opportunities to current CAP enrollees. Rather, it defers to EBMUD staff’s estimate of 69,000 potential lower-income households that are CAP-eligible. And, the analysis anticipates the 10% participation rate realized by CAP would also occur (e.g., 10% of the eligible low-income households would have a potential leak or desire to replace toilet or take advantage of other available conservation opportunity to be addressed free of charge). 6 II. LEAK REPAIR PROGRAM A. Crediting Achieved Water Savings to the Program 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Project should only receive credit for leak repairs that would not have occurred but for the proposed Project’s offset program. The Analysis does not assume that leak repairs it may fund would not have happened without the Project-funded program. 2. Tully & Young Response: Staff’s comment indicates that a certain number of leak repairs would occur in the ordinary course without the Project-funded program, and therefore this Analysis should not take credit for those repairs. While this general comment is noted, staff did not suggest any specific assumptions to be included in this Analysis. Nor did staff identify any specific existing or proposed programs that would subsidize leak repairs for lower-income households. Although the basis upon which staff claims that such repairs would occur is unclear, it is recognized that some leak repair would occur “naturally” throughout all households in the service area – including low-income households presumed to qualify for a leak repair program. While it is reasonable to assume that, in some circumstances, significant leaks discovered by households with resources to remedy them would be fixed and that this would occur in the ordinary course, it would not seem likely this would happen as often in lower income households given the limited financial resources. However, the Project’s demand offset target has a 2:1 margin of safety, which as discussed in this memo equates to 170 acre-feet per year, would accommodate any concern of “excessive” crediting for Project-funded conservation savings. Therefore, it is considered reasonable for the Draft Memo to credit achieved water savings from the Project-funded program without deducting any theoretical repairs in lower-income households given the often-significant financial cost and other constraints that could reasonably be assumed to be in place that would prevent such leaks from being repaired. Moreover, as explained more fully below, the total amount of estimated savings from the Project- funded program described in the Draft Memo were derived from approximately 1,350 leak repairs, which reflects a conservative 2% of the potential low-income pool of 69,000 households. Even if the number of leak repairs increased to 3,000, this would still be considered a reasonable assumption based on the broader pool, since it would reflect less than 5% of those eligible households. This conclusion is further supported by evidence obtained from other successful leak repair programs and explained in more detail in the Section B: Considering Market Potential. However, to accommodate EBMUD staff’s concern, and absent any actual water use data,7 the first refined evaluation presented in Section 2 reduced the amount of assumed savings from each leak to only 1,000 gallons per month – or 12,000 gallons per year. That is a 50% reduction from the assumptions utilized in the Draft Memo, which reflected the low end of the water-savings data seen by 7 Tully & Young requested water use data for Single-Family Residential (SFR) accounts from the District. These requests included monthly metered water use for: (1) All SFR accounts in the service area; (2) SFR accounts tied to geographic indicator for DAC communities; (3) SFR accounts identified by the District as CAP eligible; and (4) SFR accounts currently enrolled in the CAP program. EBMUD staff declined to provide this information based primarily on concerns about privacy; instead, staff simply verbally informed Tully & Young that currently enrolled CAP households have very low water use. The basis for this assumption is unclear. 7 successful programs such as San Antonio Water System (SAWS), which, even after 20 years of operating its program, still experiences savings averaging between 2,000 gallons to 4,000 gallons per month – or 24,000 to 48,000 gallons per year.8 In addition, to provide information that reflects the experience of other successful programs, the second refined evaluation included in Section 3 incorporates the previous estimated savings of 2,000 gallons per month; this is still seen as conservative given that it represents the low end of the average savings as reflected in available data. B. Considering Market Potential 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo underestimates the challenges for program implementation, and thus overestimates the opportunity to successfully achieve the estimated conservation offset. Two main issues are identified: (1) the basis for finding 1,350 leaks to repair is not clear, and (2) getting participation beyond those already participating in the CAP program would be very difficult. Furthermore, EBMUD does not have Advanced Meter infrastructure (AMI), making the identification of potential leaks challenging. Thus, the Analysis should be limited to only repairing leaks that may occur within the current set of CAP enrolled households, which ranges from 6,000 to 8,000 households at any time. 2. Tully & Young Response: As detailed in the Draft Memo and further explained below, the data available from two programs were utilized to provide a reasonable basis to demonstrate the market potential leak repair programs. The City of Sacramento shows the large market opportunity for a new program, and SAWS demonstrates the long term effectiveness of a mature leak repair program that is still addressing a meaningful market for water savings.9 In 2020 SAWS made 1,328 repairs in a service area with an estimated 95,000 households qualifying as low income. The Draft Memo utilizes 2020 water savings data from SAWS showing that at 2,000 gallons per month savings, 1,350 leak repairs would achieve 100 AFY offset – which extrapolated, would anticipate that less than 3,000 repairs would achieve the 170 AFY offset. Notably, the SAWS “Plumbers to People” program is still finding leaks after decades of operation, and they are still successfully enrolling customers by proactively identifying higher than average water use without the help of AMI technology.10 The City of Sacramento provides insight into the opportunity available for a new leak repair program targeting larger leaks in a new market. In Sacramento’s first year they assisted 297 customers repairing 1,310 plumbing fixtures, for a savings of 50 AFY. In 2020, Sacramento addressed just 25 houses with 8 Table 3 in the Draft Memo based savings at a conservative average of 2,000 GPM per fix, or 24,00 gallons per year. The City of Sacramento’s 2020 leak repair program saved an average of 75,000 GPM per fix due to larger leak fixes. 9 San Antonio Water Service (SAWS) Plumbers to People program has been operating for almost 27 years. The City of Sacramento modeled Leak Free Sacramento after the SAWS program and it has been successfully operating for about 4 years. 10 SAWS and EBMUD service areas have similarly sized populations. San Antonio has 1.5 million people, EBMUD service area contains approximately 1.4 million people. 8 large leaks for a savings of 71.49 AFY — which extrapolated, would anticipate that about 60 repairs would achieve the 170 AFY offset. Sacramento has an estimated 73,000 low income households. These two program examples from Sacramento and SAWS are notably different in their market penetration as they are programs at very different stages. Still, in an effort to be conservative this Analysis uses the lower water savings benchmark from SAWS while acknowledging that a new program has large market potential with high opportunity for water savings. Tully & Young recognizes that if the Project’s leak repair program’s “eligible account” assumption is limited to the current 7,000 CAP enrollee audience, there would be far less opportunity to find existing leaks and realize conservation savings. Therefore, to address EBMUD staff’s comment, the first of the refined evaluations, as presented in Section 2, includes the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumption that limits the pool of available households to the approximately 7,000 CAP enrollees. The second refined evaluation, presented in Section 3, acknowledges that within the recognized low- income households, there would likely be significant additional opportunities for water savings at substantially lower cost, particularly by targeting larger leaks initially. Therefore, this evaluation incorporates the assumption of the broader potential pool of 69,000 low-income households from which to identify interested parties. C. Program Cost Estimates 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo should reflect local costs and reflect the challenges with implementation that can drive the per-fix cost higher. EBMUD’s suggested full-time equivalent cost for one person to run the proposed leak repair program is $300,000 per year, and, as an example, the cost for a plumber to install pressure regulators is $1,500 per instance. Furthermore, cost information from San Antonio is not comparable because (1) the SAWS program has been established for several decades, and (2) the cost of living in the SF Bay Area is substantially higher than San Antonio. 2. Tully & Young Response: To ensure a thoughtful and conservative analysis, the Draft Memo relied on available data from two model programs that provided a range in budget and cost. For example, in the initial years of operation, SAWS targeted large leaks, but after almost three decades, SAWS has shifted in this regard based on an understanding that the majority of the leaks found are smaller but easier to fix, resulting in a lower average cost per fix but a lower water savings per repair. In comparison, Leak Free Sacramento’s program is newer, and in 2020 they focused on large outdoor leaks, which resulted in a higher average cost per repair but with far greater water savings. Put another way, the cost of leak repair depends on the nature of the subject leak. For instance, smaller leaks normally correlate to a lower repair cost, with larger leaks typically correlating to higher repair costs. The Draft Memo demonstrated this correlation with available data from the two different leak repair programs: (1) In 2020, San Antonio Water Service fixed 1,328 leaks and saved 97.8 acre-feet, at a cost per repair of $442; and (2) the City of Sacramento fixed 25 leaks and saved 71.49 acre-feet, at a cost per repair of $2,427. Many of the leaks in Sacramento were outdoor and involved large leaks on service laterals. The total leak repair program budgets in 2020 were $586,782 for SAWS, and $60,680 for the 9 City of Sacramento.11 In other words, the Draft Memo incorporated a range of assumptions to ensure a thorough analysis. However, in response to EBMUD staff’s comments, both refined evaluations in this Analysis use the benchmarks provided by EBMUD staff for administrative program costs. The suggested contractor cost of $1,500 is a reasonable middle ground for the purposes of a feasibility analysis considering the data from the other Leak Repair programs. In addition, the request to include anticipated startup costs and program development, which are reflected with a “Marketing” line item, have been included. The basis for the figure of $300,000 as an annual salary for an EBMUD employee to operate the proposed leak repair program has not been validated12, however, the suggested annual FTE costs of $300,000 for one Water Conservation Representative is used. III. DIRECT INSTALLATION OF TOILETS A. Crediting Achieved Water Savings to the Program 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo estimates cost of water savings by crediting the program for all water savings resulting from program-funded toilet installations. This is identified as problematic because it does not assume “passive” conservation savings, which equates to eventual replacement of older fixtures with newer, more water efficient fixtures that meet current Plumbing Code (Code) requirements. Applicable Code provisions require new toilets of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less, and because of the “passive” savings assumption, installing 1.28 gpf toilets would not create “new water” for the Project. To receive water savings credit under this assumption, EBMUD staff submits that the program would be required to install toilets more efficient than 1.28 gpf and “new water” would be calculated based on the difference between 1.28 gpf and the gpf rating for each toilet installed through the program. 2. Tully & Young Response: For similar reasons as provided above regarding theoretical leak fixes, it is considered reasonable for the Draft Memo to credit achieved water savings from the Project-funded program without deducting any savings from theoretical toilet replacements due to current codes mandating the sale of only high-efficiency toilets. While it is reasonable to assume that some amount of natural toilet replacement could happen over time, the extent is unknown and unpredictable, particularly within lower-income households. Moreover, EBMUD staff did not point to any existing or potential future programs to be implemented by them (without the Project) that would reliably facilitate such a replacement program or an indication of 11 Program expenditure includes administrative, contractor, and associated FTE costs for outreach and leak identification. 12 According to the employment website Indeed.com, an EBMUD Water Resource Engineer has an average monthly salary of $10,500, equivalent to $126,000 per year (https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Ebmud/salaries/Water%20Resources%20Engineer?from=acme-salaries-v2). According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages reflect about 70% of the cost to an employer (https://www.bls.gov/regions/southwest/news-release/employercostsforemployeecompensation_regions.htm). Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume the FTE cost for an EBMUD Water Resource Engineer would be around $180,000. 10 how many high-water use toilets may remain. Replacing inefficient toilets with high efficiency toilets immediately nets durable water savings, and that is why many urban water suppliers, including EBMUD, have run toilet rebate programs to help speed replacement.13 One could reasonably presume the toilets targeted in a Project-funded replacement program that focuses on lower-income households would generate real water savings that otherwise would be unlikely occur, at least until a toilet stopped functioning, became irreparable, and required owner-financed replacement. Therefore, it is reasonable for a toilet replacement to treat the water savings as “new water.” Additionally, as noted previously, the Project’s demand offset target has a 2:1 margin of safety, which as discussed in this memo equates to 170 acre-feet per year. This offset would appear to accommodate any concern of “excessive” crediting for Project-funded toilet replacements. However, in response to EBMUD staff’s comment, the first refined evaluation, presented in Section 2, includes the above-described EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumption (i.e., limiting the estimated savings based on the difference between 1.28 gpf and the ultra-efficient 0.8 gpf replacement toilet), netting 0.48 gpf, or 2.4 gallons per toilet per person per day (GPD). The second refined evaluation, presented in Section 3, incorporates assumptions based on the reasoning above and empirical data described in more detail below; i.e., achieved water savings of 27.8 GPD per toilet. B. Water Savings Per Toilet Installed 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo assumes 22-33 GPD per toilet installation but is not clear about the underlying assumptions. As suggested in the Crediting Achieved Water Savings to the Program section, the Project should only claim credit for water savings resulting from installation of toilets more efficient than 1.28 gpf, and also limit the analysis to CAP-enrolled customers who have an average household size of 1.9 people. An example methodology for water savings, assuming 0.8 gpf toilets were installed and flushed an average of twelve times per day, would equate to 6 GPD of savings per toilet based on calculating the difference between 1.28 gpf and 0.8 gpf. 2. Tully & Young Response: In an effort to further clarify the basis for the underlying assumptions for water savings, the Draft Memo did not use a GPD per toilet metric; rather it described annual savings per toilet based on available data from three different water suppliers’ toilet replacement programs. These savings calculations were derived from each supplier’s own savings data, and the Draft Memo presented a range based on actual savings data (i.e., from the most conservative to the largest reported annual savings per toilet). As detailed in the Draft Memo, this empirical data shows that annual water savings estimates ranged from 8,578 to 12,500 gallons per year (GPY) per toilet. However, in response to EBMUD staff’s comments, the first refined evaluation, included in Section 2, uses a methodology that calculates savings based on household size and number of flushes per day, 13 EBMUD ended its toilet rebate program indicating it had achieved the desired objectives. However, EBMUD has acknowledged additional high-use toilets are still in service but their owners were not incentivized by the rebate alone to replace them. A replacement program can target these additional fixtures. 11 while incorporating the limited savings assumed (i.e., the difference between 1.28 gpf and 0.8 gpf). This limits the savings to 6 GPD per toilet and an average household size of 1.9 people. As explained in Section 3 below, the second analysis does not use a methodology that incorporates household size. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the average household size in EBMUD Census designated lower-income areas is 2.99 people,14 which would substantially increase the assumptions for number of flushes per day compared to the 1.9-person average household size that EBMUD staff directs should be used in calculating water offsets. As previously noted, the second refined evaluation assumes an achieved water savings of 27.8 GPD (10,147 GPY) per toilet. These savings are based on updated empirical data used by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to calculate conservation savings for their toilet replacement program.15 SFPUC, being an adjacent water service area to EBMUD, is helpful to model water savings and rate of replacement for high efficiency toilets. C. Market Potential. 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo assumes approximately 2,700 to 3,800 older inefficient toilets in the homes of CAP-enrolled customers would be replaced by new high efficiency toilets. EBMUD staff does not believe it is likely that this many inefficient toilets exist or that that many households could be identified and convinced to participate in a toilet replacement program. In recent years, CAP enrollment has ranged from approximately 6,000 to 8,300 households and the analysis should limit the market potential of the program to that subset of customers. 2. Tully & Young Response: The Draft Memo does not simply “work backwards”; i.e., selecting the number of existing CAP households that would need to have their toilets replaced in order to achieve the required water savings. Rather, the number of toilets that were assumed to be replaced was based on empirical data available from three model water suppliers to determine the number of toilets necessary to achieve the target, which equated to a total of 2,700 to 3,800 toilets, as detailed in the Draft Memo. In other words, the Draft Memo calculated the total number of toilets needed to be replaced in the service area, based on the reported water savings from three successful programs operated by municipal waters suppliers, to demonstrate an ability to achieve the target offset. Achieving the range of 2,700 to 3,800 replaced toilets within EBMUD’s service area is considered reasonable given that it reflects replacing one toilet in about 5% of the approximately 69,000 lower- income qualified households. It is likely many of these homes have more than one toilet, which would potentially achieve the target offset with fewer households (but the same number of toilets). SFPUC, for example, replaced 4,462 toilets in their toilet replacement program over the course of three years, even 14 California Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2019. Department of Water Resources recognizes Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) based on Household Median Income (HHI). EBMUD Long-Term Financial Stability Workshop identified Oakland, Richmond, San Pablo with HHI below the DAC threshold within the District’s service area. 15 SFPUC’s Water Conservation Tracking Model counts all of the water savings from a toilet replacement to active conservation the first year of installation and then applies a natural replacement rate of 3%. The model uses an empirical data observation water savings estimate. For toilet estimates (M.Cubed and A&N Technical Services (2018a, 2018b) estimated toilet, showerhead, and aerator water savings from direct installation bathroom retrofit programs in California. Mean savings for HETs installed in single-family households was 27.8 gpd (10,147 gpy). 12 after a highly successful toilet rebate program achieved 75% penetration of high efficiency toilets in their service area. The City of Tucson averaged about 850 toilet replacements per year from 2013 – 2016, also after highly successful implementation of toilet rebate programs, and for a smaller pool of qualified low-income households.16 As discussed above in the global comment response regarding Conservation Program Market Potential, the first refined evaluation, included in Section 2, incorporates the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumption that limits the pool of candidates to the subset of 7,000. The second refined evaluation, included in Section 3, demonstrates program participation and saturation models based on a pool of 69,000 low-income qualified households in the EBMUD service area, based on available data from EBMUD. While it is difficult to calculate exactly how many toilets remain in the EBMUD service area after rebate programs and owner-financed replacements,17 for purposes of this Analysis it is reasonable to compare the replacement potential with neighboring SFPUC data. In 2016, SFPUC estimated that 200,000 inefficient toilets still existed in its service area even after years of aggressive implementation of toilet rebate programs and achieving 75% saturation of efficient toilets for residential connections.18 The EBMUD service area population is much smaller than SFPUC (about 1.4 million people for EBMUD vs. 2.7 million people for SFPUC), but even conservatively applying half the opportunity, this would still equate to approximately 100,000 inefficient toilets still in use. Moreover, depending on the actual success of EBMUD’s historical toilet rebate program, the number of inefficient toilets still in use could be much higher. D. Program Costs 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: Program costs should be revised. The Draft Memo estimates program costs based on expenditures reported by the SFPUC and the City of Tucson for comparable toilet replacement programs. Two problems are identified with this: (1) it may not be appropriate to assume that costs from a different geographic area would be comparable to costs in the Bay Area, and (2) administrative costs might not be comparable between EBMUD and SFPUC. Additionally, other costs for implementing a new program should be considered, including liability for installation. The Analysis could use the cost benchmarks suggested by EBMUD in the Comment Letter. 2. Tully & Young Response: As accurately noted in the Comment Letter, available cost data from SFPUC, the City of Tucson, and the SAWS were used in the Draft Memo to reasonably estimate 16 Tucson is estimated to have approximately 48,000 low-income households. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/tucsoncityarizona 17 Tully & Young were unable to find readily available reports about toilet rebates and high efficiency toilet saturation in the EBMUD service area. EBMUD staff declined Tully & Young’s request for rebate program data. 18 SFPUC implemented a direct install toilet replacement program to the residents participating in SFPUC’s low- income Customer Assistance Program through 2020. It replaced 4,462 inefficient toilets and urinals between 2016- 2020. Each toilet accounted for 12,068 gallons in annual savings (~20% savings). Costs included $582 per single family install per toilet, and between $532 and $667 for multi-family install per toilet, with these costs including contractor, administrative and FTE charges. 13 potential program costs. These programs were selected because they are true toilet replacement programs, not rebate programs, and SFPUC is located in a similar market (the San Francisco Bay Area). Additionally, all three water service providers were cooperative in providing detail and costs basis for their programs. Moreover, the three programs provided a range of costs to help evaluate feasibility. These costs were represented in the Draft Memo by a cost per toilet that included plumbing contractor and administrative expenditures (FTE and outreach/marketing). While it is acknowledged that different geographic markets have different costs of living, the cost data, which reflects a range of jurisdictions including the very expensive City of San Francisco, provides reasonable benchmarks for the EBMUD service area. However, in response to EBMUD staff’s comments, both refined evaluations in this Analysis use the EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions for administrative program costs. In addition, consistent with EBMUD staff’s direction, both refined evaluations include startup costs and program development, as reflected with a “Marketing” line item. Finally, also as requested by EBMUD staff, the suggested annual FTE costs of $300,000 for one Water Conservation Representative is used in both refined evaluations. Labor costs in both refined evaluations are based on average plumber price quotes for install and removal of a high efficiency toilet in the East Bay Area (i.e., reflect comparatively high cost of living in the Bay Area). The toilet model used is a Niagara Stealth 0.8 GPF Ultra-High-Efficiency currently priced at $12919 at Home Depot; this model was selected as a reasonable proxy for the likely bulk-purchase of a high-quality toilet. IV. Graywater Rebate Program A. Necessary Information 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Project team should provide more information about a proposed graywater program. Specifically: what type of system(s) would be funded, and would the systems be installed for new development or to retrofit existing buildings? EBMUD already has a graywater rebate program for retrofits of existing structures. 2. Tully & Young Response: Tully & Young appreciates the opportunity to further expand on the graywater conservation program opportunity. The program model outlined in the Draft Memo, which is based on available data from the City of Tucson, involves mostly “laundry-to-landscape” systems that divert clothes washer water to the landscape instead of the sewer system. EBMUD’s current graywater rebate program offers a rebate of up to $50 for the purchase of a three-way diverter valve, used for the laundry-to-landscape system. Typical laundry to landscape graywater systems are simple designs but require additional materials and labor beyond the three-way diverter valve. In addition, they need PVC pipe and fittings, an “auto vent” or check valve used for air gap, HDPE (high density polyethylene plastic) tubing, valves, and barbed irrigation drips, among other components 19 Often times, buying in bulk for toilet replacement programs can further reduce costs per toilet. However, $129 per toilet is considered reasonable for purposes of this Analysis. 14 for more involved designs. Single fixture systems such as the laundry to landscape systems described above do not require permits if there is no connection to the local potable water supply. At EBMUD direction, Tully & Young is willing to explore other, more involved graywater systems, including integrated systems in new construction. These can include onsite water reuse using recycled graywater for toilet flushing in addition to landscape irrigation. These systems would require city and county specific evaluations as permitting is subject to local authority. B. Market Potential. 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo is not clear whether the City of Tucson graywater rebate example covers one or two years. Assuming the same rate of rebates and water savings shown by the City of Tucson, it would take 140 years to achieve 100 AFY in savings. The low participation rate in the Draft Memo program example suggests that funding a higher rebate amount might incentivize increased participation. EBMUD suggests estimating likely participation rates and then how much water could be saved based on those rates. 2. Tully & Young Response: The Tucson rebate program results detailed in the Draft Memo were for a single fiscal year (12 months). Between 2011 and 2019, this program approved 165 rebates, which resulted in cumulative water savings of 27 AF at a total cost of $82,700. At this rate, it would take about 35 years to reach 100 AF in savings, not 140 years. Nevertheless, Tully & Young concurs with EBMUD staff that increasing the rebate amount would likely increase participation and water savings potential. Further analysis in this regard is provided below. C. Program Costs. 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: EBMUD would like specific information about the type of graywater systems, costs of systems, rebate amounts, permitting requirements, operation and maintenance, in order to better evaluate the program potential. The Draft Memo should not assume costs in a different city would be comparable to costs for the Bay Area. 2. Tully & Young Response: As previously detailed in the Draft Memo, available data from the established Tucson program provides up to $1,000 at 50% of labor and materials costs for graywater systems. The East Bay's Graywater Action organization estimates system materials cost between $150- $300.20 Labor costs vary, but typically add between $500-$2,000 to the materials cost, depending on the size and complexity of the system. Based on the foregoing, funding up to $1,000 for 50% of the costs of a laundry to landscape system fits within these general Bay Area costs outlined by the local Graywater Action organization. The Draft Memo averages the cost per rebate at $765.35. 20 https://greywateraction.org/laundry-landscape/ 15 D. Program Savings 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: Different graywater systems provide different savings, and assumptions vary depending on the system and where the water is coming from. It would be helpful to see how the savings estimate is calculated. 2. Tully & Young Response: Tully & Young concur with EBMUD staff that different systems provide different savings, and further elaborate on the anticipated savings methodology as follows. The City of Tucson calculates water savings for its graywater rebate program using a mix of field research and customer consumption analysis. Savings for each program are calculated with the known information about fixture usage and behavior patterns. Annual water savings are calculated by multiplying the number of installations with an average annual savings number. This calculation is done for the expected lifetime of the fixtures, which is based on industry research for fixture devices and has been adopted by conservation organizations such as the Alliance for Water Efficiency21. The calculation for determining water savings for each Tucson graywater rebate is 37.2 gpd, or 13, 615 gallons per annum. This savings number is calculated by multiplying the percent end use average of clothes washers (16%) and Tucson’s Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD), to get 13.5 gpd. This number is multiplied by the average persons per single-family household (2.76). A similar calculation and program modeling could be made using EBMUD GPCD and household size data, if EBMUD were to provide the data. The refined evaluations below do not include updated analysis for graywater program costs or savings because the leak repair and toilet replacement programs could, on their own, or in combination with each other, achieve the target offset. On its own graywater is not expected provide the amount of savings necessary to achieve the Project’s 2:1 offset target. V. ONSITE WATER REUSE PROJECT 1. EBMUD Staff Comment: The Draft Memo does not estimate costs for an onsite water reuse program. EBMUD recommends using SFPUC’s water reuse grant program to develop cost estimates for an onsite water reuse program. 2. Tully & Young Response: Tully & Young recognize that the Draft Memo does not contain cost estimates; instead, it focused on water savings potential supported by examples of successful program implementation. The SFPUC onsite water reuse grant program applies a qualifying offset quantity to incentivize applicants to implement water reuse, storage, and recycling infrastructure. The economics of the grant program value onsite water reuse at a premium as shown in the table below. It is worth noting that water savings would accumulate annually, thus reducing the cost/AF of the initial grant amount. 21Tucson Water Conservation Program FY 2018-2019 Annual Report, and https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/ 16 The Project’s refined evaluations below do not include updated analysis for onsite water reuse program costs or savings because the leak repair and toilet replacement programs could, on their own, or in combination with each other, achieve the target offset. SFPUC Onsite Water Reuse Grant Annual Savings (Gallons) Grant Funding AF Saved Cost/AF (first year only) 450,000 $200,000 1.38 $144,822.67 1,000,000 $500,000 3.06 $162,925.50 3,000,000 $1,000,000 9.21 $108,617.00 Section 2 - Water Offset Program Models – Using EBMUD Staff- Suggested Assumptions As described above, this Analysis presents two refined evaluations in order to ensure a robust feasibility assessment. This Section 2 is the first of these two refined evaluations and uses only EBMUD staff’s suggested assumptions to estimate market potential and anticipated water savings. Section 3 below is the second refined evaluation, which incorporates both EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions along with other reasonable assumptions and methodologies as described further herein. 2.1 - Leak Repair Assistance Program (LRA) This refined evaluation, as reflected in Table 1, projects conservation savings based on EBMUD staff- defined customer accounts pools. Specifically, it assumes: S The pool of potential participants is limited only to the current CAP-enrolled customer subset of 7,000 households. S Savings per repair is limited to 1,000 gallons/month. S Annual costs include FTE and Plumbing Contractor benchmarks provided by EBMUD staff, and Marketing and Insurance Liability22 placeholder benchmarks. As available sources for a cost- basis for insurance and marketing are limited, it assumes each has a $100,000 annual cost. Table 1 – Leak Repair Program Model Based on EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions Limited to 7,000 CAP Enrolled Accounts, 1,000 GPM Per Repair Cost and Savings By Percent of Qualified Account Pool Plumber Cost Per Repair $1,500 5% of Pool Number of Repairs 350 Estimated Total Repair Cost $525,000 Water Savings (AFY) 12.89 22 The Comment Letter asks the Analysis consider risks and liability associated with repairing leaks. “Making repairs to a house line or internal plumbing carries substantial risks, especially in older homes. The (Analysis) cost estimate should not shift risks to EBMUD by assuming all repairs will go smoothly.” 17 15% of Pool Number of Repairs 1050 Estimated Total Repair Cost $1,575,000 Water Savings (AFY) 38.67 25% of Pool Number of Repairs 1750 Estimated Total Repair Cost $2,625,000 Water Savings (AFY) 64.45 35% of Pool Number of Repairs 2450 Estimated Total Repair Cost $3,675,000 Water Savings (AFY) 90.23 66% of Pool23 Number of Repairs 4,617 Estimated Total Repair Cost $6,925,500 Water Savings (AFY) 170.03 Annual Administrative Costs24 1 Full Time Equivalent Water Conservation Representative $300,000 Insurance Liability Factor (Assumed – a quote was not obtained) $100,000 Marketing and Proactive Outreach (Assumed) $100,000 Total Annual Administrative Cost $500,000 2.2 - Toilet Replacement Program This refined evaluation, as reflected in Table 2, projects conservation savings based on EBMUD staff- defined customer accounts and accommodates the “passive” savings deduction methodology outlined in the Comment Letter and addressed in the Tully & Young Responses in Section 1 above. EBMUD staff declined to make actual customer water use available for purposes of this Analysis. Specifically, this evaluation assumes: S The pool of potential participation is limited only to current CAP-enrolled customer subset of 7,000 households. S Those households have an average of 1.9 people. S Savings per toilet is limited to the difference between 1.28 gpf and 0.8 gpf (0.48 gallons) at 12 flushes per day, resulting in 5.76 gallons per day in savings or 3,994.56 gallons per year. S The toilet model used is a Niagara Stealth 0.8 GPF Ultra-High-Efficiency currently priced at $129. S Plumbing contractor rates are based on an average price quotes from East Bay Area plumbers of $300 to install and remove a toilet. 23 Calculated to show the account saturation within the existing CAP households (approx. 7,000), or the number of accounts in the service area, at 1,000 GPM, per repair, needed to reach target offset goal of 170 AFY. 24 Achieving the offset target may take more than one year. Administrative costs would occur during each year of program activities. 18 S Annual costs include FTE and Plumbing Contractor benchmarks provided by EBMUD, and Marketing and Insurance Liability placeholder benchmarks.25 Table 2 – Toilet Replacement Program Model Based on EBMUD Staff-Suggested Assumptions Limited to 7,000 CAP Enrolled Accounts, 3,995 GPY, Per Toilet Cost and Savings By Percent of Qualified Account Pool Cost Per Install (plumber, toilet, removal) $430 5% of Pool Number of Installs 350 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $150,500 Water Savings (AFY) 4.29 15% of Pool Number of Installs 1050 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $451,500 Water Savings (AFY) 12.87 25% of Pool Number of Installs 1,750 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $752,500 Water Savings (AFY) 21.45 35% of Pool Number of Installs 2,450 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $1,053,500 Water Savings (AFY) 30.03 Annual Administrative Costs26 1 Full Time Equivalent Water Conservation Representative $300,000 Insurance Liability Factor (Assumed – a quote was not obtained) $100,000 Marketing and Proactive Outreach (Assumed) $100,000 Total Annual Administrative Cost $500,000 Section 3: Water Offset Program Model Using Shared Benchmarks This Section 3 is the second of two refined evaluations and outlines cost and water savings estimates using the same administrative, marketing, liability, and San Francisco Bay Area adjusted labor cost benchmarks, but employs less-constrained participation levels and actual water savings data from analogous, currently active programs. The assumptions utilized in this Section 3 are considered reasonable as explained more fully herein. Importantly, it is worth noting that pairing a toilet replacement program with a leak repair program would further incentivize program participation and successful conservation offset actions. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that additional savings could be accomplished through the implementation of an innovative water conservation program that incorporates several programs. 25 The Comment Letter asks the Analysis consider risks and liability associated with toilet replacement: “...installing toilets in older homes raises issues of liability that should be considered.” 26 Achieving the offset target may take more than one year. Administrative costs would occur during each year of program activities. 19 3.1 - Leak Repair Assistance Program (LRA) As explained herein, the refined evaluation in Section 2 above potentially underestimates the amount of water savings when compared to results from analogous programs. This could not be quantitatively confirmed because EBMUD staff declined to provide water use data for EBMUD customer accounts; instead, this refined evaluation, as reflected in Table 3, uses a blend of EBMUD program cost benchmarks and existing leak repair program data to model program feasibility. Specifically, it assumes: S The pool of potential participants consists of 70,000 lower-income households, which is a rounded number based on the households previously identified by EBMUD to qualify for its CAP program. S Savings per repair is 2,000 gallons/month, which is the low end of 2,000 – 75,000 gallons/month savings reported in 2020 data by the SAWS and Sacramento leak repair programs. S Annual costs include FTE and Plumbing Contractor benchmarks provided by EBMUD staff, and available Marketing and Insurance Liability placeholder benchmarks. Table 3 – Leak Repair Program Model Based on EBMUD Staff-Suggested Cost Assumptions and Model Program Data Open to a Pool of 70,000 DAC Identified Accounts, 2,000 GPM Per Repair Cost and Savings By Percent of Account Pool Plumber Cost Per Repair $1,500 1% of Pool Number of Repairs 700 Estimated Total Repair Cost $1,050,000 Water Savings (AFY) 51.56 3% of Pool Number of Repairs 2,100 Estimated Total Repair Cost $3,150,000 Water Savings (AFY) 154.67 5% of Pool Number of Repairs 3,500 Estimated Total Repair Cost $5,250,000 Water Savings (AFY) 257.79 Annual Administrative Costs27 1 Full Time Equivalent Water Conservation Representative $300,000 Insurance Liability Factor (Assumed – a quote was not obtained) $100,000 Marketing and Proactive Outreach (Assumed) $100,000 Total Annual Administrative Cost $500,000 27 Achieving the offset target may take more than one year. Administrative costs would occur during each year of program activities. 20 3.2 - Toilet Replacement Program This refined evaluation, as reflected in Table 4, uses a blend of EBMUD staff-suggested program cost benchmarks and available data from established toilet replacement programs to model program feasibility. Specifically, it assumes: S The pool of potential participants consists of 70,000 lower-income households, which is based on the households previously identified by EBMUD to qualify for its CAP program. S Water savings per toilet are based on empirical data used by SFPUC in their toilet replacement program of 27.8 gallons/day, or 10,147 gallons/year. S The toilet model used is a Niagara Stealth 0.8 GPF Ultra-High-Efficiency currently priced at $129. S Plumbing contractor rates are based on an average price quotes from East Bay Area plumbers of $300 to install and remove a toilet. S Annual costs include very conservative FTE and Plumbing Contractor benchmarks provided by EBMUD staff, and Marketing and Insurance Liability placeholder benchmarks. Table 4 – Toilet Replacement Program Based on EBMUD Staff-Suggested Cost Assumptions and Model Program Data Open to a pool of 70,000 DAC Identified Accounts, 10,147 GPY, Per Toilet Cost and Savings By Percent of Account Pool Cost Per Install (plumber, toilet, removal) $430 1% of Pool Number of Installs 700 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $301,000 Water Savings (AFY) 21.80 3% of Pool Number of Installs 2,100 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $903,000 Water Savings (AFY) 65.39 5% of Pool Number of Installs 3,500 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $1,505,000 Water Savings (AFY) 108.99 10% of Pool Number of Installs 7,000 Estimated Total Replacement Cost $3,010,000 Water Savings (AFY) 217.98 Annual Administrative Costs28 1 Full Time Equivalent Water Conservation Representative $300,000 Insurance Liability Factor (Assumed – a quote was not obtained) $100,000 Marketing and Proactive Outreach (Assumed) $100,000 Total Annual Administrative Cost $500,000 28 Achieving the offset target may take more than one year. Administrative costs would occur during each year of program activities.     Alice Towey  MANAGER OF WATER CONSERVATION    375 ELEVENTH STREET  .  OAKLAND  .  CA 94607‐4240   .   1‐866‐403‐2683  BOARD OF DIRECTORS   JOHN A. COLEMAN    MARGUERITE  YOUNG  .  ANDY KATZ .  DOUG LINNEY  .  LESA R. McINTOSH  .  FRANK MELLON  .  WILLIAM B. PATTERSON  March 15, 2021 John Kopchik Director, Department of Conservation and Development Contra Costa County 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Kopchik, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the February 24, 2021 preliminary draft memorandum prepared by Tully and Young on behalf of the Tassajara Parks (Project) developer, entitled “Tassajara Park Water Conservation Opportunities Analysis Results” (Draft Memo). First, I wish to thank the Project team for hearing EBMUD’s concerns about the importance of conducting a thorough evaluation of the feasibility of conservation offsets, and I appreciate that the Project team has prepared the Draft Memo to help address those concerns. I also appreciate that the Team considered the potential conservation projects EBMUD suggested and which are evaluated in the Draft Memo. As a reminder, these projects were examples of the types of projects that EBMUD has not yet committed to, and we encouraged the Project Team to consider other projects it believes merit evaluation. In reviewing the Draft Memo, my goal was to ensure that its analysis does not pass potential water supply-related risks and costs on to EBMUD and its customers. As we discussed in our meetings, EBMUD’s long term water supply plans – including its conservation program – are designed to meet existing and future demand within EBMUD’s Ultimate Service Boundary (USB). 1 Due to the Project’s location outside the USB, if EBMUD were to serve the Project, the developer would be required to provide a suitable source of water supply to adequately offset the Project’s demand, to EBMUD’s satisfaction. The Draft Memo considers the costs of creating “new water” to offset the Project’s demand through implementation of developer-funded offsite conservation measures. I have reviewed the Draft Memo with an eye toward identifying analysis and assumptions that could shift the Project’s water supply-related risk and costs to EBMUD and   1 The Ultimate Service Boundary defines the territory within which EBMUD has planned to provide water service. March 15, 2021 Page 2 its customers. With this context in mind, I have prepared the following comments on the Draft Memo. Global Comments Global Comment #1: Conservation Offset Target Project water demand estimates cited in various versions of the EIR have ranged from 40 AFY to 56.3 AFY, while EBMUD’s water demand estimate for the Project is approximately 85 AFY. Acknowledging the disparity in demand estimates and EBMUD’s discretion to ultimately determine the estimated demand to be offset by the developer, the Final EIR stated that the County would require the Developer “to enter into a binding agreement with EBMUD that provides for the Project to fully accommodate its identified demand at a minimum of 56.3 AFY or the amount ultimately confirmed by EBMUD, whichever is greater.” (Final EIR at p. 2-5.) For annexations outside EBMUD’s (USB), offsite conservation-based water demand mitigation fees have typically been based on a mitigation ratio of at least 2:1. For example, for the Alamo Creek development which the County sometimes refers to as an exemplar for the Project, the County conditioned its project approvals on the developer’s payment to EBMUD of water demand mitigation fees at a ratio of 2:1 (i.e., two gallons saved for every one gallon of estimated demand). Given this historical precedent, Tully and Young’s analysis should be revised to consider the feasibility of achieving at least 170 AFY in conservation savings--twice EBMUD’s water demand estimate for the Project—rather than the 100 AFY conservation target used in the Draft Memo. Global Comment #2: Consideration of Conservation Program Market Potential Water conservation program feasibility analysis should address both the potential costs of the programs in question, and their market potential, or the likely number of eligible customers who would actually participate in the program. Analyzing market potential is necessary to determine the amount of potential water savings that could be achieved through a proposed conservation program. The Draft Memo does not appear to address market potential for the conservation programs it considers. Instead, it appears to have back-calculated the number of program participants necessary to reach 100 AFY of water savings, and assumes it would be possible to enroll that number of participants in each program. This means the Draft Memo concludes adequate conservation savings could be fully achieved through implementation of relatively new programs that have not been tested in EBMUD’s service area, based on non-conservative assumptions regarding program participation rates and water savings. However, if implementation does not ultimately match these projections, the Project’s water supply-related risk and costs would be shifted to EBMUD, as it likely would be required to implement other, potentially more expensive programs to generate the required water savings to offset the Project’s demand. March 15, 2021 Page 3 Below, I provide more specific comments on market potential analysis for each program considered in the Draft Memo, and those comments are aimed at helping Tully and Young identify parameters it should consider in its analysis of market potential. Leak Repair Assistance Program Comments The Draft Memo focuses much of its attention on the costs of achieving 100 AFY in conservation savings through a developer-funded leak repair assistance program that would pay the costs of leak repair for low-income customers enrolled in EBMUD’s Customer Assistance Program (CAP). The Draft Memo assumes that 100 AFY in conservation savings could be achieved by fixing 1,350 leaks, with each leak fix resulting in an average of 24,000 gallons per year in water savings. In its next draft, Tully and Young should address the following comments. Leak Repair Program Comment # 1: Crediting Achieved Water Savings to the Program The Draft Memo estimates the costs of generating 100 AFY in conservation savings by crediting the program for all water savings resulting from program-funded leak repairs. By doing so, the Draft Memo’s analysis assumes that none of the program-funded leak repairs would have occurred in the absence of the program. To create “new water” to offset the Project’s demand, the Project developer should only be credited for leak repairs that would not have occurred without program funding. While the repair rate might be somewhat lower among CAP customers due to potential financial barriers, the analysis should not assume no program-funded leak repairs would have occurred in the absence of the program. Leak Repair Program Comment #2: Considering Market Potential The Draft Memo assumes that 1,350 leak repairs would be completed at the residences of CAP- enrolled customers, and that each leak repair would result in an average of roughly 24,000 gallons per year in savings per leak. During our conservations with the Project Team, we explained that in recent years CAP enrollment has ranged from approximately 6,000 to 8,300 households. Thus, by assuming 1,350 leak repairs would occur, the Draft Memo assumes that roughly 17-23 percent of all CAP-enrolled customers (1) are experiencing a leak resulting in an average of 24,000 gallons per year of water loss, and (2) could be identified and would choose to participate in a leak repair program. The basis for this assumption is unclear. The Draft Memo underestimates the difficulty of identifying and incentivizing participation from an adequate number of CAP-enrolled customers to achieve enough water savings through leak repair to sufficiently offset Project demand. EBMUD does not have advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)—or “smart metering”—available to track real-time water use and thus easily identify leaks. Without AMI, it would be very difficult, more expensive, and would require more expertise and outreach to identify and incentivize participation from a sufficient March 15, 2021 Page 4 number of CAP-enrolled customers to achieve the Draft Memo’s assumed leak repair program water savings. In addition, EBMUD has historically encountered challenges in expanding participation in its CAP program. Typical participation in CAP ranges from 6,000 to 8,000 households at any given time, but EBMUD estimates that as many as 69,000 households could be eligible. This is a common issue with water rate assistance programs, as documented in a recent report by SPUR.2 Potential barriers to enrollment could include language issues, fear or mistrust of government agencies, difficult applications, or lack of awareness of the programs. It is likely that a leak repair assistance program would face similar barriers to participation, which should be considered in the analysis of market potential. The SPUR report outlines the challenges EBMUD and other agencies have faced in increasing enrollment in customer assistance programs. Given these challenges, the analysis also should not assume that low income customers not currently enrolled in CAP could be easily recruited for participation in the proposed leak repair program. For that reason, to ensure the Project’s water supply-related risks are not shifted to EBMUD, the cost estimate for offsetting the Project’s water demand should not be based on implementing income-based programs that rely on recruiting participation from low income customers outside the CAP program. I therefore recommend that the analysis focus on leak repair program market potential among CAP-enrolled customers, without assuming CAP program expansion beyond its current size. The next draft of the Memo should acknowledge the limitations on market potential, and should estimate leak repair program savings potential with those factors in mind. My recommendations are based upon the importance of ensuring the Project’s water supply- related risk is not shifted to EBMUD. While EBMUD is considering implementation of these types of programs to assist low income customers and generate water conservation savings, we are not comfortable assuming that a large proportion of the water savings needed for the Project could be achieved by implementing a relatively new concept for which there is no analog in the District’s service area. If program implementation did not meet the Draft Memo’s assumptions, the Project’s water supply-related risk and costs would be shifted to EBMUD, as it likely would be required to implement other, potentially more expensive programs to generate the required water savings to offset the Project’s demand. Leak Repair Program Comment # 3: Program Cost Estimates The Memo estimates the costs for the leak repair program based on costs per acre foot derived from a leak repair program implemented by San Antonio Water System. This methodology for calculating costs is imprecise, and as discussed below, I recommend preparing a cost estimate reflecting local cost factors.   2 spur_keeping_the_water_on.pdf March 15, 2021 Page 5 First, the cost to repair a leak can vary significantly depending on the type and location of the leak. It is unclear what types of leaks the San Antonio program repairs and whether those leaks would be similar to the types of leaks that would be included in an EBMUD program. Furthermore, the San Antonio program expenditures from 2020 represent the operating costs for a program that has been in existence since 1994. The costs to develop a new program “from scratch” are typically much higher than the annual operating costs for an established program. It is also not clear what costs are included in the San Antonio program expenditures listed in Table 1 of the Draft Memo; without this information, it is difficult to determine if these expenditures are representative of the costs that EBMUD would face for developing a program locally. It appears the cost estimate also assumes that costs for San Antonio would be comparable to costs for the San Francisco Bay Area, which has a notably high cost of living. The Draft Memo proposes doubling the costs for the San Antonio program, but it is unclear if that is sufficient. Using this methodology, the memo assumes an average cost per leak repair of roughly $900. Based on EBMUD’s experience with the relatively simple task of installing pressure regulators on a customer’s premises,3 $900 would not cover the costs of hiring a plumber to complete the leak repair, or the costs associated with leak repair program development and administration. When EBMUD contracts for pressure regulator installation, it typically pays plumbers between $1,000 and $1,500 per installation, and some installations cost well over $50,000 due to problems encountered on the job site. The Memo should also consider the risks and liability associated with repairing leaks, which can vary significantly depending on how extensive a repair is required and where it is located. For example, making repairs to a house line or internal plumbing carries substantial risks, especially in older homes. The Memo’s cost estimate should not shift risks to EBMUD by assuming all repairs will go smoothly. Rather than developing a cost estimate based on San Antonio’s costs, I recommend estimating costs for developing the proposed program from the ground up, taking into account estimated costs for contractors, insurance requirements, EBMUD staff time to develop and administer the program, and other associated expenses. Here are a few relevant benchmarks that should be used to develop a cost estimate for the program: Factor Cost EBMUD labor costs, 1 full time equivalent Water Conservation Representative (include $300,000 per year   3 Pressure regulators are typically installed above ground, near a hose bib on the outside of the customer’s house. March 15, 2021 Page 6 fringe and overhead) Plumber Contractor Costs4 for pressure regulator installation $1,500 per leak repair Direct Install Toilet Replacement Program Comments The Draft Memo estimates the costs of achieving 100 AFY in conservation savings through a developer-funded direct install toilet replacement program that would pay the costs of installing high efficiency toilets for CAP-enrolled customers. The Draft Memo assumes that 100 AFY in conservation savings could be achieved by installing approximately 2,700 to 3,800 high efficiency toilets, resulting in approximately 8,600 to 12,000 gallons per year in water savings per toilet. In its next draft of the Memo, Tully and Young should address the following comments. Toilet Replacement Program Comment # 1: Crediting Achieved Water Savings to the Program The Draft Memo estimates the costs of generating 100 AFY in conservation savings through direct installation of high efficiency toilets by crediting the program for all water savings resulting from program-funded toilet installations. The Draft Memo does not clarify the extent to which savings would result from program-funded installation of toilets meeting current code requirements. EBMUD’s water conservation forecasts, which play a key role in meeting future demand within the USB, assume the achievement of “passive” conservation savings through the eventual replacement of older fixtures such as toilets with newer, more water efficient fixtures meeting current Plumbing Code requirements. As a result, developer-funded installation of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets would only result in matching conservation forecast assumptions necessary to meet demand within the USB and would not create “new water” for the Project. To receive credit for achieving conservation savings EBMUD has not already assumed will occur to meet demand within the USB, the program would be required to install toilets more efficient than 1.28 gpf,5 and “new water” attributable to the program would be calculated based on the difference between demand for a 1.28 gpf toilet and the gpf rating for each toilet installed through the program. Toilet Replacement Program Comment # 2: Water Savings per Toilet Installed   4 This reflects the upper range of typical costs of pressure regulator installation, a relatively simple, straight forward task for a plumber. As explained above, costs can substantially exceed $1,500 per installation. 5 The Plumbing Code currently requires new toilets to be rated at 1.28 gpf or less. March 15, 2021 Page 7 The Draft Memo assumes savings of approximately 22-33 GPD per toilet installation. It would be helpful to review the information underlying this assumption, such as the assumed number of flushes per day or the gpf rating of either the replaced toilet or the newly installed toilet. Given that the average household size for CAP-enrolled customers is 1.9, and that the average American flushes the toilet five times per day, to achieve 22-33 GPD in savings, the toilet replacement program would be required to achieve average savings per flush of 2.2 to 3.3 gpf. As discussed above, the Project can only claim credit for water savings resulting from installation of toilets more efficient than the current code requirement of 1.28 gpf. Assuming 0.8 gpf toilets were installed through the program, and that the toilets are flushed twelve times per day on average, this would equate to 6 gpd of savings per toilet. Toilet Replacement Program Comment #3: Market Potential The Draft Memo assumes approximately 2,700 to 3,800 old, inefficient toilets in the homes of CAP-enrolled customers would be replaced with new, high efficiency toilets. However, as noted above, in recent years CAP enrollment has ranged from approximately 6,000 to 8,300 households. I do not believe it is likely that 33-64% of CAP-enrolled customers (1) live in homes with old, inefficient toilets, and (2) could be identified and would choose to participate in a toilet replacement program. As noted above for the leak repair program, for a program like this one that would be targeted at EBMUD’s CAP-enrolled customers, the Draft Memo should account for the known size of the CAP Program. As with the leak repair program, the Memo’s analysis of the toilet replacement program should first estimate the number of toilet replacements that could feasibly be completed among CAP-enrolled customers, and then estimate how much water could be saved based upon that level of participation. Toilet Replacement Program Comment #4: Program Costs The Draft Memo estimates the program cost by calculating the cost per toilet replaced, based on expenditures reported by San Francisco and the City of Tucson. As discussed above for the leak repair program, it may not be appropriate to assume that costs from a different geographic area would be comparable to costs in the Bay Area. It is also not clear whether the administrative costs for an EBMUD program would be comparable to the costs to operate the program in San Francisco, which has unique features related to its joint status as a water utility, City, and County. To further assess the accuracy of these costs, it would be helpful to have more details; specifically, it is unclear which type of toilet the cited programs install. As discussed above, to claim credit for creating “new” conservation, the Project developer would need to fund installation of toilets that are more efficient than the 1.28 gpf currently required by code. March 15, 2021 Page 8 As discussed for the leak repair program, the cost for developing a new program should include startup costs and program development. The Draft Memo should also account for potential risk to EBMUD; installing toilets in older homes raises issues of liability that should be considered. The Draft Memo should be revised to estimate costs for developing a new program in EBMUD’s service area, taking into consideration that initially administrative costs will likely be much higher. The costs provided in the table above may also be helpful to developing cost estimates for a toilet direct install program. Graywater Rebate Program Comments The Draft Memo estimates the costs of achieving 100 AFY in conservation savings through a developer-funded graywater system rebate program. Based on information regarding Tucson’s graywater rebate program, the Draft Memo assumes that 100 AFY in conservation savings could be achieved through rebates resulting in installation of approximately 2,380 graywater systems, with each system achieving approximately 13,615 gallons per year in water savings. In its next draft of the Memo, Tully and Young should address the following comments. Graywater Rebate Program Comment #1: Necessary Information It would help to provide additional detail regarding the type of graywater rebate program the Project Team envisions. The next draft of the Memo should provide information addressing the following questions:  What kind of graywater system(s) does the memo assume would be funded through the rebate program? This information is necessary to evaluate the Memo’s cost estimates.  Does the memo assume rebate-funded systems would be installed for new development, or to retrofit existing buildings? This information is necessary to ensure the program would fund conservation EBMUD has not already committed to implement to meet demand within the USB. (EBMUD already implements a graywater rebate program for retrofits of existing structures.) Graywater Rebate Program Comment #2: Market Potential The Draft Memo states that Tucson approved 17 graywater rebates in FY 2018-19. It is not clear whether that estimate covers two years, or only one. Assuming rebates were awarded at a rate of 17 per year, it would take 140 years to achieve 100 AFY in savings. As a practical matter, that would make a graywater rebate program infeasible because its ability to achieve sufficient conservation to offset Project demand would be highly uncertain. The low participation rate also suggests a 50% rebate would not sufficiently incentivize participation to achieve the level of water savings necessary to offset Project demand. The Draft Memo should consider funding higher rebate amounts in order to achieve increased levels of participation. March 15, 2021 Page 9 The next draft of the Memo should also consider whether 2,380 EBMUD customers could be incentivized to participate in a graywater rebate program. As with the programs addressed above, analysis of the graywater rebate program should first estimate likely participation rates, and then estimate how much water could be saved based upon that level of participation. Graywater Rebate Program Comment #3: Program Costs It would be helpful if the next draft of the Memo included information regarding the type of graywater system(s) that formed the basis for the graywater rebate program cost estimate. That information will make it possible to assess the accuracy of the estimate. In addition, as mentioned previously, the next draft of the Memo should not assume costs for a different city – in this case, Tucson – would be comparable to costs for the Bay Area. Table 5 in the Draft Memo suggests a cost of $765.35 per gray water system including administrative costs; however, the preceding discussion seems to suggest that this cost is just for the rebates themselves. The Draft Memo should be revised to provide greater detail and granularity on the program cost estimate. And as referenced above, subsequent drafts of the Memo should consider larger rebates to incentivize increased customer participation. Depending on the type of graywater systems installed, the administration costs could be higher, as some systems require permits. Costs for such programs would have to factor in the permitting process. In addition, a program based on more complex graywater systems could require extensive outreach and training on system installation, operation, and maintenance. Graywater Rebate Program Comment #4: Program Savings In future drafts of the Memo, it would help to see the types of graywater systems that are envisioned and how the savings estimate is calculated. Savings from graywater systems can vary depending on where the water is coming from and how it is being used. For example, EBMUD offers a rebate for “laundry to landscape” graywater projects, and the projected amount of water savings depends in part on how water efficient a customer’s washing machine is; with an older, inefficient top loader, savings could be 11,200 gallons per year, while with a more efficient front loader the savings are only 3,600 gallons per year. Rainwater Catchment Program Given the Draft Memo’s low estimate of potential savings for this program, it does not appear to be worth pursuing any further. Onsite Water Reuse Program March 15, 2021 Page 10 The Draft Memo discusses but does not estimate costs for an onsite water reuse program. During our conversation in December 2020, I referenced the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s onsite water reuse grant program. I recommend that Tully & Young use information regarding that program to develop onsite water reuse program cost estimates. Given the concerns regarding market potential for the other conservation programs addressed in the Draft Memo, and other issues noted above regarding the Draft Memo’s conservation target, subsequent drafts should provide cost estimates for a suite of conservation programs that includes an onsite water reuse program. To close, I would like to again thank the Project Team for embarking on the feasibility assessment that EBMUD requires. I appreciate the chance to review the Draft Memo. While the comments in this letter touch on many issues, they are offered in the spirit of cooperation and with the goal of helping the Project Team to better understand EBMUD’s requirements and concerns. The EBMUD team is happy to answer any questions on these comments. I look forward to speaking with you in the future. Regards, Alice Towey AET: by 1 965 University Avenue, Suite 222 Sacramento, California 95825 (916) 669-9356 WHITE PAPER To: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Date: February 24, 2021 From: Galen Davis Greg Young Subject: Tassajara Park Water Conservation Opportunities Analysis Results _________________________________________________________________________________ This Memorandum describes results from a Water Conservation Opportunities Analysis (Analysis) done by Tully & Young, Inc., a Comprehensive Water Planning firm, to estimate the costs for implementing the water-demand offset approach described and analyzed in the Tassajara Parks Project (Project) EIR (SCH No. 2014052089). The Analysis focuses on the water conservation opportunities identified by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) in its presentation titled “EBMUD Water Conservation Program Overview and Uncommitted Projects,” which EBMUD staff discussed with Project representatives on December 21, 2020 to elaborate on conservation offset measures available to EBMUD. Pursuant to direction from staff and the Project representatives, Tully & Young analyzed the following opportunities for financial feasibility to further document and confirm the ability of the Project to offset its forecast water demand, as described and analyzed in the EIR, and to demonstrate no increased costs to EBMUD’s other existing and future customers. These and other opportunities were identified by EBMUD in the EBMUD Water Supply Management Program 2040 (WSMP 2040) report, Appendix D TM-5 Conservation Program Evaluation TM (Appendix D)1: S Graywater S Rainwater Catchment S Onsite Water Re-use S Leak Repair Assistance Programs S Direct Install High-Efficiency Toilet / Fixture Replacement Programs 1 As explained in more detail in the Project’s EIR, Appendix D is a technical analysis that identifies and evaluates conservation measures that could be implemented by EBMUD to reduce future water demand and estimates the costs and water savings of those measures. The Analysis incorporates program detail and data from Appendix D. The Analysis also incorporates data collected from several other water suppliers’ conservation programs in the State of California and around arid regions in the southwestern United States. These include: San Antonio Water Service (SAWS), City of Sacramento, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), City of Tucson Water, and Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), among others. The goal of this Analysis is to further document and confirm the financial feasibility of water conservation programs and efforts that EBMUD can employ to offset water demand generated by the Project, making it water neutral. For purposes of this Analysis, a presumed Conservation Offset Target (Target) is set at 100,000 Gallons Per Day (GPD), or 0.1 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD), or about 100 acre-feet per year. This is a conservative placeholder, as the final offset requirements for the Project would be determined ultimately by EBMUD's Board of Directors. The results of this Analysis are expressed in dollars per acre-foot of potable water saved in a way that is durable and will continue, so the Target can be scaled up or down as appropriate to ensure the Project's potable water demand at buildout is fully offset with a margin of safety. Findings While there are several programs that are financially feasible for implementation to achieve real and durable water savings, this Analysis focuses conservatively on the most efficient options to achieve the Target. As discussed in the Project EIR, and as confirmed in this memorandum, achieving the Target for the Project is readily achievable with conservation-based offsets that are durable and feasible for the Project to fund. Leak Repair Assistance Program On average, 14 percent of total residential indoor water use in the United States can be attributed to undetected leaks, and after evaluating the aforementioned programs, the Leak Repair Assistance (“LRA”) program emerged as the strongest conservation approach for many reasons. In layman’s terms, a LRA program provides water leak repair services and other water use efficiency improvements to low income or disadvantaged community (DAC) households free of charge to the customer, thus remediating system water loss for the utility without any additional financial burden for the household. DAC households are less likely to fix leaks or make other water use efficiency improvements because of the relatively high cost of plumbing services and high cost of replacement fixtures and appliances, which means water loss and higher water bills persist in a wasteful cycle. A LRA program would complement EBMUD’s already impressive water conservation efforts, supplementing existing conservation measures outlined in WSMP 2040 Appendix D, Program D. LRA 2016 Water Research Foundation’s Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 3 water conservation programs, while still a leading-edge approach nationwide, have a proven history of success in meeting or exceeding conservation goals in other water utility service areas. Comparative analysis of two established LRA programs is included in this Analysis. One of the necessary mandates for the Project’s water offset is the requirement to identify durable water savings—water savings that are reliable, quantifiable and lasting. LRA programs meet these criteria because leak fixes are in most cases permanent, resulting in significant and measurable cumulative water savings. This permanence is equivalent to the same benefits water suppliers expect from other water conservation programs, such as toilet rebate programs. Another important aspect to consider for implementation is effective program targeting. The ability to target a conservation program greatly influences the success of the program and LRA programs are naturally targeted. EBMUD’s Customer Assistance Program (CAP) has a head start identifying qualified accounts, and California’s Department of Finance (DoF) and Department of Water Resources (DWR) have DAC maps and demographic data that are useful in DAC identification. EBMUD's expanding use of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)—sometimes referred to as "smart meters"—enables EBMUD to accurately identify excessive water use by individual customers and to quantify water savings from leak repairs, toilet replacement or other measures at the metered account level. Other effective targeting methods include proactive outreach and water use monitoring by customer groups defined by demographic characteristics specified by the water supplier. Finally, LRA programs are not just an effective and durable water conservation tool. They are programs that reflect important social justice goals by serving and benefitting ratepayers that truly need the financial assistance. Pairing LRA with the CAP program shows commitment to disadvantaged individual households and communities in the EBMUD service area. Providing emergency plumbing repair assistance to low income residents can also stop the cycle of water service disconnection that can occur if the household cannot afford either the plumbing repair or the high cost of continued water wasted from leaks. LRA is a water conservation tool and a positive social program in one. San Antonio Water Service (SAWS) “Plumbers to People” In 1994, SAWS introduced its first water conservation program called Plumbers to People (PTP). Almost two decades later it is still their flagship program providing both socioeconomic assistance and effectively decreasing wasted potable water in their service area. The long running program also has the benefit of years of data to draw on to inform program cost and savings metrics. PTP has been effective not just with leak detection and repair; while on leak fix calls SAWS has been able to deploy other conservation efforts such as toilet and fixture replacements to increase saturation of those programs. SAWS’ conservation director, Ms. Karen Guz, has offered to provide additional data from the long- standing PTP program, if helpful. SAWS recently completed its 5-year conservation plan describing their extensive conservation programs, including PTP. The plan is available here: https://apps.saws.org/conservation/plan/docs/Conservation%20Plan_Draft_20201215.pdf 4 PTP Qualification: S Uplift Program participants (similar to CAP); 30,000 households enrolled in Uplift. S Household must be documented as falling within 125% of federal poverty guidelines. S Account holder must own and reside in the home. S Must be potable water leak. PTP Targeting: S Outreach: mail, email, social media, news media, direct contact. S Program management platform: automated data compilation and customer communication. S Monthly cohort water use monitoring: When use is 150% higher than expected for a typical household, customer is contacted. When customer responds they are offered plumbing assistance. When plumber is deployed, 85% of households are confirmed to have a leak. PTP Costs and Water Savings: The PTP program is a mainstay of the SAWS conservation program with substantial, increasing durable water savings returns. As targeting and technology have improved (such as account data management and monitoring), SAWS has been able to reach more households and increase their annual customer reach and durable water savings. Table 1 shows the 2020 program expenditure for Plumbers to People and the associated water savings. The savings assumes 2,000 gallons per month, which is the lowest and most conservative end of the durable water savings range documented by SAWS.3 Program expenditure includes administrative and associated Full Time Employee (FTE) costs. It should be noted that SAWS continues to achieve this level of program success in expanding durable water savings even after 20 years. Table 1 – 2020 Plumbers to People Cost and Water Savings Program Expenditure $586,782 Site Fixes 1,328 Average Cost Per Fix $442 Cost Per Acre-foot4 ~ $6,000 Gallons Saved Per Fix ~ 24,000 gallons/year ~ 2,000 gallons/month Gallons Saved 31,872,000 Acre-feet saved 97.8 3 SAWS provided water savings assumptions between 2,000 – 4,000 gallons per month per site. 4 For every $6,000 spent on PTP implementation, at least 1 acre-foot of potable water is saved every year following completion of the leak repair or other water conservation measure that is implemented. 5 City of Sacramento “Leak Free Sacramento” The City of Sacramento (City) rolled out their LRA program, “Leak Free Sacramento” (LFS), in September of 2016 after receiving a Water and Energy grant from DWR. Similar to the SAWS program, LFS targets low-income and single-family homeowners living in homes located in disadvantaged communities. The initial program period lasted for one year ending in September 2017. After evaluating the year-long trial, the program was deemed a success for achieving durable water use reductions that benefit disadvantaged communities, so they continued the program starting in May 2018. The City modeled their program on the SAWS PTP program as a no-cost direct leak repair program for both indoor and outdoor leaks. The initial 2016-17 program targeted the top 25% of their service area’s DAC and expanded in 2018 to target the top 40%. The City is prioritizing fixes based on leak size, financial impact, and safety. AMI is deployed to 98% of their residential connections which allows for very effective targeting. They have found leaks from 7 gallons per hour (gph) to the staggering rate of 865 gph. LFS Qualification: S Income-eligible or a current participant of Sacramento Utility Rate Assistance program (similar to CAP). S Must live in DAC in top 40% of CalEnviroScreen 3.0 score. S Single Family Residential homeowners only. S (Future) Adding eligibility for low income customers not in DAC areas. LFS Targeting: S AMI monitoring for higher than expected water use. S Pattern of a minimum of 6 gph, 24 hours per day, for 5 consecutive days. S Outreach: Newsletters, email, social media. March is “Fix a Leak Month”. S Leak investigation referrals, leak letters. LFS Costs and Water Savings: The City of Sacramento initiated its LFS program in 2016 with a DWR grant and has expanded LFS into a multi-year program to accomplish expanding, durable water use reduction. Full AMI deployment will help with efficient spending and targeted water savings. Table 2 shows program expenditure and associated water savings for Leak Free Sacramento. Water savings are based on AMI data. Program expenditure includes administrative, contractor, and associated FTE costs. The 2020 figures primarily represent outdoor repairs due to COVID restrictions against indoor fixes. These tend to be more expensive jobs (service laterals, excavation, etc.), but often fix larger leaks leading to more savings. A unique attribute of this program operated by a public utility in California is that funding of a targeted program must be derived from non-rate-based revenue sources. The City is currently funding its program with, among other sources, revenue received from recent temporary water transfers (e.g. the City sold water to several State Water Contractors in 2018 and 2020 as part of approved groundwater substitution transfers). 6 Table 2 – 2020 Leak Free Sacramento Cost and Water Savings Program Expenditure $60,680.00 Site Fixes 25 Average Cost Per Fix $2,427.20 Cost Per Acre-foot5 $848.84 Gallons Saved Per Fix ~ 930,000 gallons/year ~ 75,000 gallons/month Total Gallons Saved 23,293,716 Total Acre-feet saved 71.49 EBMUD Leak Repair Assistance Program Launching a Leak Repair Assistance program in the EBMUD service area is an exciting prospect to bring real water savings to EBMUD and valuable assistance to its low-income residents. The growing CAP cohort is a natural qualifier and the LRA program could even encourage CAP enrollment if it were part of the qualification for assistance as it is with Leak Free Sacramento. LRA can also enhance other Appendix D program saturation, specifically toilet and fixture replacement, ensuring additional water savings with installation follow-through during the leak fix visit. Projected EBMUD LRA Costs and Water Savings: By taking the cost data from SAWS and the City of Sacramento, a reliable cost and water savings comparison can be made for a similar LRA program in the EBMUD service area. First, it is important to note that in California Propositions 218 and 26 guide the use of rates and fees for services. Therefore, getting a program like LRA, which is targeted to the low-income segment of the population, requires special attention to the source of funding for the program. As noted previously, Sacramento got their program running with a grant from DWR and has since found other sources of funding within their budget for the program. Conceptually, the Project could jump-start a LRA program within EBMUD through special Project funding associated with offsetting the Project’s water needs. The resulting water savings from fixing leaks, replacing old, inefficient toilets and fixtures, and similar measures would be durable and lasting because they do not depend on customers changing their water-use behavior. Table 3 shows a proposed annual budget and associated water savings using the conservatively low cumulative monthly water savings of 2,000 per fix per month. The values in the table are based on a very conservative assumption of twice the per-acre-foot cost shown for the SAWS program (see Table 1) – setting the cost at $12,000 per acre-foot. To achieve the Target of approximately 100 acre-feet, the LRA program would require a total budget of $1,200,000. Spreading the program over three years – or a 5 For every $849 spent on LFS implementation, at least 1 acre-foot of potable water is saved every year following completion of the leak repair or other water conservation measure that is implemented. 7 budget of $400,000 per year – could durably achieve the annual Target of approximately 100 AF by the end of the third year (at an incremental increase of 33 AF per year). Once each fix is made for each customer, the prior waste would be permanently removed. Table 3 – Proposed EBMUD Leak Repair Assistance Program Annual Budget and Water Savings Annual Program Expenditure $400,000 Annual Site Fixes 450 Average Cost Per Fix ~ $900 Cost Per Acre-foot6 $12,000 Gallons Saved Per Fix ~ 24,000 gallons/year ~ 2,000 gallons/month Annual Gallons Saved ~ 10,800,000 Annual Acre-feet saved ~ 33 Additional Water Offset Options In the meeting on January 12, 2021 with the District and the Project applicant team, Tully & Young highlighted several other uncommitted water conservation program options identified by EBMUD as having feasibility to obtain the Target for the Project. With effective deployment and saturation, these conservation options could be used individually or in combination with each other (and an LRA program) for additional water savings. This section describes those findings and further program information and data. Direct Install Toilet Replacement Program Similar to the LRA program, some water utilities run successful toilet replacement programs for low income populations in their service areas in both single-family residential and multi-family residential housing. These programs are more effective than toilet rebates because the entire cost of the high- efficiency toilet is covered. This becomes an approach to overcome challenges when households cannot or will not cover the relatively high toilet-replacement cost not covered by the rebate, thus increasing program saturation and durable water savings. SFPUC Direct Install Toilet Replacement: After running multi-year toilet rebate programs, SFPUC reported 75% Single-Family Residential and 76% Multi-Family Residential saturation of efficient toilets in 2015. Still, SFPUC recognized about 200,000 inefficient toilets still in service. They committed to a direct install toilet replacement program to the 6 For every $12,000 spent on LRA program implementation, at least 1 acre-foot of potable water is saved every year following completion of the leak repair or other water conservation measure that is implemented. 8 residents in their low-income Customer Assistance Program through 2020. This program became the Plumbing Fixture Replacement Program (PREP). S Between 2010 and to date, SFPUC has replaced approximately 12,956 toilets in residential and commercial properties through two separate direct install programs. S FY 2019-2020, 574 efficient toilets were installed through the PREP program, bringing the overall program total to 4,462 efficient toilets and urinals since the program launched in 2016. Each toilet = 12,068 gallons annual savings (20% savings). S Cost per toilet replacement in current direct install program is $375 per toilet, including labor for installation.7 San Antonio Water Service Toilet Replacement Program: After achieving similarly high saturation numbers for replacing inefficient toilets in their service area through rebate programs, SAWS incorporated toilet distribution programs. While visiting the low- income customers through the PTP programs the plumber would check the toilet. Where inefficient toilets were found, new toilets were installed and old toilets removed, resulting in even higher saturation and allowing them to completely phase out dedicated toilet replacement programs. That phase-out demonstrates the durability of the water use reduction achieved from toilet replacement. Since 1994, SAWS has replaced over 300,000 inefficient toilets in their service area. They still replace toilets through the Plumbers to People program using toilets bought in bulk. Costs associated with current toilet installs through PTP are $80 for plumber install and removal, and $110 +10% markup per toilet. They calculate water savings at 12,500 gallons per toilet annually. Tucson Water Toilet Replacement Program: Tucson currently runs a low-income single-family toilet replacement program offering free replacement of toilets using 3.5 gallons per flush or more. In FY2018-19 they replaced 521 toilets with a total expenditure of $210,032 (includes admin and contract costs), saving 4,468,878 gallons that year. Using the cost and savings data from SFPUC and Tucson, Table 4 provides a range of the number of toilets needed to achieve the Target. 7 This increases to $582 per single family install, and between $532 and $667 for multi-family per toilet when including administrative and FTE costs. 9 Table 4 – Annual Water Savings and Number of Toilet Replacements to Reach Offset Target SFPUC City of Tucson Savings Per Toilet (gallons) 12,068 8,578 Number of Toilets to achieve 100 AF Water Savings 2,685 3,777 Cost Per Toilet8 $582 $403.13 Annual budget for 100 AF Savings $1,562,670 $1,522,622 Graywater Systems Graywater rebate programs have typically seen low participation numbers. But it is worth including the program as it can be a supplemental program in part of a broader strategy. Tucson Water Graywater Rebate Program: Tucson provides up to $1,000 at 50% of labor and materials costs for gray water systems and estimates 37.2 gallons per day per household of savings for each system. In FY2018-19 they approved 17 rebates for a total of $13,011 and 231,455 gallons of savings. Using this data, an estimate of the cost and number of graywater systems needed to reach the Target is shown in Table 5. Table 5 – Annual Water Savings and Number of Graywater Systems to Reach Offset Target City of Tucson Savings Per Graywater System (gallons) 13,615 Number of Systems to achieve 100 AF Water Savings 2,380 Cost Per System9 $765.35 Annual budget for 100 AF Savings $1,821,332 8 Includes administrative and contractor costs 9 Includes administrative costs 10 Rainwater Catchment Rainwater catchment in the form of rain barrels and cisterns are popular supplemental conservation programs for many urban water suppliers. SAWS distributed 6,000 barrels in a single day in January 2017 and continues to provide rebates toward rain barrels through their WaterSaver Rewards Program. Larger scale rainwater catchment programs with significant water savings have also become more prominent in urban planning, using large underground cisterns and manmade wetlands to capture and reuse rainwater. This Analysis focuses on rain barrel and cistern rebate programs. On its own, a rainwater catchment rebate program’s estimated water savings, though beneficial, might fall short of the conservative Target. But activating it as part of EBMUD’s wider conservation strategy would augment conservation and generate credits toward the Target. SFPUC and Tucson Water programs are highlighted in Tables 6, 7, 8. Table 6 – Rain Barrel and Cistern Rebate Programs 2020 SFPUC Rain Barrel Rebates 454 Cisterns Rebates 11 SFPUC has a partnership with the Urban Farmer store, offering rebates on different sizes of catchment basins as shown in Table 7. Table 7 – SFPUC / Urban Farmer Store Rebates Rebate Amount Customer Cost Catchment Tank Size (gallons) $129 $0 50 $350 $99 205 $350 $299 420 Tucson Water runs a multi-level rainwater harvesting rebate program with Level 1 and Level 2 funding shown below. They employ an “engineering estimate” which assumes the tanks will fill, on average, five times per year. S Level 1 – Simple/Passive (earthworks) will rebate 50 percent of the cost of eligible material and labor up to $500. S Level 2 – Complex/Active System (tanks) will rebate system costs up to $2,000 based on gallon capacity: § $0.25 per gallon capacity of 50-to-799 gallon tanks § $1 per gallon capacity of 800 gallon and larger tanks 11 Table 8 – Tucson Water Rainwater Harvesting Rebate Program Detail, FY2018-19 Approved Applications 333 Expenditure Level 1 $9,326 Expenditure Level 2 $395,567 Estimated Gallons Offset 2.8 million Estimated AF Offset 8 Gallons of Storage 550,509 On-site Water Reuse On-site non-potable water systems “collect wastewater, stormwater, rainwater, and more, and treat it so that it can be reused in a building, or at the local scale for non-potable needs such as irrigation, toilet flushing, and cooling. These systems are usually integrated into the city’s larger water and wastewater system and contribute to a more resilient and sustainable water management by using alternate water sources, reducing valuable potable water used for non-potable purposes, and minimizing strain on wastewater systems.” (US Water Alliance, 2017) In multi-family residential buildings, replacing the demand for toilet and urinal flushing and clothes washing with non-potable water can offset up to 40% of the indoor potable water use; for commercial buildings, using non-potable water for toilet and urinal flushing can offset up to 75% of indoor water use.10 Additional non-potable water demands include irrigation and cooling towers; meeting these demands with non-potable water can further reduce building potable water demands. On-site water reuse programs require deep integration into building and development processes but can provide significant potable water savings in larger buildings and applications. There are a growing number of resources to help guide the process. Resources include: William J. Worthen Foundation, Water Reuse Practice Guide (2018); and U.S. Water Alliance’s National Blue Ribbon Commission for Onsite Non-potable Water Services. The SFPUC is pursuing a strategy to have many commercial and public-use facilities outfitted with on- site reuse programs. Highlights from SFPUC’s Onsite Water Reuse Program: S 2015 San Francisco Health Code Article 12C requires new development projects of 250,000 square feet or more of gross floor area to install and operate an onsite non-potable water system. S 2019-2020 SFPUC received 21 applications for onsite water systems bringing total to over 100 projects. S 2040 water savings from program estimated at 2 MGD. 10 SFPUC. 12 S Specific Projects: § SFPUC Headquarters: Living Machine™ system recycles 5,000 gpd or 800,000 gallons annually. § Chase Center: Designed to collect and treat rainwater, stormwater, graywater, and condensate to supply toilet flushing demands in the arena and two accompanying office buildings. Estimated to save 3.7 million gallons potable water annually. § Uber Headquarters: Two separate onsite non-potable water systems, collecting and treating graywater and rainwater separately to meet the building’s toilet flushing and irrigation demands. Estimated to save 700,000 gallons potable water annually. Letter of EBMUD Dated May 27, 2021 35229-21 Patterson Mellon CERTIFIED A TRUE COPY Secretary Directors Katz, Mellon, Patterson, Young and President Linney. Director Coleman. Director McIntosh. None. Letter of Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP Dated May 27, 2021 May 27, 2021 Via E-Mail (john.kopchik@dcd.cccounty.us) John Kopchik, Director Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Tassajara Parks Project, Unincorporated Contra Costa County June 9, 2021 County Planning Commission Meeting Dear Mr. Kopchik: On behalf of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD or the District), we are writing to advise the County of significant new information that has come to light since EBMUD’s September 29, 2020 comment letters regarding the referenced project, which we understand is to be taken up at the June 9, 2021 County Planning Commission Meeting. On April 27, 2021, EBMUD’s Board adopted a Resolution Declaring a Stage 1 Drought. The Resolution concerned the impact of the current drought on EBMUD’s source of water, the Mokelumne River watershed. It provided: � dry conditions currently prevail throughout much of California, including within the Mokelumne River basin and the East Bay; � 2021 has thus far been the second driest year on record in the Mokelumne River basin and the driest year on record for the East Bay; � the snow depth at Caples Lake, a Mokelumne basin snow survey reference point, was at 52 percent of average as of April 19, and the California Department of Water Resources' April Bulletin 120 forecast of the forecasted runoff on the Mokelumne River is at 43 percent of average; � on March 22, 2021, the State Water Resources Control Board sent a warning letter to EBMUD which noted the unusually dry conditions prevailing throughout California, and urged EBMUD to begin planning for potential water supply shortages by taking actions such as increasing water conservation and diversifying water supply portfolios; and � EBMUD’s Board declared its water supply will be deficient for meeting customer demand. John Kopchik May 27, 2021 Page 2 Moreover, since the April 27 drought Resolution, EBMUD’s water supply projections for this water year have cont inued to decline, with EBMUD’s anticipated end-o f-September storage levels now 65-70 thousand acre feet lower than previously projected in late April. The drought reveals current deficiencies in EBMUD’s water supply and highlights the importance of preserving sources of supply for current and future customers within the EBMUD Ultimate Service Boundary (USB).1 Those sources include the remaining conservation potential within the USB. The County and the project developer have been relying on that conservation potential as the source of water for the project. They may no longer do so. Similarly, the County and the developer have been assuming that EBMUD’s USB – which currently excludes the project site – will be expanded to include it. Again, they may no longer do so. EBMUD’s Policy 3.05 (“Considerations for Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary”) provides: The District will not extend water to areas outside the present Ultimate Service Boundary (USB) of the District, if such extension would result in … A reduction in the quantity of water available to District customers to satisfy existing or projected levels of demand…. The phrase “District customers” … shall mean (i) existing water service customers of the District and (ii) future customers, located within the present USB, but not now receiving water service. Here, as noted, an extension to accommodate the project would reduce the quantity of water available to District customers by using up conservation potential that would otherwise make more water available to address the recently-declared deficiency and further deficiencies predicted to occur in the future. Therefore, EBMUD may not extend water to the project. Also, EBMUD’s Policy 3.01 (“Annexations”) provides: Annexations are subject to the following conditions: � The territory shall be within EBMUD’s Ultimate Service Boundary….. Opposition shall be expressed to all proposed annexations outside of the Ult imate Service Boundary unless: a) The requested annexation is a small boundary adjustment found by EBMUD to be in its best interest based on the following conditions: 1 The USB defines the territory within which EBMUD has planned to provide water service. The current drought is not the only threat to EBMUD’s water supplies. Other threats (including climate change, etc.) are explained in a May 27, 2021 letter from EBMUD’s General Manager, Clifford Chan, to County Administrator Monica Nino. Mr. Chan’s letter, which is incorporated here by this reference, indicates that, as a result of these threats, in coming years the deficiency is predicted to worsen. John Kopchik May 27, 2021 Page 3 (1) The property and dwelling units are the smaller part of a larger development project located primarily within the Ultimate Service Boundary; … (4) The cumulative number of dwelling units outside the Ultimate Service Boundary added as a result of such small boundary adjustments shall not exceed 100 in any two-year period;… and (6) EBMUD Policy 3.05 - Considerations for Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary, and Policy 9.03 – Water Supply Availability and Deficiency, are satisfied with regard to the effects of extension of water beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary…. Here, condition (1) is not met because the entire project is located outside the USB. Condition (4) is not met because the project on its own would add 125 dwelling units outside the USB. Condition (6) is not met for the reasons discussed above. Any one of these failures would require EBMUD to oppose annexation. Finally, EBMUD’s discretion to promulgate and implement Policies 3.01 and 3.05 is protected under California law. California Water & Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (1959) 51 Cal.2d 478, 492 [“…a public utility may not be compelled to extend its service beyond the territorial limits of its dedication.”]. In sum: � EBMUD previously considered the possibility o f entering into an agreement with the developer to fund intra-USB conservation efforts to free up water supply for this extra-USB project; � Now, because of the drought, EBMUD has determined that its duty to current and future intra-USB water customers precludes it from entering into such an agreement; and � EBMUD’s determination is entitled to deference. Therefore, the project needs to find a new source of water. The EIR must be revised to reflect the new source and its impacts. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 430-31. Once revised, the EIR must be recirculated. Very truly yours, Brian S. Haughton John Kopchik May 27, 2021 Page 4 cc: (via email) County Planning Commission (planninghearing@dcd.cccounty.us) Sean Tully (sean.tully@dcd.cccounty.us) Aruna Bhat (aruna.bhat@dcd.cccounty.us) Will Nelson (william.nelson@dcd.cccounty.us) b llT¿IiÏmr',il ,T "Small Toun A&nosphere Outstaniling Quølifu of Life" June9,2021 VIA ELËCTRON/C MAIL hiliana.li@dcd.cccountv.us sea n. fu ll)¡@clcd. cccou n t,i,. us Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Agenda Item No. 2a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Rezoning (R209- 3212); Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SD10-92S0); Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara parks project Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I submit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by Contra Costa County ("County") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"). This letter incorporates by reference our prior comments on the Draft EIR dated JuIy 1,8, 2016 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30,20-16. For reasons explained below, I am also attaching the letter submitted by the Town to you on September 30, 2020-the concerns raised in that letter remain valid and are incorporated herein. As explained in our previous three letters, the EIR does not comply with CEQA, State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, SS 65000 et seq.), and the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Coáe, SS 66410, et seq.). Before turning to the Town's comments regarding the updated information pertaining to water supply, I must address the Town's ongoing concerns regarding the lack oÌ transparency with this project and the ongoing exclusion of the Town from the process. 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Administration (92s) 314-3388 Building (925) 314-3330 Engineering & Planning (925) 3t4-3310 Transportation (92s) 314-3320 Maintenance (925) 314-34s0 Police (92:3) 374-s700 Parks and Recreation (e2s) 314-3400 June9,2021 Page2 While we have raised some of these concerns in prior letters, the pattern of excluding input from the Town continues to occur: As indicated in Section 1 of our September 30, 2020letter, the County has failed to respond to the first of our two comment letters on the Draft EIR. (See FEIR, Response to Comments, DAN pp. 1-2 oÍ 20). \Alhile our September 30 letter addresses the legal ramifications of this failure, I highlight it to point out that this omission has never been acknowledged or addressed by the County. In our November 30, 201.6 letter, the Town specifically asked that all future public notices for the project be sent to both the Town's outside counsel, Sabrina Teller, and the Town Attorney, Robert Ewing. \Alhile the Town did receive notice of the June 9, 2021hearing, neither Ms. Teller nor Mr. Ewing have received any public notices since our 201.6 request. Our September 30,2020,letter is not included in the 323 page packet of materials provided to the Planning Commission for this hearing and as far as we can tell, that letter has never been distributed to members of the Planning Commission and certainly has not been seen by the public and other interested parties. Finally, and most significantly, the materials provided to the Planning Commission omit documents submitted by the Town illustrating action by the Danville Town Council opposing the Project. On October 20, 2020, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 72-2020, Íorrnally opposing the project. On October 1.6, 2020,I personally emailed a link to the staff report and resolution to John Kopchik, Director of Conservation and Development for the County. Mr. Kopchik has been my primary contact at the County with regard to the Project and the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement. a a o a Astonishingly, none of those documents are included in the Staff Report and accompanying packet submitted to the County Planning Commission for its June 9, 2021., public hearing. Though the Planning Commission staff report refers to actions taken by the City of San Ramon and East Bay Regional Park District to support the Agricultural Preservation Agreement, the report includes no mention of Danville's action opposing it, which occurred prior to actions taken by both of the other agencies mentioned. Because of this omissiory no member of the Planning Commission or member of the public would have the slightest idea that the Town Council has taken a formal position on the project. As Danville is the incorporated city in closest proximity to the proposed project and by any objective measure would be the most impacted by the project, it is hard to believe that the official view of |une9,2021. Page 3 Danville's elected leaders is not worth providing to the County's decisionmakers. In order to provide members of the Planning Commission and the public with the Town Council's position, copies of the staff report, adopted resolution and transmitting email are attached and incorporated herein and can be found online here: https:/ /danville- MetaViewer.?r'iew id:9&c1i id:1729&meta id:36642 The Town and the County have had policy disagreements over the years regarding development in the San Ramon Valley, some of which have ended up in court. However, this is the first time we have experienced this level of difficulty in ensuring that the Town's input is even included and addressed in the public record for decisionmakers and the public to consider. This is simply indefensible. Turning to the critical issue of water supply for the project, the analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") remains inadequate. The County relies on a mitigation measure (MM USS-1) and related conditions of approval (COAs) wherein proof of water service must be demonstrated prior to filing a final map for the Project. (Staff Report, p. 5.) Not only does this constitute impermissible deferred mitigatiory because the measure is infeasible and de facto punts mitigation to some future time after project approval (see, e.g., Oøklønd Heritage Alliance u. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906), it also violates the holding in Vineyørd Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. a. City of Røncho Cordoaø (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 ("Vineyard"). The Supreme Court in Vineyard identified four key principles for an adequate water supply analysis under CEQA: 1. Decisionmakers must be presented with sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need; 2. An adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years; 3. Future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a liketihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA; and 4. Where it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of replacement sources or alternatives to the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies. (Id. atpp. a31.-a32.) June9,2021. Page4 The County's water supply analysis directly violates the third and fourth principles, in turn violating the first. As it stands, the Project has no likely path toward procuring an adequate water suppty. The theoretical future water supplier, the East Bay Municipal Utility District ('EBMUD"), opposes the Project and has stated that it does not have the water to service it and will reject the proposed annexation of the Project into its service district, as a matter of policy. (Staff Report, p.4, attached Letter of EBMUD Dated May 27,2021tp. t].) This provider admission makes the future water supply for the Project speculative and unrealistic, whereas Vineyard calls for a "confident prediction" of adequate water supply. (ld. at p. 32.) "When the verification [of water supply] rests on supplies not yet available to the water provider, it is to be based on firm indications the water will be available in the future...." (Id. at p. a33.) Here, the opposite occurs-the water provider is on record stating that it cønnot meet the demands of its existing customers, let alone those of the Project. (Staff Report, attached Letter of EBMUD dated l,.lay 27, 2021 fpp. 2-31.) The EIR therefore must include a discussion of another, potentially feasible water supply alternative and its environmental impacts. But, the County has not presented this discussion in any of its EIR iterations. To date, the County has presented two infeasible water supply sources, and zero viable ones. As a result, decisionmakers cannot evaluate the pros and cost of supplying water to the Project, because you cannot evaluate what does not exist. The criteria set forth in Vineyørd have not been met. Furthermore, the recent information presented by the County regarding its supposed water supply solution-namely letters from EBMUD-is indeed "significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5," requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Staff Report, p.4). Section 1,5088.5, subdivision (a)(2), requires recirculation prior to EIR certification upon new information containing "a disclosure showing that: ... [a] substantial increase in the severif of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measure are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance." As demonstrated above, via EBMUD's disclosures in its letters, MM USS-1 is ineffective and cannot be relied on to reduce the impact to water supply to a less-than-significant level, as it claims to do. (RDEIR, p.3.13-34.) Without this measure, the impact conclusion substantially increases, back to its pre-mitigation level of "[p]otentially signif icant," thereby kiggering recirculation. Additionally, because of the County's lack of notice for this upcoming hearing, the Town was not allowed adequate time to meaningfully review the technical information presented in the memorandum provided by Tutly & Young, in contravention of statutory directives that the CEQA process be a public one that provides "meaningful public disclosure." (Pub. Resources Code, g 21002|1", subd. (e); see also CEQA Guidelines, SS 15002, subd. (aX1), 15003, subds. (b)-(").) June9,2021 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and attachments in the record of proceedings for this Project. f, Manager Cc: Town Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Casey A. Shorrock, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Enclosures Attachment A: Town of Danville , September 30,2020 Comment Letter Attachment B: Town of Danville Staff Repor! dated 10/20/20; Danville Town Council Resolution No. 72-2020; Transmittal Email from Joe Calabrigo to John Kopchik, dated 10/1,6/20 nl]rj¡mrrs ,a " S u al I Tow t t A tnro s ph er e Outstanding Quality ol Lìþ" September 30,2020 VIA ELEC'I'RONIC MAIL. hil iana. li@rlcd.ccc o untr,. us sean.tull)¡(¿Jcicti.cccr-¡unt\¡. us Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re:Agenda Item No. 2 General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Agenda Item No. 3 Rezoning (R209-3212); Agenda Item No. 4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SD10- 928$; Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara Parks Project Dear Honorable Members of the Plaruring Conunission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I subrnit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by Conlra Costa County ("County") Pursuant to the California Environmental Qualiiy Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit.1.4, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"). This letter incorporates by reference our prior cornments on the Draft EIR dated july 18, 2016 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30, 20'16. As explained in our previous two lcttcrs, thc EIR docs not comply with C[QA, State Plaru"ring and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, SS 65000 et seq.), and the subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, SS 66410, et seq.). L. The Final EIR fails to adequately respond to the Town's comments on rhe Draft EIR. As a threshold matter, the Final EIR fails altogether to address the Town's comments on the Draft EIR in violation of Public Resources Code section 21.091., subdivision (d) ancl 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CAT, IFORNIA 94526 Administration BuildinB (925) 31,1-3330 Engineering, & Planning (925) 314-3310 Transportation (9251 314-3320 Ma¡nlenance Police (9251 314-3700 Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3400(92s) 314-3.?88 (925) 314-3450 ATTACHMENT A September 30,2020 Page2 CEQA Guidelines sections 15088, sul¡division (a) and 75132. (Cleueland National Forest Foundation tt. Snn Diego Assn. of Gouernments (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 497, 516 [responses to comments in a final EIR are an "integral paú" of an EIR's substantive analysis of environmental issues].) The Final EIR's responses to the Town's comments are limited to its comment letter dated November 30,20'16, (See Final EIR, pp. 3-53 to 3-72.) The Final EIR's statement that its responses to the Town's comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR address our previous comments on the Draft EIR is not accurate. The Final EIR does not address our comments related to the project description, baseline, land use, culfural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services and recreation, atnotrg others. The neeci for a reasoned, factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Ozter the Bay Contntittee u. Bd. of Port Comntissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 13M,1371.) Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA's informational purposes and renders an EIR legally inadequate. (See Flnnders Foundstion u. Cit!/ of Cnrntel-by-the-Sen (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rural Landorcners Assn. r,. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.) The Agricultural Preservation Agreement is an inextricably related action, the impacts of which must be analyzed in the EIR. Under CEQA a"proiect" is "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in thc environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment."-(Pub. Resources Code, S 21065.) It includes "the whole of an action." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15378, subd. (a).) The failure to analyze the "whole of the project" is a CEQA violation referred to as "piecemealing." (Banning Rnnch Conserunncy u. City of Neruport Beøclt QAn) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222.) The California Supreme Court has adopted the following test for reviewing piecemealing claims: [A]n EIR tnust inclucìe an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. (Laurel Heigltts lnrprouement Assn. u. Regents of lJnia. of Cnt. (1938) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.\ While the Final EIR reiterates that the Agricultural Prcservation Agreement can be approved separately from the Project and without CEQA review, the Project findings 2. September 30,2020 Page 3 included in the staff report make cleal that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement serves as the basis for rnaking the required finding of approval to change the County's urban Limit Line (uLL). (Staff Reporr, pp.26-28; Final EIR, pp.2-B ro 2-10.) In doing so, the County impermissibly commits itself to the approval of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement "as a practical matter" without CEQA review. (See Snae Tara u, City of West Hollyruood (2003) 45 Cal.4th 116,195.) The County's use of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement is therefore a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. The record clearly establishes that the sole purpose for proposing the clraft Agricultural Preservation Agreement is to facilitate the making of a finding to permit the Project's approval under County Code section Chapter 82-1.018(a)(3) -which requires that "[a] majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the [ULL] affecting all or any portion of the land covercd by the preservation agreement." The EIR must be revised and recirculated to address the impacts of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. Additionally, the Agricultural Preservation Agreement represents significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Guidelines, g 15088.5.) The Draft Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") (subsequently referred to as the Agricultural Preservation Agreement in the Final EIR) was not included in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. Prior to the Final EIR, the only information provided was a cursory explanation of the "range of actiorrs to be considered that include, but are not limited to" the identified actions. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 3.9-33.) In contrast, the staff report for the Project now includes a Draft Agricultural Preservation Agreement-upon which the County intends to rely to approve the change in ULL for the Project. As set forth above and in the Town's prior comments on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs, the County's approval of ine Project commits it to approving'the Agricultural Preservation Agreement while denying the public and other agencies the opportunity to evaluate it and the validity of the conclusions drawn from it. (See Spring Vnlley Løke Assn. a. City of Victonrille (201,6) 248 Cal.App.4th 91,'1.08; Siluerado Modjeskø Reueøtion €¡ Pnrk Dist, u, County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.Ath 282,305.) Moreover, as described below, the Final EIR has been revised to remove the Town of Danville as a signatory to the Agricultural Preservaiion Agreernent. In light of this significant new information, the Final EIR must be recirculated for public comment. September 30,2020 Page 4 The County irnproperly limits signatory parties to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. The Recirculated Draft EIR provides that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement (referred therein as a MOU) was "being considered by the County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, and East Bay Regional Park District." (Recirculated Draft EiR, pp. 2- 15, 3.9-33.) In light of the Town's objections to the change in ULL for the Project, the Final EIR was conspicuously revised to rernove the Town as a party to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement with no explanation-although it is presumably due to concern that the County would not be able to achieve the required approval of a "majority of the cities" to support the necessary finding. (Final EIR, pp. 4-43,2-5.) The Project's Northern Site is geographically related to the Town of Danville and is located within the Town of Danville's planning area as described in the Danville 2030 General Plan. The Towu of Danville would be one of the cities that would be expected to be a party to a preservation agreement. (See County Code, S 82-1.024 [Cooperation with citiesl.) It is against the notion of fair play (and quite frankly illogical) for the County and another city to enter into a preservation agreement that covers lands within the Town's planning area, without thc Town being a necessary party to such an agreement. The County's actions further represent a lack of good faith particularly where the intent of a preservation agreement is "to reflect the desired relevant interagency collaboration on land use issues." (Staff Report, p.26.) Furthermore, evelì if the East Bay Regional Parks District can be appropriately considered a"party to the preservation agreemcnÇ" it cannot be considered in making a finding that "a majority of cities" have approved the change to the ULL because it is not a city. (See also County Code, g 82-1.124 ["to the extent feasible, the county shall enter into preservation agreements with cities in tle county designed to preserve certain land in the county for agriculture and open space, wetlands or parks"T; Staff ReporÇ p.26, citing County Code, S 82-7.024.) Thus, at most, the "majority of cities" upon which the County relies to make the required finding is conveniently a majority of one (i.e., San Ramon). 4.The approval of a change in the ULL for the Proiect without voter approval is a violation of the County Code. A proposed general plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres requires voter approval pursuant to County Code section 82-1.018(b). Contrary to information in the EIR, the Project is not eligible for an exception to the voter approval 3. September 30,2020 Page 5 requirement because the true extent of the Project's urban development is approxirnately 50 acres, not 30 acres. The Recirculated Draft EIR's characterization of the "NonUrban Development Area" is specious. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 2-1,2-2, fn. 1 ['All Project features outside of the Residential Development Area are nonurban in nature"], 2-23 to 2-24, Exhibit 2-4.) The true extent of the Project's urban development is approximately 50 acres, not 30 acres. As the Town noted in its previous comments, the area needed to widen Camino Tassajara and to provide corresponding buffer landscape improvements, detention basin, sewer pump station, and necessary grading operations all serve and support the Project's 125 residential units. These Project elements camot be properly characterizetl as "nonurban uses" as defined in County Code section 82- 1.032(b) as they are not rural residential or agricultural structures. Nor are they "necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare" but for the development of the residential portion of the Project. The County's conclusory respolìse was simply to provide a recitation of County Code section 82-1'.032. (Final EIR, p. 2-12.) Sul¡stantial evidence fails to support a finding that these Project components are "nonurban uses." Nor does the Final EIR's response to comments represent the good faith reasoned analysis required by CEQ A. (Banning Ranch consentancy a, city of Nezuport Bench (2017) 2 cal.Sth g'r,8,940.) Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this Project, f, Cc n Manager Town Council Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLp Christina Berglund, Remy Moose Manley, LLp Y DANVIUÆ ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT TO:Mayor and Town Council October 20,2020 SUBfECT:Resolution No. 72-2020, opposing the Tassajara Parks project in unincorporated Contra Costa County and requesting that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project and all related actions BACKGROUND Contra Costa County will shortly hold public hearings before the Contra Costa Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider the Tassajara Parks project. Located east of the Town limits, the project encompass es77-L acres at the north end of the Tassajara Valley, outside of the voter-approved County Urban Limit Line (ULL). The application involves consideration of three interrelated components: 1,. The Tassajara Parks project includes applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009), Rezoning (R209-3212), Subdivision (SD10-9280) and a Final Development Plan (DP10-3008) covering two sites: . The northern site includes 155 acres located adjacent to Tassajara Hills Elementary School on Camino Tassajara. This site is within the Town's planning area as defined by the Danville 2030 General Plan. Proposed. development includes 1"25 residential lots, public streets, a detention basin, neighborhood park, staging area and equestrian facilities on a total of approximately 54 acres, with the balance of the site to be dedicated to East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). o The southern site includes three parcels totaling 616 acres located on the south side of Camino Tassajara, opposite Johnston Road and Highland Road. This site would be dedicated to EBRPD and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD). 2. An Agricultural Preservation Agreement (APA) is proposed for the Tassajara Valley. The APA would preserve and protect up to 17,718 acres subject to current County general plan and zoningstandards. 3. Certification of a Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project. The project raises both policy and environmental issues that have previously prompted the Towrç at the direction of the Town Council, to provide extensive and detailed comments to both the DEIR and the recirculated DEIR. The FEIR has failed to satisfactorily address many of these concerns. 7.2 ATTACHMENT B It is therefore appropriate for the Town Council to consider adoption of Resolution No 72-2020, taking a formal position to oppose this project. DISCUSSION The Tassajara Parks application was initially filed with Contra Costa County in February 20\4. Earlier development proposals encompassing the same sites (Emerald Homes and New Farm), were submitted and subsequently withdrawn without being acted upon by the County. Since 2014, processing of the application has stalled several times, owing to the need to identify how services would be provided, and undertaking and subsequently recirculating the project EIR on at least two occasions. Last month, the Town was notified that the project was scheduled to be heard by the Contra Costa Planning Comrnission on September 30,2020 (Attachment B). That meeting was subsequently cancelled due to a letter submitted by East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) on September 29, 2020. Tassaiara Parks Project Plans are included as Attachment C to this staff report. The property is currently designated for Agricultural use under the County general plan, and zoned Agricultural A-80 (80 acre minimum). Absent variances, this would permit no further subdivision of the northern site; the southern site, which is comprised of 3 existing parcels, could be subdivided into 7 parcels. In total, this would increase the number of parcels from 4 to 8 on both sites. As will be discussed later, the entire property is located outside of the ULL. All development is proposed for the 155-acre northern site. This includes 125 single family homes proposed to be located on the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to the elementary school. Though proposed as a 3O-acre exception to the voter approved ULL, the referenced 3O-acre area includes only the residential lots and public streets. The FEIR indicates that the development includes an additional 19.3 acres of grading along with a 2.95-acre detention basin, and'1,.44 acres of equestrian and pedestrian staging areas for a total development area of approximately 54 acres. The County staff report refers to the additional 24 acres as "non-urban developed area," a term which is not defined anywhere in the County general plan or zoning ordinance. (Note that additional land is also proposed for dedication to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District to expand and improve the parking area at the school). Absent the related grading and improvements, the 1"25lots could not be developed. As part of the project, the applicants propose to dedicateT2T acres of land to EBRPD, and 7 acres to SRVFPD. The project conditions would require payment of $4 million to an Tassajara Parks Project 2 October 20,2020 "agricultural enhancement fund" established by the County, and $2.5 million to Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust Fund. The project conditions of approval also require payment of fi484,361 to satisfy the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in lieu of providing the minimum 15% of affordable units on site. Agricultural Preservation Agreement The concept of an Agricultural Preservation Agreement for the Tassajara Valley dates back over two decades. An earlier version of an APA was developed in 1998 for consideration by Contra Costa County, Danville and San Ramon. This pre-dated voter approval of the county ULL. Danville acted to approve the agreement, while Contra Costa County and San Ramon never took action. The currently proposed APA commits to preserving up to 17,7\8 acres in the Tassajara Valley subject to the current County general plan and zoning. From a general plan and zoning perspective, it imposes no new requirements that don't already exist. That said, why enter into an APA if it adds no new protections? The simple answer is that it is the only potentially applicable basis to approve the project outside of the County ULL. The Town has been involved in ongoing discussions regarding a draft APA since 201,5. Initially drafted to include both the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon (Attachment D), the APA recognized that both cities have plaruring areas that include portions of the Tassajara Valley within their lespective General Plan planning areas, and that both are parties of interest. In order to approve the Tassajara Parks project, the County must grant an exception to the voter approved ULL. The APA is intended to facilitate that action. Chapter 82-'J, of the County Ordinance Code spells out how changes may be made to the voter approved ULL. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval and can be approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors upon making certain findings. This is where the APA becomes relevant. Section 82-1.018 (a) (3) states "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement ancl the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreemelìt." In approving the APA, the parties acknowledge that it enables the County to approve the Tassajara Parks project. As parties to the APA, both cities would need to approve it in order to constitute " A nmjoritt¡ of tlrc cities" (while the East Bay Regional Park District is also inclucled as a Tassajara Parks Project J October 20,2020 signatory to the agreement, the District is not a city, and is therefore of no relevance to making the necessary board finding). F{owever, the County subsequently and urrilaterally decided to remove Danville as aparly f sigrratory to the APA, ancl irr so doing, rernoved any ancl all references to the Town in the latest version of the APA (Attachment E). The ULL was approved by County and Danville voters. Atternpts to develop the Tassajara Valley have been ongoing for three decades. With or without the APA, by virtue of the County General Plan and ZornngOrdinance, a voter approved ULL and the lack of water and sewer, use of the Tassajara Valley is effectively limited to agriculture, absent a change in policy by the Board of Supervisors. Danville's 2030 General Plan includes the Upper Tassajara Valley as a Special Concern Area. This was included within the Town's planning area "to provide Danville with a gteater voice in future land use changes that might be considered by Contra Costa County." The northern site proposed to be developed as part of the Tassajara Parks project is located within this area. The Special Concern Area language states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley. Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistentwith the existing County General Plan designations for this atea." Final EIR CEQA review of the project was initiated in 2015. A draft EIR was prepared and circulated for the project. The DEIR was subsequently revised and re-circulated prior to release of the FEIR. The Town has submitted extensive comment letters on the DEI& RDEIR and FEIR (Attachments F1-F3). These letters have raised numerous issues related to the actions proposed, including but not limited to: Inconsistency of extending the ULL with Contra Costa County policies; Failure of the DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR to comply with CEQA with regard to o The requested ULL exception exceeding 30 acres o Lack of feasible water supply alternatives for the project o Transportation and traffic issues o Air quality and GHG emissions not having been properly studied/evaluated o Aesthetics,light and glare impacts o Impacts upon agricultural, biological and cultural resources o Geology, soils and seismic factors o Noise o Public Services and Recreation o Lack of reasonable project alternatives Tassajara Parks Project a a 4 October 20,2020 . Project inconsistency with General Plan violates planning and zoning law as well as the Subdivision Map Act. It should be noted that the project proponents have applied to LAFCO to have East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) provide water and sewer service to the Tassajara Parks project. The FEIR and the County staff report indicate that annexation of the site into EBMUD would be contingent upon project applicants funding offsite water conservation measures within EBMUD's existing service area which would offset the additional water demand created by the project. This would be subject to approval by the EBMUD Board of Directors. In their September 29,2020letter to Contra Costa County (Attachment G), counsel for EBMUD challenges the validity of the water supply section of the FEI& stating that the FEIR among other things: uses "an unsubstantiated and artificially low water demand estimate for the project"; fails to acknowledge the projects inconsistency with EBMUD annexation policies; and contains a faulty analysis of water supply impacts that violates the basic requirements of adequate water supply analysis under CEQA. The letter concludes by stating that "the County cannot assume EBMUD will solve the applicants water supply problems." Based upon the EBMUD letter, it appears as though no viable source of water currently exists to serve the proposed project. The FEIR may be viewed at https:/ /www.contracosta.ca.gov14552/Tassajara-Parks. SUMMARY Issues and concerns raised and highlighted in this report include: 1,. Project inconsistency with the Danville 2030 General Plan. 2. Policy and precedent setting implications associated with amending the voter approved ULL; and considering a 3O-acre exception to the ULL. 3. The Tassajara Parks project proposes a S4-acre development footprint that includes 125 single family homes, public streets, related grading, a neighborhood park, drainage facilities, staging area and other improvements - clearly exceeding the 30 acre exception that can be granted by the Board of Supervisors. As currently proposed, the project would require voter approval to expand the ULL. 4. The Town is a party to any actions regarding the future of the Tassajara Valley. This includes consideration of an APA. There are two cities that are parties to the APA. Absent one city, how can it reasonably be stated that "a majority of the cities Tassajara Parks Project 5 October 20,2020 that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approvecl a change to tl're urban lirnit line..." 5. Inconsistency with growth management principles built into Measure J (i.e. focusing housing and jobs around transit centers and downtowns). 6. Potentially significant environmental impacts related to traffic, aesthetics, utilities, services and facilities, etc. 7. Growth inducing impacts related to requiring EBMUD and CCCSD to serve property outside of the voter approved ULL. 8. Lack of any viable water service provider. Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club and the Tassajara Property Owners have all previously expressed opposition to the proposal. The Town has raised valid policy and environmental concerns related to the Tassajara Parks project for the past several years. Residents living on the east side of Town stand to be most directly impacted by the downstream impact that the project will generate. The Tassajara Parks project is inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan. The currently proposed APA commits to preserving up to 17,718 acres in the Tassajara Valley subject to the current County general plan and zoning. In reality, from a general plan and zoning perspective, it imposes no new requirements that don't already exist, and is opposed by the majority of the affected property owners. \tVhile the project includes extensive land dedications to various agencies, the entire site has very limited development potential under the current County general plan and zoning, and the dedications are simply trade-offs in an attempt to secure approval of a ULL exception to allow construction of another 125 homes. The decennial ULL review completed by the County in201(t concluded that there was adequate land capacity within the current ULL. EBMUD has clearly stated that the property is outside of the District's service area boundary. At a time when the State and regional planning bodies are increasingly exerting their influence upon local agencies to focus new development into more urban, transit-oriented areas, this project would do just the opposite. PUBLIC CONTACT Posting of the meeting agenda serves as notice to the general public. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. Tassajara Parks Project 6 October 20,2020 RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution No.72-2020, opposing the Tassajara Parks project in unincorporated Contra Costa County and requesting that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project and all related actions. Prepared and Reviewed by: Joseph Calabrigo Town Manager Attachments:A- B- C- D- E- F1- F2- F3- G- Resolution No.72-2020 September 30, 2020 Staff Report to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Tassajara Parks plans April 29,201,6 Draft Memorandum of Understanding (Agricultural Preservation Agreement) September 4, 2020 Agricultural Preservation Agreement September 30,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County November 30,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County July 18, 2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County September 29,2020 Comment Letter from East Bay Municipal Utility District to Contra Costa County Tassajara Parks Project October 20,2020 Docusign Envelope lD: 9CBB9BD5-3F68-4648-957E-81 45F8A478C7 RESOLUTION NO. 72-2020 OPPOSING THE TASSAIARA PARKS PROJECT IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND REQUESTING THAT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REJECT THE FEIR AND DENY THE PROIECT AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, Contra Costa County is currently considering the "Tassajara Parks" project, including applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009), Rezoning (R209- 3212), Subdivision (SD10-9280) and a Final Development Plan (DP10-3008)including 771 acres on two sites located east of the Town limits, at the north end the Tassajara Valley; and WHEREAS, the project is located outside of the voter-approved County Urban Limit Line (I-ILL), which was also approrred by Danville voters as the Town's IIrhan Growth Boundary (UGB); and WHEREAS, the Town's 2030 General Plan includes the Upper Tassajara Valley as a Special Concern Area to provide Danville with a greater voice in future land use changes that might be considered by Contra Costa County, and the Special Concern Area language states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley" and that "Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistent with the existing County General Plan designations for this area."; an':.d WHEREAS, Chapter 82- 1 of the County Ordinance Code allows that proposed expansions of 30 acres oÍ less to tl're voter approved ULL do not require voter approval and can be approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors upon making certain findings; and WHEREAS, Section 82-1.018 (u) (3) states "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement," and WHEREAS, the applicants for the Tassajara Parks project have proposed the adoption of an Agricultural Preservation Agreement (APA) that would effect up to 77,7I8 acres in the Tassajara Valley; and WHEREAS, the Town has been a party to ongoing discussions regarding the APA since 20!5, and the APA was originally drafted to include the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon, recognizing that both cities have planning areas that include portions of the Tassajara Valley within their respective General Plan planning areas; and DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBBgBD5-3F68-4648-957E-81 45F8A478C7 WHEREAS, a draft EIR was prepared ancl circulated for the project, and has subsequently been revised and re-circulated two additional times; and WHEREAS, the Town has submitted extensive cornrnent letters on both the initial, revised and re-circulated project EIRs which have raised nurnerous issues and concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, recirculated DEIR and FEIR; and WHEREAS, the Danville Town Council has reviewed and considered all of the related actions associated with the Tassajara Parks project, ancl finds that: 1,. TLe proposed project includes a total development area of ap-rproximately 54 acres, including 125 single family homes, subdivision grading necessary to build the single family lots, a detention basin necessary to meet storm water run-off rcquircmcnts for thc singlc family lots, a ncighborhood park ncccssary to scrvc thc single farnily lots, equestrian and pedestrian staging areas. The area being developed exceeds the 3O-acre exception allowed under Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code by approximately 180% and should be subject to voter approval. 2. Tl're Town has historically been considered to be a party to land use considerations that involve and effect the Tassajara Valley. The Town was a signatory to the original 1998 APA proposed for the Tassajara Valley prior to voter approval of a county ULL, and the Town has been a party to ongoing discussions regarding the APA proposed as a part of the Tassajara Parks project since 2015. The unilateral decision by Contra Costa County to exclude Danville as a signatory to the most receut APA is a bad faith action inconsistent with recent and past precedent. 3. Without Danville as a signatory to the proposed APA, the Town challenges the County's ability to find that "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreernent and the county have approved a change to the urban lirnit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement" subject to Section 82-1.018 (a) (¡) of the County Ordinance Code. 4. From a general plan and zoning perspective, the APA imposes no new requirements and is proposed solely for the purpose of facilitating County consideration to grant an exception to the voter approved ULL. 5. The Town has submitted extensive comment letters on both the initial, rer.ised and re-circulated project EIRs that have raised numerous concerns and identified numerous deficiencies pertaining to CEQA adequacy, 6. The project and related APA are inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan Special Concern Area language wl'Lich states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley. Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistent with the existing County General Plan designations for this area." DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBBgBD5-3F68-4648-957E-8145F84478C7 7. The decennial ULL review completed by the County in20'1.6 concluded that there was adequate land capacity r¡'ithin the current ULL to accommodate projected growth. 8. The proposed project is inconsistent with smart growth principles that call for new developrnent to include greater affordability and be focused into more urbary transit-oriented areas, consistent with the goals set by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that upon review and consideration of the application and record, the Danville Town Council wishes to register its forrnal opposition to the Tassajara Parks project and requests that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project. APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular rneeting on October 20,2020,by the following vote: AYES: Arnerich, Blackwell, Morgan, stepper NOES: storer ABSTAINED: ruone ABSENT: *on" DocuSigned by: d.,4J,4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: by: R"l'arlB.fu*t CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK W Public Comment From:Anne Holmes To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:16:15 AM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Anne Holmes From:Benjamin Simrin To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:06:37 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Benjamin Simrin From:CARL LUHRING To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:22:16 AM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, CARL LUHRING From:Elizabeth Hudson To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 7:43:24 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Elizabeth Hudson From:Fiorella Russo-Jang To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:56:39 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Fiorella Russo-Jang From:Janet Carpinelli To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:49:51 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Janet Carpinelli From:JUDITH SMITH To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:34:28 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, JUDITH SMITH From:Kermit Cuff To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:58:34 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Kermit Cuff From:Laura de Jesus To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:27:58 AM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Laura de Jesus From:Ms Heath To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 11:12:30 AM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Ms Heath From:Nancy Martini To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:29:47 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Nancy Martini From:Rachel Loui To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 2:40:53 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Rachel Loui From:Rebecca Eiseman To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:14:55 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Rebecca Eiseman From:Reetta Raag To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:38:46 AM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Reetta Raag From:regina raab To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, April 21, 2021 4:00:21 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, regina raab From:Teresa Castle To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 1:43:48 PM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Teresa Castle From:Teri Yazdi To:Sean Tully Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:51:19 AM Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commission In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you, Teri Yazdi From:Paula Davila-Hester To:DCD PlanningHearing Cc:Paula Davila-Hester Subject:Tassajara Parks Project - We are firmly OPPOSED to this project Date:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 5:35:58 PM Dear Planning Commission, My husband and I are homeowners in the Alamo Creek subdivision located in the un-incorporated area of the town of Danville. We purchased our home in the lovely Tassajara Valley due to the beauty and tranquility of this very special area. Tassajara has already been negatively impacted by the increased traffic flow caused by the extension of Tassajara blvd. from Danville all the way to Dublin. There are some evenings this tranquil area sounds like a freeway due to all of this increased traffic. We don’t need to add to the problem by re-zoning this area to add more housing. The Tassajara Valley is a special place because its’ residents love the tranquility and beauty of this area, that’s why many of us elected to move here! NO MORE HOUSING and NO RE-ZONING IN THE TASSAJARA VALLEY! Sincerely, Wes & Paula Hester From:Aaron Eckhouse To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:20:18 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. There are plenty of opportunities for Contra Costa County to plan for & build the new homes we need without further sprawl. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Aaron Eckhouse aaron@cayimby.org Emeryville, California 94608 From:Alexander Salazar To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:52:48 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Alexander Salazar s San Ramon, California 94582 From:Alexandra Terry To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 8:17:23 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Alexandra Terry t Concord, California Ca From:allisonmariecooper@gmail.com To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 9:29:00 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! El Cerrito, California 94530 From:Amy Gratteau To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 11:10:39 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Amy Gratteau Danville, California 94506 From:Andrew Chao To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 10:00:18 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Andrew Chao Danville, California 94526 From:Collier Canyon To:DCD PlanningHearing Cc:hughafshar@gmail.com Subject:Contra Costa County Planning Commission / WEDNESDAY, June 9, 2021/ TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:13:47 AM Please include for the record opposition pertaining to AGREEMENT REGARDING PRESERVATION AND AGRICULTURAL ENHANCEMENT IN THE TASSAJARA VALLEY (“Agreement”). This “Agreement”, as it is being contemplated by Contra Costa County, East Bay Regional Park District, City of San Ramon (“Party”) and developer of Tassajara Parks Project (“Developer”) is without of the consent from owners of affected by the "Agreement" property. The “Agreement” that proposes to crate “PROPOSED PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT AREA” enhances nothing for the benefit of creating a viable agriculture or new agriculture in Tassajara Valley. The “Agreement” also applies ambiguous restrictions and another layers of bureaucracy to over 17,677 acres of Tassajara private properties. All it is done by the "Party" and "Developer" without of consent from owners of affected property. “PROPOSED PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT AREA” is already adequately protected by current AG zoning, and Land Conservation Program, and there is no need for new bureaucracy or additional jurisdictions over 17,677 acres of Tassajara private properties. It is apparent that contemplated “Agreement” is done for the benefit of “Developer” to achieve approval of 30-acre Tassajara Parks project subdivision to capitalize on a loophole in the County code ordinance Section 82-1.018 which allows “Developer” to skip a public vote on the project, and instead puts BOS in charge to decide about the project. Developer is free to do what they want with their lands. However, "Developer" and "Party" are not free to simply force "Agreement" to other privately own lands in Tassajara Valley because "Developer" does not own those other lands. Consequently, BOS should not support this overreach force upon other privately own lands in Tassajara Valley. Thanks, Anna Nahlik CC: Hugh Afshar From:Anoeil Odisho To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 9:52:31 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Best, Anoeil Odisho Anoeil Odisho San Jose, California 95120 From:Anthie Booras To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:NO!!! on the Tassajara Parks Project Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 9:12:09 AM As someone who has lived off of Tassajara Road and in particular right next to the area in which you plan to put this project of more homes in which we do not need, I and my family are highly against this. We already have too much traffic on the one lane road leading between our area and Dublin, and we do not need more cars and more people clogging that road. We voted multiple times for that urban limit line which means the people want to keep it how it is. You cannot just go in there and change things because you guys want more money from tax revenue and other such things related to building more homes. We said no before, we’re going to say no again, and we’re going to keep saying no!! Anthie Booras From:Barbara Sullivan To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 12:41:17 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Barbara Sullivan Danville, California 94526 From:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:FW: Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 8:47:18 AM     From: Carol Weed <info@email.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 8:43 AM To: DCD PlanningHearing <PlanningHearing@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, When you vote on revising the General Plan to permit the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line, you need to consider: • The urban limit line exists for several reasons. • More dense housing around transit hubs is needed, NOT sprawl which increases traffic, GHG emissions, and thus speeds climate change. • Protecting open space is important to reduce wildfire risk. • More development of this land means more water lines and inefficient use of a limited resource. • If you allow this General Plan revision, it invites proposals for variances. Thank you! Carol Weed Walnut Creek , California 94595 From:Christian Wiedemann To:DCD PlanningHearing Cc:Sean Tully; John Kopchik; Supervisor_Burgis; Supervisor Candace Andersen Subject:Letter of Opposition - Tassajara Parks "Agricultural Preservation Agreement" Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 12:19:19 PM Attachments:170202 Hoge Fenton Tassajara Parks MOU Memorandum.PDF Members of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, I'm writing to you as a landowner in the Tassajara Valley, and also as a representative of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) a group of famers, ranchers, and landowners that represents over 90% of all agricultural lands in the Tassajara Valley. I'm writing regarding the "Agricultural Preservation Agreement" being proposed by the Tassajara Parks developer. Simply stated, the proposed "preservation agreement" is fraudulent. It was written by the Tassajara Parks developer as a means to move the Urban Limit Line for the Tassajara Parks project without a public vote. It has so far been authorized for approval by the City of San Ramon and East Bay Regional Parks, presumably because they expect to share in the $6.5 million dollar donation the Tassajara Parks developer is attaching to the agreement. Other parties were invited to sign the agreement but correctly rejected it and now vocally oppose it. The only reason the agreement exists is for the developer to receive an expedited approval for the proposed project; the agreement does not actually preserve anything. It applies to an area that is outside of the Urban Limit Line, zoned A-80 Agricultural, and encumbered by the Williamson Act. In other words, the agreement claims to preserve an area that is already completely preserved. Multiple legal opinions confirm this, including the attached formal opinion from Hoge Fenton. The agreement also does not meet the County's minimum legal requirements for a preservation agreement. In fact, it creates a path for more high-density development in Tassajara in the future, despite the developer's claims to the contrary. By approving this agreement, the County is signalling to every other developer in Northern California that by offering a similar "preservation agreement" and contributing several million dollars to the County, they too can move the Urban Limit Line and have their project approved without bothering with a public vote. These are some of the reasons why two of the most prominent conservation groups in California, Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance, both strongly oppose not only the Tassajara Parks project, but also specifically oppose the "preservation agreement" attached to it. In addition to Tassajara Valley agricultural producers, the agreement is vocally opposed by: The Town of Danville The Greenbelt Alliance The Sierra Club The Tassajara Valley Preservation Association East Bay MUD And many others... On behalf of farmers, ranchers, and landowners in Tassajara, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission make a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed Tassajara Parks "preservation agreement" be rejected. Thank you for your consideration on this important issue. Sincerely, Christian Wiedemann -- Christian Wiedemann | Wiedemann Ranch, Inc. 415.794.3394 direct | 925.371.9663 fax wiedemannranch.com HOGE • FENTON ATTORNEY S February 2, 2017 Christian Wiedemann 6989 Highland Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 Sblend A. Sblendorio 925.460.3365 sblend. sblendorio@hogefenton.com Re: Proposed Memorandum of Understanding is Not a "Preservation Agreement" under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code § 82-1.018 Our File No.: 89509 Dear Christian: I. INTRODUCTION Under Contra Costa County's ordinance code, one way to accomplish development beyond the county-created Urban Limit Line ("ULL") is to effectuate a "preservation agreement" that is signed onto by a "majority of cities." Contra Costa County Ordinance Code§ 82-1.018(a)(3). This section of the code provides no definition for the term "preservation agreement." No other portion of the ordinance code, or any other County law for that matter, provides definitional guidance for interpreting what exactly a "preservation agreement" is or what it should be designed to accomplish. On September 23, 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") was proposed pertaining to Tassajara Parks, which purports to be a "preservation agreement" per the County ordinance code. However, aside from reaffirming current sections of the code, it does little to accomplish its supposed environmental protectionist goals and instead creates a significant loophole at the end of the memorandum that provides for quick approval to urban development outside of the ULL. As a result, the proposed MOU is not sufficient to serve as a "preservation agreement" under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §82-1.018. II. CURRENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAW The Contra Costa County Ordinance Code provides that, generally, urban development within the county must be limited to occurring on no more than thirty-five percent of the county's land. Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §82-1.006. The remaining sixty-five percent must be "preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other nonurban uses." Id. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 -2020, Contra Costa County has adopted as a Countywide policy the goal of promoting "cooperation between the County and cities to preserve agricultural and open space land." Section 3-13. Tri-Valley Office I 4309 Hacienda Drive, Suite 350, Pleasanton, California 94588-2746 phone 925.224.7780 fax 925.224.7782 www.hogefenton.com 2089083 Christian Wiedemann February 2, 2017 Page 2 To ensure this standard is maintained, the County established an Urban Limit Line ("ULL"), which was determined and adopted by the voters on November 7, 2006. See Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §82-1.010. The adoption of the ULL in 2006 was an extension of an earlier voter-approved measure on the same topic -Measure C-1990 - which was passed in November of 1990. The purpose of the ULL is to limit "potential urban development in the county to thirty-five percent of the land in the county and prohibits the county from designating any land located outside the urban limit line for an urban land use." Id. The ULL cannot be changed in a manner that would violate the 65/35 standard. The boundaries of the line itself, however, can be changed "by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors after holding a public hearing" so long as the board makes one of seven findings based upon "substantial evidence in the record." Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §82- 1.018. One of those seven findings reads as follows: "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement." Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §82-1.018(a)(3). III. DEFINING "PRESERVATION AGREEMENT" The Contra Costa County Ordinance Code does not define "preservation agreement." Likewise, the General Plan does not provide any additional guidance as to what a "preservation agreement" is or requirements for the enactment of one. Instead, the Code and all other Contra Costa County sources of legal authority make no mention of definitional guidance for interpreting the term. Furthermore, no legislative history pertaining to the enactment of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code§ 82-1.018 reveals any additional guidance for defining "preservation agreement" under the code. Counsel spoke with a County Planner in late December 2016. The County Planner was unable to point to any authority that would shed additional light on what a "preservation agreement" must be comprised of under County law. Instead, the County Planner alluded to the idea that the term was intuitive -that a preservation agreement is simply an agreement signed onto in order to preserve some sort of environmental resource. Furthermore, the County Planner informed Counsel that perhaps the only example of a "preservation agreement" to which the County is a party is a document that was signed on August 4, 1987 to establish an "agricultural preservation area in the Briones Hills." Although the document is titled as a "Resolution," the document itself refers to its contents as a "preservation agreement." Resolution No . 87 /483. The contents of the agreement explicitly serve the purpose of preserving land within a specific portion of the Briones Hills and the parties signing the agreement agreed "to a policy of non-annexation to urban service districts and cities for agricultural and open space properties ... " Id. Aside from this particular document, Contra Costa County provides no additional guidance on defining "preservation agreement." Some laws in California have clearly defined preservation agreements for the purposes of compliance with a particular statute. For example, The Mills Act provides tax breaks for property owners that purchase certain "historic" properties and agree to sign historic property preservation agreements. Cal . Gov. Code §50280 et seq. Although the act itself describes such agreements as "contracts," such contracts are typically referred to as "historic property preservation agreements" (See examples of preservation agreements under the Mills Acts from the following municipalities: Contra Costa County, Benicia, City of Christian Wiedemann February 2, 2017 Page 3 Orange, Escondido, and Coronado). California Government Code §50281 clearly sets forth the requirements for such agreements: Any contract entered into under this article shall contain the following provisions: (a) The term of the contract shall be for a minimum period of 10 years. (b) Where applicable, the contract shall provide the following: {1} For the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, to restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code. (2) For an inspection of the interior and exterior of the premises by the city, county, or city and county, prior to a new agreement, and every five years thereafter, to determine the owner's compliance with the contract. {3} For it to be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors in interest of the owner. A successor in interest shall have the same rights and obligations under the contract as the original owner who entered into the contract. Cal. Gov. Code §50281 The Mills Act, at the very least, serves as a definitive example of how a California legislature envisions a preservation agreement. Note that it does not provide any carve outs or exceptions to preserving the property; instead, it truly preserves the designated property and seeks to ensure it maintains its historic character. IV. THE PROPOSED MOU CANNOT SERVE AS A "PRESERVATION AGREEMENT" BECAUSE IT FULFILLS NO REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM. As addressed above, there is no dispute that Contra Costa County has failed to define "preservation agreement" per Contra Costa County Ordinance Code§ 82-1.018 within any of its sources of law. Instead, the term is used in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code§ 82-1.018 without any definitional support. However, as is demonstrated through both the Briones Hills preservation agreement -which is evidently the County's only historical example of a preservation agreement signed within the County -and California statutes like the Mills Act, the proposed MOU cannot serve as a preservation agreement because it meets no reasonable definition of the term. First, the proposed MOU does not embody the same or even similar content to the Briones Hills preservation agreement, which allowed for definite preservation of specific land for agricultural and open space purposes. The proposed MOU serves only one purpose -it creates an unprecedented mechanism for the County to singlehandedly approve projects invading the ULL without further scrutiny, so long as the project agrees to "permanently preserv[e]" 500 acres of land and dedicates $4 million to an "agricultural enhancement Christian Wiedemann February 2, 2017 Page 4 fund." Unlike the Briones Hills preservation agreement, the proposed MOU does not serve the exclusive purpose of preserving lands for agricultural and open space purposes but instead simply permits development with the caveat that 500 acres of the land sought to be developed are protected. It gives no further consideration to which 500 acres of land must be preserved within the proposed development, and does not even seem to require that those 500 acres of land exist within the proposed development. Additionally, it is worth noting that the ULL and procedures for development outside it were originally adopted in 1990. The Briones preservation agreement was enacted three years prior. Given that we have been unable to find any other examples of preservation agreements that pre-date 1990, the Briones preservation agreement must have been in mind when the ULL was originally established. Thus, the Briones preservation agreement serves as the best example of how the term "preservation agreement" is to be interpreted and, as detailed above, it and the proposed MOU do not serve the same or even similar goals. Second, the proposed MOU does not embody any similarities to the Mills Act, which serves as an example of how the California legislature has sought to define the term preservation agreement under other statutory law. Unlike the Mills Act, which requires documents -often referred to as "preservation agreements" -to be clearly crafted for the exclusive purpose of preserving historic properties without exception, the proposed MOU fails to serve an analogous purpose. Instead, the proposed MOU operates with the ultimate goal of easing urban development, with the small caveat that an unidentified 500 acres be excluded from development during the process. Thus, the proposed MOU bears little to no similarity to the preservation agreements adopted under the Mills Act. V. CONCLUSION Contra Costa County provides no determinative authority defining the term "preservation agreement" as it appears in Contra Costa County Ordinance Code§ 82-1.018. Further research into both the County's past practice and California statutory law reveals that the current MOU as proposed meets no colloquial definition of "preservation agreement" because instead of operating to preserve lands within the County, it actually provides a mechanism through which urban development can be achieved with more ease than ever before. Therefore, the proposed MOU cannot serve as a "preservation agreement" under Contra Costa County Ordinance Code§ 82-1.018 and must be rejected for the purposes of expanding the ULL. Very truly yours, SAS: rag From:Colin Cook To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 8:52:41 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Colin Cook From:Daniel Schulman To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Please vote no on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 9:26:33 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Daniel Schulman El Cerrito, California 94530 From:Darla Vorous To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 8:53:30 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Darla Vorous Danville, California 94526 From:David Kellogg To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 9:24:13 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, While we have a side housing crisis, we must reject single family sprawl into open space. Our housing should be dense and concentrated near transit, jobs, shopping, schools, etc. Please vote no. .. In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! David Kellogg Walnut Creek, California 94597 From:Deborah Greene-Phalen To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 10:19:15 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Deborah Greene-Phalen Brentwood , California 94513 From:Douglas Bruce To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 9:44:07 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Douglas Bruce Walnut Creek, California 94595 35229-21 Patterson Mellon CERTIFIED A TRUE COPY Secretary Directors Katz, Mellon, Patterson, Young and President Linney. Director Coleman. Director McIntosh. None. Tuesday, June 8, 2021 Sean Tully Principal Planner Department of Conservation & Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Letter of Support – Tassajara Parks Project Dear Sean Tully, The East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) appreciates the opportunity to express support for the Tassajara Parks Project (Project) in the Tassajara Valley in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The proposed Project includes construction of 125 single-family residential homes on a 30-acre portion of the project site. The Project also includes dedication of a majority of the project site (approximately 727 acres) to the Park District for permanent protection and preservation for open space, park, recreation, and other non- urban uses. The Project is adjacent to the Park District’s existing Tassajara Creek Regional Trail. When complete, the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail will connect the communities of Dublin and San Ramon to Morgan Territory Regional Preserve, Mount Diablo State Park, and beyond. The southern piece of open space intended for donation (over 609 acres) abuts Windemere Ranch Preserve and is near other protected open space including Doolan Canyon Regional Park, Camp Parks, and the Richley and Brown Ranches. Taken together, this network of protected lands creates a green open space buffer on the eastern edge of San Ramon, preventing further development into this historic ranch community and preserving the area’s rural character. Limiting development deeper into this fire-prone landscape protects the surrounding communities by reducing potential sources of ignition in and around newly developed areas. This open-space buffer also acts as a wildlife corridor, enhancing connectivity for species movement within and across the Tassajara Valley. There has been a substantial effort by the Project’s proponents, Contra Costa County, the City of San Ramon, and the Park District in reaching agreement regarding the proposed development and open space donation. In 2020 the Park District and City of San Ramon authorized an Agricultural Preservation Agreement that further restricts development on 17,667 acres and establishes a fund to protect additional agricultural lands in the Tassajara Valley. The Park District looks forward to continuing to work with our public agency partners to finalize the agreements so that the property dedication may be presented to the Park District’s Board of Directors. If the project is approved and the open space is dedicated to the Regional Parks Foundation (RPF), Park District staff will be pleased to recommend that our Board of Directors accept the open space and conform to the terms of related agreements for the preservation of agricultural and open space lands. Sean Tully, Principal Planner Will Nelson, Principal Planner June 8, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss further. Respectfully, Kristina Kelchner Assistant General Manager Acquisition | Stewardship | Development Division cc: Sabrina Landreth, General Manager, East Bay Regional Park District Beverly Lane, Treasurer, Ward 6, East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors John Kopchik, Director, Contra Costa County Conservation & Development Will Nelson, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Conservation & Development Contra Costa County Planning Commission Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors From:Eliot Hudson To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 3:20:54 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, I join in opposing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for important and compelling reasons; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. Once open space land is lost, it is lost FOREVER. Make no mistake: this project is not fundamentally about addressing the current perceived housing shortage. That can be done in far more environmentally-friendly ways. This project is simply about a developer wanting to enrich themselves by building the most profitable homes by destroying open land. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to preserve open space, maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Eliot Hudson Lafayette, California 94549 From:Fiorella Russo-Jang To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 12:33:08 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Fiorella Russo-Jang Martinez, California 94553 From:Floyd McCluhan To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 7:32:04 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Floyd McCluhan Clayton, California 94517 June 8, 2021 Re: 6/9/21 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Public Hearing for Tassajara Parks Project Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commissioners, Greenbelt Alliance strongly urges you to reject the Department of Conservation and Development’s staff report recommending approval of the proposed development known as Tassajara Parks. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has rejected supplying water to this project because it is outside their service area and ultimate service boundary and the developer’s estimate of water usage has been underestimated by a factor of 2. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental non-profit that encourages both the protection of open space as well as directing development and growth into our existing communities. We have been working for over 30 years to fight sprawl development in the Tassajara Valley. We have major concerns about this project. Developments of this kind and in this location will actually put your communities and our region at greater risk of the effects of climate change. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. The pace of climate change is accelerating and there are two ways we can solve this: 1)Mitigation:We need to reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GhG). We need to build safe, healthy communities where residents can walk, bike and take transit to get to where they need to go. We need to build homes closer together in existing neighborhoods close to existing city infrastructure. 2)Adaption:Fires are already part of our lives annually and the severity of each fire season is increasing. By building homes on open space and far from existing infrastructure you are putting your existing communities at risk. You need to build homes closer to existing neighborhoods and take precautionary measures to reduce fire risk in open spaces. Protecting the urban limit line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016 the Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line Mid-Term review which stated that the ULL analysis demonstrates that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Contra Costa County has space to grow in a climate SMART way.Do not move the ULL, thereby risking the health of our communities and the resilience of our region. The petition to protect the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line by the Tassajara Valley Preservation Association has nearly 4,700 signatures. Additionally,the project’s footprint is larger than 30 1 acres which would require four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors, approval of voters, as well as one of seven findings specified in measure L. We implore you to think about the health and safety of your current and future residents and vote NO on this project.We need to build communities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect our open spaces and save our wildlife.Greenbelt Alliance looks forward to endorsing future fire safe developments in Contra Costa County that reduce emissions and help achieve regional climate goals. Sincerely, Zoe Siegel Director of Climate Resilience zsiegel@greenbelt.org Greenbelt Alliance zsiegel@greenbelt.org 2 From:Heidi Stratton To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 10:56:31 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Heidi Stratton Redwood city, California 94061 From:howiem@gmail.com To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 3:39:36 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, As a resident of Contra Costa County, I want to see that new developments are focused on existing urban areas. In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! El Cerrito, California 94530 My name is Hugh Afshar, hereby protest to the prospective Tassajara Valley Agreement as been entirely arbitrary on the part of the County and also is discriminatory to the residents of Tassajara Valley residents and we request for its reconsideration on these 2 major points before any final resolution of this agreement take place. Signed, Hugh Afshar on June 9, 2021 @ 11:55 am From:Derek Cole To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 1:00:25 PM Good evening Commissionaires, I'm Derek Cole and I'm here tonight representing several thousand Contra Costa County families that belong to IBEW Local 302, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, UA Plumbers Local 159 and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483. We stand with you tonight in alliance with EBRP, Save Mount Diablo and the Fire District to ask for your approval of the Tassajara Parks project. I can tell you we have been to many meetings and it is not that often you see unanimity from such a diverse group supporting a project such as this one. This is happening for a good reason. In exchange for the minor 30-acre modification to ULL, approximately 727 acres of land – which consists of about (93)% of the project site – will be conveyed to the Park District. Transferring these 727 acres to the Park District will ensure that it is permanently preserved for open space, parks, recreation, ridgelines, wildlife and plant habitat. It will dedicate approximately 7- acre site for a potential future fire station training facility. It will provide for an irrevocable four million dollar ($4,000,000) contribution to an agricultural enhancement fund established by the County. Please support Tassajara Parks. Thank you for your time. Best, Derek Cole Sr. Assistant Business Manager IBEW Local 302 1875 Arnold Drive Martinez, CA 94553 PH: (925) 228-2302 Fax: (925) 228-0764 www.ibewlu302.com www.norcal-jatc.com www.norcalvdv.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any documents attached or previous e-mail messages attached to it, constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). the unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, or have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email or by telephone at (650) 574-4239, and delete all copies of this communication, including attachments, without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From:Rachel Shoemake To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Support for Tassajara Parks project Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:02:25 AM Good evening Commissioners, My name is Rachel Shoemake and I’m here representing several thousand Contra Costa County families that belong to IBEW Local 302, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, UA Plumbers Local 159, and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483. We are here in alliance with East Bay Regional Parks, Save Mount Diablo and the Fire District to ask for your approval of the Tassajara Parks project. We recognize it’s not often you see unanimity from such a diverse group in support of a project like this! There are so many great reasons to support this project: *This project will be built by a local construction workforce and those workers will be paid family- supporting wages under a Project Labor Agreement. *Area youth and at-risk workers will be employed as apprentices on the project, creating more opportunity for their entry into America’s middle class. *The project will alleviate long-standing development pressures for the Tassajara Valley area. With roughly 93% of the project site to be conveyed to the Park District, the project will create a “green buffer” between existing urban and non-urban uses. *To support public safety, approximately 7 acres are dedicated to a future fire-station training facility. *The project also provides for a four million dollar irrevocable contribution to an agricultural enhancement fund to be established by the County. This project is full of benefits to the local community and the entire Bay Area. We hope we have your support. Thank you for your time, Rachel Shoemake Assistant Business Manager International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302 From:Jacquelyn Higgins To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 1:35:32 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Jacquelyn Higgins Antioch, California 94509 From:Janet Balme To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 8:07:12 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Janet Balme San Ramon, California 94583 From:Jeremy Steinmeier To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 7:21:16 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Jeremy Steinmeier, Architect, Orinda CA Jeremy Steinmeier Orinda, California 94563 From:Jessica Kant To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 11:25:45 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Jessica Kant Brentwood, California 94513 From:Jessie Brennan To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:53:47 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Jessie Brennan Boise, Idaho 83702 From:Jim Blickenstaff To:DCD PlanningHearing; Sean Tully; District5; SupervisorMitchoff; Supervisor Candace Andersen; John Gioia; Supervisor_Burgis Cc:narnerich@danville.ca.gov; lblackwell@danville.ca.gov; rmorgan@danville.ca.gov; rstorer@danville.ca.gov; Rewing@Danville.ca.gov; n.laforce@comcast.net; "Paul Seger"; ccoffey@ebparks.org; slandreth@ebparks.org; blane@ebparks.org; awieskamp@ebparks.org; ecorbett@ebparks.org; dwaespi@ebparks.org; drosario@ebparks.org; eechols@ebparks.org; frank.mellon@ebmud.com; william.patterson@ebmud.com; douglas.linney@ebmud.com; marguerite.young@ebmud.com; john.coleman@ebmud.com; lesa.mcintosh@ebmud.com; "Katz Andy"; Joe Calabrigo; dfriedmann@danville.ca.gov; "Rachel Doughty"; "Jessica Blome"; "Zoe Siegel"; slewis@bargcoffin.com; rcoffin@bargcoffin.com; jbarg@bargcoffin.com; Will Nelson; Aruna Bhat; John Kopchik; Danielle Kelly Subject:June 9, 2021 County Hearing: Sierra Club Comments on "Tassajara Parks" Project. Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 1:45:17 PM   DATE :      June 9, 2021 FROM :    Jim Blickenstaff, Sierra Club TO :          C. C. County Planning Commission RE :           Proposal for 125u ‘Tassajara Parks’ residential                   development on the protected side of the U.L.L. NOTE  :     Please make this submission part of the public                    record for this item.  Copy of Sept. 30, 2020 Sierra                    Club comments attached below this email for                    reference –Since most all issues are still applicable.       I, as rep. for  the Sierra Club, find no substantive justification to return this item to the County Planning Agenda.  The same fundamental issues relating to an edge/sprawl development remain in place. I would very much appreciate the County explanation for agendizing the same basic concept  of Sept., 30, 2020?  Please regard the attached commentary below this email, as part of the overall issues and problems continuing to face this Sept. 30,2020 and June 9, 2021 proposal. As a Summary Example: The fact is this plan remains on the wrong side of the County growth boundary, the wrong side of the voter approved San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary  (and there is no ballot update vote until late 2022), the wrong side of San Ramon’s Sphere of Influence, and, in particular, the wrong side East Bay MUD’s Ultimate Service Boundary. One difference I note between now and the County hearing on this proposal Sept. 30.,  is that EBMUD is now under more pressure to comply with growing demands for water within its USB  -as the extended (global warming driven) drought has reached crisis proportions.    All this is  telling indication (along with numerous others, listed below), of the numerous problems inevitably associated with a classic sprawl project. Second Example [Noted in the doc. below] : Danville, as a Primary Stakeholder –the City closest to the project site, and having direct, primary traffic connections, as well as the commiserate negative impacts— is excluded from the agreement!  Raising serious questions as to both the ethics and legitimacy of  a so called “APA” –  Which is essentially a mitigated development plan. --  Jim Blickenstaff                              ------------------------------------------------ From: Jim Blickenstaff <jpblick@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 12:31 AM Date: Sept. 29, 2020 From: Jim Blickenstaff, S. F. Bay Chapter, Sierra Club To: Planning, County Planning Commission, Supervisors Re: Sept. 30 Hearing on Tassajara Parks Plan; and Sierra Club’s opposition to the concept and the latest iteration. Note: Our request earlier to delay a Hearing on this subject to allow sufficient time to properly review and analyze related and new information.   First, it is inappropriate to be rushing forward with such a problematic project at this time – 4 weeks before a local and National election. While, at the same time, we’re in the midst of a pandemic crisis, and its severe restrictions of normally  unfettered public participation.   DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE OF 50 ACRES: The Sierra Club remains opposed to the “Tassajara Parks” Plan to develop 50 acres of land on the protected side of the County’s Urban Limit Line.  Specifically, the development envelope, including streets, houses, and  grading essential for the project, means a developed site of  50 acres. Acreage graded and built upon is not open space, and landscape treatment, while a common adjunct to any given  project,  is not open space.   DANVILLE:  A MAJOR STACKHOLDER IS EXCLUDED: This new proposal reminds one of the phrase:  “The more things ‘change’, the more they stay the same!” The new jurisdictional agreement, the APA, is simply a way to exclude a key jurisdiction from this process -- Danville.  They are the closest City, their current Sphere of Influence is closer, their City Limit is closer, and they have the direct street connections.  Danville’s  road way access to the development site is 1.2 miles from their City/Town Limit. San Ramon street access to the T. P. Property is roughly 5. 1 miles from their City Limit! Direct map distance is 1.1 miles for Danville, and 2.2 miles for San Ramon – about twice as far. Danville will receive the majority of the negative impacts,  while another city, further away, and less connected, will get the mitigations. Yet, incredibly, Danville, is  not included in a County – City decision making process affecting their jurisdiction more than any other. The sad reason for that is obvious. And it is inacceptable.   THE “A. P. A.”: Further,  Agriculture Preservation Agreement, is such in name only.  It fails to constitute a legally founded Preservation Agreement in the same manner as the earlier MOU failed. It fails completely as a preservation agreement in the likeness of the original standard set for Preservation Agreements  - the 1987 Briones Hills Preservation Agreement. In that case it was not to facilitate a sprawl development, it was a multi-jurisdictional agreement only for the purpose to permanently protect 100’s of acres that would otherwise have been  at risk!   [See M/R/Wolfe and Associates, July 18, 2016 Memorandum].  This preservation agreement in no way abides by the standard set by Briones. In that regard, it is a misuse of the English language. It serves more as a mechanism to weaken the U. L. L., and less as a mechanism for protecting, or “preserving” Tassajara Valley. In that regard,  it fails completely. In addition, it can be dissolved at the request of any of the signing parties.  Still worse, were it to be put into effect, it would better serve as a templet and a means to initiate further incremental development on the protected side of the Line! By this new “T. P.” precedent, a minimum of 1,133 acres of land, just in Tassajara Valley alone,  and currently protected by a historically founded  Urban Limit Line, would be made vulnerable to similar 50 acre sprawl “pocket” developments. A better  title for this A. P. A. would be T. U. U. L. L.,  or Tool to Undermine the Urban Limit Line.  Truth in  labeling.   INDUCED GROWTH ON THE PROTECTED SIDE OF THE U.L.L.: There are numerous development companies, and/or their holding companies, controlling property on the protected side of the ULL.  There is only one reason for this:  Anticipation, or more correctly, speculation for future opportunities to develop their land. They await a decision on this T. P. Plan with great anticipation.  A go ahead on Tassajara Parks will end up being the “gift that keeps on giving” -- for development interests elsewhere along the U. L. L.  It will induce  more “Tassajara Parks” along the County’s once resolute U. L. L.  Beyond the negative impacts from the project itself, T. P.’s  growth inducing consequences will further weaken and damage the protective line,  the ag and open space behind it, and the environment overall, from,  multiple ‘copycat’ edge/sprawl projects. Here’s a Check List of what they’ll need: > A pretend Preservation Agreement. > A few hundred acres of land already well protected -  to be “even more protected.”  (conversely: no protection at all, for acreage actually “at risk”). > Sharing a small percentage of their sprawl profits for a feel good County fund. >  And, if need be, get an APA with a sympathetic city somewhere in the area to override resistance from the more impacted adjacent city. Have no illusions: and watch it happen. Where there’s a  -well monied-  will , there’s a way.   EAST BAY M. U. D.: As the door is opened for breaches of the ULL, it will also usher in problematic expansions of East Bay MUD’s Ultimate Service Boundary. It is an Ultimate boundary for a reason -- made even more critical by Climate Change impacts, including current and future droughts, declining snowpack, less spring runoff, destruction of natural drainages , and higher temperatures - all contributing to an ongoing reduction  of an already depleted EBMUD fresh water supply.  East Bay MUD does not have the time or the means to accommodate wasteful, edge, sprawl projects that only serve to expand their service boundary limits.  They, by necessity, have to focus on the daunting challenge of 1,000’s more homes and businesses planned, and soon  demanding water, within  their Ultimate Service Boundary.  The Utility’s  USB needs to be respected  and safeguarded. Their consistent long term opposition should be a warning (among several) for the County.   SAN RAMON AS THE LEAD CITY: Also, there’s been little attention paid to San Ramon’s constraints in pursuing this property, with  all its great ‘mitigations’à  for San Ramon.  One, being, their well-established  updated  2020 Urban Growth Boundary.  It is coterminous with both their 2020  eastern City limit, as well as their 2020  eastern Sphere of influence. Further, the UGB would cause a problematic ballot issue when attempting to incorporate this distant development site into the City – for, at least, the foreseeable future.  Does that mean the County is once again in the development business, holding land indefinitely, and  facilitating development on certain properties next to a Town, or City, protesting the idea, because of the  negative sprawl impacts on them?  Making San Ramon the ‘Lead City’ for this process means they would also, at some point, be the city annexing the “T.P.” site.  But, for all the reasons already mentioned, that would violate basic LAFCO protocols.  Unlike Danville, there is a lot of undeveloped land and/or open space between San Ramon’s developed areas/City Limit  and this project. Therefore it would be a classic example of  “Hop Scotch” development –  not contiguous with San Ramon, and an unacceptable choice for the Lead City. When, in fact, Danville would be the natural choice --  with  contiguous, developed land,  and a much closer, more direct,  roadway connection. Clearly, its Danville, not San Ramon, that should be the lead Town/City, and  directly involved with any decisions about this development site.  It should not be  forced on them by a cooperative effort between the County another City (further away) – while being facilitated by a County process that favors one City,  and discriminates against the other.    On so many levels, the cautionary note sounded earlier by the Sierra Club  rings even truer today:  “Incentivizing sprawl is inherently a bad idea.”   Jim Blickenstaff, Chair-- Mt. Diablo Sierra Club,  Board Member – Executive Committee,  S. F. Bay Chapter, Sierra Club.   cc: Interested parties.   From:John Cook To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 8:23:27 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! John Cook Clayton , California 94517 From:John Gibbs To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 7:34:43 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! John Gibbs Piedmont, California 94611 From:John Paxton To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Public Comment FTLand Tassajara Parks #GP07-0009, #RZ09-3212, #SD10-9280, #DP10-3008 Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 6:00:09 PM Dear Contra Costa Planning Commissioners, I am writing in support of the Tassajara Parks project and encourage you to please move this project forward. In general, the project has more benefits than impacts. The permanent protection of 710 acres as open space that will connect with the existing Hidden Valley Open Space areas is critical. The ongoing threat of overdevelopment to these cherished lands is worth protecting. The modest residential development as part of Tassajara Parks will be a benefit to the community. The 30 acres proposed for development is right next to an already developed area. The rest of the project site that would be protected covers a huge swath of the Valley that possesses higher conservation values than what would be developed. The open space which would be protected would create a “green wall” along this part of the ULL, making it more permanent. This is a much better project than what has been proposed before and is a good compromise. Please approve this proposal and help permanently preserve these 710 acres as open space. Public access to these lands is critical. Thank you. John Paxton Danville From:DCD PlanningHearing To:Aruna Bhat Cc:Sean Tully Subject:FW: Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Friday, June 11, 2021 9:51:40 AM     Hiliana Li Secretary Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-655-2860 NEW NUMBER Fax: 925-674-2758 NEW NUMBER Email: Hiliana.Li@dcd.cccounty.us **PLEASE NOTE, THE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE NEW PHONE NUMBERS ON APRIL 1.   From: Joselvin Galeas <info@email.actionnetwork.org>  Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:35 AM To: DCD PlanningHearing <PlanningHearing@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks   Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Joselvin Galeas Richmond , California 94804   From:Kari Wheeler To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:No on the Tassajara MOU Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 9:52:27 PM > I am in objection to the MOU, which allows another government layer to be put on 17,000 acres of neighboring property-no benefit to landowner and more restrictions. It is an insult to my family and our 6th generation cattle ranch to have city government dictate our future. Kari Rasmussen Wheeler Sent from my iPhone From:kathryn853@gmail.com To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 9:51:56 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! From:Kevin Riley To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 11:23:39 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Kevin Riley From:kimberly marks To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 10:58:13 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! kimberly marks Martinez, California 94553 From:Lisa Browett To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 8:16:29 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Lisa Browett Clayton, California 94517 From:lbayat@aol.com To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Tassajara Parks Project Question Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 1:15:20 PM Hi there, I realize the deadline was noon today, June 9th. However, I opened this yesterday. We live on Finley Road and already have an overabundance of automobile traffic. The increased traffic has resulted in speeding traffic, which endangers joggers, hikers, animals, pets, people on horseback, etc. What is the plan to slow the traffic on Finley Rd.? This development would most definitely increase traffic. Thank you, Liz and David Bayat From:Lukas Carbone To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:15:06 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Lukas Carbone Walnut Creek, California 94598 From:Patricia Hudson To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:I Strongly Oppose Tassajara Parks - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 10:08:10 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, On Wednesday, June 9, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to reject this development, which is outside the Urban Limit Line established in December 2016 but the Board of Supervisors. We need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental, exacerbated by climate change, and increase wildfire risk for generations to come. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Contra Costa County has sufficient capacity inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you for listening to the community's voice. Respectfully, Patricia P. Hudson Patricia Hudson Orinda, California 94563 From:Reetta Raag To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 10:15:22 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Reetta Raag Orinda, California 94563 From:Sandee Wiedemann To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Tassajara Parks Project - NO MOU! Date:Tuesday, June 8, 2021 9:19:04 PM Planning Commission Members, I am grateful for your service. It can sometimes be a difficult position, I understand. Like my Grandfather used to say, I strongly feel "I get to live here, why shouldn’t they." I am not opposed to the development of housing for our proposed new neighbors. I am, however, very troubled that the rights of owners of 17,000 acres are being abused to allow this. As the fifth generation of Wiedemanns is now involved in the management of the family’s ranch, I am very concerned about new restrictions being placed on the land. We have been told that the MOU is relatively harmless, although it is clearly open to interpretation by current and future governing bodies. For as long as I can remember our family has had to leave their work and their peace to discuss more regulations proposed on our land at the same time as we are told how important preservation of agriculture is as a key goal of this Valley. Hopefully, you understand that continuing agriculture is made even more difficult by each restriction. Respectfully, I urge you NOT to allow this MOU as written. I request that the MOU be changed to apply ONLY to the open space the developer owns, instead of affecting all of those unrelated private property owners nearby who are trying to keep their businesses going. If this is not possible, I have heard that there are other ways the developer can work the system to move the ULL. Please do not allow this MOU, but rule that the Tassajara Parks Project developer seek another solution that does not violate the rights of so many! Additionally, it would be seriously offensive if the MOU is passed with anticipation of project being passed in the future. Thank you, Sandee Wiedemann From:Sheri Burns To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 12:35:36 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, I absolutely oppose building outside of the urban limit. In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Sheri Burns From:sjmadrone@sonic.net To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 11:28:19 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Walnut Creek , California 94595 From:Tom Kunhardt To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 8:33:07 PM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Tom Kunhardt 94602 b llT¿IiÏmr',il ,T "Small Toun A&nosphere Outstaniling Quølifu of Life" June9,2021 VIA ELËCTRON/C MAIL hiliana.li@dcd.cccountv.us sea n. fu ll)¡@clcd. cccou n t,i,. us Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Agenda Item No. 2a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Rezoning (R209- 3212); Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SD10-92S0); Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara parks project Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I submit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by Contra Costa County ("County") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"). This letter incorporates by reference our prior comments on the Draft EIR dated JuIy 1,8, 2016 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30,20-16. For reasons explained below, I am also attaching the letter submitted by the Town to you on September 30, 2020-the concerns raised in that letter remain valid and are incorporated herein. As explained in our previous three letters, the EIR does not comply with CEQA, State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, SS 65000 et seq.), and the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Coáe, SS 66410, et seq.). Before turning to the Town's comments regarding the updated information pertaining to water supply, I must address the Town's ongoing concerns regarding the lack oÌ transparency with this project and the ongoing exclusion of the Town from the process. 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Administration (92s) 314-3388 Building (925) 314-3330 Engineering & Planning (925) 3t4-3310 Transportation (92s) 314-3320 Maintenance (925) 314-34s0 Police (92:3) 374-s700 Parks and Recreation (e2s) 314-3400 June9,2021 Page2 While we have raised some of these concerns in prior letters, the pattern of excluding input from the Town continues to occur: As indicated in Section 1 of our September 30, 2020letter, the County has failed to respond to the first of our two comment letters on the Draft EIR. (See FEIR, Response to Comments, DAN pp. 1-2 oÍ 20). \Alhile our September 30 letter addresses the legal ramifications of this failure, I highlight it to point out that this omission has never been acknowledged or addressed by the County. In our November 30, 201.6 letter, the Town specifically asked that all future public notices for the project be sent to both the Town's outside counsel, Sabrina Teller, and the Town Attorney, Robert Ewing. \Alhile the Town did receive notice of the June 9, 2021hearing, neither Ms. Teller nor Mr. Ewing have received any public notices since our 201.6 request. Our September 30,2020,letter is not included in the 323 page packet of materials provided to the Planning Commission for this hearing and as far as we can tell, that letter has never been distributed to members of the Planning Commission and certainly has not been seen by the public and other interested parties. Finally, and most significantly, the materials provided to the Planning Commission omit documents submitted by the Town illustrating action by the Danville Town Council opposing the Project. On October 20, 2020, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 72-2020, Íorrnally opposing the project. On October 1.6, 2020,I personally emailed a link to the staff report and resolution to John Kopchik, Director of Conservation and Development for the County. Mr. Kopchik has been my primary contact at the County with regard to the Project and the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement. a a o a Astonishingly, none of those documents are included in the Staff Report and accompanying packet submitted to the County Planning Commission for its June 9, 2021., public hearing. Though the Planning Commission staff report refers to actions taken by the City of San Ramon and East Bay Regional Park District to support the Agricultural Preservation Agreement, the report includes no mention of Danville's action opposing it, which occurred prior to actions taken by both of the other agencies mentioned. Because of this omissiory no member of the Planning Commission or member of the public would have the slightest idea that the Town Council has taken a formal position on the project. As Danville is the incorporated city in closest proximity to the proposed project and by any objective measure would be the most impacted by the project, it is hard to believe that the official view of |une9,2021. Page 3 Danville's elected leaders is not worth providing to the County's decisionmakers. In order to provide members of the Planning Commission and the public with the Town Council's position, copies of the staff report, adopted resolution and transmitting email are attached and incorporated herein and can be found online here: https:/ /danville- MetaViewer.?r'iew id:9&c1i id:1729&meta id:36642 The Town and the County have had policy disagreements over the years regarding development in the San Ramon Valley, some of which have ended up in court. However, this is the first time we have experienced this level of difficulty in ensuring that the Town's input is even included and addressed in the public record for decisionmakers and the public to consider. This is simply indefensible. Turning to the critical issue of water supply for the project, the analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") remains inadequate. The County relies on a mitigation measure (MM USS-1) and related conditions of approval (COAs) wherein proof of water service must be demonstrated prior to filing a final map for the Project. (Staff Report, p. 5.) Not only does this constitute impermissible deferred mitigatiory because the measure is infeasible and de facto punts mitigation to some future time after project approval (see, e.g., Oøklønd Heritage Alliance u. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906), it also violates the holding in Vineyørd Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. a. City of Røncho Cordoaø (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 ("Vineyard"). The Supreme Court in Vineyard identified four key principles for an adequate water supply analysis under CEQA: 1. Decisionmakers must be presented with sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need; 2. An adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years; 3. Future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a liketihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA; and 4. Where it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of replacement sources or alternatives to the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies. (Id. atpp. a31.-a32.) June9,2021. Page4 The County's water supply analysis directly violates the third and fourth principles, in turn violating the first. As it stands, the Project has no likely path toward procuring an adequate water suppty. The theoretical future water supplier, the East Bay Municipal Utility District ('EBMUD"), opposes the Project and has stated that it does not have the water to service it and will reject the proposed annexation of the Project into its service district, as a matter of policy. (Staff Report, p.4, attached Letter of EBMUD Dated May 27,2021tp. t].) This provider admission makes the future water supply for the Project speculative and unrealistic, whereas Vineyard calls for a "confident prediction" of adequate water supply. (ld. at p. 32.) "When the verification [of water supply] rests on supplies not yet available to the water provider, it is to be based on firm indications the water will be available in the future...." (Id. at p. a33.) Here, the opposite occurs-the water provider is on record stating that it cønnot meet the demands of its existing customers, let alone those of the Project. (Staff Report, attached Letter of EBMUD dated l,.lay 27, 2021 fpp. 2-31.) The EIR therefore must include a discussion of another, potentially feasible water supply alternative and its environmental impacts. But, the County has not presented this discussion in any of its EIR iterations. To date, the County has presented two infeasible water supply sources, and zero viable ones. As a result, decisionmakers cannot evaluate the pros and cost of supplying water to the Project, because you cannot evaluate what does not exist. The criteria set forth in Vineyørd have not been met. Furthermore, the recent information presented by the County regarding its supposed water supply solution-namely letters from EBMUD-is indeed "significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5," requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Staff Report, p.4). Section 1,5088.5, subdivision (a)(2), requires recirculation prior to EIR certification upon new information containing "a disclosure showing that: ... [a] substantial increase in the severif of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measure are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance." As demonstrated above, via EBMUD's disclosures in its letters, MM USS-1 is ineffective and cannot be relied on to reduce the impact to water supply to a less-than-significant level, as it claims to do. (RDEIR, p.3.13-34.) Without this measure, the impact conclusion substantially increases, back to its pre-mitigation level of "[p]otentially signif icant," thereby kiggering recirculation. Additionally, because of the County's lack of notice for this upcoming hearing, the Town was not allowed adequate time to meaningfully review the technical information presented in the memorandum provided by Tutly & Young, in contravention of statutory directives that the CEQA process be a public one that provides "meaningful public disclosure." (Pub. Resources Code, g 21002|1", subd. (e); see also CEQA Guidelines, SS 15002, subd. (aX1), 15003, subds. (b)-(").) June9,2021 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and attachments in the record of proceedings for this Project. f, Manager Cc: Town Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Casey A. Shorrock, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Enclosures Attachment A: Town of Danville , September 30,2020 Comment Letter Attachment B: Town of Danville Staff Repor! dated 10/20/20; Danville Town Council Resolution No. 72-2020; Transmittal Email from Joe Calabrigo to John Kopchik, dated 10/1,6/20 nl]rj¡mrrs ,a " S u al I Tow t t A tnro s ph er e Outstanding Quality ol Lìþ" September 30,2020 VIA ELEC'I'RONIC MAIL. hil iana. li@rlcd.ccc o untr,. us sean.tull)¡(¿Jcicti.cccr-¡unt\¡. us Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re:Agenda Item No. 2 General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Agenda Item No. 3 Rezoning (R209-3212); Agenda Item No. 4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SD10- 928$; Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara Parks Project Dear Honorable Members of the Plaruring Conunission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I subrnit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by Conlra Costa County ("County") Pursuant to the California Environmental Qualiiy Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit.1.4, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"). This letter incorporates by reference our prior cornments on the Draft EIR dated july 18, 2016 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30, 20'16. As explained in our previous two lcttcrs, thc EIR docs not comply with C[QA, State Plaru"ring and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, SS 65000 et seq.), and the subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, SS 66410, et seq.). L. The Final EIR fails to adequately respond to the Town's comments on rhe Draft EIR. As a threshold matter, the Final EIR fails altogether to address the Town's comments on the Draft EIR in violation of Public Resources Code section 21.091., subdivision (d) ancl 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CAT, IFORNIA 94526 Administration BuildinB (925) 31,1-3330 Engineering, & Planning (925) 314-3310 Transportation (9251 314-3320 Ma¡nlenance Police (9251 314-3700 Parks and Recreation (925) 314-3400(92s) 314-3.?88 (925) 314-3450 ATTACHMENT A September 30,2020 Page2 CEQA Guidelines sections 15088, sul¡division (a) and 75132. (Cleueland National Forest Foundation tt. Snn Diego Assn. of Gouernments (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 497, 516 [responses to comments in a final EIR are an "integral paú" of an EIR's substantive analysis of environmental issues].) The Final EIR's responses to the Town's comments are limited to its comment letter dated November 30,20'16, (See Final EIR, pp. 3-53 to 3-72.) The Final EIR's statement that its responses to the Town's comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR address our previous comments on the Draft EIR is not accurate. The Final EIR does not address our comments related to the project description, baseline, land use, culfural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services and recreation, atnotrg others. The neeci for a reasoned, factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Ozter the Bay Contntittee u. Bd. of Port Comntissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 13M,1371.) Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA's informational purposes and renders an EIR legally inadequate. (See Flnnders Foundstion u. Cit!/ of Cnrntel-by-the-Sen (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rural Landorcners Assn. r,. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.) The Agricultural Preservation Agreement is an inextricably related action, the impacts of which must be analyzed in the EIR. Under CEQA a"proiect" is "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in thc environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment."-(Pub. Resources Code, S 21065.) It includes "the whole of an action." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15378, subd. (a).) The failure to analyze the "whole of the project" is a CEQA violation referred to as "piecemealing." (Banning Rnnch Conserunncy u. City of Neruport Beøclt QAn) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222.) The California Supreme Court has adopted the following test for reviewing piecemealing claims: [A]n EIR tnust inclucìe an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. (Laurel Heigltts lnrprouement Assn. u. Regents of lJnia. of Cnt. (1938) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.\ While the Final EIR reiterates that the Agricultural Prcservation Agreement can be approved separately from the Project and without CEQA review, the Project findings 2. September 30,2020 Page 3 included in the staff report make cleal that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement serves as the basis for rnaking the required finding of approval to change the County's urban Limit Line (uLL). (Staff Reporr, pp.26-28; Final EIR, pp.2-B ro 2-10.) In doing so, the County impermissibly commits itself to the approval of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement "as a practical matter" without CEQA review. (See Snae Tara u, City of West Hollyruood (2003) 45 Cal.4th 116,195.) The County's use of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement is therefore a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. The record clearly establishes that the sole purpose for proposing the clraft Agricultural Preservation Agreement is to facilitate the making of a finding to permit the Project's approval under County Code section Chapter 82-1.018(a)(3) -which requires that "[a] majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the [ULL] affecting all or any portion of the land covercd by the preservation agreement." The EIR must be revised and recirculated to address the impacts of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. Additionally, the Agricultural Preservation Agreement represents significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Guidelines, g 15088.5.) The Draft Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") (subsequently referred to as the Agricultural Preservation Agreement in the Final EIR) was not included in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. Prior to the Final EIR, the only information provided was a cursory explanation of the "range of actiorrs to be considered that include, but are not limited to" the identified actions. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 3.9-33.) In contrast, the staff report for the Project now includes a Draft Agricultural Preservation Agreement-upon which the County intends to rely to approve the change in ULL for the Project. As set forth above and in the Town's prior comments on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs, the County's approval of ine Project commits it to approving'the Agricultural Preservation Agreement while denying the public and other agencies the opportunity to evaluate it and the validity of the conclusions drawn from it. (See Spring Vnlley Løke Assn. a. City of Victonrille (201,6) 248 Cal.App.4th 91,'1.08; Siluerado Modjeskø Reueøtion €¡ Pnrk Dist, u, County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.Ath 282,305.) Moreover, as described below, the Final EIR has been revised to remove the Town of Danville as a signatory to the Agricultural Preservaiion Agreernent. In light of this significant new information, the Final EIR must be recirculated for public comment. September 30,2020 Page 4 The County irnproperly limits signatory parties to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. The Recirculated Draft EIR provides that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement (referred therein as a MOU) was "being considered by the County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, and East Bay Regional Park District." (Recirculated Draft EiR, pp. 2- 15, 3.9-33.) In light of the Town's objections to the change in ULL for the Project, the Final EIR was conspicuously revised to rernove the Town as a party to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement with no explanation-although it is presumably due to concern that the County would not be able to achieve the required approval of a "majority of the cities" to support the necessary finding. (Final EIR, pp. 4-43,2-5.) The Project's Northern Site is geographically related to the Town of Danville and is located within the Town of Danville's planning area as described in the Danville 2030 General Plan. The Towu of Danville would be one of the cities that would be expected to be a party to a preservation agreement. (See County Code, S 82-1.024 [Cooperation with citiesl.) It is against the notion of fair play (and quite frankly illogical) for the County and another city to enter into a preservation agreement that covers lands within the Town's planning area, without thc Town being a necessary party to such an agreement. The County's actions further represent a lack of good faith particularly where the intent of a preservation agreement is "to reflect the desired relevant interagency collaboration on land use issues." (Staff Report, p.26.) Furthermore, evelì if the East Bay Regional Parks District can be appropriately considered a"party to the preservation agreemcnÇ" it cannot be considered in making a finding that "a majority of cities" have approved the change to the ULL because it is not a city. (See also County Code, g 82-1.124 ["to the extent feasible, the county shall enter into preservation agreements with cities in tle county designed to preserve certain land in the county for agriculture and open space, wetlands or parks"T; Staff ReporÇ p.26, citing County Code, S 82-7.024.) Thus, at most, the "majority of cities" upon which the County relies to make the required finding is conveniently a majority of one (i.e., San Ramon). 4.The approval of a change in the ULL for the Proiect without voter approval is a violation of the County Code. A proposed general plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres requires voter approval pursuant to County Code section 82-1.018(b). Contrary to information in the EIR, the Project is not eligible for an exception to the voter approval 3. September 30,2020 Page 5 requirement because the true extent of the Project's urban development is approxirnately 50 acres, not 30 acres. The Recirculated Draft EIR's characterization of the "NonUrban Development Area" is specious. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 2-1,2-2, fn. 1 ['All Project features outside of the Residential Development Area are nonurban in nature"], 2-23 to 2-24, Exhibit 2-4.) The true extent of the Project's urban development is approximately 50 acres, not 30 acres. As the Town noted in its previous comments, the area needed to widen Camino Tassajara and to provide corresponding buffer landscape improvements, detention basin, sewer pump station, and necessary grading operations all serve and support the Project's 125 residential units. These Project elements camot be properly characterizetl as "nonurban uses" as defined in County Code section 82- 1.032(b) as they are not rural residential or agricultural structures. Nor are they "necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare" but for the development of the residential portion of the Project. The County's conclusory respolìse was simply to provide a recitation of County Code section 82-1'.032. (Final EIR, p. 2-12.) Sul¡stantial evidence fails to support a finding that these Project components are "nonurban uses." Nor does the Final EIR's response to comments represent the good faith reasoned analysis required by CEQ A. (Banning Ranch consentancy a, city of Nezuport Bench (2017) 2 cal.Sth g'r,8,940.) Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this Project, f, Cc n Manager Town Council Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLp Christina Berglund, Remy Moose Manley, LLp Y DANVIUÆ ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT TO:Mayor and Town Council October 20,2020 SUBfECT:Resolution No. 72-2020, opposing the Tassajara Parks project in unincorporated Contra Costa County and requesting that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project and all related actions BACKGROUND Contra Costa County will shortly hold public hearings before the Contra Costa Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider the Tassajara Parks project. Located east of the Town limits, the project encompass es77-L acres at the north end of the Tassajara Valley, outside of the voter-approved County Urban Limit Line (ULL). The application involves consideration of three interrelated components: 1,. The Tassajara Parks project includes applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009), Rezoning (R209-3212), Subdivision (SD10-9280) and a Final Development Plan (DP10-3008) covering two sites: . The northern site includes 155 acres located adjacent to Tassajara Hills Elementary School on Camino Tassajara. This site is within the Town's planning area as defined by the Danville 2030 General Plan. Proposed. development includes 1"25 residential lots, public streets, a detention basin, neighborhood park, staging area and equestrian facilities on a total of approximately 54 acres, with the balance of the site to be dedicated to East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). o The southern site includes three parcels totaling 616 acres located on the south side of Camino Tassajara, opposite Johnston Road and Highland Road. This site would be dedicated to EBRPD and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD). 2. An Agricultural Preservation Agreement (APA) is proposed for the Tassajara Valley. The APA would preserve and protect up to 17,718 acres subject to current County general plan and zoningstandards. 3. Certification of a Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project. The project raises both policy and environmental issues that have previously prompted the Towrç at the direction of the Town Council, to provide extensive and detailed comments to both the DEIR and the recirculated DEIR. The FEIR has failed to satisfactorily address many of these concerns. 7.2 ATTACHMENT B It is therefore appropriate for the Town Council to consider adoption of Resolution No 72-2020, taking a formal position to oppose this project. DISCUSSION The Tassajara Parks application was initially filed with Contra Costa County in February 20\4. Earlier development proposals encompassing the same sites (Emerald Homes and New Farm), were submitted and subsequently withdrawn without being acted upon by the County. Since 2014, processing of the application has stalled several times, owing to the need to identify how services would be provided, and undertaking and subsequently recirculating the project EIR on at least two occasions. Last month, the Town was notified that the project was scheduled to be heard by the Contra Costa Planning Comrnission on September 30,2020 (Attachment B). That meeting was subsequently cancelled due to a letter submitted by East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) on September 29, 2020. Tassaiara Parks Project Plans are included as Attachment C to this staff report. The property is currently designated for Agricultural use under the County general plan, and zoned Agricultural A-80 (80 acre minimum). Absent variances, this would permit no further subdivision of the northern site; the southern site, which is comprised of 3 existing parcels, could be subdivided into 7 parcels. In total, this would increase the number of parcels from 4 to 8 on both sites. As will be discussed later, the entire property is located outside of the ULL. All development is proposed for the 155-acre northern site. This includes 125 single family homes proposed to be located on the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to the elementary school. Though proposed as a 3O-acre exception to the voter approved ULL, the referenced 3O-acre area includes only the residential lots and public streets. The FEIR indicates that the development includes an additional 19.3 acres of grading along with a 2.95-acre detention basin, and'1,.44 acres of equestrian and pedestrian staging areas for a total development area of approximately 54 acres. The County staff report refers to the additional 24 acres as "non-urban developed area," a term which is not defined anywhere in the County general plan or zoning ordinance. (Note that additional land is also proposed for dedication to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District to expand and improve the parking area at the school). Absent the related grading and improvements, the 1"25lots could not be developed. As part of the project, the applicants propose to dedicateT2T acres of land to EBRPD, and 7 acres to SRVFPD. The project conditions would require payment of $4 million to an Tassajara Parks Project 2 October 20,2020 "agricultural enhancement fund" established by the County, and $2.5 million to Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust Fund. The project conditions of approval also require payment of fi484,361 to satisfy the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in lieu of providing the minimum 15% of affordable units on site. Agricultural Preservation Agreement The concept of an Agricultural Preservation Agreement for the Tassajara Valley dates back over two decades. An earlier version of an APA was developed in 1998 for consideration by Contra Costa County, Danville and San Ramon. This pre-dated voter approval of the county ULL. Danville acted to approve the agreement, while Contra Costa County and San Ramon never took action. The currently proposed APA commits to preserving up to 17,7\8 acres in the Tassajara Valley subject to the current County general plan and zoning. From a general plan and zoning perspective, it imposes no new requirements that don't already exist. That said, why enter into an APA if it adds no new protections? The simple answer is that it is the only potentially applicable basis to approve the project outside of the County ULL. The Town has been involved in ongoing discussions regarding a draft APA since 201,5. Initially drafted to include both the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon (Attachment D), the APA recognized that both cities have plaruring areas that include portions of the Tassajara Valley within their lespective General Plan planning areas, and that both are parties of interest. In order to approve the Tassajara Parks project, the County must grant an exception to the voter approved ULL. The APA is intended to facilitate that action. Chapter 82-'J, of the County Ordinance Code spells out how changes may be made to the voter approved ULL. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval and can be approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors upon making certain findings. This is where the APA becomes relevant. Section 82-1.018 (a) (3) states "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement ancl the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreemelìt." In approving the APA, the parties acknowledge that it enables the County to approve the Tassajara Parks project. As parties to the APA, both cities would need to approve it in order to constitute " A nmjoritt¡ of tlrc cities" (while the East Bay Regional Park District is also inclucled as a Tassajara Parks Project J October 20,2020 signatory to the agreement, the District is not a city, and is therefore of no relevance to making the necessary board finding). F{owever, the County subsequently and urrilaterally decided to remove Danville as aparly f sigrratory to the APA, ancl irr so doing, rernoved any ancl all references to the Town in the latest version of the APA (Attachment E). The ULL was approved by County and Danville voters. Atternpts to develop the Tassajara Valley have been ongoing for three decades. With or without the APA, by virtue of the County General Plan and ZornngOrdinance, a voter approved ULL and the lack of water and sewer, use of the Tassajara Valley is effectively limited to agriculture, absent a change in policy by the Board of Supervisors. Danville's 2030 General Plan includes the Upper Tassajara Valley as a Special Concern Area. This was included within the Town's planning area "to provide Danville with a gteater voice in future land use changes that might be considered by Contra Costa County." The northern site proposed to be developed as part of the Tassajara Parks project is located within this area. The Special Concern Area language states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley. Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistentwith the existing County General Plan designations for this atea." Final EIR CEQA review of the project was initiated in 2015. A draft EIR was prepared and circulated for the project. The DEIR was subsequently revised and re-circulated prior to release of the FEIR. The Town has submitted extensive comment letters on the DEI& RDEIR and FEIR (Attachments F1-F3). These letters have raised numerous issues related to the actions proposed, including but not limited to: Inconsistency of extending the ULL with Contra Costa County policies; Failure of the DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR to comply with CEQA with regard to o The requested ULL exception exceeding 30 acres o Lack of feasible water supply alternatives for the project o Transportation and traffic issues o Air quality and GHG emissions not having been properly studied/evaluated o Aesthetics,light and glare impacts o Impacts upon agricultural, biological and cultural resources o Geology, soils and seismic factors o Noise o Public Services and Recreation o Lack of reasonable project alternatives Tassajara Parks Project a a 4 October 20,2020 . Project inconsistency with General Plan violates planning and zoning law as well as the Subdivision Map Act. It should be noted that the project proponents have applied to LAFCO to have East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) provide water and sewer service to the Tassajara Parks project. The FEIR and the County staff report indicate that annexation of the site into EBMUD would be contingent upon project applicants funding offsite water conservation measures within EBMUD's existing service area which would offset the additional water demand created by the project. This would be subject to approval by the EBMUD Board of Directors. In their September 29,2020letter to Contra Costa County (Attachment G), counsel for EBMUD challenges the validity of the water supply section of the FEI& stating that the FEIR among other things: uses "an unsubstantiated and artificially low water demand estimate for the project"; fails to acknowledge the projects inconsistency with EBMUD annexation policies; and contains a faulty analysis of water supply impacts that violates the basic requirements of adequate water supply analysis under CEQA. The letter concludes by stating that "the County cannot assume EBMUD will solve the applicants water supply problems." Based upon the EBMUD letter, it appears as though no viable source of water currently exists to serve the proposed project. The FEIR may be viewed at https:/ /www.contracosta.ca.gov14552/Tassajara-Parks. SUMMARY Issues and concerns raised and highlighted in this report include: 1,. Project inconsistency with the Danville 2030 General Plan. 2. Policy and precedent setting implications associated with amending the voter approved ULL; and considering a 3O-acre exception to the ULL. 3. The Tassajara Parks project proposes a S4-acre development footprint that includes 125 single family homes, public streets, related grading, a neighborhood park, drainage facilities, staging area and other improvements - clearly exceeding the 30 acre exception that can be granted by the Board of Supervisors. As currently proposed, the project would require voter approval to expand the ULL. 4. The Town is a party to any actions regarding the future of the Tassajara Valley. This includes consideration of an APA. There are two cities that are parties to the APA. Absent one city, how can it reasonably be stated that "a majority of the cities Tassajara Parks Project 5 October 20,2020 that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approvecl a change to tl're urban lirnit line..." 5. Inconsistency with growth management principles built into Measure J (i.e. focusing housing and jobs around transit centers and downtowns). 6. Potentially significant environmental impacts related to traffic, aesthetics, utilities, services and facilities, etc. 7. Growth inducing impacts related to requiring EBMUD and CCCSD to serve property outside of the voter approved ULL. 8. Lack of any viable water service provider. Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club and the Tassajara Property Owners have all previously expressed opposition to the proposal. The Town has raised valid policy and environmental concerns related to the Tassajara Parks project for the past several years. Residents living on the east side of Town stand to be most directly impacted by the downstream impact that the project will generate. The Tassajara Parks project is inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan. The currently proposed APA commits to preserving up to 17,718 acres in the Tassajara Valley subject to the current County general plan and zoning. In reality, from a general plan and zoning perspective, it imposes no new requirements that don't already exist, and is opposed by the majority of the affected property owners. \tVhile the project includes extensive land dedications to various agencies, the entire site has very limited development potential under the current County general plan and zoning, and the dedications are simply trade-offs in an attempt to secure approval of a ULL exception to allow construction of another 125 homes. The decennial ULL review completed by the County in201(t concluded that there was adequate land capacity within the current ULL. EBMUD has clearly stated that the property is outside of the District's service area boundary. At a time when the State and regional planning bodies are increasingly exerting their influence upon local agencies to focus new development into more urban, transit-oriented areas, this project would do just the opposite. PUBLIC CONTACT Posting of the meeting agenda serves as notice to the general public. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. Tassajara Parks Project 6 October 20,2020 RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution No.72-2020, opposing the Tassajara Parks project in unincorporated Contra Costa County and requesting that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project and all related actions. Prepared and Reviewed by: Joseph Calabrigo Town Manager Attachments:A- B- C- D- E- F1- F2- F3- G- Resolution No.72-2020 September 30, 2020 Staff Report to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Tassajara Parks plans April 29,201,6 Draft Memorandum of Understanding (Agricultural Preservation Agreement) September 4, 2020 Agricultural Preservation Agreement September 30,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County November 30,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County July 18, 2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County September 29,2020 Comment Letter from East Bay Municipal Utility District to Contra Costa County Tassajara Parks Project October 20,2020 Docusign Envelope lD: 9CBB9BD5-3F68-4648-957E-81 45F8A478C7 RESOLUTION NO. 72-2020 OPPOSING THE TASSAIARA PARKS PROJECT IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND REQUESTING THAT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REJECT THE FEIR AND DENY THE PROIECT AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, Contra Costa County is currently considering the "Tassajara Parks" project, including applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009), Rezoning (R209- 3212), Subdivision (SD10-9280) and a Final Development Plan (DP10-3008)including 771 acres on two sites located east of the Town limits, at the north end the Tassajara Valley; and WHEREAS, the project is located outside of the voter-approved County Urban Limit Line (I-ILL), which was also approrred by Danville voters as the Town's IIrhan Growth Boundary (UGB); and WHEREAS, the Town's 2030 General Plan includes the Upper Tassajara Valley as a Special Concern Area to provide Danville with a greater voice in future land use changes that might be considered by Contra Costa County, and the Special Concern Area language states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley" and that "Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistent with the existing County General Plan designations for this area."; an':.d WHEREAS, Chapter 82- 1 of the County Ordinance Code allows that proposed expansions of 30 acres oÍ less to tl're voter approved ULL do not require voter approval and can be approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors upon making certain findings; and WHEREAS, Section 82-1.018 (u) (3) states "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement," and WHEREAS, the applicants for the Tassajara Parks project have proposed the adoption of an Agricultural Preservation Agreement (APA) that would effect up to 77,7I8 acres in the Tassajara Valley; and WHEREAS, the Town has been a party to ongoing discussions regarding the APA since 20!5, and the APA was originally drafted to include the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon, recognizing that both cities have planning areas that include portions of the Tassajara Valley within their respective General Plan planning areas; and DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBBgBD5-3F68-4648-957E-81 45F8A478C7 WHEREAS, a draft EIR was prepared ancl circulated for the project, and has subsequently been revised and re-circulated two additional times; and WHEREAS, the Town has submitted extensive cornrnent letters on both the initial, revised and re-circulated project EIRs which have raised nurnerous issues and concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, recirculated DEIR and FEIR; and WHEREAS, the Danville Town Council has reviewed and considered all of the related actions associated with the Tassajara Parks project, ancl finds that: 1,. TLe proposed project includes a total development area of ap-rproximately 54 acres, including 125 single family homes, subdivision grading necessary to build the single family lots, a detention basin necessary to meet storm water run-off rcquircmcnts for thc singlc family lots, a ncighborhood park ncccssary to scrvc thc single farnily lots, equestrian and pedestrian staging areas. The area being developed exceeds the 3O-acre exception allowed under Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code by approximately 180% and should be subject to voter approval. 2. Tl're Town has historically been considered to be a party to land use considerations that involve and effect the Tassajara Valley. The Town was a signatory to the original 1998 APA proposed for the Tassajara Valley prior to voter approval of a county ULL, and the Town has been a party to ongoing discussions regarding the APA proposed as a part of the Tassajara Parks project since 2015. The unilateral decision by Contra Costa County to exclude Danville as a signatory to the most receut APA is a bad faith action inconsistent with recent and past precedent. 3. Without Danville as a signatory to the proposed APA, the Town challenges the County's ability to find that "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreernent and the county have approved a change to the urban lirnit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement" subject to Section 82-1.018 (a) (¡) of the County Ordinance Code. 4. From a general plan and zoning perspective, the APA imposes no new requirements and is proposed solely for the purpose of facilitating County consideration to grant an exception to the voter approved ULL. 5. The Town has submitted extensive comment letters on both the initial, rer.ised and re-circulated project EIRs that have raised numerous concerns and identified numerous deficiencies pertaining to CEQA adequacy, 6. The project and related APA are inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan Special Concern Area language wl'Lich states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley. Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistent with the existing County General Plan designations for this area." DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBBgBD5-3F68-4648-957E-8145F84478C7 7. The decennial ULL review completed by the County in20'1.6 concluded that there was adequate land capacity r¡'ithin the current ULL to accommodate projected growth. 8. The proposed project is inconsistent with smart growth principles that call for new developrnent to include greater affordability and be focused into more urbary transit-oriented areas, consistent with the goals set by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that upon review and consideration of the application and record, the Danville Town Council wishes to register its forrnal opposition to the Tassajara Parks project and requests that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project. APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular rneeting on October 20,2020,by the following vote: AYES: Arnerich, Blackwell, Morgan, stepper NOES: storer ABSTAINED: ruone ABSENT: *on" DocuSigned by: d.,4J,4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: by: R"l'arlB.fu*t CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK W June 7, 2021 Re: 6/9/21 Contra Costa County Planning Commission Public Hearing for Tassajara Parks Project Dear Contra Costa County Planning Commissioners, The Tassajara Valley Preservation Association along with over 4,700 petition signers requests that you reject the Department of Conservation and Development’s staff report recommending approval of the proposed development known as Tassajara Parks because of the following facts: • It is illegal and a violation of the County’s Measure L • The project does not have a source of water • The County’s staff report is inconsistent with its previous findings and statements IT IS ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF THE COUNTY’S MEASURE L A. Measure L requires that any development outside the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) over 30 acres requires a county-wide vote: a. Staff report clearly indicates that the Northern Site contains 24 acres of so called “Non-Urban” use. Included in this area is a pumping station and a detention basin that is integral to the 30 acre “Residential Development Area”. This infrastructure is necessary for the proposed development and is clearly not “non-urban”. When this area is properly included, the development is closer to 54 acres in size and requires a county-wide vote. b. An analogy may help. A batter in baseball cannot change the rules mid-game and ask the umpire to not count the first two strikes. Similarly a developer cannot choose to circumvent the 30 acre limitation by deciding not to count certain portions of the development. B. The so-called “Preservation Agreement” used to secure approval is flawed and illegal: a. The closest city to the development site is Danville which has registered its opposition to the project and is illegally excluded from the Preservation Agreement. Danville will bear the brunt of traffic exiting the development and will be a strain on its services. It is the first city in the county that will experience traffic from the development. Tassajara Valley Preservation Association www.tassajaravalleypa.org b. A Preservation Agreement must be signed by a majority of the cities and the county to be valid. Note that the wording is not a majority of the cities and the county taken as a whole. The county carefully chose the wording in Measure L and the plain English meaning of this wording is that the county’s approval must be secured before an agreement is valid. It also means that a majority of the cities approval must be obtained. Danville and San Ramon are the nearest cities, and with Danville excluded from the agreement, a majority of the cities cannot be obtained. Hence the proposed agreement is invalid and therefore a condition to allow a 30 acre development outside the ULL is not satisfied. c. The agreement is flawed and is only proposed because it is the only one of seven acceptable exceptions for a development outside the ULL. The agreement is not an enforceable contract among the County, San Ramon and East Bay Parks District. Any party can withdraw from the agreement at any time without any penalty. The county does not give up its right to change the zoning in the Preservation Area at any time. The developer misleads by implying that this agreement provides any more protection than the current ULL. County Counsel will affirm that the agreement may be terminated at any time by any party without penalty and is non-enforceable. The Agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on. C. The above reasons advanced will be the basis of a suit filed against the parties as a violation of County law, specifically Measure L. This will expose the parties to unnecessary litigation costs, damages and penalties. THERE IS NO SOURCE OF WATER FOR TASSAJARA PARKS A. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has rejected supplying water to Tassajara Parks and the EIR needs to be redone to reflect a water source. EBMUD has reiterated their objections numerous times as: a. TP is outside their service area and ultimate service boundary. b. The developer’s estimate of water usage has been under estimated by a factor of 2 c. Seventy two percent of California is experiencing a drought condition and the utility must insure that existing customers within its service area is assured an adequate supply of water: i. Governor Newsom has declared a drought emergency in 41 of 48 California Counties imposing water conservation restrictions. ii. Water runoff from snowpack since April 1st is near zero due to parched earth. iii. California reservoirs hold 50% less than normal at this time of the year per Centers for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. Oroville dam pictured below: Drought Map Source -https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pdf/current/current_CA_trd.pdf THE COUNTY’S STAFF REPORT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS A. The proposed development is in stark conflict with the County’s own 2016 ULL Mid -term Review that concluded “Sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and job growth through 2036”. B. Why is this development moving through the approval process? a. San Ramon is proposing 4,000 housing units to be built in Bishop Ranch proving there is enough buildable capacity within the ULL. Thus there is no need to go outside the ULL. b. Is it the $ 6.5 million offered by the developer to the county to fund the so-called Agricultural Enhancement uses? Does the payment of these 30 pieces of silver justify the betrayal of the residents of this county who rely on the fair enforcement of laws governing the ULL? SUMMARY The proposed project should be rejected because 1), it is illegal, 2) there is no approved water source, and 3) it is inconsistent with the county’s previous findings that sufficient housing capacity exists inside the ULL. The proper methodology for approval of this project is submission to the voters of the county. Thank you for your dedication to serving the residents of Contra Costa County. Respectfully, Richard L. Fischer Richard L. Fischer Co-founder, Tassajara Valley Preservation Association 925-200-4574 tassajaravalleyrf@gmail.com Gretchen Logue , Gretchen Logue Co-founder, Tassajara Valley Preservation Association 925-786-6973 tassajaravalleypa@gmail.com Proposed From:vanessa cleric To:DCD PlanningHearing Subject:Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Date:Monday, June 7, 2021 11:11:16 AM Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Vanessa Cleric A concerned Brentwood resident. vanessa cleric Brentwood, California 94513 From: Joselvin Galeas <info@email.actionnetwork.org>  Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:35 AM To: DCD PlanningHearing <PlanningHearing@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: Keep Our Communities Safe - Vote NO on Tassajara Parks Contra Costa Planning Commission , Dear Contra Costa Planning Commission, In the near future, you will be reviewing the Tassajara Parks planned development outside the Urban Limit Line. City boundaries were created for a reason; we need to protect our open spaces and focus growth inside the city limits. An amendment to the city’s General Plan to allow development beyond city lines would have severe environmental and safety implications for generations to come. As illustrated by the recent fires, we already feel the effects of climate change on a regular basis. Protecting the Urban Limit Line is a critical way to maintain fire boundaries and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2016, your Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Limit Line and determined that sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and growth through 2036. Why risk the health and safety of our region to build outside of the Urban Limit Line? We need more housing in our cities and existing communities, not outside of the Urban Limit Line. I urge you to vote no on the Tassajara Valley project. Thank you! Joselvin Galeas Richmond , California 94804 From:Sam Pejham To:Sean Tully; Clerk of the Board Cc:Danielle Kelly Subject:Tassajara Parks Project questions for public hearing Date:Thursday, July 1, 2021 9:12:18 PM Dear Mr. Tully and Clerk of the board, The project raises both policy and environmental issues: -The Sierra Club strongly opposes this measure. The Urban Limit Line (ULL) is a powerful tool that Contra Costa voters passed as Measure C in 1990 to ensure that new development occurs within certain boundaries, thus protecting the county’s remaining agricultural lands and open space from sprawl. Most proposals to build outside the Urban Limit Line would need voter approval. But there is a loophole whereby developments of 30 acres or less can get the go-ahead as long as the County Board of Supervisors can make a “finding” from a list of specified circumstances. Tassajara Parks is being sold to the County as a trimmed-down 30 acres to slip through this loophole (even though the actual building/grading envelope is 54 acres*). The “finding” that the developer aims to qualify under is a “Preservation Agreement.” The great irony is that the area in question doesn’t need further preservation as it is already preserved by the county’s General Plan, zoning ordinances, and the Urban Limit Line — layers of protections that would be seriously eroded by approval of Tassajara Parks. After reading the impact report, it is very clear that the proposed “125 Single Family Homes” to be built next to Tassajara Hills Elementary School will significantly impact the traffic on Camino Tassajara Road and over crowd our schools, specially the middle school and High Schools will significantly exceed their capacity. The Zoning for open space and non residential has been in place for many years and has kept this area relatively clear of excessive traffic even though our schools have already become over crowded with the current population. The table referred to in the impact report is from 2015. There are hundreds of member of our community who are very concerned about this project and voiced their opposition to it during the last announcement regarding this project. We see this attempt by a large land owners to changed established ULL and to push their over development agenda in our community for expensive housing to make millions of dollars in profits. They have falsely called their project "Tassajara Parks Project” when in reality it is a massive multi-million dollar housing development. There is very little to no benefit to their proposal pertaining to our community. Danville's population has not changed much in the past 20 years but it has been shifting to more families with both parents working with school age children and our infrastructure is not equipped to handle hundreds of more families added on a single access road and handful of schools. There are plenty of existing affordable residential housing available in our community to any interested families without risking over crowding our streets and schools. -The city of Danville has issued a formal opposition this project which the presents "inconsistency with growth management principles built into Measure J (i.e. focusing housing and jobs around transit centers and downtowns)." In addition to being inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan, the project presents potentially significant environmental impacts, growth inducing impacts and has a lack of any viable water service provider. if in the system. According to the project impact report, this Project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations. This project will bring NO benefit to Danville and its residents. 1-Why would the county make unilateral exception to the ULL without voter approval on a project that offers NO Real benefit to the residence of Danville or the Environment in the area? (to call this a 30 acres project is completely false. This is truly a 54 acres project requiring voter approval) 2- How does the developer plan to address the concerns raised above regarding traffic, over crowding of the schools, and water impacts ? We are in a significant drought. Where is the extra water going to come from? How would developer address the overcrowding of our schools as predicted by the impact report? How would the developer address the increase traffic on Camino Tassajara road? I look forward to hearing the response during the public hearing from the developers and the Contra Costa County officials. Regards, Sam Pejham, M.D., FAAP *Though proposed as a 30-acre exception to the voter approved ULL, the referenced 30-acre area includes only the residential lots and public streets. The FEIR indicates that the development includes an additional 19.3 acres of grading along with a 2.95- acre detention basin, and 1.44 acres of equestrian and pedestrian staging areas for a total development area of approximately 54 acres. The County staff report refers to the additional 24 acres as “non-urban developed area,” a term which is not defined anywhere in the County general plan or zoning ordinance. Tassajara Parks Residential Project County Files: #CDGP07-0009, #CDRZ09-3212, #CDSD10-9280, #CDDP10-3008 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JULY 13, 2021 1 Project Vicinity and Sites 2 Primary Project Elements General Plan Amendment (Urban Limit Line Change): Change to the Urban Limit Line to include the 30-acre Residential Area of the Northern Site. This area will incorporate the proposed 125 residential lots and related urban improvements. General Plan Amendment (Land Use Change): Amendment to the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element by way of changing the existing Agricultural Lands (AL) designations of the Project Site to Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Public/Semi-Public (PS) designations. Rezoning: Rezoning of the existing Exclusive Agricultural (A-80) zoning districts within the Project Site to a new project-specific Planned Unit (P-1) district. Vesting Tentative Map: Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the Project Site into 125 single-family residential lots, open space parcels, a community park parcel, a detention basin parcel, a pedestrian staging area parcel, a sanitary sewer pump station parcel, and a San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District parcel. Development Plan: Preliminary and Final Development Plan to allow the construction of the Tassajara Parks Project with associated roadway, infrastructure, utility, and school parking lot improvements. Tree Permit: Tree permit to allow the removal of up to 19 trees. Development Agreement: Development Agreement between Contra Costa County and FT Land LLC. Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD): Annexation of approximately 125 acres of the Northern Site into the Dougherty Valley GHAD to address geologic hazards. Land Transfer to East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD): Convey 118 acres of Northern Site and 609 acres of Southern Site to the (EBRPD) via fee simple transfer. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD) Parcel : Offer of dedication of a 7-acre portion of the Southern Site to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for future public use. Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement Agreement: In addition, the County, the City of San Ramon, and EBRPD are each considering a Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement Agreement for preservation of land in the Tassajara Valley area of th e County for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban land uses pursuant to the terms set forth therein. 3 Proposed ULL Realignment 4 Proposed General Plan Change 5 Proposed Zoning Change 6 Dedication Areas Lands would be dedicated in fee simple to the East Bay Regional Park District Northern Site= Approx. 118 Acres Southern Site= Approx. 609 Acres 7 Residential Development Area 8 Development Agreement The applicant has requested that the County approve and enter into a Development Agreement with the property owner, which addresses, but is not limited to, the following matters: Vested development rights Development standards Life of entitlement approvals Timing of construction Land dedication requirements Community benefit fee payment and related obligations 9 Preservation Agreement Agreement between the County, City of San Ramon, and the East Bay Regional Park District. Provides that its parties will work together to support, develop, and implement policies, programs, and other actions intended to enhance agriculture and to preserve open space, wetlands, parks, recreation, and other non-urban uses consistent with the parties’ respective existing land use policies and plans. The Preservation Agreement provides that the County is authorized to find that the Agreement satisfies Section 82- 1.018(a)(3) of the County Ordinance Code, which allows the Board of Supervisors to approve an expansion of the Urban Limit Line by 30 acres or less with a four-fifths vote. 10 30-Acre Urban Use Expansion 11 Provisions for Changing the ULL Change of 30-acres or Less: Four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors after holding a public hearing and making one or more of seven findings based on substantial evidence in the record. Change Greater Than 30 Acres: Voter approval of the change in addition to and following a four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors and making one or mor of seven findings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a proposed general plan amendment to expand the urban limit line by more than thirty acres does not require voter approval if, after a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote makes either of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property; or the expansion of the urban limit line is necessary to comply with state or federal law. Proposed expansions of thirty acres o r less do not require voter approval. 12 Environmental Review Initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) distributed on May 27, 2014. Revised NOP distributed on June 11, 2014, to reflect changes to the project description, including elimination of a proposed waterline between the Northern and Southern Sites and the elimination of the proposed Fire Training Facility at the Southern Site. Draft EIR (DEIR) released for public review on May 12, 2016, and made available for public review and comment for a period of 68 days, through July 18, 2016. A public hearing to receive comments on the DEIR was held before the Zoning Administrator on June 6, 2016. In response to comments received during the public comment period for the DEIR, additional environmental analysis was completed for the Project. A Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) was released for public review on September 29, 2016, and was available for public review and comment for a period of 63 days, through November 30, 2016. A public hearing to receive comments on the RDEIR was held before the Zoning Administrator on November 14, 2016. The Final EIR was published and distributed on September 14, 2020. 13 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Adopted Air Quality Plan Consistency: Since the Project would not achieve the per capita annual GHG emissions threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr established by the BAAQMD even after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to conflicts with the GHG Reduction Goal of the AAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. Greenhouse Gas Operational Emission Threshold: The Project would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr for operational emissions due to sources including, but not limited to, vehicular traffic, on -site combustion of natural gas, off-site generation of electrical power, energy required to convey water and wastewater, and emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste. Near-Term Plus Project Freeway Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments and one intersection that would operate at unacceptable LOS levels under Near Term Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Operations: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain freeway segments and intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Congestion Management Plan: The Project would contribute vehicle trips to certain Congestion Management Plan facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels. Note: Mitigations have been incorporated as part of the project to address each of the impacts listed above. However, these mitigations will not reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. 14 Events Since Release of FEIR September 30, 2020, Hearing Postponed: The applicant requested that the 9/30/20 County Planning Commission hearing be postponed to allow time for consideration of comments received from EBMUD on 9/29/20. The project was subsequently rescheduled and heard before the County Planning Commission on 6/9/21. Preservation and Agricultural Enhancement Agreement: Both the City of San Ramon and EBRPD have brought the Preservation Agreement to their governing bodies. The San Ramon City Council unanimously approved a resolution on November 24, 2020, which authorizes the Mayor of San Ramon to execute the Agreement. Similarly, the EBRPD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve a resolution on December 1, 2020, which authorized their District General Manager to execute the Agreement. EBMUD: EBMUD and a legal firm representing EBMUD (Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP) each submit a letter on May 27, 2021, reiterating EBMUD’s opposition to the project and its assertion that the EIR should be recirculated. On June 8, 2021, the proposed development was considered before EBMUD's governing body. The EBMUD Board of Directors adopted a resolution that formally declared the District’s opposition to annexing the project site into the District's service area, found that the project is inconsistent with the District's annexation policies, and that made findings and declarations regarding the unavailability of water to serve the project. Town of Danville Opposition: The Town of Danville has formally notified the County in writing of their belief that the project EIR is inadequate and of their overall opposition to the Project (June 9, 2021, September 30, 2020, November 30, 2016, and July 18, 2016). On October 20, 2020, the Danville Town Council approved Resolution #72-2020 wherein the Town formally opposes the Tassajara Parks Project, request that the County reject the FEIR, and requests that the County deny the project and all related actions. 15 Coordination with EBMUD Subsequent to the postponement of the September 30, 2020 County Planning Commission hearing, County staff worked with EBMUD staff and the applicant to discuss and address concerns detailed in EBMUD’s September 29, 2020, letter. EBMUD staff suggested further analysis of water conservation potential of various approaches. February 24, 2021: The applicant’s water planning consultant prepares a draft memorandum, entitled "Tassajara Parks Water Demand Offset Updated Preliminary Feasibility Analysis"to EBMUD for review and comment. The memorandum is intended to clarify and provide supportive analysis on the feasibility of the proposed conservation measures for offsetting the project’s water demand. March 15, 2021: EBMUD provides comments on the draft memorandum with recommendations on what additional information and analysis can be added to strengthen the document. May 4, 2021: The applicant’s water planning consultant provides a revised memorandum which refines the feasibility analysis by incorporating methodologies, information, and recommendations provided by EBMUD staff. Prior to the June 9, 2021, Planning Commission hearing and at the request of EBMUD staff, County staff developed additional recommended project conditions of approval (COAs), with EBMUD input, pertaining to the procurement of water to serve the project. EBMUD issued letters on May 27, 2021, and their Board approved a resolution on June 8, 2021. Proposed COAs under consideration today provide that first Final Map cannot be filed without a will serve letter from EBMUD and require the applicant to pay to EBMUD a "water demand mitigation fee" in an amount agreed upon by the EBMUD Board to offset the projects water demand at a ratio of at least 2:1. COAs also include conservation measures including, but not limited to, requiring the use of recycled water for landscaping (if available), requirement for the applicant to install on-site water conservation measures, and additional measures required of the applicant (at EBMUD’s discretion), such as provisions enabling EBMUD to fine the HOA for exceedance of the project’s water budget. 16 Public Comments Various public comments have been received in relation to the project and the associated EIR. Comments received during the public comment periods for the DEIR and RDEIR have been included in the Response to Comments section of the FEIR, along with staff responses. Numerous pieces of correspondence detailing public comments have been received since the postponement of the September 30, 2020, County Planning Commission hearing, and are included in the “Public Comments” attachment to the Board Order prepared for the Project. Primary public comment topics in opposition of the project include, but are not limited to, the following: Concern that expansion of the ULL will set a precedent for multiple future adjustments for urban growth Assertion the proposed project consists of more than 30-acres of urban development Assertion the findings required to allow the 30-acre adjustment to the ULL do not exist The lack of support from EBMUD to provide public water service for the project Increased traffic along the Camino Tassajara corridor Primary public comment topics in support of the project include, but are not limited to, the following: Dedication of 727 acres to the EBRPD for habitat conservation and publicly accessible open space Protection against further urban development in the Tassajara Valley area Urgent need for more housing $4 Million contribution to an agricultural preservation fund, school parking lot improvements, and other community benefits Need for well-paying construction jobs 17 June 9, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing Testimony accepted from the applicant, representatives of responsible agencies, and various members of the public. The Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the County Board of Supervisors deny the project. The recommendation for denial was based on the following: Modifying the Urban Limit Line is not in the public interest. Concerns over the availability of water to serve the project. The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan. “Overwhelming opposition” to the Project from members of the public. 18 Project Recommendation OPEN the public hearing on the Tassajara Parks Residential Project, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. CERTIFY that the environmental impact report prepared for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was reviewed and considered by the Board of Supervisors before Project appro val, and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis. CERTIFY the environmental impact report prepared for the Tassajara Parks Residential Project. ADOPT the attached CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and statement of overriding considerations for the Project. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Street, Martinez, California, is the custodia n of the documents and other material that constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors i s based. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Board Chair to execute a preservation agreement between the County, the City of San Ramon, and the East Bay Regional Park District. ADOPT a Resolution No. 2021/216, amending the General Plan to change the Urban Limit Line to include the Project’s 30 -acre residential development area and to change the land use designation of the Project site to single -family residential, high density (SH); parks and recreation (PR); and public/semi-public (PS) (County File #GP13-0003). ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-24, rezoning the Project site from an exclusive agricultural (A-80) district to a planned unit (P-1) district (County File #RZ09-3212). ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-23, approving the development agreement between Contra Costa County and FT Land LLC. APPROVE the vesting tentative map for the Project (County File #SD10 -9280). APPROVE the preliminary and final development plan for the Project and the associated tree permit and exception requests (Cou nty File #DP10-3008). APPROVE the findings in support of the Project. APPROVE the Project conditions of approval. APPROVE the Tassajara Parks Project. 19 Basis for Staff Recommendation The proposed Project will be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and result in various benefits, including: Preserve 727-acres of land in the Tassajara Valley, which has faced decades of urban development pressure, at favorable ratio of 24 acres of preservation for each acre developed. The land will be dedicated to EBRPD in fee simple and will include a new staging area and an ongoing commitment of maintenance funding, thereby ensuring permanent preservation of the land and access to it by the public. Provide 125 new homes that will help address the urgent need for housing in the region and the County. Provide significant, additional community benefits, including but not limited to: Improvements to parking lot and circulation of Tassajara Hills Elementary school Dedication to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District $4 million contribution to an Agricultural Enhancement Fund for the Tassajara Valley area $2.5 million for the Livable Communities trust Help to resolve a long-standing development debate by means of compromise between development and conservation that is consistent with the voter-approved ULL measure and will, in the view of staff, reduce pressure for additional expansion of urban development in the area. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 QUESTIONS 32 1 June McHuen From:Rob Ewing <REwing@danville.ca.gov> Sent:Monday, July 12, 2021 10:27 AM To:Clerk of the Board; Sean Tully Cc:Joe Calabrigo Subject:Submission for Board Agenda Item D.4-Tassajara Parks Attachments:Danville letter to BOS-with attachments.pdf Attached, please find the Town of Danville’s written comments for the above‐referenced agenda item for tomorrow’s  board meeting.    Rob Ewing  City Attorney  Town of Danville | 510 La Gonda Way | Danville, CA 94526  (925) 314 3383| f (925) 838‐0548 |   rewing@danville.ca.gov |  www.danville.ca.gov  Stay Connected with us!    Town of Danville offices and facilities are reopening on July 6. Per CDC guidance, masks are not  required for fully vaccinated visitors. Visitors who are not fully vaccinated must wear masks upon  entering. Let’s all work together to keep our community healthy!     b DrtrslÏ¡l'Jq 7 " Snta I I T ozutt A tnro splrcre Outstønding Quality of Life" luly 12,2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL clerkoftheboard@cob.cccounty.us. sean.tully@dcd.cccounty.us Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board 1025 Escobar Street Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re:Tassajara Parks Project-General Plan Amendment (CDGP07-0009); Rezoning (CDRZ09-3212); Vesting Tentative Tract Map (CDSD10-9280); Development Plan and Development Agreement (CDDP10-3008)-Support for Project Denial l)ear Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I submit all prior comments and additional new comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report ('EIR") prepared by Contra Costa County pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1,4, SS 1s000 et seq. [cEeA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project") and suggested findings that support the Board of Supervisor's ("Board") denial of the Project. We encourage the Board to review this letter closely, along with the Town's prior letters and other documents attached hereto, and follow the recommendation of its Planning Commission, and deny all approvals associated with the Project. Recent Background On June 9,202'1,, the County Planning Commission held a hearing where it considered the Project and voted to recommend that the Board deny the Project. The decision to recoûunend denial of the Project came after listening to testimony from staff at the East 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Adminiskation (92s).314-3388 Building (925) 314-3330 Engineering & Planning (925) 314-3310 Transportation (925) 314-3320 Maintenance (925) 314-3450 Police Parks and Recrcation (925) 314-3{00(925) 314-3700 July 12,2021 Page2 Bay Municipal Utility District ("EBMUD"), whose Board of Directors and Managers adopted a formal resolution to oppose tl-re Project on June 8, 202-1., as a result of an inability to serve the Project for lack of adequate water supply (attached hereto for the Board's convenience). Also discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, amongst County staff and members of the Planning Commission, was the confusion as to the size of the Project site and the total acreage of disturbance, which was especially troubling given that the EIR is, theoretically, at its final stage. Lastly, pertaining to previous comments made by the Towry Executive Officer Lou Ann Texeira testified for the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") that the Project cannot be annexed into EBMUD because a key requirement for annexation cannot be met.1 Previous Comments The Town has sent four prior comment letters to the County on this Project and its various CEQA documents: a first comment letter on the Draft EIR dated July 18, 2016; a second comment letter on the Recircuiated Draft EIR dated November 30, 201.6; a third comment letter on the Final EIR dated September 30,2020; and a fourth comment letter on the updated information regarding water supply and ongoing transparency issues dated Juue 9, 202'1,. Each lcl-tcr iu uttachcd hcrcto for thc Bo¡rrcl's ct-rnvcnicncc and incorporated herein by reference. As explained in our previous four letters, the EIR does not comply with CEQA, State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, SS 65000 et seq.), ancl the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, SS 66410, et seq.). AIso as previously articulated, the County has failed to properly address the vast majority of the Town's comments, either by making necessary revisions to the EIR or by preparing adequate responses to comments. To wit, the County completely failed to respond at all to the Town's July 18, 2016, comment letter on the Draft EIR-the iegal ramifications of which are outlined in our September 30, 2020letter Additional Comments After listening to the discussions that took place at the June gth hearing, and further considering the County's response to comments in the Final EIR, the Town submits the additional following comments for the Board's consideration. 1 Annexation into EBMUD requires a completed application to LAFCO, which in turns requires a will- serve letter from EBMUD, which will not be forthcoming. Without a completed application, armexation cannot occur. July 12,202L Page 3 As a threshold concern, the Town requests that the County clarify, and support with evidence, what exactly it considers to be the size of the Project site to determine the proper project description and verify that the analysis conducted in the EIR is adequate. CEQA requires a lead agency to present a stable project description because inconsistencies "impair[] the public's right and ability to participate in the environmental review process." (Wnslrce Meadozus Contntunity tt. Departntent of Parks €¡ Recreation QAln ú Cal.App.Sth 277,288.) At the June 9u' hearing, there was a valid debate as to whether the project site (and therefore the size of the potential exception proposed to the Urban Limit Line ["ULL"]) consisted of approximately 30 acres or approximately 50 acres. This debate did not appear to be adequately resolved. This fundamental component of the project description must be investigated, resolved, and the outcome articulated to decisionmakers and the public, with document recirculation as applicable. Regarding traffic analysis, in its EIR the County does not use the vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") standard for determining traffic impacts, despite it being a CEQA requirement since 2018. (See CEQA Guidelines, $ 15064.3.) Indeed, the County does not even present VMT analysis for informational purposes, although that has become cofiunonplace and expected for CEQA documents that can still technicall¡r relv on the level of service ("LOS") standard. The use of VMT for impact analysis provides the most usable data and information and ensures decisionmakers and the public have the best understanding of project impacts. It also allows a lead agency to prepare the best and most enforceable mitigation measures. Omitting VMT analysis reduces the informational value of the EIR and subjugates its function as a "meaningful and useful" document. (See CEQA Guidelines, SS-15002, subd. (uX1), 15003, iubd. (.); Pub. Resources Code, S 21003, subd. (b).) The County had plenty of time and opportunity to include VMT analysis in between draft and final versions of the document, and it should have, especially considering that VMT was a topic of several comments on the Recircuiated Draft EIR. Furthermore, the Town calls into question the validity of data generated for air quality, greenhouse gas ("GHG"), and traffic analysis. The most obvious problem is that data projections used in the EIR are based off of a construction schedule that starts in July 2017 and assumes the Project is fully operational in the spring oÍ2020. (See Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 2-1,40, Appendix B [pp. 1, 38].) It is now 2021 and the Project has, rightfully, yet to be approved. \A/hile it is reasonable to give a certain amount of leeway to the use of older data when engaging in a prolonged CEQA review process, there are inherent problems with the use of data that relies on construction and operational benchmarks that have well come and gone, by years. Especially when, as in the instant July 12,2021 Page 4 case, the lead agency has had four years between draft and final versions of the document to update these critical portions of the analysis. In the same veiry the EIR uses the 2013 version of CalEEMod for air and GHG emission projections (see Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-36), howerrer a ne\ / r¡ersion rnras released in 20'1.6, and an even neweÍ version in 2020. Likewise, ûaÍfic projections were generated using methods defined in the 2010 version of the Highway Capacity Manual, while a new version was released in 201'6. This woefully outdated data and modeling further calls into the question the informational value of the EIR and its usefulness to decisionmakers and the public. Sueeested Findinss to Suonort Denial of Proiect Unresolvable problems with the Project and failings with its environmental review led the Planning Commission to vote to recommend that the Board deny approval of the Project. The Town agrees with the Planning Commission's decision and offers the following findings to support a decision to deny the Project -both collectivelw singular Board action and as individual members. California Environmental Quality Act Findings The Board of Supervisors ("Board") considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and subsequent technical information provided for the Project in regards its water supply, along with all comments received on the Project and its environmental review, and, based on the entire administrative record before the Board, finds that the EIR is inadequate as it is presented. The EIR requires additional information and analysis to better address impacts to, at least, the following areas and to ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): 1. Project Description: The record contains inconsistencies regarding the total urban acreage of the project site and the total acreage of disturbance (County Code Section 82-1.032(b)) and as a result presents a potentially unstabie project description in violation of CEQA. Testimony and evidence presented at the June 9, 202'1., Planning Commission hearing raised questions concerning this issue. Additional information is required to properly determine the accurate size of the project site with adequate evidence to support the County's final determination. 2. Transportation/Traffic: The record contains substantial evidence that the EIR does not adequately analyze îaffic impacts from the project on the Town of Danville. This evidence consists of expert peer review sfudies in the record and was noted by members of the County Planning July 12,2027 Page 5 Commission. In addition, the record does not contain sufficient inforrnation to assess traffic impacts as a result of the omission of the vehicles miles traveled ("VMT") standard. Additional analysis is required to provide decisionmakers with an appropriate amount of information and to keep current with existing CEQA Guidelines. 3. Water Supply: The record does not contain sufficient information to ensure that an adequate water supply for the Project is available. Recent information from the East Bay Municipal Utility District ('EBMUD")-the water supply provider assumed in the CEQA document-has cast doubt on the utility's abiiity to provide water to the Project. Additional analysis is required to demonstrate that the Project has a potentially feasible source of water on the presumption that EBMUD's statements are accurate that it cannot provide water to the Project. 4. The EIR fails to discuss an adequate range of alternatives to the project which would lessen impacts and not require granting of an exception to the Urban Limit Line. 5. The EIR uses outdated data that reduces its effectiveness as an informational document and contains several other inadequacies in its analysis of environmental impacts that violate CEQA. As a result of the foregoing, the Board finds that it cannot certify the EIR as presented. CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 requires the Board to certify the EIR prior to approving the Project. Similarly, Contra Costa County adopted CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, that requires the Board to certify the EIR prior to taking action to approve an application for a project. Accordingly, because the Board cannot certify the EIR as presented, it cannot approve the Project. Zoningand Land Use Findings The Project's proposal to extend the Urban Limit Line is inconsistent with the County's policies, the requirements in County Code Section 82-1.018, and the express will of the voters. Additionally, the Project's inconsistency with the County's General Plan violates both the Planning and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act. Accordingly, because Project does not adhere to County policies and its General Plan, County code requirements, the express will of its voters, and state land use laws, the Board cannot approve the Project. Conclusion for Findings The Board of Supervisors make the above Findings of Fact in support of its action to DENY the Tassajara Parks Project/General Plan Amendment (CDGP07-0009); July 12,2021, Page6 Rezoning (CDRZ09-3212); Vesting Tentative Tract Map (CDSD10-9280); Development Plan and Development Agreement (CDDP10-3008). ?t** Thank you for your attention to these comments and findings. Please include this letter and attachments in the record of proceedings for this Project. !' /' Cc: A own Manager Town Council Supervisor Candace Andersen Rob Ewing, Town Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Casey A. Shorrock, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Attachments 7fl8l76 Comment Letter on DEIR b nT¿rSluTttq " Sn all Tozun Ahn o splrcre Outstaniling Qualìty of Life" july 18,2016 ]ohn Oborne, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development 39 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: iohn.oborne@dcd.cccount)¡.us RE: Town of Danville's comments on the Draft EIR for the Tassajara Parks Project County File Numbers GP07-0 0A9, I<Z:09 -32'J.2, SD 1 0-9 280, DPl 0-3008 Dear Mr. Oborne: On behalf of the Town of Danville, we submit these comments regarding the County's Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tassajara Parks Project. The Town has carefrrlly reviewed the Draft EIIÇ as have the Town's outside counsel, Remy Moose Manley, LLP. The Town is concerned about the Project's environmental impacts, especially transportation and traffic impacts, because of the proximity of the project's residential development portion to the Town. We provide the following comments to alert the County to: (1) the ways in which the proposal to extend the Urban Limit Line is inconsistent with the County's own policies, the requirements in County Code Section 82- 1.0L8, and the express will of the voters; (2) the Draft EIR's numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.) (CEQA); (3) how the Project violates the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, g 65000 et seq.) because the proposed single-family, high-density residential land uses in the Northern Site are incompatible with the General Plan; and ( ) why the Project's inconsistency with the County's General Plan violates the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, S 66410 et seQ.). 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Adm¡n¡str¡tion {925) 314-3388 Bui¡d¡ng (925) 314-3330 Englneering & P¡ânn¡ng (925) 914-3310 Trañportat¡on (92s} 314-3320 Ma¡ntenance (9:¿5) 3r4-34f) Po!ice (9251 314-3700 Parks and Recre¡tion (925) 314-3400 July 1,8,20L6 Page2 We have also included several attachments to support our comments. Although the Town appreciates thc information and analysis that is included in the Draft EIR, the Town asks the County to make revisions that address the defects identified in this letter. The efforts to characterize the project as development that can properly evade the voters' scrutiny of the proposed change to the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL) subverts the intent behind relevant policies in the County's General Plan and adopted ordinances. First, contrary to the intent behind the adoption of the ULL, the proiect does not meet inclusionary housing requirements, opting to pay in-lieu fees instead of providing affordable housing on the Project site. Second, the Draft EIR appears to improperly rely on a yet-to-be-created preservation agreement that is designed to provide the Board with a flimsy justification for approving the extension of the ULL for urban development under County Code Section 82-1.018(a)(3). Third, the Draft EIR draws an arbitrary distinction between the project's urban and non-urban land uses, claiming that the portions of the project area that are required for: (i) road dedication to widen Camino Tassajara (limited to that portion of dedication in direct proximity to the proposed development zone); (ii) frontage buffer landscape improvements directly behind this proposed new right-of-way boundary; (iii) the proiect's detention basin and pumping station; (iv) the propoSed debris bench at the base of the proposed engineered slopes that would protect the proposed residential projecf and (v) slide repair area are somehow "non-urban" land uses despite their express purpose of serving the project's 125 single-family residences. These contortions also result in a legally insufficient Draft EIR. As explained in more detail below, the Draft EIR contains: (i) an unstable and incomplete project description; (ü) an inaccurate and misleading description of the project baseline and settin& (iiÐ inadequate analysis and mitigation of proiect-specific environmental impacts, including significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions and traffic impacts; (iv) an erroneous understanding of the legal requirements related to analysis of cumulative impacts; (v) a refusal to analyze an alternative in an offsite location; (vi) a failure to sufficiently consider-and discuss growth-inducing impacts that result from the project's two potential water sources; and (vii) an improperly cursory analysis of energy conservation impacts. I. The Tassaiara Parks proiect is inconsistent with the intent of the Urban Limit line because it would extend urbanization into agricultural lands without providing an!' onsite affordable housing. July 18,201.6 Page 3 A.The voter-approved intent behind the establishment of the Urban Limit Line lr.1990, the Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, which enacted the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan Ordinance ('65/35 Ordinance"). The purPose of the measure was to preserve agriculture and open space land, parks, wetlands, and other nonurban uses and manage growth to protect the quality of life, while also providing for the County's fair share of safe and affordable housing. Measure C accomplished this, in part, by establishing the Count¡z's Urban Limit Line, a line beyond which no urban land use can be designated. Measure C also limited urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and required that at least 65 percent be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. In Califofnia, a general plan serves as the "constitution" to which all future development must carefully adhere.l During the process of preparing a comprehensive update to the County's General Plan, the voters expressed concem over the growing "urbanization of the County" and the threat that further development poses to "the long term viability of agricultural and open space land, parks, wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines."2 At the same time, voters recognized "a critical need to make decent, safe and affordable housing available to all . . economic segments of the County."e Measure C was specifically designed to address both of these concems. Thus, the voters' àpproval of Measure C signified their broad support for a general plan with strict preservation principles that could only be sidestepped in order to ensure the adequate development of affordable housing. B. The intent behind the provision for "minor" or less than S0-acre adiustments to the Urban Limit Line The County's concerned residents did not stop with Measure C, which was set to expire in 2010.In 2004, voters approved Measure ], which withheld sales tax proceeds for local transportation purposes unless the County and cities mutually agreed to reestablish the t / Lesher Communicatíons,Inc. o. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 531, 540. z / Attachment 4, p.1"-26 [Contra Costa General Plan, Chapter ]., Section 1.11, Measure C-1990, Section 3(BX1 )1. I ¡ Attachment 4, p.1.-26 [Measure C, Section 3(BX3)]. July 18,20L6 Page 4 ULL. Measure J also required that the renewal of the ULL include new provisions for periodic review and for "minor (less than 30 acres) nonconsecutive adjustments."4 In July 2005, the County Board of Supervisors approved a version of the Urban Limit Line ballot measure that represented a compromise between the environmental and business communities. The staff report detailing this compromise makes clear that future adjustments to the ULL should only be allowed if there is evidence that the proposed project is necessary to meet the area's projected housing or job needs and is placed in a location that can take advantage of planned transportation improvements: WITH RESPECT TO URBAN LIMIT IINE PLACEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS IN 2006, there will be no changes [to] the recently adiusted ULL for a minímum of ten years and then, changes would be allowed only if it is shown that there ís not ø 20 yeør housing supply øztøilable ín the County as per criteriø set forthbelow, The purposes of the ULL are: ( l) to ensure preseraøtion ønil protection of identified nonurban land, including agricultural, oPen sPace, parkland, and other areas, by establishing a line beyond which urban uses generally cannot be designated; (2) to link lønd use decisions with the trønsportation inuestments in Meøsure / by channeling future growth to locations more suitable for urban developmenü (3) to ensure that land use policies within the ULL effectively promote appropriøte deoelopment thøt øccommodøtes the ørea's projectedhousing ønd job neeils over a2}-year period's The principles expressed in this compromise were ratified in 2006 when the voters overwhelmingly approved Measure L, which extended the 65/35 Ordinance r¡ntil 2026. In compliance with the mandate in Measure J, Measure L added to the ordinance a provision requiring that any change to the ULL greater than 30 acres obtain both a 4/5 vote of the County Board of Supervisors and voter approval. Il however, a project is r / Attachment 5, p. 29[CCTA's Measure ], Contra Costa's Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan, Attachment A- "Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line"l.) s ¡ Attachment 6, p. 8 [July 12,2015 staff report on ballot measure for extension of the Urban Limit Linel, italics added.) |uly 18,2016 Page 5 less than 30 acres, it must still be approved by E/S of the Board of Supervisors subject to certain findings. Thus, under the existing version of the 63/ZS Ordinance, any change to the ULL, whether less than or greater than 30 acres, must be approved by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors after making one of seven findingso; but only changes greater than 30 acres require voter approval.T Measure L also required a comprehensive review of the Urban Limit Line in 2016 to determine whether there is sufficient land available to satisfy housing and jobs needs for Contra Costa County for the following 2A years.s This requirement for a comprehensive review, which now appears in County Ordinance 82-1.018(d), is necessary to "determine whether a change to the boundary . . . is warranted, based on facts and circumstances resulting from . . . a comprehensive review of the aaailability of lmtd in Contra Costa County sufficient to meet housing ønd job needs for trnenty yeørs."s C. An example of the appropriate use of the 30-acre exception to voter approval: the Bay Point Waterfront Project The relevant requirements related to changes to the ULL are now enshrined in County Ordinance Section 82-1.018. It is instructive to briefly review the one project that has been approved using the 30-acre exception to the requirement for voter approval of changes to the ULL. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Bay Point Waterfront project, which consisted of a new full-scale marina, open spaces, recreational playfields, trails, and up to 450 multi-family residential units.lo The Bay Point Waterfront Project moved approximately 21' acres of undeveloped open space and commercial recreation lands inside the ULL in exchange for moving22 acres of regionat parkland outside the ULL. The change to the ULL was possible because the Board adopted the finding in Section ó / compare Attachment 4, pp.l-27 to 1-28 [Measure c, section 4(BX7)] to county Ordinance 82-1.0L8. 7 / T1ne only way to circumvent voter approval, when required, is if 4/5 of the Board finds it is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property or to comply with state or federal law. a 7 Attachment7, p. L2 [Measure L Voter Pamphlet].) e / County Ordinance 82-1.032(d), italics added; see Attachment 3. ro / Attachment 8,p.4 [November 3,2009 staff report on Bay Point Waterfront General Plan Amendment and Development Plan Modification].) |uly 18,2016 Page 6 82-1.018(aXa): that the change would more characteristics or legal boundaries.ll accurately reflecttopographical The residential component of the project involved placing 450 multi-family residential units on L7 acres of land that was previously designated Open Space. Importantly, as commended in the Board's Findings, the Bay Point Waterfront Project provided fo¡'/5/" of the 450 residential r¡nits to be affordable housing. In contrast, as discussed in more detail below, the Tassajara Parks project will provide no onsite affordable housing and effectively converts more than 30 acres of agricultural lands to residential land uses. The Tassaiara Parks proiect's inappropriate proposal to change the Urban Limit Line Voters have repeatedly shown their commitment to preserving agriculture and open space by approving the creation and extension of the ULL and, most reôently, by strengthening the previous ULL provisions to require voter approval for projects outside the ULL that are over 30 acres. The Tassajara Parks project's proposal to change the Urban Limit Line violates the intent behind the adoption of the ULL in three important ways: (1) the project extends urbanization into agricultural lands without evidence showing that there is not currently a 20-year housing supply in the County; (2) it improperly attempts to take advantage of the 30-acre exception to voter approval by characterizing as "non-urban" land uses that only have the purpose of serving the project's urban, residential development; and (3) it does not provide any onsite affordable housing. First, the Tassajara Parks project proposes to permanently convert agricultural lands to residential, urban uses. But the Draft EIR does not point to any evidence that the County curreÍrtly lacks a 2O-year housing supply, or that such necessary development could not be accommodated through more appropriate developmentwithín the existing Urban Limit Line. Thus, the project conflicts with the intent of the voter-approved 2006 Measure L. At the very least, the Board should delay its consideration of the project until after the comprehensive 2016 review of the ULL boundary is completed and the County possesses more information about the "availability of land . . . sufficient to meet housing and job needs for twenty years."7z ¡r / Attachment 8, p. 1.1. 'z / County Ordinance 82-1,032(d). D July 18,20L6 PageT Second, the project is not eligible for the 30-acre exception to voter approval because the true extent of the project's urban development is approximately 50 acres, not 30 acres. In other words, the project proposes to use approximately 50 acres to house or directly support L25 single-family residential units. Although the Draft EIR claims that only 30- acres will be used for "urban" development, the Town challenges the Draft EIR's characterization of the "Non-Urban Development Atea." (DEIR, pp. 2-25 to 2-29.) The area needed to widen Camino Tassajara and to provide corresponding buffer landscape improvements, detention basin, sewer pump station, and necessary grading operations all serve and support the project's 125 residential units.l3 These project elements are not rural residential or agricultural structures, and, thus, cannot be characterized as "nonurban uses."l4 They should instead be counted toward the total acreage of urban development because their only purpose is to serve the proposed residential units. Frankly, the Draft EIR's insistence that these uses can be excluded from the total acreage proposed for inclusion in the ULL is disingenuous. Third, the project completely fails to provide any onsite affordable housing. Without any discussiory the Draft EIR states that "the Project would pay in-lieu fees in place of providing inclusionary housing units as part of the project."ls The Draft EIR provides no explanation for why a certain percentage of the proposed residential units couldn't be offered as affordable housing. Recently constructed residential developments in the vicinity of the project, whether within the Town ümits or in the unincorporated area east of the Town boundary, have provided, at a minimum, 157o of the residential units as housing affordable to moderate income ho'useholds. When the County approved the 13 / See Draft EI& p. 2-28 [explaining grading operations and landslide grading operations], PP. 2-49 & 3.13-35 [describing pump station as necessary for and owned and operated by residential development's Homeowrrers Association], pp. 3.8-10 & 3.13-37 [explaining how the 7.6-acre detention basin is necessary to attenuate the stormwater flows in the residential area]. The Draft EIR is misleading when it states that the Residential Development Area encompasses all of the "Project's urban development" because the 30 acres only covers lots and interior project roadways, not all related urban irnprovements. (Draft EIR, p. 2-25.) t4 / County Ordinance 82-L.032(b) states: "the term "nonurban uses" shall mean rural residential and agricultural structures allowed by applicable zoniñg and facilities for public Purposes, whether privately or publicly fr¡nded or operated, which are necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare or by state or federal law." ts ¡ Draft EIR, p. 3.9-jg. July 18,2016 Page 8 Bay Point Waterfront project, it found that the provision for 15% of the 450 units to be affordable would help to implement the housing-related goals in the General Plan. Without a similar provision here, the project fails to support or implement relevant housing policies in the County General Plan and would be inconsistent with the stated purpose and intent of the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which reads: 822-4.204 Purpose and Intent, The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within the County. It is intended in part to implement State policy declaring that local governments have a responsibility to exercise their powers to facilitate the development of housing necessary to adequately provide for the houSing needs of all economic segment of the community. The goal of this chapter is to ensure that affordable housing units are added to the County's housing stock in proportion to the increase in new housing units in the County, in accordance with Goal3 of the Housing Element of the County General Plan. It appears that the in-lieu fee option laid out in the County's l¡rclusionary Housing Ordinance (see SectionS22-4.404 hr-Lieu Fee) is meant to have the developer burden of providing the requisite affordable units be the same whether the units are supplied in the project or through the payment of an in-lieu fee. The regulations direct that the fee amount for for-sale units is to be equivalent to the cost differential between the affordable sales price for a targeted household and the median price, as determined by the County, oÍ all single-family home sales in the County within the previous 12 months. It is unclear what the process has been that lead to a determination that the project would pay inlieu fees rather than provide affordable housing as part of the project. E. Reliance upon the finding in Section 82-1.018(aX3) would be improper. Even if the project could overcome the defects identified above, any reliance upon the finding in Section 82-1.018(a)(3) would be improper and unsupported by substantial evidence. The Draft EIR ambiguously states that the "Project would include a 30-acre change to the ULL, as allowed by Chapter 82-1.018(aX3) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance July 18,2016 Page 9 Code."ló Section 82-1.018(a)(3) provides that the County may approve a change to the Urban Limit Line if it can make a finding "based on substantial evidence in the record" that a "rnajority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line-affecting all oi any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement." While the Town is aware that the County and the project applicant have been drafti.g u potential preservation agreement, the Draft EIR does not provide any details about any relevant existing preservation agreements or any soon-to-be-executed agreements. The entire purpose of a preservation agreement is to prevent cities from annexin¡¡ unincorporated portions of the County so that agricultural lands, open space, wetlands, or parks may be preserved.lT The Proiect's Northern Site is geographically related to the Town of Danvilie, and. is located within the Town of nanvilte's planning area as described in the Danville 2030 General Plan. Therefore the Town of Danville would be one of the cities that would be expected to be a party to a preservation agreement. At the present time, the Town of Danville is not a party to an existing preservation agreement that covers the Project's Northern Site, the entire project site, or lands beyond the project site, and it would be unfair and illogical for the County and another city to enter into a preservation agreement that covers lands within the Town's planning area, absent the Town being a party to such agreement Any future preservation agreement should cover all of the lands that currently comprise the entire project site. If the preservation agreement does not cover the Northern Site, then the Board cannot rely upon the finding in subdivision (a)(3) because the proposed change to the ULL must affect "all ór any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement." ro ¡ DraftEIR, p. 3.9-gZ. 17 / The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes Policy 3-u, which states that the County should pursue preservation agreements that are "designed to preserve land for agriculture, open space, wetlands or parks." (Attachment 4, p.3-39 [Contra Costa General Plan, Chapter 3- Land Use Element].) Elsewhere, the Land Use Element explains that the purpose of non-urban preservation agreements is "to prevent annexation by cities of certain appropriate properties." (Id. at p. 3-9.) ]uly 18,2016 Page 10 II. The Draft EIR does not compll¡with CEOA. A. The Draft EIR fails to provide an adequate project desciption. Under CEQA, an "accurate and stable and finite project description is the sine quø nan oÍ an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (Coung of Inyo a. City of Los Angeles $9n)71' Cal.App.3d L85, 193.) An adequate description of all parts of a project are necessary if an EIR is to serve its informational purpose. If important elements are omitted, then "some important ramifications of the proposed project" may remain "hidden from view at the time the project [is] being discussed and approved." (Santiago County Water Dist. u. Cotmty of Arange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818,830.) Here, the Draft EIR's informational purpose is undermined by the many uncertain project elements. First, the Draft EIR provides a misleading description of the residential development area in the Northem Site. According to the Draft EI& all of the projecfs "urban development" would occur within the 3O-acre Residential Development Area. (DEIR, p.2-25.) As noted above, this characterization is incorrect and solely designed to êllow the project to evade the requirement to obtain voter approval. Table 2-2 (Summary of Ground Disturbance Areas) separates the 30 acres of the Residential Development Area from tlre 23.71acres of "Non-Urban DeveloPment Area" on the theory that the listed uses are "nonurban uses" as defined by County Ordinance 82-1.032. (DEIR, p,2- 27.) But the detention basin, sewer pumP station, project grading areas, and landstidê grading areas are not "rural residential and agricultural structures" that would quatify as nonurban uses. (DEIR, pp.2-27 to 2-28.) Rather, all of these project elements exist solely to serve the Project's 125 residential units. July 18,2016 Page 11 The Town asks that the Project Description be revised to clearly explain that all of the following components would be included in the project's Residential Development Area: Additionally, the following parcels (and assumed parcels) appear to have been left out of the tabulation of the subdivision,/vesting tentative map application requests: Totals Offsite parking lot improvements for Tassajara Hills Elementary School Distu¡bed Area - Remedial Grading Disturbed Area - Grading Improvements Project Detention Basin A¡ea to be offered in dedication to the County and to receive frontage improvements, road widening and landscape improvements for Camino Tassa¡'ara "Fooþrint" of the proposed Internal Proiect Roadways "Fooþrint" of the proposed l2S Residential Lots Sub Area 59.7 /30 acres 0.7 16.0 7.0 3.0 3.0 7.5 22.5 Acreaqe NOïE: Total øcreøge is approximøtely 200% larger than the cited 30 øcre "Residentiøl Deoelopment Aren" Exhibit 2-L3 - Grading Impact Areas Exhibit 2-13 - Grading Impact Areas Exhibit 2-13 - Grading Impact Areas Parcels " A" artd "H" on Exhibit 2- 7 - Development Plan Parcel "Fu on Exhibit 2-7 Development Plan Estimated from Exhibit 2-6 Residential Site Plan Estimated from Exhibit 24 Residential Site Plan Source for Area Calculatíon Parcel "K" Parcel "D" Parcel "4" Parcel or Anticipated ParceI 0.19 0.02 0.09 Size (Acres) Provides project connection from "D" Street to abutting debris bench and "Disturbed Area (Grading/ Improvements)" Provides project connection from "D" Street to abutting debris bench and "Disturbed Area - Remedial Grading" Assumed to relate to utiliÇ improvements associated with proiect Purpose of Lot or Parcel July 18,2016 Page12 Second, as noted above, the Draft EIR fails to provide any details about the preservation agreement that the County intends to rely upon to make a finding under Section 82- 1.01S(aX3). (See DEIR, p. 3.9-32.) The Draft EIR does not explain if there is an existing preservation agreement, does not identify which cities are or will be party to the preservation agreement, and does not include an exhibit of the land to be covered by the preservation agreement. The preservation agreernent must be part of the project because it is one of the "approvals" that will be necessary for the project to proceed. The preservation agreement should have been listed along with the other discretionary approvals in the Draft EIR's project description. (See DEIR, PP.2-1 to 2-2.) The vague reference to the County Code does not tell the public anything about that discretionary action or the factors and parties involved in considering it. Third, the Draft EIR is unclear about the following items: 1. The total area of ground disturbance: It appears that certain project elements, including the Future Equestrian Staging Area, are still in flux. Consequently, the Draft EIR makes unsupported assumptions and fails to accurately identify the total acreage that will be disturbed under the project. (See DEIR, pp.2-25,2'36.\ 2. The method for conveyance of preservation areas: The Draft EIR states that the "applicant proposes to convey almost all of the Southern Site . , . to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) by fee simple transfer and/or other appropriate legal mechanism, subject to a conservation easement on a portion of the Southern Preservation Area that would also need to be acceptable to the applicable resource agencies." (DEIR, p.2-26 [similar statement with regards to the Pedestrian Staging Area and the Future Equestrian Staging Areal.) There are too many uncertainties in this statement, Has EBRPD agreed to this proposal? What kind of legal mechanism will be used? What are the terms of the conservation easement? Have the applicable resource agencies aPProved these terms? Would EBRPD agree to take on the responsibilities imposed by mitigation measures in the EIR, such as MM BIO-'3 (DEIR, p.3.Ç751. Given past experience, it is doubtful that the EBRPD would be willing to assume the risk of slope failu¡e occurring and damaging surrounding properties. (See DEIR, P.3.1- 17.) 3. Annexation of the Northern Site into Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Assessment District (GHAD): The Draft EIR states that the "applicant proposes that the entire Northern Site be annexed into an existing . . . (GHAD) . . . for the purpose July 18,2016 Page 13 of appropriately addressing geological hazards as permitted under GHAD law." (DEIR, p.2-26,) The Draft EIR assumes that the GHAD would "assume specified responsibilities" and provide for "funding of monitoring and maintenance of biotic resources, as required and consistent with the Plan of Control.l' (DEIR, pp. 2-41 to 2-42.) It is unclear what biological resources the Draft EIR assumes a GHAD, which is designed to address geologic hazards, would be responsible for monitoring. PEIR, pp. 3.9-10 to 3.9-11.) 4. Future uses on the potential future firc district parcel: The Draft EIR admits that "while the Proiect applicant has contingently offered to convey the Potential Future Fire District Parcel, it is not known whether [the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD)] will accept such offer of dedication, nor is it known what or when (if at all) any such potential future use(s) may be pursued." (DEI& p. Z-A2.) The Draft EIR mentions a Contingent Offer of Land Dedication, but it does not include a copy of this offer or any other written evidence that clarifies this potential arrangement. (DEIR, p.2-27.) 5. LAFCO approval of annexation of Residential Development Area and GBMUD): The Draft EIR explains that the "applicant is expected to request arurexation of the Residential Development Area (as well as the adjacent Pedestrian Staging Area) into the service area of EBMUD." (DEIR, p. 2-44.) Such arurexation requires approval from both EBMUD and LAFCO. The Draft EIR also states that the Pedestrian Staging Area could only include approximately 21 parking spaces and a restroom facility and water fountain if "LAFCO approval of the inclusion of this portion of the Project Site into the annexation proposal" is obtained. (DEI& p.2-36.) The Draft EIR does not explain when EBMUD and LAFCO approval would be obtained. It does not adequately explain what factors will be used by LAFCO to determine if the inclusion is appropriate. (DEIR, p.3.9-34.) Fourth, the Draft EIR presents two different potential sources of water supply for the project: (a) "a long-term agreement to purchase water from the Calaveras Public'Utility District " or (b) "the augmenting of EBMUD's potable water availability by expanding recycled water use in lieu of existing potable water use within EBMUD's service area by an amount sufficient to offset the Project's water demand." (DEI& p. Z-a9) According to the Draft EIR, the applicant "would request that EBMUD play a role (subject to the EBMUD Board's discretion) in implementing this flexible water strategy." (DEIR, p. 2- July 18,2016 Page74 44.) While the Town can understand the appeal of pursuing a flexible water strategy, the Draft EIR's reliance on two such different water supply options is problematic. The Draft EIR does not explain what factors will be considered to make a final decision between these two choices, one of which would involve the construction of 1.8 miles of pipeline within the right-of-way of San Ramon Valley Boulevard from Alcosta Boulevard to Montevideo Avenue. (DEI& p. 2a9.) ln addition, while Appendix ], Exhibit L to the DEIR refers to a "Term Sheet between CPUD and Project Proponent," that exhibit is not included. The Draft EIR's description of the project baseline and setting is misleading and incomplete. B. CEQA requires an EIR to "delineate environmental conditions prevailing absent the project, defining a 'baseline' against which predicted effects can be described and quantified." (Neighbors for Smart Rnil o. Erposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447.\ An EIR "must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published . . . from both a local and regional perspective." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15L25, subd. (a).)18 "If the description of the environmental setting of the project site and surrounding area is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the EIR does not comply with CEQ A," (Cadiz Land Co. a. RøiI Cycle (200A) ffi Ca1.App.4th74, 87.) In this instance, the Draft EII{s "description and consideration" of the project baseline and setting is so incomplete and misleading that it fails to meet the standard set forth in Section 15125. First, the Draft EIR claims that the project site is "semi-flat" (p.b25), This is misleading. Based on Exhibit 2-6, it appears that between 2.5 and 5 acres of the 3O-acre Residential Development Area to be occupied by lots and roadways have existing slopes in the L5- 30 percent horizontal-to-vertical slope gradient. (DEIR, p,2-19.) Another five to 7.5 acres is estimated to have existing slopes in the 30-40 percent horizontal-to-vertical slope gradient. It is typical to include a slope gradient map as a project exhibit to show existing slope gradients, both for the area to be occupied by roads and lots and for the area of anticipated corrective soils and geotechnical work. (See General Plan Policies 9- 'l-4,9-22,9-24.) General Plan Poliry 10-24 states, in part, "Development on very steep open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and ta 7 CEQA Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tít.14, S 15000 et seq. July 18,2016 Page 15 hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions." To couectly evaluate the project's conformance to general plan policies, the Draft EIR should indicate how much of the site, inclusive of area described on Exhibit 2-13 as "Disturbed Area (Grading/Improvements), has an existing slope gradient of 26percent or greater. Figure 2 (Site Plan) from Appendix E should be included in the Draft EIR s Project Description section text. Figure 2 indicates that half a dozen earth flows are in direct contact with, or overlap with, the proposed residential lots in the project. One of these earthflows is identified as a deep-seated earth slump/flow. That deep-seated slide occupies more than six acres, with its "fooþrint" overlapping all or portions of proposed Lots 34-39 and Lots 51-59. More than half of the horizontal footprint of the slide has an existing slope gradient in excess of 20 percent. The topmost reaches of the slide, as well as the area extending up to the top of the ridge above the mapped location of the slide, has an existing slope gradient of over 40 percent. The hinge point at the point the slide transitions from the lower, flatter area of the slide to the upper portion of the slide; and the area above the mapped top of the slide scales to a vertical rise of approximately 80 feet across a horizontal distance of approximately 200 feet. Recently completed Google Earth oblique aerial mapping appears to readily indicate the presence of a related slide that is not indicated on Figure 2-a slide that is located above and slightly east of the centerline of the deep-seated slide and that appears to extend to the ridge. It may be that this omitted slide occurred after the 2005 site-specific landslide evaluation that was part of the ENGEO geotechnical feasibility study. Please see the Town's more complete comments on Geotechnical and Grading Concerns in Attachment 2. The fact that the project site has several "explored landslides . . . found to be at least 30 to 40 feet thick" should not be buried in Appendix E of the DEIR. (See Draft EIR, Appendix E- ENGEO Preliminary Geotechnical Report, p. 3.) Second, the Draft EIR provides a misleading description of the mature California black walnut trees that will be removed as part of the project despite being identified as protected trees under the County Code. (DEIR, p.3.aa3.) Apart from indicating that they are "greater than 6.5 inches in diametet," the Project Description section provides very little information about the 10 mature walnut trees in the southwest corner of the Northern Site. (DEIR,pp.2-34 to 2-35.) Elsewhere, the Draft EIR discloses that these walnut trees are remnants of a historic orchard dating back to the 1950s. (DEIR, pp. 3.2- 4 [part of orchard dating back to 1958-1968], 3.5-11 [orchard present in archival photos from L946].) Appendix C of the Draft EIR explains that the average diameter of the single-trunked walnut trees is 32 inches and that several of the trees have multiple july i8,2016 Page 16 trunks. (Appendix C, pp. 137, 150-151 ["Tree Assessment" table].) And Appendix C indicates that nine of the walnut trees are in"faiÍ" condition, which means that they are trees "with moderate vigor . [and] moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care." (Appendix C, pp. 136-737.) Yet, the Draft EIR dismisses these walnut trees as not being "in good condition" because of the " decay" present. (DEIR, p. 3.4-43.) This characterization is directly contradicted by Appendix C, which reports that at least two of the California black walnuts to be removed are moderately suited for preservation. (Appendix C, pp. 143, 150-151 [trees # 28 and 29 marked for removal and having "moderate" suitability for preserúation].) Please revise the Project Description to include a fuller and more accurate discussion of the California black wal¡rut trees to be removed during grading for the residential units. C. The Draft EIR improperly relies upon proiect design elements that should be included as enforceable mitigation measures. In Lotus u. Department af Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658,. the court held that the EIR in that case failed.to comply with CEQA in its evaluation of the projecfs impact on old growth redwood roots adjacent to the roadway. Caltrans had incorporated mitigation measures into its project description and concluded that any potential impacts would be less than significant. "By compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue," the court stated, "the EIR disregards the requirements of CEQA." Here, the Draft EIR improperly relies upon project design elements instead of including these measures as enforceable mitigation measures. For example, the Draft EIR explains that the "landslide grading area" incorporates "recommended measures into the Project design to address geotechnical issues as recommended by the geotechnical engineer." (DEIR, p. 2-28.) Appendix E provides eight pages of recommendations that ENGEO indicated "should be inco¡porated in the design and construction of the project." (Appendix E, pp. 11-19.) It is unclear if the project design incorporates all of these reconunendations. And there are no mitigation measures in the Geology, Soils, and Seismicity section that specifically include or reference these eight pages of recornmendations. (DEI& pp.3.G12 to 3.6-17 IMM GEO-I simply requires applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical investigation to the Counfy for review and approvall.) Similarly, the Draft EIR improperly assumes that a GFIAD will be formed and that a Plan of Confrol will be implemented to address geologic hazards related to the location July 1,8,20L6 Page 77 of the project on "an unstable geologic unit or soil." (DEIR, pp. 3.6-15 to 3.6-17.) The Draft EIR states that with "the implementation of MM GEO-1 and tlrc GHAD, impacts reiated to potentially unstable geologic conditions would be reduced to less than significant.' (DEIR, p. 3.6-17, italics added.) In other words, the Dra{t EIR based its conclusion that Impact GEO-3 is less than significant partly on the assumed futuri: establishment of a GHAD. But this assumption is not supported by substantial evidence because the formation of a GHAD is not required by an enforceable mitigation measure. Although the Project applicant might earnestly "anticipate establishing a GFIAD," the applicant's anticipation cannot be equated with an enforceable mitigation measure. (DEIR, p.3.6-1,6.) These are just two examples. Please review the entire Draft EIR and consider if there are other elements of the project design or other unsupported assumptions that properly should be transformed into enforceable mitigation measures. D. The Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. CEQA'requires an EIR to provide "a sufficient degree of analysis" about a proposed project's adverse environmental impacts to inform the public and allow decisionmakers to make intelligent judgments. (CEQA Guidelines, S 15151.) An EIR must demonstrate a good faith effort at full disclosure. As explained below, additional analysis and mitigation are necessary for the Draft EIR here to comply with CEQA. 1) Transportation and Traffic: The Draft EIR concludes that the project will result in four different significant and unavoidable transportation and traffic impacts:r Impact TRANS-I ("unacceptable traffic operations under Existing Plus Project conditions" ) (pp. 3.72-34 to 3,I2-M);o Impact TRANS-2 ("unacceptable traffic operations under Near-Term Plus Project conditions") (pp. 3.72-M to 3.12-57);. Impact TR NS-3 ("unacccptablc traffic operations undcr Cumulativc Plus Project conditions") (pp. 3.12-57 to 3.12-68) ; ando Impact TRANS-S ("conflict with an applicable congestion management program's level of service standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways") (pp. 3.L2-76 to 3.12-81). July 18,2016 Page 18 CEQA requires the County to consider all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may help avoid or lessen these significant and unavoidable impacts. But the Draft EIR fails to do this. The California Supreme Court has "explained that [an agency's] duty to mitigate extend[s] beyond the boundaries of the [project]." (City of San Diego a. Board of Trustees of Calþrnia State l-lnioersity (201,5) 61 Cal.4th 945,957.) This is because "CEQA requires a public agency to mitigate or avoid its projects' significant effects not just on the agency's own property but 'on tlrc ewironment' (Pub. Resources Code, S 21002.1, subd. (b), italics added), with 'environment' defined {or these purposes as 'the physical conditions which exist within the areø which will be fficted by a proposed project.' (id., S 21060.5, italics added)." (City of Marina a. Board of Trustees of the Calíþrnia State Uniaersity Q}AQ 39 Cal.4th 347,360.) Here, the area that will be affected by the project includes the Town of Danville. Please review and respond to the attached technical comments from the Town's exPert traffic consultant. (Attachment 1" [Peer Review of Tassajara Parks Traffic Impact Study].) Among other concerns, the traffic peer review concludes that (a) the Draft EIR's Traffic Impact Study uses parameters that do not match the Town of Danville's signal timing plans at many intersections; (b) multimodal LOS analysis was not but should be conducted at least at intersections with high pedestrian/bike volumes; (c) school PM peak analysis was not but should be conducted at intersections next to schools; (d) several mitigation measures related to signal timing improvements overestimate the benefits of signal timing and should be revisited; (e) there is insufficient information about the nearest transit stop on Route 35; (Ð select link analylsis using more accurate assumptions about the project and surrounding land uses run by the Town's consultant shows significantly different trip generation patterns than those used in the Draft EIKs study; and (g) traffic circulation analysis for the schools within the project study area were not but should be analyzed. Additionally, the Town notes that the design of the landscape buffer between road widening improvements for Camino Tassajara and project lots is inadequate when compared to the depth of perimeter landscape buffers provided directly south of the project site or west of the project site, which typically ranged from 40 to 50 feet in width. The buffered setback should match the depth of the widest buffer provided in proximate projects - not be the narrowest. July 18,2016 Page L9 2l Air Quality/ GHG Emissions: The Draft EIR concludes that Impact AIR-6 ("generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment") is significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 3.3-65.) With regard to the remaining Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) impacts, two are less than significant and would not require mitigation, while four are less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, pp. ES-7 to ES-9.) There are numerous defects in the Draft EIR's analysis of these impacts. I'irst, the Draft EIR's reliance upon the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD's) adopted thresholds of significance is problematic. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-36 to 3.3- 37,3.3-6'1. to 3.3-65.) Table 3.3-5 and Table 3.3-27 both indicate that the BAAQMD threshold for operational GHG emission impacts is 4.6 MTCOze per service population per year (SP/yr).But the Draft EIR does not explain if this threshold is tied to 2020 goals in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. Since the project's lifespan is assumed to be 30 years (DEI& p. 33-6a) and construction wouldn't be complete until 2020 (DEI& p. 2-50), the Draft EIR must use significance thresholds for operational GHG emission impacts that are tied to relevant 2050 goals. For example, Executive Order 5-3-05 calls for the reduction of GHG emissions to 80 percent below L990 levels by 2050. This 2050 goal represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach climate-stabilizing levels. And Executive Order 8-30-15 establishes a mid-term GHG reduction target for California of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. If the BAAQMD's recommended operation th¡eshold of 4.6 MTCOze/SP/yr does not take into account the more recent 2030 and 2050 goals, then the Draft EIR needs to consider using a different or additional significance threshold. Second, the analysis of Impact AIR-6 suffers from other deficiencies. Noting that BAAQMD does not have a construction-related GHG generation threshold, the Draft EIR provides a calculation of the total construction emissions (1,281, MTCOze) without any additional analysis to help the public and decisionmakers to determine if this amount of emissions is significant. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-62 to 3.3.-63.) Additionally, MM AIR-6 is weak. Why is on-site generation of renewable energy, such as solar, only required to meet 10 percent of the Projecfs total energy demand? Why not 25 percent or 40 percent or 100 percent? Why doesn't the Draft EIR discuss and require the purchase of carbon credits or other potentially feasible mitigation measures? The Draft EIR cannot hide behind a significant and unavoidable impact conclusion to avoid considering all potentially feasible mitigation. July 18,2016 Page 20 Third, the analysis of Impact AIR-i ("conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan") is inaccurate. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-38 to 3.3- 40.) The Draft EIR concludes that the project is consistent with applicable criterion in BAAQMD's 2010 Clean Air Plan. But the project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 ("support the primary goals") because the significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact (Impact AIR-6) cannot reasonably be interpreted as supporting the air quality plan's primary goal of reducing GHG emissions and protecting the environment. (DEIR, p. 3.3-38.) The Project is also inconsistent with Criterion 2 ("include applicable control measures"). (DEIR, pp. 3.3-38 to 3.3-39.) One of the 2010 Clean Air Plan's control measures is "ECM 2- Renewable Enerpry," which consists of two components: "1) promote incorporation of renewable energy sources into new developments and redevelopment projects, and 2) foster innovative renewable energy projects through provision of incentives." (See BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan, Vol. II, p. E-6, available at ht iles/Plarmine'/n20and%20Researclr/Plans/2010 %20Clean'Í,20Air'/,20Plan/CAP%20Volume%20I1 Sections%204-F.ashx (last visited ]une 30, 2A1,6)., The 2010 Clean Air Plan explains that one of the primary approaches to increasing renewable energy is to "replace grid-tied electricity with 700% renewable electricity produced through distributed generation such as solar panels, micro wind turbines, or onsite cogeneration." (Ibid.) The Draft EIR points to the project's provision of L0 percent on-site renewable energy generation and the fact that PG&E's power mix comes from L9 percent renewable sources as evidence that the project is consistent with this control measure. But this is unconvincing evidence. The project would need to require a much higher percentage of onsite renewable energy in order to honor measure ECM-2. Fourth, the analysis of operational 'CO hotspot" impacts associated with traffic congestion under Impact AIR-2 is incorrect. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-41 to 3.3-42.) The Draft EIR indicates that the project must be "consistent with an applicabie congestion management program" among other criteria. The Draft EIR concludes that the project is consistent with the Contra Costa Transportation Agency's (CCTA's) Congestion Management Plan (CMP). But the Draft EIR reveals that three freeway segments would "operate below standards under Cumulative Conditions," and the addition of the project would result in LOS F. hr spite of this, the Draft EIR claims that the project is consistent with the CMP because the Traffic Impact Study "identified mitigation measures to reduce Project impacts on these CMP routes." (DEIR, p.33-42.) What the analysis of Impact AIR-2 fails to consider is that for Impact TRANS-3 the Draft EIR concluded that "the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to freeway segments even after the implementation of mitigation" under the Cumulative Plus July 18,2016 Page21, Project conditions. (DEIR, p. 3.12-67.) It is unclear how significant and unavoidable impacts resulting in traffic congestion that contributes to a CO hotspot on these freeway segments can be found to be consistent with the CMP. Fifth, the Draft EIR improperly relies on MM AIR-3 to support a less than significant conclusion for Impact AIR-3 ("potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment"). (DEIR, pp. 3.3-43 to 3.3-54.) MM AIR-3 states: "OÍf-roað. diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off-road emissions standards to the extent feasible." (DEIR, p. 3.3-54, italics added.) Without further explanation, the use of the phrase "to the extent feasible" here renders the entire mitigation measure vague and unenforceable. lÁlho gets to decide if it is feasible? What are the criteria for deciding feasibility? The Draft EIR needs to explain if the calculations in Tables 3.3-L1 through 3.3-15 (mitigated construction emissions) assume that 100 percent of the off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower would meet Tier 4 standards. Such an assumption would not be supported by substantial evidence because compliance with MM AIR-3 and its "to the extent feasible" clause could result in much less than 100 percent of the equipment meeting Tier 4 standards. Sixth, the analysis of Impact AIR-4 ("potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations") is deficient. The proiecfs residential area is located just L33 feet away from Tassajara Hills Elementary School and just \75 Íeet away from residences on Kingswood Drive. The Draft EIR downplays the potential impacts from use of heavy diesel equipment by stating that the preparation phase "would only occur over a brief duration (estimated to require approximately 173 working days)." One hundred and seventy-three working days this close to an elementary school and residences does not appear to be a "briel' duration. Please also explain if the calculations in Table 3.3-23 (Construction Health Risk Assessment Summary with Mitigation) assume that 100 percent of the off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower would meet Tier 4 standards. (DEIR, p.3.3'57 [relying on the implementation of MM AIR-3]; see also DEIR, Appendix B, p. 75 [Appendix C -Health Risk Assessment Screening].) And please consider evaluating the potential risk of Valley Fever, which may affect sensitive receptors even if MM AIR-2 is able to lessen impacts from construction fugitive dust. Finally, the analysis of Impact AIR-7 ("conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases") is July 18, 2016 Page22 incorrect. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-65 to 3.3-70.) The Draft EIR concludes that the project is consistent with the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan's applicable measures. (DEIR, pp.3.3-66 to 3.3-67.) Measure LUT 4 states: "New residential and nonresidential development will be located within one half-mile of a BART or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of a bus station." (DEIR, p. 3.3-67.) The Draft EIR admits that the project is "not currently served by transit," meaning that the residential development area is not located within one-half-mile of a BART or Amtrak station, or within one-quarter-mile of a bus station. Yet, the Draft EIR assumes that the project is corrsistent with the Climate Action Plan because it "increases development density in the area, increasing the feasibility of providing service on Tassajara Road in the future." This conclusion is unsupported by the substantial evidence and must be revised. 3) Land Use, Population, and Housing: The Draft EIR's discussion of the Urban Limit Line is misleading and incomplete. (DEIR, p.3.9-Q Please see comments above regarding the voters' intent behind the establishment of the ULL and the intent behind the 3O-acre exception to voter approval. The Draft EIR should be revised to present a more complete picture of the IJLL issue, including acknowledging the importance of providing affordable housing. As noted above, please provide more details about the intended use of the preservation agreement finding in Section 82-1.018(a)(3). (DEIR, p.3.9-32.) The Town also notes that the proiect would not qualify for the finding under Section 82- 1.018(a)(a) for a "minor change to reflect topographical characteristics or legal boundaries." The existing ULL boundary (which was described at the time as representing the "Watershed and Ridge Line boundary") accurately represents the topographical characteristics in that portion of the Northern Site so a finding under subsection (aX4) would notbe justified.) The Draft EIR concludes that Impact LU-1. ("would not conflict with any applicable provisions of the Contra Costa Cor:nty General Plan adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect") is less than significant. But this conclusion is not supported by substantial cvide¡rce. The project is inconsistent with Policy 3-7 because the project will result in significant unavoidable traffic impacts; it is inconsistent with Policy 3-9 because the project prematurely extends development into undeveloped areas outside the ULL before utilizing vacant and under-utilized sites within urban areas; it is inconsistent with Policy 3-10 because the project extends growth-inducing infrastructure into agricultural areas outside the ULL; and it is July 18,2016 Page 23 inconsistent with Poliry 3-11 because the project conflicts with existing agricultural uses. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-28 to 3.9-29.) Also, the project's small average lot size is not consistent with the development to the west of the project and is not aligned with the County's policy directive to go to lower density development at the outer edges of development. The Draft EIR concludes that Impact LU-2 ("would not conflict with any applicable provision of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect") is less than significant, in part, because the "Project would pay in-liçu fees in place of providing inclusionary housing units as part of the Project." (DEIR, pp. 3.9-30 to 3.9-33.) As noted above, the Draft EIR improperly dismisses the provision of onsite affordable housing without any discussion or analysis. The strategy of paying in-lieu fees is inconsistent with the purpose behind the 3O-acre exception to voter approval of changes to the ULL. I¡r the analysis of Impact LU-3 ("would not conflict with any applicable Local Agency Formation Commission policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect"), the Draft EIR assumes that the Contra Costa LAFCO will approve the extension of EBMUD utility service to the Residential Development Area. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-34 to 3,9-35.) Please provide more information about the process and criteria that would be used by the Contra Costa LAFCO. IÁtrhy is it reasonable to assume that approval will be granted? In the analysis of Impact LU-A ("may conflict with any applicable East Bay Municipal Utility District annexation policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect"), the Draft EIR concludes that the project is consistent with all applicable policies. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-35 to 3.9-39.) But the project is not consistent with Policy 3.01 because it is outside the Ultimate Service Boundary (USB). And Table 3.9-7's explanations of the project's consistency with exceptions to Policy 3.01 are unconvincing: (i) 30 acres is not a small boundary adjustment; (ü) the project's residential area is not the smaller part of a larger project located primarily within the USB; and (iii) there is no support for the conclusion that EBMUD is the logical provider of water service. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-36 to 3.9-37.) 4) Aesthetics,Light, and Glare: The Draft EIR's conclusion that Impact AES-2 ("would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings") is less than July 18,20L6 Page24 significant is unsupported. (See DEIR, p.3.1-18 to 3.1-23.) The project involves changing more than 30 acres of agriculturai/ open space iands outside the ULL to residential uses. Additionally, the project will result in the installation of a 25O-footlong and 4- foot-tall wall along Camino Tassajara. (DEIR, p. 3.1-13.) But the Draft EIR improperly reasons that these changes "would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the Project Site" because they are so srnall when compared to the great number of acres that will be preserved by the Project. (DEIR, p. 3.1-23.) The visual simulation of the Project in Exhibit 3.L-2 demonstrates clearly that the construction of 125 new residential units will result in a significant change to the existing visual character of the project site. In addition, the visual simulation provided does not account for the likelihood that the slide corrective work above proposed lots 32-40 will result in steep engineered slopes with drainage benches extending up to the ridgeline above these lots - scarring the existing topographic conditions that will likely be visible above the perimeter architectural wall and the proposed residences that would back up to Camino Tassajara. The aesthetic impact of the new residential development is not somehow canceled out or negated just because the project also proposes to preserve other portions of the project site at a location some distance away from the residential development. And, contrary to what the Draft EIR implies, the aesthetic impact of new residential development is not automatically reduced to less than significant levels because there are existing residences nearby. The project is inconsistent with the following General Plan Goals that are related to aesthetics: LU3.8-3-A ("protection of agriculture and oPen sPace"),9-B ("conserve the open space and natural resources of the County through control of the direction, extent and timing of urban growth"), 9-9 ("preserve open space lands located outside the Urban Limit Line"; "County shall not designate any open space land located outside the ULL for an urban use"), and 9-15 ("projects shall be designed to minimize damages to significant trees and other visual landmarks"). (DEI& pp.3.1-3 to 3.1-4.) The project will convert agriculture and open space outside the ULL to residential uses, and it will remove several mature California black walnut trees that are protected by the County's tree ordinance. Please consider these inconsistencies when reevaluating the project's aesthetic impacts. 5) Agricultural Resources: The Draft EIR discloses that the project would change 30 acres of Farmland of Local Importance to residential use, rezoning from Agricultural Land to P-L, Planned Unit July 18,2016 Page 25 District. (DEIR, p. 3.2-11.) Yet the Draft EIR concLudes that Impact AG-2 ("would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract") is less than significant. (DEI& pp. 3.2-12 to 3.2-13.) This conclusion appears to be based on circular reasoning: the project will be consistent once approved because the project requires approval of rezoning. Please revise to correct this deficiency. 6l Bíological Resources: As noted above, the Draft EIR provides a misleading description of the Northern California black walnut trees that will be removed by the project. The Draft EIR explains that there are only three extant native populations and only one viable native occurrence of the California black walnut as of 2003. (DEIR, p. 3.4-La.) And the Draft EIR goes on to explain that planted or naturalized California black walnut, such as the ones on the project site, threaten native stands and "have no special status.", (DEI& p. 3.4-L9.) This is confusing because even the native black walnut trees do not have federal or state status. (DEIR, p. 3.aaa.) Why is the Draft EIR trying to disparage planted or naturalized California black wal¡rut? The Draft EIR should acknowledge in this' discussion that the black waLrut trees on the project site are locally important and protected by the County tree ordinance. Mitigation measure BIO-3 states that the "applicant is proposing to compensate for Impacts to waters of the U.S. and State by creating wetlands on the Southern Site," but that the applicant "^ y also choose to purchase mitigation çredits" in lieu of creating the wetlands. (DEIR, p. 3.a-75.) Please explain who would monitor the created wetlands. And how many rnitigation credits would be bought? Will the mitigation cedits be required to meet the 2:1. (creation to impact) ratio indicated in subsection (b)? The Draft EIR concludes that Impact BIO-5 ("would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources") is less than significant. But the project is consistent with Policy 34 because it will convert agricultural lands to urban uses; it is inconsistent with Policy 8-6 because significant and mature California black wal-lrut trees will be removed and will not be preserved; it is inconsistent with Policy 8-9 because the project site contains endangered species and the project will not maintain all areas in their natural state; and it is inconsistent with Policy 8-27 because the proiect will impact wetlands instead of protecting them. Finally, as noted above, the Draft EIR assumes that the project will be annexed into an existing GHAD, which would "assume specified responsibilities" and provide for July 18,2016 Page26 "funding of monitoring and maintenance of biotic resources, as required and consistent with the Plan of Control." (DEIR, pp.2-41 to 242.) Please explain why it is reasonable to assume that a GHAD, which is designed to address geologic hazards, would have the interest in and expertise to manage biological resources. (DEIR, pp. 3.9-10 to 3.9-11.) 7') Cultural Resources: Based on CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have significant adverse impacts to cultural resources if the project would: . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; o Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or sitê or unique ' geologic feature; or o Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Any one of the above-cited impacts to a historical resource, as defined by Public Resources Code sections 21084.1 and 5020.1, constitutes a substantial adverse change pursuant to CEQA. A substantial adverse change to a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. CEQA requires that, for projects financed by, or requiring the discretionary approval of pubtic agencies in Catifomia, the effects that a project has on historical and unique archaeological resources must be considered. (Pub. Resources Code, S 21083.2, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, S L5064.5,) For purposes of CEQA, a historical resource is "a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]"; and any "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource" is considered a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, S 21084.1.) Historical resources can be "any obiect, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, potiticaf military, or cultural annals of California." (Pub. Resources Code, S 5020.1, subd. 0).) "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolitiory destruction, relocation, July 18,2016 Page27 or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15064.5, subd. (bX1).) The Draft EIR states that the California black walnut trees on the project site are remnants of a historic orchard dating back to the 1950s. (DEIR, pp.3.2-4 [part of orchard dating back to 1958-19681, 3.5-11 [orchard present in archival photos from 1946].). Has the County determined whether the remnants of the walnut orchard are a historic resource? If the County finds the walnut orchard to be a historic resource, the removal of these trees woulcl be a substantial adverse change and would thus be a significant cultural resources impact. (CEQA Guidelines, S 15064.5, subd. (bxl).) Mitigation measure CUL-1 provides that, in thè event of the inadvertent discovery of potentially significant cultural resources during constructiory the "archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate measures, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds." (DEIR, pp. 3.5-13 to 3.5-14.) This mitigation is insufficient to ensure that impacts will be less than significant because it does not ensure no substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 provides that relocation or alteration of the resource of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired is a substantial adverse change. (CEQA Guidelines, S 15064.5, subd. (bxl).) Mitigation measure CUL-3 requires that, in the event a significant paleontological resource is inadvertently discovered during construction, "the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards." (DEIR. p. 3.5-15.) What are the standards referenced here? Again, this mitigation is insufficient to ensure that impacts will be less than significant because it does not ensure that there would be no substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource. 8) Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Please review and iespond to the attached technical comments from the Town's staff. (Attachment 2 [Geotechnical and Grading Concerns].) Appendix E, the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, includes recommended measures that should be referenced in the Geology, Soils, and Seismicity section. (See, e.g., DEIR, July 18,201ó Page 28 Appendix E, pp. 8["Landslide mitigation measures should be incorporated where improvements are planned adjacent to open-space areas that will remain in a natural condition."7, 12 [The Geotechnical Engineer or qualified representative should be present during all phases of grading operations to observe demolition, site preparatioh, grading operations, and subdrain placement"f,T6 ["2:1 slopes should be provided with erosion control protection such as Rhino Snot Soil Stabilizer or other equivalent soil stabilization product"; "subsurface water flow and spring activity should be controlled in development areas through the use of subdrahs"l, 19 f"we recommend that landsliding at the site be further characterized in order to assess the potential impact to the site grading and proposed development"l.) If implementation of a GHAD is necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, this requirement should be identified as a mitigation measure. Please also explain how the project is consistent with General Plan Policies 10-22,10-24, 1.A-26, L0-28, and 10-29 (see Attachment 2). The slides, steepness of the slopes in and above the slides, and the highly visible scar that likely would be left after slide mitigation (e,g., exposed bedrock from the ridgeline down 80-100 vertical feet of the repair area and/or use of geogrid reinforcing) all fly in the face of the intent of General Plan Safety Element Policies. 9) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: In its discussion of Impact HAZ-ï ("would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires"), the Draft EIR states that "consistent with the SRVFPD Exterior Hazard Abatement Program, oPen sPace areas adjacent to the Residential Development Area would be required to provide a L5- foot disked or bladed fuel break along the perimeter of the property." (DEIR, p.3.7-16.') Please explain more about the SRVFPD Exterior Hazard Abatement Program. Who ensures compliance with this program and how? If these measures are not codified, why doesn't the Draft EIR include these requirements as mitigation measures? 10) Noise: The Draft EIR concludes that Impact NOI-I ("exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance") is less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, pp. 3.10-18 to 3.1,0-30.) hr particular, the Draft EIR concludes that pipeline construction noise impacts would be July 18,2016 Page29 less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, p. 3.10-24.) But the analysis for this impact is inaccurate. If the worst case scenario of noise is 85 dBA L',", ât a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area, and the six-to-eight-foot-high soundwall provides 6 dBA to 10dBA reduction to residences along the west side of San Ramon Valley Boulevard, then wouldn't the residences experience up to 79 dBA L-ur? Yet the DEIR reports that it will be 69 dBA L-"x. Mitigation Measure NOI-1a provides for an "onsite complaint and enforcement manager" to respond to and track complaints. Please explain how noise complaints be hancllecl. Will relocation be offerecl? Or will activities be stoppecl? (DEIR, p. 3.10-29.) The mitigation measure should be revised to specify the potential avenues for redressing complaints. Mitigation Measure NOI-1b requires all proposed residential units located within 2L6 feet of the centerline of Camino Tassajara to include air conditioning or some form of ventilation system to ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. (DËIR, pp. 3.10-26,3.10-30.) This mitigation measure appears inadequate. Were other mitigation measures considered? How does this requirement compare to requirements imposed on other projects that the County has conditionally approved because the ambient noise levels are between60-70 dBA L¿n? (DEIR, p. 3.10-L2.) Please explain how the Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies: Policy LL-2 ("standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB"), and Policy 1L-4 ("require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less"). (DEIR, p.3.10-12.) Please also explain why long-term noise measurements were only conducted on the Southern Site and not the Northern Site? (DEIR, p.3.10-6.) 11) Public Services and Recreation: Lr the discussion of Impact PSR-I ("would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities"), the Draft EIR states that "comments and requirements provided by SRVFPD in its review" of the planning application for the Project "would be included às conditions of approval to ensure appropriate access and compliance with all applicable codes and standards." (DEIR, pp. 3.11-11 to -12) But what are these conditions and requirements? Why arethey July 18,2016 Page 30 not included in the Draft EIR as mitigation measures? Please revise this discussion to ensure there is no improper deferral of mitigation. The Draft EIR concludes that Impact PSR-2 ("would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered law enforcement facilities") is less than significant. But there is no substantial evidence to support this conclusion. Police response times are not meeting General Plan Policy 7-59 goals of 5 minutes for 90 percent of all priority 1 and 2 call's emergency response times in urban and suburban areas (DEIR, pp. 3.11-3, 3.11- 8). Actual response times are LL minutes, 24 seconds to 16 minutes,46 seconds. And the project's response time could be as high as 17 minutes. Yet, DEIR simply relies upon a vague reference to a "response" from the Sheriff's Office that "did not indicate that the Project would result in the need for new or expanded Sheriff facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives." (DEIR, p.3.11,-12.) Please provide a copy of any written response from or a more complete summary of any conversations with the Sheriff's Office. In addition, the DEIR does not address potential impacts on the Town of Danville's Police Department. Because the Town's police department facility and officers in the field are physicatly closer to this unincorporated area of the County, the Town's officers are frequently first responders to Priority L calls under mutual aid. Any addition of units, as well as increased response times due to additional traffic, should be addressed. ' tLl Utilities and Service Systems: I:r the discussion of Impact USS-2 ("would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of off-site existing facilities") and Impact USS-3 ("would not result in a need for new or expanded off'site storm drainage facilities"), the Draft EIR focuses only on "off-site" facilities. (DEIR, pp. 3.13-35 to 3.13- 36.) Yet the corresponding significance thresholds for these impacts does not include the term "off-site" and instead broadly applies to any new facilities. (DEIR, p. 3.13-21.) Please explain this discrepancy. The Draft EIR's analysis of cumulative effects is inadequate and violates CEQA. E. An EIR must analyze cumulative impacts because "the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum." (Communities for a Better Enoironment July 1.8,201.6 Page 3L a. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98,7L4.) The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts to be "the change in the environment which results from the incremeutal impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." (Guidelines, $ L5355, subd. (b).) Thus, impacts that are "individually minor" may be "collectively significanl." (Ibid.) In assessing a proposed project's contribution to cumulative effects, CEQA requires a lead agency to undertake a two-step analysis. First, the agency must consider whether the combined effects from the proposed project and other projects would be cttmulatively signíficant. Ancl seconcl, if the answer is yes, the agency must then consider whether the "proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable." (CBEv.ResourcesAgency,suprø,103Cal.App.4th atp.I2};Pub.Resources Code, S 21083, subd. (bX2); Guidelines, 5615355, subd. (b),15064, subd. (hxl).) Here, the Draft EIR's Cumulative Effects section appears to disregard the fact that impacts that are individually minor may be collectively significant. Only those impacts with significant and unavoidable project-level impacts are found to be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, pp. 4-5 lgtreenhouse gas emissions impacts], 4-13 [transportation impacts].) For all the other impacts, the Draft EIR concludes the cumulative impacts are less than cumulatively considerable based on two assumptions: (i) that the Project's project-specific mitigation measures would reduce the projecfs contribution to cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable levels; and (ii) that other cumulative proiects would be similarly required to implement adequate mitigation. These assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence. For example, in discussing the cumulative Biological Resources impacts, the Draft EIR states that the "required mitigation would reduce the Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impact on special-status wildlife species to less than cumulatively considerable." (DEIR, p. 4-6.) There is no further discussion of why this conclusion is reasonable and accurate. Instead, this conclusory statement is followed by another in the same vein: "Some of the other projects listed in Table 4-L are located on sites with similar biological attributes and, therefore, would be required to mitigate for impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species in a manner similar to the project." There is no true analysis or evidence offered, much less substantial evidence. Similarly, in discussing cumulative Agricultural Resources impacts, the Draft EIR states that, "due to the increase in urbanization : . since the L940s," there is an "existing cumulatively significant impact related to loss of farmland." (DEI& ?. 44.') And the July 1,8,2016 Page32 Draft EIR admits that the project could result in the conversion of lands from Farmland of Local Importance to non-agricultural uses. But there is no explanation for why the project's incremental effects are not cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p.4-4.) The Draft EIR lacks a reasonable range of alternatives and improperly dismisses alternative locations or offsite alternatives. CEQA requires an EIR to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project . . . which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessé¡r any of the significant effects , . . and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (Guidelines, SS 15126.6, subd. (a), L5002, subd. (aX3).) The evaluation of alternatives must "contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making." (Løurel Heights I, suprø, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 404, 406 [requiring "meaningful detail"]; Kings County, supra,221 Cal.App.3d at p.735 [finding EIR lacked "quantitative, comparative analysis" of alternatives].) An "EIR is nonetheless defective under CEQA" ryhen it fails to explain a lead agency's "analytic route." (Løurel Heíghts l, atp.404; lJngs County, at p.731. ["[a]n inadequate discussion of alternatives constitutes an abuse of discretion"].) The Draft EIR here only analyzes two alternatives: the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Altemative. (DEIR, p. 5-2.) Since the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA and contemplates, as required, the consequences of approving nothing, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is the only true "project" alternative analyzed. And, although the Reduced Intensity Alternative would avoid the project's significant unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts, significant and unavoidable transportation impacts would still occur. (DEIR, pp. 5-5,5-7.) The Draft EIR should be revised to add one or more additional alternatives, and those new alternatives should be aimed at reducing the project's transportation impacts to less than significant levels. Offsite alternatives should be considered because they are more likely than the Reduced Intensity Alternative to reduce the project's significant and unavoidable transportation impacts. But the Draft EIR impropcrly dismissed several such alternatives from further consideration, apparently out of concern that those alternatives might look so much better than the proposed project that it would not be fair to the project. The Draft EIR states that "only sites located within or dírectly adiacent to the tlLL in the San Ramory Danville, Blackhawk area that are currently designated for agricultural uses were considered , in order to facilitøte an equitable comparison of the Project to øn ølternatioe project F ]uly 18,2016 Page 33 location." (DEIR, p. 5-10, italics added.) This rationale is inconsistent with CEQA's mandate to evaluate an adequate range of alternatives that can avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant impacts. The "'applicant's feeling about an alternative cannot substitute for the required facts and independent reasoning" showing the agency's independent "analytical route."' (Saoe Round Vølley Alliance zt. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App .4th'1.437, 1458.) The Draft EIR goes on to reject two specific alternative sites for weak and unsupportable reasons. The Norris Canyon Alternative Site, which would not require adjustment of the ULL, is rejected in part because a project in that location "would likely utilize the Bolinger Canyon Road and Norris Canyon Road intersection, which is currently a four-way, stop-controlled intersection and may need to be signalized to accommodate increased traffic." (DEIR, p. 5-11.) It is unclear why the need for signalization of one intersection is an insurmountable traffic hurdle or why it isn't preferable to the project's creation of significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. An "agency may not simply accept at face value the project proponent's assertion's regarding feasibility" of an alternative. (Saue Round Valley AIIíønce, suprø, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 1458.) Another reason offered for rejecting this alternative is that "development on this parcel could potentially be implemented at a greater intensity because approximately 90 acres of the site is within the ULL." This is pure speculatíon and circular logic. Furthermore, the Norris Canyon Altemative Site consists of two parcels; the parcel closest to existing residential development (i.e., APN 211-210-029) is 31.5+ / - acres in size. This fact further erodes the logic that the Norris Canyon Alternative Site can't be considered as a comparable site for the development area of the Tassajara Parks Project because of the anticipated development intensity. The 3L.5+ / - portion of the Norris Canyon Alternative Site has existing single family residential development directly to the east. Looking at the most proximate 31.5+/- acre portion of abutting residential development indicates the presence of 48 lots with an average lot size in excess of 17,750 square feet (i.e., an average lot size in excess of 225% of the average lot size proposed in the Tassajara Parks Proiect). The existing residential development on this 31.5+ /- acres would serve as a good representation of the reasonable development yield for a 30+/- acre area with gentle to moderate slopes in close proximity of the ULL (i.e., the Tassajara Parks Project Site). The analysis that should have occurred looking at the Norris Canyon Alternative Site arguably could have also sen¡ed to provide direction for an "Environmentally Superior Alternative Plan" for the Tassajara Parks Project. The Draft EIR can easily define an altemative at the Norris Canyon site that includes the same number of residential units as the proposed project. Since the Draft EIR rejected this altemative from further July 18,2016 Page 34 consideratiory there is no analysis of whether or not this alternative would be able to avoid or lessen the project's significant and unavoidable transportation impacts. The reasons for rejecting Chapparal Court Alternative Site are equally unconvincing. CEQA does not restrict an agency's authority to consider an adequate range of altematives to only those that perfectly match a proposed project. The Draft EIR states that "residential development on this site would likely create significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation, particularly on San Ramon Valley Boulevard." (DEIR, p. 5-12.) Again, it is unclear why the need for mitigation should be used to reject an alternative without further analysis. The Draft EIR also repeats the same reason noted above that "development on this parcel could potentially be implemented at a greater intensity because the majority of the site is within the ULL." One of the two parcels constituting the Chapparal Court Alternative Site is also close in size to the proposed development area in the Tassajara Parks Project (i.e,, APN 211-010-042, at 20+/- acres in size). As with the Norris Canyon Alternative Site, there is existing residential development directly east of the Chapparal Alternative Site. The abutting 30+/- acres of the most proximate residential development to the east of the Chapparal Court Alternative Site contains 72 lots with an average lot size measurably larger than is proposed by the Tassajara Parks Project (i.e., 1,0,500+/- square feet versus 7,85A+/- square feet in thc Tassajara Parks Project - giving an average lot size that is 133% larger than the average lot size proposed in the Tassajara Parks Project). It is noteworthy that an application for single family residential development over the 20+/- acre Chapparal Court parcel and a L0-acre portion of the larger parcel making up the Altemative Site could be processed. Finally, the Town recommends that the Reduced Intensity Alternative be modified to have the 30-acre development envelope include a maximum of 65 total units, including tenbelow market rate units to meet the proiecfs 15% inclusionary housing requirement. This modified Reduced htensity Alternative should include withinin the 3O-acre Residential Development Area: (1) all proposed residential lots and project roadways; (2) the requisite area for roadway dedication along Camino Tassajara; (3) a 35-to40- foot-wide buffer landscape area along the project frontage on Camino Tassajara; (4) the detention basin/ storm water treatment facility; (5) the area necessary for debris benches at the intçrface of proiect lots or roadways and natural or engineered slopes; and (6) the area necessary to correct landslides to provide for the project's development. This layout should avoid the slopes containing or abutting the deep seated landslide. This plan should limit the corrective work for the large landslide at the middle rear section of the current project layout to construction of keyways at the toe of the slide to lessen the probability of a subsequent major failure of the slide. July 18,2016 Page 35 The Draft EIR's cursory discussion of growth-inducing impacts ignores the potential impacts that would result from the removal of a major obstacle to population growth: adequate water supply. It is "settled that [an] EIR must discuss growth-inducing impacts even though those impacts are not themselves a part of the project under consideration, and even though the extent of the growth is difficult to calculate." (Napa Citizens for Honest Goaernment a. Napa Couttty Bd. of Superaisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 368.) Thus, EIRs must "[d]iscuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster ecohomic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." (CEQA Guidelines, $ "15126.2, subd. (d).) This mandate applies especially where, as here, a project "would remove obstacles to population growth." (Ibid.) The Draft EIR only provides a cursory analysis of the project's growtÞinducing impacts, populated with conclusory statements unsupported by substantial evidence. (DEIR, pp. 6-1 to 6-2.) In a single paragraph of analysis, the Draft EIR explains that the "nominal 0.07 percent" increase in the County's population "is considered neglígible, and, therefore, direct population growth would be less than significant." (DEI& ?.6-2.') The Draft EIR goes on to state that "urban infrastructure would be extended only to the 3O-acre Residential Development Area, [and] adjacent areas would remain outside of the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line, thereby prohibiting further expansion." (DEIR, p. 6- 2.) This analysis is insufficient. The Draft EIR needs to çonsider and analyze the potential growth-inducing impacts of securing more water than the project is expected to need. In the Utilities and Service Systems section, the Draft EIR discloses that the Long-term Water Purchase Agreement Term Sheet provides for the purchase of up to 200 acre feet per year (AFY) of Calaveras Public Utility District Water. Since the project's maximum demand is only 47 AF'Y, the Draft EIR goes on to explain that the "ftîral" purchase agreement is likely to be 100 AFV, with 50 AFY of water "for an ample margin of safety." (DEIR, p.3.313-26.) If the project proceeds under this water supply option, the Project would have secured twice the amount of water needed to serve the project. This is the very definition of removing an obstacle of future growth, Similarly, if the project proceeds with recycled water as its water source, then the project would result in the construction of a l.8-mile recycled water pipeline along San Ramon Valley Boulevard from Acosta Boulevard to Montevideo Avenue. (DEIR, p. G July 18,2016 Page 36 3.13-31.) This length of pipeline is "not currently included in future recycled water projects." (DEIR, p. 3.13-31.) Thus, the project would again be removing an obstacle to growth by providing infrastructure that was not previously planned. H. Energy Conservation Analysis. CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F states: "IÍ appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. [I] 2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. [I] 3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other foims of energy. [ï] a. The degree to which the project complies with existing enerry standards. tÍl 5. The effects of the project on energy resources. tf] 6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives." Appendix F also lists mitigation measures that may be included in the EIR: "1,. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. ttl] 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid-waste. tfl 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. tfl 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts." The Draft EIR's discussion of Energy Conservation is inadequate. (DEIR, pp. 6-3 to 6-7.\ Specifically, Draft EIR improperly relies solely upon compliance with the building code to mitigate operational and construction energy impacts, without further discussion of the Appendix F criteria. This strategy was disapproved in Caliþrnia CIeøn Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014)225 Cal.App.4th 173,211. Additionally, the Draft EIR's provision of transportation fuel consumption estimates in Table 6-2 is not sufficient assessment of the transportation energy impacts. How does 595 gallons per day compare to other projects? Why couldn't mitigation measures be required to reduce this? The Draft EIR should explicitly consider the feasibility of the mitigation measures suggested in Appendix F, including the use of more onsite renewable energy. July 18,2016 Page37 III. The Proieet's ilrco¡s¡€lenq and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act. The general plan has been described as the "constitution for all future development" and thus all local land use decisions must be consistent with it.ts The Planning and Zaning Law provides "[c]ounty or city ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan,"2o The Subdivision Map Act similariy provides that "[n]o local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan."2l The local agency must deny the tentative map if it is not consistent with the general plan.2z A project is "inconsistent with a general plan'if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, inandatory, and cleat."'23In the recent SpríngValley Løke Associøtion a. City af Victoraille case, the Court of Appeal disapproved of the city's general plan consistency finding because the project failed to comply with a "specific, mandatory, and fundamental" requirement.2a The city's general plan included an implementation measure requiring "all new commercial or industrial development to generate electricity on-site to the maximum extent possible."zs The city's project approvals for the comn.rercial retail development did not require on-site electricity generation, effectively finding it infeasible.26 But the court concluded that the city failed to "provide facts, reasonable assumptions, or expert opinion amounting to substantial evidence to tY ¡ O'Loøneo. O'Rourke (1965)231" Ca1.4pp.2d774,782. zo / Gov. Code, S 65860, subd. (a). 2t / Gov. Code 966473.5. u / See Gov. Code 966/:74, subds. (a) & (b). Other findings that must result in denial of a tentative map include that the site is not physically suitable for the development, the design is tikely to cause substantial environmental damage or serious public health problems, and that the design would conflict with a public easement. (Gov. Code $ 66474, subds. (c)-(d.) zt / Spring Valley Lalæ Assn. v. City of Victoruílle (May 25,2A16,D069442) - Cal.Rptr.3d- 12016 WL 3361554 atp. al $pring Vølley) [citing Endøngered Habítøts League, lnc. o. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777,7821. 24 / ld. at p.5. ö / ld. at p.3. zø ¡ ld. atp.4. July 18,2016 Page 38 support a conclusion solar po\ 7er generation or other alternatives for on-site electricity generation [were] completely infeasible."2T Despite the deference afforded to an agency's fact-finding and the deference that courts must pay to agencies interpreting their own plans and policies, it is not uncommon for courts to overturn project approval when projects are inconsistent with general plan policies that are fundamental, mandatory, and clear. For example, in Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County u. Board of Superaisors (1998) 62 Cal.App. th 1332,1340- 1342, the court found that a residential subdivision was inconsistent with a general plan land use element policy that restricted low density residential (LDR) designations to land contiguous to community regions or rural centers. The coutt noted that the project's use of the LDR designation was at odds with undisputed evidence showing that the project site was not contiguous to community regions or rural centers. Concluding that the policy at issue was fundamental and mandatory, the appellate court agreed with plaintiffs that the project was inconsistent with the land use element and reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the county. Similarly, tn Endangered Habitats Lmgue, lnc. v, County of Orange (2005) 13L Cal.App.4th 777,783-784, the court held that the project was inconsistent with the general plan's traffic service level policy. The county's general plan included a policy requiring projects to achieve LOS C or better under a specific method of analysis. The EIR explained that it used a different method of analysis to achieve LOS C because the project would result in LOS D or E under the general plan's preferred method of analysis. The court disapproved of this attempt to skirt the requirements in the general plan policy, deemed the project inconsistent, and set aside the approval. Here, as explained above, the Tassajara Parks project is inconsistent with several General Plan policies and goals, many of which are arguably "fundamental, mandatory, and clear.' The Proiect includes a General Plan amendment, rezoning of both the Northern and Southem Sites, and a subdivision/ vesting tentative map.28 Therefore, the County must make required findings about the Project's consistency with the General Plan under Government Code sections 65860, 66473.5, and 66474. 2' / Iþid. B / Draft EIR, p.2-2. ]uly 18,2016 Page 39 In addition to responses to the arguments above relating to General Plan inconsistencies, the Town requests that the County specifically explain how the Project is consistent with the following policies and goals:. General Plan Goal3-G. General Plan Goals LU3.8-3-4,9-8,9-9,9-1.5. o Policies 3-7,3-9,3-10, 3-11¡ Policies 7-59,7-137,7-'J.42 e Policies 84, 8-6, 8-9,8-27 . Policies 9-'1.4,9-22,9-24 o Policies 1A-22, 10-24,'1,0-26, 10-28, 10-29o Policiesll,-2,'J.']..-4 The existing explanations in the Draft EIR for the Project's consistency with these and other policies noted in sections above are insufficient. .Please provide additional analysis and information instead of simply repeating what is already stated in the Draft EIR. IV. Conclusion The Town appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR for the Tassajara Parks Project and looks forward to working with the County to address the issues raised in this letter. ery truly yours, cc: V A. TownManager Mayor and Town Council Supervisor Andersory District 2 Sabrina Teller & L. Elizabeth Sarine, Remy Moose Manley, LLP July 18,2016 Page,40 Enclosures Attachment L: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: StanteCs ]uly 15, 2016 Peer Review of Tassajara Parks Traffic Impact Study Town Staffls Geotechnical and Grading Concerns County Code sections related to Urban Limit Line & Measure C Contra Costa General Plan- Chapters '/',,3, Ex 4 Contra Costa Transportation Autho"iq/t Measure J Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Board of Supervisor's ]uly t2, 2005 staff report on Urban Limit Line Measure L Voter Pamphlet (Noûembèr20A6 election) Board of Supervisor's November 3, 2009 approval of Bay Point Waterfront Project 11/30/1,6 Comment Letter on RDEIR - " S urnll T ow u Atrttosphere Ontstandirg Quølìt1¡ of Lìfe" November 30,241.6 John Oborne, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Email: iohn.oborne@dcd.cccounty.uç Town of Danville'scomments on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the TassajaraParks Project, County File Numbers GP07-0009, Í<2;09-3212, SD10-9280 DP10-3008 Dear Mr. Oborne: On behalf of the Town of Danville, we submit these comments regarding the County's Recirculated DraftEnvironmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Tassajara Parks Project. The Town has carefully reviewed the RDEI& as have the Town's outside counsel, Remy Moose Manley, LLP. We provided comments on the Draft EIR on ]uly 18, 2016 (attached as Attachment A). Please provide responses to our comments in the July 2016 letter as well as the additional comments below that are specific to the new and revised text in the RDEIR. Although the RDEIR includes many minor textual edits, the three main changes relate to: (1) the new discussion of a potential Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the use of a preservation agreement to justify changing the County's Urban Limit Line, (2) the replacement of the recycled-water option with an off-site water conservation option for the Projecfs water supply, and (3) a new conclusion of significant and unavoidable impacts related to the project's inconsistency with plans for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Impact AIR-l). As explained below and in our July 2016 letter, the EIIÇ even as revised, does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), the Planning and Zonrng Law (Gov. Code, S 65000 et seq.), and the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, S 66410 et seq.). Our fuly 201.6 letter included eight attachments. This letter is accompanied by different and additional attachments. For the County's convenience, Attachment A to this letter reproduces the July 2016 letter, but it does not reproduce Attachments 14 to that letter. 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 RE Admin¡str¡t¡on (92s' 31&3388 Building (92s) 3rll-!rð30 Engineering & Planning (925) 314-3310 Tr¡n3port¡l¡on (92s) 314-3320 Mainlename Pollce Park6 snd Rec¡eation (925) 314,:1450 (925) 314-3700 (9Zt) 314-3{00 November 30,20'1,6 Page2 Please include all attachments in the Final EIR so that the public and decision-makers may review them. I. Request for Notice ItVhile I received written notice of the revised DEI& this letter is also our formal written request for additional notice of all fufure public hearings or environmental documents, and any other public notices related to this Project. Please include the following names, emails, and addresses on your mailing list for all future public notices issued for the Project: r Sabrina Teller Remy Moose Manley, LLP 555 Capitol Mall, Ste. 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 steller@rmmenvirolaw.com Robert Ewing Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville, CA94526 rewing@danville.ca. gov a Please forward this request to any other relevant departments of the County, including the County Clerk-Recorder's Office. il. The County's treatment of the preservation agreement MOU as an action separate from the Project is improper piecemealing and violates CEOA. The RDEIR states that the Project involves concurrent discretionary approvals of the General Plan Amendmenf Development Plan, Development Agreement, and Change to the ULL. (RDEIR, pp.241, to 42.) The "Change to the IILL'category includes "the making of required findings and any actions related thereto." (Ibid.; County Code, g chapter 82-1..018(a)(3).) This phrase arguably means that the MoU should be considered part of the project as an "action related" to the making of required findings for changing the ULL. Yet, the RDEIR insists that the MOU can be approved separately from the Project and without CEQA review. (RDEI& p.2-1,6.) Please clarify if the County plans to approve the MOU separately and before it considers approval of the Project. If so, then this is improper piecemealing. (Pub. Resources Code, S 21002.1, subd. November 30,20'1.6 Page 3 (d); see, e.g., Berkeley Keep Jets Oaer tlæ Bny Committee u. Bonrd of Port C-onrs. (2001) 91 Ca1.4pp.4th1344,1358; City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325,1333.) The RDEIR explains that the MOU would include a range of actions largely related to conserving and preserving agricultural lands, but it would also include a "mechanism for a project like Tassajara Parks to be removed from the enhancement area boundary if it contributes at least $4 million to agricultural enhancement and dedicates at least 500 acres of land." (RDEI& p.2-27.) Since the RDEIR does not provide the final language of the MOU, and in fact, the MOU currently exists only in draft form and is subject to further revision and modification, the Town reserves the right to challenge the MOU at a later time. But we note that the MOU may violate CEQA if it commits the County to approval of the Tassajara Parks project "as a practical matter." (See Saoe Tørø tt. Ci$ af West Hollyruood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 776, 135.) The County's use of the preservation agreement MOU as described in the RDEIR would also be improper for other reasons. First, because the terms of the proposed MOU allowing a project to be removed from the enhancement area are clearly specific to the Project and have been negotiated in advance, and since the MOU is not intended to "modify existing laws, regulations or policies regarding the Tassajara Valley Agricultural Enhancement Area nor to limit any jurisdiction's power conferred under Article 1.1, Section 7 of the California Constitution", it appears the only reason for proposing the MOU is to facilitate the making of a finding to permit the Project's approval under County Code, $ Chapter 82-1.018(a)(3). Second the inclusion of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) as a party to the MOU is improper, EBRPD is not considered a local goveûrment under Article LL, Section 7 of the California Constitutiory and as such does not have the same police powers that apply to zoning and land use matters. As suctu under County Code, $ Chapter 82-1.018(a)(3), EBRPD cannot be considered a "party to the preservation agreement". Finally and apart from any arguments about the propriety of the MOU, in light of the $4 million dollars being offered by the applicant as part of the MOU, the County and applicant will not be able to assert that funding additional mitigation measures that reduce the Projecfs significant and unavoidable impacts related to transportation and greenhouse gas emissions are somehow financially infeasible. It should also be noted that the County is currently in the process of undertaking a comprehensive decennial review of the County ULL as called for under County Code, $ Chapter 82-1.018(d) - "Tlæ board of superuisors utíII reuiett¡ tlæ boundøry of the urban limit line in tlæ yeør 2016. Tlæ purpose of the year 201.6 reuieut is to determine whetlær a chønge to tlæ November 30,20L6 Page 4 boundary of tlæ cotmty's urben limit line møp is wnrranted, based upon fncts nnd circuntstances resulting from tlæ coun$'s pnrticipation roitlt cities in a conrprelænsipe reuietu of tlæ artnilnbility of land in Contra Costa County sufficíent to næet løusing and job needs for ftoen$ years." Based upon information presented at a public meeting held on November 15,20'1,6, the County has a sufficient supply of land available within the boundary of the current urban limit line to accommodate the projected housing and job growth forecast through the year 2040. ilI. The RDEIR does not comply with CEOA. A. The RDEIR still fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. 1) Utilities and Service Systems: The RDEIR replaced the recycled-water option with an East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) off-site water conservation option as the "Source 2" option for supplying the Project's maximum dry-year demand of 48 acre-feet per year (AFY). (RDEIR, p. 3.13-7 to -8.) No changes were made to the Source 1. (Calaveras Public Utility District water) optior¡ so all comments in our July 20'l.6letter related to the Source 1. option still need to be addressed. The RDEIR asserts that the new Source 2 option "creates a potable water source by funding the accelerations or expansion of water conservation measures within EBMUD's service area" and thereby "reduc[ing] current potable use within EBMUD's service area by an amount sufficient to offset the Proposed Project's water demand." (RDEI& p. 3.13- 7.| BuÍ., as explained below, the RDEIR's math does not add up: the additional savings that could be achieved through additional funding for or acceleration of the 53 conservation measures in EBMUD's Water Supply Management Program (WSMP) 2040 Final Plan do not appear to equal the Projecfs demand of 48 AFY. (See EBMUD, April 2072, Final, Water Supply Management Program 204A Plan, at http:/ lwww.ebmud.com/index.php/download file/force/ó74l1403/?wsmp-2040- rev ised-f inal-plan. p df (last visited Nov. 4, 2016).) EBMUD's WSMP 2040 Plan projects that the District will need conservation measures to produce 39 million gallons per day (MGD) (approximately 120 AFY) in order for the District to meet proiected need for water in the District's existing service area, which does not include the Project site. (EBMUD WSMR pp. 1-2,2-L ["expected growth within EBMUD's own service area"].) Indeed, the Project is outside of EBMUD's Ultimate November 30,20'1.6 Page 5 Service Boundary (USB), which defines the Districfs "limit of future annexation for extension of water service." (EBMUD WSMP, p. 3-8; RDEIR, p. 3.13-1 [Project is outside of EBMUD's "urban service boundary (USB)" -a term that should read "ultirnate service boundary" as shown in the WSMP p.7-91; see also RDEIR, Appendix A, EBMUD's June 17,20L4letter with comments on the Notice of Preparation ["The following EBMUD policies . . . establish that EBMUD will oppose annexation of properties outside of EBMUD's USB and the extension of service by EBMUD to those properties"J.) Since the Project's demand of 48 AFY (approximately 15.6 MGD) would be in addition to the projected needs of the Districfs existing USB service area, the only way for the Projecfs Source 2 option to adequately supply the Project's water needs would be if the Project is able to help EBMUD accelerate or expand its water conservation measures in ways that produce an additional 15.6 MGD, for a total conservation target of approximately 55 MGD. The RDEIR's description of the potential conservation measures that could be funded by the Project is confusing and inaccurate. The RDEIR notes that WSMP "approved conservation Levels B through D, accounting for a projected water savings of 39 mgd" but that "a number of the elements through Level D have not been fully implemented and are awaiting the allocation of funding." (RDEIR, p. 3.13-8.) The RDEIR implies that fully funding measures listed in Levels B through D and expanding the proposed measures under Levels B through E would somehow produce enough additional water in the District to meetthe Project's water needs (approximately 15.6 MGD) in addition to the Districls projected water needs for its existing USB service area through 2040. But the WSMP explains that fully funding and implementing Levels A through E would only produce 41 MGD total, with the four additional measures in Level E contributing a total of 2 MGD on top of the 39 MGD achieved by Levels A-D. (EBMUD WSMP, p. 6-5.) Five conservation programs (I-evels A through E) were created each providing increasing levels of water savings, with the fifth level (E) being the maximum theoretical level of water savings (Table 6-1). Each program built on the prior program: Program A included the plumbing code only; Program B (equivalent to the District's current program) contains 25 conservation measures. Program C includes Program B measures plus L5 additional measures and uses the Automatic Metering System (AMS) to help identify (to the customer and to EBMUD) leakage and excessive use. This enhances the abitity of EBMUD to conduct effective water surveys of residential and business customers. Program D has all 40 measures from Program C and adds a net of three measures. Program E includes four additional measures to Program D. November 30,20'1,6 Page6 (EBMUD WSMR p.6-4.) In other words, even if the Project helped EBMUD fully fund or accelerate all 53 conservation measures in Levels A through E, this would only produce an additional 2 MGD that could be devoted solely to the Project's needs instead of the Districfs projected needs for its existing USB service area. Moreover, EBMUD explains how it rejected 47 other conservation measures for reasons unrelated to availability of funding: "Technology/Market Maturity; Service Area Match; Customer Acceptance/Equity; and Relative Effectiveness of Measure Available." (EBMUD WSMR pp. 6-3 to 64.) Given the above, please explain how the off-site water conservation option would be able to produce 48 AFY or 15.6 MGD in additional water conservation above the 39 MGD of conservation that EBMUD estimates will be needed to meet the projected needs of its existing USB service area. 2, Air Quality/GHc Emissions: In our J:uJy 201,6letter, we raised four issues related to the DEIR's analysis of GHG emissions. First, we pointed out that the GHG anâlysis relied on BAAQMD's thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions (1,100 MTCO2E/year and/ or 4.6 MTCOTEISP/year) despite those standards being limited to2020 reduction targets. The DEIR dicl not cxplain why thesc th¡esholds were appropriate given that virtually all of the projecfs operational GHG emissions would occur after 2020. Second, despite stating that GHG analysis relied on BAAQMD's guidance, the DEIR failed to do so when it came to construction emissions. BAAQMD recommends calculation and disclosure of construction GHG emissions followed by an analysis of the significance of those construction emissions. The DEIR appeared to calculate and disclose the construction emissions without analyzing their possible significance. Third, we pointed out that the project does not support the primary goals of the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan (Impact AIR- 1.) because the project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact on climate change (Impact AIR-6). Fourth, we noted that the analysis of Impact AIR-7 incorrectly stated that the project was consistent with the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan ("CAP") despite a glaring inconsistency with Measure LUT 4. In response to these and other issues raisccl through public comment, the RDEIR includcs some helpful revisions. But the RDEIR ultimately creates more questions than it answers. Under Impact AIR-6, the RDEIR added an explanation of annualizing the construction emissions over the life of the project and a brief explanation of the use of the BAAQMD thresholds despite their being tied to 2020. Under Impact AIR-Z a discussion of the applicability of measure LUT-4 was added, as well as discussions of consistency with SB November 30,2076 PageT 375, Contra Costa County US Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, and Executive Orders 5-3-05 and B-30-15, though the RDEIR incorrectly states that it is unnecessary to apply post-2020 targets to the project. The RDEIR also changed the DEIR's less-than-significant conclusion for Impact AIR-1 ("The Project may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans") to a significant and unavoidable impact. As explained below, there are a numbe¡ of issues with the updated analysis in the RDEIR. First, Impact AIR-7 cannot be less than significant if Impacts AIR-I and AIR-6 are significant and unavoidable, because AIR-1 and AIR-6 were deemed significant due to the project's inconsistency with applicable plans. Second, the RDEIR's use of the BAAQMD's GHG emission th¡esholds-which are limited to AB 32's 2020 target- remains inappropriate because the vast bulk of the project's GHG emissions will occur over its 3O-year projected lifespan between 2020 and 2050. The RDEIR fails to address why the outdated targets are appropriate for use in determining the significance of the project's operational GHG emissions, even though there are applicable post-2020 targets by which the project could be measured. Third, the RDEIR does explain that the construction emissions were annualized and added to the operational emissions (as recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and others). But this approach only serves to further skew the GHG emissions analysis in this case. Fourth, the added discussion of Measure LUT 4 under Impact AIR-7 is little mote than an attempt to sidestep the project's inconsistency with that measure, and Contra Costa County's Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fifth, while the RDEIR did add discussions of.SB375, the Cool Counties Declaration, and Executive Orders 5-3-05 and 8-30-15 under Impact AIR-7, it fails to address new Senate Bill32 (SB 32) and several applicable plans, policies, and regulations. One glaring example is that AIR-7 does notaddress the projecfs consistency with BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan, which has an applicable GHG component, as indicated in Impact AIR-I. (See Attachment E.) a)Thp An¡h¡cic. nf the GHG lrnnq¡fc in fho l?r)E'll? ic Errnd¡monf¡llrr Fl..^ro,ll and Contradictorv First, the RDEIR is fundamentally flawed because the analysis is internally inconsistent. lmpacts Alt{-l and AIR-6 were declared significant and unavoidable while Impact AIR- 7 was found to be less than significant, but the significance of Impact AIR-7 hinges on the projecfs consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Under both Impacts AIR-1 and AIR-6, the project was found to be inconsistent with an applicable plan. AIR- 1 found the project to be inconsistent with the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan, and the November 30,20'1,6 Page I conclusion under AIR-6 requires the reader to presume that the project is inconsistent with Contra Costa County's Climate Action Plan. As indicated in Impact AIR-I, the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan contains a GHG emissions component that is applicable to the project. (RDEIR, p.3.341.) Indeed,Impact AIR-I was revised from "less than significant" to "significant and unavoidable" because the project does not "support the primary goals of the AQR" one of which is reducing GHG emissions and protecting the climate. (Ibid.) If Impact AIR-I is significant and unavoidable because of the projecfs inconsistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plary then Impact AIR-7 is significant as weli, for the same reason. The analysis of Impact AIR-7 must be revised to reflect the projecfs inconsistency with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. In analyzing Impact AIR-6, the RDEIR acknowledges that the project will generate GHG emissions and states that the significance of those emissions will be determined based on BAAQMD's May 2011 project-level significance th¡esholds. (RDEIR, p. 3.3-65.) Those thresholds are: . Compliance with a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or. L,L00 MTCO2E/ye¿ìr, or. 4.6 MTCOzE/SP/year (where SP= employees plus residents).l After adopting these as the th¡esholds of significance for Impact AIR-6 (see RDEIR, pp. 3.3-37 to 40, and 3.3-65 to -66) the RDEIR states that "i,f the project is less than any one of the thresholds identified above, then the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change," meaning that Impact AIR'6 would be less than significant. (RDEI& p. 3.3-66.) Impact AIR-ó was determined to be significant and unavoidable. So it can be assumed that the project is not less than any of the BAAQMD thresholds, including "consistency with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy." The RDEIR identifies the CAP as a "qualified Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy" and then states that the "primary means of determining project significance is through an assessment of consistency of the project with the CAP' (id. atp. 3.3-65). There is no assessment of the project's consistency with the CAP under Impact AIR,6. But the conclusion under Impact AIR-6leads us to conclude that the project was not found to be consistent with'the CAIt- 1As we noted in our initial comment letter, these thresholds are limited to reduction targets lor 2420. Novembcr 30,201.6 Page 9 The analysis under Impact AIR-7 reaches the opposite conclusion. Impact AIR-7 states (incorrectly) that the project is consistent with the CAR and therefore Impact AIR-7 is less than significant. Both of these statements cannot be true, and this contradictory claim requires both impacts to be reassessed. Either the project is consistent with the CAP or it isn't. As discussed below, the project is not consistent with the CAP. Another fundamental flaw in the analysis of both Impact AIR-6 and AIR-7 is the conclusion that the 2020 targets are " appropriate." (RDEIR, p. 3.3-39.) The RDEIR justifies this claim with two assertions. First, "the project is expected to be completed prior to 2A20" (ibid.) and second, that there are no "legislative mandate[s]" and/or targets beyond 2020 that would apply to the project. (RDEIR, p 3.3-68 and -75.) Both of these assertions are incorrect. IAtrhile the project may be fully constructed by 2020 (and even that seems quite ambitious), the project will not be "complete" until the end of its operational lifespan, which is calculated to be 30 years. (RDEIR, p. 3.3-66.) As stated in our luly 201,6 comments, virtually all of the project's operational emissions would occur between 2020 and 2050. These emissions represent the vast bulk of the project's GHG emissions and cannot be excused without mitigating them to the fullest extent feasible. Moreover, there are two applicable post-2020 GHG reduction targets against which the project could measure its operational (and annualized construction) emissions. The first is SB 32-the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which Governor Brown signed into law on September 8,20'l.,6. SB 32 is a "legislative mandate" to reduce GHG emissions by 40"/' below 1990levels by 2030. (Legis. Council's Dig., Sen. Bitl No. 32, Q015-20't6 Reg. Sess.) Chapter 249; SB 32 available at https:/ /leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=2015201605832 (last visited Nov. 4,2016r.) The EIR must analyze the Project's consistency with this target, which applies to both the project's construction and operational emissions. The second applicable post-2020 target is the CAPs 2035 GHG emissions reduction target of 50% below 1990 levels, or 57"/o below the 2005 baseline level. (Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan, #3, p. 37 (Attachment B).) The CAP goes beyond setting the overall target for 2035, and establishes the amount of "reductions needed from local actions" to meet the 2035 target. (Id. at p.38, see Figure 1.) As Figure f. illustrates, there is great need for reductions from local actions in addition to any anticipated reductions from state actions. The RDEIR must analyze the project's consistency with this target as well. November 30,2016 Page L0 1: Chart illustra the need for local reductions to meet CAP (Attachment B, p.38.) Lastly, though the RDEIR acknowledges the cumulative nature of GHG impact analysis, no cumulative analysis was performed under AIR-6 or AIR-7. There was no comparison of the project, its GHG emissions, and proposed mitigation measures to other projects in thecounty andf or regiontodeterminewhatthisproject's"fair share" of GHGemission reductions should be. The EIR must justify its selection of MM AIR-6 as the only feasible mitigation, potentially by comparing it to other projects in the county in a true cumulative analysis. b)The Analysis of is Skewed and Misleadins We note that the RDEIR does address our July 2016 comments on construction emissions, in that it explains that the conshuction emissions were annualized and added into the project's operational emissions calculations. (RDEIR, p. 3.3-66.) Even if several air clistricts have recommended this approach generally, in this case the approach scrvcs to further skew the GHG analysis. The RDEIR's significance thresholds are limited to2020, and the project purportedly will be completely constructed by 2020. Hence, all of the project's construction GHG emissions could occur by 2020, and could be accurately analyzed under the 2020 thresholds. Instead, the RDEIR "annualizes" the construction emissions and adds them to the operational emissions (which would largely occur Figure 3.3. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals Saselina L€vel 2020 6o¿l .D5l¡lc^(ù6r -fqKl! +ProtrstotrtËt t00,000 9m,000 Ë.1,1m.00 ¡,3m,(m t,5.þ,oæ 20r¡2020 tot52ütt 5m,000 2035 ¡eductions neededlrom loc¿l actions: 626,630 MTCO¡e. 2035 reductions trom stetc âctlôns: 322,810 MrCO¡e. November 30,2A1.6 Page 11 between 2020 and 2050) which are (inappropriately) measured against 2020 thresholds. So the project's construction emissions are not "counted" until after 2020, during the project's operational lifespan out to 2050. The effect is that the construction and operational emissions are analyzed under thresholds that are inapplicable right out of the gate. There is also an inconsistency in the calculations of the annualized construction emissions. When the RDEIR "annualizes" the construction emissions, the calculation results in 43 MTCOzE/year. (RDEIR, p. 3.3-66.) When the annualized construction emissions are added to the operational emissions, they are listed as 42 MTCOzE/year. (RDEIR, pp. 3.3-67 and -68.) Our calculations indicate the actual number 42.7 MTCO2E/year, which should be rounded up to 43 MTCOzE/year for consistency's sake. As such, the operational emissions tables need to be recalculated throughout this section. (See RDEIR, pp.3.3-67 and -68.) c)The Anelr¡sis nf f)npral-ionel Frnie,cinnc ic a Ralr'l Alternnt 1o Avnid Performing AII Feasible Mitigation Measures The RDEIR attempts to downplay the project's significant GHG emissions by stating that future projects will be more efficient because of new targets and thresholds that will be adopted by the state, county, and or BAAQMD in the future. (RDEI& p. 3.3-69.) A statement of belief that future projects will be more efficient is no justificâtion for the proposed project's level of pollution now. Nor can the project's contribution be dismissed by relying totally on state-government level policy and regulation. (See RDEI& pp.3.3- 39 and -40.) It is not completely clear what "recent studies" the RDEIR is referring to, but the analysis in both the CAP and BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines indicate that there will be a" gap" between state policy and the necessary reductions to meet the GHG reduction goals. (See Figures L and 2 below comparing CAP's Table 3.6 Expected GHG Reductions from State Policies, 2020 and2035, p.35, with CAP's Table 3.8 Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals, p. 38; see also, Attachment C [BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Updated May 2011, Appendix D: Threshotd of Significance ]ustificationl, pp. D-13 to D-22 (Attachment C).) November 30,20'1,6 Page12 Figure 2: Table illustrating the "gap" between forecasted emissions with statewide reductions and the CAP reduction (Attachment B, p.38.) The RDEIR also fails to provide any justification for proposing only the measures in MM AIR-6 and, as we noted in ourJuly 2016 comments, attempts to avoid doing so by finding the impact to be significant and unavoidable. This finding does not allow a project to avoid analyzing all potentially feasible mitigation measures. For example, a cumulative/comparative analysis of other projects in Contra Costa County would be helpful. By analyzing these projects, their GHG emissions, and the feasibility of proposed mitigation measures, the County could deterrnine what level and type of mitigation represents each projec(s " Íair share" of the reductions necessary to meet the applicable emissions targets. Whatever method the County employs, the EIR must contain some analysis of why the proposed mitigation measures are the only feasible and "faiÍ" measures available to the project. There are a plethora of potential mitigation measures available that could possibly reduce the projecfs operational emissions to less than significant levels. To illustrate, we have attached examples from BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines Update May 2011(Attachment C) and CAPCOA's whitepaper on CEQA & Climate Change (Attachment D). The feasibility of these measures and those proposed in MM AIR-6 should be discussed. Some of the more effective mitigation measures that the RDEIR should analyze include: Purchase carbon offset credits or participate in an Off-site Mitigation Fee Program (CAPCOA, p. B-33.) Provision of more on-site solar energy. Planting appropriate, native trees in previously deforested areas to provide for carbon sequestration. LEED Certification (CAPCOA, p. B-20.) Exceed Title?| Efficiency Requirements by 20T' (CAPCOA, p.B-za.) o a o a o Table 3.8. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals Forecaled Emlslons Mlnus Ellmeted Stôtewlde Reductlons 2{X}5 Eeseline Emisslons 126sþ20 1/403,610 l/403,610 1,22?,170 2020 MTCO,e 2035 MTCO¡e -r\sso 626,630loc¡l Rcductlon¡ l[eed¡d Source: M¡choel Sohet lntcmotionol 2015 November 30,20'1,6 Page 13 Solar Orientation: Orient 75"/o or more of homes and/or buildings to face either north or south (within 30o of N/S). Building design includes roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high sununer sury but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. Trees, other landscaping features and other buildings are sited in such a way as to maximize shade in the suûuner and maximize solar access to walls and windows in the winter. (CAPCOA, p.B-24.) Provide a complimentary electric lawnmower to each residentiai buyer. (CAPCOA, Table 16 Mitigation Measure Summary, p. B-19.) Energy Star Roof materials (CAPCOA,p.B-23.) Use light-colored/high albedo materials for non-roof impervious surfaces. (CAIICOA, p.B-24.) Low Energy Cooling. Optimize building thermal distribution by separating ventilation and thermal conditioning systems. (CAPCO A, p. B-26.) Provide public transit incentives such as free or low-cost monthly transit Passes. Provide zero emission shuttle service to public transit and Project buildings/amenities. Promote ride sharing programs e.g, by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate Passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message board for coordinating rides. Provide education on energy efficiency. Reduce the use of pavement and impermeable surfaces. Require the use of construction materials with the lowest carbon fooþrint. The RDEIR does mention several measures that are suggested by CAPCOA and/or BAAQMD including the installation of solar or tankless water heaters, complying with California Green Building standards, and installing on-site renewable energy generation. But the RDEIR does not discuss why these measures are the only feasible measures for mitigating the projecfs GHG emissions. It may be possible, through the adoption of additional and/or more stringent measures (such as those outlined above) for the projecfs GHG emissions to be reduced much further to a less than significant level. The RDEIR should explain whether additional or more stringent measures are feasible, and adopt them if they are found to be feasible. For example, the RDEIR could discuss different percentages of the total energy demand that could be produced via on-site renewable energy generatiory and then compare the different GHG emission reductions of those percentages with the costto implement. Sucha cost/benefit analysis would allow decision makers to accurately determine if settling on L0% of total energy demand is the o a a a a I t a a a November 30,201.6 Page 14 only feasible renewable energy generation measure. The RDEIR would also benefit from a discussion of sources of renewable energy generation and their feasibility at the project site. Similarly, there is no discussion of why meeting the Green Building standards is feasible but exceeding them (by 20"/, for example) is not. The RDEIR should be revised to discuss these issues. The Proiect is Not Consistent With the Contra Costa Climate Action Plan (cAP) The RDEIR's analysis of the CAP under AIR-7 erroneously concludes that the project is consistent with the CAP. As we indicated in our luly 2016letter, the project is not consistent with Measure LUT 4. In Appendix E to the CAB the County provides a checklist for new development projects that includes Table E.L: Standards for CAP Consistency - New Development. Under this table, for a new development to be consistent with Measure LUT 4, it must "be located within one half-mile of a BART or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of bus station." (CAP, Appendix E, p. E-3.) The project will not meet this standard for consistency. The RDEIR attempts to circumvent this by stating that the measure is inapplicable to the project (ironically, because the project cannot meet the standard) and therefore the project is consistent with the CAP-sans the measure that the project cannot comply with. (RDEI& p. 3.3-71.) I4/hile it may be true that Measure LUT 4 was not intended to completely preclude development in areas without close proxi^ity to transit, this does not allow projects to claim consistency with the CAP by picking and choosing measures they like while ignoring those they do not comply with. Developments that are inconsistent with the CAP are not precluded from being proposed or built, but they must analyze and mitigate the significant environmental impacts they create through their inconsistency. This would be true of a project that refused or was unable to comply with any of the measures in the CAP, such as Measure RE1, for example. Consistency with the CAP cannot be established by selective enforcement of its standards. The RDEIR also mischaracterizes Measure LUT 4 as a measure concerned only with project density. The RDEIR alleges that, "[Jor a project to be inconsistent with this measure, it would need to be within the distance radii described from those facilities and to propose low density development." (RDEIR, p. 3.3-71.) This statement misrepresents the measure. Measure LUT 4 is a statement of the County's goal of reducing VMT through increased transit ridership. The CAPs Appendix D ('GHG Reduction Tech Appendix")-where the RDEIR claims to find justification for its unsupported conclusion-does not contain standards for density or distance attributes of individual d) November 30,20'1.6 Page 15 projects. Appendix D provides the assumptions and performance metrics the CAP uses to quantify estimated GHG emissions reductions; in other words, it lists the local "action items" that the county will need to implement to reach the CAP goals. (See Attachment B [CAP, Appendix D], p. D-1.) In contras! Appendix E contains the standards that apply to individual projects in determining consistency with the CAP. (Attachment B [CAP, Appendix El, p. E-1.) Measure LUT 4 is discussed on pages D-24 and D-25 in Appendix D of the CAP. The discussion begins with a statement of the measure's goal to "[r]educe vehicle miles traveled," followed by a list of the "action items" the county will undertake to reach that goal. One of the "action items" is for the county to encourage increased density in close proximity to public transit. tsut Appendix D does not state how the County will "encourage [the] increased density in close proximity to public transit" or how a land use project can be consistent with this goal. Appendix E contains the Standards for CAP Consistency, which are standards by which new development projects (including the proposed project) are measured for consistency with the policy goals in the CAP-such as whether a project will help reduce vehicle miles traveled, by being constructed in close proximity to transit. The tail does not wag the dog. Individual projects cannot selectively dictate which CAP policies the County will enforce. Just as they cannot select which Standards of Consistency in the CAP are "applicable to the Project." The discussion of Impact AIR-7 also lacks the substantial linkage with the CAP necessary to establish actual consistency. (See Ctnter for Biological Dioersity u. Calþrniø Dept. of Fislt ønd Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 2A4, 225 ("Neuthall Rnnclt");¡ The holding of the Newhall Ranch case is discussed in the RDEI& as are the courfs suggestions for providing a "reasoned explanation backed by substantial evidence," but the RDEIR fails to follow the court's advice. (RDEIR, pp. 3.3-35 to -36.) The RDEIR states that the CAP requires a County-wide 15% reduction in GHG emissions below the 2005 baseline levels by 202A.It then states that service population growth in unincorporated Confra Costa County is projected tobe6% between 2005 and 2020. The analysis goes on to allege that individual projects can comply with the CAP by reducing GHG emissions by 27% (1,5y, + 6o/o) compared to a 2005 BAU scenario. (RDEIR, pp. 3.3-71 to -74.) This is the same error committed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife in Newl:ø;ll Rønch, albeit on a smaller geographic scale. InNewhal| Rønch, the court found that the EIR failed to show how the project's 31% GHG emissions reduction as compared to a BAU model was consistent with achieving the statewide goal of a29o/o reduction from a statewide BAU model. (Newlull Rønch, suprø,62 Cal.4th 204,225.1The court went on to state that "The EIR simply assumes that the level November 30,20'1.6 Page 16 of effort required in one context, a 29 percent reduction from business as usual statewide, will suffice in the other, a specific land use developme nt." (Id. at p. 227 .) Ffere, the RDEIR makes the same assumption when it comes to the reduction target under the CAP. There is no discussion of how the proposed project's 29o/o rcduction is consistent with Contra Costa County achieving its countywide target of 27% below BAU. The RDEIR simply assumes that because29o/o is a greater reduction t}:ran2'l,o/o, the project is consistent. Itthen goes on to make the same error in cornparing the project's reduction vs. BAU to the ARB Scoping Plan reduction goal of 21.7 Yo v s. statewide BAU. (RDEI& p. 3 3-7 a.) As stated above, a true curnulative analysis of the proposed project and other projects in the county, where their respective GHG emissions and relative reduction burdens are compared and analyzed, could provide the necessary evidence to establish the link lretween this project and the CAP, as required under theNewhøll Rønch decision. Súch an analysis would support the RDEIR's conclusion that the proposed reductions are the project's "fair share" of the countywide reduction burden. The RDEIR contains no such analysis. Another potential approach would be to forgo the BAU analysis completely, as many projects have elected to do after the NeuthøII Ranch decision. Under this alternative methodology, the GHG efficiency th¡eshold established by BAAQMD can be adapted using the applicable 2030 and/or 2035 targets. BAAQMD came up with its threshold by taking the statewide 2020 GHG reduction goal (for the sectors applicable to land use proiects) in AB 32 and dividing it by the proiected statewide service population for2020. (See Attachment C [BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Updated MLay 20\L, Appendix D], p. D- 22.) While BAAQMD's th¡eshold is limited to202}, the same kind of calculation (land use sector GHG emissions targetfor a given year, divided by projected service population for the same year) can be used to establish an efficiency threshold for the proposed project that is tied to 2030 or 2035 targets. Here, the project's efficiency could be measured against thresholds established using either the SB 32 goal of 4A% below 1990 levels by 2030, or the CAP's 2035 target of 57% below the 2005 baseline levels. (Attachment B [CAP, Appendix C], p. C-21,.) The CAP also projects service population growth in unincorporated Contra Costa County by 2035 to be L1% comparecl to 2005. (Id. at pp. C-L7 to C-18 [Figure 3].) A proiect-level efficiency threshold could be established for 2035 using these two numbers in the same formula used by BAAQMD. To be truly consistent with the CAB and to at least partially account for the projecfs operational emissions over its lifetime, the RDEIR must be revised to arralyze project efficiency compared to the CAP's 2035 target. 22jÉ Table C.17. ABAG Saurce: Assodat¡ôn ol 0oy Ateo Govemments 2U)9, 2013 s for Uni Contra Costa 2005-203s November 30,201.6 Page17 3: Table the servlce tur 2A2O and 2035 (Attachment B, p. C-17.) The analysis under AIR-7 also erroneously concludes that it is "unnecessary to apply post-2020 targets" because the goals established by executive order "have not been codified." As stated above, SB 32 codified the 2030 GHG reduction goal. In additiory the CAP includes an applicable 2035 GHG reduction target and the RDEIR alleges the proiect is consistent with the CAP. We have outlined above an alternative and more appropriate methodology for performing a quantitative efficiency analysis to ensure that the project is consistent with the CAP's 2035 target. Lastly, though Impact AIR-7 was revised to include discussions of several applicable plans, policies, and regulations, there is at least one significant exclusion. As indicated in Impact AIR-L, the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan contains a GHG emissions component that is applicable to the project. (RDEII{, p. 3.3a1.) Indeed, Impact AIR-I was changed from less than significant to significant and unavoidable because the project does not "support the primary goals of the AQP,' one of which is reducing GHG emissions and protecting the climate. (Ibid.) As discussed above, if Impact AIR-I is significant and unavoidable because of the projecfs inconsistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plary then Impact AIR-7 is significant as well, fbr the s¿une reason.'l'he analysis of lmpact AtR-7 must be revised to reflect the project's inconsistency with the Contra Costa County CAP and the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. e) The Flaws in The Analvsis Reouire Further Revision and RecircqlationtJa For all of the reasons above, the RDEIR must be revised and recirculated again so that decision makers and members of the public will be fully informed of the project's GHG emission impacts and the appropriateness of the mitigation measures selected. 3) Transportation and Traffic: The RDEIR did not update the Traffic Impact Study in Appendix I and there were only a few minor edits in the Transportation and Traffic chapter. Please see our prior comments in the luly 201,6letter. In additioru we ask that the County correct an intersection phasing November 34,2016 Page 18 mismatch for the Camino Tassajara/Hansen intersection that was inconsistent with signal timing sheets provided by the Town of Danville. Although the RDEIR acknowledges that there is a +5.O-second change in delay when the correct phasing is applied, the RDEIR failed to update the numbers in the Tables to show the additional delays. In particular, notes have been added ("Note 1.") to Tables 3.12-7,3.12-10, and 3.L2- L3 in the RDEIR that acknowledge the coding mismatch. The RDEIR also explains that application of the correct phasing did not change the LOS but did increase delay by +5 seconds. Yet, the Tables still show the same delays reported in the DEIR. Please revise and update the relevant tables to show the recalculated delays for this intersection. 4) Aesthetics, Light, and Glare: In addition to the comments in our July 2016letter, please: o explain why the RDEIR deleted any references to General Plan goals LU3.8-3-A ("protection of agriculture and open space")and 9-9 ("preserve open space lands located outside the Urban Limit Line"; "County shall not designate any open space land located outside the ULL for an urban use") when they were included in the DEIR (RDEI& pp.3.1-3 to 4); and ¡ explain if the RDEIR has adopted a new significance threshold for Impact AES-2 ("substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings") where the RDEIR includes new text explaining ttrat a visual change "must alter either the visual character or quality in a substantially negative way to be considered a significant impact" (RDEIR, p.3.1-18). 5) Agricultural Resources: The RDEIR provides five reasons why the Project site "would not be considered Prime Agricultural Lands." (RDEIR, p. 3.2-13.) Please provide citations to and copies of supporting studies or other substantial evidence supporting the five statements (e.g., "on- site irrigation is not feasible due to limited groundwater availability"). 6) Biological Resources: The RDEIR revised mitigation measure (MM) BIO-3, subdivision (e), to provide that, if mitigation credits are purchased in lieu of creating waters of the U.S. and State on the Project site, "the mitigation ratio would be a minimum oÍ.L:'1.." (RDEIR, p.3.+77.|\Á[here is the substantial evidence to support this mitigation ratio? MM BIO-3, subdivision (b), provides that "[alt a minimum, all impacts to waters of the U.S. and State would be compensated for via creation and preservation of new waters of the U.S. and State at a minimum of 2:1, (creation to impact) ratio." (RDEIR, p3.A-76.) lAtrhy does the EIR conclude November 34,2016 Page L9 that a 2:L ratio is necessary if the Project creates waters of the U.S. and State but only a 1:1 minimum ratio is necessary if mitigation credits are purchased? B. The RDEIR improperly fails to discuss any additional mitigation measuÌes or alternatives that could feasibly avoid or lessen the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The RDEIR adds a new significant and unavoidable impact (Impact AIR-I) to the other five previously-identified significant and unavoidable GHG and transportation impacts. (RDEIR, p. 892 to ES-3.) And the RDEIR reveals that the project applicant is ready and willing to provide $4 million dollars or more in payment for a preservation agreement MOU. (RDEIR, p.2-21,.) Yet, the RDEIR failed to provide any new mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant and unavoidable impacts. Why couldn't the $4 million dollars be used to increase the percentage of solar energy generated onsite, or to provide for transportation infrasfructure improvements, or even to purchase a different site located within the Urban Limit Line that would avoid so many of the significant impacts caused by allowing this leapfrog development? Please also respond to our prior comments in the JuJy 241.6 letter about the alternatives analysis. IV. Conclusion As noted above, we request that the County provide responses to our comments in the July 20l6letter as well as the additional comments above that are specific to the new and revised text in the RDEIR. The absence of comments on a particular topic in this letter should notbetaken as any implicit abandonment of prior comments in the July 2016 letter and is not anacknowledgement that the RDEIR has adequately responded to those prior comments. Very truly yours, A. Calabrigo Manager Mayor and Town Council Supervisor Andersory District 2 Sabrina Teller & L. Elizabeth Sarine, Remy Moose Manley, LLP cc: November 30,2A1.6 Page 20 Enclosures Attachment A: Town of Danville,July 78,2016 Comment Letter on the Draft EIR for the Tassajara Parks Project (without Attachments 1-8) Attachment B: Excerpts from the Contra Costa County, December 15,2015 Climate Action Plan. The full document is incorporated by reference, and available online at: http:/ / www.co.contra- costa.ca.us / 4554 / Climate-Action-Plan Attachment C: Excerpts from the Bay Area Air Quality Management Disfrict, CEQA Guidelines Update May 2011. The full document is incorporated by reference, and available online at: lrttp: / / www.baaqmd. gor' / - / merl ia / Files / Plannin g % 20and 7o 20Re l"L.ashx?la=en Attachment D: Attachment E: Excerpts from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, January 2008 whitepaper titled CEQA & Climate Change. The full document is incorporated by reference, and available online at: http: / / www.capcoa.org / wp- content/ upl oads / 201 2 / 03 / CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf Excerpts from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Clean Air Plan 2010, The full document is available online at: http: I / www.baaqmd. gov / plans-and-climate/ air-qualit)¡- plans /current-plans 9/30/20 Letter to Planning Commission bt¡M7 " St n all Totott A tnto sph er e O u t s tatuling Qn a lity of Lìf e" -September 30,2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL hiliana. liG)rl cd. ccc o untt,. us sean.tully(Ocictl.cccoun t\'. us Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re Agenda ltem No. 2 General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Agenda Item No. 3 Rezoning (RZA9-3212); Agenda Item No. 4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SD10- 9280); Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara Parks Project Dear Honorable Members of the Plaruring Corrunission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I submit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by Contra Costa County ("Count¡r") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"), This letter incorporates by reference our prior comments on the Draft EIR dated ]uly L8, 2016 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30,2016. As explained in our previous two lcttcrs, thc EIR docs not comply with CEQA, State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, S$ 65000 et see.), and the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, $S 664L0, et seq.). The Final EIR fails to adequately respond to the Town's comments on the Draft EIR. As a threshold matter, the Final EIR fails altogether to address the Town's comments on the Draft EIR in violation of Public Resources Code section 21091,, subdivision (d) ancl 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 Administration 1. Buílding (925) 31+3330 Engineering, & Planning (925) 314-3310 Trânsport¡aion (925) 314-3320 Mainlenance (e251 314-3450 Police (92s) 314-3700 Parks and Recreation (925) 3r4-:r4oo(925) 3r{-3388 September 30,2020 Page2 CEQA Guidelines sections 15088, subdivision (a) and 15132. (Cleuelnnd National Forest Foundstion a. Snn Diego Assn. of Gopentments (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 497,516 [responses to comments in a final EIR are an "integral part" of an EIR's substantive analysis of environmental issues].) The Final EIR's responses to the Town's comments are limited to its comment letter dated November 30,201.6. (See Firral EIR, pp. 3-53 to 3-72.) Ttre Final EIR's statement that its responses to the Town's comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR address our previous comments on the Draft EIR is not accurate. The Final EIR does not address our comments related to the project descriptior¡ baseline, land use, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services and recreation, among others. The need for a reasoned, factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies, (See Berkeley Keep lets Ozter the Bny Comntittee u. Bd, of Port Comnússioners (2001) 91 Cat.App.4th 13M,1371.) Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA's informational purposes and renders an EIR legally inadequate. (See Flnnders Foundation 2,. Citl/ of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rurnl Løndozuners Assn. u. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.) The Agricultural Preservation Agreement is an inextricably related action, the impacts of which must be analyzed in the EIR. Under CEQA a"project" is "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, S 21065.) It includes "the whole of an action." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15378, subd. (a).) The failure to analyze the "whole of the project" is a CEQA violation referred to as "piecemealing." (Banning Ranch Conserunncy u. Ci$ of Neruport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222.) The California Supreme Court has adopted the following test for reviewing piecemealing claims: [AJn EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial projecf and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its envirorunental effects. (Laurel Heigltts Intprouement Assn. u. Regents of Unia. of Cat. (1988) 47 Cal.3di76, g96.\ While the Final EIR reiterates that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement can be approved separately from the Project and without CEQA review, the Project findings , September 30,2020 Page 3 included in the staff report make clear that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement serves as the basis for making the required finding of approval to change the County's Urban Limit Line (ULL). (Staff Report, pp,26-28; Final EI& pp.2-8 to 2-10.) In doing so, the County impermissibly commits itseif to the approval of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement "as a practical rnatter" without CEQA review. (See Saoe Tara tt. Cig of West Hollytuood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116,135.) The County's use of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement is therefore a reasonably foreseeable consequence o.f the Project. The record clearly establishes that the sole purpose for proposing the draft Agricultural Preservation Agreement is to facilitate the making of a finding to permit the Project's approval under County Code section Chapter 82-1.018(a)(3)-which requires that "[a] majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the [ULL] affecting all o¡ any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement." The EIR must be revised and recirculated to address the impacts of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. Additionally, the Agricultural Preservation Agreement represents significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Guidelines, S 15088.5.) The Draft Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") (subsequently referred to as the Agricultural Preservation Agreement in the Final EIR) was not included in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. Prior to the Final EIR, the only information provided was a cursory explanation of the "range of actions to be considered that include, but are not lirnited to" the identified actions. (Recirculated Draft EIR, p. 3.9-33.) In contrast, the staff report for the Project now includes a Draft Agricultural Preservation Agreement-upon which the County intends to rely to approve the change in ULL for the Project. As set forth above and in the Town's prior comments on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs, the County's approval of the Project commits it to approving the Agricultural Preservation Agreement while denying the public and other agencies the opportunity to evaluate it and the validity of the conclusions drawn from it. (See Spring Valley Løke Assn. v. City of Victonrille (201,6) 248 Cal.App.4th 91, L08; Silzterndo Modjeska Recreøtion €¡ Pnrk Dist, p. Coung of Ornnge (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282,3A5.) Moreover, as descibed below, the Final EIR has been revised to remove the Town of Danville as a signatory to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. In light of this significant new information, the Final EIR must be recirculated for public comment. September 30,2020 Page 4 The County improperly limits signatory parties to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. The Recirculated Draft EIR provides that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement (referred therein as a MOU) was "being considered by the County, Town of Danville, City of San Rarnon, and East Bay Regional Park District." (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 2- 15, 3.9-33.) In light of the Town's objections to the change in ULL for the Project, the Final EIR was conspicuously revised to remove the Town as a party to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement with no explanation-although it is presumably due to concern that the County would not be able to achieve the required approval of a "majority of the cities" to support the necessary finding. (Final EIR, pp. 4-43,2-5.) The Project's Northern Site is geographicatly related to the Town of Danville and is located within the Town of Danville's planning arca as described in the Danville 2030 General Plan. The Town of Danville would be one of the cities that would be expected to be a party to a preservation agreement. (See County Code, S 82-1..024 [Cooperation with citiesl.) It is against the notion of fair play (and quite frankly illogical) for the County and another city to enter into a preservation agreement that covers lands within the Town's planning area, without the Town being a necessary party to such an agreement. The County's actions further represent a lack of good faith particularly where the intent of a preservation agreement is "to reflect the desired relevant interagency collaboration on land use issues." (Staff Report, p.26) Furthermore, even if the East Bay Regional Parks District can be appropriately considered a"party to the preservation agreement " it cannot be considered in making a finding that "a majority of cities" have approved the change to the ULL because it is not a city. (See also County Code, S 82-1,.024 ["to the extent feasible, the county shall enter into preservation agreements with cities in tlrc county designed to preserve certain land in the county for agriculture and open space, wetlands or parks"l; Staff Report, p.26, citing County Code, g 82-7.024.) Thus, at mosÇ the "majority of cities" upon which the County relies to make the required finding is conveniently a majority of one (i.e., San Ramon). The approval of a change in the ULL f¡¡r the Project without voter approval is a violation of the County Code. A proposed general plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres requires voter approval pursuant to County Code section 82-1.018(b). Contrary to information in the ElR, the Project is not eligible for an exception to the voter approval 3. 4. September 30,2020 Page 5 requiremeut because the true extent of. the Project's urban development is approximately 50 acres, not 30 acres. The Recirculated Draft EIR's characterization of the "NonUrban Development Area" is specious. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 2-1.,2-2, fn. 1 f'Ail Project features outside of the Residential Development Area are nonurban in nature"l, 2-23 to 2-24,Exhibit2-4.) The true extent of the Project's urban development is approximately 50 âcres, not 30 acres. As the Town noted in its previous comments, the area needed to widen Camino Tassajara and to provide corresponding buffer landscape improvements, detention basin, sewer pump station, and necessary grading operations all serve and support the Project's 125 residential units. These Project elements cannot be properly characterized as "nonurban uses" as defined in County Code section 82- 1.032(b) as they are not rural residential or agricultural structures. Nor are they "necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare" but for the development of the residential portion of the Project, The County's conclusory response was simply to provide a recitation of County Code section 82-1'.032. (Final EIR, p. 2-12.) Substantial evidence fails to support a finding that these Project components are "nonurbân uses." Nor does the Final EIR's response to cornments represent the good faith reasoned analysis required by CEQ A. (Bønning Ranch Consentnncy u, City of Nezuport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.Sth 918,940.) Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this Project, f, A. ú- Manager Town Council Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Christina Berglund, Remy Moosc Manley, LLP Cc: 6/9/21 Letter to Planning Commission b fjV,.Tff¡Ttfq ï "SnallToun Atmosphere Outstanilíng Quølíty of Lífe" June9,2021 VIA ELECTRONTC MAIL hiliana.li@dcd.cccount)¡. us scall.tt¡l I V(d)tlctl.cccou ntr,. us Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Plarurer Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Agenda Item No. 2a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Rezoning (R209- 3212); Vesting Tentative Tract Mup (SD10-9280); Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara Parks Project Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I submit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared by Contra Costa County ("County") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, SS 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tnt.'1.4, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlements for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"). This letter incorporates by reference our prior comments on the Draft EIR dated ]uly 18, 20'J,6 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30, 201,6. For reasons explained below, I am also attaching the letter submitted by the Town to you on September 30, 2020-the concerrìs raised in that letter remain valid and are incorporated herein. As explained in our previous th¡ee letters, the EIR does not comply with CEQA, State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, SS 65000 et seq.), antl the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, SS 664\0, et seq.). Before turning to the Town's comments regarding the updated information pertaining to water supply, I must address the Town's ongoing concerns regárding the lack of transparency with this project and the ongoing exclusion of the Town from the process. 510 LA GONDA WAY, DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94826 Administration (e2s) 31{{:n8 Bu¡ld¡ng {e2s) 314-3330 Dngineering & Planning (92s1 314-¡Xr1o Trangportation (925) 31{-3320 Ma¡nlenance Políce (e251 314-3700 Parks and necrertion (925) 3rr¡-:r4s0 (925) 314-3400 1une9,2021. Page2 \^/hile we have raised some of these concerns in prior letters, the pattern of excluding input from the Town continues to occur: As indicated in Section 1 of our September 30,2020letter, the County has failed to respond to the first of our two comment letters on the Draft EIR. (See FEIR, Response to Comments, DAN pp. t-2 of 20). l¡Vhile our September 30 letter addresses the legal ramifications of this failure, I highlight it to point out that this omission has never been acknowledged or addressed by the County. In our November 3A, 2016 letter, the Town specifically asked that all future public notices for the project be sent to both the Town's outside counsel, Sabrina Teller, and the Town Attorney, Robert Ewing. lAtrhile the Town did receive notice of the June 9, 202J" hearing, neither Ms. Teller nor Mr. Ewing have received any public notices since our 201,6 request. Our September 30, 2020,letter is not included in the 323 page packet of materials provided to the Planning Commission for this hearing and as far as we can tell, that letter has never been distributed to members of the Planning Commission and certainly has not been seen by the public and other interested parties, Finally, and most significantly, the rnaterials provided to the Planning Commission omit documents submitted by the Town illustrating action by the Danville Town Council opposing the Project. On October 20, 2020, the Town Council adopted Resolution No.72-2A20, formally opposing the project. On October 16,202t,I personally emailed a link to the staff report and resolution to John Kopchik, Director of Conservation and Development for the County. Mr. Kopchik has been my primary contact at the County with regard to the Project and the proposed Agricultural Preservation Agreement. a a o a Astonishingly, none of those documents are included in the Staff Report and accompanying packet submitted to the County Planning Commission for its June 9, 2A2'1., public hearing. Though the Planning Commission staff report refers to actions taken by the City of San Ramon and East Bay Regional Park District to support the Agricultural Preservation Agreement, the report includes no mention of Danville's action opposing it, which occurred prior to actions taken by both of the other agencies mentioned. Because of this omission, no member of the Planning Commission or member of the public would have the slightest idea that the Town Council has taken a formal position on the project, As Danville is the incorporated city in closest proximity to the proposed project and by any objective measure would be the most impacted by the project, it is hard to believe that the official view of June9,2027 Page 3 Danville's elected leaders is not worth providing to the County's decisionmakers. In order to provide members of the Planning Commission and the public with the Town Council's position, copies of the staff report, adopted resolution and transmitting email are attached and incorporated herein and can be found online here:https:/ /danville- ca.ICUS.COm Viewer ?view id=36642 The Town and the County have had policy disagreements over the years regarding development in the San Ramon Valley, some of which have ended ,rp in court. However, this is the first time we have experienced this level of difficulty in ensuring that the Town's input is even included and addressed in the public record for decisionmakers and the public to consider. This is simply indefensible. Turning to the critical issue of water supply for the project, the analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") remains inadequate. The County relies on a mitigation measure (MM USS-I) and related conditions of approval (COAs) wherein proof of water service must be demonstrated prior to filing a final map for the Project. (Staff Report, p. 5.) Not only does this constitute impermissible deferred mitigation, because the measure is infeasible and de facto punts mitigation to some future time after project approval (see, e.g., Oøklønd Heritøge Alliance a. City of Oaklønd (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906), it also violates the holding in Vineyørd Area Citizens far Responsible Grozpth, Inc, tt. City of Rancho Cordoaa (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 ("Vineyørd"). The Supreme Court in Vineyørd identified four key principles for an adequate water supply analysis under CEQA: 1. Decisionmakers must be presented with sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need; 2. An adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years; 3. Future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA; and 4. Mrere it is irnpossible to conficlently cletermine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of replacement sources or alternatives to the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies. (ld. atpp. afi,-a3z.) June9,2027 Page4 The County's water supply analysis directly violates the third and fourth principles, in turn violating the first. As it stands, the Project has no likely path toward procuring an adequate water supply. The theoretical future water supplier, the East Bay Municipal Utility District ("EBMUD"), opposes the Project and has stated that it does not have the water to service it and will reject the proposed annexation of the Project into its service district, as a matter of policy. (Staff Report, p. 4, attached Letter of EBMUD Dated May 27,2021, tp.tl.) This provider admission makes the future water supply for the Project speculative and uruealistic, whereas Vineyard calls for a "confident prediction" of adequate water supply. (ld. at p. a32.) "When the verification [of water supply] rests on supplies not yet available to the water provider, it is to be based on firm indications the water will be available in the future...." (ld. at p.433.) Here, the opposite occurs-the water provider is on record stating that it cannot meet the demands of its existing customers, let alone those of the Project. (Staff Report, attached Letter of EBMUD dated ìr/ray 27, 2A2L [pp. 2-3].) The EIR therefore must include a discussion of another, potentially feasible water supply alternative and its environmental impacts. But, the County has not presented this discussion in any of its EIR iterations. To date, the County has presented two infeasible water supply sources, and zero viable ones. As a result, decisionmakers cannot evaluate the pros and cost of supplying water to the Project, because you cannot evaluate what does not exist. The criteria set forth in Vineyard have not been met. Furthermore, the recent in-formation presented by the County regarding its supposed water supply solution-namely letters from EBMUD-is indeed "significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5," requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Staff Report, p, 4). Section 15088,5, subdivision (a)(2), requires recirculation prior to EIR certification upon new information containing "a disclosure showing that: ... [a] substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measure are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance." As demonstrated above, via EBMUD's disclosures in its letters, MM USS-1 is ineffective and cannot be relied on to reduce the impact to water supply to a less-than-significant level, as it claims to do. (RDEIR, p. 3.13-34.) Without this measure, the impact conclusion substantially increases, back to its pre-mitigation level of "[p]otentially significant " thereby triggering recirculation. Additionally, because of the County's lack of notice for this upcoming hearing, the Town was not allowed adequate time to meaningfully review the technical information presented in the memorandum provided by Tully & Young, in contravention of statutory directives that the CEQA process be a public one that provides "meaningful public disclosure." (Pub. Resources Code, S 21002.1, subd. (e); see also CEQA Guidelines, SS 15002, subd. (aXl), 15003, subds. (b)-(u).) June9,2027 Page 5 Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter and attachments in the record of proceedings for this Project. Manager Cc: Town Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Casey A. Shorrocþ Remy Moose Manley, LLP Enclosures Attachment A: Town of Danville , September 30,2020 Comment Letter Attachment B: Town of Danville Staff Report, dated 10/2A/20; Danville Town Council Resolution No. 72-2A20; Transmittal Email from Joe Calabrigo to ]ohn Kopchik, dated 10/1,6/20 i b T|ENMUE ï "SuslITown Atntospherc Outstarùing Qualìty of Life" September 30,2020 I,'{ ËIEC?RON hiliana.l iiriLlc¡.l.ccconntr,. us sea ¡r.tul I,t'4ltlçrl.cccou¡rt_\'.trs Contra Costa CounÇ Planning Commission c/o Hiliana Li 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Sean Tully, Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Re:Agenda Item No. 2 General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009); Agenda ttem No. 3 Rezoning (RZ;09-3212); Agenda ltem No. 4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map (SD10- 9280); Development Plan and Development Agreement (DP10-3008); Tassajara Parks Project Dear Honorable Members of the Plaruting Corrunission: On behalf of the Town of Danville, I subrnit these comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') prepared by contra costa county ("County") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Codc, SS 21000 et seq,; Cat. Code Regs., tit. 14, SS 15000 et seq. ICEQA Guidelines]) and related land use entitlemcnts for the Tassajara Parks Project ("Project"), This letter incorporates by reference our prior comments on the Draft EIR dated July 18, 2016 and on the Recirculated Draft EIR dated November 30, 2016. As explained in our previous two lettcrc, thc EIR docs not comply with CEQA, State Planning and Zoning law (Gov, code, $$ 65000 et seq.), and the subdivision Map Act (Gov. code, $S 66410, et seq.). The Final EIII fails to adequately reepond to the Town's comments on the Drafr EIR. As a threshold matter, the Final EIR fails altogether to address the Town's comments on the Draft EIR in violation of Public Resources Code sectiorr 2709'1,, subdivision (d) ancl 510 LA GONDA WAY. DANVILLÈ, CALIFORN¡A 94526 1. Adm¡n15tr¿llon (925) 3r{-3388 Bulldln6 (925) 3¡¡l-9330 En6lneerlng, & Phnning (92s) 31{-3310 T¡ånsport¡t¡on (9Zrl 3U-3320 Mrlnten¡nce Pollce (9251 3r{.3700 Paúg ¡nd Recre¡llon (e2513r{s00(e2sl 314-34s0 ATTACHMENT A September 30,2020 Page 2 CEQA Guidelines sections 15088, subdivision (a) and 151,32. (Cleveland Nationnl Fores| Foundntiott rt. Snn Diego Assn, of Gouernments (2017) 3 Cal.Sth 497, 516 [responses to colnments in a final EIR arc an "integral part" of an EIR's substantive analysis of environmental issues].) The Final EIR's lesponses to the Town s comments are limited to its comment letter datcd November 30,2016. (see Final EIR, pp. 3-53 to 3-72.) The Final EIR's statement that its responses to the Town's commcnts on the Recirculated Draft EIR adclress our previous com¡nents on the Draft EIR is not accurate. The Final EIR does not address our comments related to thc' project description, baseline, land use, cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services and recreation, among others. The ncecl for a reasoned, factual response is particularly acute when critical comments have been made by other agencies. (See Berkcley Keep lets Ozter the Bny Comnittee z¡. Bd. of Port Comntissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th lgW,lg7l.) Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA's inforrnational purposes and renders an EIR legally inadequate. (See Flnnders Foundntion u, Citll of Cnrmel-bylhe-Sen (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rural Lnndoruners Assn. zt. Cíty tuncil (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.) 2. The Agricultural Preservation Agreement is an inextricably related action, the impacts of which must be analyzed in the EIR. Under CEQA a "project" is "an activity which may caus€ either a direct physical change in thc environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the enviro¡rment."t (Pub. Resources Codc, $ 21065.) It includes "ihe whole of an action." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15378, subd. (a).) The failure to analyze the "whole of the project,' is a CEQA violation referred to as "piecemealing." (Bnnning Rønch C-onseruancy u. City of Neruport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209,1222.) The Califon'ria Supreme Court has adopted the following test for reviewing piecemealing claims: [AJn EIR must i¡rclude an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is reasonably foresceable consequence of the initial projecb and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. (I'nurel Heights Inrprouement Assn. u, Regents of lJnia. of Cnt, (1988) 47 Ca1.3d376,396.) While the Finàl EIR reiterates that the Agricultural Prcservation Agreement can be approved separatcly f¡om the Project and without CEQA review, the Project findings September 30,202A Page 3 included in the staff report make clear that the Agricultural Prcservation Agreement serves as the basis for rnaking the required finding of approval to change the -ounty's urban Limit Line (uLL). (staff Report, pp.26-28; Final EI& pp. 2-8 to 2-i0.¡ In doing so,the County impermissibly commits itsetf to the approval of the Agricultural Preservation Agreement "as a practical rnatter" without CEqe review. (See Sãae Tara p. City of West Hollytuood (2008) 4b Cal.4th 116,135.) The County's use of the Agricultural Preservation Agleernent is therefore a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. The record clearly establishes that the solã PurPose for proposing the ctraft Agricultural Preservation Agreement is to facilitate the making of a finding to permit the Project's approval under County Code section Chapter 82-1.018(a)(3)-which requires that "[a] majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the [ULL] affecting all or any portion of tl'¡e lanti covcred by the preservation agreJment." The EIR must bé revised and recirculated to address if'. i*pu.ts of thJ Agricultural Preservation Agreement. Additionally, the Agricultural Preservation Agreement represents significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR. (Guidelineã, S 1s0BB.¡.) The Draft Memorandum of Unde¡stauding ("MOU") (subsequently referred to as the Agricultural Preservation Agreement in the Final EIR) was not included in the Drafr EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. Prior to tl"re Final EIR, the only information provided was a cursory explanation of the "range of actions to be consiãered that inclùde, but are not limited to" the identified actio¡rs. (Recirculated D¡aft Ef& p, 3,9-33.) In contrast, the staff re¡of for the Project now includes a Draft Agricultural Preservation Agreement-upon yhi-ch the County intends to rely to approve the change in ULL for thi Project. As set forth above and ilr the Town's prior comments on tlie Draft and Recircuíated Draft EIRs, the County's approval of ihe Project commits it to approving'the Agricultural Preservation Agreement while denying the public and othei ãgenciãs the opportunity to evaluate it and the valitlity of the conclusions drawn from it. (See Spring iAUy Un Assn. a' City of Victoruille (2016) 2rttì Cal.App.4th 91, 108; Sì.lue.rado Morljeska Reøestion ù Pnrk Dist, u, County of Ornnge (2011) 197 Cal,App.Ath 282,305.) Moreover, as described below, the Final EIR has been revised to remove the Town of Danville as a signatory to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement. In light of this significant new inlormation, the Final EIR must be recirculated for public comment. September 30,2020 Page 4 The County improperly limits signatory parties to the Agricultutal Preservation Agreement. The Recirculated Draft EIR provides that the Agricultural Preservation Agreement (referred therein as a MOU) was "being considered by the County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, and East Bay Regional Park District." (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 2- 15, 3.9-33.) In light of the Town's objections to the change in ULL for the Proiect, the Final EIR was conspicuously revised to remove the Town as a party to the Agricultural Preservation Agreement with no explanation-although it is presumably due to concern that the County would not be able to achieve the required approval of a "majority of the cities" to support the necessary finding. (Final EiR, pp, 4*43,2-5.) The Projecfs Northern Site is geographically related to the Town of Danville and is located within the Towrr of Danville's planning area as described in the Danville 2030 General Plan. The Town of Danville would be one of the cities that would be expected to be a party to a preservation agreement. (See County Code, S 82-1.024 [Cooperation with citiesl.) It is against the notion of fair play (and quite frankly illogical) for the County and another city to enter into a preservation agreement that covers lands within the Town's planning area, without the Town being a necessary party to such an agreement. The County's actions further represent a lack of good faith particularly where the intent of a preservation agreement is "to reflect the desired relevant interagency collaboration on land use iss¡les." (Staff Report, p.26,) Furthermore, evelì if the East Bay Regional Parks District can be appropriately considered a"patty to the preservation agrccment " it cannot be considered in making a finding that "a majority of cities" have approved the change to the ULL because it is not a city. (See also County Code, S 82-1,.024 ["to the extent feasible, the county shall enter into preservation agreements with cifies in tìw couttty designed to preserve certain land in the county for agriculture and open space, wetlands or parks"l; Staff Report, p.26, citing County Code, g 82-1.024.) Thus, at most, the "majority of cities" upon which the County relies to make the required finding is conveniently a majority of one (i.e., San Ramon). The approval of a change in the ULL for the Proiect without voter approval is a violation of the County Code. A proposed general plan amendment that would expand the ULL by more than 30 acres requires voter approval pursuant to County Code section 82-1.018(b), Contrary to information in the ElR, the Proiect is not eligible for an exception to the voter approval 3. 4. September 30,2A20 Page 5 requiremeut because the true extent of. the Project's urban development is approximately 50 acres, not 30 acres. The Recirculated Draft EIR's characterization of the "Nonurban Development Al'ea" is specious. (Recirculated Draft EIR, pp. 2-1,2-2, fn. 1 ["All Project features outside of the Residential Development Area are nonurban in nature"], 2-23 to Z-ZL,Exhibit 2-4.) The true extent of the Project's urban development is approximately 50 acres, not 30 acres. As the Town noted in its previous coûunents, the area needed to widen Çamino Tassajara and to provide corresponding buffer landscape improvements, detention basin, sewer pump station, and necessary grading operations all serve and suppo¡t the Project's 125 residential units. These Project elements caruìot be properly characterizetl as "nonulban uses" as defined in County Code section 82- 1.032(b) as they are not ru¡al residential or agricultural structures. Nor are they "necessary or desirable for the public health, safety or welfare,, but fo¡ the development of the residential portion of the Project, The County's conclusory response was simply to provide a recitation of County Code section 82jl'.032. (Final EIR, p. 2-12.) Sul¡stantial evidence fails to support a finding that these Project components are "nonurban uses." Nor does the Final EIR's response to comments represent the good faith reasoned analysis required by CEQA. \Banning Ranch Consenwtcy a. City of Newport Bench (2012)2 Cal.Sth glï,g40.) Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include this letter in the record of proceedings for this Project, Manager Cc:Town Council Supervisor Candace Andersen City Attorney Sabrina Teller, Remy Moose Manley, LLp Christina Berglurrd, Remy Moose Manley, LLp brüIWa ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7.2 TO:Mayor and Town Council October 20'2020 Resolution No. 72-2020, opposing the Tassajara Parks project in unincorporated Contra Costa County and requesting that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project and all related actions SUBJECT: BACKGROUND Contra Costa County will shortly hold public hearings before the Contra Costa Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider the Tassajara Parks project. Located east of the Town limits, the project encompass esTT"L acres at the north end of the Tassajara Valley, outside of the voter-approved County Urban Limit Line (ULL). The application involves consideration of three interrelated components: 1, The Tassajara Parks project includes applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP07-0009), Rezoning (R209-32L2), Subdivision (SD10-9280) and a Final Development Plan (DP10-3008) covering two sites: . The northern site includes L55 acres located adjacent to Tassajara Hills Elementary School on Camino Tassajara. This site is within the Town's planning area as defined by the Danville 2030 General Plan. Proposed.development includes 1"25 residential lots, public streets, a detention basiru neighborhood parþ staging area and equestrian facilities on a total of approximately 54 acres, with the balance of the site to be dedicated to East Bay Regional Pa¡k District (EBRPD). o The southem site includes three parcels totaling õIó acres located on the south side of Camino Tassajara, opposite Johnston Road and HigNand Road. This site would be dedicated to EBRPD and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (SRVFPD). 2. An Agricultural Preservation Agreement (APA) is proposed for the Tassajara Valley. The APA would preserve and protect up to L7,7t8 acres subject to current County general plan and zoning standards. 3. Certification of a Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project. The project raises both policy and environmental issues that have previously prompted the Town, at the direction of the Town Council, to provide extensive and detailed comments to both the DEIR and the reci¡culated DEIR. The FEIR has failed to satisfactorily address many of these concerns. ATTACHMENT B It is therefore appropriate for the Town Council to consider adoption of Resolution No. 72-2020, taking a formal position to oppose this project. DISCUSSION The Tassajara Parks application was initially filed with Contra Costa County in February 2014. Earlier development proposals encompassing the same sites (Emerald Homes and New Farm)/ were submitted and subsequently withdrawn without being acted upon by the County. Since 201,4, processing of the application has stalled severallimes, owing to the need to identify how services would be provided, and undertaking and subsequently recirculating the project EIR on at least two occasions. Last montþ the Town was notified that the project was scheduled to be heard by the Contra Costa Planning Commission on September 30,2020 (Attachment B). That meeting was subsequently cancelled due to a letter submitted by East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) on September 29,2020. Tassajara Parks Project Plans are included as Attachment C to this staff report. The property is currently designated for Agricultural use under the County general plan, and zoned Agricultural A-80 (80 acre minimum). Absent variances, this would permit no further subdivision of the northern site; the southern site, which is comprised of 3 existing parcels, could be subdivided into 7 parcels. In total, ôhis would increase the number of parcels from 4 to I on both sites. As will be discussed later, the entire property is located outside of the ULL. All development is proposed for the 1"55-acre northem site. This includes L25 single family homes proposed to be located on the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to the elementary school. Though proposed as a 30-acre exception to the voter approved ULL, the referenced 3O-acre area includes only the residential lots and public streets. The FEIR indicates that the development includes an additional 19.3 acres of grading along with a 2.95-acre detention basin, and L.44 acres of equestrian and pedestrian staging areas for a total development area of approximately 54 acres. The County staff report refers to the additional 24 acres as "non-urban developed area," a term which is not defined anywhere in the County general plan or zoning ordinance. (Note that additional land is also proposed for dedication to the San Ramon Valley Unified School District to expand and improve the parking area at the school). Absent the related grading and improvements, the 125lots could not be developed. As part of the project, the applicants propose to dedicateT2T acres of land to EBRPD, and 7 acres to SRVFPD. The project conditions would require payment of $4 million to an Tassajara Parks Project 2 October 20,2020 "agricultural enhancement fund" established by lhe County, and $2.5 million to Contra Costa Livable Communities Trust Fund. The project conditions of approval also require payment of fi484,36'1. to satisfy the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in lieu of providing the minimum 15% of affordable units on site. Agricultural Prcsen¡ation Agreement The concept of an Agricultural Preservation Agreement for the Tassajara Valley dates back over two decades. An earlier version of an APA was developed in 1998 for consideration by Contra Costa County, Danville and San Ramon. This pre-dated voter approval of the county ULL. Danville acted to approve the agteement, while Contra Costa County and San Rarnon never took action. The currently proposed APA commits to preserving up to 17,718 acres in the Tassajara Valley subject to the current County general plan and zoning. From a general plan and zoning perspective, it imposes no new requirements that don't already exist. That said, why enter into an APA if it adds no new protections? The simple answer is that it is the only potentially applicable basis to approve the project outside of the County ULL. The Town has been involved in ongoing discussions regarding a d¡aft APA since 2015. Initially drafted to include both the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon (Attachment D), the APA recognized that both cities have plamiug areas that include portions of the Tassajara Valley within their lespective General Plan plaruring areas, attcl that both are parties of interest. In order to approve the Tassajara Parks project, the County must grant an exception to the voter approved ULL. The APA is intended to facilitate that action. Chapter 82- 1 of the County Ordinance Code spells out how changes may be made to the voter approved ULL. Proposed expansions of 30 acres or less do not require voter approval and can be approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors uPon making certain findings. This is where the APA becomes relevant. Section 82-1.018 (a) (3) states "A majority of tlre cities tlrat are party to a preservation agreetnent ancl the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservatiou agreemelìt." In approving the APA, the parties acknowledge that it enables the County to approve the Tassajara Parks project. As parties to tl're APA, both cities would need to approve it ir"r order to colrstitute "A nwjority of the cities" (while the East Bay Regional Park District is also included as a Tassajara Parks Project 3 October 20,2024 signatory to the agreemetrt, the District is not a city, and is thelefore of lro relevance to n'raking the necessary t'roald fincìing), l-lowever, the County subsequerrtly and urrilaterally decided to remove Darrville as a party/si$latory to the APA,ancl in so cloilrg, removed atry atrcl all references to the Town in the latest r¡el'sion of the APA (Attachment E). The ULL was approved by County and Danville voters. Atternpts to develop the Tassajara Valley have been ongoing for three decades. With or without the APA, by virtue of the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, a voter approved ULL and the lack of water and sewer, use of the Tassajara Valley is effectively limited to agriculture, absent a change in policy by the Board of Supervisors. Danville's 2030 General Plan includes the Upper Tassajara Valley as a Special Concern Area. This was included within the Town's planning atea "to provide Danville with a greater voice in future land use changes that rnight be considered by Contra Costa County." The northern site proposed to be developed as part of the Tassajara Parks project is located within this area. The Special Concern Area language states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassajara Valley. Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistent with the existing County General PIan designations for this area." Final EIR CEQA review of the project was initiated in 20L5. A draft EIR was prepared and circulated for the project. The DEIR was subsequently revised and re-circulated prior to release of the FEIR. The Town has submitted extensive comment letters on the DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR (Attachments F1-F3). These letters have raised numerous issues related to the actions proposed, including but not limited to: ¡ Inconsistency of extending the ULL with Contra Costa County policies;. Failure of the DEI& RDEIR and FEIR to comply with CEQA with regard to: o The requested ULL exception exceeding 30 acres o Lack of feasible water supply alternatives for the project o Transportation and traffic issues o Air quality and GHG emissions not having been properly studied/evaluated o Aesthetics,light and glare impacts o Impacts upon agricultural, biological and cultural resources o Geology, soils and seismic factors o Noise o Public Services and Recreation o Lack of reasonable project alternatives Tassajara Parks 4 October 2A,2020 Project . Project inconsistency with General Plan violates planning and zoning law as well as the Subdivision Map Act. It should be noted that the project proponents have applied to LAFCO to have East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) provide water and sewer service to the Tassajara Parks project. The FEIR and the County staff report indicate that arurexation of the site into EBMUD would be contingent upon project applicants funding offsite water conservation measures within EBMUD's existing service area which would offset the additional water demand created by the project. This would be subject to approval by the EBMUD Board of Directors. In their September ?9,2020letter to Contra Costa County (Attachment G), counsel for EBMUD challenges the validity of the water supply section of the FEI& stating that the FEIR among other things: uses "an u¡rsubstantiated and artificially low water demand estimate for the proiect"; fails to acknowledge the proiects ilrconsistency with EBMUD annexation policies; ancl contains a faulty analysis of water supply impacts that violates the basic requirements of adequate water supply analysis under CEQA. The letter concludes by stating that "the County cannot assume EBMUD will solve the applicants water supply problems." Based upon the EBMUD letter, it appears as though no viable source of water currently exists to serve the proposed proiect. The FEIR may be viewed at httl'rs://r,r'r.r'u,.contracosta.ca.For'/4552/Tassajara-Parks. SUMMARY Issues and concerns raised and highlighted in this report include: 1. Project inconsistency with the Danville 2030 General Plan. 2. Policy and precedent setting implications associated with amending the voter approved ULL; and considering a 30-acre exception to the ULL. 3. The Tassajara Parks project proposes a S4-acre development footprint that includes L25 single family homes, public streets, related grading, a neighborhood parþ drainage facilities, staging area and other improvements - clearly exceeding the 30 acre exception that can be granted by the Board of Supervisors. As cunently proposed, the project would require voter approval to expand the ULL. 4. The Town is a party to any actions regarding the future of the Tassajara Valley. Thís includes consideration of an APA. There are two cities that are parties to the APA. Absent one city, how can it reasonably be stated that "a rnajority of the cities Tassajara Parks Project 5 October 20,2020 that are party to a preservation agreemelrt ancl the county have approvecl a change to the urban limit line..." 5. Inconsistency with growth management principles built into Measure J (i.e. focusing housing and jobs around transit centers and downtowns). 6. Potentially significant environmental impacts related to traffic, aesthetics, utilities, services and facilities, etc. 7. Growth inducing impacts related to requiring EBMUD and CCCSD to serve property outside of the voter approved ULL. 8. Lack of any viable water service provider. Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club and the Tassajara Property Owners have all previously expressed opposition to the proposal. The Town has raised valid policy and environmental concerns related to the Tassaiara Parks project for the past several years. Residents living on the east side of Town stand to be most directly impacted by the downstream impact that the project will generate. The Tassajara Parks proiect is inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan. The currently proposed APA commits to preserving up to 17,718 acres in the Tassajara Valley subject to the current County general plan and zoning. In reality, from a general plan and zoning perspective, it imposes no new requirements that don't already exist, and is opposed by the majority of the affected property owners. While the project includes extensive land dedications to various agencies, the entire site has very limited development potential under the current County general plan and zoning, and the dedications are simply trade-offs in an attempt to secure approval of a ULL exception to allow construction of another 125 homes. The decennial ULL review completed by the County in 2016 concluded that there was adequate land capacity within the current ULL. EBMUD has clearly stated that the property is outside of the District's service area boundary. At a time when the State and regional planning bodies are increasingly exerting their influence upon local agencies to focus new development into more urbary transit-oriented areas, this project would do just the opposite. PUBTIC CONTACT Posting of the meeting agenda serves as notice to the general public FISCAT IMPACT None at this time. Tassajara Parks Project 6 October 20,2020 RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution No.72-2020, opposing the Tassajara Parks project in unincorporated Contra Costa County and requesting that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project and all related actions. Prepared and Reviewed by: Juseph Calabrigu Town Manager Attachments:A- B- C- D: E- F1- F2- F3- G- Resolution No, 72-2020 September 30, 2020 Staff Report to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Tassajara Parks plans April 29,20L6 Draft Memorandum of Understanding (Agricultural Preservation Agreement) September 4, 2020 Agricultural Preservation Agreement September 30,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County November 30,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County July L8,2020 Comment Letter to Contra Costa County September 29,2020 Comment Letter from East Bay Municipal Utility District to Contra Costa County Tassajara Parks Project 7 October 20,2020 DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBB9BD$3FOB-464&957E-8145FE4478C7 RESOLUTION NO. 72.2020 OPPOSING THE TASSAIARA PARKS PROIECT rN UNTNCORPORATED coNTRA COSTA COUNTY AND REQUESTING THAT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REIECT THE FEIR AND DENY THE PROJECT AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, Contra Costa County is currently considering the "Tassajara Parks" project, including applications fo¡ a General PIan Amendrnent (GP07-0009), Rczoning (R209- 3212), Subdivision (SD10-9280) and a Final Development Plan (DPl0-3008) including 771 acres on two sites located east of the Town limits, at the north end the Tassajara Valley; and WHEREAS,theprojectislocated outside of thevoter-approved County UrbanLimitLine ([-ILL), which was also approve<l lry Danville voters as the Town's Ilrhan Growth Boundary (UGB); and WHEREAS, the Town's 2030 General Irlan includes the Upper Tassajara Valley as a Special Concern Area to provide Danville with a greater voice in future land use changes that might be considered by Contra Costa County, and the Special Concem Area language states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultural character of the Tassaiara Valley" and that "Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) should be consistent with the existing County General Plan designations for this area."; and WHEREAS, Chapter 82- 1, of the County Ordinance Code allows that proposed expansions of 30 acres or less to the voter approved ULL do not require voter approval and can be approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors upon rnaking certain findings; and WHEREAS, Section 82-1.018 (") (3) states "A maiority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreement and the county have approved a change to the urban limit line affecting all or any portion of the land coverecl by the preservation agreement," and WHEREAS, the applicants for the Tassajara Parks proiect have proposed the adoption of an Agricultural Preservation Agreement (APA) that would effect up to17,718 acres in the Tassajara Valley; and WHEREAS, the Town has been a party to ongoing discussions regarding the APA since 2015, and the APA was originally clrafted to include the Town of Danville and the City of San Ramon, recognizing that both cities have plaruring areas that include portions of the Tassajara Valley within their respective General Plan planning areas; and DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBB9BD5-3F6F46A8-957E-8145F84478C7 WHEREAS, a draft EIR was prepared ancl circulated for the proiect, and has subsequently been revised and re-circulated two additional times; and WHEREAS, the Town l'ras sublnitted extensive cornrnent letters on both the initial, revised and re-circulated project EIRs which have raised numerous issues and concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, reci¡culated DEIR and FEIR; and WHEREAS, the Danville Town Council has reviewed and considered all of the related actions associated with the Tassajara Parks project, and finds that: 1. The proposed project includes a total development area of approximately 54 acres, including 125 single family l'roures, subdivision grading necessary to build the single family lots, a detention basin necessary to meet storrn water run-off rcquircmcnts for thc singlc family lots, a ncighborhood parkncccssary to scrvc thc single farnily lots, equestrian and pedestrian staging areas. The area being developed exceeds the 3O-acre exception allowed under Chapter 82-1 of the County Ordinance Code by approximatell' 1397 and should be subject to voter approval. 2. The Town has historically been considered to be a party to land use considerations that involve and effect the Tassajara Valley. The Town was a signatory to the original 1998 APA proposed for the Tassajara Valley prior to voter approval of a county ULL, and the Town has been a party to ongoing discussions regarding the APA proposed as a part of the Tassajara Parks project since 20L5. The unilateral decision by Contra Costa County to exclude Danville as a signatory to the most recent APA is a bad faith action inconsistent with recelÌt and past precedent. 3. Without Danville as a signatory to the proposed APA, the Town challenges the County's ability to find that "A majority of the cities that are party to a preservation agreernent and the county have approved a change to the urban lirnit line affecting all or any portion of the land covered by the preservation agreement" subject to Section 82-1.018 (a) (3) of the County Ordinance Code. 4. From a general plan and zoning perspective, the APA imposes no new requirements and is proposed solely for the pu{pose of facilitating County consideration to grant an exception to the voter approved ULL. 5. The Town has submitted extensive comment letters on both the initial, rer.ised and re-circulated project EIRs that have raised numerous concerns and identified numerous deficiencies pertaining to CEQA adequacy. 6. The project and related APA are inconsistent with the Danville 2030 General Plan Special Concern Area language which states that "Danville supports maintaining the agricultural uses and agricultual ch¿uacter of the Tassaiara Valley. Land uses outside the UGB (ULL) shoulcl be consistent with the existing County General Plan designations for this area." DocuSign Envelope lD: 9CBB9BD$3F6&4648-957E-8145F8A478C7 7. The decennial ULL re\¡iew completed by the County in2A],6 concluded that there was adequate land capacity u'ithin the current ULL to accornmodate projected growth. 8. The proposed project is inconsistent with snârt growth principles that call for new development to include greater affordability and be focused into more urban, transit-oriented areas, consistent with the goals set by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that upon review and consideration of the application and record, the Danville Town Council wishes to register its fonnal opposition to tlre Tassajara Parks project and requests that Contra Costa County reject the FEIR and deny the project. APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on October 20,2020,by the following vote: AYES: Arnerich, glackweiì, Morgan, stepper NOES: storer ABSTAINED: none ABSENI: *on" by; d..1/,J'4 MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM:ATTEST: by: Poltrf g. e'sbt CITY ATTORNEY " CTTY CLERK From: Joe Calabrigo Sent: Friday, October t6,202011:33 AM To: John Kopchik <John. Kopchik@dcd.cccountv.us> Subject: RE: Tassajara Parks Project ASR John Happy to talk. Have a good weekend. Joe ,.ffi Joseph A. Calabrigo Town Manager Town of Danville 5ro La Gonda Way i Danville, CA 94526 (9zs)3r4-33o2 (gzs) 838-o5+8 (Fax) icalabrioolÐdanville.ca.oov I www.danville.ca.qov Stay Connected with usl #LiveLocallyDanville EtIlË] '*!¡¡El ' Or'"ur" consider the environment before pr¡nting. From: John Kopchik <John.Kopchik@dcd.cccountv.us> Sent: Friday, October !6,202011:14 AM To: Joe Calabrigo <JCalabrieo@danville.ca.Aov> Subject: RE: Tassajara Parks Project ASR ***CAUTION*** This email oríginated from outside of the Town of Danville. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you necognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for the heads up Joe. And thanks for the call and voicemail earlier today. After I review, if I have any questions, I may take you on your invitation to call you back. Have a nice weekend. -John =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- John Kopchlk, Dlrector Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-674-78L9 Fax: 925-674-7250 Email: iohn.koochik@dcd.cccountv.us =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From¡ Joe Calabrigo <JCalabriso@danv¡ > Sent: Friday, October L6,2020 10:47 AM To:JohnKopchik@> Subject: FW: Tassajara Parks Project ASR John: l'm forwarding on the link to our staff report on the Tassajara Parks proJect which will go to Council on October 20. httos://danville-ca:eranicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view ld=9&event ld=1354&meta id=36609 I Joseph A. Calabrigo i TownManager : Town of Danville | 5eo La Gonda Way ¡ Danville, CA 94526' (925)34-33o2 l (925)838-o5+8(Fax) icalabrigolàdanville.ca.gov I www.danville.ca. gov Stay Connected with us! #LiveLocallyÐonville EEË¡'!¡¡E , On""r" consider the environment before pr¡nting. 6/S/n EBMUD Board Resolution Prepared RESOLUTION NO DECLARTNG EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT'S (DISTRICT) OPPOSITION TO ANNEXING THE TASSAJARA PARKS PROJECT INTO THE DISTRICT'S SERVICE AREA, FINDING THE PROJECT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT'S ANNEXATION POLICIES, AND MAKING FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS REGARDING THE UNAVAILABILITY OF WATER TO SERVE THE PROJECT Inhoduced by Director ; Seconded by Director TVHEREAS, Contra Costa County (County) is considering approving the Tassajara Parks Project (Project), aproposed 125-unit single family residential development in unincorporated County territory, outside the County's Urban Limit Line; and WHEREAS, the Project is outside but adjacent to the District's service area, Ultimate Service Boundary (USB), and Sphere of Influence; aod WHEREAS, the USB defines the geographic area within which the Dishict has planned to provide water seir¡ice to existing and futrne customers; and WHEREAS, due to the Project's location outside the USB, the District has not planned to provide it with water service; and WHEREAS, as set forth in Dishict Policy 3.05 - Considerations for Extension of Water Beyond the Ultimate Service Boundary, it is the policy of this Board of Directors (Board) that the District shall not extend waterto a¡eas outside the current USB if such extension would rezult in a reduction in the quantity or quality of water available to serve present and future customers within the USB or an increase in the costs of se,rr¡ice; and \ryHEREAS, as set forth in District Policy 3.01 - Annexations, it is firther the policy of this Board to oppose annexations outside the current USB unless several enumerated conditions are met; and WHEREAS, as set forth in District Polícy 3.08 - Advisory Election for Annexations Outside the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line, it is further the policy of this Board to oppose annexations of proposed residential developments of less than 200 units located outside the County's Urban Limit Line that are inconsistent with Policy 3.01; and TWHEREAS, based on these Policies, throughout the County's environmental review process for the Project, the Dishict has stated its opposition to annexing the Project into its service area; and WHEREAS, dcspite the District's opposition to annexing the Project, the County has consistently assumed the District would provide waler service to the Project; and WHEREAS, the County's Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) forthe Project, published in Septernber 2020, assumed the District would provide water service to the ProjeÆt based on a proposed offsite water conservation offset @roposal), u¡der which the Project would fund water 1 conservation programs throughout the District's service a¡ea to offset the Project's water demand; and WHEREAS, the Proposal relies on implementation of water conservation progr¿rms, a component of the District's water supplies available to meet the needs of current and future customers within the current USB; and WHEREAS, as a long-time leader in water conservation, the District has engaged in a decades- long, comprehensive effort in water conservation throughout its service area, and its efforts to promote water conservation include, but are not limited to: (a) adopting a \Vater Conservation Master Plan in 1994, specifoing lvater conservation strategies for building on the Dishict's then-existing water conservation efforts and creating a pathway for future water consgrvation through expanding rebates and incentives and providing conservation information to its customers. The Master Plan was updated in 2011-- to extend the planning horizon to 2040-- and is currently in the process ofbeing updated again; þ) sponsoring legislation to ensure that land use planning takes into account the availability of adequate water supplies for proposed new development before the development is approved. These efforts included SB 901 (1995) to require water supply assessments, and SB 227 and SB 610 in 2001 to fiirther improve upon the water supply assessment process; (c) adopting its own water efficiency and wise water use requirements through Sections 29 and 3l of its Boa¡d-adopted Regulations Governing Water Service to Customers of East Bay Municipal Utility District; (d) implernørting a long-running water conservation education program, including school education efforts beginning in 1974, writing and publishing large format books promoting water conservationo and engaging with the public regarding water consen¡ation by maintaining water conservation demonstration gardens, staffing water conservation displays at community events, and organizing and sponsoring the annual Water Conservation Showcase since 2004, which event brings together representatives from water agencies, industry, government, and nonprofits to discuss pressing water issues and learn about new water conservation technologies and solutions; (e) incentivizing water conservation through a fully staffed, pennanent, year-in, year-out water consei¡¿ation progtam, with a cumulative budget now totaling over $100 million, and including measures such as \ryater consen¡ation rebate and incentive progams and distribution of water conservation devices to custorners; and U/HEREAS, water conservation has long been a key component of the District's water supply portfolio, pursuant to which the District (1) achieved approximately 46 million gallons per day (MGD) in water conservation savings between 1995 and 2018 and (2) continues to pursue firrther expansion of its already-robust water conse,l¡¿ation progtam; and TWHEREAS, remaining water conservation potential within the District's USB is an important 2 tool the District can and does use to address the impacts of water supply deficiencies on its customers; and 'WHEREAS, the Final EIR generally failed to analyze the feasibilþ of the Proposal and specifically failed to assess whether and to what extent depleting the District's remaining water conservation potential would jeopardize the Disüict's ability to meet the needs of cunent and future customers within the District's current USB; and WHEREAS, the District submitted to the County detailed comme,nts on the Final EIR, objecting to the County's failure to analyze the feasibility of the Proposal, explaining the Project's inconsistency with the District's Board-adopted Policies regarding annexation ofnew service territory, and stating the District's opposition to annexing the Project into its service area; and ï/HEREAS, following publication of the Final EIR, District staffengaged in discussions with County staffand the Project developer's team regarding the feasibility of Proposal; and WHEREAS, the Project developer's team prepared an assessment addressing in part the technical and economic feasibility of the Proposal; and WHEREAS, the Project developer's assessment did not address the effect of the Proposal on the Distict's ability to serve current and future customers within the current USB; and WHEREAS, cunent drought conditions prevailing throughout much of California have hightighted the importance ofprotecting all of the District's water supplies-including zupplies qeated through water conservation-for current and future District customers within the current USB; and WHEREAS ,2021has thus far been the second driest year on record in the Mokelurnne River basin, where most of the District's water supplies originate; and IVHEREAS ,2OZl has thus far been the driest year on record for the East Bay; and \ryHEREAS, the snow depth at Caples Lake, a Mokelumne basin snow survey reference point, was at 52 percent of average as of April 19,202L and the California Deparbnent of 'Water Resources' Bulletin 120 forecast of the forecasted runoffon the Mokelumne River is at 42 percent ofaverage; and WHEREAS, on March 22,2\2l,the State Water Resources Control Board sent a warning letter to the District and other water rights holders which noted the unusually dty conditions prevailing throughout Califomia, and urged water rights holders to begin planning for potential water supply shortages by taking actions such as increasing water conservation and diversifying water supply portfolios; and TWHEREAS, on April 27,202l,based on the projected impact of the prevailing dry conditions on the District's water supplies, this Board decla¡ed the District's water supplies deficient for meeting customer demands, declared a Stage I drought, established a District-wide te,n percent rationing goal, declared the need to purchase supplemental supplies, and directed District staffto take actions to promote customer water conservation; and 3 WIIEREAS, since this Board's April 27,2021 drought-related actions, the Districtos water supply projections for this water year have continued to decline, with the District's anticipated end-oÊSeptember storage levels now 65-70 thouszurd acre-feet lower than previously projected; and WHEREAS, as demonsüated in this year's drought and other droughts in recent years, the District's water supplies are not sufficient to meet customer demand in times of drought, requiring the Dishict to purchase supplemental supplies and impose water rationing requirements on its customers; and WHEREAS, dry year deficiencies in the District's supplies are expected to persist, and the District's Draft Urban Water Manage,rnent Plan 2020 identifies both a substantial increase in USB-wide demand over the next thirty years, and several thousand acre-feet in unmet need for water in times of drought in the future; and WHEREAS, in addition to drouglrt many other stressors threaten to reduce the amount ofwater available to District customers now and in the firture, including climate change, future regulatory actions, and cutbacks in the availability of water to the Disbict under its Central Valley Project (CVP) contract with the United States Deparünent of Interior Bureau of Reclamation (Reclauration); and WHEREAS, the District's Urban Water Management Plan 2015 estimated that climate change could result in a several thousand acre-foot increase in the Disûict's unmet need for water by the year 2040; and WHEREAS, climate change may also result in more frequent and severe droughts in the future; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Boa¡d's eflorts to update the Bay-Delta \Vater Quality Control Plan have thus far focused on irnproving Bay-Delta water quality by significantly increasing instream flow requirements on tributary rivers to the Bay-Delta, like the Mokelumne River, where most of the District's water supplies originate; and ÏYHEREAS, the Bay-Delta'Water Quality Conhol Plan Update is likely to increase the Disûict's Mokelumne River instrearn flow obligations by tens of thousands of acre-feet per year, adding a significant new constaint on the Diskict's water supplies that could impair its ability to meet customer demands in the future; and WHEREAS, during the last drought, the State of California directþ involved itself in local water management, both by issuing curtailment orders requiring water rights holders like the District to divert less water, and by promulgating emergency regulations dictating reductions in customer demand; and WHEREAS ,2A14 and 2015 curtailment orders required the District to bypass approximately 76 thousand acre-feet of water on the Mokelumne Riverthat would have othøwise beeir available to serye its customers; and WHEREAS, the State of Califomia could take similar actions this year and in future droughts, 4 requiring the District to achieve short-term reductions in water consumption and reducing the availability of Mokelumne River water for District customers; and WHEREAS, in addition to customer rationing, the District's CVP contract provides a key source of supply to meet custorner demands during droughts; and VfHEREAS, during the 2014-15 drought, CVP allocations were cut to only 25Yo fot Municipal and Indushial contractors like the District, significantly reducing the amount of CVP water available to the District and forcing the Dishict to purchase supplemental supplies on the spot water transfers market; and VI/HEREAS, securing supplemental supplies on the spot transfers market in 2015 was both challenging and expensive, with spot transfer water prices seven to ten times higher than CVP water prices; and WHEREAS, on May 26,2021, Reclamation indicated the District's CVP allocation would again be cut lo 25Vo, thus dramatically reducing the amount of CVP water available to address the District's drought-induced water supply deficiencies this year; and WHEREAS, because of the late date on which CVP cutbacks w€re announced, it is very unlikely the District will be able to purchase water on the spot hansfers market, as most available water has already been purchased by other parties; and WHEREAS, CVP allocations could be similarly reduced in future drougþts, and there are no assurances that supplemental water will be available on the spot tansfers market to replace the District's reduced CVP supplies, potentially leaving the Disüict without adequate supplies to meet customer dernands; and WHEREAS, given the existing and predicted futt¡re deficiencies in the District's water supplies during droughts, and other threats and stessors on those supplies, the Disfrict must adhere to its policies regarding the annexation of new se,lvice territory; and WHEREAS, offsetting the Project's demand through conservation progÌams would take "new water" created through those programs away from District customers within the USB, thereby violating Policy 3.05 by reducing the quantity of water available to those customers; and WHEREAS, the Project is located entirely outside the USB, would result in the addition ofmore than 100 residential units outside the USB, and is inconsistent with Policy 3.05, such that (l) the Prcject does not meet Policy 3.01's enumerated conditions for annexation of territory outside the USB, and (2) annexation of the Project would therefore be inconsistent with Policy 3.01; and \ryHEREAS, because the Project is less than 200 units in size, is located outside the County's Urban Limit Line, arrd is inçorrsiste¡rl. wil,h Pulir;y 3.01, it also docs not comply with Policy 3.08; and WHEREAS, the District has a legal obligation to provide adequate water sen¡ice to all members of the community within its service area; and 5 WHEREAS, given the deficiencies in the District's water supplies in times of drought, the potential threats to those supplies, and the anticipated growth in water demand within the USB, the District cannot afford to dedicate any water available to it-including new water supplies created through water conservation programs-to a proposed development outside its current service area, and outside the USB; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Municipal Utility District finds, detemlines and declares the following: 1. The Board finds the above recitals to be true and correct. The Board hereby ûnds and declares the District has not planned to serve the Project and does not have adequate water supplies to support the proposed annexation ofthe Project into the District's service a¡ea. The Board hereby finds and declares the District must reserve all sources of water supply available to mitigate water supply deficiencies it experiences during droughts and to address the potential impacts of other stessors and constraints on its water supplies. The Boa¡d hereby fïnds and declares that serving the Project using water ceated through impleinentation of conservation programs throughout the Disfrict's service a¡ea is not feasible because doing so would take a source of water supply away from existing and future customers within the USB, thereby exacerbating deficiencies in the Distict's water supplies during droughts. The Board hereby finds and declares that the proposed annexation ofthe Project is inconsistent with District Policies 3.01 and 3.05 and does not comply with Policy 3.08. ) 3 4. 5 6 6.The Board hereby declares the Distict (a) is opposed to annexing the Project iûto its service area and (b) does not intend to serve the Project. ADOPTED this 8th day of June,202l by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM A}{D PROCEDTJRE: General Counsel Presidsrit 7{00062114;e} page DATE Name For Letter 2-Jan 7/1/2021 oppose Sam Pejham, M.D. FAAP, Sierra Club 2 7/1/2021 oppose Dan Schulman 2 7/6/2021 oppose Ella Brovitz 2 7/7/2021 oppose George Carranza 3 07-06-21 oppose Laura Vranas 4 07-06-21 oppose Ahish Modi 5 7/7/2021 oppose Jessie Brennan 6 7/7/2021 oppose John Kapetanic 7 7/7/2021 oppose Richard and Diana Kim 8 7/8/2021 oppose mashastre x 9 7/8/2021 oppose Daphne Cothren x 10 7/8/2021 oppose Joan Starr x 11 7/8/2021 oppose e newsong x 12 7/8/2021 oppose Linda Morse Robertson x 13 7/8/2021 oppose Reetta Raag x 14 7/8/2021 support Rob Stoker 15 7/8/2021 oppose Peter Guerrero x 16 7/8/2021 oppose Dyan J. Osborne x 17 7/8/2021 oppose Elizabeth Lobos 18 7/8/2021 oppose Robert McHugh x 19 7/8/2021 oppose Sara Sunstein x 20 7/8/2021 oppose David Robinson x 21-22 7/8/2021 oppose Jeff Wiedemann 23 7/8/2021 oppose Judith Smith x 24 7/8/2021 oppose Jenifer Steele x 25 7/8/2021 oppose wfaye1 x 26 7/8/2021 oppose Sharon Morris x 27 oppose Kathryn Choudhury x 28 7/9/2021 David Kellogg 29-260 7/9/2021 Richard Fischer, Tassajara Valley Preservation Association 261 7/10/2021 oppose Fiorella Russo-Jang x 262 7/10/2021 oppose Glenn Simmons 263-264 7/10/2021 oppose Bernard Gorman 265 7/10/2021 oppose Dale Vaccarello 266 7/10/2021 oppose Jan Warren 26 7/10/2021 oppose melharte@yahoo.com x 268 7/10/2021 oppose Cheryl Schmidt x 269-270 7/10/2021 oppose Julie Dormandy 271 7/10/2021 oppose Julie and Ray Dormandy x 272 7/11/2021 oppose Maureen Jung x 07-13-2021 Tassajara Parks Development 273 7/11/2021 oppose Josie Fong x 274 7/11/2021 oppose Jule Smith 275-276 7/11/2021 oppose Jennifer G 277-281 7/12/2021 Brian Haughton, EBMUD 282 7/12/2021 Melanie Firpo 1 From:Richard Fischer <tassajaravalleypa.rf@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 9, 2021 9:59 AM To:Clerk of the Board Cc:District5; Supervisor Candace Andersen; Supervisor_Burgis; SupervisorMitchoff; John_Gioia Subject:BOS meeting 7/13/2021 public comments Attachments:TVPA Petition 7.7.21 comments.pdf; TVPA Petition 7.7.21 signature list.pdf; TassajaraValleyletter.BOS7.13.21 Public Hearing.pdf Dear Clerk of the Board;    Please find the Tassajara Valley Preservation’s Association comments on the proposed Tassajara Parks proposed  development for inclusion at the BOS July 13th meeting.  Along with the TVPA comments are 1, comments from our  petition signers and 2, a listing of the over 5000 petition signers who request the BOS to reject Tassajara Parks.  Please  note that many of the “Pleasanton” signers reside in the unincorporated Tassajara Valley and would be directly  impacted by the Tassajara Parks development.    Also, it would be helpful to know the approximate time when item D4, the Tassajara Parks item will be discussed.    Thank you for your attention to this matter.    Kind regards,    Richard Fischer  Co‐founder, Tassajara Parks Preservation Association  Tassajaravalleypa.rf@gmail.com  July 5, 2021 Re: 7/13/21 Board of Supervisors Hearing to consider the Tassajara Parks Project Dear Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: The Tassajara Valley Preservation Association along with over 5,000 petition signers requests that you reject the proposed Tassajara Parks development project because: It is illegal and a violation of the County’s Measure L The project does not have a source of water Conservation and Development staff report is inconsistent with its previous findings and statements regarding developable land within the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) The Planning Commission has rejected Staff’s report and has recommend to the Board of Supervisors to deny this project IT IS ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF THE COUNTY’S MEASURE L A. Measure L requires that any development outside the Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) over 30 acres requires a county-wide vote: a. Staff report clearly indicates that the Northern Site contains 24 acres of so called “Non-Urban” use. Included in this area is a pumping station and a detention basin that is integral to the 30 acre “Residential Development Area”. This infrastructure is necessary for the proposed development and is clearly not “non-urban”. When this area is properly included, the development is closer to 54 acres in size and requires a county-wide vote. It is not a 30 acre development and does not qualify for an exemption to build outside the ULL.. b. An analogy may help. A batter in baseball cannot change the rules mid-game and ask the umpire to not count the first two strikes. Similarly a developer cannot choose to circumvent the 30 acre limitation by deciding not to count certain portions of the development. B. The “Preservation Agreement” used to secure approval is flawed, illegal and non-enforceable: a. The nearest city to the development site is Danville which has registered its opposition to the project and is illegally excluded from the Preservation Agreement. Danville will bear the brunt of traffic exiting the development and will be a strain on its services. It is the only city in the county on Camino Tassajara that will experience traffic from the development. Tassajara Valley Preservation Association www.tassajaravalleypa.org b. A Preservation Agreement must be signed by a majority of the cities and the county to be valid. Note that the wording is not a majority of the cities and the county taken as a whole. The county carefully chose the wording in Measure L and the plain English meaning of this wording is that the county’s approval must be secured before an agreement is valid. It also means that a majority of the cities approval must be obtained. Danville and San Ramon are the nearest cities, and with Danville excluded from the agreement, a majority of the cities cannot be obtained. Hence the proposed agreement is invalid and therefore a condition to allow a 30 acre development outside the ULL is not satisfied. c. The agreement is flawed and is only proposed because it alleges to fit one of seven acceptable exceptions for a development outside the ULL. The agreement is not an enforceable contract among the County, San Ramon and East Bay Parks District. Any party can withdraw from the agreement at any time without any penalty. The county does not give up its right to change the zoning in the Preservation Area at any time. The developer misleads by implying that this agreement provides any more protection than the current ULL. County Counsel will affirm that the agreement may be terminated at any time by any party without penalty and is non-enforceable. In effect, it is no agreement at all. C. If Tassajara Parks is approved, the above reasons advanced will be the basis of a suit filed against the parties as a violation of County law, specifically Measure L. This will expose the County to unnecessary litigation costs, damages and penalties, a clear waste of taxpayer money. THERE IS NO SOURCE OF WATER FOR TASSAJARA PARKS A. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has rejected supplying water to Tassajara Parks and the EIR needs to be redone to reflect a water source. EBMUD has reiterated their objections numerous times as: a. TP is outside their service area and ultimate service boundary. b. The developer’s estimate of water usage has been under estimated by a factor of 2 c. Seventy two percent of California is experiencing a drought condition and the utility must insure that existing customers within its service area is assured an adequate supply of water: i. Governor Newsom has declared a drought emergency in 41 of 48 California Counties imposing water conservation restrictions. ii. Water runoff from snowpack since April 1st is near zero due to parched earth. iii. California reservoirs hold 50% less than normal at this time of the year per Centers for Watershed Sciences at UC Davis. Oroville dam pictured below: Drought Map Source -https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pdf/current/current_CA_trd.pdf THE COUNTY’S STAFF REPORT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS A. The proposed development is in stark conflict with the County’s own 2016 ULL Mid -term Review that concluded “Sufficient capacity exists countywide inside the ULL to accommodate housing and job growth through 2036”. B. Why is this development moving through the approval process? a. San Ramon is proposing 4,000 housing units to be built in Bishop Ranch proving there is enough buildable capacity within the ULL. Thus there is no need to go outside the ULL. b. Is it the $ 6.5 million offered by the developer to the county to fund the so-called Agricultural Enhancement uses? Does the payment of these 30 pieces of silver justify the betrayal of the residents of this county who rely on the fair enforcement of laws governing the ULL ? THE PLANNING COMMISSION MET ON JUNE 9, 2021 AND BY A DECISIVE VOTE OF 4 -2 REJECTED STAFF’S REPORT CITING SOME OF THE FOLLOWING: A.Lack of a water supply. LAFCO has stated that they will oppose annexation without a “will serve” letter from EBMUD. B.The opposition of the Town of Danville, the nearest city to the development. C.The conclusion that the “Preservation Agreement” provides no additional protection from development and can be abandoned or ignored by any party at any time. D.The impact to traffic congestion on Camino Tassajara as they found that projected automobile usage was significantly understated in Staff’s report. E.The overwhelming local opposition to this project . SUMMARY The proposed project should be rejected because 1), it is illegal, 2) there is no approved water source, 3), overwhelming local opposition and 4), it is inconsistent with the county’s previous findings that sufficient housing capacity exists inside the ULL. The carefully considered recommendation of the Planning Commission rejecting Tassajara Parks should be respected. The proper methodology for approval of a project in excess of 30 acres is submission to the voters of the county. Thank you for your dedication to serving the residents of Contra Costa County. Respectfully, Richard L. Fischer Richard L. Fischer Co-founder, Tassajara Valley Preservation Association 925-200-4574 tassajaravalleyrf@gmail.com Gretchen Logue, Gretchen Logue Co-founder, Tassajara Valley Preservation Association 925-786-6973 tassajaravalleypa@gmail.com Name City Commented DateComment Ella Brovitz Scottsdale 2/23/2017 "We have a home on Old School and want to keep the serenity of the area." Richard Fischer Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "No illegal urban sprawl!" Sandra Acham Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "I want to protect the our local water systems, avoid polluting the air due to heavy traffic, and keeping the current eco-system in harmony." matthew walley Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "The development is outside the voter mandated Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) and is not necessary as there is space WITHIN the ULL for further developoment. Also, if the county supervisors approve this development, it will establish a precedent for other developers to follow, and put at risk over 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands in the county to further development. The additional burden of increased traffic and strain on water resources will also negatively impact the existing residents and neighborhood. Development here makes no sense." Jennifer Schulte Danville 2/23/2017 "Tassajara valley is irreplaceable. Keep this precious land and important water shed untouched." Patricia Szabo Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "I want to protect my Water Resources and the value of my neighborhood and home." Sheri Burns Danville 2/23/2017 "Development would be outside the limits, limited resources taxed and traffic congestion would be unbearable." William Shryer Danville 2/23/2017 "I support the current urban limit line and to prevent the sprawl that does nothing for our community and just enriches the developers. It also impacts the quality of our educational system here in the Tri-Valley as well." Douglas Lacey Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "I strongly support the ULL as it was designed and overwhelmingly approved a few years back. This is an encroachment that will add to the sprawl and stretch already strained resources." Linda Gomez Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "Want to keep the beauty of Tassajara Valley. Plus the vote of the people means something! "We The People"" Penelope Adams Diablo 2/23/2017 "Please, please hold the ULLs!!!" Rolando Bayot Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "Stop Urban Sprawl!" David Rampa pleasanton 2/23/2017 "No water infrastructure being provided to our neighborhood. No added benefit. will take our watershed away that feeds our wells." Todd Tuescher Danville 2/23/2017 "There are too many houses already and the infrastructure to support the current developement cannot support it. Let alone more homes and drivers" andrea lord Danville 2/23/2017 "we need to protect our beautiful, green hills + decrease the traffic in our neighborhoods." Jean Fischer Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "I feel future generations should be able to enjoy the tranquility and beauty the area provides. There is enough traffic in the area that already is at a dangerous level." Ralph Ames Danville 2/23/2017 "Already to much growth and traffic" Edward Zappettini San Ramon 2/23/2017 "There is no need to develop outside the ULL with all the infill areas available. There is no water available. This development would worsen an already untenable traffic problem at the school adjacent to the build site." m greendorfer Danville 2/23/2017 "The Urban Limit Line must be upheld. We have more than enough housing; we need to preserve ag land and open space." Lauri Moss Danville 2/23/2017 "The urban limit line must not be undermined." Charles Waitman DANVILLE 2/23/2017 "Existing development East of Danville stresses existing transit and hydrology beyond reasonable limits. Infrastructure expansion would change characteristics of the area." Arne Haugland Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "Stop the sprawl. Stop the politicians from constantly moving the line." Joe Delucchi Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "We need to protect our undeveloped areas, as well as our water resources which are so fragile. The voters want this area protected from developed and we want to keep it that way." Ro LoBianco Benicia 2/23/2017 "There is so little open space remaining in Danville proper--it is imperative that we preserve what is remaining for the protection and sanctuary of wildlife, to provide natural expanses for residents, and to allow for ease of ingress and egress to a traffic-weary body of citizens who have supported and called Danville home for years." Patricia Keenan Danville 2/23/2017 "We can't become another sprawling Dublin or San Jose. Save the beauty of our Valley." Bob Gerberich Danville 2/23/2017 "I want to protect our beautiful area and stop further home development." frank Careccia Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "I am against the project" Ginger Taylor Pleasanton 2/23/2017 "We are on a well. Looking at the slope of the terain, My instincts tell me the watershed from those hills is a significant source of water for my well." Tom Price Danville 2/23/2017 "Stop the urban sprawl. We have enough people and traffic as it is. You also will negatively affect our property values. Don't be like Dublin or San San Ramon." David Sanchez Jr Danville 2/23/2017 "Congestion is already bad no more new development" Dominic Tarabochia Danville 2/23/2017 "Please do not establish precedent by allowing this development." Cristin Kiper Sanchez Danville 2/23/2017 "We bought our house because it was close to open space - I would hate to see houses there. Not to mention taxing our resources (water, schools, etc.) Where would it end? Follow what the voters approved!!" JoAnne Ciazinski Danville 2/23/2017 "This development would ruin the tranquility and peacefulness of Tassajara Valley with too much traffic!" Terry O'Shea Danville 2/23/2017 "Supervisors made a commitment to this open space and it's time they lived up to it." Dennis Chantland Danville 2/23/2017 "Voter approved laws should mean something. They are not suggestions!" Terri Pulliam Danville 2/24/2017 "Keep our open space and stop urban sprawl!" Susan Cookson Danville 2/24/2017 "Enough building. Camino Tassajarra cannot cope with anymore traffic." Susan Virgilio Danville 2/24/2017 "Traffic through Danville on Sycamore/Tassajara is ridiculous and more homes will make it unsafe." Paul Logue Pleasanton 2/24/2017 "Urban Limit Lines should not have convenient loopholes for developers. That is not what voters approved!! How much cumulative time and dollars has this developer cost our county over the past 3 years in proposing this development? Imagine what that could do for our schools!" Ann Schinske Danville 2/24/2017 "I believe in open space and we have too many houses and cars here now!" Justin Kinser Danville 2/25/2017 "Preserve our open spaces. Don't sell out Danville like Dublin and San Ramon." Andy Gu 丹维尔 2/25/2017 "I want to state my opposition to the development plan. Thanks." Jonathan Ginsberg Walnut Creek 2/25/2017 "There is very little green space left in what has remained a beautiful, quaint town for so long. Let's not change that. There is a reason people choose Danville over surrounding towns; we must preserve the green space that makes Danville special. Not to mention the unnecessary traffic, noise and crime that comes along with such development!" Ming Zhou Danville 2/25/2017 "Reserving natural environment shall not be trampled by insatiable economic needs." george Yin Danville 2/25/2017 "We need open space" Alice K Clark Danville 2/25/2017 "I don't want the negative results in my community." Dawn Simpkin Danville 2/25/2017 "I've lived here for 50 years, we need to keep some open space, there's way to much traffic, etc. do not wreck the last of the open space." Bin Chiu Danville 2/25/2017 "Stop the sprawling madness! No traffic congestion an D environmental damage!" depeng liu danville 2/25/2017 "We can not let greed of developers to destroy our beautiful environment." Frank Xu 丹维尔 2/25/2017 "The expansion will damage the environment" Yunping Ye 丹维尔 2/25/2017 "I am signing because in this area too much new house" Hong Pei 丹维尔 2/25/2017 "I'm sign because the Urban Limit Line means “no development outside of the line”." Qi Hong Danville 2/25/2017 "I want the open view stay the way it is now. I love this area because this area is not crowded crazy like Dublin." Chris Qiao San Francisco 2/25/2017 "Stop the urban sprawl. We cannot lose the peaceful valley!" Samik Mukherjee Danville 2/25/2017 "Keep open lands to preserve environment" Laura Vranas Danville 2/25/2017 "There is a reason that there is an urban limit line. I oppose this development. There is no "park" in Tassajara Parks. Preserve the land and show respect to the voters in this community. I am in District 2 and my husband and I won't vote for you Supervisor Anderson, if you approve this or the "Creekside Memorial Park" massive, urban cemetery." catherine cheneval LYON 2/25/2017 "PROTEGEZ LA VALLEE DU DEVELOPPEMENT / COSTA . CALIFORNIE" Diane Butler Danville 2/25/2017 "Already too much traffic on tassajara. Love the last bit of country feel out their. Developers are ruining Danville/San Ramon/Dublin!" Lily Ding San Ramon 2/25/2017 "We are already too crowded without infrastructure support!" Jeff Luo Dublin 2/25/2017 "Reserve our natural environment" Mary Anne Peterson Danville 2/25/2017 "Our development is out of control and traffic is horrendous." Wendy Iritani Danville 2/25/2017 "Don't like developments" Julie Liesch Danville 2/25/2017 "Environmental Impact on overpopulated area without proper infastructure to handle traffic. Area is only accessible from the West and the South." Harold Etterman Danville 2/25/2017 "We have already voted against this. How do the supervisors have the authority to over-ride our vote?" Rafael Carrillo Danville 2/25/2017 "Rc" Michelle Harber Danville 2/25/2017 "I do not want to lose open space or cause more congestion on Camino Tassajara" Alice Dawson Lowell 2/25/2017 "PLZ STOP!" Sandra Peter Danville 2/25/2017 "One of the best things about this area is the open space - we can't lose it to another rabbit warren." Djamila grouci Paris 2/25/2017 "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" Carol Geng Danville 2/25/2017 "safety and traffic is a big concern." Virginia Victor Danville 2/25/2017 "we want less traffic!!" Patrick Freeland Danville 2/25/2017 "I'm signing because open space needs to be preserved for quality of life. Other issues such as resource availability is also a concern. The Bay Area including Contra Costa County has become over populated and continual growth is not sustainable." Heidi Hill Danville 2/25/2017 "Please respect the ULL. You are turning this area into a wasteland." Kristine Christensen Danville 2/25/2017 "We need breathing space. The infill of any space in Dublin with houses is alarming. The traffic on Tassajara is at capacity. It now takes over 30 minutes to freeway when 5 years ago it took 12 minutes." Hong Zhang San Ramon 2/25/2017 "Save the beauty if our valley" Li Gao Danville 2/25/2017 "I like to preserve the protected land we love." Chris Duncan Carlsbad 2/25/2017 "Traffic!" Nick Neo Danville 2/25/2017 "The traffic is already a mess with current population The very inconvenient and dangerous single lane road Camino Tassajara road cannot handle more cars" denise defazio Danville 2/26/2017 "I want to protect the beautiful tassajara valley and do not want any more housing. The traffic situation is already out of control on Tassajara. Schools are already overcrowed." Doug Hambleton Danville 2/26/2017 "I'm fed up with too much development in our area and the impacts on traffic, schools, and the natural environment." Lisa Plettner Danville 2/26/2017 "Local schools are already bursting at the seams. In addition, let's preserve the beautiful countryside that makes this area so unique!" Diane Fair Danville 2/26/2017 "This area is overloaded with people and there is no water! We need our beautiful hills and wildlife" Dan Holland Danville 2/26/2017 "Ive been living in Danville for 50 years, no more growth. Leave some original landscape. We used to be a small community, I don't want to see this become Walnut Creek." Sally Bernard Danville 2/26/2017 "Sally Bernard" Fernande Fournier Luxembourg 2/26/2017 "Wir haben die Pflicht die Tiere und unseren Planeten zu respektieren und zu beschützen. Nehmen, Sie Ihre Verantwortung, bitte. Helfen und handeln Sie menschlich und zügig. Zivilisierte, Gesellschaft? Manche " Menschen " sind nicht über allem erhaben! Merci." Norma Marr Danville 2/26/2017 "No one should build on urban land that voters voted to remain urban. It shouldn't even be a discussion." Andrea Petralia Danville 2/26/2017 "No more development in Tassajara Valley! Leave the open space as is.Thank you." sabrina nash Danville 2/26/2017 "From the time I moved here 15 years ago, we've lost so much of the open space and now all we see is a 'sea' of houses :(" Virginia Wood Danville 2/26/2017 "This is protected agricultural land and open space. This is a very bad precedent to start. Please reject this development proposal . NO DEVELOPMENT outside of the line!" mandy edmund oakland 2/26/2017 "I spend my weekends here. It's my Central Park." James Anderegg Danville 2/26/2017 "The original Urban Limit Line has already been encroached upon. Allowing additional development only compounds the problem of traffic and water. Land use planners have recommended for years that dense development be located near the transportation and employment corridors, and this location could not be further from either.It seems that the only people who will benefit are the developer and property owner at the expense of the rural/suburban lifestyle which makes Danville so special. This is not the proper location to address the Bay Area's housing shortage or affordability." Steven Jacobsen Danville 2/26/2017 "This area (Tassajara/I-680) is already too congested. We came here to be near open space; don't take that away by making Danville the center of a huge metropolis. The Urban Limit Line was put in place for good reasons. Don't let corporate greed be the reason the ULL is defeated." Jill Straface Danville 2/26/2017 "Enough is enough! We have been on water restrictions, and have insufficient infrastructure to support these unwanted developments! Greedy developers , cities and county cashing in on profits and tax income by mandating these mid to high density projects. Shame on you! There are plenty of these already in the San Ramon and Danville area." Deb Becker Danville 2/26/2017 "Too congested, too crowded. Too much traffic and too much noise. Also Open Space is beautiful and needed to add value to our current homes." Christopher Anderson Danville 2/26/2017 "Against development" Jacqueline Smith Oakley 2/26/2017 "It should be preserved to maintain a natural site for future generations" Mark Corsa Danville 2/26/2017 "We desperately need to preserve our limited amounts of open space and stop the urban sprawl. Our roads are already too congested and our resources are much too limited. It makes no sense to add to an already existing problem just for the sake of profiteering!" Linda Cook Danville 2/26/2017 "Don't want the beautiful hills across the street destroyed." Glen Simmons Danville 2/26/2017 "Because it violates the law that was established to create & protect the Urban Limit Line. If the line should change it should only be changed by another ballot of the people." Michael and Phyllis BleeckerPleasanton 2/26/2017 "This project is beyond the bounds of the urban limit line and will just encourage more building to increase sprawl on Agricultural land. We are encouraging the area to change and look more and more like Los Angeles with all it's problems such as traffic, and before this years unusual rain all the problems from draught conditions." Greg Haughton alamo 2/26/2017 "I'm signing because it is important to keep this open." Jeff Schulte Danville 2/26/2017 "Preserve the voter's opinion. Honor the ULL." Jennifer Lechner Danville 2/26/2017 "NO MORE HOMES = traffic, students in crowded schools," Carolyn Polo Riverside 2/26/2017 "I live right next to this land and I don't want more houses in my community. There are always so many new houses being built in this area that the natural beauty just isn't there anymore." Linda Stevens Danville 2/26/2017 "Linda Stevens" John Teague Livermore 2/26/2017 "I want to preserve the quality of life for my family and my neighbors. Enough is enough!" Linda DeBaun Danville 2/26/2017 "I do no want the urban sprawl." Raul Sondhi Danville 2/26/2017 "To stop the sprawl!!" casey giron Danville 2/26/2017 "We are already over developing and the beauty of our cit/county is at risk." Jan Masiel Danville 2/26/2017 "Enough is enough" formolo teresa carnieres 2/26/2017 "Signer" Kristin Goerz Danville 2/26/2017 "Traffic problems, historic water shortage with imposed fines" joseph Cuenco Walnut creek 2/26/2017 "Stop the urban sprawl, worsening traffic, and overcrowding schools" Harriet Winsten Danville 2/26/2017 "The traffic on Tassajara is getting unbearable east of Crow Canyon. People use it like a freeway!!!" Jacqui Alenda Mission Viejo 2/26/2017 "Enough new houses are built now. We must keep our countryside for the farmers and the horse stables. We will lose everything if you continue to build up the area." Maryam Khodadadi Danville 2/26/2017 "Many of us moved to this area because of the beautiful valley and the peace. We don't need another crowded Dublin . It's good to have at least this area in between danville and Dublin beautiful and untouched. Schools are already overcrowded and the traffic is bad enough. I can't imagine what will happen with more houses in the area." Richard Johnson Danville 2/26/2017 "Enough is enough...Too much open spaace is already being eaten up and support infrastructure already overtaxed" Cheryl Johnson Livermore 2/26/2017 "I don't want more traffic! The rural roads are not fit for more traffic and they are never fixed!!!" N A Danville 2/26/2017 "There is not enough water, too muchtraffic, and schools are too crowdedeven now." Patrick Polo Danville 2/26/2017 "Too many of the surrounding hills have already been developed over the past 15 years. No alternate routes to Tassajara Road have been added to accommodate increased traffic congestion. Now you want to add another development and increase noise and traffic further to our existing nearby communities." Sean Kelly Danville 2/26/2017 "I believe there is an unbelievable amount of value in UNDEVELOPED land." Kristine Reyes Danville 2/26/2017 "I want to maintain our free space and reduce traffic in our area" Adrianne Gallo Danville 2/27/2017 "I prefer open space" Jorge Montane Danville 2/27/2017 "Too many homes as it is in this area!!!" Cheryl Bruner Danville 2/27/2017 "I'm signing because I strongly oppose this development." Marilyn Meyer Danville 2/27/2017 "The area is already overbuilt for the resources and infrastructure." Charles Ball Danville 2/27/2017 "enough is enough!!!!!" Linda Chang Danville 2/27/2017 "I want to preserve the little land we have left for agricultural and pristine views we have left." Robert Davey Danville 2/27/2017 "Do not want this land disturbed with homes. STOP the developers!" Shira Stein Lafayette 2/27/2017 "Preservation should be valued rather than over development." Rebecca Bellini San Ramon 2/27/2017 "Where will these kids go to school??" Mary Corcoran Danville 2/27/2017 "Mary corcoran" daniel welter Danville 2/27/2017 "save the open space" Susan Tiedemann Saint Helena 2/27/2017 "I am from this area. I recently moved because of the diminishing quality of life caused by over-development." Shu Cheng Danville 2/27/2017 "I am signing because I speculate the jamming of traffic after increasing 125 houses in this community." Richard Cazin Danville 2/27/2017 "The above described land should never be developed." karena mckinley Castro Valley 2/27/2017 "I believe this approval would represent an undesirable precedent for the county in general." Margaret Pallack Danville 2/27/2017 "Our beautiful hills have been developed too quickly. The infrastructure can not keep pace. Keep Camino Tassajara free." Madras Venkatesh Orinda 2/27/2017 "I don't want new development beyond ULL." Erick Corona Pleasant Hill 2/27/2017 "Nature preserve is important." Stuart Zins Danville 2/27/2017 "This land should be preserved as planned" Erin Lohec Pleasanton 2/28/2017 "Protect the Urban Limit Line. Stop the growing traffic problem." Kelly Knight Danville 2/28/2017 "Camino Tassajara CANNOT handle any more traffic. The road between Shadowcreek and Blackhawk Plaza is gridlocked every morning." Julie Dormandy Danville 2/28/2017 "Tired of urban limit line abandonement!" Debbie Anzilotti Danville 2/28/2017 "Stop covering our open spaces with housing!" Elena Flaharty Clayton 2/28/2017 "We are already losing open space..." Terri Archibald Danville 2/28/2017 "This area is already over crowded with homes on top of each other in the last 10 years." Matthew Hoffman Danville 2/28/2017 " Urban Limit Line should be respected" Zheng Zhang 丹维尔 2/28/2017 "Stop Urban sprawl into Tassajara Valley." Kathleen Collins Danville 2/28/2017 "This needs to stop!" Barbara Kasa Danville 2/28/2017 "This area is getting too congested and traffic is impacted." Floyd nelson Brentwood 2/28/2017 "Why do you need more homes?" alana hay Danville 2/28/2017 "leave as is" David Watson DIABLO 2/28/2017 "The urban limit line was initiated to save our open space and should not be overridden. We already have insufficient infrastructure to handle the people we already serve...leave our green space!" Erica Layman Danville 2/28/2017 "I watched the development of Alamo Creek and Monterosso against voter approval - PLEASE observe the wishes of the voters and residents and curb development in this area." Lois Morris Danville 2/28/2017 "Congestion and traffic!!! And what about the water!! Will a lawn never be allowed again when we have to provide for even more people?! Our neighborhoods will become dust bowls!" Donya George Danville 2/28/2017 "Protect our open space. Our roads are already saturated with traffic. Enough is enough." Jacquie Laflamme Danville 2/28/2017 "There's absolutely NO WAY our community can handle the additional traffic and I won't even bring up the over crowdness of students to impact our schools. Not like we get enough money for them anyway...! Stop the Greediness" Tracey Bennett Danville 2/28/2017 "Enough Growth Out infrastructure can't support it Stop it now San Ramon has hurt this area with its limitless growth" Liangfeng Guo Danville 2/28/2017 "I am signing because I want to preserve habitat for wild animals." Tricy Otten Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 "I want to keep open spaces open!" Monica Spina-Forni Danville 2/28/2017 "Danville has so much traffic now. We need to preserve open space so we an remember Danville the way it used to be." Elizabeth Harvey Danville 2/28/2017 "I believe in keeping development within the urban limit lines, keeping open space available for wild creatures and ag use." Janine Baker San Ramon 2/28/2017 "I value our quality of life here in our beautiful valley, and it needs to be preserved." Nancy DiOrio Danville 2/28/2017 "I'm signing because the land needs to stay preserved and the building needs to stop! The beauty of the hills is being destroyed by greed." Gwen Colley Lafayette 2/28/2017 "Preserve open space for future generations." Sandie Shields Alamo 2/28/2017 "open space is needed for so many reasons, trees that give us oxygen, valleys that help our creeks, bird and animal habitat that feed our soul" Robyn Mizes Danville 2/28/2017 "NO MORE high density development. Save the open space!!! There is no infrastructure to support development." Tim Ryan Danville 2/28/2017 "Opposed to developing this beautiful space. STOP" Erika Shaffer Kilauea 2/28/2017 "Voters spoke clearly for open space and containing sprawl when they mandated the urban limit line. That line should be respected." Kirsten Vogeley Danville 2/28/2017 "Save the open space. This violates the ULL and" Stephanie Swenson Danville 2/28/2017 "I have lived out in this area for 40 years! Leave the open space!! That's what makes it charming here! Makes me sick to have more homes! NO REASON!!!!" Lisa Winn Danville 2/28/2017 "We vote for a reason...listen to our votes and stop ignoring the public." Nancy Mulvihill Danville 2/28/2017 "I have lived in the tassajara valley for 23 years I have seen the impacts of increased housing, poor planning, and the lack of regard for health, safety, and welfare of current residents. County planning has changed the environment and quality of life with their past approvals against the will of the people and it needs to stop." Samantha Dooley Danville 2/28/2017 "the open space must be protected!!" Patrick Baur Boise 2/28/2017 "Too much land development" Robert Gruber Boxborough 2/28/2017 "There is too much development as there is. Look at Dublin and San Ramon! Sad........" Sheila De La Torre Danville 2/28/2017 "I have commuted everyday for 24 years and I live with the uncontrollable congestion - I used to enjoy my commute but now it is horrendous. More importantly - and I cannot STRESS this enough - is the water situation. How can you build in good conscious knowing that we are on the brink of drought - it is irresponsible." Will Greer Danville 2/28/2017 "If you're from Danville, or just appreciate the preservation of Bay Area protected lands, sign this." Susan DuRoff San Ramon 2/28/2017 "Please stop urban sprawl and save this precous open space!" James Hoffmann Danville 2/28/2017 "I like danvilles beauty" Kerri Gilbert Clayton 2/28/2017 "Extending the line for this development will ruin the culture and beauty of our community. We do not want houses blanketing the hills. Leave that for Fremont etc. No more urban sprawl" D. Rossiter Danville 2/28/2017 "Do NOT want this land to be converted into homes resulting in loss of urban space and more traffic!" Michelle Price Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 "No more houses. Traffic, over crowding. Just stop!" Susan Harvey Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 "Open space is vitality important to preserve." Robert Winn Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 "The line is there for a reason...recognize and respect it." Adam Carp Danville 2/28/2017 "I grew up riding my bikes with my friends in these hills." Linda Kinf Danville 2/28/2017 "Danville is getting too crowded. We moved here 35 years ago because of the rural feel." Daniel Marcoulis Pomona 2/28/2017 "Signing because this is home to me and I like to come home and see grass not the development I leave down south from." Robin Bregante Danville 2/28/2017 "Too many houses already!" Will Estes Danville 2/28/2017 "i've lived in danville my entire life and i don't want to see the vast green space of the valley, which is what makes it so special, destroyed by selfish desires for profits and further development" Heather Hilderbrand Danville 2/28/2017 "Open space with beautiful rolling hills is good for our mental health." Kevin Rolens Danville 2/28/2017 "ULLTrafficCrowded SchoolsEtc." Nasser Gaemi Danville 2/28/2017 "enough with development, the congestion is already insane during rush hour. you are destroying all the reason we moved here in the first place." Trevor Wolfe Dallas 2/28/2017 "We need more dense housing, not more sprawl and congestion. This is nothing more than a land grab and deal for developers/local politicians to line their pockets" John Schwartz Danville 2/28/2017 "The open spaces are essential to the character of our area" Megan Carp Danville 2/28/2017 "Im signing because thinking of these rolling hills brings me back home and it is so unique to this part of California. We have enough houses. Give the land a break." Carrie Stouffer Bloomington 2/28/2017 "I grew up here and miss my hills" Mary Ann Schultz Danville 2/28/2017 "The ULL need to hold. Breaking that trust would be a huge mistake for the valley and th people that love it." janinne Franke Danville 2/28/2017 "We need the space and rural feel" Patricia Seay Danville 2/28/2017 "The area is already over crowded. Schools and roads are heavily impacted already and drought rates have been in effect for 6 years now. More homes negatively impacts all." Terry Magovern Danville 2/28/2017 "too much traffic already here!" Madison Somerday Danville 2/28/2017 "Once I got my liscense, one of my favorite things to do was to drive through the back roads of the tassajara hills, explore them, and just escape. My childhood home was near hills and you could I always find me roaming around in them enjoying the nature of them. As well, there is enough traffic on the roads I the bay as it is, we do not need to bring in more people to an already heavily populated area" emma grant Danville 2/28/2017 "The past 40 years the housing sprawl on this area has been out of control and we need to stop" Dotti Lovato Danville 2/28/2017 "I do not want any more houses out Tassajara" Lesli Blackman Danville 2/28/2017 "I'm signing because since I moved here with my small children 13 years ago, I have seen the peaceful rural area outside our East Gate area change due to new construction. The new homes have resulted in moretraffic, less parking, more crime- all negatively impacting our area and town. Why add to the already impacted services - schools, retail, etc. with more urban blight? What used to be a beautiful country road with horses, trees, gorgeous green or golden hills is nearly gone. What a shame." Laura Fiveash Danville 2/28/2017 "We need to preserve the beauty of the valley and its open space, which make this area so special. We do not need more seas of homes as it will just make the traffic even more unbearable!" Vicky Spranger Danville 2/28/2017 "I have lived here for over 20 years. It seems like they build on every vacant lot there is. Can't we just leave well enough alone. Let's enjoy the beautiful nature of the area." Cameron Yee Danville 2/28/2017 "I love seeing the beautiful hills every time I drive by. I've been growing up my entire life in Danville and am saddened by all of the construction and housing being made. I want to keep our area green and natural as was and as it should be." Braun Gustav Danville 2/28/2017 "We need to keep our agricultural and open space protected from further urban sprawl. That area is already congested with all the new development from Alamo creek north and the new development south in Dublin." Steve Marotti Oakland 2/28/2017 "Enough sprawl" Edward Parish Danville 2/28/2017 "I value the open space on Tassajara" Pamela Kraft Danville,2/28/2017 "I'm signing because I want to save the beauty of our hills and prevent sprawl." Jacob Singer Danville 3/1/2017 "This development should not be permitted." Jillian Grabenstein Danville 3/1/2017 "We need to protect our land while we still have it. They should just renovate old buildings instead of destroying untouched land." Judy Grabenstein Danville 3/1/2017 "Roads are too congested as it is." Alan Grabenstein Danville 3/1/2017 "I watched the ULL along Tassajara Valley violated once already. Not again!" Mary Garcia San Ramon 3/1/2017 "I want to preserve & protect land from further urban sprawl" Deborah Neisinger Danville 3/1/2017 "East Bay MUD has fought this in the past because there isn't enough water!!! And now the traffic on Camino Tassajara has become an issue!!! The previous developments were constructed after a public NO vote! Are you saying voting no longer means anything?..." Sheri Graybehl Danville 3/1/2017 "Enough building already! Leave some space for us and the animals to enjoy. We are already overcrowded." Chad Cruz Danville 3/1/2017 "Urban sprawl is threatening the aesthetics and infrastructure of our community." Kevin Davidson Danville 3/1/2017 "We do not need more shitty, ugly houses. Need to maintain the beauty of this area" cathe martin Danville 3/1/2017 "We need open space, and our area is already so over developed. Traffic is awful, and resources are strained." Thomas Tellner Dublin 3/1/2017 "I believe we should keep development within the approved urban limit line. Allowing 1 developer means you must allow others to do the same." Kayt Dickinson Danville 3/1/2017 "I am opposed to urban sprawl due to crowding and future water restrictions." Bob Sanguedolce Danville 3/1/2017 "I'm opposed to development of rural areas of Tassajara Valley. This is a key issue for me and I'll deny my vote to my county supervisor based on their response to this issue" John Brackett Danville 3/1/2017 "Enough is enough. We already voted on this. Uphold the vote!!" James Guinn Danville 3/1/2017 "To stop the over crowding invTassajara Valley" nancy norland danville 3/1/2017 "I'd rather see this area stay as open space and used for recreational use other than housing." Sally Rasted Danville 3/1/2017 "We have lived here 30 years and regarding urban sprawl well, enough is enough. Our once charming valley is rapidly losing its small town feel and rural beauty." Dorothy Schatzinger Danville 3/1/2017 "I do not want Danville to become another Dublin. No more houses! Keep our beautiful rolling hills as they are." Steve Spiva Danville 3/1/2017 "Stop the urban growth, there's too much traffic already." Nicholas Ricart Concord 3/1/2017 "I live on Finley road and what they are doing to the land is an abomination" harleen sethi Spring Valley 3/1/2017 "This land needs to be preserved. Please don't build developments here as it will increase traffic, change the landscape, etc." James Ginther San Ramon 3/1/2017 "To much developement." Greg Corcoran Danville 3/1/2017 " Stop the development no more development." William DePaschalis Danville 3/1/2017 "We've built enough and the roads and infrastructure can barely support everyone." Danielle Haberstroh Danville 3/1/2017 "I'm against building in the voter protected area. Leave the open space alone." Anne Donathan Danville 3/1/2017 "There's no more room left. I will be leaving the Bay Area if it continues to get more crowded." Russel Schatzinger Danville 3/1/2017 "There is more than enough development for our roads and stores to handle admit is. Stop the building!!!!!!!" Gemma Kabitzke Danville 3/1/2017 "Keep the open space protected from development. What a great space that we need to protect from urban sprawl." Cole DiMaggio Danville 3/1/2017 "I don't want anymore people in my god damn town" Romeda Arsanjani Danville 3/1/2017 "My children and I love cows and wild animals that resides through those valleys and meadows. We will be heart broken if those are no longer there..." Gail Hargis-Brubaker Danville 3/1/2017 "The additional traffic and reduction in open space will be detrimental to our quality of life!" John Fischer Danville 3/1/2017 "I do not want the spread of More urban communities into the sacred lands." Kim Clark Danville 3/1/2017 "Urban sprawl can never be undone!!" Gentry Higgins San Francisco 3/1/2017 "Because the preservation of this land is critical to maintaining the integrity and quality of living in the valley. The sprawling open space, rolling hills, and trails in this area are what make it so special to grow up in. Preserve it's integrity." Mary Quinn Danville 3/1/2017 "We have too much traffic in the area, and we need to continue to live in the country." Carissa Manzo Danville 3/1/2017 "What are we doing to our wonderful town of Danville. It will go from town to city! Stop the madness!!" Jenny Brown Danville 3/1/2017 "Stop the building in Danville!!!" William Becker Danville 3/1/2017 "This development will increase the growing traffic problem in Danville and help diminish the quality of life for the current Danville residents." Niki Lianides Danville 3/1/2017 "We moved here because of the beautiful open land, fresh air, and small town feel. That is why we fell in love with Danville. Development needs to STOP." Craig Smith Danville 3/1/2017 "You are destroying what's left of our Ag land." john davies Danville 3/1/2017 "john davies" Aparna Srinivasan Danville 3/1/2017 "I am signing because I am against the Tassajara Parks development . Even more so since it encroaches on the county's agricultural lands and open spaces within Danville." Nancy Moussa Danville 3/1/2017 "Green lands are disappearing right before our eyes and replaced with ugly highly populated new developments without any infrastructure to support it especially with Tassajara being the main back road single lane. KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN" Weili Wu Pleasanton 3/1/2017 "Leave some room for our Mother Nature. Don't make easy bay overcrowded" Amber Hamblin Danville 3/1/2017 "Enough is enough! Our schools are impacted, our town is full! We don't want to. Residents here don't want to live in Dublin or Walnut Creek-like cities. We want a small town feel with rolling, green hills and open space." Marilyn Kennedy Danville 3/1/2017 "One of the most beautiful things about this area : please leave them open." Kimberly Hill Danville 3/1/2017 "Protect open space." Mariana Pryhuber Danville 3/1/2017 "I don't want to see Danville turn beautiful land into more homes." Kim Manter Danville 3/1/2017 "I don't want to see our beautiful hills covered with homes. NO development!" Thomas Vargas Danville 3/1/2017 "Water Issues with our State and Traffic" Richard Kim Danville 3/1/2017 "Dublin is out of control with new development. I moved here because of the Natural open setting and the beautiful landscape. The proposed development brings unwanted traffic through Camino Tassajara. Have you seen the morning traffic! I'm opposed to this proposal." Vangal Nithyanandan Danville 3/1/2017 "We have been having losing open spaces in a drastic manner in the Dublin and San Ramon side and we need to stop that." Rose Kim Danville 3/1/2017 "Please reject this development. We already have issues with the new Alamo Creek and Iron Oak Developments. as well as at the other end of Tassajara by Dublin with all of the new homes there. There is only a 1 lane road each way through here. The traffic in and out of our neighborhood is ridiculous and the number of children with relation to schools available is not optimal. Are you expecting all of these new families to go to just one high school which already takes 50 mins to drive to every morning? In addition to all the water necessary to service these new homes . We need to put a stop to the building. It is enough. The ULL was set and should not be changed or modified for developer's profits." John Nelson Alamo 3/1/2017 "They are protected lands and the infrastructure can no support more houses" Thomas Weir San Ramon 3/1/2017 "enough traffic is enough. Time to put the interest of the tax payers above your own pockets and ambitions!!" amy herrera danville 3/1/2017 "I'm signing because Danville is special and too much growth threatens all the reasons we love it!" Gaurav Gehlot San Ramon 3/1/2017 "I would like to keep the green space in our community." Susan Bright San Ramon 3/1/2017 "Enough of high density homes & pollution from traffic...let's preserve our open spaces for a better quality of life ...for our future generation!" Khosrow Hassibi San Francisco 3/1/2017 "This proposal is outrageous and infringes on approved protected land that makes this part of Danvile and Danvile area beautiful and inspiring for all leaving in the Danville area." Darya Hassibi Danville 3/1/2017 "No development in beautifulprotected area beyond ULL. Find business elsewhere." barbara Moody Alamo 3/1/2017 "We need to preserve open space!" Michelle Martinea Los Gatos 3/1/2017 "We already have way toooooo many people in Danville over the last decade. No more development please." Omid Hassibi Danville 3/1/2017 "Simply outrageous. Leave this protected area alone." John Nakhla San Ramon 3/1/2017 "This will increase congestion and traffic and in the long term bring down home values." Bala talkad San Ramon 3/1/2017 "This place is going crazy and becoming a concrete jungle. Let's please put an end and let's preserve the remaining beautiful landscape and wildlife that are dependent on this." Susan Greene Danville 3/1/2017 "Voters approved the limit line, and our elected officials should honor our wishes." Jeff Clark Danville 3/1/2017 "Infrastructure doesn't support more development. We need to save agriculture and open space. Both are important but #1 is a critical mistake for the entire county. Please fix it now!" Linda Crowe Danville 3/1/2017 "Traffic is terrible. This will make it a nightmare!" patricia mezzadri Danville 3/1/2017 "Please stop building!! We moved to this area for this beauty. There isn't enough schools or general resources, just stop!" Kevin Svagdis Danville 3/1/2017 "Damaging the beautiful scenery , displacing cows, unruly traffic , crowding of local schools" Ryan Morgan Danville 3/1/2017 "I am signing to help preserve the precious remaining open space in Tassajara Valley. I am firmly against any additional urban development. The open space in and around Danville is one of the many reasons I have made Danville my families home." Paul Zegar Danville 3/1/2017 "We have enough traffic problems now. We do not need more cars on the roads." Vanessa Girard Fremont 3/2/2017 "I do not want to see open space turned into housing developments. We do not need more housing." Tricia Corcoran Danville 3/2/2017 "I don't want that open space to be developed. We don't need more people here" Wendy Heathorn Danville 3/2/2017 "Danville streets are already far too crowded. We do NOT need another 300 cars added to the madness." Wendy Sanchez San Ramon 3/2/2017 "There's so much development in the area and there's too much traffic. Dublin is already contributing too much to the traffic." Cody Lipsin TUCSON 3/2/2017 "This is the most beautiful part of the entire Bay Area... I grew up in Danville. Sell this precious land to the highest bidder for track housing and you've sold the heart, history and beauty of the Contra Costs hills with it." Ram Sundaram San Ramon 3/2/2017 "To prevent urban sprawl" Troy Larson San Ramon 3/2/2017 "To preserve the open space and farm land" Elisha Perez Danville 3/2/2017 "Keep out town open and beautiful" Barbara Abbatiello Danville 3/2/2017 "I want to preserve the open spaces that voters have already voted to protect." Christine Harris Littleton 3/2/2017 "It's a protected land, beautiful, and it's not respecting the will of the county’s voters. Don't destroy the beauty and home of nature, animals, and a part of what makes that area special. I am in that part of the city all the time and will be very pissed and saddened if it was destroyed and taken over... It is PROTECTED!!!!!" Jphn Kennedy Danville 3/2/2017 "The Bay Area has been on the frontline of preserving open spaces and restricting urban sprawl. This project must be stopped." Dan Spicer Danville 3/2/2017 "Too much congestion now on plus overcrowded schools." Melissa Finlinson Danville 3/2/2017 "I want to protect the beauty and serenity of the place I call home." Katharine Ryan Danville 3/2/2017 "Parking and traffic are already impacted in our sweet town. We live here because we don't want to turn into San Ramon or Dublin. Please vote no!" Jennifer Lee Danville 3/2/2017 "I love our small town and am already sad about all the building. Our town is getting too crowded and schools are all full. Let's please save our small town feel." David Dowling Danville 3/2/2017 "Roads and schools are over crowded already. Don't need Danville turning into that crap over on Bollinger rd, Windermere." Jamak Golshani Danville 3/2/2017 "Enough development. We need SOME nature!" Ivy Wong Danville 3/2/2017 "I want to keep the beautiful view and nature but not the traffic and pollution in our county. Let's keep the quality of life that our county's residents now enjoy." Melissa Brown San Ramon 3/2/2017 "We do NOT need anymore homes in our area!" Gavin Barnett Trabuco Canyon 3/2/2017 "There are hundreds of empty, foreclosed and unclaimed homes, why should we keep building more homes when the available homes are going unused." Ashley Gouig Danville 3/3/2017 "Stop building, it is ruining our town and our children's futures." kevin lew Danville 3/3/2017 "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." Jehan Liles DANVILLE 3/3/2017 "No more building in Danville." Laura Hennon Danville 3/3/2017 "This is not good for over crowding" Lester Lew Danville 3/3/2017 "We need to preserve open areas. There is already too much developments in our surrounding valleys." Darla Vorous Danville 3/3/2017 "I want to save our open space and stop Danville from becoming Walnut Creek." Frank Maiorana San Jose 3/3/2017 "We need to preserve open space, Danville's small town community feel and the Town's character. The ULL is the will of the voters and town and MUST be both respected and honored. If you want to change it, put it on the ballot and to the citizens of Danville." Ken Sexton Danville 3/3/2017 "I want to save our open space and stop Danville from becoming another Dublin /San Ramon" katy repp Ashland 3/3/2017 "The open spaces of Nor Cal are gorgeous, help keep traffic bearable and distinguish us from Los Angeles." Cathryn Soule Pleasanton 3/4/2017 "If you move the line for one person, then move it for all. Not fair to other landowners. We don't need more houses, more traffic, more problems." Heather Angerame Danville 3/4/2017 "We need to preserve our open space" Dwane Michael Alamo 3/4/2017 "Please reject the "Tassajara Parks" development proposal to avoid setting a precedent that will put at risk 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands." Jill Seidenverg Danville 3/4/2017 "The traffic in the east bay is so bad already, more development will exacerbate it." Emily Wetmore Danville 3/4/2017 "We don't need more houses in Danville. Traffic is becoming horrible and schools are crowded. We moved here for the small town feel." Jennifer Diehl Danville 3/4/2017 "I want to preserve some open space" Shelly Bergstad Pleasanton 3/4/2017 "I do not want more grow in the Tassajara Valley" Peter Tschernenko Danville 3/4/2017 "To let our county supervisors know I am against this development and urban sprawl." Marni Godvin Diablo 3/4/2017 "We need to maintain our open space and cease urban sprawl!" Hank Holzapfel Alamo 3/4/2017 "our infrastructure can't handle any more" Rachel Narducci Danville 3/4/2017 "The open space is essential to the wildlife and one of the major reasons we moved here." Madison Jeha Danville 3/4/2017 "I have seen way too many houses ruining the beautiful land" Maren Fleming Danville 3/4/2017 "I've seen too much of my beautiful hills turned into houses. Save the hills." Mark Oney Danville 3/4/2017 "Don't expose Danville to the sprawl that exists in areas like Dublin." Maryann Cella Diablo 3/5/2017 "The land proposed for the development is OUTSIDE the Urban Limit Line. The voters were expressing their clear intent that such land be maintained under its existing agricultural and open space use designations in the County's General Plan and not be changed to residential uses. If approved, this project will be the template for many more such Urban Limit Line encroachments into our precious and shrinking Ag. and Open Space lands. Supervisors: JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Shelly Braden Danville 3/5/2017 "I'm signing this petition because YOUR voters already made our wishes clear -- why are you allowing anybody to solicit otherwise?! WE ALREADY SAID no more development!! Listen to us -- we're still a democracy, right? Our county is becoming Los Angeles. Represent the voice of your voters!!!!" Michael DeGrano Oakland 3/5/2017 "No more urban sprawl! Too crowded in the valley already!" James Taylor Westport 3/5/2017 "1) We have a Urban Limit Line. 2) Note the water flowing. This feeds underground water tables3) Look at Dublin and traffic. There are enough homes developed." Walter Smith Danville 3/5/2017 "This development will threaten the lives of school children at the adjacent middle school where traffic congestion is already dangerous. Kill this project before innocent children are harmed." Karen Manetta Danville 3/5/2017 "This is "protected land"!! There is too much chaotic development already in Contra Costa County, and there are many negative consequences of this - one being the detrimental effect on wildlife!! Please REJECT this proposal and listen to the will of the voters for a change and have respect for the Urban Limit Line, if not the actual people who live in the county!" Robert Barnett Pleasanton 3/5/2017 "Let's develop within the urban limit line rather than outside this line." Connie Tracy Danville 3/6/2017 "Our resources are already taxed. I moved here for the small town feel. I am against over population and low income housing." Tom Jong Danville 3/6/2017 "We love the open space and there are already plenty of new housing developments within a few mins drive in San Ramon and Dublin. Construction is already at every turn and we need to preserve as much natural open space as possible especially if neighboring cities won't." fernando olivas San Ramon 3/6/2017 "Jamming what little space is left is like putting more cars on the roads, students into classrooms, not receiving proper road maintenance, creating more road rage, making a beautiful area much like a crowded large city anywhere.Why? There are giant areas of space in many other areas with plenty of room to roam." Maria Eansor Danville 3/6/2017 "There is already too much traffic on the roads." Karen Huff Danville 3/6/2017 "Too much development in Danville, SAN Ramon and Dublin" Daniel Basso Danville 3/6/2017 "Open space is open space.Promises are made to be kept." Ted Shapas Alamo 3/6/2017 "The ULL was put there for good reasons that still exist today." Archana Singh San Ramon 3/7/2017 "I love the beautiful hills and serenity of this neighborhood. I've seen the beautiful mountains on Tassajara being destroyed in Dublin. I had little bit of relief that San Ramon was untouched by those corrupt city councils who do not care for environment at all. I'm glad to see this petition and to see so many people raising their voice against these constructions." Robert Schleicher Danville 3/7/2017 "This development proposal is basically an end-run around the ULL. Voters have clearly wanted the ULL to be maintained. Our county supervisors should reject this proposal, as it is at odds with the spirit and intent of the ULL." Thomas F Long Alamo 3/7/2017 "The voters thoughtfully accepted a ULL several years ago. Presenrvation amendments will subvert the good faith of the electorate. Vote NO oon Tassajara.Tassajara will further compromise limited water resources, environment, traffic problems, shcools etc. Vote no on Tassajara Parks" Aj Longaker-Bunuan Pacific Grove 3/7/2017 "open space in precious" Dianna Gallagher Alamo 3/7/2017 "I believe in the importance of preserving open space in our already over-populated area." Barbara Tillinghast Danville 3/7/2017 "I want to keep our wonderful open-space open for future generations." kellee reed Danville 3/7/2017 "In the last 10 years this area has changed dramatically. Dublin is an eyesore. Danville is unique and should be protected. Stop building. Stop overcrowding. Stop increased water use. Stop the schools from exploding. Just stop BUILDING on the remaining open space" Stephanie Small Danville 3/7/2017 "I'm signing because our open spaces and environment need to be protected." Dewey Duran Danville 3/7/2017 "I want to preserve open space" Terry Byrnes Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "We need Open Space! More houses will mean more people, cars, air and water pollution, traffic, water shortages! Don't need this so some guy can get rich! STOP IT!" Debra Burris-jebrin San Ramon 3/7/2017 "ENOUGH! When is it going to be enough???" Rob Seitelman Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "You are jeopardizing our future for money in your pocket today." Joann Oliver Danville 3/7/2017 "Please protect our open space. The voters have chosen to protect this space several times. Please listen to the voters." Helene longenbaugh orinda 3/7/2017 "We need lands for wildlife!" Nick Dickten San Poly 3/7/2017 "The Bay Area is already ill-equipped for another drought, let alone if we add more housing." Christine Goff Lafayette 3/7/2017 "Contra Costa County already too dense and too much traffic . Urban limit lines were drawn for this very reason! Keep it!" Rev Jack Shriver Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "We must protect our beautiful open space!" Jason Kent Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "Too many houses !!! Need to keep open space to keep the area enjoyable !! Don't go against what voters already demanded. If I were them I'd file a lawsuit to block this development if it's approved" Mary Ellen Dalgaard Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "The county residents have voted.The county is already WAY overdeveloped.The Urban Limit Line was approved.That's that...unless, of course, only money speaks a language that our supervisors understand. Shame on them." Martha Martin Lafayette 3/7/2017 "This proposed development would hugely impact much of what we hold dear environmentally . Please don't approve something that besides, would set a precedent for future development in our county." Troy Hess Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "I worked on the campaign to defeat 2010's Measure W in San Ramon. that was going to develop outside the urban limit line. The vast majority of voters (71.37%) voted no. This has already been decided! Listen to your constituents local government or get voted out!" Kelle Joseph Livermore 3/7/2017 "People who buy this beauty and solitude do so for a reason, otherwise we'd live in town. Stay away." Daniel DeBusschere Orinda 3/7/2017 "Where is the water coming from?" Barbara Barkley Concord 3/7/2017 "I love our open space. Please don't let it be taken from us!!" Kelly Collins Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "I am absolutely sick of not being able to get where I need to go when I need to get there. I am moving in 3 years and can't wait to get out of this overdeveloped and ruined place!!!!" Meghan Baker Danville 3/7/2017 "I have lived in danville my entire life. I used to love watching the cows graze and the rolling hills of Camino Tassajara. It was beautiful. We recently moved out of Danville because the congestion is so bad. We need open space for animals, for our health, to teach our children what this earth really looks like, should continue looking like, and how to take care of our planet. Head East developers. Stop ruining this beautiful small town with more traffic and congestio" Sharon Borglin Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "we do not need to build more houses! Keep the open space!!!!" Barbra Crumley Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "Enough development! Leave some breathing space." kelly silversmith Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 "Enough is enough." Jennifer Gates Alamo 3/8/2017 "We need to protect Costra Costa County open space. One of the main benefits of living in the East Bay is the open space. This is a serious threat to the entire community." Deanna Anderson San Ramon 3/8/2017 "KEEP A LITTLE OPEN SPACE LAND FOR GODS SAKE!!!" Michael Ricupito Danville 3/8/2017 "Stop the controlled growth!!!" Diana Burnsides Danville 3/8/2017 "I oppose developing these beautiful rolling hills- a true treasure!" Amy Brain WC 3/8/2017 "Hold the line on the Open Space. Preserve Tassajara Valley" Dawn Eames Moraga 3/8/2017 "General Plans are not being followed." Terry Meyer link Danville 3/8/2017 "I live nearby and I bought here because of the hills" Ben Borglin Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 "Because my my told me too" Carolyn Mun Concord 3/8/2017 "Keep our Open Space safe..protect!!!" Pam Mcmillin Vallejo 3/8/2017 "Please reject this development proposal and respect the will of the county's voters that the Uraban Limit line means "no development outside of the line". Thank you." Candi Brooks-Williams Orinda 3/8/2017 "Open Space is essential to the quality of life for all. We have to have it for all living creatures" Heather Michaels Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 "We need open space." Christine Scimia Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 "Voter mandate must be adhered to. The infrastructure to handle additional population is not yet in place. Crowded roads, water, etc." Meaghan Saint Hayward 3/8/2017 "We have to stop this crazy growth, Infrastructure does not support this. Traffic on freeways is bad now imagine what it would turn into!! STOP!!!!!!!!!" Teli Thayer Lafayette 3/9/2017 "Dear Candace Anderson and other Supervisors,As a resident of CCC and Lafayette, I treasure our open spaces. The open space and trees are two of the primary draws when we chose to invest in this part of the East Bay. Please do not approve the Tassajara Parks development which is outside the ULL. Voters and residents have mandated open space in our county because we feel it is of great value. Do not make a choice that does not align with residents' values." Christopher Lamiero San Ramon 3/9/2017 "The quality of life in our area is largely a function of the remaining areas of open space. Also, additional housing density and population will add stress to already limited infrastructure and services." Diane Glickman Vallejo 3/9/2017 "Because I don't want any change to the land as it is!!!" Jenna Yott Walnut Creek 3/9/2017 "Protect open space!" Maureen McCarroll Danville 3/9/2017 "What is happening to our beautiful valley is terrible! We have got to stop this over development of our beautiful open space!" Denise Underwood Walnut Creek 3/9/2017 "I am a conservationist, once our open space is gone, there is no going back! I say, stick to the urban limit lines and stop allowing the developers to attempt to encroach on this limits!" Corinne Coffrini Walnut Creek 3/9/2017 "Our infrastructure cannot handle all the building. Can't move anywhere anymore." Julie Curry Concord 3/10/2017 "Save our Valley!!" Melanie Firpo Danville 3/10/2017 "Additional housing will increase traffic and strain our already strained infrastructure. Water, roads, schools, etc. Build it and they will come is over rated and causing overcrowding. Not to mention the high density housing is an eyesore and not attractively designed at all. Home upon home as closely packed together as possible, all straight up and no space between properties." Parshu Kulkarni San Ramon 3/10/2017 "I live in the neighborhood!" Ruth Bailey Lafayette 3/10/2017 "Once it's gone, it's gone forever." Sonia Lamba San Francisco 3/10/2017 "I love my valley!" Andrew Tompson San Ramon 3/11/2017 "This is rediculous. Keep the valley free. It should not be Dublin." Penny Carstens Walnut Creek 3/11/2017 "Besides the need to keep open space, I believe we can't build more homes until we provide more highways and transportation to move all these people around. The roads and freeways are at a stand still most of the day now and more homes will make it worse. Build the freeways now before the homes while space is still available. We won't need homes because we will be living in our cars stuck in traffic." Pamela Parsons Scottsdale 3/12/2017 "The urban limit line should not be changed wirhout a vote if the people." Monica Fonseca San Leandro 3/13/2017 "We don't need more housing. We should not look like Dublin and San Ramon" Jennifer Chu Redwood City 3/13/2017 "I know the beautiful hills of Tassajara Valley and would be greatly saddened to see it developed. Please respect the Urban Limit Line! Thank you!" Rebecca Garrigan Alamo 3/14/2017 "To preserve the open space in this area" Karly Karly Danville 3/15/2017 "No more building in our hills" JoAnn Dawe Walnut Creek 3/17/2017 "Our future children deserve to enjoy open space." Lindsay Virgilio Danville 3/19/2017 "The town of Dnaville are a bunch of crooks that care nothing for what actually makes this town a nice place to live. Urban sprawl will overflow our roads and schools and criminally damage the beauty of our town." Gloria Jacobs Sonoma 3/19/2017 "My grandchildren go to school at T.H.E school. It s important to me that they grow up in the environment that their parents chose for them, not urban sprawl, but the tranquility of open space." Sofia McAnulty Danville 3/21/2017 "I respect the rights of other living things and strongly believe this land is not ours to build upon. The greenery is part of what Danville such a beautiful and not to mention livable space. As it is Danville is over flowing with places to live and not enough people to fill these places. A move to build would be a move in futility and destruction in the name of making money, with absolutely no regard to the way the use of the land affects air quality, wildlife in Danville, in addition to traffic and cost of living." holli hoffman San Ramon, CA 3/25/2017 "I love where I live" Michael Kim Danville 3/26/2017 "There is way too much traffic in Camino tassajara and this land is designated for preservation and not for density in housing. Tassajara Elementary is already too filled and teacher to student ratio cannot get go up - please do not allow this development to happen" Mindy Wegner Danville 3/27/2017 "I am angrily opposed to the disregard of your voters and residents. We have voted to preserve this land as open, and are opposed to more sprawl in this impacted area." Susan frankel Danville 3/27/2017 "No need for this, just greed!" Julie Montoya Danville 3/27/2017 "Please leave this precious area untouched. This area is already so over developed and turning into a South SF look with high priced housing stacked ontop of eachother. Please and thank you!!" Y Gu 丹维尔 4/7/2017 "stop the greed and hold the urban limit line." Chris Siegler Livermore 4/15/2017 "Stop Dublins expansion." Maude Tabrizi Danville 4/15/2017 "Let's save what's left of those beautiful hills and nature....." Richard Mahan Danville 4/21/2017 "I provide volunteer maintennance for the One Room School directly accross Finley Rd from the proposed Staging Area. I think this will be an immense safety hazard, danger and general nuisance to the users of the One Room School." D Bhagat Danville 4/22/2017 "Please, no more urbanization! Let Danville maintain its status as a nice quaint town." Karen Perkins Walnut Creek 4/28/2017 "When you take away the rural quality of Danville, you take away it'sattractiveness to its' residents and others thinking of moving there.When you take away the rural quality of Danville, you take away its' beauty.Hold the urban limit line." Frank Ridley Danville 5/1/2017 "We don't need more development in the Tassajara Valley! Please vote no!" Steven Stuart Danville 5/4/2017 "I want to keep the farm areas and protected environments of Danville safe. So I and my kids are able to enjoy them. We already have too many cars and people. We don't need more." Harper Wong Danville 5/4/2017 "We moved here for the beauty of the Tassajara Hills in 1998. Since then the ranches farms and hills have become one sprawling subdivision, with pressure on traffic, facilities and schools. Enough is enough." Carol Baxter Danville 5/4/2017 "My kids attend Tassajara Hills Elem. and I do not want the extra traffic and increased student numbers at the school. And it's so beautiful and should not be destroyed for commercial gain." Sharon Colyar Clovis 5/5/2017 "California needs to protect its agricultural land from over development." Beverly Johnson Danville 5/5/2017 "When we moved to Danville over 23 years ago, we could hear the cows moo in the fields when we had our windows open. Now there is so much congested traffic on Camino Tassajara , it sounds like a freeway on the other side of my fence. Enough" Samuel Dusciuc Portland 5/6/2017 "Signing because it's the right thing to do." Maya Sommers Livermore 5/7/2017 "It is overcrowded and traffic is at an all time high. This area cannot sustain more homes, we do not have the overall infrastructure to support it!" Linda Plisskin Danville 5/7/2017 "I am opposed to the development which will cause too much additional traffic and put a strain on water resources. Please respect the will of the voters and the Urban Limit Line and reject this development." Katie Kuduk Dublin 5/7/2017 "Dublin is overcrowded as is, save open space!!!!" Vicki Nelson Pleasanton 5/15/2017 "I live less than one mile from the proposed development. I am adamantly opposed. Traffic is already out of control in this area. It is rural and cannot support any more development." Ruchi Bansal San Ramon 5/16/2017 "Please no more construction." jesse qian san francisco 5/17/2017 "The greed of the government official is endless and imagination poor. Use the existing "urban area" more smartly!!" Anita Laskaris St. Louis 5/17/2017 "Voters of Tassajara Valley expressed their opinion that this land must and should be protected. No more development destroying undeveloped land." Rich Lee San Francisco 5/17/2017 "Traffic congestion and preservation of agricultural space" Toby Armfield Danville 5/17/2017 "Do not want to see this land developed" Jenifer Zetlan Danville 5/17/2017 "I do not Support development on land slated for preservation" Sobia Qureshi dublin 5/17/2017 "STOP over development!" Marilyn Matli Danville 5/17/2017 "I completely oppose more development in this area .Our roads, schools neighborhoods and our infrastructure has already been adversely impacted .I strongly urge all residents to oppose further development in our county." Grace Hu Danville 5/18/2017 "I wish to keep the current open space in east Danville." Dave and Debbie Pursey Walnut Creek 5/18/2017 "I want to preserve or open space beauty" Dorothy Schatzinger Danville 5/18/2017 "I do not wish to see our town turn into Dublin!" MICHELLE SAUNDERS Danville 5/18/2017 "We have plenty of housing. Building will destroy the area we love." Charles GrOpne instead Diablo 5/18/2017 "Open space means just that. If the land was designated as protected agricultural land at one point, it should remain so." Rawad Khandakji Danville 5/18/2017 "My neighbor hood." padmavathi rajagopalan San Ramon 5/18/2017 "Pls preserve the beauty" lsmail mahomed San Ramon 5/18/2017 "I'm tired and distressed with all the development that's going on!@" Michele Suth Danville 5/18/2017 "No more new home construction in Tassajara Valley...roads, schools and area not able to support more growth. We are maxed out! No more!" M. Jawaid Danville 5/18/2017 "I'm signing as this is too close to our homes which already densely populated. Our Schools and roads are already clogged during peak hours. I will vote against any development in this ULL area." Thomas Hart Hart Danville 5/18/2017 "Enough unbridled growth. Can't we leave some space left open to enjoy?" Anwer Siddiqui Danville 5/18/2017 "County Supervisors, This is an appeal to reject development proposal and protect county's voters for Urban Limit Line meaning 'No Development outsite of the line' in Contra Costa County. Especially Tassahara Park, east of Danville CA." Ning Sun 丹维尔 5/19/2017 "I love nature! I love the quiet environment!" Liankwee Peterson Danville 5/23/2017 "I am signing this because I want to give the opportunity to our children to know more about this beautiful area that once was. We need 700 more votes to reach our goal. Please join me in supporting this initiative to preserve the limited natural land left for our children." John Peiler San Ramon 5/23/2017 "Preservation of our open space is of paramount importance, especially in the beautiful Tassajara Valley. If dollars are the only metric considered, we will lose the entire Tassajara Valley to development and I can think of nothing more horrendous than that for myself and my children. The valley is a local jewel and benefits many in the surrounding areas, not just those that live within it. It should be preserved, not sold to the highest bidder." Jacob Clarke Batavia 5/29/2017 "Cities need to be built like they are in Europe. As the population raises we are going to run out of land to put these foolishly designed mac-mansions and there will be nothing left for our wildlife." Madras Venkatesh Orinda 5/31/2017 "Respect the ULL. Remove the loopholes." phil ferrante San Ramon 5/31/2017 "Please protect this land and stop the sprawl." Susan Thomas Danville 6/15/2017 "I support NO development outside the ULL along Camino Tassajara east of Danville." Shirley Osmer Diablo 6/15/2017 "I want the Urban Limit line to stay as it is." David Lim San Ramon 6/17/2017 "I never want to see San Ramon and Danille turn into the sprawl as exhibited by Dublin. It is sad to see the sprawl Dublin is creating for itself and I am convinced the quality of life has been worsened for everyone in the neighboring cities. No more building in San Ramon and Danville." Linda Johnson Danville 6/18/2017 "I'm signing because our open spaces and wildlife corridors are essential to the well-being of ALL of us!! Don't pave over our beautiful natural places." Laelah Quintor San Ramon 7/7/2017 "I have owned a home in San Ramon for over 20 years and one of the first to purchase a new home in Windemere 15 years ago and as a homeowner, I have seen the traffic increase 1000%, police services are stretched to the limit, we have overflowing schools and the air quality is horrible from all of the traffic! This is not the San Ramon I once lived in. All of my neighbors have sold their homes and moved away! It's sad!" Bijoy Sarkar San Ramon 7/8/2017 "Protect Tassajara" Nancy McGrath Danville 7/10/2017 "I oppose the development overriding the ULL." Srividya Vallurupalli Danville 7/14/2017 "we live here since 2003 and my daughter goes to Tassajara Hills, we want our kids to raise how it was originally and don't want the city to get more crowded." Richard Gehring Danville 7/17/2017 "When and where do we stop? Time to draw the line on Camino Tassajara." Wendy HeThoen Danville 7/17/2017 "Camino Tassajara and Danville in general are far too congested as it is. The traffic is terrible." Richard Helton Danville 7/17/2017 "Because they're destroying what makes Danville so special.The scenary, the nature, the wildlife" Kim van horn Danville 7/17/2017 "Enough building - we will have a water shortage soon - how can you justify more homes?" Geoff Townsend Pleasanton 7/28/2017 "I bought my acreage (at great expense) outside city limits because I wanted my children to grow up in the country. We have ENOUGH houses in Dublin, we don't need more on Tassajara. If we break the zoning, it will not stop here. NO development OUTSIDE the line." Janet Mardirosian Concord 7/31/2017 "I grew up in the San Ramon Valley and rode all over the valley and the hills. Very little is left of what I remember as a great big playground of open spaces. The will of the people has been ignored for decades. There was a ridge line ordinance passed by VOTERS in San Ramon that forbid any homes visible from the valley floor... city councils came and went and the ordinance got axed without the consent of the voters who voted for it decades before. Now we see the same thing happening with the ULL... it's all about the money. Those in power can just move on without a care. Enough is enough." Joni Haddad Pleasanton 8/3/2017 "I'm signing because I live in the Tassajara Valley and I moved here because of the rural feel. Since we bought this property, we have seen a tremendous increase in traffic on Camino Tassara. We do not want to seen any more development inside the area." Albert ONeill San Ramon 8/15/2017 "Hidden valley is a treasure. Please don't waste it. No sprawl. I thought there were endangered species there, anyway.... what happened to that?" Gerald Ramos Oakland 8/20/2017 "We need to have some form of housing regulation to not only prevent overcrowding but also to preserve the very few open land that we left." Christopher Williams Sanford 8/20/2017 "NO MORE DEVELOPMENT!!!" Bryan Denman Danville 8/22/2017 "Slow development!" Dan Racz Winfield 8/22/2017 "It's the right thing to do" Tiffany Day Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 "We need to preserve open spaces for recreation, flora and fauna, and green belts." DeAnne Garrehy Pleasanton 8/23/2017 "Open space must be preserved!" Laura Hennon Danville 8/23/2017 "No more, stop the growth. We live here to have the small community feel. Our schools are busting at the seams. Stop this. You are ruining the value , beauty and future of this valley." Ryane Siegel San Ramon 8/23/2017 "We need to preserve the open space of this area and limit overpopulation." Colleen Kandus Temecula 8/23/2017 "I love that open space, and the value of it as open space is far greater than if it is developed." George Gerton Bryn Mawr 8/23/2017 "I grew up in this general area and greatly appreciated the open space. There is not much left now. Please do not extend development into this area." Lisa tooloee Alamo 8/23/2017 "Done and done!" Carrie Moniz Danville 8/24/2017 "Our beautiful valley is being paved over completely. Since my childhood I have watched the rolling hills and sprawling green meadows become bogged down by shopping centers and tract housing. We need to protect what makes this area beautiful. Enforce the boundary line that people have already voted on. Enough is enough." Linda Cianfrani Philadelphia 8/24/2017 "We must preserve our natural environments." Peter Palestino Philadelphia 8/24/2017 "If the land is protected it should stay that way . And if they let them build on it that would open up a door for others . Not just to build there but on other pieces of land also ." Sylvie Mackenzie Media 8/24/2017 "I'm signing because this over aggressive development all over open spaces in the us must stop. Same thing happening in my small PA town. Building and adding so many people per square feet, all piled up. This affects our quality of life, reducing open space, increasing pollution, affecting air quality, noise level, wild life and more. We and our children need open spaces." Monica Paiva Brentwood 8/24/2017 "The building needs to stop!! The hills have been ruined enough already!!" peri smith Manteca 8/24/2017 "The building is getting out of hand. Where are they going to put these people? The schools are at maximum capacity. Just because there's room to build doesn't mean there's room for more people." Wendy Dahlstrom Alamo 8/25/2017 "My in laws have a Ranch right next to Finley Road. They have owned for over 40 years." Chelsea Fisher Oakland 8/25/2017 "It's beautiful out there! Signed!" Robyn Chimenti San Ramon 8/25/2017 "Please STOP! No more growth in the Tri Valley!" Kathie Robson Placerville 8/26/2017 "The traffic in this area is already horrible!" Bruce Coblentz San Ramon 8/26/2017 "We have an urban limit line for s reason. Preserve the open and agricultural space and stop the unending development in those protected areas. There is plenty of infill to be developed and improved." Mark Robson Placerville 8/26/2017 "save our undeveloped land there very little left" angel Gallegos Dublin 8/26/2017 "Stop this building. There are not enough schools." Jamie Cody Auburn 8/27/2017 "There is already too much traffic in the area and adding more homes will only add to it. Also, taking land from local farmers and ranchers is not right." Jim Blickenstaff San Ramon 8/30/2017 "The Urban Limit Line is the most important tool we have to protect the 65% of the County that is still Open Space and Ag. Land. This plan, to develop 50 acres on the protected side of the line, would open the door to more and more destructive, sprawl development, on the WRONG side of the line. It would forever undermine the sanctity and purpose of the ULL." Chrystel Bausch Southampton 11/19/2017 "Save land" Rebekah Faust Danville 12/23/2017 Saunsiaray Broussard Draper 2/20/2018 "This land needs to be left alone!" Arne Haugland Pleasanton 2/21/2018 "NO MORE HOUSES - How can the county go against an existing law?" Barbara costello Dublin 2/23/2018 "There is no end to greed. If we don’t hold the ULL our valley will become wall to wall homes just like LA." Jane powell alamo 3/11/2018 "Apart from displacing the original residents, the wildlife, where will the water for this community come from?" Amanda Freer 3/11/2018 "Bay Area sprawl. Too many autos on 580 & 680" Todd Gary Alamo 3/11/2018 "Could the will of the voters be any clearer? Urban. Limit. Line. Limit=limit. Line=line. Don't cross it. Don't cross your voters. (Or they may cross you - right out of office.)" Nancy Amini Danville 3/11/2018 "Beauty of this magnitude must be protected in perpetuity. There's already too much traffic and too many people in the valley!" Alexandra Sheldon Cromwell 3/12/2018 "I grew up in Danville, and the joy of my youth (only in the 90s!) was walking the Tassajara Hills. Once development is done, it cannot be undone. Please preserve this slim remainder of ALREADY approved protected lands; your job is to respect the law, not to make exceptions to sell local land to the loss of all future generations." Christa Dodd Danville 3/16/2018 "I’m signing because the traffic and environmental impact is too high if development continues. Overcrowding impacts quality of health and education in my opinion and is unwise given the current housing density in our area." John Hailey DANVILLE 3/16/2018 "As one who has a degree in architecture and city and regional planning, who was employed by the County of Alameda as a land use planner, and subsequently pursued an energy management career with PG&E, and several high tech companies, I am aware how vitally important holding the limit line is." MARILYN L. KLUBENSPIES Congers 3/17/2018 "DO NOT SET PRECEDENTS!! FOLLOW THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE NOT THE INVADERS." Carrie Moniz Danville 3/17/2018 "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." Huda Soliman 3/19/2018 "Respect nature and wildlife. Enough, go by the freeways and do whatsoever. There is not enough open land for wildlife to live & survives within! They roams around houses and streets and get killed!" Jordan Cox Walnut Creek 3/20/2018 "This is right next to my children’s school and it would increase the traffic and be an extra thing to have to worry about." marla morang concord 3/20/2018 "Marla Morang" Gail Kamerer Danville 3/21/2018 "I am signing because it is important to leave pen space for people to enjoy. I love to drive out there to see cattle grazing and people riding horses." Bonny Wallace Danville 3/21/2018 "Honor the vote of the people. Our freeways, backroads and schools are crowded. We need to leave the beauty of the valley and hills for the next generation" Diane Thomas Alameda 3/21/2018 "I'm tired of the overcrowding in the Bay Area. All this development only benefits the developers. I think this state has exceeded it's capacity population wise." Daniel DeBusschere Orinda 3/23/2018 "There are several billion people in the world and if we build out every available square inch of land around us, they will all come and fill it with the corresponding stress on people and resources. There has to be some limits." Mark Gaddini CA 3/25/2018 "I grew up there and value the natural scenic beauty of the Tassajara Valley." Marsha J. Landau Alamo 3/26/2018 "Msrsha Anderson Landau" Sandy Mancini Danville 3/27/2018 "Sandy Mancini" Sandy Mancini Danville 3/27/2018 "We need to protect our agricultural and open spaces before there are none left!" Beverly Adair Oakland 3/31/2018 " Like open space." Nikolas Turek Naples 4/18/2018 "This planet is our home, work at leaving it in a better state them then when we entered it. Give back 2 things for every 1 thing we take." Laurie Moore Dublin 5/28/2018 "I have worked as a horse trainer on Tassajara Rd for 16 years. I have seen development happen from both sides (Danville and Dublin) of this road. It needs to stop! There are enough houses and people. We don’t need more in this area." Edward Zappettini San Ramon 9/6/2018 "Pat Bianchi I am vehemently opposed to this project proposing adding 125 homes to the Tasssjara Valley. It violates ULL. Being a property owner in this area it will bring huge traffic, congestion change our beautiful open space. Why is it that people who have no interest in this area think they have to right to tell the people who have invested their time and money to preserve land that we have to now accept congestion and over population. Do we have have to now look like Dublin which is a travesty and horribly ugly to look at and to drive through." Sinziana Todor 2/25/2020 "I am signing because we are in dire need to conserve any open space we still have available and prevent urban sprawl. Conservation should be number one priority for local and regional government since the land resources are limited, and once it is paved over, it cannot be undone!" doria wosk miami 9/19/2020 "PROTECT AND SAVE OUR PRECIOUS NATURE" Alison Hill Lafayette 9/24/2020 "We must combat Climate Change by decreasing urban sprawl and building sustainable infill housing." Barbara Hailey Danville 9/24/2020 "We need to preserve what open space we still have left." Andrew Chao Danville 9/24/2020 "I’m signing because this is a brazen attempt to profit by evading the law and the will of the people. There’s already too much of that chicanery going around." Debbie Anzilotti Danville 9/25/2020 "Keep what little of our open space open & pure" Vanessa Baumann Martinez 9/28/2020 "Vanessa Baumann" Jovita Mendoza Brentwood 9/28/2020 "Contra Costa needs to say NO to developers and protect our green space. We cannot let special interest make the decisions about what is best for residents!" Rod Flohr Brentwood 9/28/2020 "The voters have spoken on this issue many times at the polls. We voted to create the ULL and we voted to defend and maintain the ULL. Our public officials must respect the will of the people and not sell out to greed. These attempts to chip away at the ULL are ongoing and relentless. If we give in, the ULL will become meaningless." Anne Cavazos San Ramon 9/28/2020 "I would like to see our wild areas preserved for wildlife and future generations of humans to appreciate. We do not need more building outside of the urban limit lines. I will be checking to see which politicians are supporting this petition." Sheila Tarbet El Cerrito 9/28/2020 "I believe we need to protect our open space and build housing closer in to developed areas." Barry Brian Dresher 9/28/2020 "I support the current urban limit line. I wish us all to protect the over 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands." Nancy Rieser Crockett 9/28/2020 "We must protect our open spaces and watershed of Costa County!" Janet Pygeorge Hercules 9/28/2020 "Janet Pygeorge President Rodeo Citizens Association512 Barnes way rodeo Ca 94572" Joy Danzig Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 "I’m signing because voters made it known that there are limits to urban sprawl. We need every avenue to protect our environment from the current climate emergency." Jim Volsansky San Ramon 9/28/2020 "This growth has to stop. Our natural lands need to be preserved" Sandra Mazzara Danville 9/28/2020 "Please preserve protected open space for the sake of our children and the environment/climate." David Fitzgerald Concord 9/29/2020 "Developing more affordable housing is a big priority - developing more high cost housing sprawl should not be allowed." Frans Keulemans Pompano Beach 9/29/2020 "DUMP THE DUMB" Kunal Khaware Dublin 9/29/2020 "I am a Sierra Club member." Ida Martinac San Francisco 9/30/2020 "We cannot allow this slippery slope into even more urban development as it would further wreck the balance between man and nature, contribute to more fires, lack of habitat for animals, and numerous other environmental ills we cannot afford." Jeff Songster Martinez 10/1/2020 "Right thing to do..." Michael Margulis Danville 10/1/2020 "There is so much traffic on Camino Tassajara now. We can not afford another high density development in this already built out residential area." Kenneth Palmer Dawsonville 11/11/2020 "Danville is a shame! Just in it for the money! Stop the spread! Protect wildlife!" Lisa Jackson Walnut Creek 12/3/2020 "The Urban Limit line is there for a reason. We should not allow developments outside of that line." Mark Setterberg Houston 7/6/2021 "It's the right thing to do." "I want to protect the our local water systems, avoid polluting the air due to heavy traffic, and keeping the current eco-system in harmony." "The development is outside the voter mandated Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) and is not necessary as there is space WITHIN the ULL for further developoment. Also, if the county supervisors approve this development, it will establish a precedent for other developers to follow, and put at risk over 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands in the county to further development. The additional burden of increased traffic and strain on water resources will also negatively impact the existing residents and neighborhood. Development here makes no sense." "Development would be outside the limits, limited resources taxed and traffic congestion would be unbearable." "I support the current urban limit line and to prevent the sprawl that does nothing for our community and just enriches the developers. It also impacts the quality of our educational system here in the Tri-Valley as well." "I strongly support the ULL as it was designed and overwhelmingly approved a few years back. This is an encroachment that will add to the sprawl and stretch already strained resources." "Want to keep the beauty of Tassajara Valley. Plus the vote of the people means something! "We The People"" "No water infrastructure being provided to our neighborhood. No added benefit. will take our watershed away that feeds our wells." "There are too many houses already and the infrastructure to support the current developement cannot support it. Let alone more homes and drivers" "I feel future generations should be able to enjoy the tranquility and beauty the area provides. There is enough traffic in the area that already is at a dangerous level." "There is no need to develop outside the ULL with all the infill areas available. There is no water available. This development would worsen an already untenable traffic problem at the school adjacent to the build site." "The Urban Limit Line must be upheld. We have more than enough housing; we need to preserve ag land and open space." "Existing development East of Danville stresses existing transit and hydrology beyond reasonable limits. Infrastructure expansion would change characteristics of the area." "We need to protect our undeveloped areas, as well as our water resources which are so fragile. The voters want this area protected from developed and we want to keep it that way." "There is so little open space remaining in Danville proper--it is imperative that we preserve what is remaining for the protection and sanctuary of wildlife, to provide natural expanses for residents, and to allow for ease of ingress and egress to a traffic-weary body of citizens who have supported and called Danville home for years." "We are on a well. Looking at the slope of the terain, My instincts tell me the watershed from those hills is a significant source of water for my well." "Stop the urban sprawl. We have enough people and traffic as it is. You also will negatively affect our property values. Don't be like Dublin or San San Ramon." "We bought our house because it was close to open space - I would hate to see houses there. Not to mention taxing our resources (water, schools, etc.) Where would it end? Follow what the voters approved!!" "This development would ruin the tranquility and peacefulness of Tassajara Valley with too much traffic!" "Urban Limit Lines should not have convenient loopholes for developers. That is not what voters approved!! How much cumulative time and dollars has this developer cost our county over the past 3 years in proposing this development? Imagine what that could do for our schools!" "There is very little green space left in what has remained a beautiful, quaint town for so long. Let's not change that. There is a reason people choose Danville over surrounding towns; we must preserve the green space that makes Danville special. Not to mention the unnecessary traffic, noise and crime that comes along with such development!" "I've lived here for 50 years, we need to keep some open space, there's way to much traffic, etc. do not wreck the last of the open space." "I want the open view stay the way it is now. I love this area because this area is not crowded crazy like Dublin." "There is a reason that there is an urban limit line. I oppose this development. There is no "park" in Tassajara Parks. Preserve the land and show respect to the voters in this community. I am in District 2 and my husband and I won't vote for you Supervisor Anderson, if you approve this or the "Creekside Memorial Park" massive, urban cemetery." "Already too much traffic on tassajara. Love the last bit of country feel out their. Developers are ruining Danville/San Ramon/Dublin!" "Environmental Impact on overpopulated area without proper infastructure to handle traffic. Area is only accessible from the West and the South." "We have already voted against this. How do the supervisors have the authority to over-ride our vote?" "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" "I'm signing because open space needs to be preserved for quality of life. Other issues such as resource availability is also a concern. The Bay Area including Contra Costa County has become over populated and continual growth is not sustainable." "We need breathing space. The infill of any space in Dublin with houses is alarming. The traffic on Tassajara is at capacity. It now takes over 30 minutes to freeway when 5 years ago it took 12 minutes." "The traffic is already a mess with current population The very inconvenient and dangerous single lane road Camino Tassajara road cannot handle more cars" "I want to protect the beautiful tassajara valley and do not want any more housing. The traffic situation is already out of control on Tassajara. Schools are already overcrowed." "I'm fed up with too much development in our area and the impacts on traffic, schools, and the natural environment." "Local schools are already bursting at the seams. In addition, let's preserve the beautiful countryside that makes this area so unique!" "This area is overloaded with people and there is no water! We need our beautiful hills and wildlife" "Ive been living in Danville for 50 years, no more growth. Leave some original landscape. We used to be a small community, I don't want to see this become Walnut Creek." "Wir haben die Pflicht die Tiere und unseren Planeten zu respektieren und zu beschützen. Nehmen, Sie Ihre Verantwortung, bitte. Helfen und handeln Sie menschlich und zügig. Zivilisierte, Gesellschaft? Manche " Menschen " sind nicht über allem erhaben! Merci." "No one should build on urban land that voters voted to remain urban. It shouldn't even be a discussion." "From the time I moved here 15 years ago, we've lost so much of the open space and now all we see is a 'sea' of houses :(" "This is protected agricultural land and open space. This is a very bad precedent to start. Please reject this development proposal . NO DEVELOPMENT outside of the line!" "The original Urban Limit Line has already been encroached upon. Allowing additional development only compounds the problem of traffic and water. Land use planners have recommended for years that dense development be located near the transportation and employment corridors, and this location could not be further from either.It seems that the only people who will benefit are the developer and property owner at the expense of the rural/suburban lifestyle which makes Danville so special. This is not the proper location to address the Bay Area's housing shortage or affordability." "This area (Tassajara/I-680) is already too congested. We came here to be near open space; don't take that away by making Danville the center of a huge metropolis. The Urban Limit Line was put in place for good reasons. Don't let corporate greed be the reason the ULL is defeated." "Enough is enough! We have been on water restrictions, and have insufficient infrastructure to support these unwanted developments! Greedy developers , cities and county cashing in on profits and tax income by mandating these mid to high density projects. Shame on you! There are plenty of these already in the San Ramon and Danville area." "Too congested, too crowded. Too much traffic and too much noise. Also Open Space is beautiful and needed to add value to our current homes." "We desperately need to preserve our limited amounts of open space and stop the urban sprawl. Our roads are already too congested and our resources are much too limited. It makes no sense to add to an already existing problem just for the sake of profiteering!" "Because it violates the law that was established to create & protect the Urban Limit Line. If the line should change it should only be changed by another ballot of the people." "This project is beyond the bounds of the urban limit line and will just encourage more building to increase sprawl on Agricultural land. We are encouraging the area to change and look more and more like Los Angeles with all it's problems such as traffic, and before this years unusual rain all the problems from draught conditions." "I live right next to this land and I don't want more houses in my community. There are always so many new houses being built in this area that the natural beauty just isn't there anymore." "Enough new houses are built now. We must keep our countryside for the farmers and the horse stables. We will lose everything if you continue to build up the area." "Many of us moved to this area because of the beautiful valley and the peace. We don't need another crowded Dublin . It's good to have at least this area in between danville and Dublin beautiful and untouched. Schools are already overcrowded and the traffic is bad enough. I can't imagine what will happen with more houses in the area." "Enough is enough...Too much open spaace is already being eaten up and support infrastructure already overtaxed" "Too many of the surrounding hills have already been developed over the past 15 years. No alternate routes to Tassajara Road have been added to accommodate increased traffic congestion. Now you want to add another development and increase noise and traffic further to our existing nearby communities." "I am from this area. I recently moved because of the diminishing quality of life caused by over-development." "I am signing because I speculate the jamming of traffic after increasing 125 houses in this community." "Our beautiful hills have been developed too quickly. The infrastructure can not keep pace. Keep Camino Tassajara free." "Camino Tassajara CANNOT handle any more traffic. The road between Shadowcreek and Blackhawk Plaza is gridlocked every morning." "The urban limit line was initiated to save our open space and should not be overridden. We already have insufficient infrastructure to handle the people we already serve...leave our green space!" "I watched the development of Alamo Creek and Monterosso against voter approval - PLEASE observe the wishes of the voters and residents and curb development in this area." "Congestion and traffic!!! And what about the water!! Will a lawn never be allowed again when we have to provide for even more people?! Our neighborhoods will become dust bowls!" "There's absolutely NO WAY our community can handle the additional traffic and I won't even bring up the over crowdness of students to impact our schools. Not like we get enough money for them anyway...! Stop the Greediness" "Enough Growth Out infrastructure can't support it Stop it now San Ramon has hurt this area with its limitless growth" "Danville has so much traffic now. We need to preserve open space so we an remember Danville the way it used to be." "I believe in keeping development within the urban limit lines, keeping open space available for wild creatures and ag use." "I'm signing because the land needs to stay preserved and the building needs to stop! The beauty of the hills is being destroyed by greed." "open space is needed for so many reasons, trees that give us oxygen, valleys that help our creeks, bird and animal habitat that feed our soul" "NO MORE high density development. Save the open space!!! There is no infrastructure to support development." "Voters spoke clearly for open space and containing sprawl when they mandated the urban limit line. That line should be respected." "I have lived out in this area for 40 years! Leave the open space!! That's what makes it charming here! Makes me sick to have more homes! NO REASON!!!!" "I have lived in the tassajara valley for 23 years I have seen the impacts of increased housing, poor planning, and the lack of regard for health, safety, and welfare of current residents. County planning has changed the environment and quality of life with their past approvals against the will of the people and it needs to stop." "I have commuted everyday for 24 years and I live with the uncontrollable congestion - I used to enjoy my commute but now it is horrendous. More importantly - and I cannot STRESS this enough - is the water situation. How can you build in good conscious knowing that we are on the brink of drought - it is irresponsible." "Extending the line for this development will ruin the culture and beauty of our community. We do not want houses blanketing the hills. Leave that for Fremont etc. No more urban sprawl" "Do NOT want this land to be converted into homes resulting in loss of urban space and more traffic!" "Signing because this is home to me and I like to come home and see grass not the development I leave down south from." "i've lived in danville my entire life and i don't want to see the vast green space of the valley, which is what makes it so special, destroyed by selfish desires for profits and further development" "enough with development, the congestion is already insane during rush hour. you are destroying all the reason we moved here in the first place." "We need more dense housing, not more sprawl and congestion. This is nothing more than a land grab and deal for developers/local politicians to line their pockets" "Im signing because thinking of these rolling hills brings me back home and it is so unique to this part of California. We have enough houses. Give the land a break." "The ULL need to hold. Breaking that trust would be a huge mistake for the valley and th people that love it." "The area is already over crowded. Schools and roads are heavily impacted already and drought rates have been in effect for 6 years now. More homes negatively impacts all." "Once I got my liscense, one of my favorite things to do was to drive through the back roads of the tassajara hills, explore them, and just escape. My childhood home was near hills and you could I always find me roaming around in them enjoying the nature of them. As well, there is enough traffic on the roads I the bay as it is, we do not need to bring in more people to an already heavily populated area" "I'm signing because since I moved here with my small children 13 years ago, I have seen the peaceful rural area outside our East Gate area change due to new construction. The new homes have resulted in moretraffic, less parking, more crime- all negatively impacting our area and town. Why add to the already impacted services - schools, retail, etc. with more urban blight? What used to be a beautiful country road with horses, trees, gorgeous green or golden hills is nearly gone. What a shame." "We need to preserve the beauty of the valley and its open space, which make this area so special. We do not need more seas of homes as it will just make the traffic even more unbearable!" "I have lived here for over 20 years. It seems like they build on every vacant lot there is. Can't we just leave well enough alone. Let's enjoy the beautiful nature of the area." "I love seeing the beautiful hills every time I drive by. I've been growing up my entire life in Danville and am saddened by all of the construction and housing being made. I want to keep our area green and natural as was and as it should be." "We need to keep our agricultural and open space protected from further urban sprawl. That area is already congested with all the new development from Alamo creek north and the new development south in Dublin." "We need to protect our land while we still have it. They should just renovate old buildings instead of destroying untouched land." "East Bay MUD has fought this in the past because there isn't enough water!!! And now the traffic on Camino Tassajara has become an issue!!! The previous developments were constructed after a public NO vote! Are you saying voting no longer means anything?..." "Enough building already! Leave some space for us and the animals to enjoy. We are already overcrowded." "We need open space, and our area is already so over developed. Traffic is awful, and resources are strained." "I believe we should keep development within the approved urban limit line. Allowing 1 developer means you must allow others to do the same." "I'm opposed to development of rural areas of Tassajara Valley. This is a key issue for me and I'll deny my vote to my county supervisor based on their response to this issue" "We have lived here 30 years and regarding urban sprawl well, enough is enough. Our once charming valley is rapidly losing its small town feel and rural beauty." "I do not want Danville to become another Dublin. No more houses! Keep our beautiful rolling hills as they are." "This land needs to be preserved. Please don't build developments here as it will increase traffic, change the landscape, etc." "There is more than enough development for our roads and stores to handle admit is. Stop the building!!!!!!!" "Keep the open space protected from development. What a great space that we need to protect from urban sprawl." "My children and I love cows and wild animals that resides through those valleys and meadows. We will be heart broken if those are no longer there..." "Because the preservation of this land is critical to maintaining the integrity and quality of living in the valley. The sprawling open space, rolling hills, and trails in this area are what make it so special to grow up in. Preserve it's integrity." "What are we doing to our wonderful town of Danville. It will go from town to city! Stop the madness!!" "This development will increase the growing traffic problem in Danville and help diminish the quality of life for the current Danville residents." "We moved here because of the beautiful open land, fresh air, and small town feel. That is why we fell in love with Danville. Development needs to STOP." "I am signing because I am against the Tassajara Parks development . Even more so since it encroaches on the county's agricultural lands and open spaces within Danville." "Green lands are disappearing right before our eyes and replaced with ugly highly populated new developments without any infrastructure to support it especially with Tassajara being the main back road single lane. KEEP CALIFORNIA GREEN" "Enough is enough! Our schools are impacted, our town is full! We don't want to. Residents here don't want to live in Dublin or Walnut Creek-like cities. We want a small town feel with rolling, green hills and open space." "Dublin is out of control with new development. I moved here because of the Natural open setting and the beautiful landscape. The proposed development brings unwanted traffic through Camino Tassajara. Have you seen the morning traffic! I'm opposed to this proposal." "We have been having losing open spaces in a drastic manner in the Dublin and San Ramon side and we need to stop that." "Please reject this development. We already have issues with the new Alamo Creek and Iron Oak Developments. as well as at the other end of Tassajara by Dublin with all of the new homes there. There is only a 1 lane road each way through here. The traffic in and out of our neighborhood is ridiculous and the number of children with relation to schools available is not optimal. Are you expecting all of these new families to go to just one high school which already takes 50 mins to drive to every morning? In addition to all the water necessary to service these new homes . We need to put a stop to the building. It is enough. The ULL was set and should not be changed or modified for developer's profits." "enough traffic is enough. Time to put the interest of the tax payers above your own pockets and ambitions!!" "Enough of high density homes & pollution from traffic...let's preserve our open spaces for a better quality of life ...for our future generation!" "This proposal is outrageous and infringes on approved protected land that makes this part of Danvile and Danvile area beautiful and inspiring for all leaving in the Danville area." "We already have way toooooo many people in Danville over the last decade. No more development please." "This place is going crazy and becoming a concrete jungle. Let's please put an end and let's preserve the remaining beautiful landscape and wildlife that are dependent on this." "Infrastructure doesn't support more development. We need to save agriculture and open space. Both are important but #1 is a critical mistake for the entire county. Please fix it now!" "Please stop building!! We moved to this area for this beauty. There isn't enough schools or general resources, just stop!" "I am signing to help preserve the precious remaining open space in Tassajara Valley. I am firmly against any additional urban development. The open space in and around Danville is one of the many reasons I have made Danville my families home." "I do not want to see open space turned into housing developments. We do not need more housing." "Danville streets are already far too crowded. We do NOT need another 300 cars added to the madness." "There's so much development in the area and there's too much traffic. Dublin is already contributing too much to the traffic." "This is the most beautiful part of the entire Bay Area... I grew up in Danville. Sell this precious land to the highest bidder for track housing and you've sold the heart, history and beauty of the Contra Costs hills with it." "It's a protected land, beautiful, and it's not respecting the will of the county’s voters. Don't destroy the beauty and home of nature, animals, and a part of what makes that area special. I am in that part of the city all the time and will be very pissed and saddened if it was destroyed and taken over... It is PROTECTED!!!!!" "The Bay Area has been on the frontline of preserving open spaces and restricting urban sprawl. This project must be stopped." "Parking and traffic are already impacted in our sweet town. We live here because we don't want to turn into San Ramon or Dublin. Please vote no!" "I love our small town and am already sad about all the building. Our town is getting too crowded and schools are all full. Let's please save our small town feel." "Roads and schools are over crowded already. Don't need Danville turning into that crap over on Bollinger rd, Windermere." "I want to keep the beautiful view and nature but not the traffic and pollution in our county. Let's keep the quality of life that our county's residents now enjoy." "There are hundreds of empty, foreclosed and unclaimed homes, why should we keep building more homes when the available homes are going unused." "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." "We need to preserve open areas. There is already too much developments in our surrounding valleys." "We need to preserve open space, Danville's small town community feel and the Town's character. The ULL is the will of the voters and town and MUST be both respected and honored. If you want to change it, put it on the ballot and to the citizens of Danville." "The open spaces of Nor Cal are gorgeous, help keep traffic bearable and distinguish us from Los Angeles." "If you move the line for one person, then move it for all. Not fair to other landowners. We don't need more houses, more traffic, more problems." "Please reject the "Tassajara Parks" development proposal to avoid setting a precedent that will put at risk 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands." "We don't need more houses in Danville. Traffic is becoming horrible and schools are crowded. We moved here for the small town feel." "The land proposed for the development is OUTSIDE the Urban Limit Line. The voters were expressing their clear intent that such land be maintained under its existing agricultural and open space use designations in the County's General Plan and not be changed to residential uses. If approved, this project will be the template for many more such Urban Limit Line encroachments into our precious and shrinking Ag. and Open Space lands. Supervisors: JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "I'm signing this petition because YOUR voters already made our wishes clear -- why are you allowing anybody to solicit otherwise?! WE ALREADY SAID no more development!! Listen to us -- we're still a democracy, right? Our county is becoming Los Angeles. Represent the voice of your voters!!!!" "1) We have a Urban Limit Line. 2) Note the water flowing. This feeds underground water tables3) Look at Dublin and traffic. There are enough homes developed." "This development will threaten the lives of school children at the adjacent middle school where traffic congestion is already dangerous. Kill this project before innocent children are harmed." "This is "protected land"!! There is too much chaotic development already in Contra Costa County, and there are many negative consequences of this - one being the detrimental effect on wildlife!! Please REJECT this proposal and listen to the will of the voters for a change and have respect for the Urban Limit Line, if not the actual people who live in the county!" "Our resources are already taxed. I moved here for the small town feel. I am against over population and low income housing." "We love the open space and there are already plenty of new housing developments within a few mins drive in San Ramon and Dublin. Construction is already at every turn and we need to preserve as much natural open space as possible especially if neighboring cities won't." "Jamming what little space is left is like putting more cars on the roads, students into classrooms, not receiving proper road maintenance, creating more road rage, making a beautiful area much like a crowded large city anywhere.Why? There are giant areas of space in many other areas with plenty of room to roam." "I love the beautiful hills and serenity of this neighborhood. I've seen the beautiful mountains on Tassajara being destroyed in Dublin. I had little bit of relief that San Ramon was untouched by those corrupt city councils who do not care for environment at all. I'm glad to see this petition and to see so many people raising their voice against these constructions." "This development proposal is basically an end-run around the ULL. Voters have clearly wanted the ULL to be maintained. Our county supervisors should reject this proposal, as it is at odds with the spirit and intent of the ULL." "The voters thoughtfully accepted a ULL several years ago. Presenrvation amendments will subvert the good faith of the electorate. Vote NO oon Tassajara.Tassajara will further compromise limited water resources, environment, traffic problems, shcools etc. Vote no on Tassajara Parks" "In the last 10 years this area has changed dramatically. Dublin is an eyesore. Danville is unique and should be protected. Stop building. Stop overcrowding. Stop increased water use. Stop the schools from exploding. Just stop BUILDING on the remaining open space" "We need Open Space! More houses will mean more people, cars, air and water pollution, traffic, water shortages! Don't need this so some guy can get rich! STOP IT!" "Please protect our open space. The voters have chosen to protect this space several times. Please listen to the voters." "Contra Costa County already too dense and too much traffic . Urban limit lines were drawn for this very reason! Keep it!" "Too many houses !!! Need to keep open space to keep the area enjoyable !! Don't go against what voters already demanded. If I were them I'd file a lawsuit to block this development if it's approved" "The county residents have voted.The county is already WAY overdeveloped.The Urban Limit Line was approved.That's that...unless, of course, only money speaks a language that our supervisors understand. Shame on them." "This proposed development would hugely impact much of what we hold dear environmentally . Please don't approve something that besides, would set a precedent for future development in our county." "I worked on the campaign to defeat 2010's Measure W in San Ramon. that was going to develop outside the urban limit line. The vast majority of voters (71.37%) voted no. This has already been decided! Listen to your constituents local government or get voted out!" "People who buy this beauty and solitude do so for a reason, otherwise we'd live in town. Stay away." "I am absolutely sick of not being able to get where I need to go when I need to get there. I am moving in 3 years and can't wait to get out of this overdeveloped and ruined place!!!!" "I have lived in danville my entire life. I used to love watching the cows graze and the rolling hills of Camino Tassajara. It was beautiful. We recently moved out of Danville because the congestion is so bad. We need open space for animals, for our health, to teach our children what this earth really looks like, should continue looking like, and how to take care of our planet. Head East developers. Stop ruining this beautiful small town with more traffic and congestio" "We need to protect Costra Costa County open space. One of the main benefits of living in the East Bay is the open space. This is a serious threat to the entire community." "Please reject this development proposal and respect the will of the county's voters that the Uraban Limit line means "no development outside of the line". Thank you." "Voter mandate must be adhered to. The infrastructure to handle additional population is not yet in place. Crowded roads, water, etc." "We have to stop this crazy growth, Infrastructure does not support this. Traffic on freeways is bad now imagine what it would turn into!! STOP!!!!!!!!!" "Dear Candace Anderson and other Supervisors,As a resident of CCC and Lafayette, I treasure our open spaces. The open space and trees are two of the primary draws when we chose to invest in this part of the East Bay. Please do not approve the Tassajara Parks development which is outside the ULL. Voters and residents have mandated open space in our county because we feel it is of great value. Do not make a choice that does not align with residents' values." "The quality of life in our area is largely a function of the remaining areas of open space. Also, additional housing density and population will add stress to already limited infrastructure and services." "What is happening to our beautiful valley is terrible! We have got to stop this over development of our beautiful open space!" "I am a conservationist, once our open space is gone, there is no going back! I say, stick to the urban limit lines and stop allowing the developers to attempt to encroach on this limits!" "Additional housing will increase traffic and strain our already strained infrastructure. Water, roads, schools, etc. Build it and they will come is over rated and causing overcrowding. Not to mention the high density housing is an eyesore and not attractively designed at all. Home upon home as closely packed together as possible, all straight up and no space between properties." "Besides the need to keep open space, I believe we can't build more homes until we provide more highways and transportation to move all these people around. The roads and freeways are at a stand still most of the day now and more homes will make it worse. Build the freeways now before the homes while space is still available. We won't need homes because we will be living in our cars stuck in traffic." "I know the beautiful hills of Tassajara Valley and would be greatly saddened to see it developed. Please respect the Urban Limit Line! Thank you!" "The town of Dnaville are a bunch of crooks that care nothing for what actually makes this town a nice place to live. Urban sprawl will overflow our roads and schools and criminally damage the beauty of our town." "My grandchildren go to school at T.H.E school. It s important to me that they grow up in the environment that their parents chose for them, not urban sprawl, but the tranquility of open space." "I respect the rights of other living things and strongly believe this land is not ours to build upon. The greenery is part of what Danville such a beautiful and not to mention livable space. As it is Danville is over flowing with places to live and not enough people to fill these places. A move to build would be a move in futility and destruction in the name of making money, with absolutely no regard to the way the use of the land affects air quality, wildlife in Danville, in addition to traffic and cost of living." "There is way too much traffic in Camino tassajara and this land is designated for preservation and not for density in housing. Tassajara Elementary is already too filled and teacher to student ratio cannot get go up - please do not allow this development to happen" "I am angrily opposed to the disregard of your voters and residents. We have voted to preserve this land as open, and are opposed to more sprawl in this impacted area." "Please leave this precious area untouched. This area is already so over developed and turning into a South SF look with high priced housing stacked ontop of eachother. Please and thank you!!" "I provide volunteer maintennance for the One Room School directly accross Finley Rd from the proposed Staging Area. I think this will be an immense safety hazard, danger and general nuisance to the users of the One Room School." "When you take away the rural quality of Danville, you take away it'sattractiveness to its' residents and others thinking of moving there.When you take away the rural quality of Danville, you take away its' beauty.Hold the urban limit line." "I want to keep the farm areas and protected environments of Danville safe. So I and my kids are able to enjoy them. We already have too many cars and people. We don't need more." "We moved here for the beauty of the Tassajara Hills in 1998. Since then the ranches farms and hills have become one sprawling subdivision, with pressure on traffic, facilities and schools. Enough is enough." "My kids attend Tassajara Hills Elem. and I do not want the extra traffic and increased student numbers at the school. And it's so beautiful and should not be destroyed for commercial gain." "When we moved to Danville over 23 years ago, we could hear the cows moo in the fields when we had our windows open. Now there is so much congested traffic on Camino Tassajara , it sounds like a freeway on the other side of my fence. Enough" "It is overcrowded and traffic is at an all time high. This area cannot sustain more homes, we do not have the overall infrastructure to support it!" "I am opposed to the development which will cause too much additional traffic and put a strain on water resources. Please respect the will of the voters and the Urban Limit Line and reject this development." "I live less than one mile from the proposed development. I am adamantly opposed. Traffic is already out of control in this area. It is rural and cannot support any more development." "The greed of the government official is endless and imagination poor. Use the existing "urban area" more smartly!!" "Voters of Tassajara Valley expressed their opinion that this land must and should be protected. No more development destroying undeveloped land." "I completely oppose more development in this area .Our roads, schools neighborhoods and our infrastructure has already been adversely impacted .I strongly urge all residents to oppose further development in our county." "Open space means just that. If the land was designated as protected agricultural land at one point, it should remain so." "No more new home construction in Tassajara Valley...roads, schools and area not able to support more growth. We are maxed out! No more!" "I'm signing as this is too close to our homes which already densely populated. Our Schools and roads are already clogged during peak hours. I will vote against any development in this ULL area." "County Supervisors, This is an appeal to reject development proposal and protect county's voters for Urban Limit Line meaning 'No Development outsite of the line' in Contra Costa County. Especially Tassahara Park, east of Danville CA." "I am signing this because I want to give the opportunity to our children to know more about this beautiful area that once was. We need 700 more votes to reach our goal. Please join me in supporting this initiative to preserve the limited natural land left for our children." "Preservation of our open space is of paramount importance, especially in the beautiful Tassajara Valley. If dollars are the only metric considered, we will lose the entire Tassajara Valley to development and I can think of nothing more horrendous than that for myself and my children. The valley is a local jewel and benefits many in the surrounding areas, not just those that live within it. It should be preserved, not sold to the highest bidder." "Cities need to be built like they are in Europe. As the population raises we are going to run out of land to put these foolishly designed mac-mansions and there will be nothing left for our wildlife." "I never want to see San Ramon and Danille turn into the sprawl as exhibited by Dublin. It is sad to see the sprawl Dublin is creating for itself and I am convinced the quality of life has been worsened for everyone in the neighboring cities. No more building in San Ramon and Danville." "I'm signing because our open spaces and wildlife corridors are essential to the well-being of ALL of us!! Don't pave over our beautiful natural places." "I have owned a home in San Ramon for over 20 years and one of the first to purchase a new home in Windemere 15 years ago and as a homeowner, I have seen the traffic increase 1000%, police services are stretched to the limit, we have overflowing schools and the air quality is horrible from all of the traffic! This is not the San Ramon I once lived in. All of my neighbors have sold their homes and moved away! It's sad!" "we live here since 2003 and my daughter goes to Tassajara Hills, we want our kids to raise how it was originally and don't want the city to get more crowded." "I bought my acreage (at great expense) outside city limits because I wanted my children to grow up in the country. We have ENOUGH houses in Dublin, we don't need more on Tassajara. If we break the zoning, it will not stop here. NO development OUTSIDE the line." "I grew up in the San Ramon Valley and rode all over the valley and the hills. Very little is left of what I remember as a great big playground of open spaces. The will of the people has been ignored for decades. There was a ridge line ordinance passed by VOTERS in San Ramon that forbid any homes visible from the valley floor... city councils came and went and the ordinance got axed without the consent of the voters who voted for it decades before. Now we see the same thing happening with the ULL... it's all about the money. Those in power can just move on without a care. Enough is enough." "I'm signing because I live in the Tassajara Valley and I moved here because of the rural feel. Since we bought this property, we have seen a tremendous increase in traffic on Camino Tassara. We do not want to seen any more development inside the area." "Hidden valley is a treasure. Please don't waste it. No sprawl. I thought there were endangered species there, anyway.... what happened to that?" "We need to have some form of housing regulation to not only prevent overcrowding but also to preserve the very few open land that we left." "No more, stop the growth. We live here to have the small community feel. Our schools are busting at the seams. Stop this. You are ruining the value , beauty and future of this valley." "I grew up in this general area and greatly appreciated the open space. There is not much left now. Please do not extend development into this area." "Our beautiful valley is being paved over completely. Since my childhood I have watched the rolling hills and sprawling green meadows become bogged down by shopping centers and tract housing. We need to protect what makes this area beautiful. Enforce the boundary line that people have already voted on. Enough is enough." "If the land is protected it should stay that way . And if they let them build on it that would open up a door for others . Not just to build there but on other pieces of land also ." "I'm signing because this over aggressive development all over open spaces in the us must stop. Same thing happening in my small PA town. Building and adding so many people per square feet, all piled up. This affects our quality of life, reducing open space, increasing pollution, affecting air quality, noise level, wild life and more. We and our children need open spaces." "The building is getting out of hand. Where are they going to put these people? The schools are at maximum capacity. Just because there's room to build doesn't mean there's room for more people." "We have an urban limit line for s reason. Preserve the open and agricultural space and stop the unending development in those protected areas. There is plenty of infill to be developed and improved." "There is already too much traffic in the area and adding more homes will only add to it. Also, taking land from local farmers and ranchers is not right." "The Urban Limit Line is the most important tool we have to protect the 65% of the County that is still Open Space and Ag. Land. This plan, to develop 50 acres on the protected side of the line, would open the door to more and more destructive, sprawl development, on the WRONG side of the line. It would forever undermine the sanctity and purpose of the ULL." "There is no end to greed. If we don’t hold the ULL our valley will become wall to wall homes just like LA." "Apart from displacing the original residents, the wildlife, where will the water for this community come from?" "Could the will of the voters be any clearer? Urban. Limit. Line. Limit=limit. Line=line. Don't cross it. Don't cross your voters. (Or they may cross you - right out of office.)" "Beauty of this magnitude must be protected in perpetuity. There's already too much traffic and too many people in the valley!" "I grew up in Danville, and the joy of my youth (only in the 90s!) was walking the Tassajara Hills. Once development is done, it cannot be undone. Please preserve this slim remainder of ALREADY approved protected lands; your job is to respect the law, not to make exceptions to sell local land to the loss of all future generations." "I’m signing because the traffic and environmental impact is too high if development continues. Overcrowding impacts quality of health and education in my opinion and is unwise given the current housing density in our area." "As one who has a degree in architecture and city and regional planning, who was employed by the County of Alameda as a land use planner, and subsequently pursued an energy management career with PG&E, and several high tech companies, I am aware how vitally important holding the limit line is." "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." "Respect nature and wildlife. Enough, go by the freeways and do whatsoever. There is not enough open land for wildlife to live & survives within! They roams around houses and streets and get killed!" "This is right next to my children’s school and it would increase the traffic and be an extra thing to have to worry about." "I am signing because it is important to leave pen space for people to enjoy. I love to drive out there to see cattle grazing and people riding horses." "Honor the vote of the people. Our freeways, backroads and schools are crowded. We need to leave the beauty of the valley and hills for the next generation" "I'm tired of the overcrowding in the Bay Area. All this development only benefits the developers. I think this state has exceeded it's capacity population wise." "There are several billion people in the world and if we build out every available square inch of land around us, they will all come and fill it with the corresponding stress on people and resources. There has to be some limits." "This planet is our home, work at leaving it in a better state them then when we entered it. Give back 2 things for every 1 thing we take." "I have worked as a horse trainer on Tassajara Rd for 16 years. I have seen development happen from both sides (Danville and Dublin) of this road. It needs to stop! There are enough houses and people. We don’t need more in this area." "Pat Bianchi I am vehemently opposed to this project proposing adding 125 homes to the Tasssjara Valley. It violates ULL. Being a property owner in this area it will bring huge traffic, congestion change our beautiful open space. Why is it that people who have no interest in this area think they have to right to tell the people who have invested their time and money to preserve land that we have to now accept congestion and over population. Do we have have to now look like Dublin which is a travesty and horribly ugly to look at and to drive through." "I am signing because we are in dire need to conserve any open space we still have available and prevent urban sprawl. Conservation should be number one priority for local and regional government since the land resources are limited, and once it is paved over, it cannot be undone!" "We must combat Climate Change by decreasing urban sprawl and building sustainable infill housing." "I’m signing because this is a brazen attempt to profit by evading the law and the will of the people. There’s already too much of that chicanery going around." "Contra Costa needs to say NO to developers and protect our green space. We cannot let special interest make the decisions about what is best for residents!" "The voters have spoken on this issue many times at the polls. We voted to create the ULL and we voted to defend and maintain the ULL. Our public officials must respect the will of the people and not sell out to greed. These attempts to chip away at the ULL are ongoing and relentless. If we give in, the ULL will become meaningless." "I would like to see our wild areas preserved for wildlife and future generations of humans to appreciate. We do not need more building outside of the urban limit lines. I will be checking to see which politicians are supporting this petition." "I support the current urban limit line. I wish us all to protect the over 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands." "I’m signing because voters made it known that there are limits to urban sprawl. We need every avenue to protect our environment from the current climate emergency." "Developing more affordable housing is a big priority - developing more high cost housing sprawl should not be allowed." "We cannot allow this slippery slope into even more urban development as it would further wreck the balance between man and nature, contribute to more fires, lack of habitat for animals, and numerous other environmental ills we cannot afford." "There is so much traffic on Camino Tassajara now. We can not afford another high density development in this already built out residential area." "The development is outside the voter mandated Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) and is not necessary as there is space WITHIN the ULL for further developoment. Also, if the county supervisors approve this development, it will establish a precedent for other developers to follow, and put at risk over 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands in the county to further development. The additional burden of increased traffic and strain on water resources will also negatively impact the existing residents and neighborhood. Development here makes no sense." "There is so little open space remaining in Danville proper--it is imperative that we preserve what is remaining for the protection and sanctuary of wildlife, to provide natural expanses for residents, and to allow for ease of ingress and egress to a traffic-weary body of citizens who have supported and called Danville home for years." "Urban Limit Lines should not have convenient loopholes for developers. That is not what voters approved!! How much cumulative time and dollars has this developer cost our county over the past 3 years in proposing this development? Imagine what that could do for our schools!" "There is very little green space left in what has remained a beautiful, quaint town for so long. Let's not change that. There is a reason people choose Danville over surrounding towns; we must preserve the green space that makes Danville special. Not to mention the unnecessary traffic, noise and crime that comes along with such development!" "There is a reason that there is an urban limit line. I oppose this development. There is no "park" in Tassajara Parks. Preserve the land and show respect to the voters in this community. I am in District 2 and my husband and I won't vote for you Supervisor Anderson, if you approve this or the "Creekside Memorial Park" massive, urban cemetery." "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" "Wir haben die Pflicht die Tiere und unseren Planeten zu respektieren und zu beschützen. Nehmen, Sie Ihre Verantwortung, bitte. Helfen und handeln Sie menschlich und zügig. Zivilisierte, Gesellschaft? Manche " Menschen " sind nicht über allem erhaben! Merci." "The original Urban Limit Line has already been encroached upon. Allowing additional development only compounds the problem of traffic and water. Land use planners have recommended for years that dense development be located near the transportation and employment corridors, and this location could not be further from either.It seems that the only people who will benefit are the developer and property owner at the expense of the rural/suburban lifestyle which makes Danville so special. This is not the proper location to address the Bay Area's housing shortage or affordability." "This area (Tassajara/I-680) is already too congested. We came here to be near open space; don't take that away by making Danville the center of a huge metropolis. The Urban Limit Line was put in place for good reasons. Don't let corporate greed be the reason the ULL is defeated." "Enough is enough! We have been on water restrictions, and have insufficient infrastructure to support these unwanted developments! Greedy developers , cities and county cashing in on profits and tax income by mandating these mid to high density projects. Shame on you! There are plenty of these already in the San Ramon and Danville area." "We desperately need to preserve our limited amounts of open space and stop the urban sprawl. Our roads are already too congested and our resources are much too limited. It makes no sense to add to an already existing problem just for the sake of profiteering!" "This project is beyond the bounds of the urban limit line and will just encourage more building to increase sprawl on Agricultural land. We are encouraging the area to change and look more and more like Los Angeles with all it's problems such as traffic, and before this years unusual rain all the problems from draught conditions." "Many of us moved to this area because of the beautiful valley and the peace. We don't need another crowded Dublin . It's good to have at least this area in between danville and Dublin beautiful and untouched. Schools are already overcrowded and the traffic is bad enough. I can't imagine what will happen with more houses in the area." "Too many of the surrounding hills have already been developed over the past 15 years. No alternate routes to Tassajara Road have been added to accommodate increased traffic congestion. Now you want to add another development and increase noise and traffic further to our existing nearby communities." "I have lived in the tassajara valley for 23 years I have seen the impacts of increased housing, poor planning, and the lack of regard for health, safety, and welfare of current residents. County planning has changed the environment and quality of life with their past approvals against the will of the people and it needs to stop." "I have commuted everyday for 24 years and I live with the uncontrollable congestion - I used to enjoy my commute but now it is horrendous. More importantly - and I cannot STRESS this enough - is the water situation. How can you build in good conscious knowing that we are on the brink of drought - it is irresponsible." "Once I got my liscense, one of my favorite things to do was to drive through the back roads of the tassajara hills, explore them, and just escape. My childhood home was near hills and you could I always find me roaming around in them enjoying the nature of them. As well, there is enough traffic on the roads I the bay as it is, we do not need to bring in more people to an already heavily populated area" "I'm signing because since I moved here with my small children 13 years ago, I have seen the peaceful rural area outside our East Gate area change due to new construction. The new homes have resulted in moretraffic, less parking, more crime- all negatively impacting our area and town. Why add to the already impacted services - schools, retail, etc. with more urban blight? What used to be a beautiful country road with horses, trees, gorgeous green or golden hills is nearly gone. What a shame." "East Bay MUD has fought this in the past because there isn't enough water!!! And now the traffic on Camino Tassajara has become an issue!!! The previous developments were constructed after a public NO vote! Are you saying voting no longer means anything?..." "Dublin is out of control with new development. I moved here because of the Natural open setting and the beautiful landscape. The proposed development brings unwanted traffic through Camino Tassajara. Have you seen the morning traffic! I'm opposed to this proposal." "Please reject this development. We already have issues with the new Alamo Creek and Iron Oak Developments. as well as at the other end of Tassajara by Dublin with all of the new homes there. There is only a 1 lane road each way through here. The traffic in and out of our neighborhood is ridiculous and the number of children with relation to schools available is not optimal. Are you expecting all of these new families to go to just one high school which already takes 50 mins to drive to every morning? In addition to all the water necessary to service these new homes . We need to put a stop to the building. It is enough. The ULL was set and should not be changed or modified for developer's profits." "It's a protected land, beautiful, and it's not respecting the will of the county’s voters. Don't destroy the beauty and home of nature, animals, and a part of what makes that area special. I am in that part of the city all the time and will be very pissed and saddened if it was destroyed and taken over... It is PROTECTED!!!!!" "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." "We need to preserve open space, Danville's small town community feel and the Town's character. The ULL is the will of the voters and town and MUST be both respected and honored. If you want to change it, put it on the ballot and to the citizens of Danville." "The land proposed for the development is OUTSIDE the Urban Limit Line. The voters were expressing their clear intent that such land be maintained under its existing agricultural and open space use designations in the County's General Plan and not be changed to residential uses. If approved, this project will be the template for many more such Urban Limit Line encroachments into our precious and shrinking Ag. and Open Space lands. Supervisors: JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "I'm signing this petition because YOUR voters already made our wishes clear -- why are you allowing anybody to solicit otherwise?! WE ALREADY SAID no more development!! Listen to us -- we're still a democracy, right? Our county is becoming Los Angeles. Represent the voice of your voters!!!!" "This is "protected land"!! There is too much chaotic development already in Contra Costa County, and there are many negative consequences of this - one being the detrimental effect on wildlife!! Please REJECT this proposal and listen to the will of the voters for a change and have respect for the Urban Limit Line, if not the actual people who live in the county!" "We love the open space and there are already plenty of new housing developments within a few mins drive in San Ramon and Dublin. Construction is already at every turn and we need to preserve as much natural open space as possible especially if neighboring cities won't." "Jamming what little space is left is like putting more cars on the roads, students into classrooms, not receiving proper road maintenance, creating more road rage, making a beautiful area much like a crowded large city anywhere.Why? There are giant areas of space in many other areas with plenty of room to roam." "I love the beautiful hills and serenity of this neighborhood. I've seen the beautiful mountains on Tassajara being destroyed in Dublin. I had little bit of relief that San Ramon was untouched by those corrupt city councils who do not care for environment at all. I'm glad to see this petition and to see so many people raising their voice against these constructions." "The voters thoughtfully accepted a ULL several years ago. Presenrvation amendments will subvert the good faith of the electorate. Vote NO oon Tassajara.Tassajara will further compromise limited water resources, environment, traffic problems, shcools etc. Vote no on Tassajara Parks" "In the last 10 years this area has changed dramatically. Dublin is an eyesore. Danville is unique and should be protected. Stop building. Stop overcrowding. Stop increased water use. Stop the schools from exploding. Just stop BUILDING on the remaining open space" "I worked on the campaign to defeat 2010's Measure W in San Ramon. that was going to develop outside the urban limit line. The vast majority of voters (71.37%) voted no. This has already been decided! Listen to your constituents local government or get voted out!" "I have lived in danville my entire life. I used to love watching the cows graze and the rolling hills of Camino Tassajara. It was beautiful. We recently moved out of Danville because the congestion is so bad. We need open space for animals, for our health, to teach our children what this earth really looks like, should continue looking like, and how to take care of our planet. Head East developers. Stop ruining this beautiful small town with more traffic and congestio" "Dear Candace Anderson and other Supervisors,As a resident of CCC and Lafayette, I treasure our open spaces. The open space and trees are two of the primary draws when we chose to invest in this part of the East Bay. Please do not approve the Tassajara Parks development which is outside the ULL. Voters and residents have mandated open space in our county because we feel it is of great value. Do not make a choice that does not align with residents' values." "Additional housing will increase traffic and strain our already strained infrastructure. Water, roads, schools, etc. Build it and they will come is over rated and causing overcrowding. Not to mention the high density housing is an eyesore and not attractively designed at all. Home upon home as closely packed together as possible, all straight up and no space between properties." "Besides the need to keep open space, I believe we can't build more homes until we provide more highways and transportation to move all these people around. The roads and freeways are at a stand still most of the day now and more homes will make it worse. Build the freeways now before the homes while space is still available. We won't need homes because we will be living in our cars stuck in traffic." "I respect the rights of other living things and strongly believe this land is not ours to build upon. The greenery is part of what Danville such a beautiful and not to mention livable space. As it is Danville is over flowing with places to live and not enough people to fill these places. A move to build would be a move in futility and destruction in the name of making money, with absolutely no regard to the way the use of the land affects air quality, wildlife in Danville, in addition to traffic and cost of living." "There is way too much traffic in Camino tassajara and this land is designated for preservation and not for density in housing. Tassajara Elementary is already too filled and teacher to student ratio cannot get go up - please do not allow this development to happen" "I am signing this because I want to give the opportunity to our children to know more about this beautiful area that once was. We need 700 more votes to reach our goal. Please join me in supporting this initiative to preserve the limited natural land left for our children." "Preservation of our open space is of paramount importance, especially in the beautiful Tassajara Valley. If dollars are the only metric considered, we will lose the entire Tassajara Valley to development and I can think of nothing more horrendous than that for myself and my children. The valley is a local jewel and benefits many in the surrounding areas, not just those that live within it. It should be preserved, not sold to the highest bidder." "I never want to see San Ramon and Danille turn into the sprawl as exhibited by Dublin. It is sad to see the sprawl Dublin is creating for itself and I am convinced the quality of life has been worsened for everyone in the neighboring cities. No more building in San Ramon and Danville." "I have owned a home in San Ramon for over 20 years and one of the first to purchase a new home in Windemere 15 years ago and as a homeowner, I have seen the traffic increase 1000%, police services are stretched to the limit, we have overflowing schools and the air quality is horrible from all of the traffic! This is not the San Ramon I once lived in. All of my neighbors have sold their homes and moved away! It's sad!" "I bought my acreage (at great expense) outside city limits because I wanted my children to grow up in the country. We have ENOUGH houses in Dublin, we don't need more on Tassajara. If we break the zoning, it will not stop here. NO development OUTSIDE the line." "I grew up in the San Ramon Valley and rode all over the valley and the hills. Very little is left of what I remember as a great big playground of open spaces. The will of the people has been ignored for decades. There was a ridge line ordinance passed by VOTERS in San Ramon that forbid any homes visible from the valley floor... city councils came and went and the ordinance got axed without the consent of the voters who voted for it decades before. Now we see the same thing happening with the ULL... it's all about the money. Those in power can just move on without a care. Enough is enough." "Our beautiful valley is being paved over completely. Since my childhood I have watched the rolling hills and sprawling green meadows become bogged down by shopping centers and tract housing. We need to protect what makes this area beautiful. Enforce the boundary line that people have already voted on. Enough is enough." "I'm signing because this over aggressive development all over open spaces in the us must stop. Same thing happening in my small PA town. Building and adding so many people per square feet, all piled up. This affects our quality of life, reducing open space, increasing pollution, affecting air quality, noise level, wild life and more. We and our children need open spaces." "The Urban Limit Line is the most important tool we have to protect the 65% of the County that is still Open Space and Ag. Land. This plan, to develop 50 acres on the protected side of the line, would open the door to more and more destructive, sprawl development, on the WRONG side of the line. It would forever undermine the sanctity and purpose of the ULL." "I grew up in Danville, and the joy of my youth (only in the 90s!) was walking the Tassajara Hills. Once development is done, it cannot be undone. Please preserve this slim remainder of ALREADY approved protected lands; your job is to respect the law, not to make exceptions to sell local land to the loss of all future generations." "As one who has a degree in architecture and city and regional planning, who was employed by the County of Alameda as a land use planner, and subsequently pursued an energy management career with PG&E, and several high tech companies, I am aware how vitally important holding the limit line is." "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." "Pat Bianchi I am vehemently opposed to this project proposing adding 125 homes to the Tasssjara Valley. It violates ULL. Being a property owner in this area it will bring huge traffic, congestion change our beautiful open space. Why is it that people who have no interest in this area think they have to right to tell the people who have invested their time and money to preserve land that we have to now accept congestion and over population. Do we have have to now look like Dublin which is a travesty and horribly ugly to look at and to drive through." "I am signing because we are in dire need to conserve any open space we still have available and prevent urban sprawl. Conservation should be number one priority for local and regional government since the land resources are limited, and once it is paved over, it cannot be undone!" "The voters have spoken on this issue many times at the polls. We voted to create the ULL and we voted to defend and maintain the ULL. Our public officials must respect the will of the people and not sell out to greed. These attempts to chip away at the ULL are ongoing and relentless. If we give in, the ULL will become meaningless." "The development is outside the voter mandated Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) and is not necessary as there is space WITHIN the ULL for further developoment. Also, if the county supervisors approve this development, it will establish a precedent for other developers to follow, and put at risk over 9,000 acres of voter approved protected lands in the county to further development. The additional burden of increased traffic and strain on water resources will also negatively impact the existing residents and neighborhood. Development here makes no sense." "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" "The original Urban Limit Line has already been encroached upon. Allowing additional development only compounds the problem of traffic and water. Land use planners have recommended for years that dense development be located near the transportation and employment corridors, and this location could not be further from either.It seems that the only people who will benefit are the developer and property owner at the expense of the rural/suburban lifestyle which makes Danville so special. This is not the proper location to address the Bay Area's housing shortage or affordability." "I'm signing because since I moved here with my small children 13 years ago, I have seen the peaceful rural area outside our East Gate area change due to new construction. The new homes have resulted in moretraffic, less parking, more crime- all negatively impacting our area and town. Why add to the already impacted services - schools, retail, etc. with more urban blight? What used to be a beautiful country road with horses, trees, gorgeous green or golden hills is nearly gone. What a shame." "Please reject this development. We already have issues with the new Alamo Creek and Iron Oak Developments. as well as at the other end of Tassajara by Dublin with all of the new homes there. There is only a 1 lane road each way through here. The traffic in and out of our neighborhood is ridiculous and the number of children with relation to schools available is not optimal. Are you expecting all of these new families to go to just one high school which already takes 50 mins to drive to every morning? In addition to all the water necessary to service these new homes . We need to put a stop to the building. It is enough. The ULL was set and should not be changed or modified for developer's profits." "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." "The land proposed for the development is OUTSIDE the Urban Limit Line. The voters were expressing their clear intent that such land be maintained under its existing agricultural and open space use designations in the County's General Plan and not be changed to residential uses. If approved, this project will be the template for many more such Urban Limit Line encroachments into our precious and shrinking Ag. and Open Space lands. Supervisors: JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "I have lived in danville my entire life. I used to love watching the cows graze and the rolling hills of Camino Tassajara. It was beautiful. We recently moved out of Danville because the congestion is so bad. We need open space for animals, for our health, to teach our children what this earth really looks like, should continue looking like, and how to take care of our planet. Head East developers. Stop ruining this beautiful small town with more traffic and congestio" "Dear Candace Anderson and other Supervisors,As a resident of CCC and Lafayette, I treasure our open spaces. The open space and trees are two of the primary draws when we chose to invest in this part of the East Bay. Please do not approve the Tassajara Parks development which is outside the ULL. Voters and residents have mandated open space in our county because we feel it is of great value. Do not make a choice that does not align with residents' values." "I respect the rights of other living things and strongly believe this land is not ours to build upon. The greenery is part of what Danville such a beautiful and not to mention livable space. As it is Danville is over flowing with places to live and not enough people to fill these places. A move to build would be a move in futility and destruction in the name of making money, with absolutely no regard to the way the use of the land affects air quality, wildlife in Danville, in addition to traffic and cost of living." "Preservation of our open space is of paramount importance, especially in the beautiful Tassajara Valley. If dollars are the only metric considered, we will lose the entire Tassajara Valley to development and I can think of nothing more horrendous than that for myself and my children. The valley is a local jewel and benefits many in the surrounding areas, not just those that live within it. It should be preserved, not sold to the highest bidder." "I have owned a home in San Ramon for over 20 years and one of the first to purchase a new home in Windemere 15 years ago and as a homeowner, I have seen the traffic increase 1000%, police services are stretched to the limit, we have overflowing schools and the air quality is horrible from all of the traffic! This is not the San Ramon I once lived in. All of my neighbors have sold their homes and moved away! It's sad!" "I grew up in the San Ramon Valley and rode all over the valley and the hills. Very little is left of what I remember as a great big playground of open spaces. The will of the people has been ignored for decades. There was a ridge line ordinance passed by VOTERS in San Ramon that forbid any homes visible from the valley floor... city councils came and went and the ordinance got axed without the consent of the voters who voted for it decades before. Now we see the same thing happening with the ULL... it's all about the money. Those in power can just move on without a care. Enough is enough." "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." "Pat Bianchi I am vehemently opposed to this project proposing adding 125 homes to the Tasssjara Valley. It violates ULL. Being a property owner in this area it will bring huge traffic, congestion change our beautiful open space. Why is it that people who have no interest in this area think they have to right to tell the people who have invested their time and money to preserve land that we have to now accept congestion and over population. Do we have have to now look like Dublin which is a travesty and horribly ugly to look at and to drive through." "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" "The original Urban Limit Line has already been encroached upon. Allowing additional development only compounds the problem of traffic and water. Land use planners have recommended for years that dense development be located near the transportation and employment corridors, and this location could not be further from either.It seems that the only people who will benefit are the developer and property owner at the expense of the rural/suburban lifestyle which makes Danville so special. This is not the proper location to address the Bay Area's housing shortage or affordability." "Please reject this development. We already have issues with the new Alamo Creek and Iron Oak Developments. as well as at the other end of Tassajara by Dublin with all of the new homes there. There is only a 1 lane road each way through here. The traffic in and out of our neighborhood is ridiculous and the number of children with relation to schools available is not optimal. Are you expecting all of these new families to go to just one high school which already takes 50 mins to drive to every morning? In addition to all the water necessary to service these new homes . We need to put a stop to the building. It is enough. The ULL was set and should not be changed or modified for developer's profits." "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." "I grew up in the San Ramon Valley and rode all over the valley and the hills. Very little is left of what I remember as a great big playground of open spaces. The will of the people has been ignored for decades. There was a ridge line ordinance passed by VOTERS in San Ramon that forbid any homes visible from the valley floor... city councils came and went and the ordinance got axed without the consent of the voters who voted for it decades before. Now we see the same thing happening with the ULL... it's all about the money. Those in power can just move on without a care. Enough is enough." "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." "Veuillez signer et partagerMerciLimite de limite urbaine du comté de Contra Costa menacée! Plus de 9 000 acres d'espace ouvert en péril! Arrêtez l'étalement urbain dans la vallée de Tassajara!Un développement résidentiel de haute densité («Parcs Tassajara») est proposé pour la partie non aménagée de la vallée de Tassajara à l'est de Danville. L'aménagement se fait en dehors de la limite urbaine prescrite par l'électeur qui interdit le développement urbain en dehors de la ligne et dans les terres agricoles et les espaces verts protégés du comté. Si les superviseurs du comté approuvent ce développement, il établira un précédent pour d'autres promoteurs à suivre et mettra en péril plus de 9 000 acres de terres protégées approuvées par les électeurs dans le comté pour le développement. Ajoutez votre nom pour dire aux superviseurs du comté de rejeter cette proposition de développement et de respecter la volonté des électeurs du comté que la ligne limite urbaine signifie «p" "I am signing this petition because I own one of the houses that border the ULL and we initially purchased with the understanding that the ULL was fixed (according to county records). In addition, there is no conclusive reporting in the EIR that sound impacts will be even greater with more houses built there by bouncing the street sound directly into my house (in addition to the increase traffic generated by the houses. This will surely devalue my home property. Lastly, my children have severe asthma and construction of the homes (earthwork, dust etc) will invariably send my children into a more severe asthma state (which is the reason why we initially purchased thinking that development was done. I am completely frustrated with the rubber stamp process the county has done with the eir. The county needs to start implementing responsible urban planning, not give into developers and it starts with maintaining the ULL." "Residents voted for the urban limit line and the blatant disregard of our voices is maddening. It is also infuriating how many of the natural areas, agricultural lands, and the gorgeous views have been graded, developed, obstructed, and so on, over the past several years. The beautiful views, the rolling hills, the oak woodlands, the creeks, and the open spaces, are what make this area attractive, in spite of the absurd housing prices. It is already disgusting how much of the Tassajara area has been developed. It's entirely unrecognizable from when I was in high school 20 years ago. And the development that went up along SRV Blvd. actually makes me so angry that I avoid driving that route when I'm heading to downtown. This has to stop. No one will care to purchase or keep homes here if it's overdeveloped and crowded. And no one wants to live in an area where voters' voices are blatantly disregarded." Name City Signed On Gretchen Logue Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Ella Brovitz Scottsdale 2/23/2017 Richard Fischer Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Jamie Beers Danville 2/23/2017 matthew walley Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Jennifer Schulte Danville 2/23/2017 vivi haugland pleasanton 2/23/2017 Trampas Hebert Colstrip 2/23/2017 Lisa Steinbrecher Danville 2/23/2017 Amy Gratteau San Clemente 2/23/2017 Patricia Szabo Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Kirk McKee Danville 2/23/2017 Sheri Burns Danville 2/23/2017 William Shryer Danville 2/23/2017 Douglas Lacey Pleasanton 2/23/2017 amy rupley Danville 2/23/2017 Sanaz Shahideh danville 2/23/2017 Dermit Drohan Danville 2/23/2017 Linda Gomez Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Pradeep Kundur San Ramon 2/23/2017 Jennifer Hibberd Danville 2/23/2017 Sheila Zenz Danville 2/23/2017 Uday Ayyagari Union City 2/23/2017 Penelope Adams Diablo 2/23/2017 Jean Ann Patridge Danville 2/23/2017 Rolando Bayot Pleasanton 2/23/2017 David Rampa Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Nicolle Seuss Danville 2/23/2017 Todd Tuescher Danville 2/23/2017 andrea lord Danville 2/23/2017 Jean Fischer Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Troy Jones Danville 2/23/2017 Caryn Franklin Danville 2/23/2017 Shannea Farias Danville 2/23/2017 Ralph Ames Danville 2/23/2017 Erin Eckard Westfield 2/23/2017 Linda Borghi Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Edward Zappettini San Ramon 2/23/2017 Vicki Hogendorn Alamo 2/23/2017 Kim Morgan Danville 2/23/2017 Arnold Jacobs Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Raymond Brant Walnut Grove 2/23/2017 Marc Greendorfer Danville 2/23/2017 Lauri Moss Danville 2/23/2017 Charles Waitman DANVILLE 2/23/2017 Arne Haugland Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Doug Severance Danville 2/23/2017 Joe Delucchi Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Ro LoBianco Benicia 2/23/2017 Elaine Becker Roanoke 2/23/2017 Patricia Keenan Danville 2/23/2017 Ruth Chantland Danville 2/23/2017 Bob Gerberich Danville 2/23/2017 Ingrid Dreuth Danville 2/23/2017 Ryan Luis Danville 2/23/2017 frank Careccia Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Teresa Drake Danville 2/23/2017 Ginger Taylor Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Chae Hong Danville 2/23/2017 Tom Price Danville 2/23/2017 David Sanchez Jr Danville 2/23/2017 Dominic Tarabochia Danville 2/23/2017 Cristin Kiper Sanchez Danville 2/23/2017 Traci Ryan Pleasanton 2/23/2017 Julie Martin Frederic 2/23/2017 JoAnne Ciazinski Danville 2/23/2017 Matthew Hubbard Danville 2/23/2017 Terry O'Shea Danville 2/23/2017 Dennis Chantland Danville 2/23/2017 Nicole Hobson Danville 2/24/2017 Che Garcia Danville 2/24/2017 U Pant Danville 2/24/2017 Roger Wagner Pleasanton 2/24/2017 Raman Hariharan San Ramon 2/24/2017 Stephen Pence Danville 2/24/2017 Derek Jernstedt Danville 2/24/2017 Dianna Woodbury Danville 2/24/2017 Pranav Shahi San Ramon 2/24/2017 Pat Wai Livermore 2/24/2017 sundong kwong Danville 2/24/2017 Cynthia Nagy Lafayette 2/24/2017 Joseph Nagy Pleasanton 2/24/2017 Lisa Plattner Scotch Plains 2/24/2017 Kristen Nagy Fremont 2/24/2017 Noelle Sheehan Danville 2/24/2017 Tamara McCool Danville 2/24/2017 Cassidy Parsons Castleton-on-Hudson 2/24/2017 Jennifer Giaramita Danville 2/24/2017 Kevin Sun Danville 2/24/2017 Jhansi Bobba Pleasanton 2/24/2017 Susan Cookson Danville 2/24/2017 Susan Virgilio Danville 2/24/2017 Tamara Munger Danville 2/24/2017 Edward Laurson Denver 2/24/2017 Alexandra Gardner Danville 2/24/2017 Paul Logue Pleasanton 2/24/2017 Kirk Smith Danville 2/24/2017 Hannah Craddick Diablo 2/24/2017 Melinda White Danville 2/24/2017 Lisa Salazar Shasta Lake 2/24/2017 david taggart Woodbridge 2/24/2017 Adam Kaluba Cincinnati 2/24/2017 Elaine Fischer Roanoke 2/24/2017 Brooke Gibson Pleasanton 2/24/2017 Helen Lavely Beverly Hills 2/24/2017 Ann Schinske Danville 2/24/2017 Ciecie Yanti 2/25/2017 Justin Kinser Danville 2/25/2017 Andy Gu Danville 2/25/2017 Jonathan Ginsberg Walnut Creek 2/25/2017 Tiffany Morgan Aptos 2/25/2017 Ming Zhou Danville 2/25/2017 LYNN QUACH NEWPORT BEACH 2/25/2017 Viviana Ramirez Pompano Beach 2/25/2017 Jin Wang 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Li Qian 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Joe Koman Danville 2/25/2017 george Yin Danville 2/25/2017 Wei Tan Danville 2/25/2017 Benjamin Gu Danville 2/25/2017 Tracy Cui Danville 2/25/2017 minghao Wang Danville 2/25/2017 J X Antioch 2/25/2017 Zheng He Danville 2/25/2017 Jessie Zheng Danville 2/25/2017 Bing Wu 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Alice K Clark Danville 2/25/2017 Dawn Simpkin Danville 2/25/2017 Suk Leung Danville 2/25/2017 Sharon Goldstone Danville 2/25/2017 Nanlan Xu Danville 2/25/2017 Maya Hrkalovich San Ramon 2/25/2017 venus ngo Danville 2/25/2017 Jing Zhang Danville 2/25/2017 Bin Chiu Danville 2/25/2017 Lloyd Szabo Pleasanton 2/25/2017 Vivian Meng 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Robert Gallery Pleasanton 2/25/2017 Larry Liu Danville 2/25/2017 jiayin shen danville 2/25/2017 Jacqueline Chu Danville 2/25/2017 Frank Xu 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Yunping Ye 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Sammy Ho Danville 2/25/2017 Hongli Yang 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Lina Tam Danville 2/25/2017 Henry Guo Alamo 2/25/2017 Hong Pei 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Qi Hong Walnut Creek 2/25/2017 Shaolin shen Danville 2/25/2017 Chris Qiao Danville 2/25/2017 Samik Mukherjee Danville 2/25/2017 Julie Lueddemann San Ramon 2/25/2017 Omair Ashfaq Danville 2/25/2017 Paula Adams Danville 2/25/2017 Laura Vranas Danville 2/25/2017 Karen Schulz Danville 2/25/2017 David Hamm Danville 2/25/2017 Amy Lipke Danville 2/25/2017 Cheryl Eiselman Danville 2/25/2017 Ryan McCool Danville 2/25/2017 Gama Leong Petaling Jaya 2/25/2017 Ronny De Coster Ghent 2/25/2017 Esther Kemperle Berg 2/25/2017 Barbara Ann Leesburg 2/25/2017 lucy (its time to wake up) keith (because Animals are Living the NightmareSwindon2/25/2017 Karin Zimmermann 2/25/2017 yoshino trudie Ota-ku 2/25/2017 Mary Norling-Christensen Danville 2/25/2017 Ryan Finan Danville 2/25/2017 Amy Donnelly Danville 2/25/2017 Guzman 102 Yucca st Del Rio, Tx 2/25/2017 Ernesto Camacho Danville 2/25/2017 catherine cheneval LYON 2/25/2017 Jay Allardyce Danville 2/25/2017 Dennis Tinucci Danville 2/25/2017 Diane Dickinson Neptune City 2/25/2017 Lucilia Ferreira Porto 2/25/2017 Chardonnens Sonja Mannens 2/25/2017 Tania Salas Danville 2/25/2017 Anna Patterson Danville 2/25/2017 Jami Garner Danville 2/25/2017 Susana Muñoz Madrid 2/25/2017 limei song 丹维尔 2/25/2017 Audrey Lynch Danville 2/25/2017 yolanda schultes Wittenbach 2/25/2017 Gerlinde Holzer Guntersdorf 2/25/2017 Maria Alice Rocha simao almeidabrasilia 2/25/2017 April wang 丹維爾 2/25/2017 danielle jacques bruxelles 2/25/2017 Lucy Liou Danville 2/25/2017 Diane Butler Danville 2/25/2017 Petra Hegenscheidt Essen 2/25/2017 Kristofer Stamp Danville 2/25/2017 Yvonne De waard Lelystad-Haven 2/25/2017 ursula angelika zintel 2/25/2017 Alexandr Yantselovskiy Vyshneve 2/25/2017 Michael Paskow Danville 2/25/2017 Crystal Lu San Ramon 2/25/2017 Mariana Lukáčová Moldava nad Bodvou 2/25/2017 Wilma Lagrand Goes 2/25/2017 Rong Wu Pleasanton 2/25/2017 Christelle McKie Cuarnens 2/25/2017 Juan Wu Dublin 2/25/2017 janny de vos Alkmaar 2/25/2017 Lily Ding San Ramon 2/25/2017 Rent Rent Alameda 2/25/2017 Jeff Luo Dublin 2/25/2017 viviane vanbuggenhout brussels 2/25/2017 Astrid Laban 2/25/2017 Gaurab Hazarika Danville 2/25/2017 Haitao jiang Dublin 2/25/2017 Mary Anne Peterson Danville 2/25/2017 Charles Cao San Ramon 2/25/2017 Regine LOEUIL Hamoir 2/25/2017 Gity Grupe 2/25/2017 Mingying Chen San Ramon 2/25/2017 Jennifer Brandt Avondale 2/25/2017 Lydia Zink Hanover 2/25/2017 Li Wang Danville 2/25/2017 Nelly Camacho Danville 2/25/2017 Michelle Vella Danville 2/25/2017 wendy leys antwerpen 2/25/2017 SILVESTRE BEATRICE LIEGE 2/25/2017 Roswitha Hanowski Wedel 2/25/2017 Wendolyn Iritani Danville 2/25/2017 Anna Luneau liège 2/25/2017 Hsiu-Chuan Kuo Danville 2/25/2017 ken lang Toronto 2/25/2017 Judith Donley Danville 2/25/2017 Julie Liesch Danville 2/25/2017 isabelle obscur toulon 2/25/2017 Harold Etterman Danville 2/25/2017 Corrie Harland Den Haag 2/25/2017 gina de minelli gina de minelli 2/25/2017 William Peter Danville 2/25/2017 Kathy Vorderbruggen overland park 2/25/2017 Lilia Tiemi Sairo Tiemi Shizuoka-shi 2/25/2017 Ingrid Aelaerts Overijse 2/25/2017 Marites Reimann Oslo 2/25/2017 jerome masuy paris 2/25/2017 claude schmitt 2/25/2017 Rudolf Mühl Michelstadt 2/25/2017 Cindy Smith Courtice 2/25/2017 Danuta Watola Kalety 2/25/2017 Rafael Carrillo Danville 2/25/2017 Jennifer Sosnowski Manteno 2/25/2017 Ying Xiong san ramin 2/25/2017 Yan Gao Danville 2/25/2017 Michelle Harber Danville 2/25/2017 Ling Mei San Ramon 2/25/2017 myriam vanden abbeelen St Katelijne waver 2/25/2017 Stadtmueller Petra Erlensee 2/25/2017 Alice Dawson Fort Lauderdale 2/25/2017 Jennifer O'Dorney Danville 2/25/2017 Sandra Peter Danville 2/25/2017 Wendy Douglas DUNDEE 2/25/2017 Elaine Jung New Westminster 2/25/2017 Jeanne Smith Watertown 2/25/2017 Cynthia Franke Kassel 2/25/2017 Xu Zhang San Ramon 2/25/2017 Kim Boroff Danville 2/25/2017 michon emmanuelle longes 2/25/2017 Martin Fishman Danville 2/25/2017 Louise Crowe Pleasanton 2/25/2017 octavia indra CLUJ 2/25/2017 grouci djamila nanteuil les meaux 2/25/2017 Anny Mertens Londerzeel 2/25/2017 Carol Geng Danville 2/25/2017 erwin bol Danville 2/25/2017 Marylou Ritter Danville 2/25/2017 Virginia Victor Danville 2/25/2017 ian hands Birmingham 2/25/2017 Willem Kom Hoogezand 2/25/2017 Silvia Steinbrecher 2/25/2017 jennifer d'herckers Bredestraat 2/25/2017 Chastity Summers Danville 2/25/2017 Tiziana Dordoni via xx settembre Corsico milano2/25/2017 frieda lisens merksem 2/25/2017 Renchen N-e Hamburg 2/25/2017 Michelle brown Alamo 2/25/2017 manuela wolter st-cruiz 2/25/2017 Ingrid Reich Eriskirch 2/25/2017 Morgan Becker Danville 2/25/2017 Silja Alter Weßling 2/25/2017 VALERIE RAYNAUD SAINTE-SUZANNE 2/25/2017 Nicolette Ludolphi Bremen 2/25/2017 Cathy Fleming Danvilke 2/25/2017 Kelly Dawes Danville 2/25/2017 Monica Marcos Valencia 2/25/2017 Patrick Freeland Danville 2/25/2017 Jeannine Bierebeeck Merksem. 2170 2/25/2017 jocelyne lapointe Terrebonne 2/25/2017 Maria Klein Innsbruck 2/25/2017 Estelle Mouron 2/25/2017 Bobbi Parsley Atwood 2/25/2017 bos claudine poligny 2/25/2017 Lauren Frew Danville 2/25/2017 miri miron kfar saba 2/25/2017 Mandervelde Karine Bois-Colombes 2/25/2017 Michael Mahoney Danville 2/25/2017 josse ignacio 2/25/2017 Renate Ebrecht 2/25/2017 Laura Vaughn Danville 2/25/2017 Elizabeth Chan Danville 2/25/2017 Dagmar Grabsch Berlin 2/25/2017 Jentry Lee Pleasant Hill 2/25/2017 Qi Qian Danville 2/25/2017 Richard Starling Charlotte 2/25/2017 carolin comanescu 2/25/2017 Heidi Hill Danville 2/25/2017 Lily Tong Danville 2/25/2017 Sigrid Müller 2/25/2017 Kathy Sanford Ann Arbor 2/25/2017 wei ren danville 2/25/2017 Laila Sunde Odda 2/25/2017 Hong Zhang Danville 2/25/2017 petra egging arnhem 2/25/2017 Li Gao Danville 2/25/2017 Linda Byrd Jefferson City 2/25/2017 elisabetta pello bresso 2/25/2017 Lisa Ridener Danville 2/25/2017 Chris Duncan Danville 2/25/2017 george carranza Danville 2/25/2017 Lai-King Leong Danville 2/25/2017 sheri jeha Danville 2/25/2017 Sandra Stuart Danville 2/25/2017 Neil Rosenberg Pleasanton 2/25/2017 Wendy Wong Danville 2/25/2017 Nick Neo Danville 2/25/2017 Doug Chew Danville 2/25/2017 Alma Schiefer Walnut Creek 2/25/2017 Girish Koppikar Danville 2/25/2017 Jennifer Loftus Oakland 2/25/2017 denise defazio Danville 2/26/2017 Doug Hambleton Danville 2/26/2017 Toni Mar San Francisco 2/26/2017 MARIA VEIGA BLUMENAU 2/26/2017 Lisa Plettner Danville 2/26/2017 Jennifer Sabo Danville 2/26/2017 Fiona Macintosh Danville 2/26/2017 Giovanni De Choudens Danville 2/26/2017 Don McCormick Danville 2/26/2017 Marion Schiffers Brussels 2/26/2017 Carolynn Neri Danville 2/26/2017 Diane Fair Danville 2/26/2017 Dan Holland Danville 2/26/2017 Barbara Borelli Danville 2/26/2017 Maria Carmassi Danville 2/26/2017 Cheryl Morgan Danville 2/26/2017 Wes Hester Jr Danville 2/26/2017 Sally Bernard Danville 2/26/2017 Nicole Francis Danville 2/26/2017 Tracy Kinser Danville 2/26/2017 Lisa Price Danville 2/26/2017 Shawna Lawlor Danville 2/26/2017 Frank Squires San Ramon 2/26/2017 Shilpi Dewan Danville 2/26/2017 Fred Mekata Danville 2/26/2017 Joy Lindsey Pleasant hill 2/26/2017 Patricia Moss Danville 2/26/2017 Norma Marr Danville 2/26/2017 Susie Lindly Danville 2/26/2017 Andrea Petralia Alamo 2/26/2017 Karin Basilio Danville 2/26/2017 Elisa Fisher San Ramon 2/26/2017 Sonia Jain Oakland 2/26/2017 Scott Mesick Danville 2/26/2017 sabrina nash Danville 2/26/2017 Montana Turchet Danville 2/26/2017 Virginia Wood Danville 2/26/2017 mandy edmund oakland 2/26/2017 James Anderegg Danville 2/26/2017 Ray Graham Danville 2/26/2017 Helene Connelly Danville 2/26/2017 Cheryl Mesick Danville 2/26/2017 Matt Gregory Danville 2/26/2017 Renate Cretan Danville 2/26/2017 Steven Jacobsen Danville 2/26/2017 Maria Blue Danvilee 2/26/2017 Victor Costelli Danville 2/26/2017 Jill Straface Danville 2/26/2017 Mary Schriefer Danville 2/26/2017 Virginia Alosi Danville 2/26/2017 Vi Lyall Danville 2/26/2017 mauro torelli luzzara 2/26/2017 Joelle Costelli Danville 2/26/2017 Nan Newall BrightsGrove 2/26/2017 Deb Becker Danville 2/26/2017 Susan Fisher Danville 2/26/2017 Gregory Capuano Danville 2/26/2017 adele urbanek M?dling 2/26/2017 Barbara Browne Danville 2/26/2017 Debbie Tozzi Danville 2/26/2017 Dylan Crowe Pleasanton 2/26/2017 harvey saitzyk Danville 2/26/2017 Inge Stadler 2/26/2017 erick rivera Guayaquil 2/26/2017 John Kroeckel San Ramon 2/26/2017 ＳＡＫＡＧＵＣＨＩ ＡＫＩＫＯtokyo 2/26/2017 Christopher Anderson Danville 2/26/2017 Renee Nelson Danville 2/26/2017 Akemi fukuyoshi hong kong 2/26/2017 Jacqueline Smith Oakley 2/26/2017 Mark Corsa Danville 2/26/2017 Linda Cook Danville 2/26/2017 Nga Gross Danville 2/26/2017 Glen Simmons Danville 2/26/2017 Nicole Tom Danville 2/26/2017 Rolf Mense Puerto Lumbreras 2/26/2017 William Fisher Danville 2/26/2017 Lynne Anzoategui Danville 2/26/2017 Michael and Phyllis Bleecker Pleasanton 2/26/2017 sylvia lobinger austria 2/26/2017 Gregory Haughton Danville 2/26/2017 Bill Evans Monrovia 2/26/2017 Karen Staats Danville 2/26/2017 Jazy Zhang Danville 2/26/2017 Carl Hoffmeister Casselberry 2/26/2017 Meike Heckel 2/26/2017 Del Anicete Danville 2/26/2017 Gina Costelli Walnut Creek 2/26/2017 Vanna Pagnozzi goddelau 2/26/2017 Aditi Banerjee Danville 2/26/2017 Marnie Anicete Danville 2/26/2017 Jeff Schulte Danville 2/26/2017 joseph kardek Danville 2/26/2017 Kathleen Dowell Danville 2/26/2017 Dina Sheyman Danville 2/26/2017 Amit Chauhan Danville 2/26/2017 Ritu Arora Danville 2/26/2017 Jennifer Lechner Danville 2/26/2017 Ken Sexton Danville 2/26/2017 Courtney Gebhart Danville 2/26/2017 Carolyn Polo Danville 2/26/2017 Nancy Tong Danville 2/26/2017 Claudia Tuechler 8082 Kirchbach 2/26/2017 LUIGI MARIA CASTELLAZZI ilFattoQuotidiano.it 2/26/2017 katia vd meerssche Aalst 2/26/2017 Linda Stevens Danville 2/26/2017 Grace Polo Danville 2/26/2017 Babs tegen Dierenleed Leeuwarden 2/26/2017 maes christine bruxelles 2/26/2017 David Romportl St Louis Park 2/26/2017 Christine Potnik St.Stefan i.Rosental 2/26/2017 Pamela Kaminsky Danville 2/26/2017 Theresia Pointner Hlg.Kreuz a/W 2/26/2017 margaret Neveu Bourg des comptes 2/26/2017 Claudia Maas 2/26/2017 cathy nolane ivry sur seine 2/26/2017 Maud Nilsson grästorp 2/26/2017 Andrea Knöpfler 2/26/2017 Haley Harris Danville 2/26/2017 Markus Hecht Karlsruhe 2/26/2017 Maria João Faria de Almeida Aveiro 2/26/2017 Nina Hagen 2/26/2017 An v. Brussel R'veer 2/26/2017 Jeeva Nadarajah singapore 2/26/2017 Rita Wolff Hannover 2/26/2017 Karin Guenther 2/26/2017 Martine Sola Le Pradet 2/26/2017 Frédérique Crapa Oberpallen 2/26/2017 Colette Stalder buckten 2/26/2017 Flonny Tante lanaken 2/26/2017 berger berger Toulouse 2/26/2017 stephanie cassagne jacou 2/26/2017 D Bhagat Danville 2/26/2017 John Teague Livermore 2/26/2017 gary wildman Findochty 2/26/2017 corta luna 2/26/2017 Linda DeBaun Danville 2/26/2017 Theresia Maria 2/26/2017 rosa blanckaerts antwerpen 2/26/2017 corinne federgrun 2/26/2017 B Kools 2/26/2017 Christa Schläfke 2/26/2017 BONDONI Véronique sigean 2/26/2017 angelika+ thomas wegner 2/26/2017 Roberto Meritoni Asso 2/26/2017 Maria Tüchler 8082 Kirchbach 2/26/2017 Annette Filliat 2/26/2017 Christiane Rüffer Bobenheim-Roxheim 2/26/2017 AnnMarie Hodgson Barrie, Ontario 2/26/2017 silvia mateo 2/26/2017 Oliver Jordi Kirchlindach/Bern 2/26/2017 Sheila Buckley Danville 2/26/2017 Janet Lalumiere Lowell 2/26/2017 Andrea Ritter 8091 jagerberg 2/26/2017 David Hopkins Danville 2/26/2017 adriano saponara Altamura 2/26/2017 Pirjo Niemenrinne Turku 2/26/2017 Gina Houghton Watford 2/26/2017 Dan Beck San Ramon 2/26/2017 Agnès MOREAU 2/26/2017 bellinda rolf-jansen Oosterbeek 2/26/2017 anita erhard götzis 2/26/2017 Violetta Hartmann 2/26/2017 Robert Chronister Danville 2/26/2017 Raul Sondhi Danville 2/26/2017 Anke O. Schaller 2/26/2017 Roderick Hall Temecula 2/26/2017 casey giron Danville 2/26/2017 Christine Tsang Danville 2/26/2017 Jan Masiel Danville 2/26/2017 Sabine Möhler sabine.stiker@web.de 2/26/2017 Christina Grimes Danville 2/26/2017 Gina Lange San Ramon 2/26/2017 Christine Stolz Studenzen 2/26/2017 Doris Lew Danville 2/26/2017 formolo teresa carnieres 2/26/2017 Zhuang Yueru 丹维尔 2/26/2017 Richard Lee Danville 2/26/2017 sandrine duprat Tartas 2/26/2017 Katariina Kujala Danville 2/26/2017 Yolanda Kappus Danville 2/26/2017 Breanna Burns 2/26/2017 Kristin Goerz Danville 2/26/2017 joseph Cuenco Danville 2/26/2017 Yasmin Kotval Danville 2/26/2017 Leslie Yamamoto Anderson Danville 2/26/2017 aurelia girardi gioia del colle 2/26/2017 Elisabetta Argenta Savona 2/26/2017 Suman Chug Danville 2/26/2017 Huixia Shu Danville 2/26/2017 martino veneroni milano 2/26/2017 Valerie Halas Danville 2/26/2017 Petra Jakubzik Grevenbroich 2/26/2017 deirdre muir johannesburg 2/26/2017 marchand christine chauny 2/26/2017 cornelia Heppner 2/26/2017 H Mol Poortvliet 2/26/2017 Harriet Winsten Danville 2/26/2017 Sabine Mayr Innsbruck 2/26/2017 Suzanne Swirnow Danville 2/26/2017 Nicola Fildes Danville 2/26/2017 Jacqui Alenda Danville 2/26/2017 daniela plüschau 2/26/2017 Apoorva Thuse Danville 2/26/2017 maureen bardos Danville 2/26/2017 Stephanie Chu Pleasant Hill 2/26/2017 pavla troubilova thonon-les-bains 2/26/2017 rosette putzeys Riemst 2/26/2017 Kareen Gueffroy San Ramon 2/26/2017 Tricia Larkin Danville 2/26/2017 Maryam Khodadadi Danville 2/26/2017 Petra Falkner Landsberg am Lech 2/26/2017 Sandy Mo Danville 2/26/2017 Frutuoso Christina Esch 2/26/2017 rimlinger sylvie 2/26/2017 Syed Jafari Danville 2/26/2017 ute ziegler Heusweiler 2/26/2017 Jacqueline Peter Schachen 2/26/2017 Marc van de Waarsenburg Middelburg 2/26/2017 josé Vazquez 2/26/2017 Richard Johnson Danville 2/26/2017 Cynthia Henley Houston 2/26/2017 Cheryl Johnson Livermore 2/26/2017 Larry Plisskin Danville 2/26/2017 Angela Kohnke 25436 2/26/2017 Patrick POlo Danville 2/26/2017 Milan Mauthe San Dimas 2/26/2017 Jennifer YAMAGUCHI Danville 2/26/2017 Sean Kelly Danville 2/26/2017 Danielle Garner Danville 2/26/2017 Kristine Reyes Danville 2/26/2017 Peter Lam Danville 2/26/2017 Chris Kenny Danville 2/26/2017 Michelle Turner Danville 2/26/2017 Yan Wu Danville 2/27/2017 Martha Slavin Danville 2/27/2017 Catherine Kosher Danville 2/27/2017 kathleen lavelle victoria 2/27/2017 Cindie Simpson Danville 2/27/2017 JUDY CRADDICK Danville 2/27/2017 Rosanne Cefalu Danville 2/27/2017 Shelley Foster Danville 2/27/2017 Shawn Rodriguez Mesa 2/27/2017 Craig Lewandowski Danville 2/27/2017 Siri Hamill Danville 2/27/2017 Tarek Abdelsalam Danville 2/27/2017 Jill Racette Danville 2/27/2017 Adrianne Gallo Danville 2/27/2017 Sean Brannan Danville 2/27/2017 Jorge Montane Danville 2/27/2017 Darrell Garner Danville 2/27/2017 Lucy Pérez Chilpancingo Guerrero 2/27/2017 Cheryl Bruner Danville 2/27/2017 Ramin Dowlati Danville 2/27/2017 Marilyn Meyer Danville 2/27/2017 Jerry Sun Danville 2/27/2017 Charles Ball Danville 2/27/2017 Shaji Puthanveettil Danville 2/27/2017 Joshua Bartel San Jose 2/27/2017 Staniclav Aksyonov Тюмень 2/27/2017 Linda Chang Danville 2/27/2017 Marie Antiniw Danville 2/27/2017 Andrea Grumley San Ramon 2/27/2017 Larisa Somsel San Ramon 2/27/2017 Robert Davey Danville 2/27/2017 Allison Paich Danville 2/27/2017 Mark Yarkin Danville 2/27/2017 Shira Stein Danville 2/27/2017 Nancy Kato Danville 2/27/2017 Kenneth Dooley San Ramon 2/27/2017 Rebecca Bellini Pleasant Hill 2/27/2017 Michael Pineda Escondido 2/27/2017 Samantha Turkson Corona 2/27/2017 Liwen Cheung Danville 2/27/2017 Tina Yoo Danville 2/27/2017 Raleigh Koritz PLYMOUTH 2/27/2017 Christian Chavarin Los Angeles 2/27/2017 Sierra ibarra Hermiston 2/27/2017 paul hall Cambridge 2/27/2017 Tineke Heutinck Arnhem 2/27/2017 Sanand Dilip Louvain-la-Neuve 2/27/2017 Claudia Neuhalfen 2/27/2017 bernadette chevreau Paris 2/27/2017 Mary Corcoran Danville 2/27/2017 robert wiehemeijer Drawsko Pomorskie 2/27/2017 Kate Kenner Guilford 2/27/2017 daniel welter Danville 2/27/2017 yo perre beaucaire 2/27/2017 Janina Grage 2/27/2017 Jerry Victor Alamo 2/27/2017 Lisa Carter Danville 2/27/2017 Chantal Buslot Hasselt 2/27/2017 Frederick Teensma Danville 2/27/2017 Niina Bejling Stockholm 2/27/2017 longinotti bruna BRESSO 2/27/2017 Susan Tiedemann Wilderville 2/27/2017 Shu Cheng Danville 2/27/2017 Marison Kimura Danville 2/27/2017 Wendy Forster Lamesley 2/27/2017 Sadie McFarlane San Francisco 2/27/2017 Richard Cazin Danville 2/27/2017 Jule Smith Danville 2/27/2017 Maria Mia Gloria Giacomelli Ljubljana 2/27/2017 Jamie DaSilva Danville 2/27/2017 andrea lin San Ramon 2/27/2017 tina michelakis Hasselt 2/27/2017 Brenda Beare Tracy 2/27/2017 Pegge Trail Danville 2/27/2017 Victoria Reid Danville 2/27/2017 Vicki Nelson Pleasanton 2/27/2017 Bonnie Smith Livermore 2/27/2017 Athina Peter 2/27/2017 Joel Castro Los Angeles 2/27/2017 Mayia Vranas Danville 2/27/2017 Veronique BANDA Pontivy 2/27/2017 Kamal Soni Danville 2/27/2017 Madeleine Gläser 2/27/2017 Eva-Maria Haak Salzgitter 2/27/2017 Karena McKinley Castro Valley 2/27/2017 Bolly Maus Rum 2/27/2017 Elisabeth Bechmann St. Pölten 2/27/2017 Margaret Pallack Danville 2/27/2017 Madras Venkatesh Danville 2/27/2017 Kevin Smith Danville 2/27/2017 Yan Ei Ra Singapore 2/27/2017 shannon thomas concord 2/27/2017 Nora Wittenberg Danville 2/27/2017 Erick Corona Danville 2/27/2017 Don Bustichi Danville 2/27/2017 Abid Farooq Discovery Bay 2/27/2017 Raymond Shih Danville 2/27/2017 Anuprita Khurana Dublin 2/27/2017 Gina Veazey Danville 2/27/2017 Stuart Zins Danville 2/27/2017 souad choumane alger 2/27/2017 Mari Dominguez Linden 2/27/2017 Mike Damonte Danville 2/27/2017 Chris Grecsek Danville 2/28/2017 Lisa Murad Danville 2/28/2017 Erin Lohec Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Petra Jones Sydney 2/28/2017 sau tsang los angeles 2/28/2017 土佐 理子 Sakado-shi 2/28/2017 Laura Klass Danville 2/28/2017 Kelly Knight Danville 2/28/2017 Julie Dormandy Danville 2/28/2017 Debbie Anzilotti Danville 2/28/2017 Davinia Hernández Gómez 2/28/2017 Danny Chan Montreal 2/28/2017 Janine Vinton Hastings 2/28/2017 Elena Flaharty Clayton 2/28/2017 Becky app Danville 2/28/2017 Christine Hoffman Danville 2/28/2017 Visakha Iyer Danville 2/28/2017 Paul Pedrazzi Danville 2/28/2017 Terri Archibald Danville 2/28/2017 Hollie Read Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Thomas Priftis Antioch 2/28/2017 Daniel Hlebakos Danville 2/28/2017 Matthew Hoffman Danville 2/28/2017 Anna Gai Danville 2/28/2017 Zheng Zhang 丹维尔 2/28/2017 Venkatesan Marichetty Danville 2/28/2017 Nicole Call Danville 2/28/2017 Marie Cheung Danville 2/28/2017 Maor Burshtain Danville 2/28/2017 Kathleen Collins Danville 2/28/2017 Barbara Kasa Danville 2/28/2017 Floyd Nelson Brentwood 2/28/2017 alana hay Danville 2/28/2017 Amir Mayblum Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 David BRENNAN Danville 2/28/2017 Sabina Tamber Danville 2/28/2017 Valerie Watson Diablo 2/28/2017 Eugene Paschal Danville 2/28/2017 Diana Wu Danville 2/28/2017 Izak Mutlu Danville 2/28/2017 Huda Soliman Danville 2/28/2017 David Watson DIABLO 2/28/2017 Mike Lamberson Danville 2/28/2017 Erica Layman Danville 2/28/2017 Lois Morris Danville 2/28/2017 Zohar Fuchs Danville 2/28/2017 Hagit Fuchs Danville 2/28/2017 Donya George Danville 2/28/2017 Justine Frazier Danville 2/28/2017 Deborah Dafoe Alamo 2/28/2017 Xueyan Lu Danville 2/28/2017 Vicky Wong Danville 2/28/2017 Denise Geist Danville 2/28/2017 The Ridley family Danville 2/28/2017 Mahima Marichetty Danville 2/28/2017 Marina Kol Danville 2/28/2017 Madison Thieleman Ann Arbor 2/28/2017 Karen Carranza Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 Babak Rashidi Danville 2/28/2017 John Sommes Danville 2/28/2017 Brianna Romanoff Danville 2/28/2017 Nancy Vazquez Danville 2/28/2017 Liz Dobbins Oakland 2/28/2017 Jacquie Laflamme Danville 2/28/2017 Mary Burt Utica 2/28/2017 Janeen Beach-Thomas Danville 2/28/2017 JoAnn McNutt Danville 2/28/2017 Alexa Armanino Danville 2/28/2017 Eleanor Woods danville 2/28/2017 Tracey Bennett Alamo 2/28/2017 Susan Dalton Danville 2/28/2017 Connie Dahl Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Neil Ryding Warrington 2/28/2017 Lianghong Guo Danville 2/28/2017 Tricy Otten Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 Inna Habelski San Leandro 2/28/2017 Susan Langner Danville 2/28/2017 Jianmin Men Danville 2/28/2017 Stella Lampsas San Ramon 2/28/2017 Lisa Statner Alamo 2/28/2017 Shirley Xue Danville 2/28/2017 Lucy Ni Danville 2/28/2017 Imran Khan Danville 2/28/2017 Corrina Parker Toowoomba 2/28/2017 DeAnne Garrehy Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Shannon Smith Danville 2/28/2017 Terry Feng Concord 2/28/2017 Valarie Gebhart Danville 2/28/2017 Monica Spina-Forni Danville 2/28/2017 Laura Kennell St. Louis 2/28/2017 Eugenia Chern Danville 2/28/2017 Karyne MacLeod San Ramon 2/28/2017 Christeen Anderson Crestview 2/28/2017 Kyle Spackman Danville 2/28/2017 Elizabeth Harvey Danville 2/28/2017 Sigrid Dr. Neef 37688 Beverungen 2/28/2017 Janine Baker San Ramon 2/28/2017 Laura Miller San Ramon 2/28/2017 Nancy DiOrio Danville 2/28/2017 Gwen Colley Lafayette 2/28/2017 Moira D'Souza Danville 2/28/2017 Linda Carp Danville 2/28/2017 Diane Beinke Danville 2/28/2017 Rose Burnett Castro Valley 2/28/2017 Michael Anderson Danville 2/28/2017 Audra Dewitt Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Robert Braseny Yorba Linda 2/28/2017 Jon Hiller Danville 2/28/2017 Sandie Shields Alamo 2/28/2017 Robyn Mizes Danville 2/28/2017 Tim Ryan Danville 2/28/2017 Sunny Kim Danville 2/28/2017 Erika Shaffer Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Kirsten Vogeley Danville 2/28/2017 andrea scott alamo 2/28/2017 Stephanie Swenson Danville 2/28/2017 Monica Kunzel Danville 2/28/2017 Thomas Mulvihill Danville 2/28/2017 Lisa Winn Danville 2/28/2017 Goran Jović Izola 2/28/2017 Charlotte Affolter Danville 2/28/2017 Nancy Mulvihill Danville 2/28/2017 Samantha Dooley Danville 2/28/2017 Stacey Flanagan Danville 2/28/2017 Allen Mueller Alamo 2/28/2017 Patrick Baur Boise 2/28/2017 Kendall Montgomery Alamo 2/28/2017 Robert Gruber Danville 2/28/2017 Sheila De La Torre Danville 2/28/2017 Will Greer Danville 2/28/2017 Kathy Kaufman Livermore 2/28/2017 Susan DuRoff Danville 2/28/2017 Jim Baldetti Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 Joy Stroehmann Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 James Hoffmann Danville 2/28/2017 Kerri Gilbert Danville 2/28/2017 Natallia Shvakel Danville 2/28/2017 D. Rossiter Danville 2/28/2017 Peter Riley Danville 2/28/2017 Bennett Christoffersen Danville 2/28/2017 Michelle Price Danville 2/28/2017 Mike Taylor Danville 2/28/2017 Liberty Efird Danville 2/28/2017 susan harvey Walnut Creek 2/28/2017 Jacob Don Sing BOULDER 2/28/2017 Robert Winn Danville 2/28/2017 Travis Harrell West Hollywood 2/28/2017 Lisa Lohmann Danville 2/28/2017 Hannah Pence Danville 2/28/2017 Adam Carp Danville 2/28/2017 Caroline Arakelian Danville 2/28/2017 Meredith Michel Alamo 2/28/2017 Linda Kinf Danville 2/28/2017 Leslie Sprague Danville 2/28/2017 Ryan Mullins Danville 2/28/2017 Joni Campbell Danville 2/28/2017 Daniel Marcoulis Long Beach 2/28/2017 Christopher Kmiec Danville 2/28/2017 Luke Goldstein Danville 2/28/2017 cyndy guard Danville 2/28/2017 Robin Bregante Danville 2/28/2017 Will Estes Danville 2/28/2017 Sara Spranger Danville 2/28/2017 Stacey Hein Concord 2/28/2017 Eden Brodsky Danville 2/28/2017 Kevin Rolens Danville 2/28/2017 Nasser Gaemi Danville 2/28/2017 Trevor Wolfe Pleasanton 2/28/2017 John Schwartz Danville 2/28/2017 alvaro lizama Dublin 2/28/2017 Megan Carp Danville 2/28/2017 Blesilda Strenk Danville 2/28/2017 Carrie Stouffer Bloomington 2/28/2017 Roberta Golez Danville 2/28/2017 Jordan Dalton Zionsville 2/28/2017 Rachelle Mittelstet Danville 2/28/2017 Samuel Vila Danville 2/28/2017 Mariska Catsman-Okkersen Uithoorn 2/28/2017 Mary Ann Schultz Danville 2/28/2017 Morgan Wolfe Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Janinne Franke Danville 2/28/2017 Gabriela Garner Danville 2/28/2017 Denise Jackson Danville 2/28/2017 Patricia Seay Danville 2/28/2017 Terry Magovern Danville 2/28/2017 Michele Wong danville 2/28/2017 Ali DiMaggio Danville 2/28/2017 Madison Somerday Danville 2/28/2017 Devin Pontious Danville 2/28/2017 emma grant Danville 2/28/2017 Donna Daily Danville 2/28/2017 Riley Purcell Danville 2/28/2017 Haley Pence Danville 2/28/2017 Mike Davis Danville 2/28/2017 Jane Oliver Danville 2/28/2017 Dotti Lovato Danville 2/28/2017 Lesli Blackman Danville 2/28/2017 Cynthia & Henk Evenhuis Danville 2/28/2017 Gail Larsen Danville 2/28/2017 Laura Fiveash Danville 2/28/2017 brenda zwahlen Danville 2/28/2017 fred reichelt Danville 2/28/2017 DIANA CONDON Danville 2/28/2017 Mckenna Kumnick Danville 2/28/2017 Stuart Arakelian Danville 2/28/2017 Amanda Diehl Danville 2/28/2017 Rebecca Spranger Danville 2/28/2017 Brooke Ambrosr Portland 2/28/2017 Pria Athani Danville 2/28/2017 Vicky Spranger Danville 2/28/2017 Julie Carges Danville 2/28/2017 Ala Ammsso Danville 2/28/2017 Mark McLaren Danville 2/28/2017 Chris By ee Danville 2/28/2017 Regina Spranger Danville 2/28/2017 Carmen Lim Danville 2/28/2017 Cameron Yee Danville 2/28/2017 Paulinha Russell Carrizozo 2/28/2017 Brenda House Diablo 2/28/2017 Gayle Braun Danville 2/28/2017 CHRISTINE NEWPOWER Danville 2/28/2017 Guogang Wang San Ramon 2/28/2017 Mehwish Jalal Danville 2/28/2017 Terri Waterman Danville 2/28/2017 Jay lou Lafayette 2/28/2017 Ellen Sardella Diablo 2/28/2017 John Efird Danville 2/28/2017 Braun Gustav Danville 2/28/2017 Scott Haskell Danville 2/28/2017 Kathleen Sheehy Danville 2/28/2017 William Sardella Diablo 2/28/2017 Stephen Marotti Danville 2/28/2017 Allison Peed Danville 2/28/2017 Andre Berenfeld Danville 2/28/2017 jennifer thomas Danville 2/28/2017 sue sch.Florida 2/28/2017 Edward Parish Danville 2/28/2017 Yuan Wu Pleasanton 2/28/2017 Morgan Murphy Danville 2/28/2017 Pamela Kraft Danville,2/28/2017 Laurie Cindric Danville 2/28/2017 Richard Thomas Danville 2/28/2017 Blake McMahon Danville 2/28/2017 Linda Wong Danville 2/28/2017 Kyle Dennehy Danville 3/1/2017 Kylie Foster Danville 3/1/2017 Lining Sun Saratoga 3/1/2017 Diana Roberts Danville 3/1/2017 Ning Ma Moraga 3/1/2017 Katelyn White Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Sandra Thornton Danville 3/1/2017 Olivia White Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Erin McMahon Danville 3/1/2017 Judith Montgomery Danville 3/1/2017 Monica White Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Amede Hungerford Danville 3/1/2017 Caitlin McLeod Walnut Creek 3/1/2017 Cassandra Boyer Danville 3/1/2017 Kristin Rouse San Ramon 3/1/2017 Janice Lind Livermore 3/1/2017 ava Hedayat Danville 3/1/2017 Jacob Singer Danville 3/1/2017 Allie Gonsalves Alamo 3/1/2017 Kelley Berg San Francisco 3/1/2017 Jillian Grabenstein Danville 3/1/2017 Judy Grabenstein Danville 3/1/2017 Charla Gabert Alamo 3/1/2017 Mary Tang Danville 3/1/2017 Alan Grabenstein Danville 3/1/2017 Corey Belt Danville 3/1/2017 Mary Garcia San Ramon 3/1/2017 Deborah Neisinger Danville 3/1/2017 Claire McMahon Danville 3/1/2017 Julie Watson Danville 3/1/2017 Robert Flannery SAN RAMON 3/1/2017 Jared Robins Danville 3/1/2017 Sheri Graybehl Danville 3/1/2017 Chad Cruz Danville 3/1/2017 Kevin Davidson Danville 3/1/2017 cathe martin Danville 3/1/2017 Myra Haidari Danville 3/1/2017 Wendy George Danville 3/1/2017 Debra P Danville 3/1/2017 Devan Atteberry Danville 3/1/2017 Thomas Tellner Diablo 3/1/2017 Amanda Mileski Danville 3/1/2017 Leanne Furman Walnut Creek 3/1/2017 Kayt Dickinson Danville 3/1/2017 Philip Millhollon Danville 3/1/2017 Megan essig Danville 3/1/2017 Bob Sanguedolce Danville 3/1/2017 Emily Clay Danville 3/1/2017 Vanessa Peterson Danville 3/1/2017 John Brackett Danville 3/1/2017 Osman Sorkhabi Danville 3/1/2017 LInda Metzler Diablo 3/1/2017 Frederick Pulpaneck Danville 3/1/2017 Patricia Peed Danville 3/1/2017 April Gagnon Vallejo 3/1/2017 Margaret Punch Danville 3/1/2017 James Guinn Danville 3/1/2017 Qinghua Li San Ramon 3/1/2017 nancy norland Danville 3/1/2017 Jo Ann Watson Danville 3/1/2017 Stephanie Jordan Danville 3/1/2017 Katie Pasichuke Alamo 3/1/2017 Dee Pathman Danville 3/1/2017 Edward Klass Danville 3/1/2017 Julie Low Danville 3/1/2017 Sandeep Singh Danville 3/1/2017 Bette Smith Danville 3/1/2017 Dana Jolly San Ramon 3/1/2017 Lauren Martins Danville 3/1/2017 justin hughs san ramon 3/1/2017 Sally Rasted Danville 3/1/2017 Jinghua Huang Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Connie Ozdil Danville 3/1/2017 Darlene Uyeno Danville 3/1/2017 Dorothy Schatzinger Danville 3/1/2017 Anitha Mohanasundaram San Ramon 3/1/2017 Yazan Hanouneh Danville 3/1/2017 Wenhui Li Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Steve Spiva Danville 3/1/2017 John Messerly Danville 3/1/2017 Mariah Foodman Avon Lake 3/1/2017 Margret Roobol San Ramon 3/1/2017 Rachel Mace Alamo 3/1/2017 Nicholas Ricart Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Gianna Ahern Danville 3/1/2017 Ella Wang Danville 3/1/2017 Intissar Hanouneh San Ramon 3/1/2017 mehr sharma Danville 3/1/2017 Adam Yannuzzi Danville 3/1/2017 Han Qu San Ramon 3/1/2017 Karen Yee San Ramon 3/1/2017 Kian Tabrizi Danville 3/1/2017 Robert Cucchiaro Danville 3/1/2017 Chris Rudewicz Danville 3/1/2017 Katherine Stupak Walnut Creek 3/1/2017 Urs Widmer Danville 3/1/2017 Harleen sethi Danville 3/1/2017 Kristi Wilkins Danville 3/1/2017 teresa marohn milford 3/1/2017 Leon Calkins San Ramon 3/1/2017 Fiona Frie Danville 3/1/2017 Ashley Donathan Danville 3/1/2017 Adam Ezrilov Danville 3/1/2017 James Ginther San Ramon 3/1/2017 Greg Corcoran Danville 3/1/2017 Claudia Bistrain Danville 3/1/2017 Alicia Baccei Danville 3/1/2017 William DePaschalis Danville 3/1/2017 Danielle Haberstroh Danville 3/1/2017 Mark Torres Danville 3/1/2017 Anne Donathan Danville 3/1/2017 Erica Tom Alamo 3/1/2017 Christine MacDonald Danville 3/1/2017 Russel Schatzinger Danville 3/1/2017 Gemma Kabitzke Danville 3/1/2017 Tomer Fidelman Danville 3/1/2017 Karen Neff Danville 3/1/2017 Nick Wemyss Danville 3/1/2017 Janice Eklem Danville 3/1/2017 Cole DiMaggio Danville 3/1/2017 romeda arsanjani Danville 3/1/2017 Nupoor Gajjar Danville 3/1/2017 Danielle Land Danville 3/1/2017 Maryanne Sullivan Danville 3/1/2017 Gail Hargis-Brubaker Danville 3/1/2017 Chao Ruan Discovery Bay 3/1/2017 John Fischer Danville 3/1/2017 Madison Lorenz Danville 3/1/2017 Susie Kulwin Danville 3/1/2017 Jacquie Fanelli San Ramon 3/1/2017 Nathan Diemdowicz San Ramon 3/1/2017 Christina Riley Danville 3/1/2017 Matthew Chiodo Danville 3/1/2017 Leslie Mague San Ramon 3/1/2017 Kevin Neary Danville 3/1/2017 Kim Clark Danville 3/1/2017 Rush S San Francisco 3/1/2017 Phil Collins Danville 3/1/2017 Gentry Higgins Eugene 3/1/2017 Chau Nguyen Danville 3/1/2017 Julie DiGiulio Comaduran Danville 3/1/2017 Kathleen Trencheny Dublin 3/1/2017 Angie Iban Danville 3/1/2017 Jennie Drummond Danville 3/1/2017 Edward Yoo Danville 3/1/2017 wendy sula danville 3/1/2017 Melody Svagdis Danville 3/1/2017 Mary Quinn Danville 3/1/2017 Susan Becker Danville 3/1/2017 Carissa Manzo Danville 3/1/2017 Jenny Brown Danville 3/1/2017 William Becker Danville 3/1/2017 Andres Doehrman Danville 3/1/2017 Niki Lianides Danville 3/1/2017 Karen Carnegie-Stochl Danville 3/1/2017 Joway Christensen Danville 3/1/2017 Evelyn Dalton Danville 3/1/2017 Catherine Davies Danville 3/1/2017 fei geng Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Craig Smith Danville 3/1/2017 Brenda Welti Danville 3/1/2017 john davies Danville 3/1/2017 Bryan Hix Danville 3/1/2017 Kelley Neil Danville 3/1/2017 Aparna Srinivasan Danville 3/1/2017 Neela Arumugham Danville 3/1/2017 Robert Davies Danville 3/1/2017 Anna Samaras Danville 3/1/2017 Benjamin Greer Danville 3/1/2017 Marissa Mann Danville 3/1/2017 Sabra Suharwardy Danville 3/1/2017 Rianna Last Danville 3/1/2017 Adam Jarrett South Lake Tahoe 3/1/2017 Nancy Moussa Danville 3/1/2017 Weili Wu Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Harry Mankabady San Ramon 3/1/2017 Jen Houston Danville 3/1/2017 Amber Hamblin Danville 3/1/2017 Josh Abbott Alamo 3/1/2017 Marilyn Kennedy Danville 3/1/2017 SL Chan San Ramon 3/1/2017 Alden Wong San Ramon 3/1/2017 Denise Loo San Ramon 3/1/2017 susan wong San Ramon 3/1/2017 Rowena Chin San Ramon 3/1/2017 Brennan MacKay Walnut Creek 3/1/2017 Allison Shaw Danville 3/1/2017 Alfy Louis Danville 3/1/2017 Uzma Abbas San Ramon 3/1/2017 Kimberly Hill Danville 3/1/2017 Julie Fisher Walnut creek 3/1/2017 Leila Hareb San Ramon 3/1/2017 Mariana Pryhuber Danville 3/1/2017 Lisa Ballard Oakland 3/1/2017 Kim Manter Danville 3/1/2017 Teresa Routt Danville 3/1/2017 Kamaldeep Bal San Ramon 3/1/2017 Christie Chong Danville 3/1/2017 MIGUEL VELAZCO San Ramon 3/1/2017 Swati Bohra San Ramon 3/1/2017 Peiying Lo Moraga 3/1/2017 Anil Pandey San Ramon 3/1/2017 angela rabon conway 3/1/2017 Rachelle Kintzer Danville 3/1/2017 Melissa Austin Danville 3/1/2017 Thomas Vargas Danville 3/1/2017 Jeffrey Su Danville 3/1/2017 Neil McGuire Danville 3/1/2017 Richard Kim Danville 3/1/2017 Judy Li Dublin 3/1/2017 Vangal Nithyanandan Danville 3/1/2017 Leyla Alhosseini Danville 3/1/2017 Vinay Parachuri San Ramon 3/1/2017 Zaira Chowdhury San Ramon 3/1/2017 Vanessa Felix Danville 3/1/2017 michael laird San Ramon 3/1/2017 Betty Pang Danville 3/1/2017 devin king Danville 3/1/2017 Jenn Cordeiro Danville 3/1/2017 Rose Kim Danville 3/1/2017 Michael Cordeiro Danville 3/1/2017 John Nelson Alamo 3/1/2017 Janeen Lim San Ramon 3/1/2017 thomas weir San Ramon 3/1/2017 Shahid Khan San Ramon 3/1/2017 amy herrera danville 3/1/2017 Joyce Tong Danville 3/1/2017 Gaurav Gehlot San Ramon 3/1/2017 MARK SHI San Ramon 3/1/2017 Lucy Shi San Ramon 3/1/2017 Tessie Gonsalves San Ramon 3/1/2017 Susan Bright San Ramon 3/1/2017 Srivalli Ravi San Ramon 3/1/2017 Shubhra Bhatnagar San Ramon 3/1/2017 Khosrow Hassibi Danville 3/1/2017 Darya Hassibi Danville 3/1/2017 barbara Moody Alamo 3/1/2017 Michelle Martinea Danville 3/1/2017 Omid Hassibi Danville 3/1/2017 Peggy Wilkerson Danville 3/1/2017 John Nakhla San Ramon 3/1/2017 Marissa Stewart Danville 3/1/2017 Anil Verma San Ramon 3/1/2017 Sarah Zdarko Danville 3/1/2017 Bala talkad San Ramon 3/1/2017 Rajbala Makar San Ramon 3/1/2017 Laura Heiman San Francisco 3/1/2017 Miriam Gemmell San Ramon 3/1/2017 Yongjin Xu San Ramon 3/1/2017 Mitra Downes Danville 3/1/2017 Chris Dowdy Danville 3/1/2017 Dina Hanna Danville 3/1/2017 Bjioy Bora San Ramon 3/1/2017 Christina Knievel San Ramon 3/1/2017 Steven Elders Danville 3/1/2017 Jennifer Gallagher Danville 3/1/2017 Susan Greene Danville 3/1/2017 Terry Bergh San Ramon 3/1/2017 Nichole Pera Danville 3/1/2017 Bruce Sattley San Ramon 3/1/2017 Sachin Gupta San Ramon 3/1/2017 Heather Dy San Ramon 3/1/2017 Adrienne Cole Danville 3/1/2017 Kris Vargas Danville 3/1/2017 Christina Huggins Mill Valley 3/1/2017 Dane Riley San RAmon 3/1/2017 Linda Jacobs Danville 3/1/2017 Jane Euler Danville 3/1/2017 Sue Fellows Ross-on-Wye 3/1/2017 Lily Ip San Ramon 3/1/2017 Heather Ko Danville 3/1/2017 Liana Favro Danville 3/1/2017 Catherine Turnbull San Ramon 3/1/2017 Linda Crowe Danville 3/1/2017 Stacy Tegner Alamo 3/1/2017 Patricia MEZZADRI Danville 3/1/2017 Nolan Wheeler Pleasanton 3/1/2017 Kevin Svagdis Danville 3/1/2017 Sardar Heshmati Danville 3/1/2017 Kini Natekar San Ramon 3/1/2017 Ryan Morgan Danville 3/1/2017 Gerlane Hom Danville 3/1/2017 Paul Zegar Danville 3/1/2017 Vanessa Girard Fremont 3/2/2017 Christopher Holroyd Danville 3/2/2017 Pam Clemmons Danville 3/2/2017 Chris Idowu San Ramon 3/2/2017 Weifeng Liu Dublin 3/2/2017 Karry Wang San Ramon 3/2/2017 Shanon Craun Danville 3/2/2017 Tricia Corcoran Danville 3/2/2017 Sara Thomas San Ramon 3/2/2017 Dianne Temkin Danville 3/2/2017 Chris Knouss Danville 3/2/2017 Givo Younani San Ramon 3/2/2017 Nicole Runfola Danville 3/2/2017 Wendy Heathorn Danville 3/2/2017 Royene Chun San Ramon 3/2/2017 Wendy Sanchez San Ramon 3/2/2017 jasper sierra Laytonville 3/2/2017 Cody Lipsin Danville 3/2/2017 kevin harber Danville 3/2/2017 Edward Baker Danville 3/2/2017 Crystal Laherrere Oakland 3/2/2017 Tjip Sugijoto San Ramon 3/2/2017 Carol Prims Danville 3/2/2017 George Pryhuber Danville 3/2/2017 Ramon herrera Danville 3/2/2017 Ram Sundaram San Ramon 3/2/2017 Jeffrey Federico Danville 3/2/2017 Troy Larson Danville 3/2/2017 Kathryn Mendaros Danville 3/2/2017 Emily Liberatore Danville 3/2/2017 Carina Hale Danville 3/2/2017 Benet Havercroft Danville 3/2/2017 Paige Shepler Livermore 3/2/2017 Elisha Perez Danville 3/2/2017 Linda Ritz Walnut Creek 3/2/2017 Preetinder Brar Danville 3/2/2017 Barbara Abbatiello Danville 3/2/2017 Fiona Wong Danville 3/2/2017 Susanna Gutkin San Francisco 3/2/2017 Andrea DeLong Danville 3/2/2017 Christine Harris San Lorenzo 3/2/2017 Jeffrey Draper Danville 3/2/2017 Simmi malhotra San Ramon 3/2/2017 Kevin Jesse Alamo 3/2/2017 Ravi Ay San Ramon 3/2/2017 Julie Van Groningen Livermore 3/2/2017 Jack Kennedy Danville 3/2/2017 Dan Spicer Danville 3/2/2017 Mark Nakhla San Ramon 3/2/2017 Jack Wilkerson Danville 3/2/2017 Saurav Mahanti Danville 3/2/2017 Sumit Sachdev Danville 3/2/2017 Manoj Bajaj Danville 3/2/2017 Victor Weiss Kinde 3/2/2017 Melissa Finlinson Danville 3/2/2017 Sheri seybold Danville 3/2/2017 Patrick Seybold Danville 3/2/2017 Katharine Ryan Danville 3/2/2017 Lauren Maggard Danville 3/2/2017 Leticia Maiorana Danville 3/2/2017 Jenny Lee Danville 3/2/2017 Erin Rau Danville 3/2/2017 Hanmantha Mole Danville 3/2/2017 David Dowling Danville 3/2/2017 Michael Townsend Danville 3/2/2017 Peterson Li San Ramon 3/2/2017 Jamak Golshani Danville 3/2/2017 Sarah Vuu Espoo Finland 3/2/2017 Alexia Louis Danville 3/2/2017 Kristin Pounds Danville 3/2/2017 David Wu Danville 3/2/2017 Travis Eaton Alamo 3/2/2017 Karen Irey Danville 3/2/2017 Melissa Brown San Ramon 3/2/2017 Bryan Hudson Alamo 3/2/2017 David Fancher San Ramon 3/2/2017 sandhya B San Ramon 3/2/2017 Anita Moirao Danville 3/2/2017 Gavin Barnett Trabuco Canyon 3/2/2017 Debbie Akel Danville 3/2/2017 Davinia Hernández Gómez 3/3/2017 Man Gao San Ramon 3/3/2017 Louie Higaki Danville 3/3/2017 Ashley Robinson San Ramon 3/3/2017 Lily Weng Danville 3/3/2017 Tamara Scott San Ramon 3/3/2017 Sheri Bennett Danville 3/3/2017 kevin lew Danville 3/3/2017 Jehan Liles Danville 3/3/2017 Grace Chen Danville 3/3/2017 Lauren Webb Danville 3/3/2017 Laura Hennon Danville 3/3/2017 Yixue Zhu Pacific 3/3/2017 Nancy Raaum Walnut Creek 3/3/2017 Stephanie Stafford Danville 3/3/2017 Romina Frank Danville 3/3/2017 Sambasiva Ganne San Ramon 3/3/2017 Arman Mogharei Danville 3/3/2017 Karen Gustafson Danville 3/3/2017 Mark Hoeser Danville 3/3/2017 Lester Lew Danville 3/3/2017 Deborah Inouye San Ramon 3/3/2017 Darla Vorous Danville 3/3/2017 Anita Evans Danville 3/3/2017 Isabella Li Danville 3/3/2017 Frank Maiorana Danville 3/3/2017 Nathan Martin Danville 3/3/2017 Lin Yang San Ramon 3/3/2017 Katy Repp Ashland 3/3/2017 Kyle Schuck San Ramon 3/3/2017 Lata Thampy Danville 3/3/2017 Vladislav Yavichev Danville 3/4/2017 Cathryn Soule Pleasanton 3/4/2017 katherine rhodes Pebble Beach 3/4/2017 Reinaldo Penno San Ramon 3/4/2017 Barbara Halperin Alamo 3/4/2017 Shauna Smith Danville 3/4/2017 Ricardo Villasenor Danville 3/4/2017 Heather Angerame Danville 3/4/2017 Dana Garson Danville 3/4/2017 Patrick Chan Danville 3/4/2017 Dwane Michael Alamo 3/4/2017 Ashish Sahni Danville 3/4/2017 Dora Setna Danville 3/4/2017 Jill Seidenverg Danville 3/4/2017 Manasee Dash Danville 3/4/2017 Kristy Appleton Danville 3/4/2017 Emily Wetmore Danville 3/4/2017 Ruchi Sachdev Danville 3/4/2017 Jennifer Diehl Danville 3/4/2017 Darren Leary Danville 3/4/2017 Steven Booras Danville 3/4/2017 Gayathri Prasanna Danville 3/4/2017 Stephanie Langbaum Danville 3/4/2017 Angela Zhang Danville 3/4/2017 Patricia Carter Pleasanton 3/4/2017 Wendy Lee Danville 3/4/2017 Edward DeMattia Danville 3/4/2017 Barbra Nystrom Diablo 3/4/2017 Amina Malik San Ramon 3/4/2017 Gero Wölfel Ichtershausen 3/4/2017 Shelly Bergstad Pleasanton 3/4/2017 Nazli Kireclik Danville 3/4/2017 Peter Tschernenko Danville 3/4/2017 Joe Klaus Danville 3/4/2017 Marni Godvin Diablo 3/4/2017 Hank Holzapfel Alamo 3/4/2017 Rachel Narducci Danville 3/4/2017 Michelle Patterson Cedar Park 3/4/2017 Mary Wallace Rockport 3/4/2017 Madison Jeha Danville 3/4/2017 Maren Fleming Danville 3/4/2017 christin reni milano 3/4/2017 Barbara Ames Danville 3/4/2017 Scott Carrillo San Ramon 3/4/2017 Bine Regensburger innsbruck 3/4/2017 Mark Oney Danville 3/4/2017 Susan Kim San Ramon 3/4/2017 Cheryl Birnie Alamo 3/4/2017 Lisa Gross Danville 3/4/2017 Alyssa King Chicago 3/5/2017 Peter Kratz Astoria 3/5/2017 Robin Peoples Klau San Ramon 3/5/2017 Pinky Keswani Rajpal Danville 3/5/2017 Maryann Cella Diablo 3/5/2017 Brian Cella Diablo 3/5/2017 Shelly Braden Danville 3/5/2017 Anne Boyce Danville 3/5/2017 Suzann Cowing Danville 3/5/2017 Michael DeGrano San Ramon 3/5/2017 SUZANNE HILL Danville 3/5/2017 Michele Mitchell Danville 3/5/2017 Darcie Herman San Ramon 3/5/2017 Heather Helfer Alamo 3/5/2017 Melody Covay Danville 3/5/2017 Anne Nies Pleasanton 3/5/2017 kim washick 3/5/2017 James Taylor Westport 3/5/2017 Edith Farrell Helper 3/5/2017 Walter Smith Danville 3/5/2017 Jaime Towne Rochester 3/5/2017 Karen Manetta Danville 3/5/2017 Barbara Mensendiek Danville 3/5/2017 Harish Rajpal Danville 3/5/2017 Casey Rivers Danville 3/5/2017 Ellen Giagiari Danville 3/5/2017 Robert Barnett Pleasanton 3/5/2017 Jim Marr Danville 3/5/2017 Joan Wong Danville 3/5/2017 Jessica Raefield Diablo 3/6/2017 Terrie Phenicie Athelstane 3/6/2017 Matthew Lee San Ramon 3/6/2017 Pam Edgley Danville 3/6/2017 Lo Durst Redwood Valley 3/6/2017 Connie Tracy Danville 3/6/2017 Ellen Johns 3/6/2017 Joanne O'Meara Danville 3/6/2017 Dan Davis Danville 3/6/2017 Joseph Buhowsky San Ramon 3/6/2017 Tom Jong Danville 3/6/2017 fernando olivas San Ramon 3/6/2017 Kathy Dye Danville 3/6/2017 Elizabeth LaBasco Alamo 3/6/2017 Truc-Co Jong Danville 3/6/2017 Maria Eansor Danville 3/6/2017 Darolyn Lew Danville 3/6/2017 Helen Loverro Danville 3/6/2017 Steve Proctor Danville 3/6/2017 Cory Hickerson Danville 3/6/2017 David Huff Danville 3/6/2017 Daniel Basso Danville 3/6/2017 Bing Shen Danville 3/6/2017 Kavita Iyer San Ramon 3/6/2017 Tracy Fernandez Danville 3/6/2017 Gregg Rossen Moraga 3/6/2017 april johnson Danville 3/6/2017 Evangelene Glickman San Ramon 3/6/2017 Cynthia Continillo San Ramon 3/6/2017 Melissa Cohen San Ramon 3/6/2017 J Sutherland San Ramon 3/6/2017 Ted Shapas Alamo 3/6/2017 Barbara Scott Orinda 3/7/2017 Kelly Napoli-Floto San Ramon 3/7/2017 Greg Silva San Ramon 3/7/2017 James Wiese San Ramon 3/7/2017 Kellylouise Yount Temecula 3/7/2017 Mike Continillo San Ramon 3/7/2017 Jody Rich Danville 3/7/2017 Robert Schleicher Danville 3/7/2017 Erik Anderson San Ramon 3/7/2017 Thomas F Long Alamo 3/7/2017 Matthew Huff Danville 3/7/2017 Suzanne Heng San Ramon 3/7/2017 Kristine Broomhead San Ramon 3/7/2017 Molly Huff Danville 3/7/2017 Jen Murphy Dublin 3/7/2017 Michelle Mula Hercules 3/7/2017 Roxanna Siu Danville 3/7/2017 Eve Hart San Francisco 3/7/2017 Sangam Singh San Ramon 3/7/2017 Barbara Hunt Pittsburg 3/7/2017 AJ Bunuan Pacific Grove 3/7/2017 Bret Small Danville 3/7/2017 Dianna Gallagher Alamo 3/7/2017 Barbara Tillinghast Danville 3/7/2017 Linda Alexander San Ramon 3/7/2017 Susan Brandy Scotts Valley 3/7/2017 kellee reed Danville 3/7/2017 Erin Kuptz Danville 3/7/2017 Wendy Sumner Danville 3/7/2017 Skyler Anderson San Ramon 3/7/2017 ERIC Page El Cerrito 3/7/2017 Jill Dresser Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Stephanie Small Danville 3/7/2017 Janelle Santi Alamo 3/7/2017 Lori Duran Danville 3/7/2017 Kate Dougherty Concord 3/7/2017 Laura Ponder Lafayette 3/7/2017 Karie Chamberlain Livermore 3/7/2017 chaise lapierre Danville 3/7/2017 Darice Peruch San Ramon 3/7/2017 Terry Byrnes Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Debra Burris-Jebrin San Ramon 3/7/2017 MarcoⓋ Baracca Milano 3/7/2017 Christine daly San Ramon 3/7/2017 Jami Brown Martini Orinda 3/7/2017 Adrian Blumberg Lafayette 3/7/2017 Gregory McAdam Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Rob Seitelman Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Paul Soria Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Joann Oliver Danville 3/7/2017 june Lee Orinda 3/7/2017 Helene longenbaugh orinda 3/7/2017 Edna Raines walnut creek,3/7/2017 Martha H Breed Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Tina O'Brien Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Nicolas Dickten San Ramon 3/7/2017 Melodie White Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Christine Goff Lafayette 3/7/2017 Rev Jack Shriver Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Jason Kent Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Maureen Little Alamo 3/7/2017 Jennifer Rosen Lafayette 3/7/2017 Mary Ellen Dalgaard Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Cristen Godfrey Lafayette 3/7/2017 Lucy Sponsler Moraga 3/7/2017 Wei Liu Danville 3/7/2017 Susan Varela San Ramon 3/7/2017 John Fabris Orinda 3/7/2017 Carol Ann Hess Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Martha Martin Lafayette 3/7/2017 Pia Loeper Orinda 3/7/2017 Noel Benkman Orinda 3/7/2017 Nony Morgan Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Troy Hess Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Renee LaPerle Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Nadine Whisnant Orinda 3/7/2017 Kelle Joseph Livermore 3/7/2017 Donn Walklet Lafayette 3/7/2017 Jack Fuller Lafayette 3/7/2017 Daniel DeBusschere Orinda 3/7/2017 kerry bolen Lafayette 3/7/2017 Barbara Barkley Concord 3/7/2017 Donald Olmstead Lafayette 3/7/2017 Kelly Collins Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Meghan Baker Danville 3/7/2017 Eva Hey Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Joanne Hattum Diablo 3/7/2017 Wendy Cosin Oakland 3/7/2017 Susan Broadway Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Sharon Borglin Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Barbra Crumley Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 kelly silversmith Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Elizabeth Scott Danville 3/7/2017 diane himes Walnut Creek 3/7/2017 Melinda Wiseman Danville 3/7/2017 Tena Gallagher Danville 3/7/2017 Soranna Vunderman Danville 3/7/2017 Darcy Jones Alamo 3/7/2017 Natalie Van Leekwijck Deurne 3/7/2017 Jennifer Gates Alamo 3/8/2017 Gary Cavalli Danville 3/8/2017 Marilyn Matli Danville 3/8/2017 Deanna Anderson San Ramon 3/8/2017 Chen Chen Danville 3/8/2017 Margaret O'Reilly Danville 3/8/2017 LaRue La Rue Danville 3/8/2017 Jennifer Pickett Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Beverly Johnson Danville 3/8/2017 Ari K San Francisco 3/8/2017 Meera Higbee Dublin 3/8/2017 DENISE JOHNSON Danville 3/8/2017 maria mrasek walnut creek 3/8/2017 Michael Ricupito Danville 3/8/2017 erika Kay Danville 3/8/2017 Sri Navan Danville 3/8/2017 Helen Vesser Danville 3/8/2017 Octavio Ricart Pleasanton 3/8/2017 Diana Burnsides Danville 3/8/2017 Amy Brain WC 3/8/2017 Nieva Cruz Danville 3/8/2017 denise Wynant Danville 3/8/2017 donna l danville 3/8/2017 Daniel Bushell Danville 3/8/2017 Dawn Eames Moraga 3/8/2017 Cathy Wentworth Crockett 3/8/2017 Muhammad Ali San Ramon 3/8/2017 Jennifer Zotter Danville 3/8/2017 Heather Campbell Danville 3/8/2017 Terry Meyer link Danville 3/8/2017 Lisa Bakos Diablo 3/8/2017 Melody Wang Danville 3/8/2017 Lisa Lennon-Wilkins Stockton 3/8/2017 Mike Elbert Danville 3/8/2017 Laura Elliott Danville 3/8/2017 Margot Dempster Danville 3/8/2017 Julie Clark Orinda 3/8/2017 Dylan Dempster Danville 3/8/2017 Ben Borglin Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Garner Low Danville 3/8/2017 Richard Link Danville 3/8/2017 Carolyn Mun Concord 3/8/2017 Laurie Parry Danville 3/8/2017 Jenifer Balducci orindardOrinda 3/8/2017 Joy Turchie Danville 3/8/2017 Karen Perkins Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Diane Arobio Danville 3/8/2017 David Roche Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Pam Mcmillin Vallejo 3/8/2017 Candi Brooks-Williams Orinda 3/8/2017 Diane Offutt Pleasanton 3/8/2017 Kate Morgan-Chu Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Heather Michaels Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Jessica Mattson Danville 3/8/2017 Christine Scimia Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Donna Laverdiere Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Cynthia Schaeffer Danville 3/8/2017 Martin Brook Lafayette 3/8/2017 John Kushik Danville 3/8/2017 Holly Barrett Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Aly Phillips Diablo 3/8/2017 Jean Peterson Danville 3/8/2017 Meaghan Saint Walnut Creek 3/8/2017 Stacey DeMarco Andrews Gainesville 3/8/2017 Brian Oas Pleasanton 3/8/2017 karen roux Lafayette 3/8/2017 Chris Parker Danville 3/9/2017 Teli Thayer Lafayette 3/9/2017 Mary Ransdell Lafayette 3/9/2017 Christopher Lamiero San Ramon 3/9/2017 Kristina Maiken Lafayette 3/9/2017 barry montgomery Sacramento 3/9/2017 Diane Glickman Vallejo 3/9/2017 Barbara Milner Livermore 3/9/2017 Jennifer McCay Danville 3/9/2017 Patty Chang Discovery Bay 3/9/2017 Ghizal Asefi Danville 3/9/2017 Ra Perl Alamo 3/9/2017 Jessica Anderson Covington 3/9/2017 Jenna Yott Walnut Creek 3/9/2017 Thilak Somasundaram Danville 3/9/2017 Heather Aldret Charleston 3/9/2017 Lesley Peeler Danville 3/9/2017 Maureen McCarroll Danville 3/9/2017 Patricia Coffey Orinda 3/9/2017 Denise Underwood Walnut Creek 3/9/2017 Corinne Coffrini Walnut Creek 3/9/2017 Julie Curry Concord 3/10/2017 Melanie Firpo Danville 3/10/2017 Eric Yan Danville 3/10/2017 Stacy Fleming Fleming Danville 3/10/2017 Parshu Kulkarni San Ramon 3/10/2017 David Barraza 3/10/2017 Amy Apostolopoulos Danville 3/10/2017 Nicole Garay San Ramon 3/10/2017 Ruth Bailey Lafayette 3/10/2017 Erin Bailey Oakland 3/10/2017 Sonia Lamba Danville 3/10/2017 Teresa MacDonald Danville 3/10/2017 David MacDonald Danville 3/10/2017 Jill Reiner Walnut Creek 3/10/2017 Dennis Hyland Danville 3/10/2017 Bhuvana Guruswamy San Ramon 3/10/2017 Frank Mifsud Danville 3/10/2017 Pat Clark Concord 3/10/2017 Shelly Sudeora Danville 3/10/2017 Suneel Janga Danville 3/10/2017 Andrew Tompson San Ramon 3/11/2017 Amada Alvarez San Ramon 3/11/2017 Larry Silva Danville 3/11/2017 Sandeep Bhatia San Ramon 3/11/2017 Whitney Parsons Danville 3/11/2017 Penny Carstens Walnut Creek 3/11/2017 COLLEEN MCCARTY LAFAYETTE 3/11/2017 Daniel Parsons Danville 3/11/2017 Pamela Parsons Walnut Creek 3/12/2017 Leslie Cruz Danville 3/12/2017 Annette Yerby Danville 3/13/2017 Matt Finley Alamo 3/13/2017 Scott Vorhauer Danville 3/13/2017 Christine Perezalonso San Ramon 3/13/2017 Laurie Bushell Danville 3/13/2017 Kathleen Finley Alamo 3/13/2017 Monica Fonseca Danville 3/13/2017 Jennifer Kaelin Redwood City 3/13/2017 Jennifer Chapman Danville 3/14/2017 Colleen Brodt San Ramon 3/14/2017 Sharon Geernaert Danville 3/14/2017 Joyce Gillespie Danville 3/14/2017 Elaine Tsai Alamo 3/14/2017 Claire Weer Concord 3/14/2017 Rebecca Garrigan Alamo 3/14/2017 Racelle Campanelli Pleasanton 3/14/2017 Jeanne Kelly PLEASANTON 3/14/2017 Gina Filal Danville 3/14/2017 Julie Glaser Danville 3/14/2017 Amine Filal Danville 3/14/2017 Relura Horton Danville 3/14/2017 Jessica Clark Walnut Creek 3/14/2017 Carrie Iwasaki Danville 3/14/2017 megann spohn Danville 3/14/2017 Karly Karly Danville 3/15/2017 Martha Erisman Orinda 3/15/2017 Laura Hillebrandt Alamo 3/16/2017 Kristin Moore Alamo 3/16/2017 JoAnn Dawe Walnut Creek 3/17/2017 Alan Weer Concord 3/17/2017 Zachary Virgilio Danville 3/18/2017 Lindsay Virgilio Danville 3/19/2017 Gloria Jacobs Rio Vista 3/19/2017 Sofia McAnulty Danville 3/21/2017 Erica Hill 3/22/2017 Zarah Sheikh Diablo 3/22/2017 Toby Morris Danville 3/24/2017 Rebecca Cassara Danville 3/24/2017 Daniel Cassara Danville 3/25/2017 john pasqua ESCONDIDO 3/25/2017 Marlena Mertens New York 3/25/2017 Julian Thompson Borrego Springs 3/25/2017 Michael Cooper Seattle 3/25/2017 Aniruddha Vengurlekar Denver 3/25/2017 holli hoffman Redwood City 3/25/2017 Jeremy Hanson Milford 3/25/2017 emily johnson OAKLAND 3/26/2017 Madeline Hero Los Angeles 3/26/2017 Michael Kim Danville 3/26/2017 Mindy Wegner Danville 3/27/2017 Holli Smith Danville 3/27/2017 Susan frankel Danville 3/27/2017 Rich Chinn Danville 3/27/2017 Julie Montoya Danville 3/27/2017 Linda Wiley Danville 3/27/2017 Dan Hassler 3/28/2017 Ram Namburi Danville 3/31/2017 Chris Kim San Ramon 4/7/2017 Y Gu 丹维尔 4/7/2017 Maki Ishii Alamo 4/9/2017 Tamae Ishii New York 4/9/2017 Chris Datoc Alamo 4/9/2017 Rika Ishii-Price El Granada 4/9/2017 Jeffrey Nickell 4/14/2017 Sheila De La Torre Danville 4/14/2017 Brian Yashiki Danville 4/14/2017 Kimberly Siegler Livermore 4/14/2017 Chris Siegler Livermore 4/15/2017 Maude Tabrizi Danville 4/15/2017 debra severson PLeasanton 4/17/2017 Richard Mahan Danville 4/21/2017 monty foley warren 4/21/2017 Rachel Leip Jefferson City 4/21/2017 Susana Soares Braga 4/21/2017 Dylan Spalding San Francisco 4/21/2017 norma riccobene stuart 4/21/2017 Karen Harding San Ramon 4/21/2017 Joanne Smith Plano 4/22/2017 Gilda Levinson Pompano Beach 4/22/2017 Chris Scholl Neptune 4/22/2017 Heather Layman Danville 4/22/2017 Sandy Wei Danville 4/23/2017 Yen Chang Danville 4/23/2017 Frank Ridley Danville 5/1/2017 Leia Peison 44460 5/1/2017 jessica herzog 5/2/2017 Steven Stuart Danville 5/4/2017 Harper Wong Danville 5/4/2017 Fred Fall Cherry Hill 5/4/2017 Carol Baxter Danville 5/4/2017 Brooke Lindauer Clovis 5/5/2017 ellyn scarcella New Smyrna Beach 5/5/2017 Samuel D.5/6/2017 Joe Kardek Danville 5/6/2017 Josane Uriarte Dublin 5/7/2017 Maya Sommers Dublin 5/7/2017 Linda Plisskin Danville 5/7/2017 Katie Sutton Dublin 5/7/2017 Mary Kuduk Dublin 5/7/2017 Holly Jorgensen Dublin 5/8/2017 Scott Jorgensen Dublin 5/8/2017 JORDAN KUDUK Dublin 5/8/2017 Katy Fairman Danville 5/8/2017 Lonnie Walker 5/10/2017 Kim Liebetrau Dublin 5/10/2017 Utpala Anand San Ramon 5/15/2017 Vicki Nelson Pleasanton 5/15/2017 theresa fadda Pleasanton 5/15/2017 Лара Гольдберг Ashkelon 5/15/2017 Judy Hogan 5/15/2017 wendy bailey - hill Adelaide 5/15/2017 Shanni Borromeo San Ramon 5/16/2017 Ruchi Bansal San Ramon 5/16/2017 David Lim San Ramon 5/16/2017 Carole Bothwell San Ramon 5/16/2017 David Reeves Alamo 5/17/2017 Xiaoli Li Danville 5/17/2017 Ting wen San Ramon 5/17/2017 Zhonglun Ni Pleasanton 5/17/2017 Jesse Qian Danville 5/17/2017 Lin Yang San Ramon 5/17/2017 lucy almeida bloomfield 5/17/2017 Juanita Camacho Bridgeport 5/17/2017 Anita Laskaris St. Louis 5/17/2017 Bob Gruber Danville 5/17/2017 Abhey Lamba Danville 5/17/2017 Rich Lee San Jose 5/17/2017 Lauren Van sickle Danville 5/17/2017 Anne Keefe Hayward 5/17/2017 jian Shi San Ramon 5/17/2017 Austin Schellinck Danville 5/17/2017 Yuanyuan Meng 丹维尔 5/17/2017 Toby Armfield Danville 5/17/2017 Jenifer Zetlan Danville 5/17/2017 Jim Reed Danville 5/17/2017 Kristine Carter Danville 5/17/2017 John West Danville 5/17/2017 David Deneroff Danville 5/17/2017 Sobia Qureshi San Francisco 5/17/2017 Nancy Lee San Jose 5/17/2017 Craig Johnson Danville 5/17/2017 sharon Woodbury Danville 5/17/2017 Tina Ying Fremont 5/17/2017 matt abboushi Danville 5/17/2017 Lance Seymour Danville 5/17/2017 Megan Acharya Danville 5/17/2017 Mari Moschetti Danville 5/17/2017 Asmita Bhargava Danville 5/17/2017 Grace Hu Walnut Creek 5/18/2017 Denise Basso Danville 5/18/2017 Chi Zhou Danville 5/18/2017 Dave and Debbie Pursey Walnut Creek 5/18/2017 Simran Sachdeva Santa Clara 5/18/2017 MICHELLE SAUNDERS San Ramon 5/18/2017 Charles GrOpne instead Diablo 5/18/2017 Patricia Kenny Portland 5/18/2017 Pablo D. Cortez Salt Lake City 5/18/2017 Tracy Burgess San Ramon 5/18/2017 Rawad Khandakji Danville 5/18/2017 Mei Tao Danville 5/18/2017 Linyuan Bao Danville 5/18/2017 Lunu Hu Danville 5/18/2017 padmavathi rajagopalan San Ramon 5/18/2017 Praneet Khatra Danville 5/18/2017 Ismail Mahomed San Ramon 5/18/2017 grace chen Danville 5/18/2017 Michele Suth Danville 5/18/2017 M. Jawaid Danville 5/18/2017 Harry Gao San Ramon 5/18/2017 Thomas Hart Hart Danville 5/18/2017 Karthikeyan Chidambaram Danville 5/18/2017 Kimberley Tatro Danville 5/18/2017 Rebecca Wagner Fresno 5/18/2017 Ahmed Hashmi Modesto 5/18/2017 Rosemeri Cheng Danville 5/18/2017 Syed Raheem Concord 5/18/2017 HENG ZHOU 丹维尔 5/18/2017 Ann Ferrante Alamo 5/18/2017 Anwer Siddiqui Danville 5/18/2017 Linda Swick San Diego 5/19/2017 bernie hettrick Riverhead 5/19/2017 Michelle Krueger Merrillville 5/19/2017 Rob Erickson White Plains 5/19/2017 Ning Sun 丹维尔 5/19/2017 Wei Li Concord 5/19/2017 Maria Montecillo Danville 5/19/2017 Irina Goldenshteyn Danville 5/19/2017 Mo Dawud Danville 5/19/2017 Denise Yuen Danville 5/19/2017 Ken Burger Danville 5/19/2017 Heesoo Bushnell Danville 5/21/2017 Quanlin ZHOU Walnut Creek 5/22/2017 Marcia Hazard Danville 5/23/2017 Liankwee Peterson Danville 5/23/2017 tara wheeler Vienna 5/23/2017 Shawn & Jennifer Todino San Jose 5/23/2017 John Peiler San Ramon 5/23/2017 Rayna Gilbert Danville 5/23/2017 Jennifer Smith Concord 5/23/2017 Monica Bruno Fort Lee 5/23/2017 MIke M.Brooklyn 5/24/2017 shondra Bingaman Marysville 5/25/2017 Lynn Stewart Carmichael 5/25/2017 Karen Stanton Naples 5/25/2017 Steve Monty San Francisco 5/25/2017 Cassie Armfield Angwin 5/26/2017 J Gunkel Madison 5/26/2017 Jo Ann Draughon Encinitas 5/26/2017 Miriam Beckstrom Carbondale 5/26/2017 Shirley Haynes El Cajon 5/26/2017 Ernest Cooper Indianapolis 5/26/2017 Julie Graham Walnut Creek 5/26/2017 leonard lechner Hicksville 5/28/2017 Janice Banks Hillsboro 5/28/2017 Jacob Clarke Wheaton 5/29/2017 Jutta Grieder Burbank 5/29/2017 Mark Davis Brooklyn 5/30/2017 sheri Jeha San Ramon 5/31/2017 Philip Ferrante San Francisco 5/31/2017 Megan Thomas Walnut Creek 6/1/2017 Edlyn Sammanasu Pleasanton 6/12/2017 Susan Thomas Danville 6/15/2017 Shirley Osmer Diablo 6/15/2017 Jack Winn Alamo 6/18/2017 Linda Johnson Walnut Creek 6/18/2017 Martha Cross Bellevue 6/20/2017 Abid Farooq Danville 7/5/2017 Kiran Siddabasavaiah Santa Clara 7/7/2017 Laelah Quintor Livermore 7/7/2017 Jonathan Wang Fremont 7/7/2017 Phil Novak Walnut Creek 7/7/2017 JUN DAI San Jose 7/7/2017 Dale Vaccarello Danville 7/8/2017 Bijoy Sarkar San Ramon 7/8/2017 David Bydalek Walnut Creek 7/8/2017 Chun Lee Livermore 7/9/2017 Yogesh Joglekar Pleasanton 7/9/2017 Anthony Chan Pleasanton 7/9/2017 HsiaoYu Chu Pleasanton 7/9/2017 jun ye Redwood City 7/9/2017 Nancy McGrath Danville 7/10/2017 Edward Mcgrath Danville 7/10/2017 Precioso Gabrillo San Ramon 7/11/2017 Deepika Tikku San Ramon 7/13/2017 Srividya Vallurupalli Danville 7/14/2017 Susan Vance Pleasanton 7/14/2017 Helen Cheng Pasadena 7/14/2017 Yong Lee San Ramon 7/15/2017 Ed Noonen Danville 7/17/2017 Richard Gehring Danville 7/17/2017 Zoe Davies Danville 7/17/2017 Grace Helton Danville 7/17/2017 Larry Ryan Danville 7/17/2017 Melissa Dessoye Danville 7/17/2017 Richard Helton Danville 7/17/2017 Kim Van Horn Danville 7/17/2017 Pratik Mehta Pleasanton 7/17/2017 Kathleen Casey Danville 7/20/2017 Omer Mahmood Danville 7/25/2017 Geoff Townsend Pleasanton 7/28/2017 Rida Samar Sadat Bangalore 7/29/2017 Janet Mardirosian Concord 7/31/2017 dini tseung Pleasanton 7/31/2017 Joni Haddad Walnut Creek 8/3/2017 Rebecca Bhatt Danville 8/9/2017 Albert ONeill San Ramon 8/15/2017 Lucy Fontanills Arlington 8/16/2017 Cynthia Petrich Anacortes 8/16/2017 Linda Clair Englewood 8/16/2017 Glendy Perez Berkeley 8/18/2017 janet tepolt Tiverton 8/18/2017 Jennifer Long Oakland 8/18/2017 Gerald Ramos Oakland 8/20/2017 Elizabeth Pandolfelli NYC 8/20/2017 Christopher Williams Sanford 8/20/2017 Bryan Denman Danville 8/22/2017 Dan Racz Winfield 8/22/2017 Ravi janjanam San Jose 8/22/2017 Pamela Mullen San Francisco 8/22/2017 Steven Peavler San Francisco 8/22/2017 Sandro Reis Danville 8/22/2017 Jeanett Aguilar Walnut Creek 8/22/2017 Veronica Guzman Pleasanton 8/22/2017 Brook Spanier Alamo 8/22/2017 Mae Stoem Danville 8/22/2017 Liseth Corona Danville 8/22/2017 Hamm Olga Danville 8/22/2017 Medeya Reznikova 8/22/2017 Elena Alengoz 8/22/2017 John Lamberson Destin 8/22/2017 Julia e Oakland 8/22/2017 Wagma Rampa Alamo 8/22/2017 Viktoriya Bolster Concord 8/22/2017 Lena Elbirt Pleasant Hill 8/22/2017 Liza Cadnapaphornchai Walnut Creek 8/22/2017 Elena Balletti Danville 8/23/2017 Katrina Kelley Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Angela White 8/23/2017 Patricia Vella Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Supriya Gupta San Ramon 8/23/2017 Hilda Gudino San Ramon 8/23/2017 Annina Bron Concord 8/23/2017 Nicole Evasovic Livermore 8/23/2017 Meg Stasch Danville 8/23/2017 shannon kuhl Danville 8/23/2017 Averi Spalasso Orinda 8/23/2017 Suchir Gupta Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 alex kononovich Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Dana Laytham-Herbert Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Kristy Cadil Danville 8/23/2017 Tiffany Day Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Linda Jensen Livermore 8/23/2017 Brigid Doll San Anselmo 8/23/2017 Emily Eisan Danville 8/23/2017 W Benedict Danville 8/23/2017 Kristina Mitchell Danville 8/23/2017 Sarah Lickiss Pleasant Hill 8/23/2017 Jamie Smith Concord 8/23/2017 Jamie Budesilich Dublin 8/23/2017 Justin Pilkington Livermore 8/23/2017 Kevin Kane Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Ryane Siegel San Ramon 8/23/2017 Pam Berce San Ramon 8/23/2017 Katie Alworth Danville 8/23/2017 Tricia Macilwaine Danville 8/23/2017 Laura Wetherell Stockton 8/23/2017 Tyler Baldwin Lafayette 8/23/2017 Traci Ryan San Ramon 8/23/2017 Sonja Mason 8/23/2017 mike harrison danville 8/23/2017 Rania Narouz Guirguis Pleasanton 8/23/2017 Gordana Petrovic Belgrade 8/23/2017 Nicole Croghan Martinez 8/23/2017 Christine Clement Hayward 8/23/2017 Cara Greathouse Danville 8/23/2017 Chloé Sardou Akron 8/23/2017 Christina Madrid Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Parker Sinclair Virginia Beach 8/23/2017 Maryam Mercado Danville 8/23/2017 Lima Cranford Danville 8/23/2017 Cecelia Flanagan Danville 8/23/2017 Tamara Saquilabon 8/23/2017 Erin Garfin Orinda 8/23/2017 jessica ozment Dyersburg 8/23/2017 Jennifer Nielsen Dublin 8/23/2017 Nikki Snapp Danville 8/23/2017 Katie Merritt Concord 8/23/2017 Ellen Frasheski Martinez 8/23/2017 Donna Armillei Palm Harbor 8/23/2017 Melissa Selner Lafayette 8/23/2017 Mike Fargo Hayward 8/23/2017 Nancy Valett Castro Valley 8/23/2017 Lisa Pelayo Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Cori Kiefer Danville 8/23/2017 Kristi Nesbitt Brentwood 8/23/2017 Kirk Bennett Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Christiana Leung Lafayette 8/23/2017 Cynthia Brandt Dublin 8/23/2017 Pavithra Allen Danville 8/23/2017 Kaveh Sartipi Alamo 8/23/2017 Lindsay McCarrick Alamo 8/23/2017 Anne Taddei Pleasanton 8/23/2017 Jen Huntzinger Roseville 8/23/2017 Charlene Nyberg Alamo 8/23/2017 Lindsey Reardon Pleasant Hill 8/23/2017 Todd Bursey Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Christy Tuescher Danville 8/23/2017 Stacey Sinclair Pleasant Hill 8/23/2017 Emmanuelle Schwarz Berkeley 8/23/2017 Jennifer Guglielmi San Jose 8/23/2017 Niki Richie Roseville 8/23/2017 Maria Ochoa Concord 8/23/2017 Colleen Kandus Temecula 8/23/2017 George Gerton Bryn Mawr 8/23/2017 Lisa Tooloee Union City 8/23/2017 Renee Rogers San Ramon 8/23/2017 Crizelle Silva Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Nick Dickson Danville 8/23/2017 Ashley Kirk Redwood City 8/23/2017 Martha Spanos Union City 8/23/2017 Kathleen Loura Martinez 8/23/2017 Shawna Johnson Danville 8/23/2017 Parisa Mosavian Pleasanton 8/23/2017 Sean Whitlock Madera 8/23/2017 Jorja Gazmuri Discovery Bay 8/23/2017 Kim Stow Hayward 8/23/2017 Nicole Pilkington San Francisco 8/23/2017 Krisztina Owyang Livermore 8/23/2017 Jennifer Roda Sacramento 8/23/2017 jordan sugerik Watsonville 8/23/2017 Rachel Harrison-Lewis 8/23/2017 Susan Hogan Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Robin Roberts Arlington 8/23/2017 carol johnson Plano 8/23/2017 David Cmelak Dublin 8/23/2017 Jessica Hinz Bozeman 8/23/2017 Araceli Brun Walnut Creek 8/23/2017 Kristin Nicole Bruebaker Danville 8/23/2017 Ashley Williams Hayward 8/23/2017 Jennifer Parlett Danville 8/23/2017 Rebekah Rogers Union City 8/23/2017 Kristie Gray Danville 8/24/2017 Michelle Beckham Alamo 8/24/2017 Lisa Perotti Dublin 8/24/2017 Nicole Thompson Union City 8/24/2017 Doris Rice Danville 8/24/2017 Pat Herrera Hayward 8/24/2017 Kristin Leimkuhler Richmond 8/24/2017 Carrie Moniz San Diego 8/24/2017 Colleen Cooley Lafayette 8/24/2017 Karly Grilli 8/24/2017 Dustin Deeks Sacramento 8/24/2017 Julie Beck Fresno 8/24/2017 Amanda Trainer 8/24/2017 Steven Cabreana Castro Valley 8/24/2017 Hans De Lannoy San Jose 8/24/2017 Rose Spicer Concord 8/24/2017 anne Harding Danville 8/24/2017 Jodi Foucher San Francisco 8/24/2017 Devan Rudick Martinez 8/24/2017 Scott Burke New York 8/24/2017 Amber Silva 8/24/2017 Jenny Smith Gretna 8/24/2017 Erin Hostetler San Jose 8/24/2017 Linda Cianfrani Philadelphia 8/24/2017 Peter Palestino Philadelphia 8/24/2017 Sylvie Mackenzie Media 8/24/2017 Erin Magana brentwood 8/24/2017 Nichole Hsu Danville 8/24/2017 Jill Raymond Lafayette 8/24/2017 Laurie Wolfe Danville 8/24/2017 Joyelle Escalante Danville 8/24/2017 Michele Landes Pleasanton 8/24/2017 Leslie Alexander Houston 8/24/2017 Julie Silvers Danville 8/24/2017 Rima Switzer Lafayette 8/24/2017 Kristen Bewley 8/24/2017 Laurel Grillos San Luis Obispo 8/24/2017 Julie Jackson Oakhurst 8/24/2017 Gabrielle Penniman Danville 8/24/2017 Melissa Kress Alamo 8/24/2017 Tara Singer Alamo 8/24/2017 Nada Dudum Alamo 8/24/2017 Angela Nazzal San Ramon 8/24/2017 Ana Poblete Hayward 8/24/2017 Rachael Canavello Fall Creek 8/24/2017 Sherry Tatum Orinda 8/24/2017 Melanie Garcia San Jose 8/24/2017 Kelly Joseph Dublin 8/24/2017 Erica Bayardo Dublin 8/24/2017 Monica Paiva Brentwood 8/24/2017 Amber Burak Roseville 8/24/2017 DEMETRA Jaffin San Ramon 8/24/2017 Ellen Lockwood Livermore 8/24/2017 Catie Omo Dublin 8/24/2017 Rebecca McEnerney Alamo 8/24/2017 Jessica Richardson Elk Grove 8/24/2017 peri smith Manteca 8/24/2017 Rachel Brockett San Ramon 8/24/2017 Jaclyn Seiferth Dublin 8/24/2017 Kristy Crowell Lafayette 8/24/2017 Shawna Moore 8/24/2017 Eric Duemling 8/24/2017 Jenny Hauzer Dublin 8/24/2017 Wendy Dahlstrom Alamo 8/25/2017 Robin Cranford Pleasanton 8/25/2017 Erin Laird Salinas 8/25/2017 Melessa Hirschhorn Danville 8/25/2017 nicholas thompson Danville 8/25/2017 Melissa Metcalf San Jose 8/25/2017 Carisa Ferraioli Walnut Creek 8/25/2017 Rebecca Chen Union City 8/25/2017 Nicole Boyda-McClintock French Camp 8/25/2017 Nick Homes Walnut Creek 8/25/2017 Sarah Martin Vancouver 8/25/2017 John Lockwood Livermore 8/25/2017 Katheline Monnier San Ramon 8/25/2017 Chelsea Fisher Oakland 8/25/2017 Eric Berry Dublin 8/25/2017 Shirley wong San Ramon 8/25/2017 Nichol Lundin Sacramento 8/25/2017 Tricia Hites Dublin 8/25/2017 Robyn Chimenti San Ramon 8/25/2017 Alison H Dublin 8/25/2017 Alexi Monnier San Ramon 8/25/2017 Leo Modelo San Diego 8/25/2017 Jo Anne Christie Pleasant Hill 8/25/2017 Charlene Soots Moraga 8/25/2017 Brittany Bonnell Sacramento 8/25/2017 Karen Clay Chula Vista 8/25/2017 Marla Gardner San Ramon 8/25/2017 Zack Amos Houston 8/25/2017 andres venegas el paso 8/25/2017 Janice Rath Walnut Creek 8/25/2017 Leslie Soffiotto Stateline 8/25/2017 Anne Albanez Chula Vista 8/25/2017 Tamie Austin San Ramon 8/25/2017 Krissa Hermanson Pleasanton 8/25/2017 Rosie Homes 8/25/2017 Lynette Aguzzi San Ramon 8/25/2017 Diana Garnhart Livermore 8/26/2017 Margaret Brophy Goldens Bridge 8/26/2017 rhonda radford roseville 8/26/2017 Dawn Bredek Roseville 8/26/2017 Sarah Hancock Ladera Ranch 8/26/2017 Karen Hahn Dublin 8/26/2017 Rebecca clutts South lake tahoe 8/26/2017 Amy Burchett Pleasanton 8/26/2017 Kristen Gehres Carmichael 8/26/2017 Kathie Robson Placerville 8/26/2017 Conni noia Sacramento 8/26/2017 Bruce Coblentz San Ramon 8/26/2017 Mark Robson Placerville 8/26/2017 angel Gallegos Dublin 8/26/2017 Tamara Sanchez Dublin 8/27/2017 Thad Ferre Danville 8/27/2017 Eric Simmons San Ramon 8/27/2017 Jennifer Crosby Pleasanton 8/27/2017 Rhonda Scharton Dublin 8/27/2017 Jamie Cody Auburn 8/27/2017 Darryl Hahn Dublin 8/27/2017 Kristin Toney Dublin 8/27/2017 Scott Cranford Danville 8/27/2017 Jen Zierau Hayward 8/28/2017 Jim Blickenstaff San Ramon 8/30/2017 Anna Maria Kawuryan Falls Church 8/30/2017 Jenni Wendell Moraga 8/31/2017 Misha McNair Walnut Creek 8/31/2017 VICKIE SMITH Jackson 9/2/2017 Kristie Vallinayagam Union City 9/3/2017 Tina Litch Dublin 9/6/2017 Derek Nanninga Waukegan 9/6/2017 Tom McKinley San Francisco 9/7/2017 Sarah Weber Bedford 9/7/2017 cony sanchez 9/9/2017 Jennifer Maloney Danville 9/16/2017 Gina Chen San Ramon 9/18/2017 Timothy Hubbs Livermore 9/18/2017 Kenneth Whittlesey Leander 9/18/2017 Iris Sinai New york 9/18/2017 Don Briemle Oakland 9/18/2017 Angeles Méndez Carolina 9/19/2017 Arlene Wolf Evansville 9/19/2017 Marcine McBride West Babylon 9/20/2017 Anne Hohenthaner Rockville 9/20/2017 Hussein Khalil Omaha 9/20/2017 Shreyas Venkatraman Dallas 9/20/2017 John Bancalari Livermore 9/22/2017 Oscar Madera Woodhaven 9/22/2017 Laura Beaver 9/24/2017 Rakesh Rao Dublin 9/30/2017 Holly Newman San Ramon 10/1/2017 Kathleen Rodriguez Walnut Creek 10/15/2017 Sue Marlais Orinda 10/16/2017 Stephanie Lesicko Imperial 10/18/2017 Julie Huynh San Jose 10/22/2017 fred tonne Elgin 10/22/2017 Elizabeth Jache Lemon Grove 10/23/2017 Randy Walterson Hayward 10/25/2017 gary l stickel jr largo 10/25/2017 John Harris Sunnyvale 10/25/2017 raymond sepp 11/13/2017 Annette Long-Stinnett Tahlequah 11/15/2017 Michele Minnick Alpharetta 11/17/2017 Chrystel Bausch Southampton 11/19/2017 Houshang Shabestari Hayward 11/22/2017 Wendy Johnson 11/27/2017 J H 11/30/2017 C B 11/30/2017 Keep Northern Dane County RuralWestport 11/30/2017 Emma Delgado 12/13/2017 Ryan Hicks Alamo 12/14/2017 Elizabeth Evans 12/15/2017 Zachary Stephens 12/15/2017 Trudy Susoeff 12/15/2017 Kensy Serrano 12/15/2017 Cindy Shehorn 12/15/2017 Amishai Goodman-Goldstein 12/15/2017 Jonathan Meszaros 12/15/2017 Arlene Manduca 12/15/2017 CheyLee Arnold 12/15/2017 Denese Ventura 12/15/2017 KJ Hering 12/15/2017 Vivienne Parker 12/15/2017 Josh Hendricks 12/15/2017 Robert Aronowitz 12/15/2017 Christy Rowley 12/15/2017 Hoa Nguyen Van 12/15/2017 Kathleen Bretz 12/15/2017 Jaime Kummer 12/15/2017 RedElisa Mendoza Miami 12/15/2017 alejandra Hernandez 12/15/2017 Erik Miller 12/15/2017 Chris Lor 12/15/2017 Viola Gyapyas 12/15/2017 Stephany Moreno 12/15/2017 candace tuggle 12/15/2017 Janetta Wilson 12/15/2017 Mary Schroeder 12/15/2017 Amy Garza 12/15/2017 Melonie Page 12/15/2017 Radhika Vittal 12/15/2017 Katherine Doumbia 12/15/2017 Lorraine Camargo 12/15/2017 Carolyn Barrett 12/15/2017 Leese Wilkinson 12/15/2017 Janice Geist 12/15/2017 Madeleine Fabris 12/15/2017 Jason Jorgensen 12/15/2017 Avery Pardon 12/15/2017 Max Berry 12/15/2017 Christopher Doerbecker Jr 12/15/2017 Daniel Peterson 12/15/2017 Brynn Bixby 12/15/2017 Leann Key-Wallace 12/15/2017 Jordan Jeffers 12/15/2017 destinee hamilton 12/15/2017 Emma Young 12/15/2017 Isaac Big dick boy 12/15/2017 Eva Castro 12/15/2017 Thee Bean 12/15/2017 Annette Pascuzzi 12/15/2017 Mariya Dmitrieva 12/15/2017 Justin Green 12/15/2017 Richard C. Perl 12/15/2017 Anthony Setters 12/15/2017 Julio Camacho 12/15/2017 Sylar Moon 12/15/2017 Marjory Simpkins 12/15/2017 Anna Prisekin`12/15/2017 David Duckart Dublin 12/15/2017 Joel Ziegler 12/16/2017 Taylor Canon Camdenton 12/17/2017 Ash Rose 12/18/2017 Mary Illes 12/18/2017 Autumn Wolfe 12/18/2017 Emma Noble 12/18/2017 Megan Proctor 12/18/2017 edna morales 12/18/2017 Melinda Stackpoole 12/18/2017 Ashley Fortunato 12/18/2017 rawan jirjis 12/18/2017 Sarah O'Neil 12/18/2017 Eric Centeno 12/18/2017 Jonathan Boyne Honolulu 12/18/2017 Kristine Neff Pomona 12/18/2017 Victoria Greene 12/18/2017 Gay Privett 12/18/2017 Cathy Eckols 12/18/2017 Cristian Barahona 12/18/2017 John Gorman 12/18/2017 Kimberlyn Beltre 12/18/2017 Margie Baratto 12/18/2017 Rachel Sparrowgrove 12/18/2017 Extra Thicc 12/18/2017 Bryan Bishop 12/18/2017 Anna Myer 12/18/2017 Destiny Douglas 12/18/2017 Lisa G 12/18/2017 Manuel Juarez 12/18/2017 Logan Lester 12/18/2017 Ann Davis 12/18/2017 Abraham Hernandez 12/18/2017 Edwin Rivera 12/18/2017 O P 12/18/2017 Ryan Morehouse 12/20/2017 Ava Ensign 12/20/2017 Kitty Rouse 12/20/2017 Samantha Purcell 12/20/2017 Kara Schmitz 12/20/2017 Marvin Mountain 2 12/20/2017 Joyce Phitts 12/20/2017 allison pinette 12/20/2017 Travis Milligan 12/20/2017 Chris Coco 12/20/2017 Maria Colosi 12/20/2017 angie huertas 12/20/2017 jessica cooper 12/20/2017 Stephanie Randolph 12/20/2017 Violet A 12/20/2017 Daniel La Rochelle 12/20/2017 James Trimm 12/20/2017 Chad Lindauer 12/20/2017 Barbara Fehrman 12/20/2017 Nate Clifcorn 12/20/2017 Tanner Braatz 12/21/2017 monique leigh Richmond 12/22/2017 Gina Winegarden 12/22/2017 Kate Rice 12/23/2017 Rebekah Faust Danville 12/23/2017 Leslie Burpo 12/24/2017 Matthew Banuelos 12/25/2017 JON INWOOD 12/26/2017 Keely Mardi 12/27/2017 Kristin Caffrey 12/27/2017 Chris Anvoots 12/28/2017 Brooks DeSpirito 12/29/2017 Michele Ward Walnut Creek 1/4/2018 Amy Reeder 1/11/2018 Dheeraj Soni 1/12/2018 karen mogavero 1/15/2018 Kyla Hurst 1/15/2018 Jodi Smit 1/15/2018 Cris Dailey 1/15/2018 Darion Alberson 1/15/2018 Ellen knapp 1/15/2018 Bill Orser 1/15/2018 Mark Gonzalez 1/15/2018 Christy Noblitt 1/15/2018 Danielle Melchor 1/15/2018 Luke Ziegler 1/15/2018 Tolly Price 1/15/2018 Daniel Corell 1/15/2018 Samra Riaz 1/15/2018 Elizabeth Drayton 1/15/2018 Kayla Hoffmann 1/15/2018 Serena Castro 1/15/2018 Sparrow Chaser 1/15/2018 Joseph Fava 1/15/2018 William Petty 1/15/2018 natasha honore 1/15/2018 brandon trout 1/15/2018 Chris Wilson 1/15/2018 Lauren Foran 1/15/2018 Elena Palka 1/15/2018 Osiris Cruz 1/15/2018 Kerri Moon 1/15/2018 Marvin Hughes 1/15/2018 gregory a arias arias 1/15/2018 Bonnie Terral 1/15/2018 Linda Crossland 1/15/2018 Christina Perez 1/15/2018 Nikka Mongue 1/15/2018 Benjamin Gum 1/15/2018 Michael Francioch 1/15/2018 Heather Graves 1/15/2018 Elizabeth Hajek 1/15/2018 Tony Sherifi 1/15/2018 Margaret Weir 1/15/2018 Tim Jones 1/15/2018 Tracy Reiner 1/15/2018 Lindsay Garcia 1/15/2018 Enderzon Valdez-Sosa 1/15/2018 Chris Worcester 1/15/2018 Deborah Dexter-Mendez 1/15/2018 Shane Mosher 1/15/2018 Nathan Allen 1/15/2018 Rogelio Cordero 1/15/2018 James Brown 1/15/2018 Alvaro Ortiz 1/15/2018 Delilah Rivera 1/15/2018 Elizabeth Zubricks 1/15/2018 Jonathan Magyar 1/15/2018 Manini Rao 1/15/2018 Kristyn Johnson 1/15/2018 Carly Morales 1/15/2018 Virginia Leslie 1/15/2018 alan fried 1/15/2018 Ken Ladore 1/15/2018 Patty Robison 1/15/2018 Nathan Marq.1/15/2018 Joseph & Julie Ford 1/15/2018 Olga Rodriguez 1/18/2018 J Ward 1/18/2018 Christmas Colazzo 1/18/2018 Amany Hassan 1/18/2018 Ashley Ratliff 1/18/2018 Deborah Guthrie 1/18/2018 EUNICE HONG 1/18/2018 Trevor Young 1/18/2018 Kellin Bliss 1/18/2018 Yazmin Maya 1/18/2018 Haylee O'neill 1/18/2018 Laura Caswell 1/18/2018 diego marquez 1/18/2018 Wendy Baccus 1/18/2018 Iris Sinai New York 1/18/2018 Octavius Johnson 1/18/2018 Stephen Bailey 1/18/2018 Joe Danko 1/18/2018 Marella Schammel 1/18/2018 pauline connaughton 1/18/2018 RoberT JoneS 1/18/2018 jessica brito 1/18/2018 Haley Henry 1/18/2018 Kareyl Vatlestad 1/18/2018 Adam Goodman 1/18/2018 Ambar Luis 1/18/2018 Rose Lyon 1/18/2018 Jeanne Narbut San Anselmo 1/18/2018 Meredith Potter 1/18/2018 james yarnell 1/18/2018 Jessica Stern 1/18/2018 Carl Betwinek 1/18/2018 River Lambert 1/18/2018 Charlotte McHugh 1/18/2018 Glenda Ward 1/18/2018 Tim Galvin 1/18/2018 Jenny Michel 1/18/2018 Dominic Teoli 1/19/2018 Antonieta Carmody Castro Valley 1/19/2018 Anna Muniz 1/20/2018 martina meier 1/21/2018 Ann Yaeger 1/23/2018 Alison Stracke Danville 1/23/2018 Chris Goodwin 1/23/2018 Tiago Montemor 1/23/2018 Kim Dolling 1/25/2018 Sindre Kaspersen 1/27/2018 Joelle Cole 1/28/2018 Joceyn White 1/29/2018 John Hatcher 2/1/2018 Patrick Patrick van der Mark 2/8/2018 Melissa Aleman 2/15/2018 Alexis Sanchez 2/15/2018 John Brewer 2/15/2018 Cameron Elgart 2/15/2018 Naomi Stenerson 2/15/2018 Peter Baldwin 2/15/2018 Angela Stokes 2/15/2018 tina sallee 2/15/2018 Emily Clevenger 2/15/2018 Kelley Yaccino 2/15/2018 Micah Moody 2/15/2018 Elizabeth Estrella 2/15/2018 Jessica Alarcon 2/15/2018 Alexandrea gregory 2/15/2018 Gilbert Morales 2/15/2018 Tristan Carter 2/15/2018 Stephanie Walton 2/15/2018 John rego 2/15/2018 Beverly Peake 2/15/2018 Quin Mcgee 2/15/2018 Josh Honey 2/15/2018 Marisa O'Keefe 2/15/2018 Terrence Hamilton 2/15/2018 Jennah May 2/15/2018 Ashley Sexton 2/15/2018 Susan Bentley 2/15/2018 Jonah Boone 2/15/2018 robert palestino 2/15/2018 Mathew Gard 2/15/2018 Sanchi Datta 2/15/2018 Lee Reithlingshoefer 2/15/2018 Selina Durham 2/15/2018 Marco Hosea 2/15/2018 taylor jones 2/15/2018 Cole Gannon 2/15/2018 Joseph Grah 2/15/2018 Crisalis Rodriguez 2/15/2018 Loletha Iverson 2/15/2018 Regina Brooks 2/15/2018 Emily Dickey 2/15/2018 Keren Worthylake 2/15/2018 Stella Bachinsky 2/15/2018 Alexandria Cadena 2/15/2018 SANDRA AULETA 2/15/2018 Chelsea Seiler 2/15/2018 Smita Negi 2/15/2018 Gabriel Lajara 2/15/2018 Madison Guess 2/15/2018 Katherine Weesner 2/15/2018 Shauna Riley 2/15/2018 Marilyn Hutchings 2/15/2018 Temre Dolezal 2/15/2018 Michelle Mathews 2/15/2018 Tracy Miller 2/15/2018 Scott Flemming 2/15/2018 Andrea Fyock 2/15/2018 William Dehler 2/15/2018 Joan Spaulding 2/15/2018 Loretta Klimaszewski 2/15/2018 Kyle Rineer 2/15/2018 Aidan Brown 2/15/2018 Jennifer Cary 2/15/2018 steph rivera 2/15/2018 Joni Manson 2/15/2018 Samantha Morse 2/15/2018 Ron Sauer 2/15/2018 seth costner 2/15/2018 Steven Sirb 2/15/2018 Gita Saadat 2/15/2018 Amber Parker 2/15/2018 Clayton Chance 2/15/2018 Jack Duffy 2/15/2018 Lesdy Rivera 2/15/2018 amit jain 2/15/2018 Kathy Schneider 2/15/2018 Purita Fisher 2/15/2018 Linda McGrath 2/15/2018 Kathryn Huntsman 2/15/2018 Marty villa 2/15/2018 Michael Hodges 2/15/2018 Nathan Castro-Martinez 2/15/2018 Kellie Dion 2/15/2018 Robert Pugh 2/15/2018 Drucelia Baca 2/15/2018 Darren Casey 2/15/2018 Sosonniya Sokhom 2/15/2018 Ashley Lukehart 2/15/2018 Jennifer Vineyard 2/15/2018 Ocean Dank 2/15/2018 Paul Corkery 2/15/2018 Nathan Ju 2/15/2018 Jazmin Ramirez 2/15/2018 Susan Henderson 2/15/2018 Michael Falk 2/15/2018 Morgan Karr 2/15/2018 Jacob Callaway 2/15/2018 Timothy Miller 2/15/2018 Joel Jackson 2/15/2018 B K 2/15/2018 Reese Williams 2/15/2018 Jerald balentine 2/17/2018 Jaime Delgado 2/17/2018 morgan kanae 2/17/2018 Sheila Barnes 2/17/2018 Linda Poizner 2/17/2018 Abby Whitlock 2/17/2018 Gillian Modler 2/17/2018 Isabelle Bradley 2/17/2018 Emma Freeman 2/17/2018 Antoinette C. Gonzales Victorville 2/17/2018 Sheetal Kothari 2/17/2018 Maggie Stamper 2/17/2018 Tami Wyrick 2/17/2018 Caynin Mushill 2/17/2018 Liz Linares 2/17/2018 Kemi Chung 2/17/2018 Tyler Villarreal 2/17/2018 Maria Santos 2/17/2018 Emily Tilson 2/17/2018 Bailey Postell 2/17/2018 Kalyce Wilson 2/17/2018 felicia hewitt 2/17/2018 kateri svec 2/17/2018 Sara Dhuka 2/17/2018 Camilla Adams 2/17/2018 cloe baker 2/17/2018 Jenna Hazlip 2/17/2018 Martha Tack 2/17/2018 Anshika Sharma 2/17/2018 Alexis Ezell 2/17/2018 Ethan Turner 2/17/2018 Preetam Deshprabhu 2/17/2018 Philip Kritzman 2/17/2018 Francene Fallick 2/17/2018 Ava Galvan-Gonzalez 2/17/2018 Aleana Gibbs 2/17/2018 Jason Grimm 2/17/2018 Saritha A 2/17/2018 jacqueline cuthbertson 2/17/2018 Robert Barnes 2/17/2018 Denise Brown 2/18/2018 Robin Stiles 2/18/2018 Brenda Choi Las Vegas 2/18/2018 Wayne Langley 2/19/2018 Leslie Bragunier 2/19/2018 Saunsiaray Broussard 2/20/2018 Amber Permar 2/20/2018 Tj Herzberg 2/20/2018 rachel westerfield 2/20/2018 Terra Riley 2/20/2018 Yu Xu 2/20/2018 Lena Littlefield 2/20/2018 Rebecca Lewis-Hughes 2/20/2018 Christopher Stimson 2/20/2018 Elizabeth Palmer 2/20/2018 Jamie Birge 2/21/2018 FREDERICK JONES 2/21/2018 Christopher Najera 2/21/2018 TC Chandran 2/21/2018 Jennifer Johnson 2/21/2018 Heather Baisley 2/21/2018 Fran Rodriguez 2/21/2018 DM L Chatsworth 2/21/2018 David Nakai 2/21/2018 Kirsi Kilpinen 2/21/2018 Emily Kucer 2/21/2018 Martina Behla Berlin 2/21/2018 Maria Candelaria 2/21/2018 Greg Lyon Danville 2/21/2018 NED Putt Berkeley 2/21/2018 Sathishkumar Balasubramanian San Ramon 2/21/2018 Prachi Garg San Ramon 2/21/2018 Kristen Noel Walnut Creek 2/21/2018 Amy Meyer Danville 2/21/2018 Alexander Chen San Francisco 2/21/2018 Thomas Maurer Danville 2/21/2018 cheri wipfli pleasanton 2/21/2018 crunchkin lol 2/21/2018 Justin Solie 2/21/2018 Wahab Hussaini 2/21/2018 Liam E 2/21/2018 Lekha Pande 2/21/2018 Tyler Flajole 2/21/2018 Divya Anand San Francisco 2/21/2018 Arienne Drewery 2/21/2018 Shelby White 2/21/2018 Janie Penn 2/21/2018 Lilian Kimondo 2/21/2018 Keewii Potatoi 2/21/2018 Robby Bateman 2/21/2018 Mirelys Sepulveda 2/21/2018 Chet Varnadore Atlanta 2/21/2018 Joe Puckett 2/21/2018 Colter Settle 2/21/2018 indumathi kandasamy San Ramon 2/21/2018 Rick Hodorowich 2/21/2018 Smitha Sivan Danville 2/21/2018 Karen Dhillon Hayward 2/21/2018 Noelle Sheehan Danville 2/21/2018 Douglas Lacey PLEASANTON (Tassajara)2/22/2018 Renee Sargent Danville 2/22/2018 Derek Turnbull Hayward 2/22/2018 Judith Hazelton 2/22/2018 Sunil Surendar San Jose 2/22/2018 George Steeves 2/22/2018 Prabu Dhaksh San Ramon 2/22/2018 Sandra Nolasco Dublin 2/22/2018 N. Koth San Ramon 2/22/2018 Emily Hui Pleasanton 2/22/2018 Liz Kain Sunnyvale 2/22/2018 shital budha 2/22/2018 Paul Seger Oakley 2/22/2018 Kevin Booker Antioch 2/22/2018 Katherine Case Antioch 2/22/2018 Julia Booker Antioch 2/22/2018 Victoria Barber Antioch 2/22/2018 Ronnie Colby Truckee 2/22/2018 Norma Batongbacal San Ramon 2/22/2018 Olivia White San Luis Obispo 2/22/2018 Chance Childs 2/22/2018 Kate Steck 2/22/2018 Angelika jasielec andziia9192 2/22/2018 Lyubov Krut 2/22/2018 Alexis Scipio 2/22/2018 Kandra Bramble 2/22/2018 Bethany Brochue 2/22/2018 sharon davis 2/22/2018 Quanne Cooper 2/22/2018 Carla Sellek 2/22/2018 Luke Townsend 2/22/2018 holly mason 2/22/2018 Stacy Riggd 2/22/2018 Britta Foreman 2/22/2018 G.R. Poston 2/22/2018 Lisa Pavlik 2/22/2018 Rae Buchanan 2/22/2018 Kelsey F 2/22/2018 Terrie Jordan 2/22/2018 Kaylin Fitzgerald 2/22/2018 James Wilson 2/22/2018 jennifer gianni 2/22/2018 Kavitha Tamerisa 2/22/2018 Rebecca Gallo 2/22/2018 brenda chin 2/22/2018 Mel Au 2/22/2018 kevin Gillick 2/22/2018 Jack Nilsson 2/23/2018 Barbara costello Dublin 2/23/2018 Rayan Sudeora Danville 2/23/2018 Anuj Sudeora Danville 2/23/2018 Ann Thornley San Jose 2/23/2018 Shalina Vohra Walnut Creek 2/23/2018 Heather Lans Danville 2/23/2018 Ala Ammsso Danville 2/23/2018 Thomas Birch San Francisco 2/23/2018 Kerry Ingvardsen Antioch 2/23/2018 Susan Laxamana San Ramon 2/23/2018 Aisha Farooq Danville 2/23/2018 Jack Judd 2/23/2018 Kaitlyn Hunt 2/23/2018 Jean Johnston 2/23/2018 Erik LaRue 2/23/2018 Jonathon Baker 2/23/2018 Sheri Stapleton-Hewitt 2/23/2018 Simon Goro 2/23/2018 Saloumeh Kolahchyan 2/23/2018 Jennifer Perez 2/23/2018 Allister Layne 2/23/2018 Ryan Serowinski 2/23/2018 Steven Southworth Tassajara 2/25/2018 Katherine Ortiz 2/25/2018 Evelyn Luper 2/25/2018 Rachel Lockwood 2/25/2018 Karen Bergen 2/25/2018 Diane McBee 2/25/2018 William R Wise 2/25/2018 Alfonso Pena Danville 2/25/2018 Jorge Martinez San Ramon 2/25/2018 Lidia Perez San Ramon 2/25/2018 Amalia Cortez San Carlos 2/25/2018 Michael Lopez 2/27/2018 Jake DiBello 2/27/2018 Kristen Hargrave 2/28/2018 Anthony Methot 3/5/2018 Gloria Zhang 3/6/2018 Sarah Butler Orinda 3/7/2018 Cheryl Collins Walnut Creek 3/9/2018 Susan JunFish Lafayette 3/10/2018 mariana fuhrer 3/10/2018 Robert Lanier Danville 3/11/2018 Jane powell alamo 3/11/2018 Jaqui Bellenie Livermore,3/11/2018 Amanda Freer 3/11/2018 Naomi Fujita San Ramon 3/11/2018 Christine Weinert Livermore 3/11/2018 Theresa Caledtini Danville 3/11/2018 Taressa Earl Danville 3/11/2018 Yuri Veber Alamo 3/11/2018 Susanne Darby Orinda 3/11/2018 Alice schultz Danville 3/11/2018 raman suri Martinez 3/11/2018 Angie Ruano 3/11/2018 Valerie Garcia 3/11/2018 Stephanie Tetloff 3/11/2018 Rebecca Hofmeyer 3/11/2018 Maria Arevalo 3/11/2018 Stefanie Coode Danville 3/11/2018 Mark Eldridge 3/11/2018 Richard Shipley 3/11/2018 Tim petts 3/11/2018 Lucien Cazenave Alamo 3/11/2018 Lauren Cazenave Alamo 3/11/2018 Laura Tooley Alamo 3/11/2018 John Calzonetti Alamo 3/11/2018 Marilyn Gardner Diablo 3/11/2018 Paul Gardner Diablo 3/11/2018 Michele Martinisko 3/11/2018 Robert Sinclair 3/11/2018 Stephanie Hidalgo 3/11/2018 Lynn Moreland 3/11/2018 Michelle Swiger 3/11/2018 Joanne Saunders 3/11/2018 Suzanne Young 3/11/2018 Sharon Herreria 3/11/2018 Cat White 3/11/2018 Donna Galvin 3/11/2018 Emily Merchant 3/11/2018 Suzanne Baxley 3/11/2018 Sandra C. Varco Pleasant Hill 3/11/2018 Melissa Garcia 3/11/2018 Cherry McDermid 3/11/2018 Beth Monje Covina 3/11/2018 Jackie Smith 3/11/2018 debbie loprete 3/11/2018 Jeffrey Hernandez 3/11/2018 NANCY CAVARETTA 3/11/2018 Justine Shamed 3/11/2018 Lucy Soulliere Alexandria 3/11/2018 January Harper 3/11/2018 Jessica Castano 3/11/2018 Rayshard Kinnemore 3/11/2018 Scott Houghteling 3/11/2018 Cheryl Doleshal 3/11/2018 Sylvia Moreno 3/11/2018 kelsey Pye 3/11/2018 Karen Wilson Pomona 3/11/2018 Todd Gary Alamo 3/11/2018 Patricia Kenber Danville 3/11/2018 Nancy Amini Danville 3/11/2018 Pavan Jonnalagadda San Ramon 3/11/2018 Sehej Kaur San Ramon 3/11/2018 Pamela Unterbach Danville 3/11/2018 Scott Smith Danville 3/11/2018 Rebecca Egan Danville 3/12/2018 Ashley Valentino Laguna Beach 3/12/2018 Laura Davis Danville 3/12/2018 Heidi Levine Danville 3/12/2018 Kerrigan Bennett Pleasant Hill 3/12/2018 kimberly williams Danville 3/12/2018 Jennifer Moorhead 3/12/2018 rebecca white 3/12/2018 sasha alire 3/12/2018 Michael Stack 3/12/2018 Charles Sands 3/12/2018 Dan Jones Danville 3/12/2018 Lea Boyle San Francisco 3/12/2018 Michael Noel 3/12/2018 Dianne Douglas 3/12/2018 Margaret Nagela Blank 3/12/2018 Diana Leys 3/12/2018 Peggy Carney 3/12/2018 Rafael Andrade 3/12/2018 Michelle Boone 3/12/2018 Perla Sanchez 3/12/2018 Sejal Shahri 3/12/2018 Anne Regrut 3/12/2018 Rebecca Parr 3/12/2018 ashley frields 3/12/2018 Jesse Ruscin 3/12/2018 Gloria Jones 3/12/2018 Alexandra Sheldon Cromwell 3/12/2018 Krystal Nadzam Pleasant Hill 3/12/2018 Don Candland Danville 3/12/2018 Tammie Perry Pleasant Hill 3/12/2018 Stephanie Yeo Berkeley 3/13/2018 Lisha Ruud Danville 3/13/2018 Karen Moore 3/13/2018 Robert LaPlant 3/13/2018 George Kociuba DANVILLE 3/13/2018 Nazanin Shakerin Alamo 3/13/2018 Don Copland Alamo 3/13/2018 Tom Hanson Danville 3/13/2018 Frances Ross Danville 3/13/2018 Edward Sullivan Danville 3/13/2018 Carol Rivera Danville 3/13/2018 Alexander Roytman 3/14/2018 Tiffanie Peterson Danville 3/14/2018 Pennie Johnson Danville 3/14/2018 Jeffry Johnson Martinez 3/14/2018 Priti Desai Walnut Creek 3/14/2018 Cynthia Grabel Danville 3/14/2018 Erik Rubino 3/14/2018 Twist Semidextrose 3/14/2018 julie pratt Alamo 3/15/2018 Sabrina Dunbar Alamo 3/15/2018 marisa standley 3/15/2018 Courtney Reetz 3/15/2018 Cindy Koehler 3/15/2018 Donna De Silva 3/15/2018 Mayra Osorto 3/15/2018 Yash Salunke 3/15/2018 Sarra Cannady 3/15/2018 Brooklyn Cookie 3/15/2018 Demetria Frye 3/15/2018 Michelynne McGuire 3/15/2018 Michelynne McGuire 3/15/2018 Rhys Williams 3/15/2018 susan trieb 3/15/2018 Crystal Flores 3/15/2018 Denise Perlich 3/15/2018 Katherine Petti 3/15/2018 Sarah Sutherland 3/15/2018 Ellen Hajduk 3/15/2018 Myriam Toledo 3/15/2018 Barry Denton 3/15/2018 jaime gutierrez 3/15/2018 Allison Kelly 3/15/2018 Amy Clubb 3/15/2018 Sharon Dusek 3/15/2018 laura flores 3/15/2018 Hali Fliegelman 3/15/2018 Alyssa Stevens 3/15/2018 Hannah Lange Mount Horeb 3/15/2018 Deborah Christensen 3/15/2018 Krystal Ramírez 3/15/2018 Lindsay DeMarco 3/15/2018 Brian Nein 3/15/2018 Tpnya Billiot 3/15/2018 Lily Smith 3/15/2018 Liz Grayovski 3/15/2018 james chandler 3/15/2018 Marie Lei 3/15/2018 Bill Douglass 3/15/2018 Diane Gallagher Doss 3/15/2018 Jo Licata 3/15/2018 Christine Martinez 3/15/2018 Armani Sasda 3/15/2018 Kim Ammons 3/15/2018 Tiffany Baker 3/15/2018 Rachel Skorlich 3/15/2018 Lauretta Zucchetti 3/15/2018 Jonathan Jaramillo 3/15/2018 Stephanie Fucello-Rowan 3/15/2018 Andrea Nowak 3/16/2018 Robert Stewart Danville 3/16/2018 Lynn McManus Calgary 3/16/2018 M Ferguson Delta 3/16/2018 Christa Pedersen Danville 3/16/2018 Jeffrey Jarvis Danville 3/16/2018 Manvendra Gupta San Francisco 3/16/2018 Joanne Knapp Danville 3/16/2018 Todd Carrigan West Toluca Lake 3/16/2018 Debbie Myers Newark 3/16/2018 Kathleen Daly Alamo 3/16/2018 Jenny Pierucki 3/16/2018 Lisa Anderson Walnut Creek 3/16/2018 John Tipping 3/16/2018 Timothy Gibbs 3/16/2018 Julie Brouse 3/16/2018 Erin Fucci 3/16/2018 Michelle Wenger 3/16/2018 kylee sengstacke 3/16/2018 Bret Windhauser Baton Rouge 3/16/2018 kristen braybrooke 3/16/2018 Laura Hammer 3/16/2018 mandy oquist 3/16/2018 Vanina Stavreva 3/16/2018 Adelina Villegas 3/16/2018 Sara Strohschein 3/16/2018 Taylor Bean 3/16/2018 Carol Perreault 3/16/2018 Jeffrey Sickles 3/16/2018 Julie Gust 3/16/2018 Willie Hogan 3/16/2018 Matthew Buono 3/16/2018 Pamela Gonnoud 3/16/2018 Tom Ruetman Danville 3/16/2018 Betty Fowler Walnut Creek 3/16/2018 John Hailey DANVILLE 3/16/2018 Diane Vaccarello San Ramon 3/16/2018 Melody TSAI DANVILLE 3/17/2018 Stephanie Henss Newtown 3/17/2018 Charlene Brace 3/17/2018 Franklin Matias 3/17/2018 Mark Ireland 3/17/2018 Donald Barnett 3/17/2018 Mary Estakhri Danville 3/17/2018 Jun Apolonio Pleasant Hill 3/17/2018 Michelle Abraham Vacaville 3/17/2018 P Johnson Danville 3/17/2018 arshia legittino danville 3/17/2018 Leslie Asbe Dublin 3/17/2018 Elizabeth Jessee Danville 3/17/2018 MARILYN L. KLUBENSPIES Congers 3/17/2018 Jason Hone Chula Vista 3/17/2018 Rebecca Harbaugh San Diego 3/17/2018 Anne Donaldson San Jose 3/17/2018 Todd Vaccarello Danville 3/17/2018 Patrick Karleskind Brentwood 3/17/2018 How terribly cruel. Bayat Lafayette 3/17/2018 Amy Zeifang Lafayette 3/17/2018 Brian Pereira Danville 3/17/2018 Madison Laflamme Brighton 3/17/2018 Yue Chen Danville 3/17/2018 Leilani Stone Danville 3/17/2018 anh hoang-le Danville 3/17/2018 Jason Kim San Ramon 3/17/2018 Michael Steinbrecher Danville 3/17/2018 Tony Fernandes Danville 3/17/2018 Kyleanne Bessieres Danville 3/17/2018 Patrick Trown Walnut Creek 3/17/2018 Clinton Rarey Concord 3/17/2018 Liz Lee Danville 3/18/2018 Satya Mallina Danville 3/18/2018 Naresh Madhok Danville 3/18/2018 Maggie Simms San Ramon 3/18/2018 Leonard Chau Danville 3/18/2018 Susanna Thompson Clayton 3/18/2018 Christian Valenti Palo Alto 3/18/2018 Heather Simms San Ramon 3/18/2018 Megan Chauhan Lynchburg 3/18/2018 Katherine Sanford Lafayette 3/18/2018 Sachin Kuchhal Danville 3/18/2018 ann jarrett Pleasanton 3/18/2018 Picken Bonz 3/18/2018 Mary Miller 3/18/2018 phyllis molina 3/18/2018 Caner Saka 3/18/2018 Amy Jo Snyder 3/18/2018 Mahi Kabra 3/18/2018 Patricia Dominguez 3/18/2018 Gonzalo Costa 3/18/2018 Sophie Cooper 3/18/2018 terri pigford 3/18/2018 Mustafa Kathawala 3/18/2018 Jamie Jordan 3/18/2018 Jackie Snodgrass 3/18/2018 Mark Christian 3/18/2018 Jamie Idell 3/18/2018 Miranda Webb 3/18/2018 Nomore Pleeze 3/18/2018 Rudy Felipe Danville 3/19/2018 Mary Orman Alamo 3/19/2018 Linda Hubbard Danville 3/19/2018 Estrella De Leon Pacifica 3/19/2018 Justin Morgenthaler Danville 3/20/2018 Judy Montgomery San Ramon 3/20/2018 robert chou Moraga 3/20/2018 Jordan Cox Walnut Creek 3/20/2018 Susan Howell Clayton 3/20/2018 marla morang concord 3/20/2018 susan foord lafayette 3/20/2018 Deborah JOHNSTON san Ramon 3/20/2018 Nancy DCruz Oakley 3/20/2018 Beverly Wallace Huntington Beach 3/20/2018 Dawne Washington 3/21/2018 Autumn Berte Corona 3/21/2018 Gail Kamerer Danville 3/21/2018 Bonny Wallace Danville 3/21/2018 Susan Tulis Lafayette 3/21/2018 Vivienne Parker San Ramon 3/21/2018 Charlie Osborn Lahaina 3/21/2018 Chuck FEREIRA Walnut Creek 3/22/2018 Brian Palacios San Ramon 3/22/2018 Claudia Evers Pleasant Hill 3/22/2018 Troy Munn 3/23/2018 Megan Macmillan Tempe 3/23/2018 Larry Brinegar Minneapolis 3/23/2018 Richard Barker Tempe 3/23/2018 Vicki Nelson Pleasanton 3/23/2018 Gregory Heiden Concord 3/23/2018 Marissa Marcotte Pleasanton 3/24/2018 Peggy Nelson Citrus Heights 3/24/2018 Jennifer Williams Martinez 3/24/2018 carbrey Frank Danville 3/24/2018 Brenna Lohec Sparta 3/24/2018 Julie Henry-DiLeonardo Branford 3/25/2018 Owen Carbrey North Haven 3/25/2018 Mark Gaddini CA 3/25/2018 Jana Centoni Castro Valley 3/25/2018 Jennifer Pereira Pleasanton 3/25/2018 E A Sutherland Danville 3/25/2018 Rebecca Kearney San Lorenzo 3/25/2018 Olivia Wieland Turlock 3/25/2018 Kelley Buschhueter Coulterville 3/25/2018 Valerie Caplan Alamo 3/25/2018 Kelsey Aguirre San Ramon 3/26/2018 marsha landau Danville 3/26/2018 Emily Gallagher Pleasanton 3/26/2018 Melissa Murdoch Pleasanton 3/26/2018 Tatiana Dean San Leandro 3/26/2018 Stephanie Fraenkel Danville 3/26/2018 Lee Fister 3/26/2018 Tabitha w.3/26/2018 Jillian Grabenstein Danville 3/26/2018 Josef Erlemann 3/27/2018 Sandy Mancini Danville 3/27/2018 Eileen Mccarroll San Francisco 3/27/2018 Steve Henkel Concord 3/27/2018 Brian Larsen Sacramento 3/27/2018 Anthony Papadopoulos Sacramento 3/27/2018 Jay Escamilla San Leandro 3/27/2018 Ron Fraenkel San Rafael 3/27/2018 Serafino Bianchi Danville 3/28/2018 Teri Rouse Walnut Creek 3/29/2018 Shwetha Shetty New York 3/29/2018 Lisa Frisch Walnut Creek 3/29/2018 Kathy Fanning San Francisco 3/29/2018 Janice Harrington San Francisco 3/30/2018 Sandra Fink Alamo 3/31/2018 Jdog Herb 3/31/2018 Beverly Adair Oakland 3/31/2018 Tamara Russell Rocky Mount 4/1/2018 Tim Kondracki 4/1/2018 allen nadel 4/2/2018 Kirstin Asher 4/2/2018 Barbara Johns Lewisberry 4/3/2018 Eden Whittington 4/3/2018 Gatha Pierucki 4/3/2018 Kathryn Kelly 4/3/2018 joan scott 4/7/2018 Jennie Quesada Yreka 4/7/2018 Mackenzie Srp 4/10/2018 Mike Fandel 4/11/2018 James Iannessa Spring Valley 4/15/2018 Gwen Stromberg 4/15/2018 Patricia Birchell 4/15/2018 peggy nichols 4/15/2018 Alicia Bray 4/16/2018 Paul Olivio 4/16/2018 Lisa Dyson 4/16/2018 Samuel Plemons 4/16/2018 Davis Strobel 4/16/2018 Zach M 4/16/2018 Han Ooi 4/16/2018 deb levy 4/16/2018 JS Fabion 4/16/2018 Mutchell Wolfe 4/16/2018 Pamela Gwyn 4/16/2018 Ethan Simon 4/16/2018 Jennifer McCarthy 4/16/2018 Matthew Garipay 4/16/2018 Lisa Carp 4/16/2018 Jack Harner 4/16/2018 A Burrito 4/16/2018 Imogene Gross 4/16/2018 Rita Rosas 4/16/2018 Suzie Sakata 4/17/2018 Kristen Brooks 4/17/2018 CHARLES DiVita 4/17/2018 Hailey Jones 4/17/2018 Taylor Mccaslin 4/17/2018 Andrew Kim 4/17/2018 Aubrey Prater 4/17/2018 Ashly Williams 4/17/2018 Josephine Dever 4/17/2018 shayla stratton 4/17/2018 Myles Kent 4/17/2018 Bellanira Tiguila 4/17/2018 Jessica McCauley 4/17/2018 Panini Denie 4/17/2018 Adam Ginsburg 4/17/2018 Sophia Bertrand 4/17/2018 Luis Jimenez 4/17/2018 Elizabeth Fisher Pleasant Hill 4/17/2018 Rhonda Bradley 4/17/2018 Roberto Vatical 4/17/2018 Cynthia Mahoney Danville 4/17/2018 Brittany Hancock 4/17/2018 jennifer christiansen 4/17/2018 Kelly Farrar 4/17/2018 Ariahna Waddle 4/17/2018 Foster Boom 4/17/2018 sharon treistman 4/17/2018 Becky Bunch 4/17/2018 Kency Perard 4/17/2018 Veronika Price 4/17/2018 Joshua Smith 4/17/2018 Cristina Nabors 4/17/2018 Johnny Ortiz 4/17/2018 Jared Woods 4/17/2018 Todd Barry 4/17/2018 Tyler Leone 4/17/2018 Nubia Martinez 4/17/2018 Jennifer Brandon 4/18/2018 Kevin Fitzpatrick Watervliet 4/18/2018 Victoria Hammett 4/18/2018 Brian Lilburn 4/18/2018 Jonah Rigdon 4/18/2018 Jessica Trinh 4/18/2018 Sam Machado 4/18/2018 Kimberly Wade 4/18/2018 Millenia Delgado 4/18/2018 Devin Whitfield 4/18/2018 Alyson Vaught 4/18/2018 Jake Herndon 4/18/2018 Lisa Maddix 4/18/2018 Debra Rice 4/18/2018 ERIKA HOWARDS Lutz 4/18/2018 vincent partos 4/18/2018 Alyssa Davis 4/18/2018 Nikolas Turek 4/18/2018 Luke Lasky 4/18/2018 Jodi Wolff 4/18/2018 Edith Gallegos 4/18/2018 nate kotowski 4/18/2018 Erinn Jagiela 4/18/2018 Lori Olson 4/18/2018 Michael Cox 4/18/2018 Kristina Martz 4/18/2018 LANGSTON BREWER 4/18/2018 Samara Adams 4/18/2018 sabina taneja 4/18/2018 Martha Jaquith 4/18/2018 KIM GREENE 4/18/2018 Elmo Mariani 4/18/2018 Kathleen Carlton 4/18/2018 ashley senvisky 4/19/2018 Edward and Loudette Fletcher 4/19/2018 Candy Fischer 4/19/2018 Wendy Fossa 4/19/2018 Abdulaziz Eyadah 4/19/2018 K D 4/19/2018 ERIC JUNIOR 4/19/2018 Chris Perrin 4/19/2018 Irma Morissette 4/19/2018 Shelly Berchem 4/19/2018 Richard Sutherland 4/19/2018 Ghassan Spiridon Elyssar ll mount lebanon 4/19/2018 Gloria Dugger 4/19/2018 Noah Holderfield 4/19/2018 john thompson 4/19/2018 Kevin Humala 4/20/2018 Lester Crest 4/20/2018 Tim Maurer 4/20/2018 William Elander 4/20/2018 Cyrus F 4/20/2018 darlene blakely 4/20/2018 oneida altman 4/20/2018 Carol Weiss 4/20/2018 Eligh Rickard 4/20/2018 Salty Dog 4/20/2018 Stefan Stone 4/20/2018 Adrian guardipee 4/20/2018 Frances Brown 4/20/2018 Gina Gambino 4/20/2018 Kharissa Moore 4/20/2018 Lisa Xie 4/21/2018 Chelsea Youell 4/21/2018 Brian Entsminger 4/22/2018 Christy McKinney 4/23/2018 Melanie Selover Danville 4/23/2018 Sander Selover Danville 4/24/2018 KeViN MeInHaRdT 4/25/2018 PaMeLa MeInHaRdT 4/25/2018 Mark Meinhardt 4/25/2018 Holly Townsend Pleasanton 4/30/2018 Micki Williams 5/15/2018 Masiyah Mejia 5/15/2018 Jeri Wierwille 5/15/2018 Luis Felipe Ramirez 5/15/2018 Kevin Givens 5/15/2018 Cathy Hupp Kansas City 5/15/2018 Jamie Hamilton 5/16/2018 Heather Mcmanus 5/16/2018 Nichole Cardona 5/16/2018 Bonnie Rodgers 5/16/2018 Shahid Noor 5/16/2018 H. G. Charalabidis 5/16/2018 Thomas McVay 5/16/2018 Victoria Smith 5/16/2018 Karen Deckel 5/16/2018 Dusty Carroll 5/16/2018 DEANNA Morgan 5/16/2018 Tami Langenright 5/16/2018 Marian Lassiter 5/16/2018 Lisa Kitterman 5/16/2018 EmpathyBridge -Fight Media Bias 5/16/2018 Karen Scott 5/16/2018 Sindy Ruiz 5/16/2018 IN PARK 5/17/2018 David McNaughton 5/17/2018 Adam Shinners 5/17/2018 Izaiah Felipe 5/17/2018 Jeremy Parlade 5/17/2018 irina kulida las vegas 5/17/2018 Teri Shepherd 5/17/2018 Diane Gardella 5/17/2018 L. Koehler 5/17/2018 Christina Mexicotte 5/17/2018 Jamie Doshen 5/17/2018 silvia Rivera 5/17/2018 Elliott Strankman 5/17/2018 Edwin Gómez 5/17/2018 Song Kinnamon 5/17/2018 Stacey Govito Beaufort 5/17/2018 Christian Mendoza 5/17/2018 lois south Beaufort 5/17/2018 Robert Snyder 5/18/2018 Amber Thomas 5/18/2018 Wesley Bantugan 5/18/2018 Deborah Gibbs 5/18/2018 Jennifer Agne 5/18/2018 Lhaverne Linzaga 5/18/2018 Hunter Morton 5/18/2018 Amy Thorson Los Angeles 5/18/2018 ERIKA White Reno 5/18/2018 Georgia Bol 5/18/2018 desi braudrick 5/18/2018 Pat Nardone 5/18/2018 Brian Sams 5/18/2018 Marlo Navarro 5/18/2018 Melissa Katterson 5/19/2018 Sandra Marciante 5/19/2018 Al Vincente 5/19/2018 Andrew Hong 5/19/2018 Kristi Wilson 5/19/2018 Brenda Grosz Ukiah 5/19/2018 Roman Shurubalko 5/19/2018 Gay Lord 5/19/2018 Edwin Hollan Stanton 5/19/2018 Joan Hoens 5/19/2018 Jared Toner 5/19/2018 Ulises Atayde 5/19/2018 Philip Black 5/19/2018 Harold Harris 5/19/2018 Khary Long 5/20/2018 Dakevion Roach 5/20/2018 Natalie Snyder 5/20/2018 Kati Grosse 5/20/2018 Benjamin Hannold 5/20/2018 Chelsea Firkus 5/20/2018 Pamela Madrid 5/20/2018 Blanca garza 5/20/2018 Mary Rice 5/20/2018 Sousanied Thao 5/20/2018 LAURIE HAMBY 5/20/2018 Chris Ferro 5/20/2018 Desrty Govito Beaufort,SC 5/20/2018 Marielle Marne Phoenix 5/20/2018 Jeanette Jensen 5/20/2018 robert cobb 5/20/2018 Denne Johnson 5/20/2018 Clay Eickemeyer 5/20/2018 David Brown 5/20/2018 Missy Mead Houston 5/20/2018 Anthony Choi 5/21/2018 Tori Allen 5/21/2018 kathleen sheehan 5/21/2018 Grant Barker 5/21/2018 Ashley Ashpaugh 5/21/2018 Ginger Liu San Jose 5/24/2018 Evana Montazeri Walnut Creek 5/24/2018 Michael Coode Modesto 5/24/2018 Sharmina Nourai Walnut Creek 5/24/2018 jin Zhang Las Vegas 5/24/2018 Aman Bhasin Walnut Creek 5/24/2018 Catharine Hubbard Danville 5/24/2018 Bruce Davis San Jose 5/24/2018 Raymond Shih San Ramon 5/25/2018 Sunita Gupta Palo Alto 5/25/2018 Meijia Chen Danville 5/25/2018 Deepali Soti Danville 5/25/2018 Giovanna Castagnino Walnut Creek 5/25/2018 Helen Tarantino danville 5/25/2018 Arti Sinha Walnut Creek 5/25/2018 Michael Elwin Blackhawk 5/25/2018 Xiaokang Xu Pleasanton 5/25/2018 Marion Kullberg Danville 5/25/2018 Shina Hossein San Diego 5/25/2018 Sarah Kolbe Danville 5/25/2018 micheal scholis 5/25/2018 Francisco Helena 5/25/2018 Adriana Micciulla 5/25/2018 Minakshi Mukherjee Palo Alto 5/25/2018 Ula Cowen Martinez 5/25/2018 Liaqat Khan Pleasanton 5/25/2018 Mehwish Jalal San Ramon 5/25/2018 Nancy Yuen Pleasant Hill 5/25/2018 Karen Hahn Dublin 5/25/2018 Adrienne Washney Oakley 5/25/2018 Marilyn Walsh 5/25/2018 Cheryl Stanley Concord 5/25/2018 Rosendo Mora 5/25/2018 Iwona Phillips Danville 5/25/2018 Dylan Hunter 5/25/2018 steven choi 5/25/2018 Andrew Havens 5/25/2018 Deanna Bushey 5/25/2018 Niveditha Jain Fremont 5/25/2018 Allan Isbell San Ramon 5/25/2018 Guadalupe Abril 5/25/2018 Arlene Zuckerman 5/25/2018 Kayla Tyler 5/25/2018 Apurva Desai 5/25/2018 Beatriz Blanco 5/25/2018 Henry Ranger 5/25/2018 Carmyn Wahl 5/25/2018 James Denny 5/25/2018 Cynthia Uribe 5/26/2018 Chloe Quinlan 5/26/2018 Ann Pledger New Braunfels 5/26/2018 Danial Khan Oakland 5/26/2018 Dana Chavarria Danville 5/26/2018 David Rossiter Danville 5/26/2018 Andre Carvalho 5/26/2018 yancette halverson 5/26/2018 Mark Schuster 5/26/2018 Ever Quinteros 5/26/2018 Tom Koenig 5/26/2018 Rachel Crudale Dublin 5/26/2018 Jacob Miller 5/26/2018 BJ Plotner 5/26/2018 EDUARDO CHAVEZ 5/26/2018 Jacob Heinrich Chicago 5/26/2018 Jena Mitchell 5/26/2018 Nadege Cotto 5/26/2018 Tabitha Albert 5/26/2018 Jamie Cude 5/26/2018 Rebecca Adams Danville 5/26/2018 Frank Garcia 5/26/2018 Todd Matz 5/26/2018 Madina Syzdykova 5/26/2018 Samantha Yoshida 5/27/2018 José Tenorio 5/27/2018 Michael Ness Danville 5/27/2018 Andrew Tarabay 5/27/2018 Ranganathan Kanchi Alamo 5/27/2018 Padam Saini Danville 5/27/2018 Manav Suri Walnut Creek 5/27/2018 David Martinez 5/27/2018 Craig Conlan 5/27/2018 Lesley Hunt 5/27/2018 Paula Harcha 5/27/2018 Santiago Arevalo 5/27/2018 Malika Singh Beverly Hills 5/27/2018 Punam Rane Danville 5/28/2018 Laurie Moore Dublin 5/28/2018 Nimmi Kunh Dublin 5/28/2018 Leonie Meima Dublin 5/28/2018 Kiranmayi Kallepalli Cheshire 5/28/2018 Rajneesh Sharma Dublin 5/28/2018 Yan Yang San Ramon 5/29/2018 Michelle wilson Walnut Creek 5/29/2018 Bonnie Girard 6/2/2018 LAURA BROWN 6/3/2018 Jan steen 6/4/2018 Sandra Backelund 6/7/2018 frank Nijstad 6/15/2018 Navon Kight Danville 6/21/2018 Dianne Temkin San Ramon 6/24/2018 John Allum-Poon Dublin 6/27/2018 Steve Moore Peoria 7/10/2018 Vasudha Lathey San Ramon 7/10/2018 Shira Stein Danville 7/10/2018 Robert Laskarzewski San Ramon 7/12/2018 Pat Isom Pleasant Hill 7/12/2018 Dianne Douglas Tempe 7/13/2018 Leeza Turbeville 7/17/2018 Antonia Urquilla 7/17/2018 Sunny Gotewal 7/17/2018 Michele Johnson 7/18/2018 Deborah Thompson Sherman Oaks 7/18/2018 Beverly Wright-Hayes Vallejo 7/24/2018 Chris McGinnis Danville 7/27/2018 Maya Broderick Danville 7/28/2018 Tony Suh Lafayette, CA 7/29/2018 Arlene Reed Diablo 7/30/2018 Stuart Winter Danville 7/30/2018 Loranne Weir San Ramon 8/7/2018 Linda Brown Danville 8/11/2018 Ekta Bhandari Orinda 10/15/2018 halls halls 10/17/2018 Dianne Douglas Tempe 11/3/2018 ashok sharma san ramon 11/4/2018 John Stanton Alexandria 11/5/2018 Lorna Zamora Cainta, Rizal 11/5/2018 B. J. Van Camp Memphis 11/5/2018 Michelle McKeon Danville 11/7/2018 kendra sears Denver 11/15/2018 Dana Hayter 11/24/2018 owen payne Tucson 12/12/2018 Carole Hagen Hillsboro 12/12/2018 Dean Papagiannis Livermore 12/17/2018 Victoria McDonald 2/8/2019 Lydia Lerner Danville 4/4/2019 Alysha Gronow Vermont South 5/2/2019 Faith Whitesel Shippensburg 5/9/2019 Arun R P Helsinki 5/11/2019 Praveen Pavithra Bangalore 5/11/2019 ASWIN BHARATHWAJ 5/11/2019 Faisal Shigaonkar 5/11/2019 Bob Builder Frederick 5/21/2019 Khambia Clarkson Marshalltown 9/7/2019 Ali Bradley Ilfracombe 10/4/2019 Magdalyna Zaytseva Kharkov 2/24/2020 Sanaz Shahideh Danville 2/24/2020 Diane Tarin Dublin 2/24/2020 Keith Fischer Baltimore 2/25/2020 Arthur Van de Lagemaat 2/25/2020 Alexis Lett Sidney 2/25/2020 Shawn Boyd Ramona 2/25/2020 jill martin collegeville 2/25/2020 CEO Of Sprite Chicopee 2/25/2020 Abi Straub Morganville 2/25/2020 Rose Lo Concord 2/25/2020 June Lowery Somerville 2/25/2020 nicole dantes Shreveport 2/25/2020 Gus Rousonelos Oswego 2/25/2020 Julio Dejesus Lancaster 2/25/2020 matthew jurgens miller place 2/25/2020 Thomas Lin Fort Pierce 2/25/2020 Jiwei Xia Portland 2/25/2020 Jennifer Alsafadi Cocoa 2/25/2020 Heather Jackson Athens 2/25/2020 Peggy Hays Sugar Land 2/25/2020 Alexander Dorta San Francisco 2/25/2020 Harrison Lam Los Angeles 2/25/2020 Alex Arkhipov Walnut Creek 2/25/2020 Rita Khullar Danville 2/25/2020 Cody Owens Hope Mills 2/25/2020 Victoria Shih Plano 2/25/2020 Kyle Pickett Ventura 2/25/2020 Ishika Patel San Diego 2/25/2020 Michael Stringer La Grange 2/25/2020 Jeffrey Weller Chevy Chase 2/25/2020 Chan Tim New York 2/25/2020 Steve Verduzco Brentwood 2/25/2020 Rosa Martinez Las Vegas 2/25/2020 Toby Coats Barnardsville 2/25/2020 Tasha Click Cumberland 2/25/2020 janet forman new york 2/25/2020 Zoe Johnson Nashville 2/25/2020 Mino Truong Boston 2/25/2020 Matthew Kleinpeter Baton Rouge 2/25/2020 Vanessa Arteaga Miami 2/25/2020 Shani Baker Silverthorne 2/25/2020 Tony Gray Chicago 2/25/2020 bianca tenneriello jackson 2/25/2020 Mark Capitano Pittston 2/25/2020 Amanda Buechsenschuetz Ashwaubenon 2/25/2020 Kevin Rowland Schenectady 2/25/2020 Kelly Taylor Warren 2/25/2020 Marissa Rizzo Palm beach gardens 2/25/2020 Steve Pupo Mount Laurel 2/25/2020 Lesley Goodson Haslet 2/25/2020 Randi B Fort Lupton 2/25/2020 Mia Terraciano-Spence Dallas 2/25/2020 Anna Platen Hawthorne 2/25/2020 Dawn Rane Chicago 2/25/2020 Dylan Garrison Martinsburg 2/25/2020 Carmen Hartzell Denver 2/25/2020 Valerie Charbonneau Putnam 2/25/2020 Isaac Peters Minneapolis 2/25/2020 Greyson Yurkanin Clarks Summit 2/25/2020 Jeannie Klein Beltsville 2/25/2020 Ariana Febres Atlanta 2/25/2020 Cindy Pirson Troutman 2/25/2020 Tanya Pacheco Kissimmee 2/25/2020 Lauren Vigeant Vero Beach 2/25/2020 Jason Lang Salem 2/25/2020 Jeffrey Aizprua West New York 2/25/2020 Jeff Montgomery Salyersville 2/25/2020 Katie Smith Santa Cruz 2/25/2020 Mike Crain Newport News 2/25/2020 laurie buys Dexter 2/25/2020 Ian Selmonsky New York 2/25/2020 Cindy Earnheart Mesquite 2/25/2020 Kathy Griffin Brentwood 2/25/2020 Jami Palladino Brentwood 2/25/2020 Sinziana Todor 2/25/2020 Lisa Grady Brentwood 2/25/2020 Christopher Figieroa Fremont 2/25/2020 Carrie Juracich Brentwood 2/25/2020 Nicole Xavier Brentwood 2/25/2020 Marilyn Hulvey Brentwood 2/25/2020 Adam Vreeland Brentwood 2/25/2020 Kathleen Finley Oakland 2/25/2020 Andrea Jesson Brentwood 2/25/2020 Bita Karamooz Beaverton 2/25/2020 nancy burger Haverhill 2/25/2020 Vy Dinh Sunnyvale 2/25/2020 Yvette Lantz Myrtle Beach 2/25/2020 Jill Chretien Lafayette 2/25/2020 Katherine delgado Long Beach 2/25/2020 Inderpreet Singh Medford 2/25/2020 matthew stephens Crescent City 2/25/2020 Arvind Ahuja San Ramon 2/25/2020 Heather Isaac Vista 2/25/2020 Barry Keiffer Genesee 2/25/2020 marcia sliwinski kenmore 2/25/2020 Isaac B.2/25/2020 Emma Jae Arlington 2/25/2020 Gabriela Guillen Danville 2/26/2020 Michelle Sutherland Johnson City 2/26/2020 Cheltzie Hentz Sioux Falls 2/26/2020 Camilla Klimkowski Falls Church 2/26/2020 Elene F hackettstown 2/26/2020 Selene Sahagun Hacienda Heights 2/26/2020 caitlyn myers Elkridge 2/26/2020 Ella Joutz San Clemente 2/26/2020 Justin Kaufman Fort Wayne 2/26/2020 Colby Friddle Bradenton 2/26/2020 Perry Gx Tustin 2/26/2020 Meredith Kott San Antonio 2/26/2020 Alivia Davis Antioch 2/26/2020 Alexandra Seaman Burton 2/26/2020 Jack Sklut Spokane 2/26/2020 Susan Hanke Scottsdale 2/26/2020 Contra Costa County Climate Leaders (4CL)Moraga 2/26/2020 Linda Kohler Brentwood 2/26/2020 Lizette Schinauer Walnut Creek 2/26/2020 Madison Martin Rush 2/27/2020 Chad Stewart Beckley 2/27/2020 Leslie King Roanoke 2/27/2020 Teresa Schneider Mount Bethel 2/27/2020 Lindsay Ranck Winter Garden 2/27/2020 taylin fauscett fredericksburg 2/27/2020 Myungwoo Bang Acton 2/27/2020 Apple Castillo Los Angeles 2/27/2020 Jolene Root Syracuse 2/27/2020 Missy Smith Harlingen 2/27/2020 Emily Peterson Seattle 2/27/2020 Steven Morris Sharps Chapel 2/27/2020 Kim Thurber Toledo 2/27/2020 Carlos Solrac Los 2/27/2020 Cristina Menard Kansas City 2/27/2020 Dawn Suppo Highland park 2/27/2020 Shandah Russell Denver 2/27/2020 zoe carricaburu Miami 2/27/2020 Nayeli DeJesus Hawthorne 2/27/2020 SONIA CORTES Bronxville 2/27/2020 Barbara Vidana Monroe 2/27/2020 Leah Cole Toms River 2/27/2020 Devon Little Bothell 2/27/2020 Ronnie Garcia Kissimmee 2/27/2020 Vanessa Bartley Huntsville 2/27/2020 Ethan Skiff hannibal 2/28/2020 Tiffany Fernandez Beverly Hills 2/28/2020 Sandra Mieczynski South Windham 2/28/2020 Michele LaPorte Schaumburg 2/28/2020 Robert Wright Miami 2/28/2020 Abigail Tidwell Seattle 2/28/2020 Sharon Seto Danville 2/28/2020 Kim Kyungmin Chula Vista 2/28/2020 Connie Ali Belvidere 2/28/2020 Emmanuelle Pancaldi Santa Cruz 2/28/2020 olivia broome Brandon 2/28/2020 Maylin Jurado Houston 2/28/2020 Jason Saunders Fresno 2/28/2020 Lindy Larson Fairbanks 2/28/2020 Julianna Quinn Nashville 2/28/2020 Hannah Stephenson Hartwell 2/28/2020 Ashlee Weinholdt Phoenix 2/28/2020 Ryan Kramer Los Angeles 2/28/2020 Moira Healey Ipswich 2/28/2020 Nathanial Noland Altoona 2/28/2020 Alex Camacho Hialeah 2/28/2020 Stacey Bartels Cleveland 2/28/2020 Melissa Heithaus Mckinney 2/28/2020 Beverly Strickland Chicago 2/28/2020 Nathanial Miller Cape Coral 2/28/2020 Amy Lamb Centreville 2/28/2020 Austin Desanto Iowa City 2/28/2020 susan serreyn Lamberton 2/28/2020 wavy natti Central Islip 2/28/2020 Patricia Brown Denver 2/28/2020 Ildikó Bencze Budapest 2/28/2020 Autumn Lawson Aylett 2/29/2020 Daniel Raino Joliet 2/29/2020 Jesse Most Salinas 2/29/2020 Jenna Heck Tuckerton 2/29/2020 Myria Morris Tupelo 2/29/2020 Sofia Gomez Lexington 2/29/2020 Jenn Schnaidt Pomptonlakesday lakes 2/29/2020 Alex Smith St. Helens 2/29/2020 Jared Mullane New York 2/29/2020 Yuanyi Zhang Fort Worth 2/29/2020 Brooke Parker Birmingham 2/29/2020 David Fetzer Emmett 2/29/2020 Tricia Hauptmann Philadelphia 3/1/2020 Taylor Roghair Killeen 3/1/2020 Matt Ki Los Angeles 3/1/2020 Eric Barger Belleville 3/1/2020 Andrea Parker Renton 3/1/2020 Elliot Mcmullan Reno 3/1/2020 Michael Cornette 3/1/2020 David West Brentwood 3/2/2020 Ward Geis Brentwood 3/2/2020 FEROZ KHAN Brentwood 3/3/2020 Nicole Cordero Antioch 3/3/2020 Maria Mallari San Francisco 3/4/2020 Mitchell Bell Temecula 3/8/2020 Jack Eidt Los Angeles 3/12/2020 fay forman new york 3/22/2020 Russ Harris Palo Alto 4/28/2020 Brandon Varona Concord 6/29/2020 I like Gay Ellwood City 6/29/2020 Miya Ramos Thonotosassa 6/29/2020 molly irwin Kingston 6/29/2020 Rachel Ramirez Red Oak 6/29/2020 Zakeiya Abdulsatar Wheaton 6/29/2020 Lisa Hopko Middletown 6/29/2020 Sherlyn Juarez Georgetown 6/29/2020 Blanca Heredia Garden City 9/18/2020 Kristin Wilson Billerica 9/18/2020 addison c Lansing 9/18/2020 Johnie Besselman Saint marys 9/18/2020 Norm Wilmes Yuba City 9/18/2020 Khalis Adams Sacramento 9/18/2020 John Kennedy Lee’s Summit 9/18/2020 Denver-lilly Thompson Bakersfield 9/18/2020 Frankie Morris Madison 9/18/2020 emma kearney Denver 9/18/2020 Anna Payne Chicago 9/18/2020 Mario Sarrica Norfolk 9/18/2020 Rei Wii New Smyrna Beach 9/18/2020 Alexandru Stoica Lake Forest 9/18/2020 Brianna Reed Los Angeles 9/18/2020 Tiffany Silic Los Angeles 9/18/2020 Marjia Kabir Brooklyn 9/18/2020 Yeselee Jimenez Bronx 9/18/2020 Donte Gaynor Hayward 9/18/2020 Seattle Advocater 9/18/2020 Ray Uriarte Murrieta 9/18/2020 Sidra Kadir Minneapolis 9/18/2020 Ellie Bixler Raleigh 9/18/2020 kylie mcfayden Yucaipa 9/18/2020 Harold Swinton Saint Johns 9/18/2020 Lauren Outman Grand Rapids 9/18/2020 Ava Meyer Coatesville 9/18/2020 Morgan Miller Georgetown 9/18/2020 Hannah Mccrarey North Hampton 9/18/2020 Brennen Risden Virginia Beach 9/18/2020 Matt McCullough Export 9/18/2020 KF Murray Harrison 9/18/2020 brianna norwood Los Angeles 9/18/2020 Vito Amaya San Diego 9/18/2020 Gizelle Leon Oxnard 9/18/2020 Kelie jones Lead Hill 9/18/2020 Treshia Ria Everett 9/18/2020 Patricia Payne Everett 9/18/2020 Kimie Akiu Kapolei 9/18/2020 Elian Ceron Saint Louis 9/18/2020 Mary Ann Frost Kelseyville 9/18/2020 Nick Biagini San Mateo 9/18/2020 Miguel Palacios Miami 9/18/2020 Alexa Barragan Olivehurst 9/18/2020 Madison Iverson Puyallup 9/18/2020 H S Orlando 9/18/2020 Ailleen Aguilar San Jose 9/18/2020 Barney CANSLER Wichita 9/18/2020 Deont'a Osborn Tyler 9/18/2020 Lizbeth Huerta Logan 9/18/2020 Joc Cordero Waterbury 9/18/2020 anne ellis port charlotte 9/18/2020 Alexis Coleman Downingtown 9/18/2020 Jamie Smith Toledo 9/18/2020 Ghader Alqusaimi Hamtramck 9/18/2020 Leslie Bazan - Gomez Aurora 9/18/2020 Kelsey Nucatola Patchogue 9/18/2020 Elisabeth Sánchez Omaha nebraska 9/18/2020 Axel maya Katy 9/18/2020 william seabaugh Everett 9/18/2020 Ash Mohan Arlington 9/18/2020 Emely Del Cid Norcross 9/18/2020 Jamey Baker Reno 9/18/2020 Jazz White Royal Oak 9/18/2020 Alana W Flushing 9/18/2020 Daniel Maldonado Hemet 9/18/2020 Alex Tinoco Fullerton 9/18/2020 Billy Holder Eden 9/18/2020 Jordan Bromfield Douglasville 9/18/2020 Randel Jeffries 9/18/2020 lisa klein Glencoe 9/18/2020 Desiree Fernandez Austin 9/18/2020 Red Callistemon Arcata 9/18/2020 Katherine Gordon Saint Louis 9/18/2020 Thomas Nieland Alamo 9/18/2020 Cade Herman Oak Ridge 9/18/2020 Sagayaraj Sebastian Danville 9/18/2020 Krithi Sagayaraj San Ramon 9/18/2020 J Chepeska Onondaga 9/18/2020 Grace Silva North Hollwyood 9/18/2020 Martin Angle Danville 9/18/2020 Carl Luhring Desert Hot Springs 9/18/2020 Tabitha/Cliff Womack Kurtistown 9/18/2020 Carolyn De Mirjian Valley Glen 9/18/2020 Donna Brown Houston 9/18/2020 Vinh Mai West Chester 9/18/2020 Dan De Yo Yorba Linda 9/18/2020 Peter Schellhorn Glenview 9/19/2020 Robert Fox Amelia 9/19/2020 doria wosk miami 9/19/2020 katherine dander boston 9/19/2020 Ms. Linda A. Heath Grafton 9/19/2020 Forrest Seuser Minneapolis 9/19/2020 Violet Kean Colorado Springs 9/19/2020 Shauntea Black Lewistown 9/19/2020 Paul Blackburn Elizabethtown 9/19/2020 Ilse Spiegel Brooklyn 9/19/2020 george bourlotos belleville 9/19/2020 David Pansegrouw Washington 9/19/2020 Justin Estes Clayton 9/19/2020 Sarah Voss Clemson 9/19/2020 YVONNE CHRISTISON Stevens Point 9/19/2020 Sara Lee Nokesville 9/19/2020 Robert O’Donnell Monroe Township 9/19/2020 Faye Rye Torrance 9/19/2020 Sneha Dutta Danville 9/20/2020 Franco Carlo 9/20/2020 Brett Chromy Atlanta 9/20/2020 Gita Saxena Walnut Creek 9/20/2020 Paulina Villegas Surprise 9/20/2020 Kamana Pokhrel Kentwood 9/20/2020 Judith Baxter Yorba Linda 9/20/2020 rangel aleman Medford 9/20/2020 Alice Markey Hattiesburg 9/20/2020 Diego Jimenez New York 9/20/2020 Karin Barger Sullivan 9/20/2020 Ashley Duncan Danville 9/21/2020 Mike Lamberson Danville 9/21/2020 Flavia Gracie Concord 9/21/2020 Ben Hakala Rancho Cucamonga 9/21/2020 sandra musser Cortland 9/21/2020 Christa Dodd Martinez 9/22/2020 Zoe Klein Elkridge 9/22/2020 Shane Thomann Burbank 9/22/2020 sean cappiello Lyndhurst 9/22/2020 Marie-Claire Trown Concord 9/24/2020 Fran patterson Danville 9/24/2020 Teresa Castle Concord 9/24/2020 HOWARD MEYERSON El Cerrito 9/24/2020 Alison Hill Lafayette 9/24/2020 Anthie Booras Danville 9/24/2020 Barbara Hailey Danville 9/24/2020 Bill Newman Pleasanton 9/24/2020 Andrew Chao Danville 9/24/2020 George Booras Danville 9/24/2020 Carolyn Winton San Ramon 9/24/2020 Ricardo MarínSerra Brentwood 9/24/2020 Katherine Krueger Houston 9/24/2020 Anthony Caccavello Redding 9/24/2020 Isabella Stephenson Wilsonville 9/24/2020 Tionn Beverly Chicago 9/24/2020 Chloe Kibler 9/24/2020 Jennifer Mundis Yoe 9/24/2020 Sebastian Martin El Cerrito 9/24/2020 Robert McHugh Brentwood 9/24/2020 Barbara Lovejoy Richmond 9/24/2020 Carl Yerkovich Berkeley 9/25/2020 Garth Casaday Richmond 9/25/2020 Domenick Treccase Walnut Creek 9/25/2020 T D 9/25/2020 Kristine Hachiya Danville 9/25/2020 Chris Bourassa Danville 9/25/2020 Jeff Pulver Danville 9/25/2020 Annette Long-stinnett Tahlequah 9/25/2020 CLOSE THE SCHOOLS Los Angeles 9/25/2020 Aurelia Correa Livermore 9/25/2020 Gabriela Fortunet Bronx 9/25/2020 Denise Scott Youngstown 9/25/2020 Scarlett Schutzberg Massachusetts 9/25/2020 Justine Rose Tekonsha 9/25/2020 Liz Chase Fort Lauderdale 9/25/2020 Sam Webb Fairbury 9/25/2020 Michelle Esparza Chicago 9/25/2020 Lucy Marin Atlanta 9/25/2020 Sharon Sears Cambridge 9/25/2020 Monica Pichardo Albuquerque 9/25/2020 Kakashi Hatake Vacaville 9/25/2020 Ryan Polley Tucker 9/25/2020 Patrice Wallace Santa Cruz 9/25/2020 Alisandra Lopez Guadalupe 9/25/2020 Person Sign Houston 9/25/2020 Joseph Wright Miami 9/25/2020 Jaden Patel Hernando 9/25/2020 joan angry Meriden 9/25/2020 Kelly Schuler Brentwood 9/25/2020 Shannon Anderson Alamo 9/25/2020 Charles Burns Truckee 9/25/2020 Jacqueline Elmore Danville 9/25/2020 Malena Adzich San Ramon 9/25/2020 Heather Southworth Pleasanton 9/25/2020 Dianne Douglas Phoenix 9/25/2020 Michele Roma Pleasant Hill 9/25/2020 Kristina Largen Danville 9/25/2020 Jane Pachura Concord 9/25/2020 Kelli Stephanos Walnut Creek 9/25/2020 Kathleen Goodwin Brentwood 9/25/2020 Steve Paich 9/25/2020 Katie Duffield Walnut Creek 9/25/2020 Tracy Melone San Francisco 9/25/2020 Darvin Momtoya Silver Spring 9/25/2020 Carson Folio Pittsburgh 9/25/2020 Jose Jr.9/25/2020 Julie Buckley Pleasanton 9/25/2020 Scott Buckley Pleasanton 9/25/2020 John Buckley Livermore 9/25/2020 Holly Neu Concord 9/25/2020 Nia Lewis Pleasanton 9/25/2020 Leah Rosenstrauch Concord 9/25/2020 Kevin Piatt Falls Church 9/25/2020 Jeff Hensley Byrdstown 9/25/2020 Lindsay Rotblatt Gainesville 9/25/2020 Kate Miller Danville 9/25/2020 Rupal Sanghvi New York 9/25/2020 DONNA Leavitt Toms River 9/26/2020 Patricia wilburn Santa Rosa 9/26/2020 Tracey Carroll Danville 9/26/2020 Vicky Walling Sunnyvale 9/26/2020 Josh Carroll Danville 9/26/2020 Robert Johnson Berkeley 9/26/2020 Kenneth Schott Walnut Creek 9/26/2020 darlene OSTER pleasant hill 9/26/2020 Laura Estrella San Ramon 9/27/2020 aurora dylans Alameda 9/27/2020 Gabriela Gonzalez Long Beach 9/27/2020 Rehan Nasir Raleigh 9/27/2020 Fucking Asshole Houston 9/27/2020 John Kramer Marshfield 9/27/2020 Yvette Benites Monterey Park 9/27/2020 Mason Coombs Powell 9/27/2020 Liv Campbell Fargo 9/27/2020 Alexandra Delacruz Roosvelt 9/27/2020 Xander Singh Concord 9/27/2020 Alexa Banks Tustin 9/27/2020 Melissa Soto Fontana 9/27/2020 Madeleine Alt Tracy 9/27/2020 Mateo Damian-Hernandez Sacramento 9/27/2020 Sunny RodgersHatten Joliet 9/27/2020 A Person Cape May 9/27/2020 Daisy Lechuga Gurnee 9/27/2020 Merary Juarez Houston 9/27/2020 Owen Ainslie Seattle 9/27/2020 Shannon Melcher Bigfoot 9/27/2020 Diego Escamilla 9/27/2020 Dianna Gomez Visalia 9/27/2020 Josivette coronado Houston 9/27/2020 nick duran Stafford 9/27/2020 Robert Stark Houston 9/27/2020 James Zo Syosset 9/27/2020 Israel Cabassa Bullhead City 9/27/2020 Colleen Jozaitis San Ramon 9/27/2020 Daniel Allhands Brentwood 9/27/2020 Paul Dow Dublin 9/27/2020 Marilynn Rhodes Portland 9/27/2020 Sherry Sorce Spring 9/27/2020 Joseph Ragni Danville 9/27/2020 Bette Brockman Danville 9/27/2020 khia haynes Philadelphia 9/27/2020 heather rozmus Lawrence 9/27/2020 Robert White Glens Falls 9/27/2020 Kelly Long Gainesville 9/27/2020 Nyssa Reeder West Des Moines 9/27/2020 Sheldon Kessler 9/27/2020 Leo ruiz Houston 9/27/2020 Marc Etienne Fort Lauderdale 9/27/2020 Kimberly Boden Pontiac 9/27/2020 Elizabeth Dahl Minneapolis 9/27/2020 Karina Espinoza midland 9/27/2020 Summer Goodman San Jose 9/27/2020 ella daughhetee Easley 9/27/2020 Kris Pichardo Kissimmee 9/27/2020 Vivian Balcazar Modesto 9/27/2020 Joshua Reed Houston 9/27/2020 Jesse Penas Lakeland 9/27/2020 Marina Khoury Norwalk 9/27/2020 Luxuria Bordeaux Seattle 9/27/2020 stef savastio Philadelphia 9/27/2020 Taylor Catello Islip 9/27/2020 Linette Antunez North Hollywood 9/27/2020 Coral Cantwell Los Angeles 9/27/2020 Alyssa Mays Betonville 9/27/2020 Neiva Rodriguez Los Banos 9/27/2020 A W Lawrenceburg 9/27/2020 Jarrett Cloud Florham Park 9/27/2020 Shannon Carlson Kent 9/27/2020 Phillip Smith Riverside 9/27/2020 dori livit Houston 9/27/2020 maaeda douglas Baltimore 9/27/2020 Elizabeth Wilson Douglas City 9/27/2020 Miresly Figueroa Anaheim 9/27/2020 Sandra Casarez Valencia 9/27/2020 Ebony Sherrell Norcross 9/27/2020 Jocelin Oseguera San Francisco 9/27/2020 Angel Taylor Wayne 9/27/2020 Steven Caffrey Fall River 9/27/2020 Judas LaCrom Seymour 9/27/2020 Lauren Schultz Brockport 9/27/2020 Lisandro Garcia Seattle 9/27/2020 Christina Darnell Brownwood 9/27/2020 Stef Martinez Houston 9/27/2020 Ava Lil Middletown 9/27/2020 Nerija Pierre-Paul Bronx 9/27/2020 Greta Lemke Bothell 9/27/2020 Cazzy Peters Arverne 9/27/2020 samantha u La Habra 9/27/2020 Madison H.Oak Park 9/27/2020 Gabriela Sanchez San Mateo 9/27/2020 Ashley Martinez Fairview 9/27/2020 Ximena Zepeda Deer Park 9/27/2020 Donetta Collins Stockton 9/27/2020 Diana Lozano Cudahy 9/27/2020 Lis Fuentes Riverhead 9/27/2020 Mariana Balbontin Norman 9/27/2020 Anya Phillips Portland 9/27/2020 Ruth CG Oakland 9/27/2020 Emily Weaver San Francisco 9/27/2020 noemi lee Katy 9/27/2020 Charliz Baez San Juan 9/27/2020 Maria Gallegos Laredo 9/27/2020 Jessica Melendez Riverside 9/27/2020 Aaron Salinas Houston 9/27/2020 keith hudson tucson 9/27/2020 Leonidas Vasquez Los Angeles 9/27/2020 Malena Medrano Muscatine 9/27/2020 Maria Bizahaloni Page, AZ 9/27/2020 Jim Gut Lorain 9/27/2020 Dylan Roberts Stamford 9/27/2020 Jan Warren Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Mark Appleget Danville 9/28/2020 Joe Foster Alamo 9/28/2020 Jon Boas Danville 9/28/2020 Brett MacDonell Lafayette 9/28/2020 Johnny Gossett Pleasanton 9/28/2020 Paul Mason Danville 9/28/2020 Vanessa Baumann Martinez 9/28/2020 Lori Yamaguchi Danville 9/28/2020 Jovita Mendoza Brentwood 9/28/2020 Flavia oliveira parks Pleasanton 9/28/2020 Dave Dalton Danville 9/28/2020 Rod Flohr Brentwood 9/28/2020 Vic Deornelas Livermore 9/28/2020 Victoria Sandberg Brentwood 9/28/2020 Erik Hofman Danville 9/28/2020 Ana Valles Brentwood 9/28/2020 Frank Ravizza Livermore 9/28/2020 Kenny Owen Castro Valley 9/28/2020 william Beers danville 9/28/2020 Peter Brisbo Pleasant Hill 9/28/2020 Alyssa Madden Morgan Hill 9/28/2020 Susan Dalton Danville 9/28/2020 alaa-eddine djedouani Antioch 9/28/2020 Carol Weed Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Jim Gibbon Castro Valley 9/28/2020 Narasimham Bobby Vempati San Ramon 9/28/2020 Dwight Stone Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Anne Cavazos San Ramon 9/28/2020 Sheila Tarbet El Cerrito 9/28/2020 Scott Amundson Oakland 9/28/2020 Barry Brian Dresher 9/28/2020 Jennifer Mu Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Daniel Kibler Danville 9/28/2020 Sally Carmody Danville 9/28/2020 Anne Foreman Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Joseph Storm Alamo 9/28/2020 Jack Goldner Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Joan Roth Orinda 9/28/2020 Shoshana Wechsler Kensington 9/28/2020 James Ware Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Nancy Rieser Crockett 9/28/2020 Janet Pygeorge Hercules 9/28/2020 Laurel Standley Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Shirley Shelangoski Pleasant Hill 9/28/2020 Chris Penna San Ramon 9/28/2020 Phil Morton Berkeley 9/28/2020 Elizabeth Lobos Concord 9/28/2020 Mariann White Danville 9/28/2020 Brooke Davis Valencia 9/28/2020 Jocelyn Rivera Modesto 9/28/2020 olivia smith Chino Hills 9/28/2020 Aaliyah Christian Aurora 9/28/2020 Tiriki Clay Stone Mountain 9/28/2020 mark hintz plainview 9/28/2020 Ruby Kane Oakland 9/28/2020 Stephanie Verduzco Houston 9/28/2020 Laura Welles District Heights 9/28/2020 David Reyna Bronx 9/28/2020 Lydia Deolloz Austin 9/28/2020 kate smith springfeild 9/28/2020 Natalie Correa Chicago 9/28/2020 Erik Reis Clarksville 9/28/2020 Andrew Manolachi Des Plaines 9/28/2020 Matthew Kassel Phoenixville 9/28/2020 Amber Sweet Plainview 9/28/2020 Richard Tribiano Marysville 9/28/2020 Rose Foreman Lafayette 9/28/2020 Cavin �Fort Worth 9/28/2020 Melissa Erickson Elk River 9/28/2020 SL Dil Elizabethtown 9/28/2020 Chris Jackson Beverly Hills 9/28/2020 Nick Allen 9/28/2020 Maggie Irving Evanston 9/28/2020 Miranda Vreeland Lewisville 9/28/2020 Sutton S Halethorpe 9/28/2020 Kayla Engelhardt Amarillo 9/28/2020 Savannah Blevins Creston 9/28/2020 Peter Coppelman San Francisco 9/28/2020 Latonya Braun Cincinnati 9/28/2020 Cierra Lampkin Ventura 9/28/2020 Abby Thielen Phoenix 9/28/2020 thelma b bronet Danville 9/28/2020 Nick Despota El Cerrito 9/28/2020 Joy Danzig Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Janice Cecil Berkeley 9/28/2020 Dee Simmons Concord 9/28/2020 Mark Mazzara Danville 9/28/2020 Joy Hicks Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Bob Joe Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Brian McAndrews Danville 9/28/2020 Samantha Engro Brentwood 9/28/2020 Carolina Villaseca Brentwood 9/28/2020 Arthur Moore Danville 9/28/2020 Maren Stanczak Concord 9/28/2020 Sheri Kuticka Walnut Creek 9/28/2020 Jim Volsansky San Ramon 9/28/2020 Rebecca Sgamba Pleasant Hill 9/28/2020 Nicole Gonzales Gilroy 9/28/2020 Scott Hamilton Kapa'a 9/28/2020 Josh Lung Newnan 9/28/2020 John R. McBee Topsham 9/28/2020 Leticia delgado Cypress 9/28/2020 Richard Chan Holland 9/28/2020 renee kurie Pleasantville 9/28/2020 Theresa Colon Anchorage 9/28/2020 Elisabeth Noir Tucson 9/28/2020 katoe flood Woodbridge 9/28/2020 Sophia Smolenski Aurora 9/28/2020 Madeleine Quintanilla Portage 9/28/2020 Meline Chrikjian Thousand Oaks 9/28/2020 Jammie Cobb Miami 9/28/2020 Macy Elliott Columbus 9/28/2020 Kayleen Shields Kansas City 9/28/2020 Sofia Sassy Pflugerville 9/28/2020 Kananai Moore Atlanta 9/28/2020 Gabriel Rocha Secaucus 9/28/2020 Elianna Gore Suitland 9/28/2020 Taylor Kay Provo 9/28/2020 Dania Solis Pico Rivera 9/28/2020 Jovita Ramos Renton 9/28/2020 Lester Diaz Las Vegas 9/28/2020 Marissa Killen Saint Louis 9/28/2020 Mariana Portillo Whittier 9/28/2020 M W Amelia 9/28/2020 Michelle Peralta Houston 9/28/2020 kylie yannuzzi danville 9/28/2020 Sarahi Verdugo Oakland 9/28/2020 Angela Walters Seattle 9/28/2020 Hanna Kun Chicago 9/28/2020 Kathryn Keefer Columbus 9/28/2020 Lori Staton Cedar Rapids 9/28/2020 Chelsea Hooblal Richmond Hill,9/28/2020 Rodney Dobson Jacksonville 9/28/2020 Jakaria Neal Chicago 9/28/2020 Anne L Hollywood 9/28/2020 Anne Therese Ramos San Diego 9/28/2020 Marcy Reiford Candler 9/28/2020 b b Tampa 9/28/2020 Trinda Skelton Albany 9/28/2020 luanelly rivera Springfield 9/28/2020 Kevin Best Cleveland 9/28/2020 Sandy Murillo Lake Elsinore 9/28/2020 Diego Servin Indianapolis 9/28/2020 serene romero Portland 9/28/2020 Amanda N 9/28/2020 Fatima Woolley Durham 9/28/2020 Max Kubon Highland 9/28/2020 Tracy Arteaga Eltopia 9/28/2020 Carla Atlixqueno Kew Gardens 9/28/2020 Jacklyn Heitman Oceanside 9/28/2020 Jacque Suarez johnson Oakland 9/28/2020 Yesenia Ramirex Lancaster 9/28/2020 Cheran Bowles Eatontown 9/28/2020 Cleo Carroll Delray Beach 9/28/2020 eli turner Glenside 9/28/2020 isabelle allen Cooon rapids 9/28/2020 Erik Jon Los Angeles 9/28/2020 Abby Kamm Raleigh 9/28/2020 Rachel Frederick Forest Hills 9/28/2020 Anna Laidler East Stroudsburg 9/28/2020 Adelyn Plagge Clara City 9/28/2020 Kyle Panter 9/28/2020 Amy Sidor Staten Island 9/28/2020 Jessica belisle Chicago 9/28/2020 Sara Hauser East meadow 9/28/2020 Lin Paxman Las Vegas 9/28/2020 Emma Martinez Belton 9/28/2020 Caleb Sweezy Loveland 9/28/2020 Grace Kasonga Raleigh 9/28/2020 Ye Oof 9/28/2020 Ashley Dakers Brooklyn 9/28/2020 Taylor Cook Providence 9/28/2020 kirsten mackinnon Scarinish 9/28/2020 Ana Aguilar Garden Grove 9/28/2020 benjamin wyant Ypsilanti 9/28/2020 Owen King Surprise 9/28/2020 Cameron Clifford Flemington 9/28/2020 Leonardo Urquilla Rialto 9/28/2020 Rachel Reed Saint Cloud 9/28/2020 A40K DRE Denver 9/28/2020 Maria Suciu Chicago 9/28/2020 Thomas Andrews Brooksville 9/28/2020 Kristen B Holland 9/28/2020 Sandra Mazzara Danville 9/28/2020 Luke W New York 9/28/2020 vashti hammett Akron 9/28/2020 Afrika FULLER Runnemede 9/28/2020 Kevin Kosisky Pittston 9/28/2020 daisy gonzalez pharr 9/28/2020 Carlos Peralta Dover 9/28/2020 Janet Hammock Jackson 9/28/2020 Paula Senes Houston 9/28/2020 Maya Danzig Chicago 9/28/2020 Sean Jenkins Douglasville 9/28/2020 Maya Vasquez Brooklyn 9/28/2020 Dylan uwu Atlanta 9/28/2020 Jordan Rosado Tallahassee 9/28/2020 Najilah Wharton Detroit 9/28/2020 Marcos Cruz New York 9/28/2020 Ashley Vasquez Tracy 9/28/2020 HERNANDEZ Hernandez Teaneck 9/28/2020 Galilea Armenta Austin 9/28/2020 Amwag Haider Louisville 9/28/2020 Sneckud Joseph Elmont 9/28/2020 Elira Xhamo Scottsdale 9/28/2020 Brodie Hilp Clayton 9/28/2020 L V Houston 9/28/2020 Gia Bandeira San Jose 9/28/2020 Jeff Mora Danville 9/28/2020 Michele Burton Greenbelt 9/28/2020 Alex Lopez Cincinnati 9/28/2020 Zarina Malik Manasses 9/28/2020 Bella Patrow Minneapolis 9/28/2020 Ethan Windish Virginia Beach 9/28/2020 klarisse thibodeaux New Orleans 9/28/2020 Norm Shot Yeahhh Columbia Station 9/28/2020 Vincent Cruz Oakdale 9/28/2020 Melanie Legault Washington 9/28/2020 M Busch Elizabeth 9/28/2020 Nelly Espinoza Whittier 9/28/2020 Daniel Mohsin Glendale 9/28/2020 Jerrod Braley Orem 9/28/2020 Erica Hise Marietta 9/28/2020 Christopher Suranna Washington 9/28/2020 Bryn Maenner Glen Burnie 9/28/2020 Shiquana Baker 9/28/2020 Joe Zink Stratford 9/28/2020 Carmenta Clark Chester 9/28/2020 Taylor Ellis Brooklyn 9/28/2020 Emma Hartwig Dearborn Heights 9/28/2020 Leah Shannon Sammamish 9/28/2020 Gundham Tanaka Taylors 9/28/2020 Ron Stiffler Detroit 9/28/2020 Katherine Turpin Washington 9/28/2020 Chandra Chakicherla Dublin 9/29/2020 Carol Drake Fremont 9/29/2020 Anu Chakicherla Dublin 9/29/2020 Sam Balaji San Ramon 9/29/2020 Ryan McGee Middleton 9/29/2020 Valerie Thurston Antioch 9/29/2020 Vanessa Cleric Brentwood 9/29/2020 Katherine Shafer Danville 9/29/2020 BILL PINKHAM Fremont 9/29/2020 Suzannah Thomas Aptos 9/29/2020 vidhya balaji San Ramon 9/29/2020 Denise Angelo San Ramon 9/29/2020 Therese George Crockett 9/29/2020 Kyle Henderson San Ramon 9/29/2020 jackie mann lafayette 9/29/2020 Shelley Hofman Danville 9/29/2020 Susanne Fischer Watzelsdorf 9/29/2020 lauren dixon Potters Bar 9/29/2020 Mimi Gibson Lethbridge 9/29/2020 Gordon Ellse Ashford 9/29/2020 Garry Birch Dublin 9/29/2020 Innocent. Bistander Kirkintilloch 9/29/2020 zari diver 9/29/2020 Yasmin Alizadeh 9/29/2020 یبتجم هلادی روپ 9/29/2020 Tina Chalatian Thessaloníki 9/29/2020 Nurul Laylan Maghfirah Majene 9/29/2020 Roderick Purdy Windsor 9/29/2020 gloria ostrea Orlando 9/29/2020 Christine Morrison Ottawa 9/29/2020 eugenia morzenti milan 9/29/2020 john louladakis Thessaloníki 9/29/2020 Mitch Maguire Brentwood 9/29/2020 florence TREBOUTTE Paris 9/29/2020 Rossana Velez Vega Baja 9/29/2020 Roya Babazadeh Tehran 9/29/2020 Tyler Reid Hamilton 9/29/2020 Willy Jobagy Sherwood Park 9/29/2020 Orva M Gullett Marion 9/29/2020 Myranda Henderson Denison 9/29/2020 Fafa Atash 9/29/2020 Christopher John Gwynne KnowlesAccrington 9/29/2020 Romy Seifert Zürich 9/29/2020 Michelle Cole Summerland 9/29/2020 Sebastian Franco Miami 9/29/2020 Charlotte Starace College Station 9/29/2020 Sofia Pitoscia San Isidro 9/29/2020 Zoe Siegel Oakland 9/29/2020 Anne Craig Kensington 9/29/2020 Izzy Ingleby Reigate 9/29/2020 David Fitzgerald Concord 9/29/2020 timi wood Ottawa 9/29/2020 Bettina Belter Bakersfield 9/29/2020 angela baralla sp 9/29/2020 Tiffany Nelson Vancouver 9/29/2020 gordon miller winnipeg 9/29/2020 Clemens Pogatsch 9/29/2020 Jim Clara Berkeley 9/29/2020 Снежка Яначкова Popovo 9/29/2020 arlette simon 9/29/2020 Jan Cameron surrey, b.c.9/29/2020 James Wyatt Smalley 9/29/2020 Alice Polo Elizabeth 9/29/2020 Laurence Bourguignon Auray 9/29/2020 sofia ivanov Saint Paul 9/29/2020 Wietske Medema Lafayette 9/29/2020 Logan C Pine Bush 9/29/2020 andre scott Portland 9/29/2020 Katrina Roberts Chicago 9/29/2020 Isaí Ojeda Calexico 9/29/2020 April Garibay Las Vegas 9/29/2020 Nathan Parks Dublin 9/29/2020 Khi Bux Florissant 9/29/2020 Fisher A Topeka 9/29/2020 Andrew Nguyen Garden grove 9/29/2020 Kiyah Thomas Columbia 9/29/2020 Daniela Mendez Stockton 9/29/2020 B. Lash North East 9/29/2020 Angel De Luna San Marcos 9/29/2020 Patricia Vargas Passaic 9/29/2020 TINA JACKSON Huntington Beach 9/29/2020 Jonathan Giles Waukegan 9/29/2020 ebube Agwaramgbo Belle Chasse 9/29/2020 Isabelle Tinder Las Vegas 9/29/2020 Roddie Toney Slidell 9/29/2020 Lisa Songster Martinez 9/29/2020 Stella Ruprecht St. Cloud 9/29/2020 Mercedes Mendoza Woodland 9/29/2020 Grey Baum Santa Rosa 9/29/2020 Ryann Tang Washington 9/29/2020 Becky Jones Cleveland 9/29/2020 Brian Rogers Livonia 9/29/2020 Decosta Wright Richmond 9/29/2020 Adam Silverstein Northport 9/29/2020 Brianna Dial Orlando 9/29/2020 noah perry Hot Springs National Park 9/29/2020 Wayne Croffitt Dallas 9/29/2020 Marcia Polius Miramar 9/29/2020 Anthony Shifflet Howell 9/29/2020 Gabriela Acosta El Paso 9/29/2020 Eve Doherty Chevy Chase 9/29/2020 jimena mendoza Cumby 9/29/2020 deb romero Santa Fe 9/29/2020 Jayla Wood Conyers 9/29/2020 Lili Suro Sherwood 9/29/2020 Emily Everhart Lexington 9/29/2020 Lizette Ramirez Miranda Seattle 9/29/2020 Isaiah Zacharias Minneapolis 9/29/2020 Lindsey Lawrence Kansas City 9/29/2020 Gary Sidhu Fair Oaks 9/29/2020 jazmin hernandez Hemet 9/29/2020 Emma Biorn Spanish Fork 9/29/2020 Fred Benson Salisbury 9/29/2020 Alan Dattel Buffalo Grove 9/29/2020 Ben Novotny Luck 9/29/2020 M. Browning Chandler 9/29/2020 amarya steele Saint Paul 9/29/2020 Iris & Patty Yermak Wilmington 9/29/2020 Anna Nahlik Livermore 9/29/2020 Evan Napp Wolcott 9/29/2020 Juana Grajeda Sun Valley 9/29/2020 John Stone Wilmington 9/29/2020 Jason Snider Dallas 9/29/2020 Yazmin Melo Burbank 9/29/2020 Jonathan Cornell North Adams 9/29/2020 Victoria Breakstone Lafayette 9/29/2020 Nataliy Hernandez Coachella 9/29/2020 Sophie Tabarez Oceanside 9/29/2020 Matt Helm 9/29/2020 Waverli Almand Woodway 9/29/2020 Charlotte Geyer Gates county 9/29/2020 Taylor Zoephel Chicago 9/29/2020 Haley Mitchell Clovis 9/29/2020 Amarah Magana Riverside 9/29/2020 Paul Markillie Grand Blanc Township 9/29/2020 Frans Keulemans Pompano Beach 9/29/2020 Julio Rendon Chicago 9/29/2020 Noah Schmude Fond Du Lac 9/29/2020 paris beam Shelby 9/29/2020 Mark Renfrow New Albany 9/29/2020 hilary schultheis port washington 9/29/2020 Josue Rivas Fontana 9/29/2020 aaaa yes Dallas 9/29/2020 Ben Dover Houston 9/29/2020 Reilly Hamilton San Diego 9/29/2020 Will Smills Charlotte 9/29/2020 Gianna Tenga Green Cove Springs 9/29/2020 Gwen Schillie Oak Ridge 9/29/2020 Barbara tamayo Menlo park 9/29/2020 Maya Samarasena Santa Barbara 9/29/2020 Taliya Gibson Grasonville 9/29/2020 Gabriel Martinez Canoga Park 9/29/2020 chloe holtz Wausau 9/29/2020 chelsea villavicencio Prospect park 9/29/2020 Kang-Min Chang San Francisco 9/29/2020 sandro samano La habra 9/29/2020 Hunter Sharpe Austin 9/29/2020 fernanda jimenez Brentwood 9/29/2020 Kaycie Koenig Ridgewood 9/29/2020 Sydney Anderson Blaine 9/29/2020 Manucher Baybordi Washington 9/29/2020 Danial Leahy Martinez 9/29/2020 Kiara Torres Stafford 9/29/2020 Brook Pennington Mobile 9/29/2020 Chelsi Parani Union City 9/29/2020 Christopher Akin Pflugerville 9/29/2020 Taylor Banks Coldwater 9/29/2020 Erika Giovannoli Latina 9/29/2020 Esperanza Kunieki Portland 9/29/2020 Nolan Spaulding Montclair 9/29/2020 Andy Gu Danville 9/29/2020 Jonathan Yue San Ramon 9/29/2020 Nadine Peyrucain Martinez 9/29/2020 Robert Ortiz San Francisco 9/29/2020 Kunal Khaware Dublin 9/29/2020 Nancy Camarena Half Moon Bay 9/29/2020 Kathryn Durham-Hammer Concord 9/29/2020 mike chow Pleasanton 9/29/2020 Steve Finch Danville 9/29/2020 Sheila hill Concord 9/29/2020 Rob Rowe Cary 9/29/2020 Rosa Zhang Walnut Creek 9/29/2020 Susana Magallon Mexico 9/29/2020 marilyn ashlin El Cerrito 9/29/2020 Jacqueline Tarin-Rankl Livermore 9/29/2020 Kari Carlson Moraga 9/29/2020 Sophia Hackstock Kent 9/29/2020 Julie Wiebe Winnipeg 9/29/2020 Debra Moll Pleasant Hill 9/29/2020 Emmanuel Thomson Princes Town 9/29/2020 Dana Morales Antioch 9/29/2020 Mochi Tae Antioch 9/29/2020 millie southall 9/29/2020 Petar Stanojoski Skopje 9/29/2020 Wendy Weldon Coral Springs 9/29/2020 Ena Silva 9/29/2020 Gelare Taqdiri 9/29/2020 Nina Ni Drexel Hill 9/29/2020 Joanne Sinclair Stevenage 9/29/2020 Wesley Sullensono Pleasant Hill 9/29/2020 Gary Hsueh Oakland 9/29/2020 Lori Fieldhouse Walnut Creek 9/29/2020 Matias Gabriel Riquelme Fernández 9/29/2020 Kaitlyn Fieldhouse Walnut Creek 9/29/2020 Sandra Acham Danville 9/30/2020 Hector Giudice San Ramon 9/30/2020 Andrea Ayala Woodbridge 9/30/2020 Erin Lewis Walnut Creek 9/30/2020 Grace Kollek Cumming 9/30/2020 dean ladnier Gulfport 9/30/2020 Janet Daiana Barcelona 9/30/2020 Christy James Danville 9/30/2020 Alvaro Gil Mexico City 9/30/2020 Fathiya Putri Zahra Belitung 9/30/2020 Wilmarie Mena Bronx 9/30/2020 Diana Ramirez Staten Island 9/30/2020 Stanley Terusaki Dublin 9/30/2020 Laura Nakamura Concord 9/30/2020 Athena Monazam 9/30/2020 Eliza Pater Warsaw 9/30/2020 Sarah Lang Kirchdorf An Der Krems 9/30/2020 Howdy Goudey El Cerrito 9/30/2020 Mark Van Landuyt Orinda 9/30/2020 kathleen moultrie Worthing 9/30/2020 Cecilie Fagerheim Haugesund 9/30/2020 Jeff Dickson Ventura 9/30/2020 jannie ros 9/30/2020 Giverny Simm London 9/30/2020 godefroid rita Spa 9/30/2020 Jessica Flesher Nyon 9/30/2020 Regula Wunderlin Zurich 9/30/2020 Zahra Kordbache 9/30/2020 Russell Croker Ilford 9/30/2020 bella octart jakarta 9/30/2020 Kelly Simons blackpool 9/30/2020 Melina mauro Jakarta 9/30/2020 Guglielmo Ferrari 9/30/2020 João Pedro Carneiro Costa Goiania 9/30/2020 Jose Verde Barquisimeto 9/30/2020 Ash Manohar Norwich 9/30/2020 Kittie Walton Hertford 9/30/2020 Amelia Carri Llandudno 9/30/2020 Sakina Mustafa 9/30/2020 Chris surgenor 9/30/2020 Zsolt Garay Budapest 9/30/2020 Lucie Anselme Nizas 9/30/2020 Dani HENDERSON Whitby 9/30/2020 Cristobal Tapia de Veer Montreal 9/30/2020 bianca verrall Jhb 9/30/2020 Knut Cutter Boston 9/30/2020 Sonya Livingston Kitchener 9/30/2020 emmie Beaver Leeds 9/30/2020 Alexandra Fernandes Amadora 9/30/2020 Rose Strogatz Walnut Creek 9/30/2020 Katie Thompson Fareham 9/30/2020 Axel Blaze Thiruvananthapuram 9/30/2020 Ida Martinac Berkeley 9/30/2020 America Barba Irvine 9/30/2020 Lilian Miranda Belo Horizonte 9/30/2020 fabiola brizuela Los Angeles 9/30/2020 molly anderson Black Mountain 9/30/2020 Sharon Hoffmann Coarsegold 9/30/2020 Matthew Morrison Pleasanton 9/30/2020 Rochester Walkouts Rochester 9/30/2020 Marti Roach Moraga 9/30/2020 Igor Tregub Berkeley 9/30/2020 Tanja Müller Oftringen 9/30/2020 Eleanor Mullins Brigg 9/30/2020 Aung Su Sandar Yangon 9/30/2020 Wendy Fulginiti New Cumberland 9/30/2020 Agung Ayang Jakarta barat 9/30/2020 Diala Najjar Beirut 9/30/2020 Maria Canuto 9/30/2020 Sarah Page Carmarthen 9/30/2020 Candi Ausman Fremont 9/30/2020 Daisy Woodley Lower Brailes 9/30/2020 Fereshteh Fathi 9/30/2020 Elinita Rebujio Angeles City 9/30/2020 Roy Harkow Richmond 9/30/2020 Morgan Mabery Danville 9/30/2020 Tara McCarthy Nackawic 9/30/2020 L Nakaji Brentwood 10/1/2020 Mackenzie Patrick Southwest Brevard Cnty 10/1/2020 Shirley Hobbs Erie 10/1/2020 Madison K Los Angeles 10/1/2020 Bloody Mary Natal 10/1/2020 Querida S 10/1/2020 Jeff Songster Martinez 10/1/2020 lexi smith Orlando 10/1/2020 Fernando Noel Lima 10/1/2020 nathália tatsch de moraes Santa Maria 10/1/2020 Fat Tya Jakarta 10/1/2020 Yukti Upadhayaya New Delhi 10/1/2020 Nadia Rifaat Maputo 10/1/2020 Brittany Banis Danville 10/1/2020 Isabella Witt San Diego 10/1/2020 Alicia A jakarta 10/1/2020 Harper Williams New Boston 10/1/2020 Gordon Miller Walnut Creek 10/1/2020 Achmad Kadaruzzaman DEPOK 10/1/2020 Christine Schwarzenbacher Salzburg 10/1/2020 Martha Sallow Batumi 10/1/2020 Joshua Base Davao City 10/1/2020 Ady Olvera Concord 10/1/2020 Clarice Adams Concord 10/1/2020 Sammi Lo Kaohsiung 10/1/2020 Mia Watt Perth 10/1/2020 a j Apple Valley 10/1/2020 Paula McCarthy Liverpool 10/1/2020 lucy on antares 10/1/2020 Bruno Assmann de Azevedo Feliz 10/1/2020 Brittany Pickett Attleboro 10/1/2020 Sana Rafiei 10/1/2020 Katie Knott Vancouver 10/1/2020 Reece Mills Larne 10/1/2020 Raye Chennault Savannah 10/1/2020 Molly Clark Hull 10/1/2020 กัญญาภัค รุกขะศ ิร ิชัย bangkok 10/1/2020 Valeri Babunashvili Tbilisi 10/1/2020 Ana Lilia Estrada Ramirez Mexico 10/1/2020 Lisa Williams Nitro 10/1/2020 Michael Margulis Walnut Creek 10/1/2020 Autumn S Valley Springs 10/1/2020 anita moss Droylsden 10/1/2020 Martha Tobón Cali 10/1/2020 Dejan Helajzen Belgrade 10/1/2020 Rachna Mushran San Ramon 10/1/2020 Marciane Gomes 10/1/2020 Mauricio Ramírez Engrández Mexico 10/1/2020 Eleni KATOGLOU thessaloniki 10/1/2020 Elisa De Girolami Milan 10/1/2020 Jamie Jones Orange Walk 10/1/2020 Karen Newsom San Ramon 10/1/2020 Priscilla Sherman Lincoln 10/1/2020 Katrina Fathom Alamo 10/1/2020 Mylee Abraham Beaumont 10/1/2020 Hn Gb Delhi 10/1/2020 Wendy Salinas torres Urubamba 10/1/2020 Jelica Roland 10/1/2020 Emily Klecker Denver 10/1/2020 Biljana Nasteska Skopje 10/1/2020 Hannah Stofberg São Paulo 10/1/2020 Federica Visintini Pagnacco 10/2/2020 Beatrice Hill Hyattsville 10/2/2020 Tor Vie Somerville 10/2/2020 Dita Saraswati Sidoarjo 10/2/2020 karylle flores Quezon City 10/2/2020 Ashwin Solanki Ahmedabad 10/2/2020 Patricia Ludwick Steinhatchee 10/2/2020 Justin Truong San Francisco 10/2/2020 Akash M​.​A 10/2/2020 Carol Sparks San Pablo 10/2/2020 Elena Gjurceska 10/2/2020 Alisha Kowase Pune 10/2/2020 martin gear Gorseinon 10/2/2020 Marko Josifovski Skopje 10/2/2020 Karla Bikov Stip 10/2/2020 душко антовски Skopje 10/2/2020 Cute Panda Skopje 10/2/2020 Jose Jiménez Panamá 10/2/2020 Micaela Dominguez 10/2/2020 Јовица Рафајловски Скопје 10/2/2020 Lynne Rondelle Santa Cruz 10/2/2020 Robert Horne Andover 10/2/2020 Debra Silliman Bethlehem 10/2/2020 Kiki Powers Antioch 10/2/2020 cristina calvo gutierrez 10/2/2020 L Chakraborti Mumbai 10/2/2020 niarica lubatti Turin 10/2/2020 Madison Dominguez Gilbert 10/2/2020 Shakayla Thomas Compton 10/2/2020 Camille Reicherter Cold Spring Harbor 10/2/2020 Diana Snow Oregon City 10/2/2020 Arantxa Navarro Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 10/2/2020 Silvia Calvar Mendoza 10/2/2020 aleksandra nelkovska Skopje 10/2/2020 Marta Escobar ruiz 10/2/2020 Lauren Samways 13 Caesar green 10/2/2020 Clara Delgado Canuelas 10/2/2020 Maria Machado Madrid 10/2/2020 Michelle Neeson Craigavon 10/2/2020 Roshan Kondapalli Campbell 10/2/2020 Marie Louise Morandi Long ZwickerSullivan 10/2/2020 Lina Jojoa Pasto 10/2/2020 Cinzia Granzarolo 10/2/2020 miriam linares Jesús 10/2/2020 Miroslav Schertenleib Zurich 10/2/2020 Olja Grupce Skopje 10/2/2020 Josephine Pekar Naples 10/2/2020 Maria Jose Rivera Spatari 10/2/2020 Tapan Boricha Jaipur 10/2/2020 ana climent 10/2/2020 Em Hackett St. John’s 10/2/2020 Liesangerli Labrador Caracas 10/2/2020 harshita pahan 10/2/2020 J H Victoria 10/2/2020 Yamila Naveda 10/2/2020 Mary Sullivan Alton 10/2/2020 Jaci Berry Youngstown 10/2/2020 Andrea Delgado Cali 10/2/2020 Sara Lee 10/2/2020 Sabra Sellers Cuba 10/2/2020 Sarah Jackson Calgary 10/2/2020 Jasmine Santiago Bronx 10/2/2020 Brandy Gay Clearwater 10/2/2020 Debbie Hancock Seattle 10/3/2020 javi mar Barcelona 10/3/2020 Luis Fabian Gonzalez Machuca Bogota 10/3/2020 Angie Tarazona Engativa 10/3/2020 Debby Willette Greencastle 10/3/2020 Heath Wallace Atlanta 10/3/2020 Iskra Graseska Skopje 10/3/2020 Alison Castillo Toluca 10/3/2020 Aaron Long Oslo 10/3/2020 Yasmina Kotob Beirut 10/3/2020 Martina Doušová 10/3/2020 Birgül Aslan Istanbul 10/3/2020 Марика Апостолова Skopje 10/3/2020 Heidi Grenier Barrie 10/3/2020 C R Reddy Pune 10/3/2020 HannAh Hall Saint Austell 10/3/2020 Ayushi Singh 10/3/2020 Melissa Palacios 10/3/2020 Jaime Rubio Hidalgo Viladecáns 10/3/2020 Juliana Andrea Garcia Cala Medellin 10/3/2020 Nicholas chatfield Dagenham 10/3/2020 Seba Martínez Blanc Madrid 10/3/2020 santiago florez Bogota 10/3/2020 Kiki Labrecque Flemington 10/3/2020 Jorge Rivera Mexico 10/3/2020 Franco Lucentini 10/3/2020 Camila Rojas Bogota 10/3/2020 cecilia zunino 10/3/2020 Jay Rane Pune 10/3/2020 Jagan Gowda Bengaluru 10/3/2020 Stamatia Theofilatou Athens 10/3/2020 Jessica Hill Allen 10/3/2020 Jesús Martínez Fernández Xirivella 10/3/2020 Daniela Ortiz San Salvador 10/3/2020 laia gonzalez andorra la vella 10/3/2020 Mahdad Taghavi London 10/3/2020 Eliza Pater Koszalin 10/3/2020 Jorge Camilo Rodriguez CardozoBogota 10/3/2020 Roddy Mackenzie Edinburgh 10/3/2020 Lili Rios Tepic 10/3/2020 Laura García 10/3/2020 Farhan Muhammad Purworejo 10/3/2020 Bryce Stewart Victoria 10/3/2020 Steven Morris Sharps Chapel 10/3/2020 metodi kolev Strumica 10/3/2020 Arpana Mashaldi Bengaluru 10/3/2020 Sarah Conner Saint Augustine 10/3/2020 Tatiana Marcela Rodríguez ValenciaMedellin 10/3/2020 Diana Vásquez Aponte Bogota 10/3/2020 Camila Fajardo Barbosa 10/3/2020 Andres Ramallo La Paz 10/3/2020 Jessica Goll 10/3/2020 J Vez Ottawa 10/3/2020 Joan Klatt Oakville. Ontario 10/3/2020 gwen meyers Langley 10/3/2020 Dwayne Farr Calgary 10/3/2020 Cosme Durano Mexico City 10/3/2020 Maribel Marulanda New York 10/3/2020 Nigel Jesson Brentwood 10/3/2020 Sandra Hall Surrey 10/3/2020 lidija maneva Shtip 10/3/2020 DANIELA BUSTAMANTE Medellín 10/4/2020 MARILYN MAJE ODAR ELIAS LIMA 10/4/2020 Daniel O'Brien MILTON 10/4/2020 Blanca zoila Ney Rivera Edmonton 10/4/2020 Shiva Jp Bengaluru 10/4/2020 Marija Kuzmanoska Probishtip 10/4/2020 Sebastian Valencia Bogota 10/4/2020 ken jenner Hamilton 10/4/2020 Martina Jovanovska Skopje 10/4/2020 Natasa Jurukova Markovska Bitola 10/4/2020 Alicia Pedraza Labrador Pilar De La Horadada 10/4/2020 Marija Dimitrovska Bitola 10/4/2020 Anita Sephton Wigan 10/4/2020 Robert Williams 10/4/2020 yk who Manila 10/4/2020 Lisa collins Collins Brynmawr 10/4/2020 Maja Toseska Skopje 10/4/2020 Sharon Sanjana Chennai 10/4/2020 Roseanne Marshall Arbroath, Scotland 10/4/2020 Sarhan Ahmed Ansari Delhi 10/4/2020 Inés Pablo Zamora 10/4/2020 Mercedes Pagliaro Medford 10/4/2020 anastasia RAVANOPOULOU 10/4/2020 Elisa Brea Alonso 10/4/2020 Paula S. Pérez 10/4/2020 Bojan Gicev 10/4/2020 Sofija Razmovska 10/4/2020 Abigail Seelman Royal Oak 10/4/2020 Jodi Rodar Springfield 10/4/2020 Gladys Bleakney Collingwood 10/4/2020 CLAUDIA CAMPOS Mexico 10/4/2020 Jessie Swain South Yarmouth 10/4/2020 Manuel Pelaez 10/4/2020 Нешка Сташиќ Скопје 10/4/2020 Boris Nedialkov Ruiz Sevilla 10/4/2020 Antonia Puelma Santiago 10/4/2020 Sophie Skinner Loughborough 10/4/2020 Ekaterina Gutovskaia Mikkeli 10/4/2020 Tracy Rault Saint Helier 10/4/2020 Sipos Ede Budapest 10/4/2020 Jorge Alberto Ochoa México 10/4/2020 Madison Nu MISSION VIEJO 10/5/2020 Muhammad Agung Setiawan Malang jawa timur 10/5/2020 Emma Bromsfeuld Vancouver 10/5/2020 Ara Cuenca Davao City 10/5/2020 Elene PIENAAR Johannesburg 10/5/2020 Nikola Jovanovski Skopje 10/5/2020 Nico Cattaneo Lugano 10/5/2020 Vlatko Petkovski Skopje 10/5/2020 oda Berle Bergen 10/5/2020 Soham Sen Kolkata 10/5/2020 Andrea Elguera La Paz 10/5/2020 Charley Fry Loon lake 10/5/2020 P Freeman Houston 10/5/2020 Tiffany Rampage New Lenox 10/5/2020 William Betz Blakely 10/5/2020 Jessic L Chester Springs 10/5/2020 Anthony Provenzano Melrose Park 10/5/2020 Ben McCarthy 10/5/2020 Sofia Zamora 10/5/2020 Sophia Aldrich Portland 10/5/2020 Kelsey Cormier Miramichi 10/5/2020 Liam De Armas Roseau 10/5/2020 Taylor Price Gaffney 10/5/2020 Ivana Aleksovska Skopje 10/5/2020 Emerson Trout San Luis Obispo 10/5/2020 Ru Yang Zurich 10/5/2020 Madison Kinder San Luis Obispo 10/5/2020 Martyna Hardyn Poznan 10/5/2020 Laney Newton Prescott 10/5/2020 Isabel Alexis Fort Lee 10/5/2020 Alyssa Martinez 10/5/2020 Lian Henderson South Burlington 10/5/2020 Ruby Duimstra Akron 10/5/2020 Nad Hermance Key Biscayne 10/5/2020 Anthony Scrimenti Guilderland 10/5/2020 L. Singh Toronto 10/6/2020 Leslie Kummer 10/6/2020 stephanie cervantes tamarac 10/6/2020 Lianna Santos Dededo 10/6/2020 Бојана Бојчовска Skopje 10/6/2020 Lucien Dean Oxford 10/6/2020 Pat Schibly Effretikon 10/6/2020 Joanna Hancox Waterlooville 10/6/2020 Miranda Villongco 10/6/2020 Nertila Kaca 10/6/2020 Rebecca Connolly Ellesmere port 10/6/2020 Jordan Krstevski Bitola 10/6/2020 Lemuel john Catanghal Makati City 10/6/2020 Ivan Villarico Antipas 10/6/2020 Pablo Sosa Bayamon 10/6/2020 Cynthia Berlino Rogers Corpus Christi 10/6/2020 Natalia Fonseca Bogota 10/6/2020 Gary Thaler Everett 10/6/2020 Li Qian Danville 10/6/2020 Alina Gregory York 10/7/2020 Rosalia Oliveira Niteroi 10/8/2020 Jordan Wise San Francisco 10/10/2020 Thanya Suastegui Atlanta 10/14/2020 steve tracy Berkeley 10/19/2020 Mary Chandler Danville 10/22/2020 Michael Hurst Smyrna 11/1/2020 Karen Madonick Danville 11/9/2020 Dean Madonick Danville 11/10/2020 Sue Blair Danville 11/10/2020 Julie Liu Danville 11/10/2020 Michael Mooney Danville 11/10/2020 Michael Blair Danville 11/11/2020 Shirley Lewis Milwaukee 11/11/2020 Kenneth Palmer Dawsonville 11/11/2020 Alexander Cruzzavala annandale-on-hudson 11/11/2020 Debbie Gee-Merkle Pleasant Hill 11/14/2020 Christina Madrid Walnut Creek 11/16/2020 diana ramirez Antioch 11/16/2020 Barbara Nuttall Danville 11/16/2020 whitney watters Ormond Beach 11/16/2020 Amelia Floyd Greenwood 11/16/2020 julia sanchez Fresno 11/16/2020 Lola Bamberger Santa Barbara 11/16/2020 Clarence Johnson Detroit 11/16/2020 Shelley Williams Endwell 11/16/2020 Leanna Yun Rotterdam 11/16/2020 Lisa Jackson Walnut Creek 12/3/2020 Sue Dileanis San Jose 12/27/2020 Julie Bruce Oakley 1/29/2021 Laura de Jesus Richmond 4/20/2021 Sheree Drummond Walnut Creek 4/20/2021 Nancy Martini Concord 4/20/2021 Susan Ulloa Crestline 4/20/2021 Kathleen Burnham Folsom 4/20/2021 David Isaac Livermore 4/21/2021 Fiorella Russo-Jang Martinez 4/21/2021 Jessica Percy Navarre 4/21/2021 Caitlin Terosky Philadelphia 4/22/2021 James Hernandez Newport 4/22/2021 Gerald Smith Walnut Creek 4/23/2021 Hugh Neutron James Redwood City 4/24/2021 Adam Thomas Palm Harbor 5/16/2021 Tony Morelan Danville 6/8/2021 Jill Racette Danville 6/8/2021 Richard Bartley Brooklyn 6/8/2021 Negin Ocean New York 6/8/2021 Your Name Elizabethtown 6/8/2021 Grace McKinney Senoia 6/8/2021 Sara Boyce North Little Rock 6/8/2021 Chiara Bilant Columbus 6/8/2021 Alex Martin 6/8/2021 Qori Ava Denver 6/8/2021 Lehman Mincey Savannah 6/8/2021 Renzo Pelaez Wallington 6/8/2021 Dominic Dennis Auburn 6/8/2021 Julie Morgan Fort Jones 6/8/2021 Douglas Suggs San Ramon 6/8/2021 Kathy Suggs San Ramon 6/9/2021 Karen Xiao San Ramon 6/9/2021 Heidi Cowley Martinez 6/10/2021 Corey Meyers Lakeland 6/10/2021 Jonathan Wakumoto Kapaa 6/10/2021 roxanne kisch wheatley 6/10/2021 Cortney Kennedy Sacramento 6/10/2021 Kate McCalla Paoli 6/10/2021 Gabriel Cole St. Louis 6/10/2021 Kaitlyn Lane Chardon 6/10/2021 Emily Hopkins Walnut Creek 6/11/2021 Christopher Cheung Danville 6/11/2021 Wei Huang Pleasanton 6/11/2021 Tashina Bross San Clemente 6/11/2021 Adriana McCartney Pooler 6/11/2021 Leslie Pacheco Mesquite 6/11/2021 Janet Tipper Redwood City 6/11/2021 Monique Norte Palo Alto 6/11/2021 Karen Carmichael Bonita Springs 6/11/2021 Elena Wurst Minneapolis 6/11/2021 Stanley Headrick etowah 6/11/2021 Sanaa Scott Albany 6/11/2021 Vivian Seidenstucker Caldwell 6/11/2021 Cody Sadler Champaign 6/11/2021 miranda marquette denton 6/11/2021 Mckinzie Smith Bakersfield 6/11/2021 carl penley Fort Myers 6/11/2021 L T Indiana 6/11/2021 Natasha Dupey Phoenix 6/11/2021 Marcella Berry-Hertlein Topeka 6/11/2021 America Perez Phoenix 6/11/2021 Sam Ruiz Hebron 6/11/2021 Justice Tomlinson 6/11/2021 Larry Plisskin Danville 6/11/2021 Mike Coleman Danville 6/12/2021 Janet Pate Fontana 6/12/2021 Onesha Thomas Los Angeles 6/12/2021 Oshianna Garcia Huntington Beach 6/12/2021 Dylan Arriaga Newark 6/12/2021 Amanda Burns Indianapolis 6/12/2021 Glenda Storr Deltona 6/12/2021 Angie Soria 6/12/2021 Delilah Dean El Paso 6/12/2021 Anna Grabau Ames 6/12/2021 Lee Hendrick stafford 6/12/2021 Lizzy Hiland Portage 6/12/2021 Susana Leanos Hayward 6/12/2021 Nancy L. Thursby Walnut Creek 6/12/2021 Holly Su Grand Prairie 6/12/2021 Yasmine Horton Bessemer 6/12/2021 Jean Chagnon Montréal 6/12/2021 Genesis Viales 6/12/2021 Lynne Boehm Bayside 6/12/2021 melissa gonzalez Perris 6/12/2021 Lindsey Locke Escalon 6/12/2021 Sofia Fuenmayor Fort Lauderdale 6/12/2021 Jennifer Demonica Spokane 6/12/2021 Halley Burge 6/12/2021 Lina Elmrabet Beaverton 6/12/2021 Amand Gutierrez Ormond Beach 6/12/2021 Elise Carson Colorado Springs 6/13/2021 Donna Shoesmith Roebling 6/13/2021 Agim Demirovski Staten island 6/13/2021 Elijah Nuriddin Philadelphia 6/13/2021 Julie Panzetta Hingham 6/13/2021 Ada Pusser Durham 6/13/2021 Norma Darling Austin 6/13/2021 Kayla Valdez Española 6/13/2021 Robert Cook Paris 6/13/2021 Sammy Maaraba Maaraba Rochester 6/13/2021 Ashley Morocho Danbury 6/13/2021 Kyra Durso West Chester 6/13/2021 Madeleine Licausi Manahawkin 6/13/2021 NICOLETTE MAIGNANT Waterbury 6/13/2021 Camie Rodgers RADCLIFF 6/13/2021 Grace McMullen Henderson 6/13/2021 john hartman Bristol 6/13/2021 Maria Miranda Brooklyn 6/13/2021 Madeline Sorensen Powell 6/13/2021 Johanna Liauw Glendale 6/13/2021 steven smereglia Deepwater 6/13/2021 Likitha Priya 6/13/2021 Kathryn Santana Moraga 6/13/2021 Sherrifa Singh Baltimore 6/13/2021 Michelle Blackwell HOBOKEN 6/13/2021 Vivian Rose Oz 6/13/2021 Noor-Malika Chisthi Pasadena 6/13/2021 Eeee Eee Susford 6/13/2021 Julian Kosinar Midlothian 6/13/2021 Z Z 6/13/2021 Kent George Denver 6/13/2021 Christine Ventura Oxnard 6/13/2021 Vivian Boatwright Dothan 6/13/2021 Ron Van Bronx 6/13/2021 Maria S West Hartford 6/13/2021 Amy Stapleton springfield 6/13/2021 Joanie Ledger-Donnelly Los Angeles 6/13/2021 Chloe Parker Supply 6/14/2021 Bryan Lin San Jose 6/14/2021 Diana S Tucson 6/14/2021 Zoe Vandehey Yorba Linda 6/14/2021 Crystal Wall Indianapolis 6/14/2021 Jen S Titusville 6/14/2021 Stephanie Dail Cary 6/14/2021 evan gonzalez Spokane 6/14/2021 Tate McKellar Cedar Springs 6/14/2021 Cora Oedekoven Cheyenne 6/14/2021 Lisa Strand Carbondale 6/14/2021 Rene Dean Gardena 6/14/2021 Lily noska stevens point 6/14/2021 Sheri Howells Reno 6/14/2021 Taylor E Fort Worth 6/14/2021 Ruben Ramirez Oakland 6/14/2021 Helene Mowll Selbyville 6/14/2021 anne lancaster Fremont 6/14/2021 Gloria Aman Richlands 6/14/2021 Cindy Austin Quincy 6/14/2021 L WILLIAMS Maricopa 6/14/2021 Gloria Bell Tampa 6/14/2021 Cherie Fernandez Galveston 6/14/2021 Robert Madera Hollywood 6/14/2021 Avrie Kirsch omaha 6/14/2021 Zareda Strobel Hollywood 6/14/2021 Emilia Larsson Latham 6/14/2021 Jessica Barley Aurora 6/14/2021 Richard Livesay Danville 6/14/2021 Alicia Whitfield Goldsboro 6/15/2021 Jayson Edie Sugar Land 6/15/2021 Daniel Ali Winter Springs 6/15/2021 Vierria Maisonave Carlisle 6/15/2021 Kaia Grace Tallahassee 6/15/2021 Posi Ajay Indianapolis 6/15/2021 Miranda Miranda Tolleson 6/15/2021 Shanell Sadlier Hooper 6/15/2021 Patricia Rigaud Clifton 6/15/2021 Cicely Marden Bardstown 6/15/2021 Jeanette Bartholomew Hillsborough 6/15/2021 Olivia Parrish Monaca 6/15/2021 Joshua Standiford Lake Zurich 6/15/2021 Amanda Wallace Terre Haute 6/15/2021 Fran King Staunton 6/15/2021 Grecia Guerrero Avondale 6/15/2021 Dr. P Palermo Summit 6/15/2021 Martin Joseph Bronx 6/15/2021 Alejandro Crespo Miami 6/15/2021 Julie Waggoner 6/15/2021 � chile anyways Chula Vista 6/15/2021 Phallon Murphy Chicago 6/15/2021 Jessica Heferle Buffalo 6/15/2021 Lamonda Newman Coushatta 6/15/2021 Al Capone 6/16/2021 Patrick W. Mulligan Mims 6/16/2021 Ashlyn Singh Midrand 6/16/2021 Chris Larry Vinton 6/16/2021 marisa landsberg manhattan Beach 6/16/2021 Tom knowlton Wallingford 6/16/2021 Peyton Hanschen Rockwall 6/16/2021 LEE CHUAN YANG Santa Clara 6/16/2021 Sofia Martinez San Antonio 6/16/2021 Hailey Case Citrus Heights 6/16/2021 Steliana Tsvetkova Park Ridge 6/16/2021 Lily Lee Loudoun 6/16/2021 Natalie Utz Las Vegas 6/16/2021 audreaka Parham Atlanta 6/16/2021 Alexis Martin South Bend 6/16/2021 Anel Rosales Las Vegas 6/16/2021 Deborah Kahn Delmar 6/16/2021 Jaimie Sawyer Queen Creek 6/16/2021 Margi Barsamian Edmonds 6/16/2021 angelina maria Lilburn 6/16/2021 Ellen McCann Escondido 6/16/2021 Pablo Arteaga Los Angeles 6/16/2021 Jordan Witherspoon Chicago Heights 6/16/2021 Tami Brody Oklahoma City 6/16/2021 Jennifer Fonseca Miami 6/16/2021 Selina Camiña Quezon City 6/18/2021 Karin Chiechi Buena Park 6/20/2021 Catherine Kittle Kenosha 6/20/2021 Bruce Bleecker Danville 6/24/2021 Terri Kennedy Pittsburg 6/28/2021 PENELOPE MUELLER Pacheco 6/28/2021 Madeline Hinaus Stevens Point 7/5/2021 Joseph Goldberg Boca Raton 7/5/2021 Gianna Depa Depa Philadelphia 7/5/2021 Keith Woodward Pompano Beach 7/5/2021 Katie Harrington San Antonio 7/5/2021 Hannah Charles 7/5/2021 Brandon Wade Livingston 7/5/2021 Erick Rosas Walnut Creek 7/5/2021 Sol Silva Worcester 7/5/2021 Kristin Hanscom San Clemente 7/5/2021 Rebeca Soria Chula Vista 7/5/2021 Shiela Lambert-Nahaku Aiea 7/5/2021 Nicole Hoekstra Minneapolis 7/5/2021 Julie Cannon Roswell 7/5/2021 Bee Green Pāhoa 7/5/2021 Vincent Minish Royal Oak 7/6/2021 AL Epding Port Orford 7/6/2021 Crystal Frink Fishers 7/6/2021 Daniel Sawyer Geneseo 7/6/2021 Sierra Beller New Orleans 7/6/2021 Adrian Aguirre Bell Gardens 7/6/2021 Susan Yee St francis 7/6/2021 Pamela Vasquez Salem 7/6/2021 Khara Michaels Lakeville 7/6/2021 Electro Wolf Harleysville 7/6/2021 LaRaena Rogers Fort Rucker 7/6/2021 William Horrell Northridge 7/6/2021 Carl Engman Saint Paul 7/6/2021 Mark Setterberg Houston 7/6/2021 Christopher Tom Pleasantville 7/6/2021 Matthew Richards Ferndale 7/6/2021 Caroline Brosnan Asheville 7/6/2021 Lance Kammerud 7/6/2021 Sarah Scholl San Ramon 7/6/2021 Mila Kapner Los Angeles 7/6/2021 Manuel Rodriguez Los Angeles 7/6/2021 Dalton Rife Charleston 7/6/2021 Richard McConnell Olympia Fields 7/6/2021 Carmen Burnett Knoxville 7/6/2021 David Dusseault Taunton 7/6/2021 joyce olsen erda 7/6/2021 Dan Aquino Somerset 7/6/2021 Andrew Morgan Benton 7/6/2021 Jason Li Santa Clara 7/6/2021 jennifer bombay Newport News 7/6/2021 Sharon Frasure Cedarville 7/6/2021 Bellanira Tiguila Pasadena 7/6/2021 Shannon Leitner Edwardsville 7/6/2021 Cheryl Gallegos OR 7/6/2021 Janet Marineau Bristol 7/6/2021 Jasmine Drake Minneapolis 7/6/2021 Thinh Ngo Arlington 7/6/2021 Julia Rockwell Clyde 7/6/2021 Lynne Sanderson Danville 7/6/2021 kellie nelson Indian Land 7/6/2021 Richard Bartley Brooklyn 7/6/2021 Brittney Smith New Orleans 7/6/2021 brandi hess Harrisburg 7/6/2021 Lisa Rosa-Re Alpharetta 7/6/2021 Susan Chavez Chicago 7/6/2021 Bennie Hazelwood Blanket 7/6/2021 Angie Allen Cookeville 7/6/2021 Alicia Sparks Delta 7/6/2021 Brittany Parr Santa Rosa 7/6/2021 David Anderson Metairie 7/6/2021 Priyanka Halder Memphis 7/6/2021 Nuhamin Shoarega Las Vegas 7/6/2021 Yervand Topchyan North Hills 7/6/2021 Rob Goodin Henrietta 7/6/2021 Jonathon Daw Kernersville 7/6/2021 Kaliyah Brazelton Bossier City 7/6/2021 Eleanor Graham Spokane 7/6/2021 Amanda Keith Fort Collins 7/6/2021 Terry Hoskins Indianapolis 7/6/2021 Justin Whang Santa Clara 7/6/2021 Suzanne Schramm Bluff City 7/6/2021 Carol Capwell Upperco 7/6/2021 Rachel Miller Interlaken 7/6/2021 Felicia Stephanos-Mouradian Danville 7/7/2021 Vahan Mouradian Danville 7/7/2021 Zhenji Jin Ontario 7/7/2021 Robert Marraro Corpus Christi 7/7/2021 Elizabeth Maurer Oroville 7/7/2021 ttt Lll Bronx 7/7/2021 Michael McNair Atlanta 7/7/2021 Sophia H Sacramento 7/7/2021 Erick Martinez San Rafael 7/7/2021 m h austin 7/7/2021 Travis Yerby 7/7/2021 Jocelyn Lewis Milwaukee 7/7/2021 Benjamin Radcliffe Frostburg 7/7/2021 Jodie Gefis Coventry 7/7/2021 Taina Cruz Orlando 7/7/2021 carri britton gurdon 7/7/2021 Kimberly Newton Pickens 7/7/2021 Alyssa McDonald Layton 7/7/2021 Noel Gilbert New York 7/7/2021 Gloria Colas Central Islip 7/7/2021 Raven Williams Baton Rouge 7/7/2021 Poop pp Atlanta 7/7/2021 Kathleen Zeminsky Ellicott City 7/7/2021 Perla Hernandez Riverside 7/7/2021 Tajeer Robinson Maplewood 7/7/2021 Tonya Raikes Conway 7/7/2021 Sawyer Baran Lebanon 7/7/2021 Angelina Owens-Longoria Houston 7/7/2021 Nancy Thelot Maplewood 7/7/2021 Anne Kaufmann Troy 7/7/2021 Mary Archer Cadillac 7/7/2021 Jenny Woods Kihei 7/7/2021 Erika Rikhiram Clermont 7/7/2021 Michael Kestenbaum Danville 7/7/2021 Diana Grob Gresham 7/7/2021 Hannah Byrd Kissimmee 7/7/2021 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Cooperative Agreement between the County and the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to receive federal funding for the construction of the Bailey Road and State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project (0662-6R4121), Bay Point area. FISCAL IMPACT: Under the Cooperative Agreement, the County will receive up to $3.38 million in Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding for the construction of the project. (100% Local Road Funds) BACKGROUND: In 2017, the County received a $4.1 million ATP grant for the Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Construction phases of the project. All of the available PE funds for the project have been invoiced and received from Caltrans per the routine reimbursement process typical for federally funded projects. In 2020, there was a change in Caltrans' procedures for projects receiving ATP funds on the state highway system that requires the County to enter into a Cooperative Agreement in order to receive the remaining $3.38 million in funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nancy Wein (925) 313-2275 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Cooperative Agreement related to funding of the Bailey Road and State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The contract for the Bailey Road and State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project was awarded in January 2021, and construction began in April. The total cost of the project is approximately $6.5 million and will be completed later this year. It consists of the following elements: - Remove the north-side loop off-ramp and pedestrian tunnel; - Improve the westbound off-ramp on the east side of Bailey Road to accommodate north and southbound traffic turning onto Bailey Road; - Change the south-side eastbound loop off-ramp to a fully signalized T-intersection at Bailey Road; - Eliminate acceleration lanes on Bailey Road to accommodate bicycle lanes and widened sidewalks; and - Enhance existing pedestrian crossings at the BART Access Road and Canal Road intersections on Bailey Road. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the Cooperative Agreement would jeopardize the County’s ability to receive $3.38 million in ATP funds for the construction of project. ATTACHMENTS Cooperative Agreement Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 1 of 20 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, executed on and effective from _______________________________, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and: Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of California, referred to hereinafter as COUNTY. An individual signatory agency in this AGREEMENT is referred to as a PARTY. Collectively, the signatory agencies in this AGREEMENT are referred to as PARTIES. RECITALS 1. PARTIES are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement for improvements to the State Highway System per the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 114 and 130. 2. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, Bailey Road and State Route 4 Interchange Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Project. Improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation along Bailey Road through the SR-4 interchange by modifying the freeway on/off ramps to provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes along Bailey Road. will be referred to hereinafter as PROJECT. The PROJECT scope of work is defined in the project initiation and approval documents (e.g. Project Study Report, Permit Engineering Evaluation Report, or Project Report). 3. All obligations and responsibilities assigned in this AGREEMENT to complete the following PROJECT COMPONENT will be referred to hereinafter as WORK: • CONSTRUCTION Each PROJECT COMPONENT is defined in the CALTRANS Workplan Standards Guide as a distinct group of activities/products in the project planning and development process. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 2 of 20 4. The term AGREEMENT, as used herein, includes this document and any attachments, exhibits, and amendments. This AGREEMENT is separate from and does not modify or replace any other cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding between the PARTIES regarding the PROJECT. PARTIES intend this AGREEMENT to be their final expression that supersedes any oral understanding or writings pertaining to the WORK. The requirements of this AGREEMENT will preside over any conflicting requirements in any documents that are made an express part of this AGREEMENT. If any provisions in this AGREEMENT are found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be, or are in fact, illegal, inoperative, or unenforceable, those provisions do not render any or all other AGREEMENT provisions invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable, and those provisions will be automatically severed from this AGREEMENT. Except as otherwise provided in the AGREEMENT, PARTIES will execute a written amendment if there are any changes to the terms of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES agree to sign a CLOSURE STATEMENT to terminate this AGREEMENT. However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, legal challenge, maintenance and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement or expire by the statute of limitations. 5. The following work associated with this PROJECT has been completed or is in progress: • CALTRANS approved the Categorical Exemption on April 23, 2020. • CALTRANS approved the Categorical Exemption on April 23, 2020. • CALTRANS completed the R/W Certification on April 29, 2020. • CALTRANS issued an encroachment permit on October 31, 2021 (Permit 0420-NOP) • COUNTY completed the Plans, Specifications and Estimate on April 24, 2020. • COUNTY completed the Project Initiation Document on March 19, 2013 (Cooperative Agreement No. 04-2403). 6. In this AGREEMENT capitalized words represent defined terms, initialisms, or acronyms. 7. PARTIES hereby set forth the terms, covenants, and conditions of this AGREEMENT. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 3 of 20 RESPONSIBILITIES Sponsorship 8. A SPONSOR is responsible for establishing the scope of the PROJECT and securing the financial resources to fund the WORK. A SPONSOR is responsible for securing additional funds when necessary or implementing PROJECT changes to ensure the WORK can be completed with the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. PROJECT changes, as described in the CALTRANS Project Development Procedures Manual, will be approved by CALTRANS as the owner/operator of the State Highway System. 9. COUNTY is the SPONSOR for the WORK in this AGREEMENT. Implementing Agency 10. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is the PARTY responsible for managing the scope, cost, schedule, and quality of the work activities and products of a PROJECT COMPONENT. • COUNTY is the CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY. CONSTRUCTION includes construction contract administration, surveying/staking, inspection, quality assurance, and assuring regulatory compliance. The CONSTRUCTION component budget identifies the capital costs of the construction contract/furnished materials (CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL) and the cost of the staff work in support of the construction contract administration (CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT). 11. COUNTY will provide a Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the WORK in every PROJECT COMPONENT that they are the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY of. The QMP describes the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY’s quality policy and how it will be used. The QMP will include a process for resolving disputes between the PARTIES at the team level. The QMP is subject to CALTRANS review and approval. 12. Any PARTY responsible for completing WORK will make its personnel and consultants that prepare WORK available to help resolve WORK-related problems and changes for the entire duration of the PROJECT including PROJECT work that may occur under separate agreements. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 4 of 20 Funding 13. Funding sources, PARTIES committing funds, funding amounts, and invoicing/payment details are documented in the Funding Summary section of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will amend this AGREEMENT by updating and replacing the Funding Summary, in its entirety, each time the funding details change. Funding Summary replacements will be executed by a legally authorized representative of the respective PARTIES. The most current fully executed Funding Summary supersedes any previous Funding Summary created for this AGREEMENT. 14. PARTIES will not be reimbursed for costs beyond the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. 15. Unless otherwise documented in the Funding Summary, overall liability for project costs within a PROJECT COMPONENT will be in proportion to the amount contributed to that PROJECT COMPONENT by each fund type. 16. Unless otherwise documented in the Funding Summary, any savings recognized within a PROJECT COMPONENT will be credited or reimbursed, when allowed by policy or law, in proportion to the amount contributed to that PROJECT COMPONENT by each fund type. 17. WORK costs, except those that are specifically excluded in this AGREEMENT, are to be paid from the funds obligated in the Funding Summary. Costs that are specifically excluded from the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT are to be paid by the PARTY incurring the costs from funds that are independent of this AGREEMENT. CALTRANS’ Quality Management 18. CALTRANS, as the owner/operator of the State Highway System (SHS), will perform quality management work including Quality Management Assessment (QMA) and owner/operator approvals for the portions of WORK within the existing and proposed SHS right-of-way. 19. CALTRANS’ Quality Management Assessment (QMA) efforts are to ensure that COUNTY's quality assurance results in WORK that is in accordance with the applicable standards and the PROJECT’s quality management plan (QMP). QMA does not include any efforts necessary to develop or deliver WORK or any validation by verifying or rechecking WORK. When CALTRANS performs QMA, it does so for its own benefit. No one can assign liability to CALTRANS due to its QMA. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 5 of 20 20. CALTRANS, as the owner/operator of the State Highway System, will approve WORK products in accordance with CALTRANS policies and guidance and as indicated in this AGREEMENT. 21. COUNTY will provide WORK-related products and supporting documentation upon CALTRANS’ request for the purpose of CALTRANS’ quality management work. CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency 22. CALTRANS is the CEQA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. 23. CALTRANS is the NEPA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. Environmental Permits, Approvals and Agreements 24. PARTIES will comply with the commitments and conditions set forth in the environmental documentation, environmental permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as those commitments and conditions apply to each PARTY’s responsibilities in this AGREEMENT. 25. Unless otherwise assigned in this AGREEMENT, the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT is responsible for all PROJECT COMPONENT WORK associated with coordinating, obtaining, implementing, renewing, and amending the PROJECT permits, agreements, and approvals whether they are identified in the planned project scope of work or become necessary in the course of completing the PROJECT. 26. The PROJECT will not require environmental permits/approvals. CONSTRUCTION 27. As the CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY, COUNTY is responsible for all CONSTRUCTION WORK except those activities and responsibilities that are assigned to another PARTY and those activities that are excluded under this AGREEMENT. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 6 of 20 28. CALTRANS will be responsible for completing the following CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT activities: CALTRANS Work Breakdown Structure Identifier (If Applicable) Funded Cost 29. Physical and legal possession of the right-of-way must be completed prior to advertising the construction contract, unless PARTIES mutually agree to other arrangements in writing. 30. Right-of-way conveyances must be completed prior to WORK completion, unless PARTIES mutually agree to other arrangements in writing. 31. COUNTY will include a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) utilization goal in the PROJECT construction contract(s) in accordance with the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. COUNTY will award the construction contract to the lowest responsive bidder who makes a Good Faith Effort to meet the DBE goal. 32. CALTRANS will not issue an encroachment permit to COUNTY for construction work until the following conditions are met: • CALTRANS accepts the final plans, specifications, and estimate • CALTRANS accepts the Right-of-Way Certification • Any new or amended maintenance agreements required for the WORK are executed. 33. COUNTY will require the construction contractor to furnish payment and performance bonds naming COUNTY as obligee, and CALTRANS as additional obligee, and to carry liability insurance in accordance with CALTRANS Standard Specifications. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 7 of 20 34. COUNTY will advertise, open bids, award, and approve the construction contract in accordance with the California Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code. By accepting responsibility to advertise and award the construction contract, COUNTY also accepts responsibility to administer the construction contract. 35. If the lowest responsible construction contract bid is greater than the funding commitment to CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL, PARTIES must agree in writing on a course of action within fifteen (15) working days. If no agreement is reached within fifteen (15) work days the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will not award the construction contract. 36. CALTRANS will not issue an encroachment permit to COUNTY's construction contractor until CALTRANS accepts: • The payment and performance bonds • The CONSTRUCTION Quality Management Plan 37. The CONSTRUCTION Quality Management Plan (QMP) will describe how construction material verification and workmanship inspections will be performed at manufacturing sources and the PROJECT job-site. The construction material and Source Inspection QMP (SIQMP) are subject to review and approval by the State Materials Engineer. 38. The CONSTRUCTION Quality Management Plan will address the radiation safety requirements of the California Code of Regulations 17 CCR § 30346 when the work requires Gamma-Gamma Logging acceptance testing for Cast in Drilled Hole (CIDH) pile or whenever else it is applicable. In accordance with these regulations COUNTY, as the "well operator", will have a written agreement with any consultant or external entity performing these tests. 39. COUNTY will provide a Resident Engineer and CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT staff that are independent of the construction contractor. The Resident Engineer will be a Civil Engineer, licensed in the State of California, who is responsible for construction contract administration activities. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 8 of 20 40. COUNTY will implement changes to the construction contract through Change Orders. PARTIES will review and concur on all Change Orders over $50,000. 41. CALTRANS will review and concur with: • Change Orders affecting public safety, public convenience, protected environmental resources, the preservation of property, all design and specification changes, and all major changes as defined in the CALTRANS Construction Manual. These Change Orders must receive written concurrence by CALTRANS prior to implementation. • The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or the Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP). 42. COUNTY will administer and process all construction contract claims pursuant to the requirements set forth under Public Contract Code, Section 9204. In addition, all public works claims of $375,000 or less shall be resolved in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 20104, et seq. and other applicable laws. 43. COUNTY is designated as the Legally Responsible Person pursuant to the Construction General Permit, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order Number 2009-0009- DWQ, as defined in Appendix 5, Glossary, and assumes all roles and responsibilities assigned to the Legally Responsible Person as mandated by the Construction General Permit. COUNTY is required to comply with the CALTRANS MS4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for all work within the State Highway System. 44. COUNTY will submit a written request to CALTRANS for any Department Furnished Material (DFM) identified in the PROJECT plans, specifications, and estimate a minimum of sixty (60) working days prior to the construction start of work. COUNTY will submit a written request to CALTRANS for any additional DFM deemed necessary during the PROJECT construction. CALTRANS will make the DFM available at a CALTRANS-designated location. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 9 of 20 45. As the CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY, COUNTY is responsible for maintenance of the State Highway System (SHS) within the PROJECT limits as part of the construction contract until the following conditions are met: • Any required maintenance agreements are executed for the portions of SHS for which relief of maintenance is to be granted. • CALTRANS approves a request from COUNTY for relief from maintenance of the PROJECT or a portion thereof. 47. Upon WORK completion, ownership or title to all materials and equipment constructed or installed for the operations and/or maintenance of the State Highway System (SHS) within SHS right-of-way as part of WORK become the property of CALTRANS. CALTRANS will not accept ownership or title to any materials or equipment constructed or installed outside SHS right-of-way. 48. Within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days following the completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract, COUNTY will furnish CALTRANS with a complete set of “As-Built” plans and Change Orders, including any changes authorized by CALTRANS, on a CD ROM and in accordance with CALTRANS’ then current CADD User’s Manual (Section 4.3), Plans Preparation Manual, and CALTRANS practice. The plans will have the Resident Engineer’s name, contract number, and construction contract acceptance date printed on each plan sheet, and with the Resident Engineer’s signature only on the title sheet. The As-Built plans will be in Microstation DGN format, version 7.0 or later. In addition, COUNTY will provide one set of As-Built plans and addenda in TIFF format. The submittal must also include all CALTRANS requested contract records, and land survey documents. The land survey documents include monument preservation documents and records of surveys prepared to satisfy the requirements of the California Land Surveyors Act (Business and Professions Code, Sections 8700 – 8805). Copies of survey documents and Records of Surveys filed in accordance with Business & Professions Code, Sections 8762 and 8771, will contain the filing information provided by the county in which filed. Schedule 49. PARTIES will manage the WORK schedule to ensure the timely use of obligated funds and to ensure compliance with any environmental permits, right-of-way agreements, construction contracts, and any other commitments. PARTIES will communicate schedule risks or changes as soon as they are identified and will actively manage and mitigate schedule risks. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 10 of 20 50. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each PROJECT COMPONENT will furnish PARTIES with written monthly progress reports during the completion of the WORK. Additional Provisions Standards 51. PARTIES will perform all WORK in accordance with federal and California laws, regulations, and standards; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards; and CALTRANS standards. CALTRANS standards include, but are not limited to, the guidance provided in the: • CADD Users Manual • CALTRANS policies and directives • Plans Preparation Manual • Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) • Workplan Standards Guide • Construction Manual • Construction Manual Supplement for Local Agency Resident Engineers • Local Agency Structure Representative Guidelines Noncompliant Work 52. CALTRANS retains the right to reject noncompliant WORK. COUNTY agrees to suspend WORK upon request by CALTRANS for the purpose of protecting public safety, preserving property rights, and ensuring that all WORK is in the best interest of the State Highway System. Qualifications 53. Each PARTY will ensure that personnel participating in WORK are appropriately qualified or licensed to perform the tasks assigned to them. Consultant Selection 54. COUNTY will invite CALTRANS to participate in the selection of any consultants that participate in the WORK. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 11 of 20 Encroachment Permits 55. CALTRANS will issue, upon proper application, the encroachment permits required for WORK within State Highway System (SHS) right-of-way. COUNTY, their contractors, consultants, agents and utility owners will not work within the SHS right-of-way without an encroachment permit issued in their name. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to COUNTY, their contractors, consultants, and agents at no cost. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to utility owners at no cost. If the encroachment permit and this AGREEMENT conflict, the requirements of this AGREEMENT will prevail. 56. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will coordinate, prepare, obtain, implement, renew, and amend any encroachment permits needed to complete the WORK. Protected Resources 57. If any PARTY discovers unanticipated cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources during WORK, all WORK in that area will stop and that PARTY will notify all PARTIES within 24 hours of discovery. WORK may only resume after a qualified professional has evaluated the nature and significance of the discovery and CALTRANS approves a plan for its removal or protection. Disclosures 58. PARTIES will hold all administrative drafts and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created, or utilized for the WORK in confidence to the extent permitted by law and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code, Section 6254.5(e) will protect the confidentiality of such documents in the event that said documents are shared between PARTIES. PARTIES will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the WORK without the written consent of the PARTY authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section, the PARTIES agree that the COUNTY's release of public records to third parties in accordance with the COUNTY's Better Government Ordinance, Division 25 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code, shall not constitute a violation of this Section Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 12 of 20 59. If a PARTY receives a public records request pertaining to the WORK, that PARTY will notify PARTIES within five (5) working days of receipt and make PARTIES aware of any disclosed public records. Hazardous Materials 60. HM-1 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law, irrespective of whether it is disturbed by the PROJECT or not. HM-2 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by the PROJECT. The management activities related to HM-1 and HM-2, including and without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations are referred to herein as HM-1 MANAGEMENT and HM-2 MANAGEMENT respectively. 61. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found the discovering PARTY will immediately notify all other PARTIES. 62. CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the existing State Highway System right-of-way. CALTRANS will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 MANAGEMENT with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule. CALTRANS will pay, or cause to be paid, the cost of HM-1 MANAGEMENT for HM-1 found within the existing State Highway System right-of-way with funds that are independent of the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. 63. COUNTY, independent of the PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the PROJECT limits and outside the existing State Highway System right-of-way. COUNTY will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 MANAGEMENT with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule. COUNTY will pay, or cause to be paid, the cost of HM-1 MANAGEMENT for HM-1 found within the PROJECT limits and outside of the existing State Highway System right-of-way with funds that are independent of the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. 64. The CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is responsible for HM‑2 MANAGEMENT within the PROJECT limits. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 13 of 20 COUNTY and CALTRANS will comply with the Soil Management Agreement for Aerially Deposited Lead Contaminated Soils (Soil Management Agreement) executed between CALTRANS and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Under Section 3.2 of the Soil Management Agreement, CALTRANS and COUNTY each retain joint and severable liability for noncompliance with the provisions of the Soil Management Agreement. COUNTY will assume all responsibilities assigned to CALTRANS in the Soil Management Agreement during PROJECT COMPONENTS for which they are the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY except for final placement and burial of soil within the State right-of-way, per Section 4.5 of the Soil Management Agreement, which is subject to CALTRANS concurrence and reporting to DTSC which will be performed by CALTRANS. 65. CALTRANS’ acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2 is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS’ policy on such acquisition. Claims 66. Any PARTY that is responsible for completing WORK may accept, reject, compromise, settle, or litigate claims arising from the WORK without concurrence from the other PARTY. 67. PARTIES will confer on any claim that may affect the WORK or PARTIES’ liability or responsibility under this AGREEMENT in order to retain resolution possibilities for potential future claims. No PARTY will prejudice the rights of another PARTY until after PARTIES confer on the claim. 68. If the WORK expends state or federal funds, each PARTY will comply with the Federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards of 2 CFR, Part 200. PARTIES will ensure that any for-profit consultant hired to participate in the WORK will comply with the requirements in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31. When state or federal funds are expended on the WORK these principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this AGREEMENT. Accounting and Audits 69. PARTIES will maintain, and will ensure that any consultant hired by PARTIES to participate in WORK will maintain, a financial management system that conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that can properly accumulate and segregate incurred PROJECT costs and billings. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 14 of 20 70. PARTIES will maintain and make available to each other all WORK-related documents, including financial data, during the term of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will retain all WORK-related records for three (3) years after the final voucher. PARTIES will require that any consultants hired to participate in the WORK will comply with this Article. 71. PARTIES have the right to audit each other in accordance with generally accepted governmental audit standards. CALTRANS, the State Auditor, FHWA (if the PROJECT utilizes federal funds), and COUNTY will have access to all WORK -related records of each PARTY, and any consultant hired by a PARTY to participate in WORK, for audit, examination, excerpt, or transcription. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation. The auditing PARTY will be permitted to make copies of any WORK-related records needed for the audit. The audited PARTY will review the draft audit, findings, and recommendations, and provide written comments within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. Upon completion of the final audit, PARTIES have forty-five (45) calendar days to refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of the audit. Any audit dispute not resolved by PARTIES is subject to mediation. Mediation will follow the process described in the General Conditions section of this AGREEMENT. 72. If the WORK expends state or federal funds, each PARTY will undergo an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act in the Federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards as defined in 2 CFR, Part 200. 73. When a PARTY reimburses a consultant for WORK with state or federal funds, the procurement of the consultant and the consultant overhead costs will be in accordance with the Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Chapter 10. Interruption of Work 74. If WORK stops for any reason, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will place the PROJECT right- of-way in a safe and operable condition acceptable to CALTRANS. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 15 of 20 75. If WORK stops for any reason, each PARTY will continue with environmental commitments included in the environmental documentation, permits, agreements, or approvals that are in effect at the time that WORK stops, and will keep the PROJECT in environmental compliance until WORK resumes. Penalties, Judgements and Settlements 76. The cost of awards, judgements, or settlements generated by the WORK are to be paid from the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. 77. The cost of legal challenges to the environmental process or documentation may be paid from the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. 78. Any PARTY whose action or lack of action causes the levy of fines, interest, or penalties will indemnify and hold all other PARTIES harmless per the terms of this AGREEMENT. Project Files 79. COUNTY will furnish CALTRANS with the Project History Files related to the PROJECT facilities on State Highway System within sixty (60) days following the completion of each PROJECT COMPONENT. COUNTY will prepare the Project History File in accordance with the Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 7. All material will be submitted neatly in a three-ring binder and on a CD ROM in PDF format. Environmental Compliance 80. If during performance of WORK additional activities or environmental documentation is necessary to keep the PROJECT in environmental compliance, PARTIES will amend this AGREEMENT to include completion of those additional tasks. GENERAL CONDITIONS 81. All portions of this AGREEMENT, including the Recitals Section, are enforceable. Venue 82. PARTIES understand that this AGREEMENT is in accordance with and governed by the Constitution and laws of the State of California. This AGREEMENT will be enforceable in the State of California. Any PARTY initiating legal action arising from this AGREEMENT will file and maintain that legal action in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office that is signatory to this AGREEMENT resides, or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 16 of 20 Exemptions 83. All CALTRANS’ obligations under this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority, programming and allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Indemnification 84. Neither CALTRANS nor any of its officers and employees, are responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COUNTY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon COUNTY under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that COUNTY, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COUNTY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. 85. Neither COUNTY nor any of its officers and employees, are responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless COUNTY and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. Non-parties 86. PARTIES do not intend this AGREEMENT to create a third party beneficiary or define duties, obligations, or rights for entities not signatory to this AGREEMENT. PARTIES do not intend this AGREEMENT to affect their legal liability by imposing any standard of care for fulfilling the WORK different from the standards imposed by law. 87. PARTIES will not assign or attempt to assign obligations to entities not signatory to this AGREEMENT without an amendment to this AGREEMENT. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 17 of 20 Ambiguity and Performance 88. Neither PARTY will interpret any ambiguity contained in this AGREEMENT against the other PARTY. PARTIES waive the provisions of California Civil Code, Section 1654. A waiver of a PARTY’s performance under this AGREEMENT will not constitute a continuous waiver of any other provision. 89. A delay or omission to exercise a right or power due to a default does not negate the use of that right or power in the future when deemed necessary. Defaults 90. If any PARTY defaults in its performance of the WORK, a non-defaulting PARTY will request in writing that the default be remedied within thirty (30) calendar days. If the defaulting PARTY fails to do so, the non-defaulting PARTY may initiate dispute resolution. Dispute Resolution 91. PARTIES will first attempt to resolve AGREEMENT disputes at the PROJECT team level as described in the Quality Management Plan. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS District Director and the Executive Officer of COUNTY will attempt to negotiate a resolution. If PARTIES do not reach a resolution, PARTIES’ legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTIES agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTIES from full and timely performance of the WORK in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. However, if any PARTY stops fulfilling its obligations, any other PARTY may seek equitable relief to ensure that the WORK continues. Except for equitable relief, no PARTY may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or forty-five (45) calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. PARTIES will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS District Office signatory to this AGREEMENT resides or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. 92. PARTIES maintain the ability to pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 18 of 20 Prevailing Wage 93. When WORK falls within the Labor Code § 1720(a)(1) definition of "public works" in that it is construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair; or maintenance work under Labor Code § 1771, PARTIES will conform to the provisions of Labor Code §§ 1720-1815, and all applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, Articles 1-7. PARTIES will include prevailing wage requirements in contracts for public work and require contractors to include the same prevailing wage requirements in all subcontracts. Work performed by a PARTY’s own employees is exempt from the Labor Code's Prevailing Wage requirements. If WORK is paid for, in whole or part, with federal funds and is of the type of work subject to federal prevailing wage requirements, PARTIES will conform to the provisions of the Davis- Bacon and Related Acts, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3148. When applicable, PARTIES will include federal prevailing wage requirements in contracts for public works. WORK performed by a PARTY’s employees is exempt from federal prevailing wage requirements. Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 19 of 20 Contact Information CALTRANS Gezahegn Tizazu, Project Manager 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 Office Phone: (510) 714-7089 Email: gezahegn.tizazu@dot.ca.gov CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Nancy Wein, Senior Civil Engineer 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Office Phone: (925) 313-2275 Email: nancy.wein@pw.cccounty.us Agreement 04-2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 20 of 20 SIGNATURES PARTIES are empowered by the law to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be executed and delivered in counterparts, and by each PARTY in a separate counterpart, each of which when so executed and delivered shall constitute an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The PARTIES acknowledge that executed copies of this AGREEMENT may be exchanged by facsimile or email, and that such copies shall be deemed to be effective as originals. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Helena (Lenka) Culik-Caro Deputy District Director, Design Verification of funds and authority: Jeffrey Kuehnel District Budget Manager CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Brian M. Balbas Public Works Director Approved as to form: Mary Ann McNett Mason County Counsel AGREEMENT 04 - 2817 Project No. 0413000199 EA 3G840 04-CC-04-R20.1 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 1 of 4 FUNDING SUMMARY NO. 01 v. 2 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY COUNTY Totals Source Party Fund Type SUPPORT CAPITAL FUNDING SUMMARY No. 01 AGREEMENT 04 - 2817 Project No. 0413000199 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 2 of 4 SPENDING SUMMARY v 22 CONST. SUPPORT CONST. CAPITAL Fund Type CALTRANS COUNTY COUNTY CALTRANS Totals Totals FUNDING SUMMARY No. 01 AGREEMENT 04 - 2817 Project No. 0413000199 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 3 of 5 Funding 1. If there are insufficient funds available in this AGREEMENT to place the PROJECT right- of-way in a safe and operable condition, the appropriate IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will fund these activities until such time as PARTIES amend this AGREEMENT. That IMPLEMENTING AGENCY may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process. 2. If there are insufficient funds in this AGREEMENT to implement the obligations and responsibilities of this AGREEMENT, including the applicable commitments and conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation, permits, agreements, and/or approvals that are in effect at a time that WORK stops, each PARTY accepts responsibility to fund their respective WORK until such time as PARTIES amend this AGREEMENT. Each PARTY may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process. ICRP Rate 3. The cost of any engineering support performed by CALTRANS includes all direct and applicable indirect costs. CALTRANS calculates indirect costs based solely on the type of funds used to pay support costs. State and federal funds administered by CALTRANS are subject to the current Program Functional Rate. All other funds are subject to the current Program Functional Rate and the current Administration Rate. The Program Functional Rate and Administration Rate are adjusted periodically. In accordance with California Senate Bill 848, the Administration Rate is capped at 10 percent until July 1, 2021, for Self-Help Counties with a countywide sales tax measure dedicated to transportation improvements. 4. If the WORK is funded with state or federal funds, any PARTY seeking CALTRANS reimbursement of indirect costs must submit an indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan (if any) in accordance with Local Assistance Procedures Manual, 2 CFR, Part 200 and Chapter 5. These documents are to be submitted annually to CALTRANS’ Audits and Investigations for review and acceptance prior to CALTRANS’ reimbursement of indirect costs. AGREEMENT 04 - 2817 Project No. 0413000199 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 4 of 5 5. Travel, per diem, and third-party contract reimbursements for WORK are to be paid from the funds in this AGREEMENT only after the contractor performs the work and incurs said costs. Payments for travel and per diem will not exceed the rates paid rank and file state employees under current California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) rules current at the effective date of this AGREEMENT. If COUNTY invoices for rates in excess of CalHR rates, COUNTY will fund the cost difference and reimburse CALTRANS for any overpayment. Invoicing and Payment 6. PARTIES will invoice for funds where the SPENDING SUMMARY shows that one PARTY provides funds for use by another PARTY. PARTIES will pay invoices within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of invoice when not paying with Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). When paying with EFT, COUNTY will pay invoices within five (5) calendar days of receipt of invoice. 7. If COUNTY has received EFT certification from CALTRANS then COUNTY will use the EFT mechanism and follow all EFT procedures to pay all invoices issued from CALTRANS. 8. When a PARTY is reimbursed for actual cost, invoices will be submitted each month for the prior month's expenditures. After all PROJECT COMPONENT WORK is complete, PARTIES will submit a final accounting of all PROJECT COMPONENT costs. Based on the final accounting, PARTIES will invoice or refund as necessary to satisfy the financial commitments of this AGREEMENT. 9. If an executed Program Supplement Agreement (PSA) or STIP Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Program Fund Transfer Agreement (PPM) exists for this PROJECT then COUNTY will abide by the billing and payment conditions detailed for the fund types identified in the PSA or PPM. 10. If CALTRANS reimburses COUNTY for any costs later determined to be unallowable, COUNTY will reimburse those funds. CONSTRUCTION Support 11. COUNTY will invoice and CALTRANS will reimburse for actual costs incurred and paid. AGREEMENT 04 - 2817 Project No. 0413000199 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created April 22, 2021) 5 of 5 CONSTRUCTION Capital 12. COUNTY will invoice and CALTRANS will reimburse for actual costs incurred and paid. Department Furnished Materials (DFM) 13. CALTRANS will invoice and COUNTY will reimburse for actual costs incurred and paid. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/203 ratifying the prior decision of the Public Works Director, or designee, to close a portion of Canyon Lake Drive from Reservoir Street to the terminus, on July 4, 2021 from 2:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m., for the purpose of restricting access and parking for public safety on the 4 th of July, Port Costa area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: A county-maintained road may be closed with approval of the Board of Supervisors and a road closure permit. Applicant must adhere to the permit conditions set forth by the Public Works Director, or designee, prior to and during the road closure. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Applicant will not have permission to close the road for planned activities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Bob Hendry, (925) 374-2136 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Bob Hendry -Engineering Services, CHP, Sheriff - Patrol Division Commander, Ronald Lai, Engineering Services C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Ratifying the prior decision to fully close a portion of Canyon Lake Drive, on July 4, 2021, Port Costa area. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2021/203 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2021/203 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/203 IN THE Matter OF: Ratifying the prior decision of the Public Works Director, or designee, to close of Canyon Lake Drive from Reservoir Street to the terminus, on July 4, 2021from 2:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m., for the purpose of restricting access and parking for public safety on the 4 th of July, Port Costa area. (District V) RC21-5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that permission is granted to Suzanne Statler to fully close a portion of Canyon Lake Drive from Reservoir Street to the terminus, except for emergency traffic, on July 4, 2021 for the period of 2:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m., subject to the following conditions. 1. Traffic will be detoured via neighboring streets per traffic control plan reviewed by Public Works. 2. All signing to be in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3. Permittee shall comply with the requirements of the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County. 4. Permittee shall strictly adhere to the current Health Order issued by Contra Costa County Health Officer. 5. Provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for Comprehensive General Public Liability which names the County as an additional insured prior to permit issuance. 6. Obtain approval for the closure from the Sheriff’s Department, the California Highway Patrol and the Fire District. Contact: Bob Hendry, (925) 374-2136 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Bob Hendry -Engineering Services, CHP, Sheriff - Patrol Division Commander, Ronald Lai, Engineering Services RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the use of $140,000 of the Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefits Fund for the Byron Airport General Plan Amendment project, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact on the General Fund. The Byron Airport General Plan Amendment project is not eligible for FAA funding; the Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefits Fund is available to provide the necessary funding. The Mariposa Community Benefit Fund was established to enhance and support the Byron Airport. BACKGROUND: The Byron Airport General Plan Amendment project (Project) was implemented by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), in collaboration with Airport staff in 2012, to ensure that the Byron Airport General Plan is consistent with the Byron Airport Master Plan, which was approved in 2005. The Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefit Fund (Mariposa Fund) was established to enhance and support the Byron Airport. To date, $349,270 of the Mariposa Fund has been allocated to the Project and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Keith Freitas (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Use of a Portion of the Mariposa Energy Project Community Benefits Fund BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the related environmental review. To cover a deficit for staff costs and to complete the Project, DCD is requesting an additional $140,000 from the Mariposa Fund. If the additional allocation is approved, the total amount allocated from the Mariposa Fund to the Project will increase from $349,270 to $489,270. Of the $349,270 that has been allocated to date, $272,586 was for a consultant. The balance of $76,684 was to cover DCD and Public Works staff costs. The remaining items to be completed are the Notice of Completion, draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) circulation, public review of the DEIR, final EIR preparation, staff report, formulation and analysis, and public hearings at both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The total DCD and PW staff costs through April 8, 2021, are $197,639.28, which is $120,955.28 over the approved allocation. DCD has requested an additional Mariposa Fund allocation to cover the deficit and provide an additional funding to cover the remaining staff costs to complete the project. Please note that this project has been underway since 2013; the environmental analysis has changed over time which has resulted in more staff time needed to redirect and review the work. The Airport Committee reviewed and approved moving this request to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration at its June 9, 2021, meeting. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Airports Division is unable to proceed with the added work related to the Byron Airport General Plan Amendment, the Byron Airport General Plan will be inconsistent with the Airport Master Plan, which could cause contemplated development opportunities to not be realized. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and ADOPT the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for County Airports, AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Public Works Director, or designee, to sign and submit the DBE Program for County Airports document to the Federal Aviation Administration for acceptance, and RESCIND the existing DBE program approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2019, with regard to the Federal Aviation Administration. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs associated with the DBE Program for County Airports will be funded 100% by Airport Enterprise Funds. Without a DBE Program for County Airports, the County will not be eligible for federal funding for airport projects. BACKGROUND: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and are the source of billions APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Keith Freitas (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and ADOPT the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for County Airports BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of dollars in federal funding to local agencies for airport and highway improvements each year. To be eligible for funding, agencies must comply with Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Program.” 49 CFR, Part 26 requires local agencies to implement a disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) program. In general, the goal of a DBE program is to allow small businesses that are at least 51% controlled by one or more persons who are socially and economically disadvantaged the opportunity to compete for certain contracts. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that affected al state and local agency DBE programs in the nine western states. (Western States Paving Co. v. State of Washington Dept. of Transportation, 407 F.3d 983 (9 th Cir. 2005).) The Court of Appeals ruled that agencies must have evidence that demonstrated a need for race-conscious measures, such as DBE goals, in their federally funded contracts. Following this ruling, the FHWA instructed agencies to provide evidence in support of their race-conscious DBE programs, or begin gathering evidence and chance to race-neutral DBE programs in the interim. Operating under FHWA, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted a state-wide availability and disparity study on behalf of the local agencies in its jurisdiction that receive FHWA funds. The FHWA approved this study in March 2009. The study demonstrated a need for race-conscious contract goals for African American, Women, Asian Pacific American and Native American-owned businesses (Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“UDBE”)). Based on the results of the study, Caltrans revised its DBE Program to implement race conscious UDBE goals. Under the revised DBE Program, new race-conscious contract specifications were required to be incorporated in all federal-aid construction and consultant contracts. Caltrans required local agencies that receive FHWA funds through Caltrans (and FAA funds) to implement this revised DBE program. The Board of Supervisors approved the Caltrans DBE Implementation Agreement on May 19, 2009. In 2012, Caltrans again revised the DBE Program removing the requirement for race conscious UDBE goals and the Federal Aviation Administration released its own format requirements for a DBE Program. In 2014, the Department of Transportation made significant changes to the overall DBE program requirements. The FAA and Caltrans have interpreted the change differently resulting in the need to create two separate program documents – one for FAA and another for Caltrans. In 2015, the Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office determined that the overall responsibility for the DOT DBE Program(s) should reside with the Public Works Department. In consideration of the changes at the DOT and Contra Costa County, the new DBE program for the County Airports refers to the County as the responsible party but assigns the responsibility for implementation to the Public Works Department. As a result of the great many changes, this DBE Program for County Airports has been created and is being submitted for Approval and Adoption. This DBE Program for County Airports will supersede the County DBE Program adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2019, as applied to County Airports. The County DBE Program adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2019, will continue to apply to county Projects that receive FHWA funds, until it is superseded by a revised program adopted by the Board of Supervisors at a later date. Upon Board approval of the attached DBE Program for County Airports, the Public Works Department will submit the attached DBE Program for County Airports to the FAA for Acceptance. The attached DBE Program for County Airports replaces the previous DBE Program by the Board of Supervisors on June 4, 2019, for federally funded airport construction and consulting projects. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not take the recommended action, FAA will stop authorizing Federal funds earmarked for County Airport Projects. ATTACHMENTS DBE - Attachment I DBE - Attachment II Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program P repared fo r Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division Ford & Associates LLC June, 2021 Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AIRPORTS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DBE PROGRAM - 49 CFR PART 26 Definitions of Terms The terms used in this program have the meanings defined in 49 CFR 26.5. Sections 26.1 and 26.23 Objectives /Policy Statement The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26. The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has received Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, and as a condition of receiving this assistance , the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has signed an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. It is the policy of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division to ensure that DBEs, as defined in part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT-assi sted contracts. It is also our policy: 1. To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT assisted contracts; 2. To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT assisted contracts; 3. To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law; 4. To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility stand ards are permitted to participate as DBEs; 5. To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT assisted contracts; and 6. To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. Brian Balbas, has been desi gnated as the DBE Liaison Officer. In that capacity, Mr. Balbas is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program. Implementation of the DBE program is accorded the same priority as compliance with all other legal obligations incu rred by the County Board of Supervisors in its financial assistance agreements with the Department of Transportation. The airport has disseminated this policy statement to the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division and all of the components of our organization. We have distributed this statement to DBE and non-DBE business communities that perform work for us on DOT-assisted contracts as posted on the airport web site and at the airport’s business office. Brian Balbas, Public Works Director _________________________ Date: _______ Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 3 SUBPART A – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Section 26.1 Objectives The objectives are found in the policy statement on the first page of this program. Section 26.3 Applicability The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division is the Recipient of Federal airport funds authorized by 49 U.S.C. 47101, et seq. Section 26.5 Definitions The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will use terms in this program that have the meaning defined in Section 26.5. Section 26.7 Nondiscrimination Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering its DBE program, the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin. Section 26.11 Record Keeping Requirements Reporting to DOT:26:11 (b) We will transmit to FAA annually on December 1, the “Uniform Report of DBE Awards Commitments and Payments” form, found in Appendix B to this part. We will also report the DBE contractor firm’s information either on the FAA DBE Contractor’s Form or other similar format. We will begin using the revised Uniform Report of DBE Awards or Commitments and Payments for reporting FY 2022 reports due December 1, 2022 . Bidders List 26.11(c) The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, Airports Division will create and maintain a bidders list. The purpose of the list is to provide as accurate data as Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 4 possible about the universe of DBE and non-DBE contractors and subcontractors who seek to work on our DOT-assisted contracts for use in helping to set our overall goals. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE and non-DBE status, age of firm, and annual gross receipts of firms. We will collect this information in the follo wing way: By including a contract clause requiring all bidders to complete the Subcontractor Participation Plan found on Attachment 2 of this plan. Bidders not completing and submitting the plan with the bid will be considered unresponsive. Section 26.13 Federal Financial Assistance Agreement The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has signed the following assurances, applicable to all DOT-assisted contracts and their administration: Assurance 26.13(a) Each financial assistance agreement Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division signs with a DOT operating administration (or a primary) must include the following assurance: The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the requi rements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE program, as required by 49 CFR part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agre ement. Upon notification to the of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. ). Contract Assurance: 26.13(b) The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will ensure that the following clause is included in each contract we sign with a contractor and each subcontract the prime contractor signs with a subcontractor: The contractor, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 5 of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Fai lure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remed y as the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division deems appropriate. SUBPART B - ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Section 26.21 DBE Program Updates The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division is required to have a DBE program meeting the requirements of this part as it will receive grants for airport planning or development and will award prime contracts, cumulative total value of which exceeds $250,000 in FAA funds in a federal fiscal year. W e are not eligible to receive DOT financial assistance unless DOT has approved our DBE program and we are in compliance with it and this part. We will continue to carry out our program until all funds from DOT financial assistance have been expended. We d o not have to submit regular updates of our program, as long as we remain in compliance. However, we will submit significant changes in the program for approval. Section 26.23 Policy Statement The Policy Statement is elaborated on the first page of this DBE Program. Section 26.25 DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) We have designated the following individual as our DBE Liaison Officer: Keith Freitas Director of Airports Public Works Department Airports Division Contra Costa County Airports 550Sally Ride Drive Concord, California 94520 keith.freitas@airport.cccounty.us In that capacity, Keith Freitas /DBELO is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE program and ensuring that the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division complies with all provisions of 49 CFR Part 26. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 6 Keith Freitas has direct, independent access , concerning DBE program matters. The DBELO has at least one support person, who can devote a portion of thei r time to the program. An organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization is found in Attachment 3 to this program. The DBELO is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE program, in coordination with other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the following: The project manager duties and responsibilities will include the following: 1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required by DOT. 2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this program. 3. Works with all departments to set overall annual goals. 4. Identifies contracts and procurements so that DBE goals are included in solicitations (both race-neutral methods and contract specific goals) and monitors results. 5. Analyzes Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division's progress toward attainment and identifies ways to improve progress. 6. Participates in pre-bid meetings. 7. Advises the governing body on DBE matters and achievement. 8. Determines contractor compliance with good faith efforts. 9. Provides DBEs with information and assistance in preparing bids, obtaining bonding and insurance. 10. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars. 11. Acts as liaison to the Uniform Certification Process. 12. Maintains the agency’s updated directory on certified DBEs. Section 26.27 DBE Financial Institutions It is the policy of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division to investigate the full extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the communi ty, to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT-assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. In an effort to identify and use such institutions, utilizing the State of California DBE online database, the airport did not find any fina ncial institutions in Contra Costa County or in surrounding counties including Counties in Caltrans District 4. We will investigate once every three years. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 7 Section 26.29 Prompt Payment Mechanisms The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has established, as part of its DBE Program, a contract clause to require prime contractors to pay subcontractors for satisfactory performance of their contracts no later than 7 days from receipt of each payment you make to the prime contractor. We will ensure prompt and full payment of retainage from the prime contracto r to the subcontractor within 7 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. We will use one of the following methods to comply with this requirement: Hold retainage from prime contractors and provide for prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions of the prime contract, pay retainage to prime contractors based on these acceptances, and require a contract clause obligating the prime contractor to pay all retainage owed to the subcontractor for satisfactory completion of the accepted work within seven (7) days after the County’s payment to the prime contractor. To implement this measure, the Airports Division includes the following clause from FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370 ‐10 in each DOT‐assisted prime construction contract: 1. From the total of the amount determined to be payable on a partial payment, up to 10% percent of such total amount will be deducted and retained by the Owner for protection of the Owner’s interests. Unless otherwise instructed by the Owner, the amount retained by the Owner will be in effect until the final payment is made except as follows: a. Contractor may request release of retainage on work that has been partially accepted by the Owner in accordance with Section 50 ‐14. Contractor must provide a certified invoice to the RPR that supports the value of retainage held by the Owner for partially accepted work. b. In lieu of retainage, the Contractor may exercise at its option the establishment of an escrow account per paragraph 90 ‐08. 2. The Contractor is required to pay all subcontractors for satisfactory performance of their contracts no later than seven (7) days after the Contractor has received a partial payment. Contractor must provide the Owner evidence of prompt and full payment of retainage held by the prime Contractor to the subcontractor within seven (7) days after the subcontractor’s work is satisfactorily completed. A subcontractor’s work is satisfactorily completed when all the tasks called for in the subcontract have been accomplished and documented as required by the Owner. When the Owner has made an Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 8 incremental acceptance of a portion of a prime contr act, the work of a subcontractor covered by that acceptance is deemed to be satisfactorily completed. 3. When at least 95% of the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the RPR, the RPR shall, at the Owner’s discretion and with the consent of the surety, prepare estimates of both the contract value and the cost of the remaining work to be done. The Owner may retain an amount not less than twice the contract value or estimated cost, whichever is greater, of the work remaining to be done. The remai nder, less all previous payments and deductions, will then be certified for payment to the Contractor. Section 26.31 Directory The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division uses the State of California DBE directory, maintained by the State and updated daily. The directory lists the firm’s name, address, phone number, and the type of work the firm has been certified to perform as a DBE. In addition, the directory lists each type of work for which a firm is eligible to be certified by using the most specific NAICS code available to describe each type of work. Section 26.33 Over-concentration Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has not identified that over-concentration exists in the types of work that DBEs perform. Section 26.35 Business Development Programs Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has not established a business development program. Section 26.37 Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will take the following monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with 49 CFR Part 26: 1. The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will bring to the attention of the Department of Transportation any false, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the program, so that the DOT can take the steps (e.g., referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, referral to the DOT Inspector General, action under suspension and debarment or Program Fraud and Civil Penalties rules) provided in 26.107. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 9 2. We will implement similar action under our own legal authorities, including responsibility determinations in future contracts. Attachment 5 lists the regulation, provisions, and contract remedies available to us in the events of non-compliance with the DBE regulation by a participant in our DBE Program. 3. We will implement a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to ensure that work committed to DBEs at contract award or subsequently (i.e., as the result of modification to the contract) is actually performed by the DBEs to which the work was committed. 4. We will implement a monitoring and enforcement m echanism that will include written certification that we have reviewed contracting records and monitored work sites for his purpose. The monitoring to which this paragraph refers may be conducted in conjunction with monitoring of contract performance for other purposes (e.g., close-out reviews for a contract). This will be accomplished by review of the contract proposal and subsequent work by the contract manager or appointed contract officer's representative. 5. We will implement a mechanism that will provide for a running tally of actual DBE attainments (e.g., payment actually made to DBE firms), including a means of comparing these attainments to commitments. In our reports of DBE participation to DOT, we will show both commitments and attainments, as required by the DOT uniform reporting form. Section 26.39 Fostering Small Business Participation The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division has created a Small Business Participation Element to structure contracting requirements to facilitate competition by small business concerns, taking all reasonable steps to eliminate obstacles to their participation, including unnecessary and unjustified bundling of contract requirements that may preclude small business participation in procurements as prime contractors or subcontractors. The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division Small Business Participation Element is incorporated as Attachment 6 to this DBE Program. We will actively implement the program elements to foster small business participation; doing so is a requirement of good faith implementation of our DBE prog ram. SUBPART C – GOALS, GOOD FAITH EFFORTS, AND COUNTING Section 26.43 Quotas We do not use quotas in any way in the administration of this DBE program. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 10 Section 26.45 Overall Goals The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will establish an overall DBE goal covering a three -year federal fiscal year period if we anticipate awarding DOT/FAA funded prime contracts the cumulative total value of which exceeds $250,000 during any one or more of the reporting fiscal years within t he three-year goal period. In accordance with Section 26.45(f) the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will submit its Overall Three year DBE Goal to FAA by August 1st as required by the established schedule below. Given the amount of DOT-assisted contracts the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division expects to let for Buchanan Field during this fiscal year/project, which is $93,010. This means that we have set a goal of expending 1 % with DBEs during this fiscal year/project. Given the amount of DOT-assisted contracts the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division expects to let for Byron Airport during this fiscal year/project, which is $86,625. This means that we have se t a goal of expending 6% with DBEs during this fiscal year/project. Method Non-Primary (GAs, Relievers and State DOTs) Central, Southwest, and Western-Pacific August 1, 2021 (2022/2023/2024) August 1, 2024 (202 5/2026/2027) The DBE goals will be established in accordance with the 2 -step process as specified in 49 CFR Part 26.45. If the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division does not anticipate awarding DOT/FAA funded prime contracts the cumulative total value of which exceeds $250,000 during any of the years within the three -year reporting period, we will not develop an overall goal; however this DBE Program will remain in ef fect and the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will seek to fulfill the objectives outlined in 49 CFR Part 26.1. (c)The first step is to determine the relative availability of DBEs in the market area, “base figure”. We will use DBE Directories and Census Bureau Data as a method to determine our base figure. The second step is to adjust the “base figure” percentage from Step 1 so that it reflects as accurately as possible the DBE participation the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division would expect in the absence of discrimination based on past participation, a disparity study and/or information about barriers to entry to past competitiveness of DBEs on Contracts. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 11 If we use a bidders list, we will do the following: Determine the number of DBEs that have bid or quoted (successful and unsuccessful) on our DOT-assisted prime contracts or subcontracts in the past three years. Determine the number of all businesses that have bid or quoted (successful and unsuccessful) on prime or subcontracts in the same time period. Divide the number of DBE bidders and quoters by the number of all businesses to derive a base figure for the relative availability of DBEs in your market. When using this approach, we wi ll establish a mechanism (documented in our goal submission) to directly capture data on DBE and non-DBE prime and subcontractors that submitted bids or quotes on our DOT- assisted contracts. Any methodology we choose will be based on demonstrable evidence of local market conditions and be designed to ultimately attain a goal that is rationally related to the relative availability of DBEs in our market. We understand that the exclusive use of a list of prequalified contractors or plan holders, or a bidders list that does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section (above) 26:11 c 2, is not an acceptable alternative means of determining the availability of DBEs. Once we have calculated a base figure, we will examine all of the evidence available in our jurisdiction to determine what adjustment, if any, is needed to the base figure to arrive at our overall goal. If the evidence does not suggest an adjustment is necessary, then no adjustment shall be made. In addition, the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will publish a notice announcing our proposed overall goal before submission to the operating administration on August 1st. The notice wi ll be posted on our official internet website (https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/5731/Contracting -with-the -Airports-RFPRFQs ) and may be posted in any other sources (e.g., minority-focused media, trade association publications). If the proposed goal changes following review by the operating administration, the revised goal will be posted on our official internet web site. We will inform the public that the pro posed overall goal and its rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at our principal office and that the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division and DOT/FAA will accept comments on the goals for 30 days from the date of the notice. Notice of the comment period will include the addresses to which comments may be sent (including offices and websites) where the proposal may be reviewed. The public comment period will not extend the August 1st deadline. Our Overall Three-Year DBE Goal submission to DOT/FAA will include a summary of information and comments received, if any, during this public participation process and our responses. We will begin using our overall goal on October 1 of the reporting pe riod, unless we have received other instructions from DOT. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 12 Section 26.45 (e) Project Goals If permitted or required by the FAA Administrator , we will express our overall goals as a percentage of funds for a particular grant or project or group of grants and/or projects, including entire projects. Like other overall goals, a project goal may be adjusted to reflect changed circumstances, with the concurrence of the appropriate operating administration. A project goal is an overall goal, and must meet a ll the substantive and procedural requirements of this section pertaining to overall goals. A project goal covers the entire length of the project to which it applies. The project goal should include a projection of the DBE participation anticipated to be obtained during each fiscal year covered by the project goal. The funds for the project to which the project goal pertains are separated from the base from which our regular overall goal, applicable to contracts not part of the project covered by a proje ct goal, is calculated. If we establish a goal on a project basis, we will begin using our goal by the time of the first solicitation for a DOT-assisted contract for the project. Section 26.45(f) Prior Operating Administration Concurrent The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division understands that we are not required to obtain prior operating administration concurrence with our overall goal. However, if the operating administration’s review suggests that our overall goal has not been correctly calculated or that our method for calculating goals is inadequate, the operating administration may, after consulting with us, adjust our overall goal or require that we do so. The adjusted overall goal is binding. In evaluating the ad equacy or soundness of the methodology used to derive the overall goal, the U.S. DOT operating administration will be guided by the goal setting principles and best practices identified by the Department in guidance issued pursuant to § 26.9. A description of the methodology to calculate the overall goal and the goal calculations can be found in Attachment 7 to this program. Section 26.47 Failure to Meet Overall Goals The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will maintain an approved DBE Program and overall DBE goal, if applicable as well as administer our DBE Program in good faith to be considered to be in compliance with this part. If Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division awards and commitments shown on our Uniform Report of Awards or Commitments and Payments at the end of any fiscal year are less than the overall goal applicable to that fiscal year, we will Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 13 do the following in order to be regarded by the Department as implementing our DBE Program in good faith: (1) Analyze in detail the reasons for the difference between the overall goal and our awards and commitments in that fiscal year; (2) Establish specific steps and milestones to correct the problems we have identified in our analysis to enable us to meet fully your goal for the new fiscal year; Section 26.51(a-c) Breakout of Estimated Race -Neutral and Race-Conscious Participation (a) The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will meet the maximum feasible portion of its overall goal by using race -neutral means of facilitating race-neutral DBE participation. Race-neutral DBE participation includes any time a DBE wins a prime contract through customary competitive procurement p rocedures or is awarded a subcontract on a prime contract that does not carry a DBE contract goal. Race-neutral means include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Arranging solicitations, times for the presentation of bids, quantities, specificati ons, and delivery schedules in ways that facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses and by making contracts more accessible to small businesses, by means such as those provided under §26.39 of this part. (2) Providing assistance in overcoming limitations such as inability to obtain bonding or financing (e.g., by such means as simplifying the bonding process, reducing bonding requirements, eliminating the impact of surety costs from bids, and providing services to help DBEs, and other small businesses, obtain bonding and financing); (3) Providing technical assistance and other services; (4) Carrying out information and communications programs on contracting procedures and specific contract opportunities (e.g., ensuring the inclusion of DBEs, and other small businesses, on Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division mailing lists for bidders; ensuring the dissemination to bidders on prime contracts of lists of potential subcontractors; provision of information in lang uages other than English, where appropriate); (5) Implementing a supportive services program to develop and improve immediate Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 14 and long-term business management, record keeping, and financial and accounting capability for DBEs and other small businesses; (6) Providing services to help DBEs, and other small businesses, improve long-term development, increase opportunities to participate in a variety of kinds of work, handle increasingly significant projects, and achieve eventual self-sufficiency; (7) Establishing a program to assist new, start-up firms, particularly in fields in which DBE participation has historically been low; (8) Ensuring distribution of your DBE directory, through print and electronic means, to the widest feasible universe of potential prime contractors; and (9) Assisting DBEs, and other small businesses, to develop their capability to utilize emerging technology and conduct business through electronic media . Section 26.51(d -g) Contract Goals The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will arrange solicitations, times for the presentation of bids, quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules in ways that facilitate participation by DBEs and other small businesses and by making contracts more accessible to small businesses, by means such a s those provided under § 26.39. If our approved projection under paragraph (a) of this section estimates that we can meet our entire overall goal for a given year through race -neutral means, we will implement our program without setting contract goals during that year, unless it becomes necessary in order meet our overall goal. We will establish contract goals only on those DOT-assisted contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. We need not establish a contra ct goal on every such contract, and the size of contract goals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such contract (e.g., type and location of work, availability of DBEs to perform the particular type of work.) We will express our contract goals as a percentage of the Federal share of the DOT- assisted contract. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 15 Section 26.53 Good Faith Efforts Procedures Demonstration of good faith efforts 26.53(a) & (c) The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good faith efforts. The bidder/offeror can demonstrate that it has done so either by meeting the contract goal or documenting good faith efforts. Examples of good faith efforts are found in Appendix A to Part 26. Brian Balbas, Director of Public Works, is responsible for determining whether a bidder/offeror who has not met the contract goal has documented sufficient good faith efforts to be regarded as Responsive . We will ensure that all information is complete and accurate and adequately documents the bidder/offeror’s go od faith efforts before we commit to the performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror. Information to be submitted (26.53(b)): The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division treats bidder/offers’ compliance with good faith effo rts' requirements as a matter of responsiveness. Responsiveness - Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established will require all bidders/offerors to submit the following information at the time of bid: In our solicitations for DOT/FAA-assisted contracts for which a contract goal has been established, we will require the following: (1) Award of the contract will be conditioned on meeting the requirements of this section; (2) All bidders or offerors will be required to submit the following information to the recipient, at the time provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section: (i) The names and addresses of DBE firms that will participate in the contract; (ii) A description of the work that each DBE will perform. To count toward meeting a goal, each DBE firm must be certified in a NAICS code applicable to the kind of work the firm would perform on the contract; (iii) The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participating; (iv) Written documentation of the bidder/offeror’s commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet a contract goal; and amount of work provided in the prime contractor’s commitment. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 16 (v) If the contract goal is not met, the evidence of good faith efforts is in Attachment 8. The documentation of good faith efforts must include copies of each DBE and non-DBE subcontractor quote submitted to the bidder when a non-DBE subcontractor was selected over a DBE for work on the contract; and (3) We will require that the bi dder/offeror present the information required by paragraph (b) (2) of this section: Under sealed bid procedures, as a matter of responsiveness , under contract negotiation procedures; Provided that, in a negotiated procurement, including a design-build procurement, the bidder/offeror may make a contractually binding commitment to meet the goal at the time of bid submission or the presentation of initial proposals but provide the informa tion required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section before the final selection for the contract is made by the recipient. Section 26.53(d) Administrative R econsideration Within 3 business days of being informed by Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division that it is not responsive because it has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror may request administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make this request in writing to the following reconsi deration official: Steve Kowalewski Public Works Department Reconsideration Official Contra Costa County Airports 255 Glacier Drive Martinez , CA 94553 The reconsideration official will not have played any role in the original determination that the bidder/offeror did not document sufficient good faith efforts. As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to meet with our reconsideration official, Steve Kowalewski to discuss the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do. We will send the bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 17 make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to the Department of Transportation. Section 26.53(f)(g) Good Faith Efforts Procedures In Situations When There Are Contract Goals We will include in each prime contract a provision stating: The contractor shall utilize the specific DBEs listed to perform the work and supply the materials for which each is listed unless the contractor obtains your written consent as provided in this paragraph 26.53(f); and that, unless our consent is provided under this paragraph 26.53(f), the contractor shall not be entitled to any payment for work or material unless it is performed or supplied by the listed DBE. We will require that a prime contractor not terminate a DBE subcontractor listed in response to paragraph (b) (2) of this Section 26.53 (or an approved substitute DBE firm) without our prior written consent. This includes, but not limited to, instances in which a prime contractor seeks to perform work originally designated for a DBE subcontractor with its own forces or those of an affiliate, a non-DBE firm, or with another DBE firm. We will provide such written consent only if we agree, for reasons stated in our concurrence document, that the prime contractor has good cause to terminate the DBE firm. For purposes of this paragraph, good cause includes the following circumstances: (1) The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to execute a written contract; (2) The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to perform the work of its subcontract in a way consistent with normal industry standards. Provided, however, that good cause does not exist if the failure or refusal of the DBE subcontractor to perform its work on the subcontract results from the bad faith or discriminatory action of the prime contractor; (3) The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to meet the prime contractor’s reasonable, non-discriminatory bond requirements. (4) The listed DBE subcontractor becomes bankrupt, insolvent, or exhibits credit unworthiness; (5) The listed DBE subcontractor is ineligible to work on public works projects because of suspension and debarment proceedings pursuant to 2 CFR Parts 180, 215 and 1,200 or applicable state law; (6) We have determined that the listed DBE subcontractor is not a responsible contractor; Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 18 (7) The listed DBE subcontractor voluntarily withdraws from the project and provides to us written notice of its withdrawal; (8) The listed DBE is ineligible to rec eive DBE credit for the type of work required; (9) A DBE owner dies or becomes disabled with the result that the listed DBE contractor is unable to complete its work on the contract; (10) Other documented good cause that we have determined compels the termination of the DBE subcontractor. Provided, that good cause does not exist if the prime contractor seeks to terminate a DBE it relied upon to obtain the contract so that the prime contractor can self-perform the work for which the DBE contractor was engaged or so that the prime contractor can substitute another DBE or non-DBE contractor after contract award. Before transmitting to us its request to terminate and/or substitute a DBE subcontractor, the prime contractor must give notice in writing to the DBE subcontractor, with a copy to us, of its intent to request to terminate and/or substitute, and the reason for the request. The prime contractor must give the DBE five days to respond to the prime contractor’s notice and advise us and the contra ctor of the reasons, if any, why it objects to the proposed termination of its subcontract and why we should not approve the prime contractor’s action. If required in a particular case as a matter of public necessity (e.g., safety), we may provide a response period shorter than five days. The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a contract with another certified DBE. These good faith efforts shall be directed at finding another DBE to perform at least the same amount of work under the contract as the DBE that was terminated, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal that we established for the procurement. The good faith efforts shall be documented by the contractor. If we request documentation from the contractor under this provision, the contractor shall submit the documentation to us within 7 days, which may be extended for an additional 7days if necessary at the request of the contractor, and the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division shall provide a written determination to the contractor stating whether or not good faith efforts have been demonstrated. We will include in each prime contract the contract clause required by § 26.13(b) stating that failure by the contractor to carry out the requirements of this part is a material breach of the contract and may result in the termination of the contract or such other remedies set forth in that section that we deem appropriate if the prime contractor fails to comply with the requirements of this section. Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 19 If the contractor fails or refuses to comply in the time specified, the Airport will issue an order stopping all or part of payment/work until sati sfactory action has been taken. If the contractor still fails to comply, the Airport may issue a termination for default proceeding. Sample Bid Specification: The requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, apply to this contract. It is the policy of the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division to practice nondiscrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin in the award or performance of this contract. All firms qualifying under this solicitation are encouraged to submit bids/proposals. Award of this contract will be conditioned upon satisfying the requireme nts of this bid specification. These requirements apply to all bidders/offerors, including those who qualify as a DBE. A DBE overall goal of 1% percent as determined in the goal calculation Attachment 5 has been established for Buchanan Field. The bidder/offeror shall make good faith efforts, as defined in Appendix A, 49 CFR Part 26 (Attachment 5), to meet the contract goal for DBE participation in the performance of this contract. A DBE goal of 6% percent as determined in the goal calculation Attachment 5 has been established for Byron Airport. The bidder/offeror shall make good faith efforts, as defined in Appendix A, 49 CFR Part 26 (Attachment 5 ), to meet the goal for DBE participation in the performance of this contract. The bidder/offeror will be required to submit the following information: (1) the names and addresses of DBE firms that will participate in the contract; (2) a description of the work that each DBE firm will perform. To count toward meeting a goal, each DBE firm must be certified in a NAICS code applicable to the kind of wo rk the firm would perform on the contract; (3) the dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participating; (4) Written documentation of the bidder/offeror’s commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet the contract goal; and (5) Written confirmation from each listed DBE firm that it is participating in the contract in the kind and amount of work provided in the prime contractor’s commitment; (6) if the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts. Section 26.55 Counting DBE Participation We will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goals as provided in 49 CFR 26.55. We will not count the participation of a DBE subcontract toward a contractor’s final compliance with its DBE obligations on a contract until the amount being counted has actually Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 20 been paid to the DBE. If the firm is not currently certified as a DBE in accordance with the standards of subpart D of this part at the time of the execution of the contract, we will not count the firm’s participation toward any DBE goals, except as provided for in 26.87(j). SUBPART D – CERTIFICATION STANDARDS Section 26.61 – 26.73 Certification Process The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division is a non- certifying member of the State of California Unified Certification Program (UCP). State of California UCP will use the certification standards of Subpart D of Part 26 to determine the eligibility of firms to participate as D BEs in DOT-assisted contracts. To be certified as a DBE, a firm must meet all certi fication eligibility standards. We will make our certification decisions based on the facts as a whole. For information about the certification process or to apply for certification, firms should co ntact: California Department of Transportation Office of Business & Economic Opportunity Attn: Certification Unit 1823 14th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 Questions? Call (916) 324 -1700 Email: DBE.Certification@dot.ca.gov Fax: (916) 324-1949 Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/business_forms.htm SUBPART E – CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES Section 26.81 Unified Certification Programs The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division is a member of the California Unified Certification Program (UCP) administered by Keith Freitas. The UCP will meet all of the requirements of this section. See Attachment 9, a copy of the signed agreement page of the membership of the UCP between the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division and the UCP Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 21 SUBPART F – COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT Section 26.101 Compliance Procedures Applicable to Airports Division Airports Division understands that if it fails to comply with any requirement of this part, Airports Division may be subject to formal enforcement action under §26.103 or §26.105 or appropriate program sanctions by the concerned oper ating administration/ the FAA, such as the suspension or termination of Federal funds, or refusal to approve projects, grants or contracts until deficiencies are remedied. Program sanctions may include, in the case of the FHWA program, actions provided for under 23 CFR 1.36; in the case of the FAA program, actions consistent with 49 U.S.C. 47106(d), 47111(d), and 47122; and in the case of the FTA program, any actions permitted under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 or applicable FTA program requirements. Section 26.109 We will safeguard from disclosure to third parties information that may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information, consistent with provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552). We may make available to the public any information concerning the DBE program provided release is not prohibited by Federal law. Notwithstanding any provision of Federal or state law, we will not release any information that may reasonably be construed as confidential business information to any third party without the written consent of the firm that submitted the information. This includes applications for DBE certification and supporting information. However, we will transmit this information to DOT in any certification appeal proceeding under § 26.89 of this part or to any other state to which the individual’s firm has applied for certification under § 26.85 of this part. All participants in the Department's DBE program (including, but not limited to, recipients, DBE firms and applicants for DBE certification, complainants and appellants, and contractors using DBE firms to meet contract goals) are required to cooperate fully and promptly with DOT and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division compliance reviews, certification reviews, investigations, and other requests for information. Failure to do so shal l be a ground for appropriate action against the party involved (e.g., with respect to recipients, a finding of noncompliance; with respect to DBE firms, denial of certification or removal of eligibility and/or suspension and debarment; with respect to a c omplainant or appellant, dismissal of the complaint or appeal; with respect to a contractor which uses DBE firms to meet goals, findings of non-responsibility for future contracts and/or suspension and debarment). Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division DBE Program Page 22 The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division's contractor, or any other participant in the program will not intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual or firm for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by this part or because the individual or firm has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. Airports Division understands that it is in noncompliance with Part 26 if it violates this p rohibition. ATTACHMENT 1 Regulations: 49 CFR Part 26, link to website below: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi -bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr26_main_02.tpl ATTACHMENT 2 Bidder’s List Collection Form Annual Gross $ Proposed % Proposed Description of Project Services Name:Receipts Group: Address:< $500K Ethnicity: City/State/Zip:$500K -$1 millionGender: Contact Name:$1-$2 million Certifying Agency: Telephone No.$2-$5 million Age of Firm: EMAIL:>$5 million Vendor or Federal ID:NAICS: Annual Gross $ Proposed % Proposed Description of Project Services Name:Receipts Group: Address:< $500K Ethnicity: City/State/Zip:$500K -$1 millionGender: Contact Name:$1-$2 million Certifying Agency: Telephone No.$2-$5 million Age of Firm: EMAIL:>$5 million Vendor or Federal ID:NAICS: Annual Gross $ Proposed % Proposed Description of Project Services Name:Receipts Group: Address:< $500K Ethnicity: City/State/Zip:$500K -$1 millionGender: Contact Name:$1-$2 million Certifying Agency: Telephone No.$2-$5 million Age of Firm: EMAIL:>$5 million Vendor or Federal ID:NAICS: I certify under the penalty of perjury that the information contained on this form is true and correct and that the firms listed are the subcontractors that will be utilized if this contract is awarded to the above prime contractor. I agree to comply with any applicable provisions for additions and substitutions, and I further understand and ageee that any and all changes or substitutions must be authorized by the Airport prior to their implementation. Participation level proposed by Bidder/Proposer: ________% Signature Date 4 Name Title Phone Participation level stated in the request for Bid/Proposal: ____% Subcontractor Company Information Profile Information Subcontractor Company Information Profile Information Subcontractor Company Information Profile Information SBE M/WBE DBE ACDBE SBE M/WBE DBE ACDBE ATTACHMENT 3 Organizational Chart ATTACHMENT 4 California DBE Directory: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find_certified.htm ATTACHMENT 5 (1 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 5) Section 26.45: DBE Project Goal Methodology Name of Recipient: The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division, owner of Buchanan Field Goal Period: October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2024 Goals and Methodology – Airports Division- Buchanan Field The ultimate goal of the program is to utilize DBE participation in proportion to the availability of certified DBEs within the community. The Airports Division has established the overall goal for the federal fiscal years 2022/2023/2024 as 1.00% of the DOT-FAA assisted contracts. The goals are entirely race -neutral . OVERALL GOALS 1.00% Total dollar amount to be expended on DBE’s : $93,010 : Goal Methodology (§26.45) The Data Collection Table below provides the detailed scope of work with estimates for projects the Airports Division has identified as eligible for F AA assisted funding during this period . Following are the percentages of each cost to the total cost of all anticipated federally assisted projects over the next three years and to the total cost of each project. Also shown are the percentages of each cost to the total project cost and total costs of all projects during these years. The last four columns sh ow the detailed and totaled number of firms for each NAICS code able to perform all or part of that line item. The U.S. Census covers all firms located in the State while CalTrans covers the Certified DBEs for each NAICS code. The two databases differ in various ways. A few of the variations and their effect on the goals are discussed as the base goal is calculated and later adjusted. Data Collection Table FY2022 - Design New General Aviation Terminal Bldg; Construct New 6,500 sq/ft General Aviation Terminal Bldg; FY2023 - Airport Master Plan; FY2024 - Design, Engineering, Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run-up Area (6,600 sq/yd) NAICS CODES WORK CODES Market * ESTIMATED COSTS PERCENT TO TOTAL PROJECTS FOR YEAR PERCENT TO PROJECT U.S. Census Companies CalTrans DBEs ** U.S. Census (Cell Totals) CalTrans DBEs (Cell Totals) FY2022 3-06-0050-xxx - Design New General Aviation Terminal Bldg 1) Engineering 541330 C8771 S $265,971 2.8596%85.0000%8967 18 8967 18 2) Surveying 541360 C8760 S $31,291 0.3364%10.0000%45 9 45 9 3) Testing 541380 I8734 S $15,645 0.1682%5.0000%909 53 909 53 Total - Design New General Aviation Terminal Bldg $312,907 100.0000% 3-06-0050-xxx - New General Aviation Terminal Phase I 1) Pest Control 561710 I7342 R $6,598 0.0709%0.9978%358 0 358 0 2) Erecting Structural Metal 236220 238120 C9802 C5501 S R $108,228 1.1636%16.3673% 4284 95 57 0 4379 57 3) Miscellaneous Metals 236220 238120 C9802 C5501 S R $22,437 0.2412%3.3932% 4284 95 57 0 4379 57 4) Plumbing - Underground 238220 423510 C9850 C0670 R S $79,191 0.8514%11.9761% 2547 1067 5 7 3614 12 5) Roofing 238160 423330 C9837 F5030 R S $92,390 0.9933%13.9721% 701 246 6 1 947 7 6) Framing 238130 423510 C9822 C0655 R S $62,033 0.6670%9.3812% 214 1067 0 7 1281 7 7) Rebar 238120 423510 C7500 C0652 R S $6,599 0.0710%0.9980% 95 1067 0 8 1162 8 8) Demolition 238910 C9980 R $22,437 0.2412%3.3932%600 8 600 8 9) Earthwork 238910 C1920 R $25,077 0.2696%3.7924%600 4 600 4 10) Concrete-Site 237110 238110 423320 C2065 C3000 C0651 S R S $121,427 1.3055%18.3633% 872 95 330 0 11 8 1297 19 12) Sheet Metal 238120 423510 C7500 C0655 R R $18,478 0.1987%2.7944% 95 1067 8 7 1162 15 13) Metal Stud Framing 238120 423510 C7500 C0652 R S $18,479 0.1987%2.7945% 95 1067 0 8 1162 8 14) Electrical 238210 423610 C9859 C0686 R S $32,996 0.3548%4.9900% 2292 1885 3 25 4177 28 15) Rough Carpentry 238130 423310 C9822 C0657 R S $31,676 0.3406%4.7904% 214 673 0 3 887 3 16) Insulation 238310 423330 C9868 F5030 R S $13,199 0.1419%1.9960% 214 246 0 1 460 1 Total - New General Aviation Terminal-Phase I $661,246 100.0000%12.17% General Aviation Terminal Phase II 1) Bonds/Ins/Mobilization 524126 236220 H6330 C8771 S S $149,803 1.6106%2.5404% 942 4284 2 26 5226 28 2) General Conditions/ Supervision 236220 C8771 S $203,257 2.1853%3.4469%4284 26 4284 26 3) Demolition 238910 C9980 R $46,987 0.5052%0.7968%600 8 600 8 4) Site Excavation 238910 C1910 R $40,915 0.4399%0.6939%600 11 600 11 5) Building Excavation 238910 C1920 R $29,697 0.3193%0.5036%600 4 600 4 6) Site Concrete 238110 423320 C5100 C0651 R S $326,663 3.5121%5.5396% 407 330 11 8 737 19 7) Landscaping 561730 C9867 R $51,474 0.5534%0.8729%2525 4 2525 4 8) Synthetic Turf 238990 C8100 R $31,940 0.3434%0.5417%764 10 764 10 9) Building Concrete (162,858+49,171) 238110 423320 C5100 C0651 R S $268,062 2.8821%4.5459% 407 330 11 8 737 19 10) Structural Steel 238120 423510 C5501 C0655 R S $385,397 4.1436%6.5356% 95 1067 0 7 1162 7 11) Metal Decking 238120 423510 C5501 C0655 R S $192,698 2.0718%3.2678% 95 1067 0 7 1162 7 12) Misc/Ornamental Metals 238120 423510 C5501 C0655 R S $27,717 0.2980%0.4700% 95 1067 0 7 1162 7 13) Expansion Joint 238120 423510 C7500 C0655 R S $26,001 0.2796%0.4409% 95 1067 0 8 1162 8 14) Sheathing/Misc.Carpentry 238350 423310 C9822 C0657 R S $74,968 0.8060%1.2713% 736 673 2 3 1409 5 15) Casework 238350 423310 C9822 C0657 R S $164,981 1.7738%2.7978% 736 673 2 3 1409 5 16) B/U Roofing/Insulation 238160 423320 C9837 C0651 R S $258,163 2.7756%4.3780% 701 330 6 8 1031 14 17) Building Insulation 238310 423330 C9868 F5030 R S $140,168 1.5070%2.3770% 580 246 6 1 826 7 18) Metal/Aluminum Wall/Roof Panels 238190 423510 C7036 C0655 R S $324,683 3.4908%5.5060% 137 1067 4 7 1204 11 19) Building Sheet Metal 238190 423510 C7036 C0655 R S $43,951 0.4725%0.7453% 137 1067 4 7 1204 11 20) HM Door/Frames/Hardware 238190 423510 C7036 C0655 R S $180,820 1.9441%3.0664% 137 1067 4 7 1204 11 21) Aluminum Storefront System 238190 423510 C7036 C0655 R S $353,588 3.8016%5.9962% 137 1067 4 7 1204 11 22) Automatic Doors 238290 423510 C9865 C0655 R S $51,078 0.5492%0.8662% 422 1067 0 7 1489 7 For example, line items 2 and 3 in the project immediately above entitled “Design, Engineering & Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run -up Area (6,600 sq/yd)” for FY 2024 describes the tasks as Surveying and Testing. The Engineer (541330) may elect to act as the Design Engineer, Surveying (541370) and Testing (541380) firms rather than 23) Metal Stud Framing 238190 423510 C7036 C0655 R S $446,110 4.7964%7.5652% 137 1067 4 7 1204 11 24) Gypsum Board 238310 327420 C9827 D3270 R S $312,805 3.3631%5.3046% 580 22 6 0 602 6 25) Cement Board 238310 327420 C9827 D3270 R S $24,021 0.2583%0.4074% 580 22 6 0 602 6 26) 28,313+73,792+8,561 (Tile+Flooring+Resinous Flooring 238330 325510 C9840 D2850 R S $139,912 1.5043%2.3727% 594 136 2 2 730 4 27) Painting 238320 325510 C5900 D2850 R S $47,779 0.5137%0.8102% 1429 136 4 2 1565 6 28) Toilet Partitions/Accessories 238350 337215 C9834 D2540 R S $25,473 0.2739%0.4320% 736 118 1 1 854 2 29) Signage 238210 238350 C8605 C9874 R R $23,757 0.2554%0.4029% 2292 736 4 1 3028 5 30) Signage Allowance 238210 238350 C8605 C9874 R R $19,798 0.2129%0.3357% 2292 736 4 1 3028 5 31)Misc. Items/FE Ext N/A $62,429 0.6712%1.0587% 32) Plumbing 238220 423510 C9850 C0670 R S $293,007 3.1503%4.9689% 2547 1067 5 7 3614 12 33) Site Plumbing 238220 423510 C9850 C0670 R S $47,515 0.5109%0.8058% 2547 1067 15 7 3614 22 34) Fire Protection Systems 238210 561621 C9857 I7382 R S $44,479 0.4782%0.7543% 2292 1885 0 19 3054 19 35) Site Fire Line 238910 C1601 R $15,838 0.1703%0.2686%600 0 600 0 36) Fire Suppression System 238220 C9851 R $21,118 0.2270%0.3581%2547 5 2547 5 37) HVAC 238220 423510 C9850 C0670 R S $454,029 4.8815%7.6995% 2547 1067 5 7 3614 12 38) Electrical 238210 423610 C9859 C0686 R S $456,669 4.9099%7.7443% 2292 1885 3 7 2292 3 39) Site Electrical 238210 423610 C9859 C0686 R S $56,094 0.6031%0.9513% 2547 1067 15 7 3614 33 40) Electrical Allowance 238210 423610 C9859 C0686 R S $32,996 0.3548%0.5596% 2547 1067 15 7 3614 33 Total - New General Aviation Terminal - Phase II $5,896,840 100.0000% Total - 3-06-0050-xxx-2022 - New General Aviation Terminal $6,870,993 2023 3-06-0050-xxx - Airport Master Plan 1) Engineering 541330 C8772 S $1,912,500 20.5623%85.0000%8967 18 8967 18 2) Surveying 541470 C8760 S $225,000 2.4191%10.0000%45 9 45 9 3) Testing 541430 I8734 S $112,500 1.2095%5.0000%909 53 909 53 Total - 3-06-0050-xxx-2023 - Airport Master Plan D2850 $2,250,000 100.0000% 2024 3-06-0050-xxx - Design, Engineering & Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run-up area (6,600 sq/yd) 1) Engineering 541330 C8772 S $153,000 1.6450%85.0000%8967 18 8967 18 2) Surveying 541360 C8760 S $18,000 0.1935%10.0000%45 9 45 9 3) Testing 547370 I8734 S $9,000 0.0968%5.0000%909 53 909 53 Total - 3-06-0050-xxx-2024 - Design, Engineering & Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run-up area (6,600 sq/yd)$180,000 100.0000% GRAND TOTAL - 3-06-0050 FY2022/2023/2024 FAA Projects $9,300,993 100.0000% * Market - S = Statewide: R = Regional - Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma Counties. ** Cal Trans DBEs physically located in Arport Market only. U.S. Census data category firms are by physical location only; not their market area. DBEs located outside of Airport Market Area and Out of State DBEs in anticipated NAICS codes are included in all outreach. use a DBE Engineering firms specializing in Surveying and Testing Airports Division projects with the specialized equipment to meet the FAA specifications. To enable a recipient or prime locate DBEs providing a specific Work Code (U.S. Census -NAICS Sub- index), CalTrans lists DBEs under all NAICS codes for which they were certified and Work Codes for the specific sub-indexes they provide . This enables DBEs to be easily identified as potential providers of the work. All DBEs do not identify the Work Codes for which they are qualified and overlooked. The U.S. Census database includes all Sub -indexes/Work Codes within a NAICS code but the breakdown in unknown. The U.S. CENSUS database defin e the firms by the County in which their main office within the State is located. The CalTrans database identifies the Counties in which DBEs say they are willing to work. To ensure the databases are alike, the Airports Division has identified the County in which the DBE is located. The U.S. CENSUS database lists each firm under one NAICS code, that which generates most of its revenue. The CalTrans database lists each DBE under every NAICS code for which it has been certified some being certified und er ten or more NAICS codes. Thus, it is impossible to know which U.S. CENSUS database NAICS code includes the DBE in question. The NAICS Code Data Collection Worksheet addresses using NAICS Work Codes/Sub -index DBE data in Goal setting. Applying the ratio of the total Work Codes within a NAICS code to the matching U.S. CENSUS figure provides the split of total U.S. CENSUS firms should they all be the same Work Codes. NAICS Code Data Collection W orksheet follows. NAICS SW/R NAICS Description U.S. CalTrans Out State Federal Total Contra Costa Alameda Marin Napa Sacramento San Francisco San Joaquin San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma CalTrans Work Code CalTrans Total Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 4284 C8771 33 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 4284 C9802 58 Water & Sewer Line & Related Structures Construction 872 C2065 0 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 407 57 42 18 17 3 21 34 32 92 30 61 C5100 12 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 5 1 0 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 95 12 18 0 0 13 9 16 7 11 6 3 C5501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 95 12 18 0 0 13 9 16 7 11 6 3 C7500 8 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 Framing Contractors 214 21 26 4 4 31 12 17 13 46 12 28 C9822 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roofing Contractors 701 79 118 12 11 111 52 45 56 125 39 53 C9837 6 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Other Foundation, Structure & Building Exterior Contractors 137 15 22 5 0 23 9 10 11 23 5 14 C7036 4 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Electrical Contractors & Other Wiring Install Contractors 2292 248 352 97 43 308 175 129 202 431 89 218 C8605 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 Electrical Contractors & Other Wiring Install Contractors 2292 248 352 97 43 308 175 129 202 431 89 218 C9857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electrical Contractors & Other Wiring Install Contractors 2292 248 352 97 43 308 175 129 202 431 89 218 C9859 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Plumbing, Heating and Air- Conditioning Contractors 2547 2547 287 363 92 51 397 172 171 238 426 99 251 C9850 7 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 R Plumbing, Heating and Air- Conditioning Contractors 2547 287 363 92 51 397 172 171 238 426 99 251 C9851 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing, Heating and Air- Conditioning Contractors 2547 287 363 92 51 397 172 171 238 426 99 251 C9860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Building Equipment Contractors 157 25 18 3 0 29 13 7 26 22 8 6 C9865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drywall and Insulation Contractors 580 59 75 27 15 80 30 37 48 98 22 89 C9827 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Drywall and Insulation Contractors 580 59 75 27 15 80 30 37 48 98 22 89 C9868 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors 1429 163 187 85 33 205 122 57 139 241 53 144 C5900 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Flooring Contractors 594 86 79 22 16 105 41 31 60 92 18 44 C9840 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Finish Carpentry Contractors 736 69 114 34 10 130 38 52 70 120 24 75 C9822 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finish Carpentry Contractors 736 69 114 34 10 130 38 52 70 120 24 75 C9834 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finish Carpentry Contractors 736 69 114 34 10 130 38 52 70 120 24 75 C9874 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Other Building Finishing Contractors 239 23 49 10 0 51 5 12 19 45 6 19 C3600 8 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Site Preparation Contractors 600 81 86 5 25 85 23 53 40 72 20 110 C1601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Preparation Contractors 600 81 86 5 25 85 23 53 40 72 20 110 C1910 11 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 Site Preparation Contractors 0 600 81 86 5 25 85 23 53 40 72 20 110 C1920 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Site Preparation Contractors 600 81 86 5 25 85 23 53 40 72 20 110 C9980 8 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 236220 S 4284 26 7 237110 S 872 0 0 236220 S 4284 57 1 238120 R 95 0 0 238110 R 407 11 1 238130 R 214 0 0 238120 R 95 8 0 238190 R 137 4 0 238160 R 701 6 0 238210 R 2292 0 0 238210 R 2292 4 0 238220 R 5 2 238220 0 238210 R 2292 3 0 0 00422R R238220 2547 2547 5 0 0 238310 R 580 6 0 238290 238310 R 580 6 238330 R 594 2 0 041429R238320 238350 R 736 1 0 02736R238350 238390 R 239 7 1 01736R238350 011600R238910 238910 R 600 0 0 238910 R 600 4 08600R238910 The NAICS Code Data Collection Worksheet above lists the number of firms reflected in the U.S. Census and CalTrans DBE Directory databases for potential NAICS codes, associated NAICs sub - indexe s/Work Codes and work descriptions on Airports Division projects during FY 2022/2023/2024. Data is the source for the Data Collection Table and Base Figure Calculation and Adjustment Table. Calculation of the Base Figure The Base Figure is established by using the percentage derived for each line item as a part of the total cost of all projects and the percentage of DBEs relative to all firms to formulate the p ossi ble participation of DBEs in the federally funded projects for FY 2022/2023/2024. The Base Figure is calculated by dividing the result of the anticipated federal share cost of each item by the total federal share anticipated cost of each federally funded project and expense . This percentage will be multiplied by the percentage derived by dividing the number of DBEs for all NAICS codes of each line item’s market in the CalTrans Directory by the number of businesses in the U.S. Census database for the same market. The resulting total of these calculations is the Base Figure for all federally funded projects federal fiscal years 2022/2023/2024. All Other Specialty Trade Contractors 764 100 84 22 17 122 36 57 52 156 38 80 C8100 10 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 136 D2850 1 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 136 D2890 4 Gypsum Prodcut Manufacturing 22 D3270 0 Showcase, Partition, Shelving & Locker Manufacturing 118 D2540 1 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork & Wood Panel Merch Whlesr 673 C0657 3 Brick, Stone, Related Construc Mat'l Merch Wholesaler 330 C0651 8 Roofing, Siding & Insulation Mat"l Merch Wholesaler 246 F5030 1 Metal Service Centers & Other Metal Merch Whlesr 1067 C0652 9 Metal Service Centers & Other Metal Merch Whlesr 1067 C0655 7 Metal Service Centers & Other Metal Merch Whlesr 1067 C0670 7 S Electrical Contractors & Other Wiring Install Contractors 1885 25 5 1885 C0686 30 Direct Property & Casualty Insurance Carriers 942 H6330 3 Engineering Services 8967 C8771 21 Survey - Geophysical - Aerial 45 C8760 10 Testing Laboratories 909 I8734 63 Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths)19 1 762 I7382 20 Exterminating & Pest Control Services 361 59 42 8 4 76 9 28 33 57 15 30 I7342 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscaping Services 2520 340 296 153 81 357 85 136 246 457 95 274 C9867 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 * S/R = Regions -S = Statewide; R = Contra Costa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Adameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, an Napa Counties. ** CalTrans DBEs physically located in Airport Market Area only. U.S. Census data category firms are by physical location only not their market area. DBEs located outside of Airport Market Area and Out of State DBEs in anticipated NAICS codes are all included in all outreach. 238990 R 764 10 0 325510 S 136 2 2 01136S325510 01118S337215 0022S327420 08330S423320 423310 S 673 3 0 423510 S 1067 8 1 01246S423330 423510 S 1067 7 0 7 01067423510S 1 3188967S 423610 S524126 942 2 1 1053909S 541330 541360 S 45 9 561730 561710 R 1 042525R 541380 561621 S 762 0358 This detail is shown i n the following Base Figure Calculation and Adjustment Table FY2022 - Design New General Aviation Terminal Bldg; Construct New 6,500 sq/ft General Aviation Terminal Bldg; FY2023 - Airport Master Plan; FY2024 - Design, Engineering, Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run-up Area Percent to Project (D) Percent to Total Projects for Year (E) U.S. Census (F) CalTrans DBEs (G) Project Base Goal Column D x (Column G ÷ Column F) Overall Base Goal Column E x (Column G ÷ Column F) Project Goal Adjustments Overall Goal Adjustments 2022 3-06-0050-xxx - Design New General Aviation Terminal Bldg 1) Engineering 85.0000%2.8596%8967 18 0.171%0.006%0.068%0.002% 2) Surveying 10.0000%0.3364%45 9 2.000%0.067%2.000%0.067% 3) Testing 5.0000%0.1682%909 53 0.292%0.010%0.292%0.010% Total - Design New General Aviation Terminal Bldg 100.0000%2.462%2.360% 3-06-0050-xxx - New General Aviation Terminal Phase I 1) Pest Control 0.9978%0.0709%358 0 0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000% 2) Erecting Structural Metal 16.3673%1.1636%4379 57 0.213%0.015%0.085%0.006% 3) Miscellaneous Metals 3.3932%0.2412%4379 57 0.044%0.003%0.085%0.006% 4) Plumbing - Underground 11.9761%0.8514%3614 12 0.040%0.003%0.040%0.003% 5) Roofing 13.9721%0.9933%947 7 0.103%0.007%0.103%0.007% 6) Framing 9.3812%0.6670%1162 8 0.065%0.005%0.121%0.009% 7) Rebar 0.9980%0.0710%5446 73 0.013%0.001%0.013%0.001% 8) Demolition 3.3932%0.2412%4884 65 0.045%0.003%0.045%0.003% 9) Earthwork 3.7924%0.2696%4884 61 0.047%0.003%0.047%0.003% 10) Concrete-Site 18.3633%1.3055%5581 76 0.250%0.018%0.100%0.007% 12) Sheet Metal 2.7944%0.1987%5446 73 0.037%0.003%0.037%0.003% 13) Metal Stud Framing 2.7945%0.1987%5446 73 0.037%0.003%0.037%0.003% 14) Electrical 4.9900%0.3548%8461 85 0.050%0.004%0.050%0.004% 15) Rough Carpentry 4.7904%0.3406%5171 60 0.056%0.004%0.056%0.004% 16) Insulation 1.9960%0.1419%4744 58 0.024%0.002%0.024%0.002% Total - New General Aviation Terminal - Phase I 100.0000%0.846% BASIC STEP 1 GOAL CALCULATION (Data taken from Grant Data Collection Table beginning on Page 1) Columns copied from Grant Data Collection Table beginning on Page 1 Formulas Adjustments* New General Aviation Terminal- Phase II 1) Bonds/Ins/Mobilization 2.5404%1.6106%5226 28 0.014%0.009%0.005%0.003% 2) General Conditions/ Supervision 3.4469%2.1853%4284 26 0.021%0.013%0.008%0.005% 3) Demolition 0.7968%0.5052%600 8 0.011%0.007%0.011%0.007% 4) Site Excavation 0.6939%0.4399%600 11 0.013%0.008%0.010%0.006% 5) Building Excavation 0.5036%0.3193%600 4 0.003%0.002%0.003%0.002% 6) Site Concrete 5.5396%3.5121%737 19 0.143%0.091%0.143%0.091% 7) Landscaping 0.8729%0.5534%2525 4 0.001%0.001%0.001%0.001% 8) Synthetic Turf 0.5417%0.3434%764 10 0.007%0.004%0.007%0.004% 9) Building Concrete 4.5459%2.8821%737 19 0.117%0.074%0.117%0.074% 10) Structural Steel 6.5356%4.1436%1162 7 0.039%0.025%0.077%0.049% 11) Metal Decking 3.2678%2.0718%1162 7 0.020%0.012%0.020%0.012% 12) Misc/Ornamental Metals 0.4700%0.2980%1162 7 0.003%0.002%0.003%0.002% 13) Expansion Joint 0.4409%0.2796%1162 8 0.003%0.002%0.000%0.000% 14) Sheathing/Misc.Carpentry 1.2713%0.8060%1409 5 0.005%0.003%0.005%0.003% 15) Casework 2.7978%1.7738%1409 5 0.010%0.006%0.010%0.006% 16) B/U Roofing/Insulation 4.3780%2.7756%1031 14 0.059%0.038%0.059%0.038% 17) Building Insulation 2.3770%1.5070%826 7 0.020%0.013%0.020%0.013% 18) Metal/Aluminum Wall/Roof Panels 5.5060%3.4908%1204 11 0.050%0.032%0.050%0.032% 19) Building Sheet Metal 0.7453%0.4725%1204 11 0.007%0.004%0.007%0.004% 20) HM Door/Frames/Hardware 3.0664%1.9441%1204 11 0.028%0.018%0.028%0.018% 21) Aluminum Storefront System 5.9962%3.8016%1204 11 0.055%0.035%0.055%0.035% 22) Automatic Doors 0.8662%0.5492%1489 7 0.004%0.003%0.004%0.003% 23) Metal Stud Framing 7.5652%4.7964%1204 11 0.069%0.044%0.069%0.044% 24) Gypsum Board 5.3046%3.3631%602 6 0.053%0.034%0.053%0.034% 25) Cement Board 0.4074%0.2583%602 6 0.004%0.003%0.004%0.003% 26) Concrete Floor Prep and 2.3727%1.5043%760 4 0.012%0.008%0.012%0.008% 27) Painting 0.8102%0.5137%1565 6 0.003%0.002%0.003%0.002% 28) Toilet Partitions/Accessories 0.4320%0.2739%854 2 0.001%0.001%0.001%0.001% 29) Signage 0.4029%0.2554%3028 5 0.001%0.000%0.001%0.000% 30) Signage Allowance 0.3357%0.2129%3028 5 0.001%0.000%0.001%0.000% 31) Misc Items+A68/FE Ext 1.0587%0.6712%5014 11 0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000% 32) Plumbing 4.9689%3.1503%3614 12 0.016%0.010%0.016%0.010% 33) Site Plumbing 0.8058%0.5109%3614 22 0.005%0.003%0.005%0.003% 34) Fire Protection Systems 0.7543%0.4782%3054 19 0.005%0.003%0.005%0.003% 35) Site Fire Line 0.2686%0.1703%600 0 0.000%0.000%0.000%0.000% 36) Fire Suppression System 0.3581%0.2270%2547 5 0.001%0.000%0.001%0.000% 37) HVAC 7.6995%4.8815%3614 12 0.026%0.016%0.026%0.016% 38) Electrical 7.7443%4.9099%2292 3 0.010%0.006%0.010%0.006% 39) Site Electrical 0.9513%0.6031%2292 3 0.001%0.001%0.001%0.001% 40) Electrical Allowance 0.5596%0.3548%2292 3 0.001%0.000%0.001%0.000% Total - New General Aviation Terminal - Phase II 100.0000%0.852% Total - 3-06-0050-xxx-2022 - Design-New General Aviation Terminal Building; 3-06-0050-xxx and xxx-2022 - New General Aviation Terminal - Phase I and Phase II 3.274% 2023 3-06-0050-xxx - Airport Master Plan 1) Engineering 85.0000%20.5623%8967 18 0.171%0.041%0.068%0.017% 2) Surveying 10.0000%2.4191%45 9 2.000%0.484%2.000%0.067% 3) Testing 5.0000%1.2095%909 53 0.292%0.071%0.292%0.010% Total - 3-06-0050-xxx-2023 - Airport Master Plan 100.0000%2.360% Market Area vs. Local Availability The Airports Division has identified market areas within each project where DBE participation is possible and the number of DBE and non -DBE firms available for the various construction, product and professional service tasks required. The relevant detailed North American Indu stry Classification System (NAICS) Codes were used as determinants for inclusion in the baseline formula. The Airports Division market has ready, willing, and able DBEs. It also has firms qualified for DBE certification but feel it is not worth the work involved to become certified . DBEs tend to be in urban areas and concentrate on projects for local, large DOT projects. They are not searching for small Airports Division projects in their market area. CalTrans does not alert DBEs of Airports Division projects. The Airports Division is always refining its market area for NAICS Codes and detailed tasks covered by each. As each area becomes better defined, the Airports Division can better direct their outreach to DBEs and eligible non-DBEs. For FY 2022, 2023 and 2024 projects, the Airports Division has established its market as Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. The Data Collection Worksheet is a breakdown of the projects listing the NAICS Codes and identifying the markets by “R” for Regional and “S” for Statewide. 2024 3-06-0050-xxx - Design, Engineering & Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run-up area (6,600 sq/yd) 1) Engineering 85.0000%1.6450%8967 18 0.171%0.003%0.068%0.001% 2) Surveying 10.0000%0.1935%45 9 2.000%0.039%2.000%0.067% 3) Testing 5.0000%0.0968%909 53 0.292%0.006%0.292%0.010% Total - 3-06-0050-xxx-2024 - Design, Engineering & Environmental Analysis of Bid Package for Pavement Rehab & Overlay of Txy Golf & Rwy 01L Run-up area (6,600 sq/yd)100.0000%2.360% Grand Total of U.S. Census and CalTrans DBEs 166,942 1,380 GRAND TOTAL - 3-06-0050 FY2022/2023/2024 FAA Projects 100.0000%1.332% 0.852% *Adjustments (greyed cells) to 236, 237 NAICS Category Prime Contractor or Engineer for 236 or 237 NAICS Category Projects - 60% Participation can be affected by several things. While DBEs have declared they are willing to work in various California Counties, the Airports Division understands current commitments might make a DBE unable to bid on an Airports Division project. Other DBEs do not include Work Codes in their CalTrans profile making it difficult or potentially unlikely a prime will contact them. The economy effects the construction and professional services industries. Companies are lowering their margins and traveling longer distances so they can keep their employees. Experienced employees are one of a DBEs most valuable assets. A ready, willing, ab le, and experienced DBE must have the equipment and personnel available to bring to less populated sites. P roject size and complexity will affect the mix of bidders on an RFP. Underfunded DBE and small businesses will close. While statistics can tally the number of Small or Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) in various geographic markets, the F AA requires contractors to be qualified and experienced in specifics unique to Airports Division needs. This will result in a much wider market area for the planning and engineering phases and construction tasks requiring unique specifications and costly heavy equipment with trained operators . Federally assisted funding from the FAA does not allow local preferences to take precedence over the requirements in 49 CFR Part 26. The limited number of DBEs in the Contra Costa County metropolitan area and adjoining counties requires the Airports Division to work with minority, women, and small business associations to educate and encourage their members to pursu e DBE Certification. This causes four overlapping objectives:  Establishing and maintaining a Bidder’s List to best reflect the market area for NAICS Codes used in past Airports Division projects.  Further refining the Bidder’s List to reflect all Airports Division qualified, experienced, and responsible DBEs and small businesses.  Assisting the Purchasing Department to ensure dissemination of notices and RFQ summaries to a specific market area as required by the specs; and,  Encourage Primes to use DBEs and uncertified qualified, experienced, and responsible busine sses to apply for certification. Public Participation The Airports Division is committed to maximizing participation in their contracts by all business including DBE and small businesses. To accomplish this, the Airports Division :  Publishes notice announcing the availability of the Goals and Methodology document online.  Periodically reviews the CalTrans list of Certified DBEs for new Certified DBEs.  Reaches out to the community during pre -bid meetings and small business trade associations and programs explaining the DBE Program, its requirements, and opportunities at the Airports Division.  Encourages local contractors to use DBEs and have uncertified, qualified, experiences subs become certified.  Encourages comments for review and appropriate action or implementation. Disparity Studies The Airports Division is not aware of any current disparity studies within its market area. Process and Public Notice In accordance with §26.45(g)(1)(i), the Airports Division will consult with small and disadvantaged business groups, community organizations, minority/women’s groups and small businesses without limiting consultation to these persons or groups to obtain information concerning the availability of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged businesses, the effects of discrimination on opportunities for DBEs, and the effectiveness of the Airports Division’s efforts to establish a level playing field for the participation of DBEs. These consultations will be reviewed prior to any final goal adjustment. The Airports Division held their DBE Consultation and Outreach Teleconference was held on June 28, 2021, at 10:00am. Notices of the Teleconference were sent to all DBEs within the Airports Division’s Market. The Airports Di vision Administrative Services Assistant II , Airports Division DBE Consultant with one invited DBE firm representative remained on the Teleconference with no other respondents. Upon submission, the Airports Division will publish the proposed overall goal and its availability for public review. All future Goal and RFP notices will be available on the Airports Division website enabling physical and web addresses where comments may be sent. Other Evidence The Airports Division did not receive any evidence nor is it aware of any other factors or adverse considerations that would have a material e ffect on DBEs availability within its market or on DBEs ability to participate in the Airports Division FA A-assisted contracting program. The Airports Division will continue to explore and consider all available evidence that would materially affect the opportunities for DBEs to form, grow and compete in the Airports Division FAA-assisted contracting program. All historic data available reflect Airside construction projects and will not be able to provide relevant data for any adjustments in determination of goals for Terminal design and construction projects and a Master Plan. Of the differences between the U.S. CENSUS and CalTrans, two are most important for Airports Divisions. The Airports Division will have projects with Sub -Sector 237 and related Engineering prime contractor requirements. The adjustments will be m ade in this area. The Bidder’s List will become the best source of historic data. As it grows and is updated the Airports Division Market will be defined. It will identify all subcontractors. Non -DBE subcontractors will identify Work Codes in which t o identify DBEs likely to be qualified for Airports Division work. Adjusting the Base Figure The only adjustments will be based on SubSector 237 and related Engineers. As the areas where the prime can reasonably use subcontractors and either maintain or increase their margins, the adjustment will become better defined. U.S. CENSUS DATABASE CALTRANS DBE DATABASE Firms include all businesses regardless of revenue DBEs are only SBA Small Businesses Construction Sub-Sectors 236, 237 and related Engineers are usually general Contractors able to perform all NAICS sub-indexes Construction Sub-Sector DBEs as a Small Business may be large enough to be a subcontractor in a few sub-indexes Based on the considerations above, the Airports Division’s base figure of 0.85% will be adjusted to 1.00%. Details are on the Base Figure Calculation and Adjustment Table above. The entire 1.00% goal will utilize race -neutral requirements. All primes, bidders and bid participants will encouraged to become familiar with all DBEs and use them whenever possible in accordance with their qualifications and expertise. They will also be asked to have current minority and women -owned subcontractors to become certified. The results of these efforts will be analyzed and evaluated to confirm our market for goal determination and maximize participation by minorities, women -owned, small business, and primes in the Airports Division’s DBE Program. Utilization of Race -Neutral/Race -Conscious Methods Of the overall annual 1.00% goal for DBE participation, the Airports Division will utilize race -neutral methods. It is important that DBEs become aware of the contracts available at the Airports Division and be competitive in their bids. To accomplish this, the Airports Division will:  Maintain and refine the DBE database and Bidder’s List for various NAICS codes qua lified, experienced, responsible, and willing to do Airports Division work.  Encourage prime contractors to subcontract portions of the work they might otherwise perform themselves and take advantage of the lower overhead of small businesses.  Emphasize the need for primes to expand increase their outreach efforts.  Encourage primes to have their uncertified, qualified, and experienced subs and other small businesses to apply for DBE certification.  Direct DBEs to CalTrans, local SBDCs and Small Business Organi zations to learn the process of locating RFPS, preparing proposals and finding the right contacts; and,  Establish an outreach program to: * Work with SBDCs and Small Business Organizations to explain the benefits of DBE. certification and show them how to apply for certification. * Encourage prior small contractors to apply for DBE certification. * Encourage trade associations and business groups to establish joint programs to enable DBEs to prese nt their qualifications directly to people selecting the subs. * Work with local SBDCs and Small Business Organizations to enable small, potential. DBEs to become aware of opportunities at the Airports Division. The Airports Division will emphasize the need to locate qualified DBEs, encourage primes to use qualified DBEs and inspire uncertified, qualified, experienced, and responsible small businesses to become certified. As the market is defined for each requirement and more qualified, ex perienced, and responsible bidders, primes and subs, DBEs and non -DBEs are identified, the Airports Division will better enable all qualified, experienced bidder’s the opportunity to participate. ATTACHMENT 5 (2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 5) Section 26.45: DBE Project Goal Methodology Name of Recipient: Byron Airport, Contra Costa County Department of Public Works , Airports Division Goal Period: October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2024 DOT-assisted contract amount: FY-2021-24: $ 50,000 1,187,500 $1,237,500 Total dollar amount to be expended on DBE’s : $86,625 Method The following is a summary of the method we used to calculate this goal: To set the goal for DBE participation for the Contra Costa County Airports the guidelines provided by the CFR Part 26.45 were followed. Step 1. 26.45(c) In determining the relative availability of DBE enterprises ready, willing and able to do business within the County, the CalTrans directory was consulted. Contractors willing to work in Caltrans District 4. and the entire state was selected for the goal percentage calculations because the DBE firms were listed throughout the state. Our data sources revealed 1,121 ready, willing, and able DBE’s in our market area. Census Bureau data was collected from the CBP database. The work codes were reviewed and compared to the project. This determined a total number of establishments to be considered for contract. NAICS descriptions include: 238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installations, 238990 All other Specialty Trade Contractors 541330 Engineering Services, 541360 Surveying and Mapping (with Geophysical) Service. 541370 Surveying and Mapping (without Geophysical) Service 541490 Other Specialized Designed Services 541620 Environmental Consulting, According to the most recent Census Bureau data available, there are 16,108 businesses with these NAICS identifiers in our selected market. The Contra Costa County Airports is committed to promote and facilitate DBE participation in all FAA funded construction and heavy mai ntenance projects. The overall percentage goal was attained by dividing the number of ready, willing and able DBE businesses in our market by the total number of businesses engaged in the operations projected for the following report period with respect to the denominator from CBP NAICS codes. Number of DBE’s: 1,121 Total Businesses: 16,108 Percentage Goal: 6% Step 2. 26.45(d) Adjustments to Step 1 Base Figure After calculating a base figure of the relative availability of DBEs, evidence was examined to determine what adjustment (if any) was needed to the base figure in order to arrive at the overall goal. An examination of the anticipated contracts for each fiscal year, the availability of the DBE firms by trade classification and the volume of work performed by DBE firms over previous years. Past History Participation There is no relevant historical DBE data to reference to make an adjustment to the Step 1 base figure. The Airport is utilizing the Caltrans disparity study which found a majority of the minority/women – owned firms were non-certified. Furthermore, the study found encouraging firms to become DBE certified will continue to be a challenge. The disparity study lists numerous reasons for barriers to entry and expansion in the transportation construction and engineering industries The Airport decided, for the above reasons, not to make any step two adjustments to the base figure for the overall DBE goal. We will continue to encourage DBE certification and annually monitor the base figure for potential adjustment. Breakout of Estimated “Race and Gender Neutral (RN) and “Race and Gender Conscious” (RC) Participation . 26.51(b) (1-9) The recipient will meet the maximum feasible portion of its overall goal by using RN means of facilitating DBE participation. Examples: 1. Arranging solicitations, times for the presentation of bids, quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules in ways that facilitates DBE, and other small businesses, participation; 2. Providing technical assistance and other services; 3. Carrying out information and communications programs on contracting procedures and specific contract opportunities; 4. Ensuring distribution of DBE directory, through print and electronic means, to the widest feasible universe of potential prime contractors . The recipient estimates that in meeting its overall goal of 6%, it will obtain100% from RN participation. The Contra Costa County Airports will adjust the estimated breakout of RN and RC DBE participation as needed to reflect actual DBE participation (see Section 26.51(f)) and track and report RN and RC participation separately. For reporting purposes, RN DBE participation includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: DBE participation through a prime contract obtained through customary competitive procurement procedures; DBE participation through a subcontract on a prime contract that does not carry a DBE goal, DBE participation on a prime contract exceeding a contract goal and DBE participation through a subcontract from a prime contractor that did not consider a firm’s DBE status in making the award. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Consultation: Section 26.45(g)(1). In establishing the overall goal, the Contra Costa County Airports Division will provide for consultation and publication. This includes consultation with minority, women’s and general contractor groups, community organizations, and other officials or organizations which could be expected to have information concerning the availability of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged businesses, the effects of discrimination on opportunities for DBEs, and the Airport’s efforts to establish a level playing field for the participation of DBEs. The consultation will include a scheduled, dire ct, interactive exchange (e.g., a face - to-face meeting, video conference, teleconference) with as many interested stakeholders as possible focused on obtaining information relevant to the Contra Costa County Airports goal setting process, and it will occur before we are required to submit our goal methodology to the operating administration for review pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. We will document in our goal submission the consultation process that we engaged in. Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(4) of this section, we will not implement our proposed goal until we have complied with this requirement. Before establishing the overall goal, the Airports Division will consult with Chamber of Commerce, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, State California Contractors Association, State of California Department of Transportation, CalTrans Division, Airport Minority Business Council, without limiting consultation to these persons or groups, to obtain information concerning the availability of disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged businesses, the effects of discrimination on opportunities for DBEs, and Contra Costa County Public Works Department efforts to establish a level playing field for the participation of DBEs. Following the consultation, we will publish a notice on the Airport’s website (https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/5731/Contracting -with-the- Airports-RFPRFQs ) of the proposed overall goal, informing the public of the proposed goal the Airports Division and DOT will accept comments on the goals for 30 days from the date of the notice. Our overall goal submission to DOT will include a summary of information and comments received during this public participation process and our responses, if any. PUBLIC NOTICE The Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Airports Division hereby announces its fiscal years 2022-2024 Overall Goal of 1% for Buchanan Field and 6% for Byron Airport for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) airport construction Contracts. The proposed goals and rationale is available for inspection on the Airport D ivision’s website: (https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/5731/Contracting -with-the- Airports-RFPRFQs) Comments on the DBE goal will be accepted for 30 days from the date of this publication and can be sent to the following: Keith Freitas Director of Airports Public Works Department Airports Division Contra Costa County Airports 550Sally Ride Drive Concord, California 94520 keith.freitas@airport.cccounty.us And FAA Compliance Specialist: Shaun A. Bouy FAA Office of Civil Rights Staff AWP -9 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program FAA Office of Civil Rights DBE Program Phone: 267 702 3190 M shaun.a.bouy@faa.gov Contract Goals The Airports Division will use contract goals to meet any portion of the overall goal of the County does not project being able to meet using race -neutral means. Contract goals are established so that, over the period to which the overall goal applies, they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of our overall goal that is not projected to be met through the use of race-neutral means. We will establish contract goals only on those DOT-assisted contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. We need not establish a contract goal on e very such contract, and the size of contract goals will be adapted to the circumstances of each such contract (e.g., type and location of work, availability of DBEs to perform the particular type of work). We will express our contract goals as a percentag e of the Federal share of a DOT- assisted contract. ATTACHMENT 6 Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts - Forms 1 & 2 FORM 1: DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) UTILIZATION The undersigned bidder/offeror has satisfied the requirements of the bid specification in the following manner (please check the appropriate space): _____ The bidder/offeror is committed to a minimum of ____ % DBE utilization on this contract. _____ The bidder/offeror (if unable to meet the DBE goal of ____%) is committed to a minimum of ____% DBE utilization on this contract and should submit documentation demonstrating good faith efforts. Name of bidder/offeror’s firm: ______________________________________ State Registration No. ____________________ By ___________________________________ ______________________ (Signature) Title FORM 2: LETTER OF INTENT Name of bidder/offeror’s firm: _____________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________ City: _____________________________ State: _______ Zip: ___________________ Name of DBE firm: ______________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________ City: ________________________________State: _______ Zip : _________________ Telephone: ___________________ Description of work to be performed by DBE firm: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The bidder/offeror is commi tted to utilizing the above -named DBE firm for the work described above. The estimated dollar value of this work is $ ___________. Affirmation The above-named DBE firm affirms that it will perform the portion of the contract for the estimated dollar value as stated above and that the firm is DBE certified to perform the specific trades. By ______________________________ Date: _________________________ (Signature) ______________________________ (Title) If the bidder/offeror does not receive award of the prime contract, any and all representations in this Letter of Intent and Affirmation shall be null and void. Submit this page for each DBE subcontractor. DBE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS DOCUMENTATION FORM The Airports Division has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goal of ______% for this project. The information provided herein established the good faith effort that was made to achieve the goal. The three lowest bidders shall submit the following information to document adequate good faith efforts in accordance with CFR Part 26 Appendix A. The Bidders should submit the following information even if the “Subcontractor Participation Plan” form indicates that the bidder has met the DBE goal. This will assist in establishing the bidder’s eligibility for award of the contract if it is determined that the bidder failed to meet the goal for various reasons, e.g. a DBE firm was not certified at bid opening, or the bidder made a mathematical error. Attendance at Pre-Bid Meetings Meeting Dates: Solicitation through all means possible: List the names of publications and dates of advertising and /or written notices in which a request for DBE participation in this project was placed (please attach copies of advertisements, proof of publication): Name of Publication: Dates: Number of Attachments: List names and dates of written notices sent to certified DBEs soliciting bids for this project and the dates and methods used for following up initial solicitations to determine with certainty whether the DBEs were interested (please attach copies of solicitations, telephone records, fax confirmations, etc.): Name of DBE Firm Solicited Date Initial Solici ted Written Solicita tion (Y/N) Teleph one Solicita tion (Y/N) Follow up Method(s) Follo w up Date( s) Number of Attach ments The items of work which the bidder made available to the DBE firms including, where applicable, any breaking down of the contract work items (including those items normally performed by the bidder with its own forces) into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation. It is the bidder’s responsibility to demonstrate that sufficient work to facilitate DBE participation was made available to DBE firms. Items of Work Bidder Normally Performs Item (Y/N) Breakdown of Items Amount ($) Percentage of Contract If applicable, the names, addresses and phone numbers of rejected DBE firms, the reason for the bidder’s rejection of the DBE’s, the firms selected for that work (please attach copies of quotes from the firms involved), and the price difference for each DBE if the selected firm is not a DBE: Name of Rejected DBE Firm Address Phone Number Reason Rejected Number of Attachments Name of Non-DBE Firm Selected to Perform Work Address Phone Price Difference (If Applicable) Efforts made to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit or insurance, and providing any technical assistance or information related to the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract. Name of DBE Firm Assisted List Efforts Date Provided Efforts made to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials or related assistance or services (excluding supplies and equipment) the DBE subcontractor purchases or leases from the prime contractor or its affiliate: Name of DBE Firm Assisted List Efforts Date Provided The names of minority/women contractor’s groups, minority /women business assistance offices, and other organizations contacted to provide assistance in contacting, recruiting and placement of DBE firms (please attach copies of requests to agencies and any responses received, e.g., lists, internet page downloads, etc.); Name of Agency/Organization Method of contact Date of Contact Results Number of Attachments List any negotiations with DBEs and any additional data to support a demonstration of good faith efforts: Please make additional copies as needed and/or attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. ATTACHMENT 7 DBE Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms The Airports Division has available several remedies to enforce the DBE requirements contained in its contracts, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Breach of contract action, pursuant to the terms of the contract; 2. Breach of contract action, pursuant to California Public Contract Code 4100-4114 3. Breach of contract action, pursuant to California Contract Code 10115.10. In addition, the Federal government has available several enforcement mechanisms that it may apply to firms participating in the DBE problem, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Suspension or debarment proceedings pursuant to 49 CFR Part 26 2. Enforcement action pursuant to 49 CFR Part 31 3. Prosecution pursuant to 18 USC 1001. ATTACHMENT 8 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/civil - rights/dbe -certification-information https://www.transportation.gov/sit es/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/civi l-rights/disadvantaged -business- enterprise/305271/uniform - certification-application.pdf ATTACHMENT 9 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with Gordon Campbell and Mark Shea for a south-facing T-hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective June 15, 2021 in the monthly amount of $350.00, Pacheco area (District IV). FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will realize $4,200.00 annually. BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1970, Buchanan Airport Hangar Company entered into a 30-year lease with Contra Costa County for the construction of seventy-five (75) hangars and eighteen (18) aircraft shelters/shade hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. In 1977 Buchanan Airport Hangar Company amended their lease to allow for the construction of another 30-year lease with Contra Costa County for the construction of seventeen (17) additional hangars. Buchanan Airport Hangar Company was responsible for the maintenance and property management of the property during the lease period. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a hangar rental agreement with Buchanan Field Airport Hangar tenant BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On September 1, 2000, the ninety-three (93) T- and shade hangars at Buchanan Field reverted to the County ownership pursuant to the terms of the above lease. On November 14, 2006, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the form of the T-Hangar and Shade Hangar Rental Agreement for use with renting the County's T-hangars, shade hangars, medium hangars, and executive hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. On February 16, 2007, the additional seventeen (17) hangars at Buchanan Field reverted back to the County pursuant to the above referenced lease. This row included six (6) large hangars which were not covered by the approved T-Hangar and Shade Hangar Rental Agreement. On February 23, 2007, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the new Large Hangar Rental Agreement for use with the large East Ramp Hangars. On January 16, 2009, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the T-Hangar and Shade Hangar Rental Agreement and the Large Hangar Rental Agreement (combined "Hangar Rental Agreements") which removed the Aircraft Physical Damage Insurance requirement. The Hangar Rental Agreements are the current forms in use for rental of all the County hangars at Buchanan Field Airport. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will cause a loss of revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund. RECOMMENDATION(S): As the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a license agreement with Wild and Radish, LLC, to install and maintain rain gauge and other monitoring equipment at 680 Marin Road, El Sobrante, effective July 13, 2021, as recommended by the Chief Engineer. (Project No.: 7505-6F8155). FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The District monitors the collection of rain and stream gauge data, which also includes maintenance of rain and stream gauges throughout Contra Costa County. The rain gauge and other equipment will be installed at the end of 680 Marin Road in El Sobrante, commonly identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 426-182-017, which is an ideal location for the monitoring equipment. In consideration for the owner granting the license, the District will indemnify and defend the owner from any liabilities that arise from the use of the owner’s property. District staff recommend that the Board approve the execution of the license agreement to ensure the District can collect important rain and weather-related information. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Naila Thrower, 925. 957-2465 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Mark Boucher, Flood Control, Bob Gardner, Flood Control C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:License agreement with Wild and Raddish, LLC, for rain gauge monitoring and maintenance at the end of Marin Road, El Sobrante area. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this license agreement is not approved, the District will not have the necessary rights to install the rain gauge and to perform maintenance and equipment monitoring services. ATTACHMENTS Rain Gauge License Agreement RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Mead & Hunt, Inc. to extend the term from June 30, 2021 to September 30, 2021 with no increase to the payment limit. (District IV) FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact on the General Fund. Costs incurred under the contract are paid by the Airport Enterprise Fund and the payment limit on the contract has not increased. BACKGROUND: In March 2019, the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issued Order WQ 2019-0005-DWQ (Order), which requires certain airports, including Buchanan Field Airport, to (i) conduct a “one-time preliminary site investigation” regarding the storage and use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and (ii) obtain a preliminary understanding of PFAS concentrations in soil and/or groundwater resulting from the use of PFAS at the airport. PFAS is a family of more than 3,000 man-made and mostly unregulated chemicals that are resistant to degradation in the environment. PFAS are manufactured APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Extension with Mead & Hunt, Inc. for PFAS Work Plan Implementation and Final Report at Buchanan Field Airport BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) globally and have been used in the production of many industrial and household products such as dental floss, non-stick cookware and products, waterproof products, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams. The Order applies to Buchanan Field because Buchanan Field operates pursuant to 14 CFR Part 139. As a result of the Order, the County was required to submit an investigation work plan and final report to the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board). The County engaged Mead and Hunt to prepare the required work plan and final report through a contract dated August 1, 2019. The contract has already been amended once to extend its terms and increase the payment limit in order to permit Mead and Hunt to perform additional work that was required by the Regional Water Board following its review of the preliminary work plan. Mead and Hunt completed all the work initially required by the Regional Water Board prior to the deadline. The Regional Water Board formally accepted the required work plan on December 19, 2019. The Regional Water Board is now requesting a new work plan more focused on the lateral and vertical extent of PFAS found on the Airport during previous soil and groundwater sampling. Because the contract with Mead and Hunt was to expire on June 30, 2021, and more time is needed to complete the work required by this new request from the Regional Water Board, the contract was extended for an additional three months with no increase in the payment limit. The purpose of this board order is to obtain approval of the contract extension. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to complete the work being done by Mead and Hunt under this contract would expose the County to a potential daily fine (up to $5,000) and criminal penalties. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution 2021/03 approving the annexation of the Magee Preserve Development into the Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and Magee Preserve Development Plan of Control, and consider any written objections thereto as required under Public Resources code section 26581. FISCAL IMPACT: The GHAD is funded 100% through assessments levied on properties within the GHAD. BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1998, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 98/438 approving the formation of the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD and appointed itself to serve as the GHAD Board of Directors. The GHAD Board, subject to the confirmation of the County Board of Supervisors (as the formation body of the GHAD) has the authority to approve annexations to the GHAD. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Haley Ralston 909.373.5457 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors From:Patricia E. Curtin, GHAD Attorney and General Manager Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Proposed Annexation of the Magee Preserve Development into the Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Several properties have already been annexed into the GHAD. On April 11, 2000, the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors adopted Resolution Nos. 2000/166 and 2000/167 approving annexation of the Henry Ranch development (Subdivision 8118) in San Ramon into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. On July 29, 2014, the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors adopted Resolution 2014/03 approving annexation of the Elworthy Ranch development in Danville into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. On January 19, 2016, the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors adopted Resolution 2016/01 approving annexation of the Red Hawk (formerly Podva Property) development (Subdivision 9309) in the Town of Danville into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. The Magee Preserve development (Subdivision 9291) is located at the terminus of San Andreas Drive, south of Diablo Road and Blackhawk Road in the Town of Danville. Sixty-nine single family homes along with appurtenant improvements are planned for the development. Due to the potential for geologic hazards and related required ongoing maintenance, the Conditions of Approval for the Magee Preserve development require that it be included within a GHAD. To satisfy this requirement, the developer of the Magee Preserve development has elected to petition the GHAD Board to annex the Magee Preserve development into the existing Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. The territory to be annexed pursuant to the Petition for Annexation is currently owned by the developer. The boundaries of the territory to be annexed and the boundaries of the Magee Preserve development are the same. In connection with the proposed annexation, a proposed Plan of Control has been prepared. The Plan of Control is separate from the other Plans of Control prepared for existing developments within the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD and describes the work contemplated for the Magee Preserve development, including maintenance and monitoring activities, including slopes, retaining walls, subdrains, storm drain facilities, and concrete-lined drainage ditches. When adopted, the Magee Preserve Plan of Control would address geologic hazards within Subdivision 9291. Funding for the GHAD activity on the proposed annexed area to prevent, mitigate, abate and control geologic hazards will be based on an assessment, and such funds will be collected and used in connection with the Magee Preserve Plan of Control. The proposed assessment will be supported by a detailed Engineer’s Report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California, and will be considered at a subsequent date in accordance with Proposition 218. The proposed assessment does not impact or change the existing assessments for the current landowners in the GHAD. GHAD Law requires that a Petition for Annexation be placed on the GHAD Board agenda and thereafter, a public hearing be conducted to consider the Petition. Notice of the hearing is to be sent to property owners within the proposed annexation area. If at the hearing more than 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the properties to be annexed object, the annexation proceedings must be abandoned. If there are no such objections, the GHAD Board may approve the annexation. On June 22, 2021 the GHAD Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2021/02 to set July 13, 2021 to consider the proposed annexation and the proposed Plan of Control for the Magee Preserve Development, and hear any written objections thereto. Davidon, as the sole owner of real property within the GHAD annexation area, is the signatory of the Petition for Annexation. Davidon waived their entitled notice and public hearing provided under Public Resources Code Sections 26556, 26558(c), and 26561. Since there are no objections on the Petition of Annexation, the GHAD Manager recommends the GHAD Board adopt Resolution No. 2021/03 accepting the Petition and Plan of Control. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The owners of the Magee Preserve Development will have to form a new GHAD or seek annexation into another GHAD to satisfy Town of Danville condition of approval for the Magee Preserve Development. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Wiedemann Ranch Resolution No. 2021/03 Attachment 1 to Reso 2021/03_Petition for Annexation of Territory to the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed WR GHAD Res No. 2021/03 1 017579.0004 \6319628.1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WIEDEMANN RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT Adopted this Resolution on July 13, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2021/03 (WIEDEMANN RANCH GHAD) SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution 2021/03 approving the annexation of the Magee Preserve Development into the Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) and approving the Magee Preserve Plan of Control. WHEREAS, on September 1, 1998, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 98/438 approving the formation of the Wiedemann Ranch (GHAD) and appointed itself to serve as the GHAD Board of Directors. WHEREAS, the GHAD Board is now presented with and has reviewed the Petition for Annexation of Territory to the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD ("GHAD Petition"), which is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The property proposed to be annexed into the GHAD is described in the legal description and identified in the boundary map set forth in Exhibit A to Attachment 1. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the GHAD Board was presented with the proposed Magee Preserve Development Plan of Control (dated June 10, 2021) which describes potential geologic hazards within the territory to be annexed and addressed the prevention, mitigation, abatement and control of such hazards. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021 the GHAD Board adopted Resolution 2021/02 fixing a date of July 13, 2021 to consider the proposed annexation and Plan of Control. Davidon, as the sole owner of real property within the GHAD annexation area, has waived their entitled notice and public hearing provided under Public Resources Code Sections 26556, 26558(c), and 26561. WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the GHAD Board considered the proposed annexation and plan of control. Owner(s) of more than 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the property to be included in the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD did not object to the annexation; the sole owner, Davidon, supported the annexation as the signatory on the Petition. 2 017579.0004 \6319628.1 The Board of Directors of the GHAD HEREBY RESOLVES THAT: 1. This Resolution No. 2021/03 is made pursuant to the provisions of Division 17 of the Public Resources Code with particular references to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 26500), Article 3 (commencing with Section 26550) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 26561). 2. The GHAD Board has been presented with and reviewed the draft Magee Preserve development Plan of Control and has determined that the health, safety and welfare of the public requires annexation of the Magee Preserve into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. 3. At the hearing, owner(s) of more than 50 percent of the assessed valuation of the property to be included in the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD did not object to the annexation or to the proposed Magee Preserve Development Plan of Control. 4. The GHAD Board hereby approves the annexation of the Magee Preserve development into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD as described in the GHAD Petition, subject to the adoption of a resolution approving the annexation by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County as required under Public Resources code section 26581. 5. The GHAD Board hereby approves and adopts the Magee Preserve development Plan of Control. 6. These proceedings are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code§§ 21000 et seq.) in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(4). 7. The recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. Attachment 1 -Petition for Annexation \\ENGEO.COM\FILES\ACTIVE PROJECTS\8889\GHAD\MEETINGS\JUNE 22, 2021\MAGEE OVERALL LEGAL.DOCX Exhibit A – Legal Description Magee Preserve Real property situate in the Town of Danville, County of Costa, State of California, and being all of New Lots 1, 2, and 3 as described in the Grant Deed to Teardrop Partners, LP, a California Limited Partnership, filed for record on January 30, 2014, under document number 2014-015148, Contra Costa County Records; and Parcel A as shown upon the Parcel Map of Subdivision MS 152-77, filed on September 26th, 1980 in Book 89 of Parcel Maps at Page 45, Contra Costa County Records; and Lot 2 as described in the Lot Line Adjustment 98-19 filed for record on October 22, 1998, under document number 98-0262058, Contra Costa County Records; and Lot 3 as described in the Grant Deed to Magee Investment Company, A California Corporation, filed for record on October 22, 1998, under document number 98-0262061, Contra Costa County Records; and Parcel 5 as described in the Grant Deed to Teardrop Partners, LP, filed for record on September 24, 1998, under document number 98-0231704, Contra Costa County Records. Containing 410.37 acres, more or less. See Exhibit B – Plat to Accompany Legal Description which is attached hereto and made a part hereof End of description. Copyright © 2021 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. WIEDEMANN RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD) PLAN OF CONTROL FOR MAGEE PRESERVE, SUBDIVISION 9291 DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO Steve Abbs Davidon Homes 1600 South Main Street Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated June 10, 2021 PROJECT NO. 8889.200.000 Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control i of ii June 10, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE .................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 2 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2 2.1 MAGEE PRESERVE PROJECT ......................................................................................... 2 2.2 GHAD-MAINTAINED IMPROVEMENTS AND OPEN SPACE ........................................... 2 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................................................. 3 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................................ 3 3.1.1 Artificial Fill ............................................................................................................. 3 3.1.2 Surficial Soils and Colluvium .................................................................................. 3 3.1.3 Alluvium .................................................................................................................. 3 3.1.4 Landslide Deposits ................................................................................................. 3 3.2 BEDROCK .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.2.1 Tassajara-Green Valley Formation Bedrock .......................................................... 4 3.3 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................... 4 3.4 SEISMIC SOURCES........................................................................................................... 4 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................ 5 4.1 SLOPE INSTABILITY.......................................................................................................... 5 4.1.1 Fault Rupture and Creep ....................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Seismically Induced Ground Shaking .................................................................... 7 4.1.3 Expansive Near-Surface Soil ................................................................................. 7 4.1.4 Existing Uncompacted Fill ...................................................................................... 7 4.1.5 Shallow Groundwater ............................................................................................. 7 4.1.6 Creek Bank Stability ............................................................................................... 7 5.0 CRITERIA FOR GHAD RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................... 7 5.1 ISOLATED OR REMOTE FEATURE REQUIRING MITIGATION ...................................... 8 5.2 SINGLE PROPERTY .......................................................................................................... 8 5.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF PROPERTY OWNER .............................................................................................................................. 8 5.4 PROPERTY NOT ACCEPTED ........................................................................................... 8 5.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARD WHICH REQUIRES EXPENDITURE IN AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF THE THREATENED OR DAMAGED IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................. 8 5.6 GHAD FUNDING OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR DESTROYED STRUCTURES OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 9 5.7 NO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY PROPERTY OWNERS ........... 9 5.8 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES ....................................................... 9 6.0 ACCEPTANCE ..................................................................................................... 9 6.1 ACTIVATION OF ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 9 6.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 10 6.3 OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE ............................................................................. 10 6.4 PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES ........... 10 Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ii of ii June 10, 2021 7.0 GHAD MONITORING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES ... 11 7.1 GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATION OF LANDSLIDE AND EROSION HAZARDS ....................................................................................................... 12 8.0 PRIORITY OF GHAD EXPENDITURES ............................................................ 12 9.0 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING SCHEDULE ........................................... 13 10.0 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 14 11.0 RIGHT-OF-ACCESS .......................................................................................... 20 12.0 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................... 21 SELECTED REFERENCES APPENDIX A: FIGURES APPENDIX B: EXHIBIT A – Legal Description Geologic Hazard Abatement District, Magee Preserve - Subdivision 9291 EXHIBIT B – Plat to Accompany Legal Description APPENDIX C: Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry and Restrictive Covenants Regarding Wiedemann Geologic Hazard Abatement District APPENDIX D: Conditions of Approval (COA) Numbers B.7, E.4, E.12, and I.5 in Town of Danville Resolution 46-2019 APPENDIX E: Sample Transfer Application Form APPENDIX F: Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan for Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 1 June 10, 2021 1.0 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE In Town of Danville Resolution No. 46-2019 under Condition of Approval I.5 for the Magee Preserve development, Subdivision 9291 (“Project”), the Town of Danville has required that the Project establish a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) or be annexed into an existing GHAD prior to recordation of the final map, or issuance of a grading permit, or issuance of a building permit for the Project. To satisfy this requirement, the current owner of the Project has petitioned the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors for annexation into the existing Wiedemann Ranch GHAD (“GHAD”). State law allows GHADs to be formed to undertake emergency actions necessary or incidental to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of a geologic hazard (Public Resources Code § 26500, “GHAD Law”). GHAD Law gives local agencies the authority to form districts that can speedily address “an actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth.” (Public Resources Code § 26507). Consistent with GHAD Law, on September 1, 1998, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 98/438 approving and forming the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD and thereby putting into place a mechanism to respond to emergencies in preventing and/or responding to geologic hazards. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors serve as the Board of Directors of the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. GHAD "improvements" (as defined in GHAD Law) and all GHAD activities undertaken in furtherance of, or in connection therewith, are deemed to be specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency within Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(4) (see Pub. Res. Code Sections 26601 and 26505). Consistent therewith, all GHAD Activities (as defined in Section 7 below) are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act . In addition, as a creature of state law necessary to prevent geologic hazard emergencies, GHADs are not subject to local permitting requirements. Since the GHAD was formed in 1998 to include the Norris Canyon Estates development, formerly known as the Wiedemann Ranch property, in Contra Costa County, three separate developments have been annexed into the GHAD. Henry Ranch in San Ramon was annexed in April 2000, Elworthy Ranch in Danville was annexed in July 2014, and Red Hawk in Danville was annexed in March 2016. All four of these developments have their own Plans of Control. Section 26509 of the Public Resources Code requires a Plan of Control, prepared by a State-Certified Engineering Geologist, as a prerequisite to formation of a GHAD or annexation into an existing GHAD. Pursuant to Section 26509, this Plan of Control was prepared by an Engineering Geologist certified pursuant to Section 7822 of the Business and Professions Code and describes, in detail, the geologic hazards, their location, and the area affected by them. It also provides a plan for the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control thereof. This Plan of Control covers the Project only. As used in this Plan of Control, and as provided in Section 26507, “geologic hazard” means an actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, fault movement, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 2 June 10, 2021 1.1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The land within the proposed GHAD annexation boundary (“GHAD Annexation Area”) is shown on the GHAD Boundary Plat (Appendix B, Exhibit B). The GHAD Annexation Area includes all areas within the Project. The legal description of the GHAD Annexation Area is included in Appendix B, Exhibit A. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ("APN") within the GHAD Annexation Area as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, Subdivision 9291 and approved by the Town of Danville ("VTM") include 202-050-071-2, 202-050-073-8, 202-050-074-6, 202-050-078-7, 202-050-079-5, 202-050-080-3, 202-100-017-5, 202-100-019-1, 202-100-038-1, 202-100-040-7, and 215-040-002-2. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 MAGEE PRESERVE PROJECT The Project includes 69 single-family residential units. Additional improvements and parcels include public streets, open-space parcels, proposed GHAD-owned parcels, landscape parcels, bioretention areas, detention/water quality basins, public trail and bike path, and storm drain system. The GHAD Annexation Area is approximately 410 acres with proposed improvements totaling approximately 29 acres and 381 acres dedicated to open space. Site access to the Project will be via Blackhawk Road along the northeastern portion of the Project. As described in this Plan of Control, the GHAD has responsibilities throughout the entire GHAD Annexation Area and has additional responsibilities within the GHAD-owned Parcels as described in Section 2.2. 2.2 GHAD-MAINTAINED IMPROVEMENTS AND OPEN SPACE Conditions of Approval ("COA") Numbers B.7, E.4, E.12, and I.5 in Town of Danville Resolution 46-2019 approving the Project address parcel ownership and GHAD maintenance responsibilities. Although the COAs for the Project approved by the Town of Danville are requirements for the developer and not the GHAD, we have included the COAs in Exhibit D to provide background for the GHAD responsibilities listed in Section 10.0 Ownership and Management. Title for selected parcels within the GHAD Annexation Area (collectively, the “GHAD-owned Parcels”) (identified on Figure 1) are proposed to be conveyed to the GHAD as provided in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 below. As the open space within and immediately adjacent to the Project is an amenity that benefits all of the property owners within the Project, the GHAD funding of the maintenance of the open space will be shared by all current and future owners of residential parcels within the GHAD Annexation Area. The proposed GHAD-owned parcels are approximately 379.1 acres in area. Within the GHAD-owned Parcels, the GHAD will assume responsibilities that relate to its position as a GHAD and duties as a responsible landowner. The GHAD is charged with responsibilities that relate to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards, which include the maintenance of drainage facilities and associated improvements. This will include the monitoring and maintenance of drainage facilities that, if subject to improper care, could result in decreased slope stability, a primary concern of the GHAD. The drainage facilities include concrete-lined drainage ditches and open-space storm drain facilities. The GHAD will mitigate or abate landslide or erosion hazards that could directly affect improved, developed, and accepted properties (as defined in Section 6) within the GHAD Annexation Area Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 3 June 10, 2021 in accordance with Section 5. The GHAD will also perform maintenance of water control and conveyance facilities and assume other peripherally related open-space responsibilities, such as vegetation management for fire suppression and selected other maintenance activities associated with the GHAD-owned parcels. Additionally, the GHAD shall have the right to approve any construction, maintenance, or repair in the GHAD-owned Parcels that the GHAD determines has the potential to impact geologic stability. 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING As described in the geotechnical exploration report completed by ENGEO dated November 26, 2013 (Reference 1) and updated geotechnical exploration report dated July 31, 2017 (Reference 2), the Project is located within the Mount Diablo fold-and-thrust belt on the south flank of the Mount Diablo uplift. Bedrock formations in the area south of Mount Diablo and north of the Livermore Valley have been folded and cut by thrust faults that typically dip to the north into the uplift, according to geologic mapping by Dibblee (1995), Crane (1995) and Graymer et al. (1996). 3.1.1 Artificial Fill Relatively minor deposits of fill associated with site improvements are present in the project area. It is unlikely that these fill deposits (Qal) were rigorously compacted. The most extensive existing fill deposit is located at the equestrian area, near Lots 13-14 and 16-17. 3.1.2 Surficial Soils and Colluvium As described in the referenced geotechnical exploration report, the surface soil typically manteling the site is dark grayish brown clay with plasticity indexes ranging from 30 to 58 indicating that the soil is highly to critically expansive. The surface soil accumulating as thicker materials in swales and hollows by downslope is identified on the geologic map as colluvium (Qc). 3.1.3 Alluvium The floors of the larger valleys on the Project are underlain by alluvium that consists of stiff to very stiff interbedded silty to sandy clay with relatively thin lenses of silty sand and sandy silt. The alluvium is slightly incised along the eastern portion of the creek channel to deeply incised along the central and western portions of the Project. 3.1.4 Landslide Deposits Figure 2 depicts landslides identified by geologic mapping and subsurface exploration at the Magee Preserve property. Landslides within the proposed development are categorized as relatively shallow surficial earthflows and deeper-seated earthflows and rotational slumps. Earthflows within the proposed development typically occur within deposits of colluvium that have accumulated in swale areas. Deep-seated rotational slumps commonly incorporate portions of bedrock within the site. Exploration borings completed by ENGEO in 2010 and 2013 indicate landslide slip planes at depths ranging from 25 to 80 feet below the ground surface within landslide debris consisting of bedrock or chaotic soil-bedrock mixtures. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 4 June 10, 2021 3.2 BEDROCK The bedrock underlying the proposed development at Magee Preserve is the Tassajara-Green Valley Formation. 3.2.1 Tassajara-Green Valley Formation Bedrock The Tassajara-Green Valley Formation, also referred to as the Orinda Formation, bedrock is composed of Pliocene non-marine sedimentary rock. The bedrock typically consists of weakly indurated sandstone, siltstone, and claystone with thin beds of pebble conglomerate. The bedrock layers generally strike west-northwest and dip steeply south with occasional overturned beds dipping steeply north. The dipping beds on the site form the northern limb of a syncline, with the syncline axis located along the southern portion of the site. Through the northeastern portion of the site, there is Sherburne Tuff, a volcanic ash deposit within the Green Valley Formation. 3.3 GROUNDWATER As identified in the referenced geotechnical exploration report, groundwater was encountered as shallow as 5 feet below the existing ground surface adjacent to the Green Valley Creek to greater than 40 feet in upstream valleys. Zones of water seepage were encountered at depths ranging from 17 to 58 feet below ground surface within landslides. Groundwater was not encountered in test pits excavated in upland slope areas. It should be expected that groundwater elevations will vary seasonally. 3.4 SEISMIC SOURCES The geotechnical exploration report referenced geologic studies that suggest there is an active “blind” thrust fault within the core of the Mount Diablo uplift, extending below the east Danville-Diablo area (a “blind” thrust fault does not extend to the surface). Movement on the blind thrust fault system has been responsible for the uplift of Mount Diablo and the folding of the rocks in the site vicinity. Surface effects of the deeply buried blind thrust fault system have typically been distributed flexural movements associated with the growth of fold. They did not identify any active surface faults in the site vicinity. Figure 3 of the referenced geotechnical exploration report shows the approximate location of active and potentially active faults and significant historic earthquakes mapped within the San Francisco Bay Region. The Mount Diablo blind thrust fault is thought to exist at depths of approximately 5 to 7 kilometers below the proposed development. There is no known historic seismicity that can be directly associated with the postulated blind thrust fault, but there is an estimated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.25 to 6.75. The location of a possible earthquake on a buried blind thrust cannot easily be predicted but could presumably occur relatively close to the proposed project. The active Calaveras and Greenville faults are located approximately 2.7 miles southwest and 6.3 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The Uniform California Earthquake Forecast (UCERF, 2007) evaluated the 30-year probability of a M6.7 or greater earthquake occurring on the known active fault systems in the Bay Area, including the Mount Diablo thrust fault. UCERF calculated an overall probability of 63 percent for the Bay Area as a whole, and a probability of 1 for the Mount Diablo thrust fault. Seismic ground motions used to project design are based on UCERF; the design ground motions are controlled by the nearby Mount Diablo thrust fault. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 5 June 10, 2021 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The following geologic hazards were identified for the Project in the referenced geotechnical exploration and are expected to remain to some extent after site grading has been completed.  Slope instability  Fault rupture and creep  Seismically induced ground shaking  Expansive near-surface soils  Existing uncompacted fill  Shallow groundwater  Creek bank stability 4.1 SLOPE INSTABILITY Earth stability is the GHAD’s primary geotechnical concern within the GHAD Annexation Area. This is not unique to this Project, but is of importance for hillside projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. This section describes several types of slope instability that are within the GHAD’s responsibility, subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 7. In the referenced geotechnical exploration, several landslides are mapped throughout the proposed development area. As recommended in the geotechnical exploration report, landslide material will be removed and replaced with subdrained engineered fill as part of the developer- funded corrective grading work. Table 4.1-1 below describes the planned mitigation for the landslide removal areas noted on the corrective grading plan (Figure 2). Landslides that do not threaten or have the potential to affect site improvements will be avoided. TABLE 4.1-1: Removal Areas REMOVAL AREA TYPE R-1 Partial landslide removal and buttressing with subdrained engineered fill R-2 Partial landslide removal and buttressing with subdrained engineered fill in addition to construction of catchment areas between landslides and proposed improvements R-3 Landslide removal and replacement with engineered fill. R-4 Landslide removal and replacement with engineered fill R-5 Cut slope Buttress R-6 Partial landslide removal and buttressing with subdrained engineered fill R-7 Removal and Replacement of Undocumented Fill R-8 Removal and Replacement of Undocumented Fill R-9 Landslide removal and buttressing with subdrained engineered fill Landslides are a common geologic phenomenon and are part of the process of mass wasting. Weathered or fractured bedrock and soil are transported downslope over geologic time as a result of gravitational and hydrostatic forces. A landslide is a deposit of soil and/or bedrock moving downward from its original position under the influence of gravity. Landslides include a variety of morphologies and are further defined by type of materials, wetness, and mode of movement. They can consist of mass movements of earth materials that are primarily intact and occur along discrete shear surfaces. These surfaces (shear or slip planes) can be rotational (conchoidal or Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 6 June 10, 2021 concave), such as for earth slumps, or planar, as for translational earth slide or bedrock block slides. Most landslides are truly “complex landslides,” sliding, falling, and flowing with more than one type of movement and/or material. Falls are an abrupt free-fall of earth materials off cliffs, steep cuts, or steep stream banks, while earthflows are mass movements of earth materials in which the type of movement is one of flowing. When composed of soil finer than gravel size, the flowing material is commonly called a mudflow. A debris flow/debris avalanche is composed of natural earth materials, artificial fill, and/or organic debris, which flow downslope with speed. Most of the material is transported away from the area of initial ground failure. Slope failures are also often triggered by increased pore water pressure due to the infiltration of rainwater. The resulting decrease of shear resistance (internal resistance to deformation by shearing) can cause the slope to move. The level of groundwater table varies with the amount of rainfall for the area. If rainfall is higher than average during the winter season, the water table will become higher than average on a hillslope and groundwater pressures may become sufficiently high to initiate slope movement. Landslides located within open space areas are natural landforms that do not require mitigation except where they affect man-made improvements. Debris catchment areas are the principal mitigation method used within the GHAD for areas between potentially unstable slopes and improvements. The debris catchment structures include debris benches, debris berms, and runout areas. GHAD maintenance of the areas will be critical to maintain adequate protection for the Site Improvements (as defined in Section 11.0). Maintenance and monitoring of these areas is described in Section 9. Potential mitigation and repair measures for GHAD areas near development are discussed in Section 7. Soil creep is the slow, often imperceptible, deformation of slope materials under low stress levels, which normally affects the shallow portion of the slopes, but can be deep seated where a weak zone of soil or bedrock exists. It results from gravitational and seepage forces, and may be indicative of conditions favorable for landsliding. Creep can be caused by wetting and drying of clays, by solution and crystallization of salts, by the growth of roots, by burrowing animals, and by downslope movement of saturated ground. Colluvium refers to the mantle of loose soil and weathered bedrock debris that progresses down hillsides by creep. The GHAD shall also be concerned with erosion and sedimentation in open space or affecting developed lots or improvements. Erosion is defined as the process by which earth materials are loosened and removed by running water on the ground surface or in the subsurface. Sedimentation is the depositing or settling of soil or rock particles from a state of suspension in a liquid. Hilly terrain open space, either in a natural condition or particularly on excavated slopes, can be subject to erosion. Landslide deposits, which are sometimes in a loosened condition, are particularly prone to erosion. Earth-flow-, debris-flow- and mud-flow-type landslides typically have an area of deposition or accumulation (sedimentation area) at their base. Graded slopes in the GHAD, particularly those in excess of 20 feet in vertical height or those not sufficiently vegetated, can be subject to erosion and, therefore, a source of transported sediment. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 7 June 10, 2021 4.1.1 Fault Rupture and Creep The Project is not located in a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone, and there are no known active faults passing through the property. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered subject to seismic surface rupture hazards. 4.1.2 Seismically Induced Ground Shaking An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generate within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking within the proposed development area, similar to that which has occurred in the past. 4.1.3 Expansive Near-Surface Soil Fine-grained near-surface soil at the site could exhibit a moderate to high potential for expansion. The potentially expansive soil could impact the planned site development. Expansive soil shrinks and swells as a result of moisture changes. This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The potential for expansive soil has been identified in the geotechnical report for the property. Shrink and swell of expansive soil on slopes are a portion of the mechanism of creep movement, which can result in shallow slope instability. Within the open space area, slope instability caused by expansive soil creep will be addressed by the GHAD subject to the exceptions in Section 5.0. 4.1.4 Existing Uncompacted Fill As identified in the referenced geotechnical exploration report, uncompacted fill exists from past exploratory excavations and from past on-site grading activities. As recommended, undocumented fill material within the development area will be removed during corrective grading. 4.1.5 Shallow Groundwater As identified in the referenced geotechnical exploration report, groundwater was encountered as shallow as 5 feet below the existing ground surface adjacent to the Green Valley Creek to greater than 40 feet in upstream valleys. 4.1.6 Creek Bank Stability Throughout the middle sections of Green Valley Creek, there are deeply incised creek banks and small creek bank failures. These areas are noted on Figure 4 of the mapped landslides for the Project area (Reference 1). Localized undermining of banks and shallow bank sloughing is likely to continue, especially during high flows. 5.0 CRITERIA FOR GHAD RESPONSIBILITY In forming the GHAD and establishing the assessment levels and budgets for GHAD Activities (as defined in Section 7 below) within the GHAD Annexation Area, it is important to clearly define the limits of the GHAD’s responsibilities. The GHAD will accept responsibility for property as described in Section 6 of this Plan of Control; however, the intent of this Plan of Control is not to extend the GHAD’s responsibilities to every potential situation of instability; rather, the following are exclusions from GHAD responsibility. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 8 June 10, 2021 5.1 ISOLATED OR REMOTE FEATURE REQUIRING MITIGATION The GHAD shall not have responsibility to monitor, abate, mitigate, or control slope instability that does not involve significant damage to or pose a significant threat to damage Site Improvements. As used herein, the term “Site Improvements” means buildings, public and private roads, sidewalks, utilities, improved trails, swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, cabanas, geologic stabilization features, or similar improvements. 5.2 SINGLE PROPERTY The GHAD will not prevent, mitigate, abate, or control geologic hazards which are limited in area to a single parcel of property unless the geologic hazard has significantly damaged or poses a significant threat of damage to Site Improvements located on other property within the GHAD Annexation Area. This exclusion does not apply to geologic hazards existing on (i) open space property owned by any homeowner’s associations or (ii) the GHAD-owned Parcels. 5.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF PROPERTY OWNER The GHAD may, in the GHAD Manager’s sole discretion, decline to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control geologic hazards which occurred or resulted from any negligence of the homeowner and/or the homeowner’s contractors, agents or employees in developing, investigating, grading, constructing, maintaining, or performing or not performing any post-development work on the subject property as long as the geologic hazard is limited to a single lot, pursuant to the single-property exclusion noted above. If the GHAD bears expense as the result of negligence described in this section, the GHAD may pursue reimbursement from the negligent parties. 5.4 PROPERTY NOT ACCEPTED The GHAD shall not have responsibility to repair damage, which is situated on a parcel of real property, which the GHAD has not accepted in accordance with Section 6 below. The GHAD, however, may monitor, abate, mitigate or control geologic or hydrogeologic hazards on a parcel of real property which the GHAD has not accepted in accordance with Section 6 and is not excluded from GHAD responsibility by Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, provided, however, that GHAD responsibility on such parcel shall be limited to the extent necessary to address significant damage to or a significant threat of damage to Site Improvements which are within a parcel of real property which the GHAD has accepted in accordance with Section 6. Should the GHAD be required to respond to a geologic hazard outside the GHAD Annexation Area, the GHAD may take such actions as may be appropriate to recover costs incurred as a result of preventing, mitigating, abating, or controlling such geologic hazard from the responsible party, if any. 5.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARD WHICH REQUIRES EXPENDITURE IN AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF THE THREATENED OR DAMAGED IMPROVEMENT The GHAD may elect not to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control a geologic hazard where, in the GHAD Manager's sole discretion, the anticipated expenditure required to be funded by the GHAD to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control the geologic hazard will exceed the value of the structure(s) and Site Improvement(s) threatened with damage or loss. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 9 June 10, 2021 5.6 GHAD FUNDING OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR DESTROYED STRUCTURES OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS In the event a residence or any other structure, Site Improvement, or landscaping is damaged or destroyed due to, or as a result of, a geologic hazard, the GHAD may fund or reimburse the property owner for the expenses necessary to repair or replace the damaged or destroyed structure, Site Improvement or landscaping. Unless authorized by the Board of Directors, the dollar amount of the GHAD funding or reimbursement may not exceed ten percent (10%) of the costs incurred by the GHAD in preventing, mitigating, abating, or controlling the geologic hazard responsible for the damage1. In the event the geologic hazard damaged or destroyed a structure, Site Improvement, or landscaping which violated any provisions of the City Building Code or City Ordinance Code at the time of its installation or improvement, the GHAD may decline to provide any funding or reimbursement to the property owner for repair or replacement of the damaged structure, Site Improvement, or landscaping. 5.7 NO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY PROPERTY OWNERS The GHAD will not be obligated to reimburse a property owner for expenses incurred for the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of a geologic hazard absent a written agreement between the property owner and the GHAD to that effect, which agreement has been executed prior to the property owner incurring said expenses and following an exploration conducted by the GHAD. 5.8 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES A homeowner directly affected by a decision of the GHAD Manager may request reconsideration of that decision through the following procedures ("GHAD Manager Decision"). The homeowner shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of a written GHAD Manager Decision, file a written request with the GHAD Manager, specifying the grounds for reconsideration, and the relief sought, including the owner’s special interest and injury. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the homeowner’s written request for reconsideration, the GHAD Manager shall reconsider its decision and shall provide a copy of its written decision to the homeowner ("GHAD Manager Reconsideration Decision"). The homeowner may appeal the GHAD Manager Reconsideration Decision to the Board of Directors. This appeal must be filed with the GHAD Manager within fifteen (15) days from the date of the GHAD Manager Reconsideration Decision. The appeal must include the specific grounds for the appeal and the homeowner’s requested relief on a form provided by the GHAD Manager. The Board will make the final decision on the appeal. The GHAD Manager will proceed based on the decision of the Board of Directors. 6.0 ACCEPTANCE 6.1 ACTIVATION OF ASSESSMENT An annual assessment should be authorized on all residential parcels within the Project as shown on Appendix B, Exhibit B, which will generate funding for the GHAD Activities. The assessment 1 For example, if a landslide causes $10,000 in structural damage to each one of four neighboring homes for a total of $40,000 in structural damage and it costs the GHAD $100,000 to design and install a new retaining wall to abate the slide, the GHAD may only reimburse each property owner $2,500 of their $10,000 in structural damage. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 10 June 10, 2021 shall be levied by the GHAD on each individual parcel beginning the first fiscal year following issuance of a building permit for that parcel. 6.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES Davidon Homes (also known as "Developer") currently owns all the parcels shown on the VTM and shall have the responsibility to perform all the GHAD Activities on the property within the GHAD Annexation Area. Such responsibility shall be eligible for transfer to the GHAD at 9:00 a.m. on the day exactly three years after the first residential building permit is issued by the Town of Danville (“Transfer Eligibility Date”). The period between the levying of the GHAD assessment and the GHAD accepting maintenance responsibility of the GHAD Activities as defined in Section 7 below will allow time for the GHAD to accumulate reserve funds without incurring significant expenses. 6.3 OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE Ownership of the GHAD-owned Parcels (shown on Appendix B, Exhibit B) is proposed to be conveyed by the Developer to the GHAD at the end of the transfer process described in Section 6.4, which shall be the date the GHAD becomes responsible for oversight of the actual physical maintenance of the GHAD-owned Parcels as provided in this Section. The Developer shall record a grant deed transferring fee title to the GHAD for the GHAD Parcels . The grant deed(s) must first be reviewed and approved by the GHAD Manager and GHAD Attorney. 6.4 PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES After the Transfer Eligibility Date for one or more of the GHAD Annexation Area parcels, the process for transferring responsibility for performing GHAD Activities on such Parcel(s) shall be as follows. 1. Up to one year in advance of the Transfer Eligibility Date or in any subsequent year, at its discretion, the Developer may apply to the GHAD to transfer the responsibility for performing GHAD Activities (as such term is defined in Section 7.0 below) for such Parcel(s) to the GHAD (“Transfer Application”). A sample Transfer Application form is included in Appendix E. 2. Within 30 days of receiving such Transfer Application, the GHAD Manager shall verify that all the facilities for which the GHAD will have maintenance responsibility have been approved, constructed, and maintained according to the Town of Danville approved plans and specifications for the individual improvements, and that such improvements are operational and in good working order. 3. Within 15 days of such inspection, the GHAD will send the Developer a list ("Punch list") of all of the items that need to be constructed, repaired, or otherwise modified in order to comply with the Town-approved plans and specifications. 4. The Developer shall notify the GHAD Manager when it has completed the items identified on the Punch list. Within 30 days of receipt of such notice, the GHAD Manager shall verify that all Punch list items have been completed. GHAD staff will then bring a resolution before the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors for their consideration approving GHAD responsibility for performing all future GHAD Activities on the parcel(s). Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 11 June 10, 2021 5. The GHAD Manager shall confirm that the reserve requirement defined in the Engineer’s Report approved by the GHAD Board on this Project has been met. The Engineer’s Report is the document that establishes the individual property owners’ GHAD assessment limit based on the projected expenses (budget) of the GHAD. 6. Prior to the GHAD accepting any responsibility for GHAD Activities, the Developer shall record a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, Right of Entry and Disclosures Regarding Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“Declaration”) as approved by the GHAD Manager and GHAD Attorney and as discussed in Section 12. 7. Any monies owed to the GHAD by the Developer have been paid. As part of the transfer, the Developer of the GHAD Annexation Area to be transferred will provide the GHAD, for its use, copies of the applicable geotechnical exploration reports, as-built grading plans, as-built corrective grading plans, as-built improvement plans, as-built subdrain plans or other pertinent documents as requested by the GHAD. The GHAD is not responsible for maintaining the GHAD Parcels or any GHAD Activities as defined in Section 7.0 until it accepts such responsibilities pursuant to this section. The Developer will remain responsible for all GHAD Activities until the GHAD accepts responsibility pursuant to this section. 7.0 GHAD MONITORING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES Several entities shall have ownership and maintenance duties of common space within the Project. The GHAD will assume monitoring and maintenance responsibilities for the following site facilities, improvements, and activities (“GHAD Activities”).  General maintenance of the surface drainage improvements within the GHAD Annexation Area. The GHAD is responsible for general monitoring, maintenance, and repair of the concrete-lined drainage ditches, storm drain inlets and outlets in open space, subdrain outlets, and risers.  Monitoring and maintenance of detention basin/water quality basins within the GHAD Annexation Area.  Monitoring and maintenance of measurement devices, such as piezometers, inclinometers, and tiltmeters, if any.  Maintenance of gates, fencing, and signage within the GHAD-owned Parcels.  Slopes and creek banks for erosion, landslide, and related slope instability.  Vegetation control for fire suppression on GHAD-owned Parcels.  General maintenance including litter and graffiti removal on GHAD-owned Parcels. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 12 June 10, 2021 7.1 GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATION OF LANDSLIDE AND EROSION HAZARDS The techniques that may be employed by the GHAD to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control geologic hazards include, but are not limited to, the following.  Removal of the unstable earth mass.  Stabilization (either partial or total) of the landslide by removal and replacement with compacted, drained fill.  Construction of structures to retain or divert landslide material or sediment.  Construction of erosion control devices such as gabions, riprap, geotextiles, or lined ditches.  Placement of drained engineered buttress fill.  Placement of subsurface drainage devices (e.g. underdrains or horizontal drilled drains).  Slope correction (e.g. gradient change, biotechnical stabilization, slope trimming or contouring).  Construction of additional surface ditches and/or detention basins, silt fences, sediment traps, or backfill or erosion channels. Potential landslide and erosion hazards can often best be mitigated by controlling soil saturation and water runoff and by maintaining the surface and subsurface drainage system. 8.0 PRIORITY OF GHAD EXPENDITURES The GHAD is responsible for responding to emergencies and completing scheduled repairs. The GHAD’s ability to respond, and the extent of the responsiveness, depends on the amount of the available funds and the parameters set forth in the GHAD Board approved operating budget. The GHAD is financed through a real property assessment and this assessment cannot be increased without a favorable vote of the residents within the GHAD boundaries. When available funds are not sufficient to undertake all emergency and/or the identified remedial and preventive stabilization measures, the expenditures are to be prioritized as follows in descending order of priority. (A) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards that have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage to residences, critical underground utilities, or paved streets. (B) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards which have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage to ancillary structures, including but not limited to water quality facilities, pools, cabanas or restroom buildings. (C) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards which have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage to open space amenities. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 13 June 10, 2021 (D) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards which have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage limited to loss of landscaping or other similar non-essential amenities. (E) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards existing entirely on open-space property and which have neither significantly damaged nor pose a significant threat of damage to any Site Improvements. In performing its duties as described above, the GHAD may seek funding or reimbursements from public and private entities or agencies including, but not limited to, FEMA, City and County agencies, insurance companies, etc. 9.0 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING SCHEDULE Geologic features and GHAD-maintained improvements defined in Section 7.0 shall be inspected by GHAD Manager or GHAD-assigned consultants as presented below. The site inspections shall be undertaken at appropriate intervals as determined by the GHAD Manager using supporting documents prepared for the Project and the Site Improvements. The GHAD budget should provide for three or more inspections in years of heavy rainfall. Generally, the inspections should take place in October, prior to the first significant rainfall; mid-winter as necessary during heavy rainfall years; and in early April at the end of the rainy season. The frequency of the inspections should increase, depending upon the intensity and recurrence of rainfall. The Developer shall provide to the GHAD copies of geologic or geotechnical exploration reports related to site development and the GHAD shall retain these reports in the records of the GHAD. In addition, copies of any earthwork-related testing and observation reports that will be finalized at the completion of grading, when as-built drawings are available, shall be provided to the GHAD by the Developer and maintained as part of the GHAD records. Following are guidelines for a monitoring plan. The actual timing, scope, frequency and other details regarding such maintenance, inspection, and similar activities shall be at the discretion of the GHAD Manager.  A State-licensed Professional Engineer and/or Professional Geologist should carry out a geologic reconnaissance of the slopes for indications of erosion or slope failures. Open space slope area monitoring would include observation of debris benches. The removal of accumulated debris from the bench, including rockfall material, should be undertaken in a manner that maintains the capacity of the bench to protect Site Improvements.  A State-licensed Professional Engineer and/or Professional Geologist should carry out an inspection of lined surface ditches. Repairs and maintenance, as needed, should be undertaken including removal of excess silt or sediment in ditches and patching or replacement of cracked or broken ditches, prior to the beginning of the next rainy season.  Subsurface drain outlets and horizontal drilled drain outlets, if any, should be checked. Water flowing from these outlets should be measured and recorded during each inspection.  Piezometers to measure groundwater levels, or instruments such as inclinometers or tiltmeters measuring potential slope instability should be monitored as recommended, if installed. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 14 June 10, 2021  Settlement monitoring devices, if any, should be measured periodically and tracked. In the event of anomalous readings or excessive settlement, the monitoring frequency should be increased.  The water-quality pond and bioretention improvements shall be monitored and maintained in accordance with the Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan for Magee Preserve (Exhibit F).  Inlets, outfalls, or trash racks, if used, must be kept free of debris and spillways maintained. Additionally, water detention facilities and water quality facilities should be inspected and maintained. It is anticipated that initially, at least once every two (2) years, cleanup of vegetation and removal of silt would be in order. Attention should be given to plantings or other obstructions which may interfere with access by power equipment.  Developer constructed retaining walls should be inspected for evidence of distress, such as tilting and/or structural failure. Repairs and maintenance would be undertaken only in the event that the structural integrity of the wall has been compromised or if the wall distress poses a threat to the integrity of adjacent structures.  An annual inspection shall be made by a State-licensed Professional Engineer and/or Certified Engineering Geologist to assess the effectiveness of the preventive maintenance program and to make recommendations as to which landslide or erosion measures should be undertaken in the next fiscal year. Any appropriate site-specific study of landslide or erosion conditions shall be determined at that time. Consultants, if necessary, will be retained to undertake the needed studies. An annual inspection report to the GHAD shall be prepared by the Professional Engineer and/or Certified Engineering Geologist. 10.0 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Ownership, funding sources and maintenance responsibilities shall be as shown on the following Table 10.0. Parcel designations are derived from the final subdivision map (Reference 5). Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 15 June 10, 2021 TABLE 10.0: Magee Preserve Long-Term Ownership and Management Matrix FACILITY/FUNCTION PARCEL OWNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE ENTITY FUNDING ACREAGE/ COMMENTS 1. Developed Area, Streets, and Parking Lot a. Single Family Detached Residential Parcels (69 units) Private Private Private 28.4 Acres (Includes Public Streets) b. Parking Lot Homeowners’ Association (HOA) HOA HOA 0.12 Acres c. Development Entrance Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) HOA HOA 3.16 Acres (Development Entrance) (Trail and Detention Basin acreage included in Item 1a.) HOA Landscape Easement over parcels in item 1c.) d. Public Trails, and Associated Improvements HOA HOA HOA Includes connector trails to EBRPD trails crossing non deed restricted GHAD-owned parcels e. Public Roads i. ROW Pavements, Street Lighting, and Traffic Signage Town of Danville Town of Danville Town of Danville ii. ROW Street Trees, Street Planters, Irrigation, Decorative Signage, and Ornamental Plantings Town of Danville HOA HOA iii. Public Sidewalk Town of Danville Town of Danville Town of Danville Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 16 June 10, 2021 FACILITY/FUNCTION PARCEL OWNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE ENTITY FUNDING ACREAGE/ COMMENTS f. Storm Drain System Town of Danville/ CCCFCD Town of Danville/Contra Costa Flood Control District (CCCFCD) Town of Danville/ CCCFCD g. Bioretention Areas A and F i. Ornamental Landscape Maintenance and Replacement including irrigation1 GHAD HOA HOA ii. Functional Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement including replacement of plants integral to function GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment h. Bioretention Areas B1, B2, B3, C, D, and E (Planters) i. Ornamental Landscape Maintenance and Replacement including, but not limited to irrigation and litter removal1 HOA HOA HOA ii. Functional Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement including replacement of plants integral to function HOA GHAD GHAD Assessment Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 17 June 10, 2021 FACILITY/FUNCTION PARCEL OWNERSHIP FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ENTITY FUNDING ACREAGE/ COMMENTS 2. Open Space Parcels a. Parcels “A” and “B” (with Conservation Easement (“CE”), including Creek) 98.7 Acres i. Gates, Fencing, and Signage GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Excludes gates and fences included in grazing lease agreement ii. General Maintenance including Graffiti and Litter Removal GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment iii. Vegetation Management for Fire Suppression GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment iv. Conservation Easement Activities GHAD Natural Lands Manager Endowment v. Grazing Activities1 GHAD Magee Investment Company, Teardrop Partners, L.P., and Jerome Magee, Jr. or assignee (“Tenant”) Tenant Grazed in conjunction with other open space parcels b. Corrective Grading Parcels, Unnamed 29.1 Acres i. Gates, Fencing, and Signage GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Excludes gates and fences included in grazing lease agreement ii. General Maintenance including Graffiti and Litter Removal GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment iii. Vegetation Management for Fire Suppression GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 18 June 10, 2021 FACILITY/FUNCTION PARCEL OWNERSHIP FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ENTITY FUNDING ACREAGE/ COMMENTS iv. Trail GHAD East Bay Regional Park District ("EBRPD") EBRPD v. Grazing Activities1 GHAD Tenant Tenant Grazed in conjunction with other open space parcels c. Parcel C and Unnamed Parcel with Deed Restriction 251.3 Acres i. Gates, Fencing, and Signage GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Excludes gates and fences included in grazing lease agreement ii. General Maintenance including Graffiti and Litter Removal GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment iii. Vegetation Management for Fire Suppression GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment iv. Trail GHAD Town of Danville Town of Danville 6.2 Acre Easement v. Grazing Activities1 GHAD Tenant Tenant Grazed in conjunction with other open space parcels 3. Plan of Control - Geologic Hazard Abatement Responsibilities Post Transfer Period Landslides, Slope Stability, and Erosion Control GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Storm Drain System GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Surface Drainage Improvements GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 19 June 10, 2021 FACILITY/FUNCTION PARCEL OWNERSHIP FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ENTITY FUNDING ACREAGE/ COMMENTS Subdrains and Subdrain Outfalls GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Geotechnical Monitoring Instruments GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment Retaining Walls GHAD GHAD GHAD Assessment 1 No Plan of Control responsibilities are associated with the listed improvement or act ivity. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 20 June 10, 2021 11.0 RIGHT-OF-ACCESS The GHAD Board of Directors, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, agents, and representatives shall have the right to enter upon all lands within the GHAD Annexation Area as shown on Appendix B for the purpose of performing the GHAD Activities defined in this Plan of Control. Such GHAD Activities include, but are not limited to the inspection, maintenance and monitoring of those improvements listed in Section 7.0. Should the GHAD need to access private residential lots to fulfill its duties under the Plan of Control, the GHAD shall provide the affected landowner and/or resident with 72 hours advanced notice unless, in the reasonable judgment of the GHAD Manager , an emergency situation exists which makes immediate access necessary to protect the public health and safety, in which case no advanced notice is required, but the GHAD Manager shall inform the landowner and/or resident as soon as reasonably possible. The foregoing right-of-entry provision shall be recorded in the chain of title for all Project residential parcels and common area lots, and it shall be included in all Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and homebuyer disclosure statements prepared for parcels within the GHAD Annexation Area. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control Page | 21 June 10, 2021 12.0 GLOSSARY Development Area – General area of residences and associated improvements shown on Figure 1. Engineer’s Report – The document that establishes the individual property owners’ GHAD assessment limit based on the projected expenses (budget) of the GHAD. Geologic Hazard – An actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, fault movement, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth as defined in GHAD Law, Public Resource Code Section 26507). Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Manager – An entity with a licensed Geotechnical Engineer who will oversee the operations of the GHAD, including preparation of GHAD budgets. The GHAD Manager is appointed by and reports to the GHAD Board of Directors. GHAD Annexation Area – The parcels included within the limits of the plat and legal description which is coterminous with the boundaries of Subdivision 9291. GHAD Activities – Improvements and responsibilities listed in Section 7.0 of this Plan of Control. GHAD-owned Parcels – Assessor’s parcels totaling 379.1 acres shown on Figure 1. Site Improvements – Buildings, public and private roads, sidewalks, utilities, improved trails, gazebos, cabanas, geologic stabilization features, or similar improvements. Transfer Application – A document completed by the developer and submitted to the GHAD Manager to initiate the GHAD transfer process. Transfer Eligibility Date – A date specified in the Plan of Control where the developer is responsible for all GHAD Plan of Control defined activities to allow for the accumulation of reserves prior to acceptance of GHAD-maintained responsibilities. Davidon Homes Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291 8889.200.000 Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Plan of Control June 10, 2021 SELECTED REFERENCES 1. ENGEO, Geotechnical Exploration, Magee Ranch Project, Danville, CA, November 26, 2013, Project No. 8889.000.000. 2. ENGEO, Geotechnical Exploration Update, Magee Ranch, Danville, CA, July 21, 2017 Revised July 31, 2017, Project No. 8889.200.000. 3. ENGEO, Corrective Grading Plan, Magee Ranch, Danville, California, July 21, 2017, Project No. 8889.200.000. 4. Ruggeri, Jensen, Azar, Vesting Tentative Map, Subdivision 9291 - Magee Preserve, Town of Danville, Contra Costa County, California, January 22, 2019, Job No. 091015. 5. Danville, Town of, Resolution 46-2019, Certifying a Final Revised Environmental Impact Report, Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and Approving Major Subdivision Request, Final Development Plan Request and Tree Removal Request (Magee Preserve - Davidon Homes), July 2, 2019. 6. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Formal Consultation on the Magee Preserve Project in the Town of Danville, Contra Costa County, California (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) File Number: 2011-00044S), Reference No 08ESMF00- 2020-F-2063; March 22, 2021. 7. Live Oak Associates, Inc., Conservation Management Plan (Draft), Magee Preserve Conservation Easement Areas, Town of Danville, California, Project Number: 2098-03; February 23, 2021. 8. John Muir Land Trust, Magee, Property Analysis Record Summaries One and Two, January 28, 2015. 9. Ruggeri Jensen Azar, Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan for Magee Preserve, Subdivision 9291, Project No. 091015IP; March 2021. APPENDIX A FIGURE 1: Ownership Exhibit FIGURE 2: Corrective Grading Plan OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT MAGEE PRESERVE DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 8889.200.000 AS SHOWN 1 EXPLANATION 0 FEET 300 PARCEL A PARCEL B PARCEL C GHAD PARCEL WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENT GHAD PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD) PARCEL (29.1 ACRES) EBRPD TRAIL-EBRPD MAINTAINED PUBLIC PATH-HOA MAINTAINED PUBLIC SIDEWALK-TOWN MAINTAINED FUTURE TOWN BIKE PATH-TOWN MAINTAINED PARKING LOT- HOA MAINTAINED (0.12 ACRES) EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT (EBRPD) PARCEL C (122.4 ACRES) GHAD PARCEL WITH HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION (HOA) LANDSCAPE EASEMENT (5.8 ACRES) TOWN OF DANVILLE EASEMENT (6.2 ACRES) PRIVATE LOTS (PRIVATELY MAINTAINTED) &PUBLIC STREETS (TOWN MAINTAINED) (TOTAL AREA 28.4 ACRES) GHAD BOUNDARYEBRPD PARCEL WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENT PARCEL B (90.7 ACRES) GHAD PARCEL WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER EBRPD (136.9 ACRES) GHAD PARCEL GHAD PARCEL WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENT 5+6'$170&#4; 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-3 25'WIDE,5'DEEP K-2 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-1 25'WIDE, K-4 25'WIDE, K-5 10'DEEP 5'DEEP 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-6 K-18 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-7 15'WIDE,10'DEEP K-17 15'WIDE,5'DEEP 25'WIDE,5'DEEP K-8 15'WIDE,5'DEEP K-16 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-9 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-12 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-11 25'WIDE,5'DEEPK-10 25'WIDE,5'DEEP K-13 5+6'$170&#4; 57$&4#+0176(#..%100'%661615&/#0*1.'ž 176(#..61%4''- '. Ä 57$&4#+0176(#..%100'%6615&/#**1.''.ž 57$&4#+0176(#..%100'%6615&/#0*1.''.ž 57$&4#+0176(#..176(#..61%4''-'. 57$&4#+0176(#..176(#..61%4''-'. -''2#5#.6'40#6+8' 2-B12 >15.5 2-B2 >51.5 2-B7 11.5 2-B6 >23 2-B1 >31 16.5 2-B9 >30.5 2-B10 >31.5 2-B3 2.5 2-B4 11.5 2-B13 >31.5 2-B11 >15.5 2-MR1 >81.5 2-MR2 68 2-MR3 >36.5 2-TP1 >8 2-TP4 3 3 2-TP2 >14 2-TP5 >15 2-TP6 >16 2-TP7 3 2-TP8 >17 2-TP10 >17 2-TP9 5 2-TP13 14 2-TP11 15 2-TP14 >18 2-TP12 14 2-TP15 3 2-TP16 6 2-TP17 17.5 2-TP28 7 2-TP19 13 2-TP20 11 2-TP21 4 2-TP22 >18.5 2-TP23 7 2-TP24 >16 2-TP25 2-TP27 5.5 2-TP18 3 2-DC3 46 2-DC2 25 2-DC1 2-DC4 2CPT-4 >100 2CPT-3 59 2CP T-2 >50 2-CPT1 30?2-B5 42 2-DC5 2-DC6 2-TP26  ž  ž  ž  ž  ž  ž  ž  ž  ž ž ž  25'WIDE,10'DEEP 25'WIDE,10'DEEP 5+6'$170&#4; K-3 K-2 K-1 K-4 K-5 K-6 K-18 K-7 K-17 K-8 K-16 K-9 K-12 K-11 K-10 K-13 5+6'$170&#4; CORRECTIVE GRADING PLAN MAGEE RANCH DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 8889.200.000 AS SHOWN 1 SITE LAYOUT PLAN FILL (UNDOCUMENTED) COLLUVIUM ALLUVIUM OLDER ALLUVIUM TASSAJARA GROUP BEDROCK GEOLOGIC CONTACT EARTHFLOW -SURFICIAL LANDSLIDE DEEP -SEATED LANDSLIDE AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECENT CREEK INCISION GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION LOCATION STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING-INCLINED STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING-SHEAR PLANE STUDY AREA A STUDY AREA B STUDY AREA A STUDY AREA B NO SCALE SITE BOUNDARY 11 11' SITE BOUNDARY 2-B13 >31.5 2-DC6 2-MR3 >36.5 AUGER BORING (ENGEO,2013) AUGER BORING (ENGEO,2008) CORED BORING (ENGEO,2013) MUD-ROTARY BORING (ENGEO,2013) DOWNHOLE BORING (ENGEO,2008) TEST PIT (ENGEO,2013) 2-TP9 5 2CPT-4 >100 TEST PIT (ENGEO,2008) CONE PENETRATION TEST (ENGEO,2013) PROPOSED KEYWAY,SHOWING WIDTH AND DEPTH PROPOSED SUBDRAIN PROPOSED SWALE CLEANOUT PROPOSED SWALE CLEANOUT WITH SUBDRAIN 15'WIDE,5'DEEP C T K-18 PROPOSED REMOVAL AREA ELEVATION OF REMOVAL IN FEET CUT LOT TRANSITION LOT 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-15 25'WIDE,10'DEEP K-14 EXPLANATION 1"=150' 0 0 FEET METERS 150 75 APPENDIX B EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Geologic Hazard Abatement District, Magee Preserve - Subdivision 9291 EXHIBIT B Plat to Accompany Legal Description \\ENGEO.COM\FILES\ACTIVE PROJECTS\8889\GHAD\MEETINGS\JUNE 22, 2021\MAGEE OVERALL LEGAL.DOCX Exhibit A – Legal Description Magee Preserve Real property situate in the Town of Danville, County of Costa, State of California, and being all of New Lots 1, 2, and 3 as described in the Grant Deed to Teardrop Partners, LP, a California Limited Partnership, filed for record on January 30, 2014, under document number 2014-015148, Contra Costa County Records; and Parcel A as shown upon the Parcel Map of Subdivision MS 152-77, filed on September 26th, 1980 in Book 89 of Parcel Maps at Page 45, Contra Costa County Records; and Lot 2 as described in the Lot Line Adjustment 98-19 filed for record on October 22, 1998, under document number 98-0262058, Contra Costa County Records; and Lot 3 as described in the Grant Deed to Magee Investment Company, A California Corporation, filed for record on October 22, 1998, under document number 98-0262061, Contra Costa County Records; and Parcel 5 as described in the Grant Deed to Teardrop Partners, LP, filed for record on September 24, 1998, under document number 98-0231704, Contra Costa County Records. Containing 410.37 acres, more or less. See Exhibit B – Plat to Accompany Legal Description which is attached hereto and made a part hereof End of description. APPENDIX C DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURES, RIGHT OF ENTRY AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REGARDING WIEDEMANN GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District Attn: DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURES, RIGHT OF ENTRY AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REGARDING WIEDEMANN RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT This Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry, and Restrictive Covenants Regarding Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (the “Declaration”) is made this _____ day of _____________, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), by, Davidon Homes, a California limited liability company (“Declarant”). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of that certain real property located in the Town of Danville, County of Contra Costa, State of California, more particularly described as Subdivision 9291, filed on _____________, 20____ in Book of Parcel Maps, at pages ______, all in the Official Records of Contra Costa County, California (the “Property”). B. The Town of Danville approved a 69-lot residential subdivision on the Property. A condition of approval for Subdivision 9291 was that the Property be included within a GHAD, and to fulfil this condition, the property has been annexed into the Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“Wiedemann Ranch GHAD”). C. Under the authority of California Public Resources Code section 26500, et seq., the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on September 1, 1998, adopted Resolution No. 98/438 forming and establishing the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD to prevent, mitigate, abate or control potential geologic hazards within the boundaries of the GHAD. On ________________ , 2021, the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD adopted Resolution No. 20-____, approving annexation of the Property into the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant, as the owner of the Property, for itself, its successors and assigns does hereby declare as follows: 1. Notification and Disclosure of Wiedemann Ranch GHAD: The Declarant hereby gives notice and discloses that the Property is a part of the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. The Board of Directors of the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD are the members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Pursuant to the Plan of Control for Annexation of the Property to Wiedemann Ranch GHAD as it may be amended from time to time (the “Plan of Control”), the Declarant and the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD are afforded certain responsibilities and rights relating to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, and control of potential geologic hazards on the Property. The powers of the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD include the power to assess lot owners within the Property for the purposes set out in the Plan of Control. An assessment was authorized by the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD to be imposed on the Property pursuant to adopted Resolution 20-____. 2. Right of Entry: The Declarant by executing and recording this Declaration hereby contractually affords Wiedemann Ranch GHAD, its officials, employees, contractors and agents an irrevocable right of entry with continuing and perpetual access to and across the Property for the purposes and responsibilities set out in the Plan of Control (“Access Rights”). Should the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD need to access private residential lots to fulfill its duties under the Plan of Control, the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD shall provide the affected landowner and/or resident with 72 hours advanced notice unless, in the reasonable judgment of the GHAD Manager, an emergency situation exists which makes immediate access necessary to protect the public health and safety, in which case no advanced notice is required, but the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD shall inform the landowner and/or resident as soon as reasonably possible. The Declarant hereby gives notice that the GHAD will acquire Access Rights immediately upon the execution of this Declaration. The GHAD, in its sole discretion, may elect not to exercise Access Rights until it accepts its maintenance responsibilities consistent with the Plan of Control. 3. GHAD Easement: For those properties within the GHAD Annexation Area that are not GHAD- owned Parcels, the Declarant hereby grants the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD a perpetual easement for the purposes and responsibilities set out in the Plan of Control and for maintaining certain site improvements as depicted in Exhibit B, and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, (the “GHAD Easement”). Such activities include, but are not limited to: (a) the inspection, maintenance, monitoring, and replacement of site improvements including, drainage ditches, storm drains, outfalls, and pipelines; (b) the monitoring, maintenance, and repair of slopes, including repaired or partially repaired landslides; and (c) the management of erosion and geologic hazards within the open space areas shown in the Plan of Control. The GHAD Easement shall become effective upon acceptance by the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD of its responsibilities and rights, the process by which is articulated in the Plan of Control. The Wiedemann Ranch GHAD has no maintenance responsibilities whatsoever to the Declarant or Property until and unless the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD accepts such responsibilities consistent with the Plan of Control. 4. Covenants Running with the Land: The Property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, sold, leased, used, improved, and maintained subject to the limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, rights of entry, and equitable servitude set forth in this Declaration, which are in furtherance of Declarant’s plan for the uniform improvement and operation of the Property. All of the limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, rights of entry, and equitable servitudes set out in this Declaration shall both benefit and burden the Property and shall run with and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Property and each parcel therein, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each owner, and every person having or acquiring any right, title or interest in and to all or any portion of the Property and their successors and assigns. Upon Declarant’s conveyance of fee title to the Property, or any portion thereof, Declarant shall be released from any further liability or obligation hereunder related to the portion of the Property so conveyed, and the grantee of such conveyance shall be deemed to be the "Declarant,” with all rights and obligations related thereto, with respect to that portion of the Property conveyed. 5. Hold Harmless: Declarant, or its successors and assigns, shall hold harmless, protect, and indemnify Wiedemann Ranch GHAD and its directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and representatives and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (collectively, “Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees), causes of action, claims, demands, orders, liens, or judgments (each a “Claim” and, collectively, “Claims”): (1) for injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, related to or occurring on or about the GHAD Easement to the extent arising from the negligence or intentional misconduct of Declarant, its employees, agents or contractors; or (2) related the existence of the GHAD Easement, exclusive of any Claims brought by Declarant. 6. Enforcement: The Wiedemann Ranch GHAD shall have the right but not the obligation to enforce the provisions of this Declaration. 7. Modification or Termination: This Declaration shall not be modified, amended, or terminated without the written consent of the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD. Executed as of the Effective Date. Declarant: Davidon Homes By: Its: __________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed to the Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District by the foregoing document titled “Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry and Restrictive Covenants”, which is dated _______________, 20____ and executed by ______________ , is hereby accepted by the undersigned pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. ____-____, dated _______________, 20____. The Town of Danville, as grantee, consents to recordation of said “Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry and Restrictive Covenants”. _______________________ ENGEO Date: Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Manager Attest: _______________________ ENGEO Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________ Wendel Rosen, LLP Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Attorney APPENDIX D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COA) NUMBERS B.7, E.4, E.12, AND I.5 IN TOWN OF DANVILLE RESOLUTION 46-2019 COA No. B.7 The applicant shall construct a public trail from Blackhawk Road near Street “A” to a point where the EVA connects to Diablo Road, as part of subdivision improvements. The trail design standard shall be that of a “Paved Trail” as described in the Townwide Trails Master Plan dated January 1989 and the Town’s adopted Parks, Recreation, and Arts Strategic Plan dated July 2017. The trail shall be separate and distinct from any internal sidewalks within the subdivision. Signage, trash/recycling receptacles, doggy-bag dispensers, entry gates, and benches shall be provided as required by the Town according to current design standards. Maintenance of the trail improvements shall be provided by the project Homeowner’s Association and/or the GHAD. The Town will have the responsibility for the future construction of the extension of the public trail from the EVA west along the south side of Diablo Road, as part of a future Capital Improvement Project. The exact design/alignment of the trail and construction timing will be determined by the Town at a future date. COA No. E.4 The project proposes to preserve approximately 381 acres of the project site as open space. Areas to be preserved would be placed under a conservation easement or deed restriction to prohibit construction and preserve conservation value. The project proposes to create a geologic hazard abatement district (GHAD) to provide suitable funding for management and long-term maintenance of the site. Upland habitats shall be managed via a long-term management plan to maintain the quality of the habitat for the movement and dispersal of CRLF. Prior to construction, the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare an open space management plan for the explicit purpose of managing and monitoring the proposed open space area. This plan shall be submitted to the Town of Danville for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. At a minimum this plan shall include the following components: … f. Define and identify the GHAD maintenance and management activities to manage the open space habitats to meet the stated goals of support habitat characteristics suitable for the CLRF. This would include suitable fencing so as to control access, limited cattle grazing or other procedures to manage grass height and forage production at levels that benefit the CRLF, and removal of trash. g. Define the financial mechanism for the GHAD to manage the open space in perpetuity. COA No. E.12 The project proponent shall replace wetland and riparian habitat at a 1:1 replacement-to loss ratio. It is expected that all compensation measures can be accommodated within the 381 acres of the site proposed as open space. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare an onsite habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) that includes both an aquatic habitat restoration plan and a riparian habitat restoration plan. The HMMP would specifically address the wetland and riparian habitats and is separate from the Open Space Management Plan identified in Mitigation 4.4-4, although there may be some overlap. The HMMP shall include the following components, at a minimum: … g. Define management and maintenance activities (weeding of invasives, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems) of proposed GHAD; and h. Provide for assurance in funding the monitoring and ensuring that the created wetland and riparian habitats fall within lands to be preserved and managed into perpetuity. Confirm that the proposed GHAD will meet these responsibilities. COA No. I.5 A Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) shall be established or annexed into. The GHAD shall consider implementing measures to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control geologic hazards and also mitigate or abate structural hazards that are caused by geologic hazards. Said GHAD shall be established or the property annexed into a GHAD according to Public Resources Code §26500 et seq. The GHAD should consider owning or maintaining the approximately 381 acres of permanent open space. The GHAD should consider assuming responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the detention basin, other stormwater pollution control and hydromodification facilities constructed as part of the project, and the future public trail to be constructed by the Town between the western EVA terminus and the western terminus of the trail near the Diablo Road/Alameda Diablo intersection. The GHAD should consider establishing a comprehensive plan to maintain the restored creek and bridge and provide corrective measures as needed. If any duties listed above are unable to be included as part of the GHAD’s responsibilities, they shall be included as the responsibility of the project’s Homeowner’s Associations (HOA). An annual report regarding GHAD funding and activities shall be prepared for the first five years after the GHAD assumes responsibilities under the Plan of Control and submitted for review by the Town and made available for review by other watershed stakeholders. APPENDIX E SAMPLE TRANSFER APPLICATION FORM TRANSFER APPLICATION, WIEDEMANN RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD) MAGEE PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT Wiedemann Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board of Directors c/o Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Manager ENGEO Incorporated 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 As of ____________, 20__, ______ is submitting an application for transfer of GHAD activities as provided in Section 6.0 of the Magee Preserve Plan of Control dated May 5, 2021. As specified in Section 6.0,______ is submitting this Transfer Application to transfer the responsibility for performing GHAD a ctivities for the listed parcels to the District. W ithin 30 days of the submittal of the Transmittal Application, the GHAD will monitor the listed parcels and verify that the facilities that the GHAD will have maintenance responsibility have been constructed and maintained in accordance with the conditions of Section 6.4 of the Plan of Control. Within 15 days of inspection, the GHAD will send ______ a punch list of all items that need to be constructed, repaired, or otherwise modified in compliance with the Town of Danville approved plans and specifications. _______ will notify the GHAD upon completion of the punch list items. Within 30 days of receipt of such notice, the GHAD shall verify that all punch list items have been completed and notify ______. GHAD staff will then bring a resolution before the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD Board of Directors for their consideration approving GHAD responsibility for performing all future GHAD activities on the parcel(s). We submit the following parcels for the transfer of GHAD activities as provided in the Magee Preserve Plan of Control to the Wiedemann Ranch GHAD: Lot Number Address Assessor’s Parcel Number Each part y is to submit a copy of this application to the other party upon completion of the steps listed below. GHAD receipt of Transfer Application: Initial of GHAD representative: __________ Date: _______ _______ receipt of punch list from GHAD: Initial of ______ representative: __________ Date: _______ GHAD receipt of notice of completion of punch list items: Initial of GHAD representative: __________ Date: _______ APPENDIX F STORMWATER FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR MAGEE PRESERVE, SUBDIVISION 9291 Sub 9291-Magee Preserve Page i of iii March 2021 STORMWATER FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN for Magee Preserve Subdivision 9291 March 2021 Project 091015IP prepared for: Davidon Homes 1600 South Main Street, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 945-8000 Contact: Steve Abbs prepared by: Ruggeri Jensen Azar 4690 Chabot Drive, Suite 200 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925)227-9100 Contact: Kirk Myers Sub 9291-Magee Preserve Page ii of iii March 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.Inspection and Maintenance Log .................................................................................... 1 II.Update to Designation of Responsible Individuals ........................................................ 2 III.Updates, Revisions, and Errata ....................................................................................... 3 IV.Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 IV.A.Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 IV.B.Associated Agreements .................................................................................................................................. 4 IV.C.Funding for and Organization of Facility Operation and Maintenance ............................................... 4 IV.D.Site Description ............................................................................................................................................... 4 V.Designation and Training of Responsible Individuals ................................................... 5 V.A.Designated Contact for Operation and Maintenance .............................................................................. 5 V.B.Off-Hours or Emergency Contact............................................................................................................... 5 V.C.Corporate Officer (authorized to execute agreements with the County) ............................................. 5 V.D.Initial Training of Responsible Individuals ................................................................................................ 5 V.E.Ongoing Training of Responsible Individuals ........................................................................................... 5 VI.Facilities to be Maintained .............................................................................................. 6 VI.A.Facility Descriptions ....................................................................................................................................... 6 VI.A.1.[Bio-retention Area A]6 VI.A.2.[Bio-retention Area B-1]6 VI.A.3.[Bio-retention Area B-2]6 VI.A.4.[Bio-retention Area B-3]7 VI.A.5.[Self-Retaining Area C]7 VI.A.6.[Bio-retention Area D]7 VI.A.7.[Bio-retention Area E]7 VI.A.8.[Bio-retention Area F]7 VII.Maintenance Activities .................................................................................................... 7 VII.A.General Maintenance Rules........................................................................................................................... 7 VII.B.Maintenance Schedule .................................................................................................................................... 8 VII.B.1.Routine Activities 8 VII.B.2.Following Significant Rain Events 9 VII.B.3.Prior to the Start of the Rainy Season 9 VII.B.4.Annually During Winter 9 Figures Figure [A]. Bioretention Cross-Section (schematic) .................................................................................. 6 Attachments 1.Stormwater Control Plan for Magee Preserve (Includes Plan) 2.Record drawings 3.Service agreements Sub 9291-Magee Preserve Page iii of iii March 2021 Abbreviations C.3 Provision C.3 in the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region IMP Integrated Management Practice O&M Plan Operations and Maintenance Plan AD Area Drain BMP Best Management Practices CO Cleanout DMA Drainage Management Area DI Drainage Inlet INV Invert Elevation PERF Perforated Pipe SD Storm Drain SF Square Feet This Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan was prepared using the template dated 4/2/2019. Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 1 of 10 January 2020 I.INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG Facility Name Address Begin Date End Date Date BMP ID#BMP Description Inspected by: Cause for Inspection Exceptions Noted Comments and Actions Taken Instructions:Record all inspections and maintenance for all treatment BMPs on this form. Use additional log sheets and/or attach extended comments or documentation as necessary. o BMP ID# — Always use ID# from the Operation and Maintenance Manual. o Inspected by — Note all inspections and maintenance on this form. o Cause for inspection — Note if the inspection is routine, pre-rainy-season, post-storm, annual, or in response to a noted problem or complaint. o Exceptions noted — Note any condition that requires correction or indicates a need for maintenance. o Comments and actions taken — Describe any maintenance done and need for follow-up. Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 2 of 10 January 2020 II.UPDATE TO DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS **Use this form to update the plan when responsible individuals change. ** Date Completed Facility Name Facility Address Designated Contact for Operation and Maintenance Name:Title or Position: Telephone:Alternate Telephone: Email: Off-Hours or Emergency Contact Name:Title or Position: Telephone:Alternate Telephone: Email: Corporate Officer (authorized to execute contracts with the City, Town, or County) Name:Title or Position: Address: Telephone:Alternate Telephone: Email: Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 3 of 10 January 2020 III.UPDATES, REVISIONS, AND ERRATA Date Num.Updates, Revisions, or Errata Title Description/Purpose By (full name): Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 4 of 10 January 2020 IV.INTRODUCTION This plan addresses operation and maintenance of facilities constructed as part of the following development project: Subdivision 9291 – Magee Preserve. The final, approved Stormwater Control Plan for this project is in Attachment 1. IV.A.Background This Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) is for facilities constructed as part of the development project referenced above. Construction of these facilities was required by Provision C.3 in the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region. Provision C.3 also requires the County/Town to verify ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment and hydromodification management facilities, and certain pervious pavement installations. IV.B.Associated Agreements This O&M Plan is referenced in an O&M Agreement between the property owner and the Town. The agreement, between Davidon Homes and the Town of Danville, grants the Town access to the property to conduct inspections and, if needed, to perform maintenance on the facilities at the owner’s expense. The agreement also grants access for inspections to the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District (CCMVCD). The property has been annexed into a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), which provides funding for inspections and, if necessary, maintenance or replacement of the facilities. As provided in the O&M Agreement, this O&M Plan may be modified, but only with the review and consent of the Town of Danville City Engineer. The official O&M Plan is the version which is on file at the Town of Danville Development Services Department at 510 La Gonda Way, Danville, CA. Any modifications made to the O&M Plan under the consent of the City Engineer must be filed at the Development Services Department. IV.C.Funding for and Organization of Facility Operation and Maintenance Funding and maintenance of stormwater treatment facilities and private storm drain infrastructure is by and for the homeowner’s association for subdivision 9291 & 9320-Magee Preserve. IV.D.Site Description The Magee Preserve project (Project) is a planned residential development in the Town of Danville, Contra Costa County, California. The property encompasses roughly 410 acres located south of Diablo Road in Danville, California. The Magee Ranches is a portion of a historically larger ranch that was subdivided in the early 1980’s. Currently, the property is used for cattle ranching activities. Magee Preserve is one of the last remaining open areas available for development along the edges of the Town’s development boundary; situated along the south side of Diablo Road between McCauley Road to the west and the older Magee Ranch (Subdivision 7669) to the east. The project is split into two development areas; the larger eastern area will develop the flat area along Green Valley Creek with 66 single family homes and supporting infrastructure, while preserving the adjacent upland areas Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 5 of 10 January 2020 as permanent open space. The smaller western portion will develop three single family residential lots with supporting infrastructure off of McCauley Road near the intersection with Diablo Road. Stormwater from the majority of the eastern subdivision is treated in the stormwater basin adjacent to the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)/Trail adjacent to Diablo Road. Smaller bio-retention planters along the project entry on Appaloosa treat stormwater runoff from the entry drive. Additional smaller bio-retention planters along the EVA treat stormwater from the EVA. Stormwater from the smaller western subdivision is treated in a stormwater basin near the intersection of McCauley and Diablo Roads. Upland drainage from both subdivisions bypass the treatment facilities via underground pipes. V.DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS V.A.Designated Contact for Operation and Maintenance Davidon Homes TBD V.B.Off-Hours or Emergency Contact TBD V.C.Corporate Officer (authorized to execute agreements with the County) Steve Abbs Davidon Homes 1600 South Main Street Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925)945-8000 Sabbs@davidonhomes.com V.D.Initial Training of Responsible Individuals Following completion of construction, the bioretention facilities will be maintained by the contractor during the warranty period (typically 1 year), except for routine policing for trash, which will be done by the owner’s/ HOA/GHAD personnel. During this warranty period, the HOA/GHAD landscape maintenance crew will coordinate to meet with the contractor’s personnel on-site during maintenance. At these times, the contractor’s personnel will demonstrate proper maintenance procedures. V.E.Ongoing Training of Responsible Individuals Within the homeowner’s maintenance group, there will be one person designated to oversee maintenance of the site’s BMPs. This person will keep copies of all project stormwater documents, including recorded agreements and stormwater management plans. This person will be familiar with all stormwater facilities and will be responsible for overseeing their maintenance and inspection. Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 6 of 10 January 2020 VI.FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED VI.A.Facility Descriptions The site is treated by 6 bio- retention planters designated on the project plans and stormwater management plan as IMPs A-F. These facilities are passive, in- ground stormwater treatment facilities. Stormwater enters on the surface via overland flow or bubble-up drains where it percolates through an 18-inch layer of imported sandy loam material which is underlain by 12-33 inches of drain rock with perforated sub- drains which convey the treated stormwater to the underground storm system. Run-off in excess of the volume requiring treatment drains directly to the underground system via overflow drains within the bio-retention area. These drains are purposefully set a minimum of 6 inches above finished grade. Bio-retention areas are landscaped with specific planting listed in the county stormwater guidelines. The site also includes one self-retaining area. This area predominately impervious and retains the first inch of rainfall without generating runoff. For a more detailed view of the bio-retention IMPs, see the Stormwater Control Plan exhibit in the attachments of the attached Stormwater Control Plan report for Magee Preserve. VI.A.1. [Bio-retention Area A] Bio-retention Area A is a large bio-retention basin (approximately 44,650 SF) treating runoff from DMA 1 which is comprised of approximately 253,200 SF of roofs, 242,482 SF of various pavements, and 634,264 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff is collected and conveyed via an underground storm drain system and discharges directly to the basin. VI.A.2.[Bio-retention Area B-1] Bio-retention Area B-1 is a linear bio-retention area (approximately 800 SF) along Appaloosa Street treating runoff from DMA B-1 which is comprised of approximately 11,939 SF of asphalt and concrete, and 14,600 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff drains overland and enters the IMP via curb openings. VI.A.3.[Bio-retention Area B-2] Bio-retention Area B-2 is a linear bio-retention area (approximately 500 SF) along Appaloosa Street treating runoff from DMA B-2 which is comprised of approximately 5,705 SF of asphalt and concrete, and 6,903 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff drains overland and enters the IMP via curb openings. Figure [A]. Bioretention Cross-Section (schematic) Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 7 of 10 January 2020 VI.A.4.[Bio-retention Area B-3] Bio-retention Area B-3 is a linear bio-retention area (approximately 300 SF) along Appaloosa Street treating runoff from DMA B-3 which is comprised of approximately 3,950 SF of asphalt and concrete, and 6,217 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff drains overland and enters the IMP via through-curb drains. VI.A.5.[Self-Retaining Area C] Self-retaining Area C is the impervious area along the east side of Appaloosa Street that is graded to retain the first inch of runoff from approximately 19,445 SF of streets and 54,291 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff drains overland and enters via through-curb drains. VI.A.6.[Bio-retention Area D] Bio-retention Area D is a linear bio-retention area (approximately 800 SF) along the EVA Street treating runoff from DMA 4 which is comprised of approximately 14,690 SF of asphalt and concrete, and 7,729 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff drains overland and enters the IMP via through-curb drains. VI.A.7.[Bio-retention Area E] Bio-retention Area E is a linear bio-retention area (approximately 200 SF) along the EVA Street treating runoff from DMA 5 which is comprised of approximately 2,030 SF of asphalt and concrete, and 2,410 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff drains overland and enters the IMP via through-curb drains. VI.A.8.[Bio-retention Area F] Bio-retention Area F is a large bio-retention basin (approximately 3,178 SF) treating runoff from DMA 6 which is comprised of approximately 15,000 SF of roofs, 12,117 SF of various pavements, and 37,376 SF of landscaping and other pervious surfaces. Runoff is collected and conveyed via an underground storm drain system and discharges directly to the basin. VII.MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES VII.A.General Maintenance Rules At no time will synthetic pesticides or fertilizers be applied, nor will any soil amendments, other than aged compost mulch or sand/compost mix, be introduced. The top of soil surface will be maintained at or near the design elevation throughout. Irrigation systems will be maintained to conserve water while maintaining plant health. Although it is unlikely to be needed, if plants are not thriving compost tea may be applied at a recommended rate of 5 gallons mixed with 15 gallons of water per acre, up to once per year between March and June. Compost tea will not be applied when temperatures are below 50°F or above 90°F or when rain is forecast within the next 48 hours. The following may be applied for pest control if needed: ·Beneficial nematodes Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 8 of 10 January 2020 ·Safer® products ·Neem oil Plants may need to be replaced with the following mix as specified by the landscape architect [list species] or with similar plantings appropriate for the unique conditions. VII.B.Maintenance Schedule Routine inspection and maintenance shall be continuously ongoing. Detailed inspections should occur as follows: ·Visual inspections shall be conducted monthly, particularly after heavy runoff, to ensure normal functioning. (i.e., no pooling, or blockage). ·Detailed inspections shall be conducted at least twice annually with inspections occurring (1) at the end of the wet season to schedule summer maintenance, (2) before major fall runoff in preparation for winter, and (3) after periods of heavy runoff. The objective of detailed inspections is to identify erosion, damage to vegetation, grass or plant height, debris, litter, areas of sediment accumulation, and pools/standing water VII.B.1. Routine Activities The facilities will be examined routinely for visible trash, and trash will be removed. Any graffiti, vandalism, or other damage should be noted and addressed within 48 hours. The planted areas will be weeded by hand approximately monthly. At this time, plants will be inspected for health and the irrigation system will be turned on manually and checked for any leaks or broken lines, misdirected spray patterns etc. Any dead plants will be replaced. Other typical routine maintenance performed will consist of the following: ·Inspect bio-retention areas for channels, exposure of soils, or other evidence of erosion. Clear any obstructions and remove any accumulation of sediment. Soils and plantings must be maintained. ·Inspect bio-retention areas regularly and after storms for damage. ·Observe soil at the bottom of the bio-retention areas for uniform percolation throughout. If portions do not drain within 48 hours after the end of a storm, the soil should be tilled and replanted. Remove any debris or accumulations of sediment. ·Examine the vegetation to insure that it is healthy and dense enough to provide filtering and to protect soils from erosion. Replenish mulch as necessary, remove fallen leaves and debris, prune large shrubs or trees and mow turf areas. Confirm that irrigation is adequate and not excessive. Replace dead plants and remove invasive vegetation. ·Abate any potential vectors by filling holes in the ground in and around the bio-retention areas and by insuring that there are no areas where water stands longer than 48 hours following the storm. If mosquito larvae are present and persistent, contact the Contra Costa County Vector Control District for information and advice. Only a licensed individual or contractor should apply Mosquito larvicides only when absolutely necessary and then only sparingly. ·Inspect storm drain pipes at inlets, cleanouts, or any other openings for debris or other obstructions. Remove as necessary. Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 9 of 10 January 2020 ·Inspect pervious asphalt for deposits of sediments. Clean pervious asphalt with commercial vacuum sweeper twice per year. ·Inspect and repair damaged pavers. Refer to the project record drawings for pervious paver installation. VII.B.2. Following Significant Rain Events A significant rain event will be considered to be one that produces approximately a half-inch or more rainfall in a 24-hour period. Within 24 hours after each such event, the following will be conducted: ·The surface of the facility will be observed to confirm there is no ponding. ·Inlets will be inspected, and any accumulations of trash or debris will be removed. Any erosion at inlets should be restored to grade. ·The surface of the mulch layer will be inspected for movement of material. Mulch will be replaced and raked smooth if needed. ·Outlet structure will be inspected for any obstructions to assure that mulch is not washed out. VII.B.3.Prior to the Start of the Rainy Season In September of each year, facility inlets and outlets will be inspected to confirm there is no accumulation of debris that would block flow. Stormwater should drain freely into the bioretention facilities. If not previously addressed during monthly maintenance, any growth and spread of plantings that blocks inlets or the movement of runoff across the surface of the facility will be cut back or removed. If the facilities are not completely drained within 48 hours, the underdrain may be clogged. Check the overflow outlet to determine if the underdrain is performing properly. There should be no filter fabric or geotextile in the horizontal layers or wrapped at the underdrain. If the underdrain is working, the bioretention media may contain fines. Replace material with mixture of 30-40% aged compost and 60-70% washed granular sand, no fines. VII.B.4.Annually During Winter Once, in December – February of each year, vegetation will be cut back as needed, debris removed, and plants and mulch replaced as needed. The concrete work will be inspected for damage. The elevation of the top of soil and mulch layer will be confirmed to be consistent with the 6-inch reservoir depth. Sub 9291, 9320-Magee Preserve Page 10 of 10 January 2020 Attachments www.engeo.com RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT the attached Resolution No. 2021/02 to: (a) ACCEPT Petition with draft Plan of Control for Annexation of the Somerset development (Subdivision 7763) ("GHAD Petition) into the existing Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”); (b) FIX a Public Hearing for August 3, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. via teleconference to consider the proposed annexation of territory into the existing Wendt Ranch GHAD and the draft Somerset Plan of Control, and hear any written objections thereto; and (c) DIRECT the GHAD Clerk to mail, by first class mail, a written notice of the hearing to consider the proposed annexation and the draft Plan of Control to each owner of real property to be annexed into the GHAD as required by GHAD law. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Haley Ralston 909.373.5457 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Wendt Ranch GHAD Board of Directors From:Patricia E. Curtin, GHAD Attorney and General Manager Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Wendt Ranch GHAD FISCAL IMPACT: The GHAD services for Somerset development are proposed to be funded 100% through assessments levied on properties within the Somerset portion of the GHAD area. The GHAD is a separate entity from the County and does not utilize any monies from the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: 1. GHAD Formation and Purpose. State law allows GHADs to be formed to undertake emergency actions necessary or incidental to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of a geologic hazard (Public Resources Code §26500, “GHAD Law”). GHAD Law gives local agencies the authority to form districts that can speedily address “an actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth.” (Public Resources Code §26507). Consistent with GHAD Law, on February 12, 2002, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/59 approving and forming the Wendt Ranch GHAD and thereby putting into place a mechanism to respond to emergencies in preventing and/or responding to geologic hazards. The County Board of Supervisors serve as the Board of Directors of the Wendt Ranch GHAD. GHAD "improvements" (as defined in GHAD Law) and all GHAD activities undertaken in furtherance of, or in connection therewith, are deemed to be specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency within Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(4) (See, Pub. Res. Code §§26601 and 26505). Consistent therewith, all GHAD Activities (as defined in Section 7 below) are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act and are not subject to local permitting requirements. 2. Request for Annexation into GHAD. GHAD Law allows properties to be annexed into an existing GHAD. Since the Wendt Ranch GHAD was formed in 2002 to include the Wendt Ranch development, two separate developments have been annexed into the GHAD. Monterosso, formerly known as Intervening Properties, and Alamo Creek both in Contra Costa County were annexed in the Wendt Ranch GHAD on July 19, 2005 with the adoption of Resolution No. 2005/437. The Somerset development (Subdivision 7763) is located north Camino Tassajara at the intersection with Conejo Drive in Contra Costa County, California. One-hundred fifty residential townhome units currently exist within the Somerset development. As provided in Public Resources Code §26581, residents within the Somerset development, Subdivision 7763, (“GHAD Annexation Area”) located in the Danville area of unincorporated Contra Costa County have submitted a Petition for Annexation to join the existing Wendt Ranch GHAD. GHAD Law requires a Plan of Control, prepared by a State-Certified Engineering Geologist, as a prerequisite to annexation into an existing GHAD. Pursuant to GHAD Law , the Somerset Development draft Plan of Control was prepared by an Engineering Geologist certified pursuant to Section 7822 of the Business and Professions Code and describes, in detail, the geologic hazards, their location, and the area affected by them. It also provides a plan for the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control thereof. The draft Plan of Control covers the GHAD Annexation Area only. Funding for the GHAD activity on the proposed annexed area to prevent, mitigate, abate and control geologic hazards are proposed to be based on an assessment, and such funds will be collected and used in geologic hazards are proposed to be based on an assessment, and such funds will be collected and used in connection with the Somerset final Plan of Control. The proposed assessment will be supported by a detailed Engineer’s Report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California, and will be considered at a subsequent date in accordance with Proposition 218. The proposed assessment will not impact or change the existing assessments for the current landowners in the GHAD. GHAD Law requires the GHAD Petition to be placed on the GHAD Board agenda once the GHAD Clerk determines the Petition complies with GHAD Law. The GHAD Clerk determined that the Petition is substantially in the form required by GHAD Law and verified the signatures affixed to the Petition represent owners of not less than 10 percent of the real property to be annexed into the GHAD. At this GHAD Board meeting, the Board shall adopt a resolution setting a public hearing on the Petition and direct notice to be mailed to all owners of real property to be annexed into the GHAD as shown on the assessment roll last equalized by the County. The GHAD Clerk/Manager and Attorney of the Wendt Ranch GHAD recommend that the GHAD Petition be accepted and a public hearing be ordered for August 3, 2021 to consider the annexation request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The owners of the Somerset development may choose to form a new Geologic Hazard Abatement District or seek annexation into another Geologic Hazard Abatement District. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Wendt Ranch GHAD Resolution No. 2021/02 Somerset POC draft Wendt Ranch Somerset Petition of Annexation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Wendt Ranch GHAD Res 2021/02 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WENDT RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT Adopted this Resolution on July 13, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2021/02 (WENDT RANCH GHAD) SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021/02 accepting petition and setting a hearing for August 3, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. to annex the Somerset development into the existing Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District. WHEREAS, on February 12, 2002, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2002/59 approving the formation of the Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) and appointed itself to serve as the GHAD Board of Directors. WHEREAS, the GHAD Board is now presented with and has reviewed the Petition for Annexation of Territory (Somerset) to the Wendt Ranch GHAD and attached draft Plan of Control (“GHAD Petition”), which is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The territory proposed to be annexed into the GHAD is described in the legal desc ription and identified in the boundary map set forth in Exhibit A to Attachment 1. WHEREAS, the GHAD Clerk has verified that the GHAD Petition is substantially in the form required by GHAD Law and that the signatures affixed to the Petition represent owne rs of not less than 10 percent of the real property to be annexed into the GHAD. WHEREAS, upon presentation of the GHAD Petition, the GHAD Board shall adopt a resolution setting a public hearing on the Petition and direct notice to be mailed to all owners or real property to be annexed into the GHAD as shown on the assessment roll last equalized by the County. The Board of Directors of the GHAD HEREBY RESOLVES THAT: 1. This Resolution No. 2021/02 is made pursuant to the provisions of Division 17 of the Public Resources Code with particular references to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 26500), Article 3 (commencing with Section 26550) and Article 4 (commencing with Sec tion 26561). 2. The GHAD Board has been presented with and reviewed the GHAD Petition and has determined that the health, safety and welfare of the public requires annexation of the proposed territory into the Wendt Ranch GHAD. 3. The GHAD Clerk, shall mail, by first class mail, a written notice of the hearing on the annexation, along with a copy of the GHAD Petition, to all owners of real property within the proposed district pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 26561, 26562, and 26563 to consider the proposed annexation. 4. A public hearing on the GHAD Petition and proposed annexation will be held on August 3, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the chambers of the GHAD Board, via teleconference. 5. These proceedings are exempt from the provisions of the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 2100 et seq.) in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(4). 6. The recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its pass age and adoption. Attachment 1 – GHAD Petition Copyright © 2021 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. 017585.0002\6319796.1 WENDT RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD) PLAN OF CONTROL FOR SOMERSET, SUBDIVISION 7763 DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO Cheri Cole Danville Somerset Homeowners Association 3180 Crow Canyon Place San Ramon, CA 94583 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated June 30, 2021 PROJECT NO. 16098.000.000 Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 i of ii June 30, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE .................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2 2.1 SOMERSET PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 GHAD-MAINTAINED IMPROVEMENTS AND OPEN SPACE ........................................... 2 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................................................. 3 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................................ 3 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................ 3 4.1 SLOPE INSTABILITY ......................................................................................................... 3 4.1.1 Seismically Induced Ground Shaking .................................................................... 5 4.1.2 Expansive Near-Surface Soil ................................................................................. 5 5.0 CRITERIA FOR GHAD RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................... 6 5.1 ISOLATED OR REMOTE FEATURE REQUIRING MITIGATION ...................................... 6 5.2 SINGLE PROPERTY .......................................................................................................... 6 5.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF PROPERTY OWNER .............................................................................................................................. 6 5.4 PROPERTY NOT ACCEPTED ........................................................................................... 6 5.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARD WHICH REQUIRES EXPENDITURE IN AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF THE THREATENED OR DAMAGED IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................. 7 5.6 GHAD FUNDING OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR DESTROYED STRUCTURES OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 7 5.7 NO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY PROPERTY OWNERS ........... 7 5.8 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES ....................................................... 7 6.0 ACCEPTANCE ..................................................................................................... 8 6.0 ACTIVATION OF ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 8 6.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 8 6.2 PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES ............. 8 7.0 GHAD MONITORING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES ..... 9 7.1 GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATION OF LANDSLIDE AND EROSION HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 9 8.0 PRIORITY OF GHAD EXPENDITURES ............................................................ 10 9.0 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING SCHEDULE ........................................... 10 10.0 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 11 11.0 RIGHT-OF-ACCESS .......................................................................................... 13 12.0 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................... 14 Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 017585.0002\6319796.1 ii of ii June 30, 2021 SELECTED REFERENCES APPENDIX A: Figures APPENDIX B: Exhibit A – Legal Description Geologic Hazard Abatement District Annexation Area, Somerset - Subdivision 7763 Exhibit B – Plat to Accompany Legal Description APPENDIX C: Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry and Restrictive Covenants Regarding Wendt Geologic Hazard Abatement District APPENDIX D: Sample Transfer Application Form Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 1 June 30, 2021 1.0 AUTHORITY AND SCOPE As provided in Public Resources Code § 26581, residents within the Somerset development, Subdivision 7763, (“GHAD Annexation Area”) located in the Danville area of unincorporated Contra Costa County have submitted a Petition for Annexation to the existing Wendt Ranch GHAD (“GHAD”). State law allows GHADs to be formed to undertake emergency actions necessary or incidental to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of a geologic hazard (Public Resources Code § 26500, “GHAD Law”). GHAD Law gives local agencies the authority to form districts that can speedily address “an actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth.” (Public Resources Code § 26507). Consistent with GHAD Law, on February 12, 2002, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/59 approving and forming the Wendt Ranch GHAD and thereby putting into place a mechanism to respond to emergencies and preventing and/or respond to geologic hazards. The members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors serve as the Board of Directors of the Wendt Ranch GHAD. GHAD "improvements" (as defined in GHAD Law) and all GHAD activities undertaken in furtherance of, or in connection therewith, are deemed to be specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency within Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(4) (See, Pub. Res. Code Sections 26601 and 26505). Consistent therewith, all GHAD Activities (as defined in Section 7 below) are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act and are not subject to local permitting requirements. Since the Wendt Ranch GHAD (“GHAD”) was formed in 2002 to include the Wendt Ranch development, two separate developments have been annexed into the GHAD. Monterosso, formerly known as Intervening Properties, and Alamo Creek both in Contra Costa County were annexed in the Wendt Ranch GHAD in 2005. Section 26509 of the Public Resources Code requires a Plan of Control, prepared by a State-Certified Engineering Geologist, as a prerequisite to formation of a GHAD or annexation into an existing GHAD. Pursuant to Section 26509, this Plan of Control was prepared by an Engineering Geologist certified pursuant to Section 7822 of the Business and Professions Code and describes, in detail, the geologic hazards, their location, and the area affected by them. It also provides a plan for the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control thereof. This Plan of Control covers the GHAD Annexation Area only. As used in this Plan of Control, and as provided in Section 26507, “geologic hazard” means an actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, fault movement, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth. 1.1 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The land within the proposed GHAD Annexation Area is shown on the GHAD Boundary Plat (Appendix B, Exhibit B)and includes all areas within Subdivision 7763 ("GHAD Annexation Area"). The legal description of the GHAD Annexation Area is included in Appendix B, Exhibit A and includes all of Parcels A through G and Lots 1 through 150 shown on the Final Map for Subdivision 7763 – Somerset. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 2 June 30, 2021 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 SOMERSET PROJECT The GHAD Annexation Area includes 150 existing residential townhome units. Additional improvements and parcels include private streets (Parcel A) and common open space parcels (Parcels B, C, D, E, F, and G). The GHAD Annexation Area is approximately 17.8 acres in area. Site access to the GHAD Annexation Area is via Camino Tassajara along the southern edge of the GHAD Annexation Area. As described in this Plan of Control, the GHAD has responsibilities throughout the entire GHAD Annexation Area. Inclinometer and piezometer monitoring has occurred within the Somerset development since around 1997. Referenced documents indicate that various consultants have observed deflections within the majority of the inclinometers throughout the years of monitoring. According to the most recent monitoring report (ENGEO, March 23, 2021), downslope deflections have been observed in 25 of the 30 inclinometers during the monitoring period between April 2020 and February 2021 (Reference 30). Based on the observed inclinometer deflections, ENGEO identified shallow, intermediate, and deep movement. The deep deflections are interpreted as movement within a portion of a deep-seated landslide mass within the bedrock. Slope improvements to mitigate instability in the vicinity of Conejo Court were constructed in 2016. According to the plans fo r the slope improvement project, the mitigation measures comprised a shear pin and tie-back retention system. The shear pins consist of 19 cast -in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles, connected at the top with a reinforced concrete tie beam. Design recommendations have been provided to mitigate intermediate and deep slope movement by constructing waler beams and tie-backs embedded in engineered fill slopes (Reference 29) . As described in Section 6.0, construction of the proposed waler beams and tie -backs, and any other required measures or improvements (“Stabilization Improvements”), must be completed and their performance verified prior to the transfer of Plan of Control responsibilities identified in Section 7.0 from the Danville Somerset Homeowners Association to the GHAD. 2.2 GHAD-MAINTAINED IMPROVEME NTS AND OPEN SPACE As the private streets and common-area open space parcels within the GHAD Annexation Area are an amenity that benefits all of the property owners within Subdivision 7763, the GHAD funding of the maintenance of the common area open space will be shared by all current and future owners of residential parcels within the GHAD Annexation Area. The common area open space parcels (A through G) are approximately 6.92 acres in area. The GHAD is charged with responsibilities that relate to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards, which include the maintenance of drainage facilities and associated improvements. This will include the monitoring and maintenance of drainage facilities that, if subject to improper care, could result in decreased slope stability, a primary concern of the GHAD. In addition, the GHAD will mitigate or abate landslide or erosion h azards that could directly affect improved, developed, and accepted prop erties (as defined in Section 6) within the GHAD Annexation Area in accordance with Section 5. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 3 June 30, 2021 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA) characterized the site geology and geologic hazards in previous reports covering the GHAD Annexation Area (CSA 2019 and 2016). As described prior to development, the site was occupied by large, deep-seated landslides. Grading of the site included the placement of fill and relatively minor cuts to construct terraced building pads. Subsurface borings indicate that, in general, fill was placed on top of landslide deposits and colluvial soil without significant corrective grading measures to remove the underlying landslide debris. Exploratory borings completed within the GHAD Annexation Areas by others in the referenced reports generally indicate that fill at the site comprises stiff to very stiff, moderate- to high-plasticity, silty clay with sand and rock fragments. The underlying colluvium is generally described as stiff, high-plasticity silty clay with sand and rock fragments, local carbonate nodules, and increasing rock fragments with depth. The upper portions of the underlying Tassajara Formation are generally described as landslide debris and old landslide debris, characterized as weak, highly weathered claystone and silty claystone with numerous polished surfaces and localized shear zones. The overall rock quality appears to increase with depth, due to the degree of weathering and shearing decreasing with depth. Based on previous explorations and inclinometer readings, the underlying landslide movement generally ranges in depth from approximately 20 to 50 feet below the existing ground surface. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The following geologic hazards were identified for the GHAD Annexation Area in the referenced geotechnical exploration reports and are expected to remain to some extent after site grading has been completed.  Slope instability  Seismically induced ground shaking  Expansive near-surface soils 4.1 SLOPE INSTABILITY Earth stability is the GHAD’s primary geotechnical concern within the GHAD Annexation Area. This is not unique to this GHAD Annexation Area, but is of importance for hillside projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. This section describes several types of slope instability that are within the GHAD’s responsibility, subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 7. In the referenced geotechnical exploration reports (CSA 2019 and 2016), several landslides are mapped throughout the GHAD Annexation Area (Figure 1). The CSA review of historical aerial photographs that pre-date site grading indicated that a large, ancient, deep-seated landslide underlies the western portion of the GHAD Annexation Area. In the CSA reports, three depths of potential slope instability were identified. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 4 June 30, 2021  Shallow slope creep within the artificial fill is identified as widespread within the GHAD Annexation Area. The effects of soil creep were described as greatest at the surface and diminishing to a negligible effect 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface.  Intermediate-depth movement was described as concentrated within the colluvium and deeply weathered bedrock underlying the artificial fill. As described, these materials and the associated movement are typically located between 25 and 40 feet below the ground surface. Measured intermediate-depth ground movement has been documented along the south side of the Conejo Drive Loop, Camino Arroyo West, Camino Arroyo East, and Monterey Lane. Previously, CSA identified intermediate-depth deflections and shallow fill creep deflections at Conejo Court; however, both of these types of slope movement were mitigated with the installation of a buried shear pin (soldier pile) and tieback retaining wall installed in 2016.  Deep movement was identified by CSA, which may represent movement of a deep-seated landslide that existed prior to grading and development of improvements within Subdivision 7763. Measured deep movement was identified in inclinometers located on the north side of Conejo Drive Loop. Typically, displacement indicative of deep movement has been measured at depths greater than 40 feet below the ground surface. Proposed Stabilization Improvements within the GHAD Annexation Area are designed to mitigate the effects of the intermediate and deep movement on the Site Improvements. In addition, there may be a reduction in the effect of shallow soil creep on the Site Improvements. As described in Section 6.0, construction of the proposed Stabilization Improvements would be completed, and their performance verified, prior to the transfer of Plan of Control responsibilities from the Danville Somerset Homeowners Association to the GHAD. Landslides are a common geologic phenomenon and are part of the process of mass wasting. Weathered or fractured bedrock and soil are transported downslope over geologic time as a result of gravitational and hydrostatic forces. A landslide is a deposit of soil and/or bedrock moving downward from its original position under the influence of gravity. Landslides include a variety of morphologies and are further defined by type of materials, wetness, and mode of movement. They can consist of mass movements of earth materials that are primarily intact and occur along discrete shear surfaces. These surfaces (shear or slip planes) can be rotational (conchoidal or concave), such as for earth slumps, or planar, as for translational earth slide or bedrock block slides. Most landslides are truly “complex landslides,” sliding, falling, and flowing with more than one type of movement and/or material. Falls are an abrupt free-fall of earth materials off cliffs, steep cuts, or steep stream banks, while earthflows are mass movements of earth materials in which the type of movement is one of flowing. When composed of soil finer than gravel size, the flowing material is commonly called a mudflow. A debris flow/debris avalanche is composed of natural earth materials, artificial fill, and/or organic debris, which flow downslope with speed. Most of the material is transported away from the area of initial ground failure. Slope failures are also often triggered by increased pore water pressure due to the infiltration of rainwater. The resulting decrease of shear resistance (internal resistance to deformation by shearing) can cause the slope to move. The level of groundwater table varies with the amount of rainfall for the area. If rainfall is higher than average during the winter season, the water table will become higher than average on a hillslope and groundwater pressures may become sufficiently high to initiate slope movement. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 5 June 30, 2021 Landslides located within open-space areas are natural landforms that do not require mitigation except where they affect man-made improvements. Debris catchment areas are the principal mitigation method used within the GHAD for areas between potentially unstable slopes and improvements. The debris catchment structures include debris benches, debris berms, and runout areas. GHAD maintenance of the areas will be critical to maintain adequate protection for the Site Improvements (as defined in Section 11.0). Maintenance and monitoring of these areas is described in Section 9. Potential mitigation and repair measures for GHAD areas near development are discussed in Section 7. Soil creep is the slow, often imperceptible, deformation of slope materials under low stress levels, which normally affects the shallow portion of the slopes, but can be deep seated where a weak zone of soil or bedrock exists. It results from gravitational and seepage forces, and may be indicative of conditions favorable for landsliding. Creep can be caused by wetting and drying of clays, by solution and crystallization of salts, by the growth of root s, by burrowing animals, and by downslope movement of saturated ground. Colluvium refers to the mantle of loose soil and weathered bedrock debris that progresses down hillsides by creep. The GHAD shall also be concerned with erosion and sedimentation in the GHAD Annexation Area or affecting developed lots or improvements. Erosion is defined as the process by which earth materials are loosened and removed by running water on the ground surface or in subsurface soils. Sedimentation is the depositing or settling of soil or rock particles from a state of suspension in a liquid. Hilly terrain open space, either in a natural condition or particularly on excavated slopes, can be subject to erosion. Landslide deposits, which are sometimes in a loosened condition, are particularly prone to erosion. Earth-flow-, debris-flow- and mud-flow-type landslides typically have an area of deposition or accumulation (sedimentation area) at their base. Graded slopes in the GHAD Annexation Area, particularly those in excess of 20 feet in vertical height or those not sufficiently vegetated, can be subject to erosion and, therefore, a source of transported sediment. 4.1.1 Seismically Induced Ground Shaking An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking within the GHAD Annexation Area, similar to that which has occurred in the past. 4.1.2 Expansive Near-Surface Soil Fine-grained, near-surface soil within the GHAD Annexation Area could exhibit a moderate to high potential for expansion. Expansive soil shrinks and swells as a result of moisture changes. This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The potential for expansive soil has been identified in the geotechnical report for the property. Shrink and swell of expansive soil on slopes are a portion of the mechanism of creep movement, which can result in shallow slope instability. Within the GHAD Annexation Area, slope instability caused by expansive soil creep will be addressed by the GHAD, subject to the exceptions in Section 5.0. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 6 June 30, 2021 5.0 CRITERIA FOR GHAD RESPONSIBILITY In forming the GHAD and establishing the assessment levels and budgets for GHAD Activities (as defined in Section 7 below) within the GHAD Annexation Area, it is important to clearly define the limits of the GHAD’s responsibilities. The GHAD will accept responsibility for property as described in Section 6 of this Plan of Control; however, the intent of this Plan of Control is not to extend the GHAD’s responsibilities to every potential situation of instability; rather, the following are exclusions from GHAD responsibility. 5.1 ISOLATED OR REMOTE FEATURE REQUIRING MITIGATION The GHAD shall not have responsibility to monitor, abate, mitigate, or control slope instability that does not involve significant damage to or pose a significant threat to damage Site Improvements. As used herein, the term “Site Improvements” means buildings, private roads, sidewalks, utilities, swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, cabanas, geologic stabilization features, or similar improvements. 5.2 SINGLE PROPERTY The GHAD will not prevent, mitigate, abate, or control geologic hazards which are limited in area to a single parcel of property unless the geologic hazard has significantly damaged or poses a significant threat of damage to Site Improvements located on other property within the GHAD Annexation Area. This exclusion does not apply to geologic hazards existing on common-area open-space parcels owned by the Danville Somerset Homeowner’s Association. 5.3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF PROPERTY OWNER The GHAD may, in the GHAD Manager’s sole discretion, decline to prevent, mitigate, abate , or control geologic hazards which occurred or resulted from any negligence of the homeowner and/or the homeowner’s contractors, agents, or employees in developing, investigating, grading, constructing, maintaining, or performing or not performing any post-development work on the subject property as long as the geologic hazard is limited to a single lot, pursuant to the single-property exclusion noted above. If the GHAD bears expense as the result of negligence described in this section, the GHAD may pursue reimbursement from the negligent parties. 5.4 PROPERTY NOT ACCEPTED The GHAD shall not have responsibility to repair damage on a parcel of real property, which the GHAD has not accepted in accordance with Section 6 below. The GHAD, however, may monitor, abate, mitigate, or control geologic or hydrogeologic hazards on a parcel of real property which the GHAD has not accepted in accordance with Section 6 and is not excluded from GHAD responsibility by Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, provided, however, that GHAD responsibility on such parcel shall be limited to the extent necessary to address significant damage to or a significant threat of damage to Site Improvements which are within a parcel of real property which the GHAD has accepted in accordance with Section 6. Should the GHAD be required to respond to a geologic hazard outside the GHAD Annexation Area, the GHAD may take such actions as may be appropriate to recover costs incurred as a result of preventing, mitigating, abating, or controlling such geologic hazard from the responsible party, if any. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 7 June 30, 2021 5.5 GEOLOGIC HAZARD WHICH REQUIRES EXPENDITURE IN AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF THE THREATENED OR DAMAGED IMPROVEMENT The GHAD may elect not to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control a geologic hazard where, in the GHAD Manager's sole discretion, the anticipated expenditure required to be funded by the GHAD to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control the geologic hazard will exceed the value of the structure(s) and Site Improvement(s) threatened with damage or loss. 5.6 GHAD FUNDING OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR DESTROYED STRUCTURES OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS In the event a residence or any other structure, Site Improvement, or landscaping is damaged or destroyed due to, or as a result of, a geologic hazard, the GHAD may fund or reimburse the property owner for the expenses necessary to repair or replace the damaged or destroyed structure, Site Improvement or landscaping. Unless authorized by the Board of Directors, the dollar amount of the GHAD funding or reimbursement may not exceed ten percent (10%) of the costs incurred by the GHAD in preventing, mitigating, abating, or controlling the geologic hazard responsible for the damage1. In the event the geologic hazard damaged or destroyed a structure, Site Improvement, or landscaping which violated any provisions of the applicable Building Code or Ordinance Code at the time of its installation or improvement, the GHAD may decline to provide any funding or reimbursement to the property owner for repair or replacement of the damaged structure, Site Improvement, or landscaping. 5.7 NO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY PROPERTY OWNERS The GHAD will not be obligated to reimburse a property owner for expenses incurred for the prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of a geologic hazard absent a written agreement between the property owner and the GHAD to that effect, which agreement has been executed prior to the property owner incurring said expenses and following an exploration conducted by the GHAD. 5.8 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES A homeowner directly affected by a decision of the GHAD Manager ("GHAD Manager Decision") may request reconsideration of that decision through the following procedures. The homeowner shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of a written GHAD Manager Decision, file a written request with the GHAD Manager, specifying the grounds for reconsideration, and the relief sought, including the owner’s special interest and injury. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the homeowner’s written request for reconsideration, the GHAD Manager shall reconsider its decision and shall provide a copy of its written decision to the homeowner ("GHAD Manager Reconsideration Decision"). The homeowner may appeal the GHAD Manager Reconsideration Decision to the Board of Directors. This appeal must be filed with the GHAD Manager within fifteen (15) days from the date of the GHAD Manager Reconsideration Decision. The appeal must include the specific grounds for the appeal and the homeowner’s requested relief on a form 1 For example, if a landslide causes $10,000 in structural damage to each one of four neighboring homes for a total of $40,000 in structural damage and it costs the GHAD $100,000 to design and install a new retaining wall to abate the slide, the GHAD may only reimburse each property owner $2,500 of their $10,000 in structural damage. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 8 June 30, 2021 provided by the GHAD Manager. The Board will make the final decision on the appeal. The GHAD Manager will proceed based on the decision of the Board of Directors. 6.0 ACCEPTANCE 6.0 Activation Of Assessment An annual assessment shall be authorized on all residential parcels within the GHAD Annexation Area as shown on Appendix B, Exhibit B, which will generate funding for the GHAD Activities. The assessment shall be authorized on each individual parcel prior to the eligibility for transfer of GHAD responsibilities from the Danville Somerset Homeowners Association (“HOA”) to the Wendt Ranch GHAD in Section 6.2. 6.1 RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES The HOA shall continue to be responsible for the ownership and maintenance responsibilities, including GHAD Activities, within the GHAD Annexation Area. Certain maintenance responsibility shall be eligible for transfer to the GHAD at 9:00 a.m. on the day exactly one year after completion of the proposed Stabilization Improvements provided that the performance of the Stabilization Improvements has been verified by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer in addition to other requirements provided in Section 6.3 have been completed (“Transfer Eligibility Date”). 6.2 PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GHAD ACTIVITIES After the Transfer Eligibility Date for one or more of the GHAD Annexation Area parcels, the process for transferring responsibility for performing GHAD Activities on such Parcel(s) shall be as follows. 1. The HOA may apply to the GHAD to transfer the responsibility for performing GHAD Activities for such Parcel(s) to the GHAD (“Transfer Application”). A sample Transfer Application form is included in Appendix D. 2. Within 30 days of receiving such Transfer Application, the GHAD Manager shall verify that all the facilities for which the GHAD will have maintenance responsibility have been constructed, and maintained according to Site Improvement plans and specifications for the individual improvements, and that such improvements are operational and in good working order. 3. Within 15 days of such inspection, the GHAD will send the HOA a list ("Punch list") of all of the items that need to be constructed, repaired, or otherwise modified in order to comply with the Site Improvement plans and specifications. 4. The HOA shall notify the GHAD Manager when it has completed the items identified on the Punch list. Within 30 days of receipt of such notice, the GHAD Manager shall verify that all Punch list items have been completed. GHAD staff will then bring a resolution before the Wendt Ranch GHAD Board of Directors for its consideration, approving GHAD responsibility for performing all future GHAD Activities on the parcel(s). 5. The GHAD Manager shall confirm that the reserve requirement defined in the Engineer’s Report approved by the GHAD Board on this GHAD Annexation Area has been met. The Engineer’s Report is the document that establishes the individual property owners’ GHAD assessment limit based on the projected expenses (budget) of the GHAD. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 9 June 30, 2021 6. Prior to the GHAD accepting any responsibility for GHAD Activities, the HOA shall record a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, Right of Entry and Disclosures Regarding Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“Declaration”) as approved by the GHAD Manager and GHAD Attorney and as discussed in Section 12. 7. Any monies owed to the GHAD by the HOA have been paid. As part of the transfer, the HOA of the GHAD Annexation Area to be transferred will provide the GHAD, for its use, copies of the applicable geotechnical exploration reports, as-built grading plans, as-built corrective grading plans, as-built improvement plans, as-built subdrain plans and other pertinent documents as requested by the GHAD. The GHAD is not responsible for maintaining the GHAD Parcels or performing any GHAD Activities as defined in Section 7.0 until it accepts such responsibilities pursuant to this section. The HOA will remain responsible for all GHAD Activities until the GHAD accepts responsibility pursuant to this section. 7.0 GHAD MONITORING, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES Several entities shall have ownership and maintenance duties of common space within the GHAD Annexation Area. The GHAD will assume monitoring and maintenance responsibilities for the following site facilities, improvements, and activities (“GHAD Activities”).  Monitoring, maintenance, and repair of the concrete-lined drainage ditches, subdrain outlets, and risers.  Monitoring and maintenance of measurement devices, such as piezometers, inclinometers, and tiltmeters.  Monitoring, maintenance, and repair of slopes for erosion, landslide, and related slope instability. 7.1 GEOTECHNICAL TECHNIQUES FOR MITIGATION OF LANDSLIDE AND EROSION HAZARDS The techniques that may be employed by the GHAD to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control geologic hazards include, but are not limited to, the following.  Removal of the unstable earth mass.  Stabilization (either partial or total) of the landslide by removal and replacement with compacted, drained fill.  Construction of structures to retain or divert landslide material or sediment.  Construction of erosion control devices such as gabions, riprap, geotextiles, or lined ditches.  Placement of drained engineered buttress fill.  Placement of subsurface drainage devices (e.g. underdrains or horizontal drilled drains).  Slope correction (e.g. gradient change, biotechnical stabilization, slope trimming or contouring). Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 10 June 30, 2021  Construction of additional surface ditches and/or detention basins, silt fences, sediment traps, or backfill or erosion channels. Potential landslide and erosion hazards can often best be mitigated by controlling soil saturation and water runoff and by maintaining the surface and subsurface drainage systems. 8.0 PRIORITY OF GHAD EXPENDITURES The GHAD is responsible for responding to emergencies and completing scheduled repairs and maintenance. The GHAD’s ability to respond, and the extent of the responsiveness, depends on the amount of the available funds and the parameters set forth in the GHAD-Board-approved operating budget. The GHAD is financed through a real property assessment and this assessment cannot be increased without a favorable vote of the residents within the GHAD boundaries. When available funds are not sufficient to undertake all emergency and/or the identified remedial and preventive stabilization measures, the expenditures are to be prioritized as follows in descending order of priority. (A) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards that have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage to residences, critical underground utilities , or paved streets. (B) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards which have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage to ancillary structures, including but not limited to water quality facilities, pools, cabanas or restroom buildings. (C) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards which have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage to open space amenities. (D) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards which have either significantly damaged or pose a significant threat of damage limited to loss of landscaping or other similar non-essential amenities. (E) Prevention, mitigation, abatement, or control of geologic hazards existing entirely on open-space property and which have neither significantly damaged nor pose a significant threat of damage to any Site Improvements. In performing its duties as described above, the GHAD may seek funding or reimbursements from public and private entities or agencies including, but not limited to, FEMA, City and County agencies, insurance companies, etc. 9.0 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING SCHEDULE Geologic features and GHAD-maintained improvements defined in Section 7.0 shall be inspected by the GHAD Manager or its assigned consultants as presented below. The site inspections shall be undertaken at appropriate intervals as determined by the GHAD Manager using supporting documents prepared for the GHAD Annexation Area and the Site Improvements. The GHAD budget should provide for three or more inspections in years of heavy rainfall. Generally, the inspections should take place in October, prior to the first significant rainfall; mid-winter as necessary during heavy rainfall years; and in early April at the end of the rainy seas on. The frequency of the inspections should increase, depending upon the intensity and recurrence of rainfall. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 11 June 30, 2021 The HOA shall provide to the GHAD copies of geologic or geotechnical exploration reports related to site development, and the GHAD shall retain these reports in its records. In addition, copies of any earthwork-related testing and observation reports that will be finalized at the completion of grading, when as-built drawings are available, shall be provided to the GHAD by the HOA and maintained as part of the GHAD records. Following are guidelines for a monitoring plan. The actual timing, scope, frequency and other details regarding such maintenance, inspection, and similar activities shall be at the discretion of the GHAD Manager.  A State-licensed Professional Engineer and/or Professional Geologist should carry out a geologic reconnaissance of the slopes for indications of erosion or slope failures.  A State-licensed Professional Engineer and/or Professional Geologist should carry out an inspection of lined surface ditches. Repairs and maintenance, as needed, should be undertaken including removal of excess silt or sediment in ditches and patching or replacement of cracked or broken ditches, prior to the beginning of the next rainy seas on.  Subsurface drain outlets and horizontal drilled drain outlets, if any, should be checked. Water flowing from these outlets should be measured and recorded during each inspection.  Piezometers to measure groundwater levels, or instruments such as inclinometers or tiltmeters measuring potential slope instability should be monitored as recommended.  Settlement monitoring devices, if any, should be measured periodically and tracked. In the event of anomalous readings or excessive settlement, the monitoring frequency should be increased.  An annual inspection shall be made by a State-licensed Professional Engineer and/or Certified Engineering Geologist to assess the effectiveness of the preventive maintenance program and to make recommendations as to which landslide or erosion measures should be undertaken in the next fiscal year. Any appropriate site-specific study of landslide or erosion conditions shall be determined at that time. Consultants, if necessary, will be retained to undertake the needed studies. An annual inspection report to the GHAD shall be prepared by the Professional Engineer and/or Certified Engineering Geologist. 10.0 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Ownership, funding sources and maintenance responsibilities shall be as shown on the following Table 10.0. Parcel designations are derived from the final subdivision map (Reference 4). Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 12 June 30, 2021 TABLE 10.0: Somerset Long-Term Ownership and Management Matrix FACILITY/FUNCTION PARCEL/ IMPROVEMENT OWNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE ENTITY FUNDING ACREAGE/ COMMENTS a. Townhome Residential Parcels (150 units) Private Private Private b. Private Roadways (Parcel A) Homeowners’ Association (HOA) HOA HOA Dues Conejo Drive, Conejo Lane, Conejo Court, Joya Court, Joya Lane, West Cam Arroyo, Cam Arroyo, Portola Drive, Portola Court, Monterey Court, Monterey Lane, and Maximo Court c. Common Area Open Space (Parcels B, C, D, E, F, and G) HOA HOA HOA Dues 6.92 Acres d. Storm Drain System Contra Costa Flood Control District (CCCFCD) Contra Costa Flood Control District CCCFCD CCCFCD 2. Plan of Control - Geologic Hazard Abatement Responsibilities Post Transfer Period Landslides, Slope Stability, and Erosion Control HOA GHAD GHAD Assessment Concrete-lined Drainage Ditches HOA GHAD GHAD Assessment Subdrains and Subdrain Outfalls HOA GHAD GHAD Assessment Geotechnical Monitoring Instruments HOA GHAD GHAD Assessment 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 13 June 30, 2021 11.0 RIGHT-OF-ACCESS The GHAD Board of Directors, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, agents, and representatives shall have the right to enter upon all lands within the GHAD Annexation Area as shown on Appendix B for the purpose of performing the GHAD Activities defined in this Plan of Control. Such GHAD Activities include, but are not limited to, the inspection, maintenance and monitoring of those improvements listed in Section 7.0. Should the GHAD need to access private residential lots to fulfill its duties under the Plan of Control, the GHAD shall provide the affected landowner and/or resident with 72 hours advanced notice unless, in the reasonable judgment of the GHAD Manager , an emergency situation exists which makes immediate access necessary to protect the public health and safety, in which case no advanced notice is required, but the GHAD Manager shall inform the landowner and/or resident as soon as reasonably possible. The foregoing right-of-entry provision shall be recorded in the chain of title for all GHAD Annexation Area residential parcels and common area lots. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 Page | 14 June 30, 2021 12.0 GLOSSARY Engineer’s Report – The document that establishes the individual property owners’ GHAD assessment limit based on the projected expenses (budget) of the GHAD. Geologic Hazard – An actual or threatened landslide, land subsidence, soil erosion, earthquake, fault movement, or any other natural or unnatural movement of land or earth as defined in GHAD Law, Public Resource Code Section 26507). Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Manager – An entity with a licensed Geotechnical Engineer and a Certified Engineering Geologist who will oversee the operations of the GHAD, including preparation of GHAD budgets. The GHAD Manager is appointed by and reports to the GHAD Board of Directors. GHAD Annexation Area – The parcels included within the limits of the plat and legal description which is coterminous with the boundaries of Subdivision 7763. GHAD Activities – Improvements and responsibilities listed in Section 7.0 of this Plan of Control. Site Improvements – Buildings, public and private roads, sidewalks, utilities, gazebos, cabanas, geologic stabilization features, or similar improvements. Transfer Application – A document completed by the HOA and submitted to the GHAD Manager to initiate the GHAD transfer process. Transfer Eligibility Date – A date specified in the Plan of Control where the HOA is responsible for all GHAD Plan of Control defined activities to allow for the accumulation of reserves prior to acceptance of GHAD-maintained responsibilities. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control 017585.0002\6319796.1 1 of ii June 30, 2021 SELECTED REFERENCES 1. AKA; DRAFT Report #1, Geotechnical Consultations and Monitoring Services, Danville Somerset, Danville, California, December 20, 2002, Project No. 2014-1A, L-25238. 2. AKA; Update Letter, Geotechnical Consultations and Monitoring Services, Danville Somerset Subdivision, Danville, California, October 1, 2004, Project No. 2014-1A, L-26426. 3. Carlson, Barbee and Gibson, Inc., Final Map, Somerset, Subdivision 7763, October 1992. 4. Carlson, Barbee and Gibson, Inc., Grading Plan, Somerset, Subdivision 7763, July 1992. 5. CSA; Summary of CSA Slope Stability Investigation Findings to Date, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, January 2, 2019, Project No. E5020C. 6. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report for Spring 2019 , Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, June 17, 2019, Project No. E5020RA. 7. CSA; Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations for Slope Stability Improvements at the South Side of the Conejo Drive Loop and Camino Arroyo West, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, April 26, 2019, Project No. E5020U. 8. CSA; Summary of 2016 Residential Inspections and Floor Level Surveys at Conejo Court , Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, April 18, 2018, Project No. E5020C. 9. CSA; Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations for Slope Stability Improvements Below Conejo Court, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, April 12, 2016, Project No. E5020M. 10. CSA; Conejo Court Slope Improvement Project, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, March 24, 2016, Plan Set – Sheets 1-16, Project No. E5020M. 11. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report for Fall 2018, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, November 14, 2018, Project No. E5020RA. 12. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report for Spring 2018 , Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, May 29, 2018, Project No. E5020RA. 13. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report for Fall 2017, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, December 13, 2017, Project No. E5020RA. 14. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report for Spring 2017 , Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, May 8, 2017, Project No. E5020RA. 15. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, May 13, 2016, Project No. E5020P. 16. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, November 2, 2016, Project No. E5020P. 17. CSA; Preliminary Evaluation of Deflection at Slope Inclinometer AKA-5, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, September 18, 2015, Project No. E5020C. 18. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, March 26, 2015, Project No. E5020L. 19. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, October 30, 2015, Project No. E5020L. Danville Somerset Homeowners Association Somerset, Subdivision 7763 16098.000.000 GHAD Plan of Control SELECTED REFERENCES (Continued) 017585.0002\6319796.1 June 30, 2021 20. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, March 26, 2014, Project No. E5020K. 21. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, September 19, 2014, Project No. E5020K. 22. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, April 3, 2013, Project No. E5020F. 23. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, September 27, 2013, Project No. E5020F. 24. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, April 13, 2012, Project No. E5020D. 25. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, September 14, 2012, Project No. E5020D. 26. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, October 4, 2011, Project No. E5020D. 27. CSA; Semi-Annual Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, May 11, 2011, Project No. E5020D. 28. Earth Systems Consultants, Geotechnical Report on Residential Structure and Pavement Distress Evaluation, Somerset Residential Development, subdivision 7763, Contra Costa County, California, June 19, 1998, File No. NFF-3867-01. 29. ENGEO, Geotechnical Design Recommendations, Danville Somerset, Danville, California, Project No 16098.000.000, September 3, 2020. 30. ENGEO, Slope Inclinometer and Piezometer Monitoring Report for Establishing Baseline and Winter 2021, Danville Somerset, Contra Costa County, California, Project No 16098.000.000, March 23, 2021 31. TerraSearch, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Subdivision 7763, Danville, California, July 30, 1991, Project No.6357. 32. Treadwell & Rollo, DRAFT, Boring Logs, March 12, 1999. 017585.0002\6319796.1 APPENDIX A FIGURE 1: Photogeologic Map (CSA 2016) FIGURE 2: Site Plan (ENGEO 2021) EXPLANATION LANDSLIDE SCARP OLD LANDSLIDE POSSIBLE OLD LANDSLIDE (UNCERTAIN) ARTIFICIAL FILL APPROXIMATE ORIENTATION OF BEDDING PHOTOGEOLOGIC MAP DANVILLE SOMERSET CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16098.000.000 NO SCALE 1 ESC-2 ESC-1 LD-2 TR-2 CSA/SI-19 CSA/SI-9 P-2 ESC-3 CSA/SI-8 CSA/SI-15 CSA/SI-18 CSA/SI-17 CSA/SI-11 CSA/SI-12 CSA/SI-1 TR-4 P-6 CSA/SI-2 CSA/SI-7 CSA/SI-6 AKA-4 P-4 CSA/SI-10 CSA/SI-3 TR-3 CSA/SI-5 AKA-3 P-3 CSA/SI-4 CSA/SI-14 CSA/SI-13AKA-5 P-5 AKA-1 AKA-2 P-1 TR-1 CSA/SI-16 EXPLANATION GHAD ANNEXATION LIMIT SLOPE INCLINOMETERS AND PIEZOMETERS (COTTON SHIRES & ASSOCIATES) SLOPE INCLINOMETER (ALAN KROPP AND ASSOCIATES) 0 FEET 120 SITE PLAN DANVILLE SOMERSET CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16098.000.000 AS SHOWN 2 P-6 TR-1CSA/SI-19 AKA-3 ESC-1 PIEZOMETER (ALAN KROPP AND ASSOCIATES) SLOPE INCLINOMETERS AND PIEZOMETERS (TREADWELL AND ROLLO) SLOPE INCLINOMETER (EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS) SITE 017585.0002\6319796.1 APPENDIX B EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Geologic Hazard Abatement District, Somerset - Subdivision 7763 EXHIBIT B Plat to Accompany Legal Description ESC-2 ESC-1 LD-2 TR-2 CSA/SI-19 CSA/SI-9 P-2 ESC-3 CSA/SI-8 CSA/SI-15 CSA/SI-18 CSA/SI-17 CSA/SI-11 CSA/SI-12 CSA/SI-1 TR-4 P-6 CSA/SI-2 CSA/SI-7 CSA/SI-6 AKA-4 P-4 CSA/SI-10 CSA/SI-3 TR-3 CSA/SI-5 AKA-3 P-3 CSA/SI-4 CSA/SI-14 CSA/SI-13AKA-5 P-5 AKA-1 AKA-2 P-1 TR-1 CSA/SI-16 0 FEET 120 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION DANVILLE SOMERSET CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16098.000.000 AS SHOWN B SITE 017585.0002\6319796.1 APPENDIX C DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURES, RIGHT OF ENTRY AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REGARDING WENDT RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT 017585.0002\6319796.1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District Attn: DECLARATION OF DISCLOSURES, RIGHT OF ENTRY AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REGARDING WENDT RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT This Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry, and Restrictive Covenants Regarding Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (the “Declaration”) is made this _____ day of _____________, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), by, Danville Somerset Homeowners Association (“Declarant”). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of that certain real property located in unincorporated County of Contra Costa, State of California, more particularly described as Parcels A through G in Subdivision 7763, filed on June 3, 1993 in Book of Parcel Maps, at pages 4 through 14, all in the Official Records of Contra Costa County, California (the “Property”). B. Residents within the Somerset development, Subdivision 7763, (“GHAD Annexation Area”) located in the Danville area of unincorporated Contra Costa County submitted a Petition for Annexation to join the existing Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”). C. Under the authority of California Public Resources Code section 26500, et seq., the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on February 12, 2002, adopted Resolution No. 2002/59 forming and establishing the Wendt Ranch GHAD to prevent, mitigate, abate or control potential geologic hazards within the boundaries of the GHAD. On ________________ , 2021, the Wendt Ranch GHAD adopted Resolution No. 2021/____, approving annexation of the Property into the Wendt Ranch GHAD. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant, as the owner of the Property, for itself, its successors and assigns does hereby declare as follows: 1. Notification and Disclosure of Wendt Ranch GHAD: The Declarant hereby gives notice and discloses that the Property is a part of the Wendt Ranch GHAD. The Board of Directors of the Wendt Ranch GHAD are the members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Pursuant to the Plan of Control for Annexation of the Property to Wendt Ranch GHAD as it may be amended from time to time (the “Plan of Control”), the Declarant and the Wendt Ranch GHAD are afforded certain responsibilities and rights relating to the prevention, mitigation, abatement, and control of potential geologic hazards on the Property. The powers of the Wendt Ranch GHAD include the power to assess lot owners within the GHAD Annexation Area for the purposes set out in the Plan of Control. An assessment was authorized by the Wendt Ranch GHAD to be imposed on the GHAD Annexation Area pursuant to adopted Resolution 2021/____. 2. Right of Entry: The Declarant by executing and recording this Declaration hereby contractually affords Wendt Ranch GHAD, its officials, employees, contractors and agents an irrevocable right of entry with continuing and perpetual access to and across the Property for the purposes and responsibilities set out in the Plan of Control (“Access Rights”). Should the Wendt Ranch GHAD need to access private residential lots to fulfill its duties under the Plan of Control, the 017585.0002\6319796.1 Wendt Ranch GHAD shall provide the affected landowner and/or resident with 72 hours advanced notice unless, in the reasonable judgment of the GHAD Manager, an emergency situation exists which makes immediate access necessary to protect the public health and safety, in which case no advanced notice is required, but the Wendt Ranch GHAD shall inform the landowner and/or resident as soon as reasonably possible. The Declarant hereby gives notice that the GHAD will acquire Access Rights immediately upon the execution of this Declaration. The GHAD, in its sole discretion, may elect not to exercise Access Rights until it accepts its maintenance responsibilities consistent with the Plan of Control. 3. GHAD Easement: For those properties within the GHAD Annexation Area the Declarant hereby grants the Wendt Ranch GHAD a perpetual easement for the purposes and responsibilities set out in the Plan of Control and for maintaining certain site improvements as depicted in Exhibit B, and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto, (the “GHAD Easement”). Such activities include, but are not limited to: (a) the inspection, maintenance, monitoring, and replacement of site improvements including, drainage ditches, storm drains, outfalls, and pipelines; (b) the monitoring, maintenance, and repair of slopes, including repaired or partially repaired landslides; and (c) the management of erosion and geologic hazards within the open space areas shown in the Plan of Control. The GHAD Easement shall become effective upon acceptance by the Wendt Ranch GHAD of its responsibilities and rights, the process by which is articulated in the Plan of Control. The Wendt Ranch GHAD has no maintenance responsibilities whatsoever to the Declarant or Property until and unless the Wendt Ranch GHAD accepts such responsibilities consistent with the Plan of Control. 4. Covenants Running with the Land: The Property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, sold, leased, used, improved, and maintained subject to the limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, rights of entry, and equitable servitude set forth in this Declaration, which are in furtherance of Declarant’s plan for the uniform improvement and operation of the Property. All of the limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, rights of entry, and equitable servitudes set out in this Declaration shall both benefit and burden the Property and shall run with and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Property and each parcel therein, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each owner, and every person having or acquiring any right, title or interest in and to all or any portion of the Property and their successors and assigns. Upon Declarant’s conveyance of fee title to the Property, or any portion thereof, Declarant shall be released from any further liability or obligation hereunder related to the portion of the Property so conveyed, and the grantee of such conveyance shall be deemed to be the "Declarant,” with all rights and obligations related thereto, with respect to that portion of the Property conveyed. 5. Hold Harmless: Declarant, or its successors and assigns, shall hold harmless, protect , and indemnify Wendt Ranch GHAD and its directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and representatives and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (collectively, “Wendt Ranch GHAD Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees), causes of action, claims, demands, orders, liens, or judgments (each a “Claim” and, collectively, “Claims”): (1) for injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, related to or occurring on or about the GHAD Easement to the extent arising from the negligence or intentional misconduct of Declarant, its employees, agents or contractors; or (2) related the existence of the GHAD Easement, exclusive of any Claims brought by Declarant. 017585.0002\6319796.1 6. Enforcement: The Wendt Ranch GHAD shall have the right but not the obligation to enforce the provisions of this Declaration. 7. Modification or Termination: This Declaration shall not be modified, amended, or terminated without the written consent of the Wendt Ranch GHAD. Executed as of the Effective Date. Declarant: Danville Somerset Homeowners Association By: Its: __________________________________ 017585.0002\6319796.1 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed to the Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District by the foregoing document titled “Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry and Restrictive Covenants”, which is dated _______________, 20____ and executed by ______________ , is hereby accepted by the undersigned pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. ____-____, dated _______________, 20____. The Town of Danville, as grantee, consents to recordation of said “Declaration of Disclosures, Right of Entry and Restrictive Covenants”. _______________________ ENGEO Date: Wendt Ranch GHAD Manager Attest: _______________________ ENGEO Wendt Ranch GHAD Clerk Approved as to form: _______________________ Wendel Rosen, LLP Wendt Ranch GHAD Attorney 017585.0002\6319796.1 APPENDIX D SAMPLE TRANSFER APPLICATION FORM 017585.0002\6319796.1 TRANSFER APPLICATION, WENDT RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD) SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT – SUBDIVISION 7763 Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District Board of Directors c/o Wendt Ranch GHAD Manager ENGEO Incorporated 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 As of ____________, 20__, Danville Somerset Homeowners Association (“HOA”) is submitting an application for transfer of GHAD activities as provided in Section 6.0 of the Somerset Plan of Control dated June 25, 2021. As specified in Section 6.0, HOA is submitting this Transfer Application to transfer the responsibility for performing GHAD activities for the listed parcels to the District. Within 45 days of the submittal of the Transmittal Application, the GHAD will monitor the listed parcels and verify that the facilities that the GHAD will have maintenance responsibility have been constructed and maintained in accordance with the conditions of Section 6.4 of the Plan of Control. Within 15 days of inspection, the GHAD will send the HOA a punch list of all items that need to be constructed, repaired, or otherwise modified in compliance with the plans and specifications. HOA will notify the GHAD upon completion of the punch list items. Within 30 days of receipt of such notice, the GHAD shall verify that all punch list items have been completed and notify the HOA. GHAD staff will then bring a resolution before the Wendt Ranch GHAD Board of Directors for their consideration approving GHAD responsibility for performing all future GHAD activities on the parcel(s). We submit the following parcels for the transfer of GHAD activities as provided in the Somerset Plan of Control to the Wendt Ranch GHAD: Lot Number Address Assessor’s Parcel Number Each party is to submit a copy of this application to the other party upon completion of the steps listed below. GHAD receipt of Transfer Application: Initial of GHAD representative: __________ Date: _______ HOA receipt of punch list from GHAD: Initial of ______ representative: __________ Date: _______ GHAD receipt of notice of completion of punch list items: Initial of GHAD representative: __________ Date: _______ 017585.0002\6319796.1 16098.000.000 May 6, 2021 1 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE WENDT RANCH GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO DIVISION 17 (commencing with section 26500) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO: The Clerk of the Wendt Ranch Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) The undersigned owners of land within the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the GHAD hereby request s that the Board of Directors of the GHAD (“GHAD Board”) initiate proceedings to annex the territory described in Exhibit A (“Legal Description”) and Exhibit B (“Boundary Map”), attached hereto, to the GHAD pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Public Resources Code § 26550) and Article 4 (commencing with Public Resources Code § 26561) of Chapter 2 of Division 17 o f the Public Resources Code (§ 26500 et seq.). (a) This petition is made pursuant to Division 17 of the Public Resources Code with particular reference to Article 3 (commencing with Section 26550) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 26561). (b) Opposite the signature of each petitioner is an indication of the lot, tract and map number or other legal description sufficient to identify the signature of the petitioner as that of an owner of land within the territory proposed to be annexed to the GHAD. (c) Opposite the signature of each petitioner is an indication of the date on which said petitioner’s signature was affixed to this petition. (d) The following documents are attached to this petition and are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full in the petition: 1. A legal description of the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the GHAD (Exhibit A); and 2. A map of the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the GHAD (Exhibit B); 3. A Plan of Control for the Somerset development prepared by an Engineering Geologist certified pursuant to Section 7822 of the California Business and Professions Code, which describes in detail geologic hazards, their location and the areas affected thereby, and a plan for their prevention, mitigation, abatement and control thereof (Exhibit C). Exhibits: A - Legal Description B - Boundary Map C – Somerset Plan of Control 16098.000.000 May 6, 2021 EXHIBITS A and B Legal Description and Boundary Map ESC-2 ESC-1 LD-2 TR-2 CSA/SI-19 CSA/SI-9 P-2 ESC-3 CSA/SI-8 CSA/SI-15 CSA/SI-18 CSA/SI-17 CSA/SI-11 CSA/SI-12 CSA/SI-1 TR-4 P-6 CSA/SI-2 CSA/SI-7 CSA/SI-6 AKA-4 P-4 CSA/SI-10 CSA/SI-3 TR-3 CSA/SI-5 AKA-3 P-3 CSA/SI-4 CSA/SI-14 CSA/SI-13AKA-5 P-5 AKA-1 AKA-2 P-1 TR-1 CSA/SI-16 0 FEET 120 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION DANVILLE SOMERSET CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16098.000.000 AS SHOWN B SITE 16098.000.000 May 6, 2021 EXHIBIT C Somerset Plan of Control RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Jacqui Biggins, Daniel Ortega, Clarence Edward Smith, Diane and Marvin Wilson, A.G., a minor, D.G., a minor, and J.B., a minor; DENY amended claims of Charles Royce Pierce, Geico as subrogee of Charles Pierce, and Hosea Washington Jr. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Jacqui Biggins: Property claim for allegedly stolen personal property in the amount of $7,600. Daniel Ortega: Property claim for allegedly stolen shoes in the amount of $174.04 Clarence Edward Smith: Personal injury claim for failure to protect from illness at Martinez jail in the amount of $6,600,000. Diane and Marvin Wilson: Personal injury claim for wrongful death of son in an amount in excess of $25,000. A.G., a minor: Personal injury APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott Selby, Risk Mgmt I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) claim for alleged harassment in the amount of $100,000. D.G., a minor: Personal injury claim for alleged harassment in the amount of $100,000. J.B., a minor: Personal injury claim for alleged harassment in the amount of $100,000. GEICO, a subrogee of Charles Pierce: Amended subrogation claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $4,669.53 Charles Royce Pierce: Amended personal injury claim for vehicle collision an amount to be determined. Hosea Washington Jr.: Amended property damage claim for vehicle collision in an amount to be determined. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Board meeting minutes for May 2021, as on file with the Office of the Clerk of the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 25101(b) requires the Clerk of the Board to keep and enter in the minute book of the Board a full and complete record of the proceedings of the Board at all regular and special meetings, including the entry in full of all resolutions and of all decisions on questions concerning the allowance of accounts. The vote of each member on every question shall be recorded. Districts I, IV and V have nothing to report for January 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Bergamini 925.655.2000 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From: Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Board meeting minutes for May 2021 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Colleen Awad, 925-521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:In Recognition of the 75th Anniversary of Bay Alarm ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/210 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2021/210 In the Matter of Recognizing the 75th Anniversary of Bay Alarm. WHEREAS, Bay Alarm was founded in 1946 by Marj and Everett Westphal in Oakland, California; and WHEREAS, Bay Alarm is based in Concord, California, and is a family-run business now in its third generation; and WHEREAS, Bay Alarm is now the largest independently-owned security company in the nation. WHEREAS, in 1973, Bay Alarm developed one of the first computerized monitoring systems and went fully digital by the 1980s and those innovations continue today; and WHEREAS, they employ over 1,100 California residents and protect more than 150,000 homes and businesses; and WHEREAS, the Company motto is “The Bay Way” which means doing right by the customers, and treating fellow Bay Alarm staff members with the utmost respect; and WHEREAS, Bay Alarm’s management and employees have a long history of supporting the communities which they serve with multiple contributions to several community groups, as well as local fire and law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, Bay Alarm’s employees have an average tenure of ten years and many employees are required to have over 2,000 hours of training that includes in-depth security measures to ensure the highest quality of service. Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes Bay Alarm on their 75thanniversary and applauds their dedication to keeping our residents and communities secure. ___________________ DIANE BURGIS Chair, District III Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jeff Waters 925-957-5386 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:DECLARING THE WEEK OF JULY 18-24, 2021, AS PROBATION, PRETRIAL AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OFFICERS’ WEEK IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/215 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2021/215 Declaring the week of July 18-24, 2021, as Probation, Pretrial, and Community Supervision Officers' of Contra Costa County WHEREAS, Probation is an essential component of the justice system; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals promote community protection through proactive, problem-solving, evidence-based practices plus interventions aimed at changing criminal and/or delinquent behavior; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals are responsible for supervising adult and juvenile clients in the community; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals provide services and programs that provide opportunities for clients to become law-abiding residents; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals work in partnership with public safety stakeholders and community based organizations; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals are dedicated, hard-working individuals who are truly concerned about making a difference in the community where they live; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals provide services, support and protection for victims; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals advocate community and restorative justice; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals are compassionate individuals; and WHEREAS, Probation professionals believe in restoring trust and creating hope. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, does hereby proclaim July 18-24, 2021, as PROBATION, PRETRIAL AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OFFICERS' week on the recommendation of the County Probation Officer, Esa Ehmen-Krause, and encourages all residents to honor these Probation professionals and to recognize their achievements. ___________________ DIANE BURGIS Chair, District III Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2021-06, designating a 2004 Freightliner FL60, 1996 Freightliner FL60, 2020 Ford F-450, 2006 Ford F650, three 2018 Ford Interceptor utility vehicles and two 2018 Ford Edges as Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team Vehicles; WAIVE reading; and FIX July 27, 2021, for adoption, as recommended by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. All response vehicles are already equipped to meet Authorized Emergency Vehicle requirements. BACKGROUND: Since 1981, the Health Services Department Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team has been responding to spills, chemical releases, and other hazardous materials incidents throughout the County. The need often arises to go through or around slow or stalled traffic. Vehicle Code 2416, subdivision (a)(10) allows the commissioner of the California Highway Patrol to issue Authorized Emergency Vehicle Permits to vehicles owned by the county which are designated by an ordinance as hazardous materials APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Randy Sawyer, 925-335-3210 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Fahlon Zapppelli, Marcy Wilhelm C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Introduce Ordinance for Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Vehicles BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) response team vehicles used in responding to hazardous materials emergencies. Each vehicle must have an Authorized Emergency Vehicle Permit to be equipped with lights and sirens. In 2019, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2019-04, which designated nine vehicles for use as Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Vehicles. Proposed Ordinance No. 2021-06 would also designate nine vehicles as Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Vehicles, with one new vehicle replacing a retiring vehicle. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX (Uncodified) (Designating Certain Health Services Department Vehicles as Hazardous Materials Response Team Vehicles) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 20 19-04 and designates a total of nine Health Services Department vehicles as hazardous materials response team vehicles. SECTION II. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Vehicle Code section 2416, subdivision (a)(10). SECTION III. REPEAL. Ordinance No. 2019-04 is repealed in its entirety. SECTION IV. DESIGNATION . The following vehicles owned and operated by the County Health Services Department are hereby designated as hazardous materials response team ve hicles for response to hazardous materials emergencies: A) 2004 Freightliner FL60 County Vehicle No. 6824 License No. 1201175 VIN: 1FVACWDDX5HN93858 B) 1996 Freightliner FL60 County Vehicle No. 6814 License No. 048373 VIN: 1FV3GF3D6VH708472 C) 2020 Ford F-450 County Vehicle No. 5674 License No. 1577855 VIN: 1FDUF4HT5LDA00767 D) 2006 Ford F650 County Vehicle No. 6868 License No. 1232779 VIN: 3FRNX65N66V297707 E) 2018 Ford Interceptor SUV County Vehicle No. 3643 License No. 1555994 VIN: 1FM5K 8AT7JGC34129 F) 2018 Ford Interceptor SUV County Vehicle No. 3644 License No. 1555995 VIN: 1FM5K8AT3JGC34130 G) 2018 Ford Interceptor SUV County Vehicle No. 3645 License No. 1555996 VIN: 1FM5K8AT5JGC34131 H) 2018 Ford Edge County Vehicle No. 3657 License No. 1553842 VIN: 2FMPK4J87JBC40775 I) 2018 Ford Edge County Vehicle No. 3658 License No. 1555999 VIN: 2FMPK4J89JBC40776 SECTION V. PERMIT. The Director of Health Services is authorized to apply to the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol for authorized emergency vehicle permits for the above vehicles. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Eric Freitag to the Walnut Creek Local Committee Seat on the Advisory Council on Aging, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Appoint Eric Freitag as the City of Walnut Creek Local Committee representative on the Advisory Council on Aging (Council) for a term ending September 30, 2021. The seat is currently vacant. Mr. Freitag is a Walnut Creek resident approved by the Walnut Creek City Council on June 1, 2021. The Council provides countywide planning, cooperation, and coordination for individuals and groups interested in improving and developing services and opportunities for older residents of the County. The Council provides leadership and advocacy on behalf of older persons as a channel of communication and information on aging. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Advisory Council on Aging may not be able to conduct routine business. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Advisory Council on Aging Appointment RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Rhoda Butler to the District 3 Alternate seat on First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission to a term expiring August 16, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis. Antioch, CA FISCAL IMPACT: NONE. BACKGROUND: The Alternate seat has been vacant since September 2020. Applications were accepted and the recommendation to appoint the above individual was then determined. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat would remain vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lea Castleberry 925-252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO FIRST 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Samantha Moy to the District 3 Alternate seat on the Sustainability Commission to a term expiring March 31, 2025, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis. Brentwood, CA FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The seat is currently vacant. Applications were accepted and the recommendation to appoint the above individual was then determined. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat would remain vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lea Castleberry 925-252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Erin Clancy-Mathias to the Appointee 5 seat on the Knightsen Town Advisory Council to a term expiring December 31, 2024, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis. Knightsen, CA FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Appointee 5 seat is currently vacant. Applications were accepted and the recommendation to appoint the above individual was then determined. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat would remain vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lea Castleberry 925-252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO KTAC RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT LaTonia Peoples-Stokes to the District 3 seat on the Economic Opportunity Council to a term expiring June 30, 2023, as recommended by Supervisor Diane Burgis and DECLARE a vacancy in the Private/Non-Profit Sector Alternate seat. Discovery Bay, CA 94505 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The current term expires June 30, 2021 and the appointee does not wish for reappointment. Applications were accepted and the recommendation to appoint the above individual was then determined. The individual has been serving on the Economic Opportunity Council in the Private/Non-Profit Alternate seat. By appointing her to the District 3 seat, the Private/Non-Profit Alternate seat will become vacant. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat would be vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lea Castleberry 925-252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO EOC RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Ronald Mullin, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 4 seat on the Assessment Appeals Board, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Assessment Appeals Board is established to assess and equalize the valuation of the taxable property in the County for the purpose of taxation; and to perform all duties required by the State Board of Equalization and State law. Mr. Mullin has been successfully serving on the Assessment Appeals Board and now wishes to resign. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Chow, (925)521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the resignation of Ronald Mullin from the Assessment Appeals Board District 4 seat CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will remain occupied. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Bruce Hahn, DECLARE a vacancy in the District 4 Alternate Seat on the Assessment Appeals Board, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: none BACKGROUND: The Assessment Appeals Board is established to assess and equalize the valuation of the taxable property in the County for the purpose of taxation; and to perform all duties required by the State Board of Equalization and State law. Mr. Hahn has been successfully serving on the Assessment Appeals Board and now wishes to resign because he moved out of the County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Chow, (925)521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the resignation of Bruce Hahn from the Assessment Appeals Board District 4 Alternate Seat CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will be remain occupied. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, advancements, and voluntary resignations as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at their June 21, 2021 meeting, and by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission has requested that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval for each medical staff member will be placed in his or her Credentials File. The above recommendations for appointment/reappointment were reviewed by the Credentials Committee and approved by the Medical Executive Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Contra Costa Regional Medical and Contra Costa Health Centers' medical staff would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with The Joint Commission. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, James Ham C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Medical Staff Appointments and Reappointments – June 21, 2021 ATTACHMENTS List Anna M. Roth, R.N., M.S., M.P.H.Contra Costa Regional Health Services Director Medical Center & Health Centers Samir B. Shah, M.D., F.A.C.S.2500 Alhambra Avenue Chief Executive Officer Martinez, California 94553-3156 Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Ph 925-370-5000 and Health Centers & Chief Medical Officer Contra Costa Health Services A.New Medical Staff Members Baffoe-Bonnie, AMA, MD Pediatrics Chung, Richard, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Lewis, Jeffrey, MD Anesthesia Mruthyunjaya, Pranathi, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Norry, Dahlia, MD DFAM Percival, Kara, MD Pediatrics Saleh, Gaber, MD DFAM Srivistav, Shivani, MD Pediatrics Wright, Francis, MD OB/GYN B.Application for Staff Affiliation Ngadon, Tenzin, NP DFAM C.1st year Residents None D.Travis Residents-Family Medicine None E.Request for Additional Privileges None Department Requesting F.Request to change Primary Department None Original Department Requesting Department G.Advance to Non-Provisional Ahmad, Samir, MD DFAM A Escandon, Martin, MD OB/GYN A Gandhi, Shailesh, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Hsieh, Dennis, MD Emergency Medicine A Nuti, Elizabeth, MD Pediatrics A Seymour, Jennifer, DO Emergency Medicine A H.Biennial Reappointments Bader, Semon, MD Surgery A Falkenstein, Iryna, MD Surgery C Hollandberry, Elizabeth, MD DFAM A James, Jaison, MD Surgery A Kao, Lily, MD Pediatrics C Karatepe, Meltem, MD Pediatrics A Kim, Edward, MD Internal Medicine C Lee, Rebecca, MD Hospital Medicine A Loda, Kimberly, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A McCormick, Jane, MD Internal Medicine A Melek, Maged, MD DFAM P Owens, Nancy, MD Pediatrics A Pagtalunan, Maria, MD Internal Medicine C Wai, Sandra, MD Pediatrics C I.Biennial Renewal of Privileges Francis, Deidra, NP DFAM AFF Linn, Lizabeth, NP DFAM AFF Weiss, Karen, NP DFAM AFF J.Teleradialogist (VRAD) Reappointments None K.UCSF Teleneurologist Reappointments None L.Voluntary Resignations Barron, Danica, MD Emergency Medicine Buoncristiani, Amy, MD Emergency Medicine Gharagozlou, Barsam, MD Pediatrics Long, Richard, MD Surgery Macedo, Joseph, MD OB/GYN Majid, Abid, MD Internal Medicine Menezes, Alicia, MD Surgery Rosenfeld, Jack, DDS Dental Stanger, Jennifer, MD Hospital Medicine Witten, Elizabeth, CNM OB/GYN RECOMMENDATION(S): Board of Supervisor may consider reappointing Thomas Hansen to the Workforce & Labor Seat # 1 and appointing Timothy Jeffries to Workforce & Labor Seat # 3 of the local Workforce Development Board (WDB) both for terms that expires on June 30, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND: Local board structure and size: Compared to predecessor legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) substantially changes Local Board composition by reducing local workforce development board size while maintaining a business and industry majority and ensuring representation from labor and employment and training organizations. The Workforce Development Board has 23 seats plus the two optional as follows: Category – Representatives of Business (WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(A)) Thirteen (13) representatives (52%) Category – Representatives of Workforce (WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(A)) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dennis Bozanich; 925-655-2050 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M.Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointment and Reappointment to Workforce Development Board BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Five (5) representatives (20%) Category – Representatives of Education and Training (WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(C)) One (1) Adult Education/Literacy Representative (WIOA title II) One (1) Higher Education Representative One (1) Economic and Community Development Representative One (1) Wagner Peyser Representative One (1) Vocational Rehabilitation Representative OPTIONAL: Two (2) additional seats from the above categories, including constituencies referenced in Attachment III of Training Employment & Guidance Letter (TEGL) 27-14. The Workforce Development Board Executive Committee, approved on June 15, 2021 at an emergency committee meeting. No other candidates competed for the seats. On June 28, 2021, the Family and Human Services Committee recommended the appointment of Mr. Jeffries and the reappointment of Mr. Hansen to the Workforce Development Board for terms expiring on June 30, 2025. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Reduced public participation. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NA ATTACHMENTS Application - Hansen Application - Jeffries WDB Roster - June 2021 Submit Date: Jun 02, 2021 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Home Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Email Address Contra Costa County Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile Which supervisorial district do you live in? District 5 Education Select the option that applies to your high school education * High School Diploma College/ University A Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University B Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Thomas B Hansen 97 Bridgeview Ct Crockett CA 94525 Home: (510) 787-3609 tomh@ibewlu302.com Thomas B Hansen A1b Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University C Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Degree Awarded? Yes No Other schools / training completed: Course Studied IBEW Electrical Apprenticeship Hours Completed 8000 Certificate Awarded? Yes No Board and Interest Which Boards would you like to apply for? Workforce Development Board: Submitted Seat Name Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? Yes No If you have attended, how many meetings have you attended? I have been on the Board for almost 20 years Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, commitee, or commission. I am reapplying for my seat Thomas B Hansen Upload a Resume Qualifications and Volunteer Experience I would like to be considered for appointment to other advisory boards for which I may be qualified. Yes No Are you currently or have you ever been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board, commission, or committee? Yes No List any volunteer or community experience, including any advisory boards on which you have served. Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Supervisors Compensation Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) I am currently on the Board Conflict of Interest and Certification Do you have a Familial or Financial Relationship with a member of the Board of Supervisors? Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationships with the County such as grants, contracts, or other economic relations? Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Thomas B Hansen Workforce Development Board Please Agree with the Following Statement I certify that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and undersand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand that misstatements and/or omissions of material fact may cause forfeiture of my rights to serve on a board, committee, or commission in Contra Costa County. I Agree Thomas B Hansen Submit Date: Jun 04, 2021 First Name Middle Initial Last Name Home Address Suite or Apt City State Postal Code Primary Phone Email Address Contra Costa County Boards & Commissions Application Form Profile Which supervisorial district do you live in? District 5 Education Select the option that applies to your high school education * High School Diploma College/ University A Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University B Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Timothy Jefferies 2191 Piedmont Way Pittsburg CA 94565 Home: (925) 427-7586 tjeff@bmlocal549.org Timothy Jefferies A1c Degree Awarded? Yes No College/ University C Name of College Attended Degree Type / Course of Study / Major Degree Awarded? Yes No Other schools / training completed: Course Studied Hours Completed Certificate Awarded? Yes No Board and Interest Which Boards would you like to apply for? Workforce Development Board: Submitted Seat Name Timothy Jefferies Have you ever attended a meeting of the advisory board for which you are applying? Yes No If you have attended, how many meetings have you attended? Please explain why you would like to serve on this particular board, commitee, or commission. constantly seeking ways to increase and educate the workforce of my local area. and also make relations with those who seek the same endeavors. Qualifications and Volunteer Experience Timothy Jefferies Upload a Resume I would like to be considered for appointment to other advisory boards for which I may be qualified. Yes No Are you currently or have you ever been appointed to a Contra Costa County advisory board, commission, or committee? Yes No List any volunteer or community experience, including any advisory boards on which you have served. I have been a faithful Food Bank volunteer for several years. (November time period) and many years ago I was a faithful Salvation Army volunteer. Describe your qualifications for this appointment. (NOTE: you may also include a copy of your resume with this application) I am a member of the workforce that I want to see improved. Conflict of Interest and Certification Do you have a Familial or Financial Relationship with a member of the Board of Supervisors? Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Do you have any financial relationships with the County such as grants, contracts, or other economic relations? Yes No If Yes, please identify the nature of the relationship: Timothy Jefferies Please Agree with the Following Statement I certify that the statements made by me in this application are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I acknowledge and undersand that all information in this application is publicly accessible. I understand that misstatements and/or omissions of material fact may cause forfeiture of my rights to serve on a board, committee, or commission in Contra Costa County. I Agree Timothy Jefferies A1d 6/15/2021 BOARD MEMBERS PUBLIC ROSTER Committee Michael McGill 1 6/23/2020 District #2 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Chairperson/Engineer MMS Design Associates District #2 EXEC/YOUTH Joshua Aldrich 2 10/9/2018 District #3 10/1/2018 6/30/2022 CEO Del Sol NRG. Inc.District #3 BED Yolanda Vega 3 6/23/2020 District #2 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Principal Peak Performance Corporate Training District #2 EXEC Terry Curley 4 10/9/2018 District #2 10/1/2018 6/30/2022 Executive Vice President United Business Bank District #4 EXEC/BED VACANT 5 District #X 6/30/20XX Disttict #X VACANT 6 District #X 6/30/20XX District #X Stacey Marshall 7 6/23/2020 District #1 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Manager Human Resources American Sugar Refining, Inc.District #5 BED Carolina Herrera 8 7/14/2020 District #4 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Manager, Community & Government Relations Kaiser Permanente District #4 BED Robert Muller 9 3/12/2019 District #5 3/1/2019 6/30/2023 Learning Manager PBF Energy District #5 YOUTH Laura Trevino 10 7/14/2020 District #5 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Business Profile Account Manager Coast Personal Services District #5 YOUTH Stephanie Rivera 11 7/14/2020 District #4 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Director, Community Health Improvement John Muir Health District #4 BED Monica Magee 12 8/11/2020 District #5 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Director of Marketing Bishop Ranch District #2 BED Corry Kennedy 13 7/14/2020 District #4 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Human Resource Manager Chevron District #2 BED 1 District #5 6/30/2025 Business Manager IBEW Local 302 District #5 EXEC Joshua Anijar 2 12/10/2019 District #X 12/1/2019 6/30/2023 Executive Director Centra Labor Council Contra Costa County District #5 EXEC 3 District #5 6/30/2025 BM Local 549 District #5 VACANT 4 District #X 6/30/20XX District #X VACANT 5 District #X 6/30/20XX District #X G. Vittoria Abbate 1 10/17/2017 District #2 10/1/2017 6/30/2021 Director, College & Career & Adult Education Mt. Diablo Unified School District District #4 YOUTH Kelly Schelin 2 7/14/2020 District #5 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Associate Vice Chancellor, Educational Services Contra Costa College District #1 BED Carol Asch 1 6/23/2020 District #X 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Rehabilitation Act of 1973/District Administrator California Department of Rehabilitation District #4 YOUTH Richard Johnson 2 6/23/2020 District #4 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Employment Service/Employment Prog.Manager ll California Employment Development Department District #4 BED Kwame Reed 3 6/23/2020 District #X 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Economic Development Director City of Antioch District #3 EXEC/BED Leslay Choy 1 7/14/2020 District #1 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 Executive Director San Pablo Economic Development District #1 BED DeVonn Powers 2 12/8/2020 District #X 12/1/2020 6/30/2024 Founder Chief Exec.Officer Humanity Way, Inc.District #X BUSINESS COMMITTEE WORKFORCE & LABOR Exec EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE EDUCATION AND TRAINING BED BUSINESS ECONOMIC & DEV. GOVERNMENTAL AND ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Youth YOUTH COMMITTEE FLEX ADDITIONAL MEMBERS N/A NOT ASSIGNED PENDING APPROVAL/CONFIRMATION VACANT SEAT TERM END DATE Entity Name Seat #Appointment Date Term End Date Title Entity Name Seat #Appointment Date Term End Date Title Entity Name Seat #Appointment Date Term End Date Title Entity Name Seat #Appointment Date Term End Date Title EntityNameSeat #Date Date TitleDate RECOMMENDATION(S): The Board of Supervisors may consider appointing Ms. Rhoda Butler to Member At-Large Seat #3 of the Contra Costa Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA) for a term expiring on September 30, 2021, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND: The Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA) consists of 40 members serving 2 year staggered terms, each ending on September 30. The Council consists of representatives of the target population and the general public, including older low-income and military persons; at least one-half of the membership must be made up of actual consumers of services under the Area Plan. The Council includes: 19 representatives recommended from each Local Committee on Aging, 1 representative from the Nutrition Project Council, 1 Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and 19 Members at-Large. The Contra Costa Area Agency on Aging (AAA) recommends APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dennis Bozanich; 925-655-2050 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointments to Advisory Council on Aging BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the appointment of Ms. Rhoda Butler to Member At-Large Seat #3 for a term expiring on September 30, 2021. The Area Agency on Aging, the ACOA and the Clerk of the Board, using CCTV, assisted with recruitment. AAA staff has encouraged interested individuals including minorities to apply through announcements provided at the Senior Coalition meetings and at the regular monthly meetings of the ACOA. The Contra Costa County EHSD website contains dedicated web content, where interested members of the public are encouraged to apply and provided an application with instructions on whom to contact for ACOA related inquiries, including application procedures. Ms. Butler submitted an application for ACOA membership dated 03/11/2021 that is provided as a separate attachment. The ACOA Membership Committee interviewed Ms. Butler on May 19, 2021. The Membership Committee recommended Ms. Butler to the ACOA Executive Committee to fill MAL#3 seat. The ACOA Executive Committee approved Ms. Butler to fill MAL#3 at their 6/02/2021 meeting. Members of the ACOA voted unanimously to approve Ms. Butler’s appointment to MAL#3 seat at their 6/16/2021 meeting. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Reduced public participation. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NA ATTACHMENTS Application - Butler ACOA Roster - June 2021 Advisory Council on Aging Roster ‐ June 2021 Seat Title Term Expirati Current Incumbent Incumbent  Supervisor  District Nutrition Project Council 9/30/2022        Garrett, Gail  I At‐Large 1 9/30/2022        Reed, Penny   I At‐Large 2 9/30/2022        Krohn, Shirley  IV At‐Large 3 9/30/2021        Vacant At‐Large 4 9/30/2022        Shafiabady, Sara V At‐Large 5 9/30/2022        Card, Deborah  V At‐Large 6 9/30/2022        Lipson, Steve I At‐Large 7 9/30/2022        Selleck, Summer  IV At‐Large 8 9/30/2021        Leasure,  Nancy  II At‐Large 9 9/30/2021        Richards, Gerald V At‐Large 10 9/30/2022        Tobey, Terri  II At‐Large 11 9/30/2021        Bhambra, Jagjit V At‐Large 12 9/30/2022        Neemuchwalla, Nuru  IV At‐Large 13 9/30/2022        Hernandez, Michelle  IV At‐Large 14 9/30/2021        Yee, Dennis IV At‐Large 15 9/30/2021        Bruns, Mary  IV At‐Large 16 9/30/2021        O'Toole, Brian IV At‐Large 17 9/30/2022        Donovan, Kevin D. II At‐Large 18 9/30/2022        Meltzer, Sue  IV At‐Large 19 9/30/2021        Kleiner, Jill II At‐Large 20 9/30/2021        Frederick, Susan  I Local Committee Lafayette 9/30/2021        Partridge, Erin II Local Committee Orinda 9/30/2021        Evans, Candace  II Local Committee Antioch 9/30/2022        Fernandez, Rudy  III Local Committee Pleasant Hill 9/30/2021        Van Ackeren, Lorna  IV Local Committee Pinole 9/30/2022 Local Committee Concord 9/30/2022 Local Committee Richmond 9/30/2022        Smith, Frances I Local Committee El Cerrito 9/30/2022        Kim‐Selby, Joanna  I Local Committee Hercules 9/30/2022        Doran, Jennifer V Local Committee Pittsburg 9/30/2021 Local Committee San Ramon 9/30/2022        Sakai‐Miller, Sharon  II Local Committee Clayton 9/30/2021        Berman, Michelle  IV Local Committee Alamo‐Danville 9/30/2022        Donnelly, James II Local Committee Walnut Creek 9/30/2021 IV Local Committee Moraga 9/30/2021        Aufhauser, Martin II Local Committee San Pablo 9/30/2022 Local Committee Martinez 9/30/2022 Local Committee Brentwood 9/30/2021        Kee, Arthur  III Local Committee Oakley 9/30/2022        Casey, Megan  III RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE vacant Seat #3 on the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee previously held by Mr. Raymond O'Brien, due to his resignation; and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On February 2, 2021, correspondence was received from Mr. Raymond O'Brien expressing his inability to serve on the committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat must first be declared vacant before it may be filled. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dominique Vogelpohl, (925) 655-2880 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare Vacancy on the Contra Costa County Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee (HLAC) AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE vacant Hazardous Materials Commission Labor Seat #1 held by Henry Alcaraz and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Hazardous Materials Commission was established in 1986 to advise the Board, County staff and the mayor’s council members, and staffs of the cities within the County, on issues related to the development, approval and administration of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Specifically, the Board charged the Commission with drafting a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan and ordinance, coordinating the implementation of the hazardous materials release response plan and inventory program, and to analyze and develop recommendations regarding hazardous materials issues with consideration to broad public input, and report back to the Board on Board referrals. The bylaws of the Commission provide that Labor Seat #1 be nominated by labor organization, screened by the Internal Operations APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Michael Kent, 925-250-3227 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Michael Kent C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare Vacancy on the Hazardous Materials Commission BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Committee, and appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Alcaraz vacated the seat due to retirement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will remain unfilled, and this will potentially make it more difficult to achieve a quorum and will potentially lessen the viewpoint of Labor in Commission deliberations. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept the resignation of Katie Lewis from the District 1 Member at Large seat of the Mental Health Commission. Please declare the seat open. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Ms. Lewis has been serving successfully and has decided to resign from the Mental Health Commission for personal reasons. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: James Lyons, 510-942-2222 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT the resignation of Katie Lewis from the District 1 Member at Large seat on the Mental Health Commission AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT, in lieu of election, Dennis Chebotarev, Walnut Creek, CA 94598, as General Member #3 of the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees to a term ending June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the County. Member stipends are paid by CCCERA. BACKGROUND: For the election scheduled for September 7, 2021, only one candidate filed for the vacant seat of General Member #3 of the Contra Costa County Retirement Board. Election Code section 10515 requires that candidates who filed for an office for which the number of candidates equaled or did not exceed the number required to be elected, be "Appointed-in-Lieu of Election" by the Board of Supervisors as if they were elected. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board take no or negative action, the candidate will not be sworn in as provided by law. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rosa Mena, 925.335.7806 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: CCCERA C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINT, In-Lieu of Election, Member of the Contra Costa County Retirement Board RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Fiscal Year 2020/21 Appropriation Adjustment No. 5058 in the amount of $2,890,000 to transfer appropriations from the Office of the Sheriff Custody Services Bureau (0300) to Public Works Plant Acquisition Detention Facilities (4411) for budgeted Safety & Modernization projects. FISCAL IMPACT: This action reduces appropriations in the Office of the Sheriff Custody Services Bureau by $2,890,000. The appropriations will be transferred to Public Works Plant Acquisition-Detention Facilities (4411). 100% budgeted, FY 20/21. BACKGROUND: The Martinez and West County Detention Facilities need to replace and update several of its outdated communication, camera, control and intercom systems. Replacement of analog camera system MDF - The current camera system was originally installed in 2004 and partially updated in 2014. The update added additional cameras throughout the facility but didn't update the original software systems nor replaced or updated many of the original cameras. MDF is currently operating an APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Heike Anderson, (925) 655-0023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Heike Anderson, Alycia Rubio, Paul Reyes C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment for Custody Services Projects outdated set of cameras operating on a 16 year old analog platform. The frequent camera software crashes and malfunctions have become a regular occurrence and compromise the safety and security of the facility, employees and inmates. Estimated cost $1,800,000. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Upgrade of current door control system MDF - The facility 'door control system' needs to be upgraded, modernizing the physical layout inside the MDF central control work area and adding full software integration with the new Network Video Management system. As MDF upgrades numerous physical areas and integrates a new Network Video Management system, an upgraded comprehensive Central Control must integrate seamlessly with everything. Estimated cost $500,000. Replacement of current outdated intercom system WCDF - The current intercom system at West County Detention Facility (WCDF) needs to be replaced with a digital intercom system to include multiple intercom stations per building, multiple master station controllers for the facility and the ability to integrate with the existing touchscreen control software of Central Control. The County has determined that the current intercom system at the West County Detention Division Facility is limited and outdated. Estimated cost $275,000. Upgrade of current video management system WCDF - The current video management system (VMS) has been determined to be outdated and in need of replacement. The purpose of this project is to diagnose the system failures and seek proposals to repair the current system so it will work as originally intended. The current video management system (VMS) has been determined to have systematic failures that make it unreliable. Estimated cost $315,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Appropriations will not be properly allocated. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC27 AP005058 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed ApproAdj No.5058 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25769 to add one (1) full-time Information Systems Programmer and Analyst I (LPWA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade ZB5 1496 ($5786.25 - $7033.22), in the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD). FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in annual personnel cost of approximately $140,700 of which $26,963 is pension costs. The position will be funded 100% by Land Development Funds. BACKGROUND: In March 2020, many of the Department of Conservation and Development's processes changed significantly due to COVID-19. For example, all building and planning applications are now received online, and Application and Permit Center operations are 100% paperless. These innovations have benefited the public and improved efficiency for a number of permit review processes, but an increased need for Information Technology (IT) staff to develop and implement information technology processes, provide support, and update and provide user training has resulted from this. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Arnai Maxey 925-655-2787 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Position Adjustment Request #25769 to add one (1) Information Systems Programmer and Analyst I BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Information Systems Programmer and Analyst I position will help the Department meet these expanded information technology needs, including addressing computer related problems, providing application support, planning and developing new systems, and coordinating user training. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to add this position will result in insufficient staffing to perform IT related functions that support DCD users and DCD customers. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25769_ADD (1) Information Systems Prog Analyst I in DCD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25769 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25769 DATE 5/20/2021 Department No./ Department Conservation & Development Budget Unit No. 0280 Org No. 2653 Agency No. 38 Action Requested: Add one (1) full-time Information Systems Programmer and Analyst I (LPWA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade ZB5 1496 ($5786.257 - $7033.229), in the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $140,731.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Land Development Fees Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. John Kopchik ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Alan Aguirre for Ann Elliott 6/30/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 7/8/2021 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25770 to add one (1) Sergeant (6XTA) (represented) at salary plan and grade VHX 1835 ($8,973.77-$11,453.05), add two (2) Deputy Sheriffs - 40 Hour (6XWA) (represented) at salary plan and grade VHX 1688 ($7,758.24-$9,901.70), and two (2) Sheriff's Ranger (64WR) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade VN5 1017 ($4,162.49- $5,186.02) to the Office of the Sheriff. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. Budgeted. Sergeant $346,154.42 Deputy Sheriff $304,870.14 Deputy Sheriff $304,870.14 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown (925) 655-0004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam, Sandra Brown C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one (1) Sergeant (6XTA), two (2) Deputy Sheriffs - 40 Hour (6XWA) two (2) Sheriff’s Rangers (64WR) positions- Custody Services Bureau - Admin Bldg FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) Sheriff's Ranger $132,936.72 Sheriff's Ranger $132,936.72 Estimated Annual Cost $1,221,768.14 BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff will provide on-site security, to include weapons and contraband screening, at the newly constructed County Administration Building in Martinez. This will include costs to purchase and install all necessary equipment, annual maintenance contracts, and staffing - including an overtime budget for Board of Supervisor meeting coverage, special events, or protests when additional staffing is required. In order to provide such security the Office of the Sheriff will need to add one (1) Sergeant, two (2) Deputy Sheriffs and two (2) Sheriff’s Rangers. The assigned Sheriff's Office staff will be highly visible and responsible for operating the weapons screening area at the building's front entrance during business hours. The primary focus is the detection of weapons and contraband to ensure the safety of all who enter or work at the location. Deputy Sheriff's will be responsible for providing police services to include: enforcing applicable laws, conducting interior/exterior perimeter checks, responding to calls for assistance/disturbances, investigating crimes occurring in or around the building, and providing security for Board of Supervisor's meetings or Special Events. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this is not approved, the County Administration Building will not have police services to oversee security at the newly constructed building. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: xxxx, Patricia Aguilar, ACCE Bay Point;Elsie Mills; Written commentary received from: Ali Saidi, Reimagine Public Safety Contra Costa Campaign; Jan Warren; Lisa Kirk (attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25770 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25770 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25770 DATE 5/25/2021 Department No./ Department Office of the Sheriff Budget Unit No. 0300 Org No. 2537 Agency No. 25 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. XXXXX to add one (1) Sergeant (6XTA)(represented) at a salary plan and grade VHX 1835 ($8,546 - $10,908), two Deputy Sheriffs 40 Hour (6XWA) (represented) at a salary plan and grade VHX 1688 ($7,389 - $9,430), two (2) Sheriff’s Rangers (64WR) (represented) at a salary plan and grade VN5 1017 ($3,964 – 4,939) positions in the Sheriff's Office – Custody Services Bureau. Proposed Effective Date: 7/27/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $1,221,768.14 Net County Cost Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Department mus t initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Mary Jane Robb ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMA N RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Melissa Crockett for Paul Reyes 6/30/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 7/6/2021 Add one (1) Sergeant (6XTA), add two (2) Deputy Sheriffs - 40 Hour (6XWA), and two (2) Sheriff's Ranger(64WR) to the Office of the Sheriff. Am end Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Acti on. (Date) Rebecca Martinez 7/6/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Res ources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Paul Reyes Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Adminis trator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 7/8/2021 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s ) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (servic es, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future c osts d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have consi dered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report i s to be s ubmitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current jo b 2. Non-County employ ee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25760 to cancel one (1) Site Supervisor I-Project (CJH2) (represented) position number 10205 at Salary Plan and Grade QC5 1071 ($4,031.712 - $4,900.573); and add one (1) EHS Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt (XAD2) (unrepresented) position at Salary Plan and Grade B85 2044 ($10,257.64- $12,468.22) in the Community Services Bureau (CSB), Employment and Human Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this personnel action will result in an increase of $123,092 to the CSB baseline budget (on an annualized basis) and no net county cost impact. The added EHS Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt position will be funded 100% by Federal Funds. BACKGROUND: The Community Services Bureau (CSB) of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) is requesting canceling a Site Supervisor I-Project position and adding an EHS Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt full time position to APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Eva Gaipa, DHRA II (925) 608-5024 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Eva Gaipa C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one Site Supervisor I Project position and add one EHS Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt position BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) ensure the appropriate management of quality program services and to allocate appropriately the number of employees that one manager is responsible for managing. CSB has evaluated the span of control carried by the CSB’s Senior Administrative Management Team (Director’s direct reports) and it has determined the imperative need to add an EHS Deputy Bureau Director Position to effectively manage employees and expanded Children and Family Programs. Please see the table below for the current span of control and ratio for EHS Department which shows CSB having a significantly greater average number of staff and budgets to manage per Senior Administrative Manager in comparison to other EHSD Bureaus. In the last four years, CSB funding has increased by $13,046,855. With the increased funding, we have increased staffing levels for all related areas of program services. However, we have not yet added a Senior Administrative Manager position for the oversight of these expanded programs and staff. Please see the table below supporting the proposal of adding one Deputy Bureau Director and how it will decrease staff span of control by 25% for each Division Manager’s oversight, align the span of control more closely with other Bureaus, and provide greater ability to ensure continued operation and administration of high quality programs. With the details shown on the above charts, CSB is requesting approval to hire one (1) EHS Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt to oversee program's administrative operations, manage staff, and support the CSB Bureau Director. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board elect not to approve the recommendation, the Community Services Bureau would not be able to efficiently manage our recently expanded and existing programs and operations, its requirements, responsibilities, and the continuous quality improvement of all programs CSB provides. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 Fiscal Calculations P300 Position Adjustment P300 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25760 SALARY AND BENEFIT (INCLUDING PENSION) COSTS PER JOB CLASSIFICATION REQUEST TO TRADE (1) SITE SUPERVISOR I FOR (1) CSB DEPUTY DIRECTOR ASSIST Request # TBD ASSIST Request # TBD VARIANCE Date:6/2/2021 Date:6/2/2021 Annualization Factor 12 Annualization Factor 12 Benefit Percentage 69.70%Benefit Percentage 69.70% Pension Percentage 27.55%Pension Percentage 27.55% POSITION TRADE TO COST FOR ONE COST FOR ONE Classification Site Supervisor I (Position #10205)Classification CSB Deputy Director Step 1 Monthly Salary (3,914.28)$ Step 1 Monthly Salary 9,958.87$ Number of Position (FTE)1.00 Number of Position (FTE)1 Benefit Amount (2,728)$ Benefit Amount 6,941$ Salary + Benefit (6,643)$ Salary + Benefit 16,900$ Annualized Sal+ Ben Cost (79,710)$ Annualized Sal+ Ben Cost 202,802$ 123,092$ Effective Mo's 12 Effective Mo's 12 Upcoming Yr. Cost (79,710)$ Upcoming Yr. Cost 202,802$ Federal Percentage 100.00%Federal Percentage 100.00% Federal Cost (79,710)$ Federal Cost 202,802$ State Percentage 0.00%State Percentage 0.00% State Cost -$ State Cost -$ Other Funding -$ Other Funding -$ County Percentage 0.00%County Percentage 0.00% County Cost -$ County Cost -$ Annual Pension Cost (12,941)$ Annual Pension Cost 32,924$ Fiscal Officer:E. Brown Fiscal Officer:E. Brown The request is to trade 1 Site Supervisor I position for 1 Deputy Director within CSB. The CSB Deputy Director position will be funded by 100% Federal revenue. Approval of this position request will result in an increase to the baseline budget and have no effect on CSB's NCC. Net annualized salary and benefits cost is $123,092. fn: P-300 ASSIST Req Calc Form POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. DATE 6/01/2021 Department No./ Department EHSD-CSB Budget Unit No. 0588 Org No. 1417 Agenc y No. 19 Action Requested: Cancel one Site Supervisor I vacant position #10205. Add one EHSD Deputy Bureau Director -Exempt in Community Services Bureau-EHSD. Proposed Effective Date: 6/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $202,802.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $16,900.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Federal Revenue Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Eva Gaipa ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST Department No./ NO. 2'5y6o DATE 6/01/2021 Department EHSD-CSB Budget Unit No. 0588 Org No. 1417 Agency No. 19 Action Requested: Cancel one Site Supervisor I vacant position #10205. Add one EHSD Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt in Community Services Bureau-EHSD. Proposed Effecti\€ Date: 6/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes D No � / Cost is within Department's budget: Yes� No D Total One-lime Costs (non,-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $202.802.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $16,900.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Federal Re\-enue Department must initiate nece ssaryadjustm entand submit to CAO. Use additional sheetforfurthe r explanations or comments. Eva Gaipa (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESO �-, - 2 o-z..r Date Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic/ Exempt salary schedule. Effecti\€: � Day following Board Action. D __ (Date) (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTR ATOR RECOMMENDATION: D Appro\€ Recommendation of Director of Human Resources D Disapprove Recommend ation of Di rector of Human Resou rces D Other: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Adjustment is APPROVED □ DISAPPROVED □ DATE DATE (for) County Administrator Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTIT UTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) I position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 6/9/2021Carol Berger HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 6/9/2021 Action Requested: Cancel one Site Supervisor I vacant position #10205. Add one EHSD Deputy Bureau Director-Exempt in Community Services Bureau-EHSD. REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25765 to add one (1) Library Assistant-Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) position at Salary Plan and grade QXX 1030 ($3,746.65 - $4,784.63) and add one (1) Librarian (3AWA) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade QXX 1341 ($5,097.73 - $6,510.01) to the Library Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost of $188,861. This cost will be covered by the City of Walnut Creek. No net impact to the County Library Fund and no impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: As part of its fiscal planning for the coming year, the City of Walnut Creek City Council voted to increase the number of open hours for the Walnut Creek Community Library to 52 hours. In order to accommodate these additional hours, one full-time Librarian and one full-time Library Assistant-Journey Level position is necessary. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samuel Treanor at (925) 608-7702 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Samuel Treanor, Sylvia WongTam C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Librarian and one Library Assistant-Journey Level positions to the Library BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) These positions will be responsible for handling both circulation and reference services with a substantial amount of public contact. These positions are necessary to align with the Library’s current staffing and scheduling plan. These positions will also create staffing efficiencies by providing services for the increased hours. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this position change is not approved, the Library will have difficulties providing services to the public since there may not be adequate staffing to cover the additional hours. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25765_Add LIB Add LAJ_Walnut Creek_7.13.21 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25765 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25765 DATE 6/8/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3783 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Add one 40/40 Librarian (3AWA) position and 1 40/40 Library Assistant -Journey Level (3KVB) position Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $188,861.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $188,861.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT City of Walnut Creek Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 6/24/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Admini strator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 6/25/2021 Add one (1) 40/40 Library Assistant -Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) position at salary plan and grade QXX 1030 ($3,746.65 - $4,784.63) and add one (1) 40/40 Librarian (3AWA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade QXX 1341 ($5,097.73 - $6,510.01) to the Library Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Ac tion. (Date) Amanda Monson 6/25/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Res ources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25766 to add two part time (20/40) Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions at the Walnut Creek Library, Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25777 to add one Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position at the Brentwood Library, and Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25778 to add two two part time (20/40) Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions at the Ygnacio Valley Library in the Library Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost of $273,837. This cost will be covered by the Cities of Brentwood and Walnut Creek. No impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: As part of its fiscal planning for the coming year, the City of Brentwood City Council voted to increase the number of open hours for the Brentwood Community Library to 52 hours. In order to accommodate these additional hours, an additional full-time Clerk-Experienced Level position is necessary. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samuel Treanor at (925) 608-7702 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one full-time and four part-time Clerk-Experienced Level positions to the Library BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The City of Walnut Creek City Council voted to increase the number of open hours for the Walnut Creek and Ygnacio Valley Community Libraries to 52 hours. In order to accommodate these additional hours, four additional 20/40 Clerk-Experienced Level positions are necessary, with two at each library location. These positions will be responsible for handling circulation services with a substantial amount of public contact. These positions are necessary to align with the Library’s current staffing and scheduling plan. These positions will also create staffing efficiencies by providing services for the increased hours. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this position change is not approved, the Library will have difficulties providing services to the public since there may not be adequate staffing to cover the additional hours. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25766 Library Add 2 PT 20/40 CkExp WCL_July2021 P300 25777 Library Add 1.0 FTE CkExp BRE_July2021 P300 25778_Library Add 2 PT 20/40 CkExp YVL_July2021 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25766 Signed P300 25777 Signed P300 25778 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25766 DATE 6/8/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3783 Agenc y No. 85 Action Requested: Add two (2) 20/40 Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) positions Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $97,936.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $97,936.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT City of Walnut Creek Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 6/29/2021 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25766 to add two (2) 20/40 Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($3401 - $4220) in t he Library Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Elizabeth Loud 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25777 DATE 6/8/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3763 Agenc y No. 85 Action Requested: Add 40/40 Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) position Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $77,965.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $77,965.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT City of Brentwood Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 6/29/2021 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25766 to add one (1) 40/40 Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($3401 - $4220) in the Library Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Elizabeth Loud 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25778 DATE 6/8/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3784 Agenc y No. 85 Action Requested: Add two (2) 20/40 Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) positions Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $97,936.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $97,936.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT City of Walnut Creek Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 6/29/2021 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25766 to add two (2) 20/40 Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($3401 - $4220) in t he Library Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Elizabeth Loud 6/29/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25774 to add one (1) Account Clerk Supervisor (JDHD) position at salary plan and grade K6X-1340 ($5,094 - $6,505) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost of approximately $133,135, with $51,630 in pension already included. The position will be full funded by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Accountant that currently oversees the Environmental Health Finance unit has been a working supervisor of support staff and professional level staff, in addition to performing a large volume of administrative and accounting duties. With oversight of one Accountant, two Accounting Technicians, two Advanced Level Account Clerks, and one Advanced Level Clerk, the work load has become unmanageable. This request to add an Account Clerk Supervisor would relieve the Health Services Accountant of the direct supervision function over the support staff, to focus on the administrative and accounting duties of her position. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauren Ludwig, 925-957-5269 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Parna Kamyabfar C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Account Clerk Supervisor position in the Health Services Department CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, this will result in continued insufficient staffing in the Environmental Health finance unit, which will affect the unit's ability to manage operations. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25774 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25774 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25774 DATE 6/16/2021 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6567 Agenc y No. A18 Action Requested: Add one (1) Account Clerk Supervisor (JDHD) position in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 7/14/21 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $133,135.16 Net County Cost $133,135.16 Total this FY $133,135.16 N.C.C. this FY $133,135.16 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Hospital Enterprise Fund I Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Lauren Ludwig ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Sarah Kennard for 7/6/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resourc es Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7/8/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Resolution No. 25768 to ADD one (1) Animal Services Utility Worker (BJWE) (represented) position at salary plan and grade QA5 0840 ($3,022 - $3,673) in the Animal Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost to add one (1) Animal Services Utility Worker position will result in estimated annual cost of $74,928, which includes approximate pension cost of $15,792. This position will be funded 100% with City revenues and there will be no increase to the General Fund. BACKGROUND: To meet current call volume and response times for deceased impounds to contracted cities, the Animal Services Department recommended to the Contra Costa Public Managers Association (PMA) in their June 2021 meeting that an additional 1.0 FTE Animal Services Utility Worker be funded by contracting cities through their fee revenue. Spread across the cities, this equates to a minimal increase that could not be accomplished if private contractors were used by individual cities. The PMA has agreed to this change and FY 2021/22 service fees billed to cities will be increased, based on an agreed per capita rate, to fully fund this position. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Delaina Gillaspy, 925-608-8413 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Position Resolution No. 25768 to ADD one (1) Animal Services Utility Worker (BJWE) (represented) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this request is not approved, the Animal Services Department will not be able to complete the volume of deceased animal pick-ups activities throughout Contra Costa County. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Written commentary received from Lisa Kirk (attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25768 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25768 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25768 DATE 6/25/2021 Department No./ Department Animal Services Budget Unit No. 0366 Org No. 3331 Agency No. 36 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Resolution No. 25768 to ADD one (1) Animal Services Utility Worker (BJWE) (represented) vacant position at salary plan and grade QA5 0840 ($3,022 - $3,673) in the Animal Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 07/01/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $74,928.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $74,928.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% City Revenues Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arturo Castillo ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Melissa Crockett for Paul Reyes 6/25/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Admini strator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt sa lary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 7/8/2021 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution 2021/211 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee to apply for and accept a grant from the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs FY 2021 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program to Support Law Enforcement Agencies Grant in an initial amount of $1,400,000 for the Office of the Sheriff to purchase 700 body worn cameras for deployment by all sworn staff of the agency, for the period of October 1, 2021 through the end of the grant period. FISCAL IMPACT: Initial revenue of $1,400,000, 100% Federal funds. Requires a match of $1,400,000 by the County, which will be provided in kind over the following four years in costs related to storage of the video footage recorded by personnel. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff seeks funding for outfitting its sworn staff with body worn cameras. There are 700 sworn staff (field/patrol and custody Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chrystine Robbins, 925-655-0008 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Applying for and Accepting the FY 2021 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program Grant BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Sheriff) positions requiring body worn camera deployment. A department-wide body worn camera infrastructure is one of the best systems to implement in order to help bridge community-to-law enforcement relations and build and maintain trust with the citizens to whom we serve. As outlined in the Police Executive Research Forum, “Body-worn cameras can help improve the high-quality public service expected of police officers and promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice that communities have about their police departments. Furthermore, departments that are already deploying body-worn cameras tell us that the presence of cameras often improves the performance of officers as well as the conduct of the community members who are recorded. This is an important advance in policing. And when officers or members of the public break the law or behave badly, body-worn cameras can create a public record that allows the entire community to see what really happened.” It is requested that body worn cameras for sworn staff of the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff be funded through this Federal grant. It is our hope that this grant will be considered and ultimately approved by the Department of Justice for funding. There is little question that the implementation of a department-wide body worn camera system for our staff promotes best practices and is an obvious step toward continuing the efforts to promote trust between law enforcement and the community. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to secure Federal grant funding for this project would result in the County having to find alternate funding sources for body worn camera implementation. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Elsa Stevens; Abbey; Catherine Walley; Gigi Crowder; Harry; Claudia Jimenez; Raul Velasquez. Written commentary received from: AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/211 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Res 2021/211 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/211 IN THE MATTER OF: Applying for and Accepting a grant from the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. WHEREAS the County of Contra Costa is seeking funds available through the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: Authorizes the Sheriff-Coroner, Undersheriff, or Sheriff's Commander of Management Services, to execute for and on behalf of the County of Contra Costa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Federal financial assistance including grant modifications and extensions provided by the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs FY 2021 Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program Grant. Contact: Chrystine Robbins, 925-655-0008 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract with the California Department of Social Services in the amount of $4,869,906 to provide childcare and development programs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids [CalWORKs] Stage 2) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded by the California Department of Education and no County match is required. The State funding number is C2AP 1008-00; County number is 29-213-39. This contract is 21.8% ($1,063,180) funded by Federal dollars passed through the State Department of Education [CFDA #93.575], and 78.2% ($3,806,726) funded by the State. BACKGROUND: The Department received notification on June 4, 2021 from California Department of Education on behalf of the California Department of Social Services for the 2021-22 funding allocation for alternative payment/CalWORKs Stage APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theo Trinh, Nasim Eghlima, Rose Castaneda C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 California Department of Social Services CalWORKs Stage 2 Childcare Revenue Contract BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 2 childcare services. Effective July 1, 2021, California Department of Social Services is administering this program based on The Early Childhood Development Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 98, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020). This State program provides funding to reimburse a portion of the childcare costs incurred by CalWORKs Stage 2 participants through their participation in the CalWORKs program. This board resolution is to accept funds from the State. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not have funds to operate CalWORKs Stage 2 childcare program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department's Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/213 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed Res 2021/213 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/213 In The Matter Of: 2021-22 California Department Social Services CalWORKs Stage 2 Childcare Revenue Contract WHEREAS: the Department received notification on June 4, 2021 from California Department of Education on behalf of the California Department of Social Services for the 2021-22 funding allocation for alternative payment / CalWORKs Stage 2 childcare services, and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2021, California Department of Social Services is administering this program based on The Early Childhood Development Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 98, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020), and WHEREAS, this State program provides funding to reimburse a portion of the childcare costs incurred by CalWORKs Stage 2 participants through their participation in the CalWORKs program, and WHEREAS, this board resolution is to accept funds from the State. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved: the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Department of Social Services in an amount not to exceed $4,869,906 to provide childcare and development programs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids [CalWORKs] Stage 2) for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theo Trinh, Nasim Eghlima, Rose Castaneda RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County grant agreement #28-967 including indemnification with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., dba Heluna Health, a corporation to pay the County in an amount not to exceed $145,834 to provide COVID-19 and respiratory viral panel testing for the Community Sentinel Surveillance Project, for the period from December 2, 2020 through July 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will result in an amount not to exceed $145,834 for COVID-19 related activities. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: Since the emergence of COVID-19 in California in January 2020, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and local public health partners have been tracking and monitoring COVID-19 cases in California and have implemented containment and mitigation efforts. COVID-19 surveillance is essential to estimate disease prevalence over time, throughout the state, and amount key groups at high risk for infection in order to improve containment, mitigation and prevention measures, which may vary depending on regional COVID-19 epidemiology. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Agreement #28-967 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., dba Heluna Health BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Therefore, CDPH and several California local health jurisdictions, including Contra Costa County, are working with the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to initiate sentinel community surveillance for COVID-19. Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. has been designated by the CDPH to administer this funding and to provide consulting and technical assistance that will be needed to perform the required activities. Approval of this Grant Agreement #28-967 will allow Contra Costa County to participate in the State Community Sentinel Surveillance Project which will allow Contra Costa County Health Services Department patients who are experiencing COVID-19 like symptoms to be tested for both COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, through July 31, 2021. The County is agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantor for claims arising out of County’s performance under this Contract. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/217 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract to accept funding from the California Department of Education in an amount not to exceed $27,500 to fund pre-kindergarten and family literacy program support services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded 100% by State California Department of Education funding and there is no County match required. The State contract number is CPKS-1007 (project number 07-2207-00-1); the County contract number is 39-896-14. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Education notified the Department on May 28, 2021 of the 2021-22 funding allocation. This revenue contract will provide support funds for pre-kindergarten and family literacy services to program eligible children and family. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate this early childhood education program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-5052 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 California Department of Education Pre-kindergarten and Family Literacy Support Contract CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This board order supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/217 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Res 2021/217 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/217 In the Matter Of: 2021-22 California Department of Education Pre-kindergarten and Family Literacy Support Contract. WHEREAS: On May 28, 2021, the County received funding from the California Department of Education in an amount not to exceed $27,500 to fund pre-kindergarten and family literacy program support services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract with the California Department of Education in an amount not to exceed $27,500 to fund pre-kindergarten and family literacy program support services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-5052 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Veterans Services Officer, or designee, to execute an agreement amendment with California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet), to increase the payment limit by $18,885 to a new amount payable to the County not to exceed $254,945 to provide mental health outreach and support services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this action will result in additional grant funding up to $18,885 and would be distributed to the County by CalVet through the Proposition 63, Mental Health Services Act, grant program. Funding is specifically provided to the County Veterans' Service Office (VSO) and no County match is required. BACKGROUND: In 2019, the VSO applied for the first window for this grant, which enables the VSO to better service a hard to reach, but high demand population of Senior Veterans. This application and award period has designated a possible $236,060 of funding for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 fiscal years, which will allow the VSO to conduct strategic and collaborative outreach to Seniors throughout the County, by identifying agencies, care providers, and housing facilities, to develop strategic partnerships with. The VSO will conduct presentations, provide claims assistance, and case management at these partnership agencies. Additionally, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nathan Johnson, (925) 313-1481 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Nathan Johnson, Veterans Services Officer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorize Receipt for Additional Funding for Grant FY2020-22 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the VSO will be better equipped to provide services to Senior Veterans who are housebound or have difficulty reaching Veterans Service Office due to age or disability. This action amends C. 49 approved July 14, 2020 (Agreement Number 20XS0002) to add funds in the amount of $18,885 for a new total contract amount not exceed $254,945. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment for the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program with the California Department of Community Services and Development, extending the term to June 30, 2022, with no change to payment limit of $125,000. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Federal funds passed through State / AL # 84.042 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services California Department of Community Services and Development No Net County Cost CCC: 39-800-25 BACKGROUND: The County routinely receives funds from the California Department of Community Services and Development to manage a Department APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Ali Vahidizadeh C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2020-2021 Department of Energy / Weatherization Assistance Program Contract Amendment 1 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of Energy Weatherization Assistance program. Contra Costa County has received funding from the State Department of Community Services and Development for 24 years wherein the county provides energy bill assistance payments and weatherization services to county residents who are income-eligible to receive said services. The funding source is federal funding from the Department of Energy passed through by the California Department of Community Services and Development. The county receives the money via the Employment & Human Services Department (EHSD). EHSD, in turn, partners with the County's Department of Conservation and Development to provide direct services to clients through energy saving home improvements. The energy saving measures may provide homes with hot water heaters, furnaces, refrigerators, microwaves, doors, windows, florescent light bulbs, weather stripping, ceiling fans, and attic insulation. Homes receive a blower door test (a diagnostic tool to locate and correct air infiltration), and homes with gas appliances receive a combustion appliance safety test that checks for carbon monoxide gas leakage. Homes with gas appliances are provided with carbon monoxide alarms. The program uses income-based eligibility as per the federal poverty guidelines for that program year. Once eligibility is determined, clients with no hot water, no heat, or are in danger of having their power shut off are served as emergencies. Services are then based on clients with the lowest income, highest energy burden, and those with one household member who is considered in the vulnerable population. This board order is to extend the term limit from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Department will not be able to continue to operate the weatherization assistance program in Contra Costa County for the remainder of the term limit. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This funding supports one Contra Costa County Community Outcome established in the Children's Report Card, Outcome #4: "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing." by the provision of home energy assistance to keep households warm in winter and to increase household energy efficiency. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/205 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed Res 2021/205 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/205 In The Matter Of: 2020-2021 Department of Energy / Weatherization Assistance Program Contract Amendment 1 WHEREAS: The County routinely receives funds from the California Department of Community Services and Development to manage a Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance program, and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has received funding from the State Department of Community Services and Development for 24 years wherein the county provides energy bill assistance payments and weatherization services to county residents who are income-eligible to receive said services, and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has received funding from the State Department of Community Services and Development wherein the county provides energy bill assistance payments and weatherization services to county residents who are income-eligible to receive said services, and WHEREAS, The county receives the money via the Employment & Human Services Department (EHSD); EHSD, in turn, partners with the County's Department of Conservation and Development to provide direct services to clients through energy saving home improvement, and WHEREAS, The energy saving measures may provide homes with hot water heaters, furnaces, refrigerators, microwaves, doors, windows, florescent light bulbs, weather stripping, ceiling fans, and attic insulation. Homes receive a blower door test (a diagnostic tool to locate and correct air infiltration), and homes with gas appliances receive a combustion appliance safety test that checks for carbon monoxide gas leakage, and WHEREAS, homes with gas appliances are provided with carbon monoxide alarms. The program uses income-based eligibility as per the federal poverty guidelines for that program year. Once eligibility is determined, clients with no hot water, no heat, or are in danger of having their power shut off are served as emergencies. Services are then based on clients with the lowest income, highest energy burden, and those with one household member who is considered in the vulnerable population, and WHEREAS, this board order is to extend the term limit from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a Contract amendment with the California Department of Community Services and Development, to extend term end date for the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program to June 30, 2022, with no change to payment limit of $125,000. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Ali Vahidizadeh RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #29-285-38 including mutual indemnification with the City of San Pablo, a government agency, to pay County an amount not to exceed $30,500, to provide congregate meal services for the County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: City of San Pablo will pay the County the voluntary contributions it receives from participating seniors, after it has paid its authorized expenses. No County funds are required. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing an average of 75 congregate meals per day, five days per week for senior citizens at the San Pablo Senior Center. While the County provides the meals to be distributed, food service equipment and supplies, nutrition education, food service monitoring, and overall program administration, the Agency will operate/manage the Congregate Senior Nutrition Café at the San Pablo Senior Center. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #29-285-38 with the City of San Pablo BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On June 23, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #29-285-37 with the City of San Pablo to provide congregate meal services for the County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. Approval of Novation Contract #29-285-38 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the Agency to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s senior citizens who depend on the County’s Senior Nutrition Program will not receive meals at the contractor’s facility. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to apply for and accept funding under the Youth Programs and Facilities Grant Program from the Board of State and Community Corrections to upgrade the facility and enhance evidenced-based programming and job tech opportunities for youth at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall for the period of June 10, 2021, through June 1, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: Contra Costa is eligible to receive a minimum of $131,143 for 36 months. That amount may increase if other Counties choose not to participate in the grant program. There is no county match requirement BACKGROUND: The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) is the Designated State Administrative Agency for the Youth Programs and Facilities Grant Program (YPFG). In response to the State's mandate to close the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) the BSCC has approved $9.12 million statewide to support counties in addressing the youth no longer eligible for DJJ. $5 million has ben allocated towards counties who will develop a regional hub for returning youth and $4.12 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Youth Programs and Facilities Grant Program (YPFG) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) million to all counties allocated pro rata (by formula)based on county juvenile population (age 12-17) to support infrastructure and improvements for local programs and facilities for their in-county population of realigned youth. The goal of this application is to receive funds to improve the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall's infrastructure and programming to meet the needs of the realigned youth that will be in our custody for longer periods of time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Probation Department will have less resources available to upgrade the facility and enhance the programs to be offered to the realigned population at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This funding will positively impact youth at the John A. Davis Juvenile Hall by upgrading the facility and enhancing program for those youth who will require longer stays at the facility. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/206 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed Res 2021/206 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/206 In the Matter of the Youth Programs and Facilities Grant Program. WHEREAS the Contra Costa County Probation Department desires to participate in the Youth Programs and Facilities Grant Program funded through the California State General Fund and administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (hereafter referred to as the BSCC). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief Probation Officer, Esa Ehmen-Krause, or her designee, be authorized on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to submit the grant proposal for this funding and sign the Grant Agreement with the BSCC, including any amendments thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Probation Department agrees to ensure all matching funds required for the above grant are provided and abide by the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement as set forth by the BSCC. Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #28–541–28, including mutual indemnification with the City of Richmond, for its Community Services Department, to pay the County in an amount not to exceed $10,000, to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The agency will pay the County the voluntary contributions it receives from participating seniors, after it has paid its authorized expenses. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing an average of thirty (30) congregate meals per day, five days per week for senior citizens at its Congregate Senior Nutrition site in Richmond. On July 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #28–541–27 with the City of Richmond, for its Community Services Department, to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #28–541–28 with the City of Richmond for its Community Services Department BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #28–541–28 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the agency to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, senior citizens who depend on the County’s Senior Nutrition Program will not receive meals at the contractor’s facility. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract with California Department of Social Services, in the amount of $3,855,946, for general child care and development program services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: County is to receive up to $3,855,946 34.7% ($1,336,723) Federal, 65.3% ($2,519,223) State. No County match is required. State Contract CCTR 1028; County Contract 39-801-54. (CFDA Nos. 93.596, 93.575) BACKGROUND: The California Department of Education on behalf of the Department of Social Services notified the County on June 1, 2021, of the 2021-2022 funding renewal of the General Childcare and Development program services. Effective July 1, 2021, California Department of Social APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Rose Castaneda C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 California Department of Social Services General Child Care & Development Revenue Contract BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Services is administering this program based on The Early Childhood Development Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 98, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020). The County receives funds to provide general childcare services to program eligible residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. Approval of this board order will allow the continued provision of these childcare services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate the Childcare and Development Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Department of Education General Childcare & Development funding supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/207 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed Res 2021/207 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/207 In The Matter Of: 2021-22 California Department of Social Services General Child Care & Development Revenue Contract WHEREAS: The California Department of Education on behalf of Department of Social Services notified the County on June 1, 2021 of the 2021-2022 funding renewal of the General Childcare and Development program services, and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2021, California Department of Social Services is administering this program based on The Early Childhood Development Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 98, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020), and WHEREAS, The County receives funds to provide general childcare services to program eligible residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, and, WHEREAS, approval of this board order will allow the continued provision of these childcare services. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract with California Department of Social Services in the amount of $3,855,946 for general child care and development program services with term limit of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Rose Castaneda RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue contract renewal with California Department of Education with a payment limit of $11,092,780 for State Preschool services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue agreement is from the California Department of Education, with 100% funding coming from the State. No County match is required. The State agreement number is CSPP 1052. The County agreement number is 39-908-35. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Local Individualized Subsidy Child Care Plan was approved by the board on July 10, 2018 (c.115) and approved by the California Department of Education on May 8, 2019. The California Department of Education notified the Department on May 28, 2021 of the 2021-2022 funding of the California State Preschool program services. The County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide state preschool services to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. This board order is to accept the funds and renew this contract effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Approval of this board order will allow the continued provision of these childcare programs. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Rose Castaneda C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:California Department of Education State Preschool Program CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate childcare programs. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This board order supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self-sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/209 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed Res 2021/209 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/209 In The Matter Of: California Department of Education State Preschool Program WHEREAS: The California Department of Education notified the Department on May 28, 2021 of the 2021-2022 funding of the California State Preschool program services, and WHEREAS, The County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide state preschool services to program eligible County residents, and WHEREAS, the program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, and WHEREAS, this board order is to accept the funds and renew this contract effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, and WHEREAS, approval of this board order will allow the continued provision of these childcare programs. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract renewal with California Department of Education with a payment limit of $11,092,780 for State Preschool services with term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Rose Castaneda RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a revenue agreement in an amount not to exceed $4,287,288 from the California Department of Social Services, for alternative payment childcare programs operated by the County, with a term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is 61.1% ($2,620,134) funded by Federal (CFDA #93.596 and #93.575), and 38.9% ($1,667,154) funded by the State. No County match is required. State Contract CAPP 1009; County number is 29-212-44. BACKGROUND: The Department was notified by the California Department of Education on behalf of California Department of Social Services on June 1, 2021 of the County's 2021-22 funding renewal for the Alternative Payment childcare services program. Effective July 1, 2021, California Department of Social Services is administering APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Ali Vahidizadeh C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 California Department of Social Services Alternative Payment Childcare Services Revenue Contract BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) this program based on The Early Childhood Development Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 98, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020). The Alternative Payment childcare services program provides funding for program eligible families to receive services. Priority is given to families who interface with Child Protective Services, families with children at-risk of abuse and neglect, low-income families, and families with children who have special needs. Approval of this board order will allow the continued provisions of these childcare services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate this childcare program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/208 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed Res 2021/208 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/208 In The Matter Of: 2021-22 California Department of Social Services Alternative Payment Childcare Services Revenue Contract WHEREAS: The Department was notified by the California Department of Education on behalf of California Department of Social Services on June 1, 2021 of the County's 2021-22 funding renewal for the Alternative Payment childcare services program, and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2021, California Department of Social Services is administering this program based on The Early Childhood Development Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 98, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020), and WHEREAS, the Alternative Payment childcare services program provides funding for program eligible families to receive services. Priority is given to families who interface with Child Protective Services, families with children at-risk of abuse and neglect, low-income families, and families with children who have special needs, and WHEREAS, approval of this board order will allow the continued provisions of these childcare services. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a revenue agreement in the amount of $4,287,288 from the California Department of Social Services for alternative payment childcare programs operated by the County, with a term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Ali Vahidizadeh RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #24-707-64 with Contra Costa ARC, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #24-707-63 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,147,514 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,147,514. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-707-64 with Contra Costa ARC BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #24-707-63 with Contra Costa ARC, in an amount not to exceed $1,147,514, to provide wrap-around services including community-based, mental health treatment, case management and crisis intervention for children who are seriously emotionally disturbed in East County, for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,147,514. Approval of Amendment #24-707-64 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the seriously emotionally disturbed youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s): 1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #74-452-11 with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-452-10 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $338,844 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $338,844. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-452-11 with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-452-10 with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $677,688, to provide mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed minority children in East County, for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $338,844. Approval of Amendment #74-452-11 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the seriously emotionally disturbed youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s): 1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #22-940-23 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $340,907 to provide coordination and support services to the County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $85,227. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures up to $340,907 and will be funded by 34% ($115,164) Federal Title III C (1) of the Older Americans Act of 1965, 26% ($90,151) Federal Title III C (2) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 through the Employment and Human Services Department, and 40% ($135,592) Meals on Wheels fiscal contributions. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the county’s population by providing management and staffing for County’s Senior Nutrition Program in East Contra Costa County, providing assistance in fundraising efforts in the private sector, and purchasing meals for homebound elders through the countywide Meals on Wheels program. Contractor has been providing services to the county under this contract since July 2006. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #22-940-23 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In August 2020, County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #22-940-21 in an amount not to exceed $185,962 to provide coordination and support services to County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. On May 11, 2021 the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #22-940-22 to increase the payment limit by $51,538 to a new payment limit of $237,500 with no change in the term, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $12,885 to $59,375 through September 30, 2021. Approval of Novation Contract #22-940-23 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and will allow this contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s senior citizens who rely on the Senior Nutrition Program for meals will not receive those meals. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #24-705-70 with We Care Services for Children, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #24-705-69 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 and applicable to both the contract and automatic extension, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,049,589 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,049,589. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-705-70 with We Care Services for Children BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #24-705-69 with We Care Services for Children, in an amount not to exceed $1,049,589, to provide mental health services for high risk, delayed or seriously emotionally disturbed children in Central County. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,049,589. Approval of Amendment #24-705-70 will allow the rate adjustments to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Amendment Agreement is not approved the SED youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Richmond Elementary School, Inc., including modified indemnification language, in an amount not to exceed $272,640, to provide State Preschool services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract is entirely funded by State funds, from the California Department of Education. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from California Department of Education to provide State Preschool services to program eligible County residents. In order to provide a wider distribution of services to County residents, the Department contracts with a number of community-based organizations. The State requires an indemnification clause with County subcontractors wherein the subcontractor holds harmless the State and its officers for any losses. Approval of this contract will allow the provision of childcare services for 48 children enrolled in Richmond College Prep preschool programs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community based agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6333 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theo Trinh, Teresita Foster C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 Richmond Elementary School, Inc. State Preschool Childcare Services Contract CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #24-409-44 with West Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #24-409-43, effective April 1, 2021, to increase rates by 25% in response to COVID-19, and applicable to the contract and automatic extension, with no change in the payment limit of $1,783,741 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, including an automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-409-44 with West Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-409-43 with The West Contra Costa Youth Services Bureau, in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741 for the provision of wraparound mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) children in West Contra Costa County for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,783,741. Expected outcomes include all goals identified by Children’s Statewide System of Care guidelines including an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and decreased use of acute care system. Approval of Amendment Agreement #24-409-44 will allow the rate adjustments to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, children and their families in West Contra Costa County may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Orantes, LLC dba Tiny Toes Preschool, in an amount not to exceed $302,227.60, to provide childcare services, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: $302,227.60. This contract is 45% funded by Federal grant funds from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Head Start and Early Head Start Child Care Partnership programs and 55% funded by State funds. There is no County match requirement. CFDA 93.600. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Head Start and Early Head Start Child Care Partnership services to program eligible County residents. The Employment and Human Services Department, in turn, contracts with a number of community-based organizations to provide a wider distribution of services. This contract is to provide 24 Head Start and 8 Early Head Start Child Care Partnership services as well as 14 state slots for children ages birth to 3 years. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Laura Pacheco (925) 608-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-2022 Orantes, LLC dba Tiny Toes Preschool Childcare Services Contract CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will not be able to fund additional childcare slots for it's community-based agency partner, Orantes, LLC. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: Children Ready for and Succeeding in School, Outcome 3: Families that are Economically Self-sufficient, and Outcome 4: Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing. These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #24-925-37 with Lincoln, a non-profit corporation, to amend Novation Contract #24-925-36, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $5,018,518 or term July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,509,259. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-925-37 with Lincoln BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-925-36, Lincoln Child Center, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $5,018,518 for the provision of school-based mental health services and a multi-dimensional family treatment program for seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) students and their families in East Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,509,259. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). Approval of Amendment Agreement #24-925-37 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, over 200 SED students, in ten East Contra Costa County schools may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet, a nonprofit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,499,760 to provide Early Head Start program enhancement and CalWORKs initiative services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract is 66% federally funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. The CFDA Number is 93.600. The remaining 34% is State funded by the California Department of Social Services via the County's Employment and Human Services Department's (EHSD), Workforce Services Bureau. County match is not required. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration services to program eligible County residents. EHSD, in turn, contracts APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6346 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 Aspiranet Childcare Services Contract BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) with a number of community-based organizations to provide a wider distribution of services. This Board Order establishes a contract with Aspiranet to provide coordination services of Home-based Early Head Start programs throughout the County. Aspiranet will provide services to 149 pregnant women and/or children ages birth to three years old enrolled in the Early Head Start program. The contract also funds the CalWORKs Home Visiting Initiative to provide weekly home visits and regular group socialization activities for families enrolled in the program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, fewer eligible families will be served by the County's Early Head Start Enhancement program and CalWORKs Initiative. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income pregnant women and families throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #24-133-75 with La Cheim School, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #24-133-74 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,316,538 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,316,538. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-133-75 with La Cheim School, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #24-133-4 with La Cheim School, Inc, in an amount not to exceed $1,316,538, to provide school-based services and a residential treatment program which includes mental health services, case management, crisis intervention, medication support and therapeutic behavioral services for seriously emotionally disturbed youth ages 8-21 in West County. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,316,538. Approval of Amendment #24-133-75 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the Serious Emotionally Disturbed youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors community outcomes: 1, 2, 4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with COCOKIDS, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $365,740 to provide Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Program Enhancement services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is fully funded by a grant from the Administration for Children and Families (Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Program), 100% Federal funds (CFDA 93.600). A County match is not required. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Program services to program eligible County residents. The Department, in turn, contracts with a number of community-based organizations to provide a wider distribution of services. This board order renews a contract with COCOKIDS, formerly Contra Costa Child Care Council, to provide Home-based Early Head Start Child Care Program services to 52 pregnant women and/or children ages birth to three years old. Services are to be administered through the contractor's licensed family child care providers to enhance the services provided in the contractor's existing full-day programs. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-5052 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 COCOKIDS, Inc. Early Head Start Child Care Services Contract CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community based agencies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #24-927-31 with Community Health for Asian Americans, a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #24-927-30, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $907,061 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $907,061. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-927-31 with Community Health for Asian Americans BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #24-927-30 with Community Health for Asian Americans, in an amount not to exceed $907,061 for the provision of school and community based mental health services in West Contra Costa County for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $907,061. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and a decrease in juvenile offender recidivism as measured by probation database information. Approval of Contract #24-927-31 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Asian American and other ethnic groups receiving services at four programs in West Contra Costa County may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Early and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment Program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California in an amount not to exceed $400,267 to provide Early Head Start Program Enhancement and State General Childcare Development services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is 100% State funded. BACKGROUND: The Department, through the Community Services Bureau, manages a childcare operation that includes State General Childcare Development programs. In order to reach a wider community, the Bureau sub-contracts with community based agencies to provide services. This contract is to further the reach of the above mentioned programs by providing 20 program slots for State General Childcare. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community based agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Haydee Ilan C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 First Baptist State General Childcare Program CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #74-058-33 with Seneca Family of Agencies, a non-profit corporation, to amend Novation Contract #74-058-32, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $5,920,758 or term July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,962,879. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-058-33 with Seneca Family of Agencies BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-058-32 with Seneca Family of Agencies, in an amount not to exceed $5,920,758 for the provision of school and community-based wraparound mental health services including Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children and their families, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,962,879. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). Approval of Amendment Agreement #74-058-33 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, SED children throughout the County schools may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services, possibly resulting in the need for higher levels of care. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California, a non-profit corporation of California, in an amount not to exceed $2,275,735 to provide childcare services at Fairgrounds and Lone Tree Children’s Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract ($2,275,735) is funded 27% by Federal revenues ($621,423) from Administration for Children and Families, with CFDA No. 93.600, and funded 73% by State revenues ($1,654,312) from California Department of Education. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Head Start and Early Head Start program enhancement services to program eligible County residents. County also receives funds from the California Department of Education (CDE) Child Development program for State Preschool APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Haydee Ilan C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 Contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, California for Childcare Services at Fairgrounds and Lone Tree Center BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and General Childcare and Development program services. The State requires an indemnification clause with County subcontractors wherein the subcontractor holds harmless the State and its officers for any losses. Approval of this board order allows the continued provision of childcare services at Fairgrounds and Lone Tree Children’s Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community-based agencies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #24-773-32 with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #24-773-31 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $2,482,828 or term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,241,414. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-773-32 with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved #24-773-31 with Mountain Valley Child and Family Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,482,828, to provide mental health services, case management and therapeutic behavioral services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) youth and dependents, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,241,414. Approval of Amendment #24-773-32 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the SED youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes: 1, 2, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Baptist Church of Pittsburg, in an amount not to exceed $2,174,996, to provide State preschool, pre-kindergarten literacy, general childcare and development programs, Head Start, Early Head Start, and Early Head Start Childcare Partnership services at Kids' Castle, East Leland, and Belshaw Children's Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: $2,174,996: The Federal funded portion of this contract is in the amount of $392,546 from the Administration for Children and Families with CFDA No. 93.600 and represents 18% of contract total. The State funded portion of the contract is in the amount of $1,782,450 from the California Department of Education and represents 82% of contract total. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Head Start, Early Head Start, and Early Head Start Childcare Partnership services to program eligible County residents. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Haydee Ilan C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 First Baptist Church Kids' Castle, East Leland, and Belshaw Childcare Services Contract Renewal BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Contra Costa also receives funds from California Department of Education (CDE) to provide services to program eligible County residents. The State requires an indemnification clause with County subcontractors wherein the subcontractor holds harmless the State and its officers for any losses. In order to provide a wider distribution of services to County residents, the Department contracts with a number of community-based organizations. Approval of this contract will allow the provision of vital preschool and childcare services to program eligible children in East Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community-based agencies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau contract supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #74–218–22 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas), a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #74–218–21, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $204,933 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change to the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $204,933. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74–218–22 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc. (dba Familias Unidas) BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–218–21 with Desarrollo Familiar, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $204,933 for the provision of community based mental health services for children and their families in West Contra Costa County for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $204,933. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). Approval of Amendment Agreement #74–218–22 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, children in West Contra Costa County may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services and require higher levels of service. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-658-5 with ECG Management Consultants, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $380,000, to provide consultation and technical assistance with regard to reviewing compensation, benefits, productivity levels and performance for physicians at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers, for the period from June 15, 2021 through June 14, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $380,000 and is funded 50% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I and 50% Federal and State emergency funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Since June 15, 2019, this contractor has provided consultation and technical assistance with regard to best practices for clinical operations ambulatory clinics, appointment unit, materials management, benefits, productivity levels and performance for physicians at CCRMC and Health Centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-658-5 with ECG Management Consultants, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In June 2020, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #76-658-3 with ECG Management Consultants, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $189,000 for the provision of consultation and technical assistance with regard to reviewing compensation, benefits, productivity levels and performance for physicians at CCRMC and Health Centers, through June 14, 2021. On March 23, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #76-658-4 to increase the payment limit by $350,000 to a new payment limit of $539,000 with no change in the term. Approval of Contract #76-658-5 will allow this contractor to continue to provide consultation and technical assistance through June 14, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CCRMC will not have access to this contractor’s consultation and technical assistance services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #24-308-52 with Early Childhood Mental Health Program, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #24-308-51 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $3,522,402 or term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,761,201. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-308-51 with Early Childhood Mental Health Program BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved #24-308-51 with Early Childhood Mental Health Program, in an amount not to exceed $3,522,402, to provide specialized mental health services including in-home behavioral health services to children and their families in West County, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,761,201. Approval of Amendment #24-308-52 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the seriously emotionally disturbed youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes: 1, 2, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-359 with Acclaim Mobility, LLC, a limited liability corporation, in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide non-emergency transportation services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $300,000 and will be funded as budgeted by the department in FY 2021-22 by 100% CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network for several years, formerly under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with CCHP, and was required to convert to a County contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-359 with Acclaim Mobility, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under new contract #77-359, this contractor will provide non-emergency medical transportation services for CCHP members for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contract with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #74-315-21 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Incorporated, a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #74-315-20, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $736,749 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $736,749. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-315-21 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Incorporated BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–315–20 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $736,749 to provide Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS), Multisystemic Behavioral Therapy and Counseling Enriched Classroom (CEC) school-based services to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $736,749. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). Approval of Amendment Agreement #74–315–21 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, SED children and youth involved in the juvenile justice system may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services which may result in placement in higher levels of care. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This TBS program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment #24-928-33 with Fred Finch Youth Center, a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #24-928-32, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $695,088 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $695,088. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID-19 epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-928-33 with Fred Finch Youth Center BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-928-32 with Fred Finch Youth Center in an amount not to exceed $695,088, for the provision of school-based day treatment and mental health services for students in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $695,088. Approval of Amendment Agreement #24–928–33 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, seriously emotionally disturbed children within the Mt. Diablo Unified School District may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services. and may require higher and more costly levels of treatment. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-559-4 with YWCA Contra Costa/Sacramento, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $250,000, to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $250,000 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Works revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with YWCA Contra Costa/Sacramento since July 2018 to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children. This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing mental health services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems to improve school performance, reduce unsafe behavioral practices, and reduce the need for out-of-home placements. Expected program outcome APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E SUISALA, M WILHELM C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-559-4 with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) is increased number of CalWORKs participants ready to return to the labor force and earn income after they and their families receive mental health services under this contract. In July 2020, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-559-3, with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento for the provision of mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment in the amount of $164,222 for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #74-559-4 allows this Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CalWORKs recipients will not have sufficient access to children’s mental health services as needed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcome: 4 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for bids for the 2021 On-Call Boiler Repair Services Contract(s) for boiler maintenance and repair services at various County facilities, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance of all hot water, boiler furnace and heat pump systems at County facilities. The current on-call boiler repair contractor can provide full service maintenance, repair, rebuild and replacement services. This contract is due to expire January 31, 2022. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to advertise and conduct a formal solicitation for on-call boiler repair services. A Notice to Bidders would be placed in the Contra Costa Times and several building exchanges in accordance with the Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual of the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADVERTISE for the 2021 On-Call Boiler Repair Services Contract(s) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Public Works Department intends to award at least one (1) but not more than two (2) contracts, total of contracts not to exceed $1,500,000, to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder(s). Each contract will have a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions, and will be used as needed with no minimum amount that has to be spent. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request to advertise is not approved, the Public Works Department will not be able to advertise for boiler repair services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Men and Women of Purpose in an amount not to exceed $222,188 for the provision of services to adults transition from incarceration for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. . FISCAL IMPACT: $222,188.04; 100% FY 2021/22 State AB109 Public Safety Realignment Funds BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Contract is to continue the Jail to Community Program as part of the County's AB109 public safety realignment plan. As part of the Jail to Community Program, the Men and Women of Purpose (MWP) and the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner commit to an ongoing collaboration to strengthen and develop a multi-disciplinary approach to serve adults inside the County's West County Detention Facility, Martinez, Detention Facility, and Marsh Creek Detention Facility. Those incarcerated and in the custody of the County's Sheriff-Coroner would need to meet certain criteria to be among the AB 109 re-entry APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chrystine Robbins, 925-655-0008 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Men and Women of Purpose BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) population. Some of the services MWP provides are initial assessments, recommending treatment plans, developing support groups, and assisting participants with the recovery of their California Driver's License, Social Security Card and Green Cards for the re-entry population. MWP will provide participants online access and print-outs of the County's 211 information services and participant services to each of its Outpatient and Day Treatment programs after the participant is released. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action would result in the incarcerated not having an improved chance to not re-offend and return to the detention facility resulting in an increased fiscal impact and continued overcrowding. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment #74–322–21 with Youth Homes Incorporated, a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #74–322–20, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $2,096,386 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74–322–21 with Youth Homes Incorporated BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74–322–20, with Youth Homes Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386 for the provision of residential treatment and therapeutic behavioral services (TBS) to Serious Emotional Disturbed (SED) children for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $2,096,386. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and placement at discharge to a lower level of care. Approval of Amendment Agreement #74-322-21 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, there may be reduced step-down group home options available in the County and SED children who are requiring this level of care may experience out of State placement. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-336-11 with Toyon Associates, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $750,000, to provide consultation and technical assistance with regard to Third Party Social Security Income (SSI) reimbursement recovery and reviews of Medicare ratios of the disproportionate share calculations applicable to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2026. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is included in the Health Services Department's Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. This contract is a contingent fee contract. The contractor will be paid 23% of the SSI percentage and Medicare ratio; and 15% of Medicare Prospective Payment System budget neutrality factor. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the community by providing consultation and technical assistance to the Health Services Department to conduct reviews of the Medicare ratios to assess the maximum disproportionate share calculations, applicable to CCRMC. This will maximize the disproportionate share adjustment to which CCRMC is entitled. The contractor's services include attending meetings, preparing and filing reopening of appeal requests, submitting findings and making recommendations APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Robert Decesare, 925-957-5440 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-336-11 with Toyon Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for submission to the CCRMC. Toyon Associates, Inc. has been providing these services since October 2002. On February 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-336-10 with Toyon Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 with regard to Third Party SSI reimbursement recovery and reviews of Medicare ratios of the disproportionate share calculations, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #23-336-11 will allow this contractor to continue to provide professional consultation and technical assistance, through June 30, 2026. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department will not be able to recover reimbursement due to CCRMC from Medicare appeals. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #77-022-3, effective June 1, 2021, with California Center for Behavioral Health, a corporation, to amend Contract #77-022-2, to increase the payment limit by $75,000, from $150,000 to a new payment limit of $225,000, to provide additional psychiatric services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) Medi-Cal members, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in additional contractual service expenditures of up to $75,000 and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. (Additional rates) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contactor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network since June 1, 2016. In May 2020, the County Administrator's Office approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #77-022-2 with California Center for Behavioral Health in an amount not to exceed $150,000 for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services for CCHP members, for the period June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2022. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #77-022-3 with California Center for Behavioral Health BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #77-022-3 will allow this contractor to provide additional psychiatric services for CCHP Medi-Cal members through May 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the contractor will not be able to provide Medi-Cal members psychiatric services. RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for bids for the 2021 On-Call Polyurea Coating Services Contract(s) for polyurea coating installation and maintenance services, at various County facilities, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance of showers and floors at the detention facilities and congregate care facilities. These areas are in an unusual environment, with constant wear and usage. Various materials have been used in the past to rebuild or replace shower units, only to have them decay and degrade, causing problems with surrounding areas. Polyurea coatings (Line-X) have been able to withstand the treatment of the guests in the facility. The existing contract for these services is due to expire January 31, 2022. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County facilities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADVERTISE for the 2021 On-Call Polyurea Coating Services Contract(s) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to advertise and conduct a formal solicitation for on-call polyurea coating services. A Notice to Bidders would be placed in the Contra Costa Times and several building exchanges in accordance with the Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual of the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission. The Public Works Department intends to award at least one (1) but not more than two (2) contracts, total of contracts not to exceed $2,000,000, to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder(s). Each contract will have a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions, and will be used as needed with no minimum amount that has to be spent. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request to advertise is not approved, the Public Works Department will not be able to advertise for installation of polyurea coating services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #74-543-7 with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-543-6 to increase the per minute billing rates applicable to the contract and automatic extension, due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $282,794 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $282,794. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-543-7 with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 19, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-543-6 with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento, in an amount not to exceed $282,794, to provide mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents, for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $282,794. Approval of Amendment #74-543-7 will allow the rate adjustments to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved the Serious Emotional Disturbance youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports one or more of the following children's outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with HCI Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $800,000 to provide fire sprinkler and alarm services at various County facilities, for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintaining, repairing and certifying fire sprinkler systems at various County facilities to ensure County systems are in compliance. HCI Systems, Inc., provides fire sprinkler repair and certification services, including but not limited to inspections, fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm detection and repairs, 24-hour emergency service, UL Certifications, fire extinguishers and system monitoring. Government Code Section 31000 authorizes the County to contract for special services for building security matters. The Request for Proposal was originally APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with HCI Systems, Inc., a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) bid on Bidsync #2012-456. The Public Works Department conducted a thorough evaluation and HCI Systems, Inc., was one of three vendors awarded for this contract. The contract will have a limit of $800,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. HCI Systems, Inc., will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this Contract. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with HCI Systems, Inc., to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, sprinkler services with HCI Systems, Inc., will not happen. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-271-65(13) with Judith McIntyre, MFT, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $254,000 to provide Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $254,000 over a 2 year period and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal ($127,000) and 50% State Mental Health Realignment ($127,000) revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 14, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution #97/17, authorizing the Health Services Director to contract with the State Department of Mental Health, (now known as the Department of Health Care Services) to assume responsibility for Medi-Cal specialty mental health services. Responsibility for outpatient specialty mental health services involves contracts with individual, group and organizational providers to deliver these services. This Contractor has provided Medi-Cal specialty mental health services to Contra Costa County beneficiaries since 2007. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-271-65(13) with Judith McIntyre, MFT BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-271-65(12) with Judith McIntyre, MFT, in an amount not to exceed $220,000 for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #74-271-65(13) will allow this contractor to continue providing mental health services through June 30, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Sysco Food Services in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 to provide poultry products, equipment and supplies as needed within the three County detention facilities for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund; Budgeted. BACKGROUND: Sysco Food Services provides food products including poultry, equipment and supplies needed to support the inmates feeding program at the three County detention facilities. This vendor is the only Northern California food services provider specializing in providing food products to detention facilities in bulk quantities. Their product pricing is through MedAssets contracts, in which the County has membership. The County benefits significantly by using Sysco in the form of financial incentives on both bulk purchases and manufacturer's rebates resulting in increased purchasing power to the department. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Heike Anderson, 925 655-0023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Heike Anderson, Alycia Rubio, Paul Reyes C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Sysco Food Services RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #74-517-9 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, a non-profit corporation, to amend Contract #74-517-8, effective April 1, 2021, to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $419,871 or term January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021, and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $419,871. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-517-9 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021 the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-517-8 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, in an amount not to exceed $419,871 for the provision of mental health services for Serious Emotional Disturbed (SED) children in East and West Contra Costa County for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $419,871. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). Approval of Amendment Agreement #74-517-9 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, SED children and adolescents may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 to provide fire sprinkler and alarm services at various County facilities, for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintaining, repairing and certifying fire sprinkler systems at various County facilities to ensure County systems are in compliance. Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, provides fire sprinkler repair and certification services, including but not limited to inspections, fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm detection and repairs, 24-hour emergency service, UL Certifications, fire extinguishers and system monitoring. Government Code Section 31000 authorizes the County to contract for special services for building security matters. The Request APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 84 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, a California Corporation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for Proposal was originally bid on Bidsync #2012-456. The Public Works Department conducted a thorough evaluation and Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, was one of three vendors awarded for this contract. The contract will have a limit of $1,700,000 and a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, will be able to request rate increases equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, plus two percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this Contract. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, to be approved for a period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, sprinkler services with Sure Fire Protection Company Incorporated, will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Contract Amendment #2 with Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD d/b/a NCE, to extend the term from March 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022, for on-call pavement engineering and pavement management services, with no change to the payment limit, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. This amendment is only to extend the term of the contract. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department manages over 660 miles of roads throughout unincorporated Contra Costa County. On March 1, 2018, the County entered into a contract with Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD d/b/a NCE, to augment staff and provide pavement engineering and pavement management services on an on-call basis. The services include, but are not limited to, determining the performance status of the entire County roadway network, identifying feasible pavement preventative maintenance measures and rehabilitation alternatives, determining a preventative maintenance and rehabilitation program for the roadway network, preparing a multi-year pavement preventative maintenance and rehabilitation plan, performing pavement condition surveys, rating and analysis to update pavement condition indices, review and prepare construction and planning cost estimates for pavement related construction projects, and many other pavement-related technical services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chris Lau, 925 313-7002 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 85 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #2 to Contract with Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD, for Pavement Engineering and Pavement Management BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Contract Amendment #1, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 31, 2020, extended the term for this contract from March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2021, and increased the payment limit from $150,000 to $300,000. Contract Amendment #2 is to extend the term for the contract from March 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022, with no change to the payment limit. Due to an oversight, this amendment is being requested to be approved after the expiration date. The amendment is necessary for the consultant to complete work that has commenced and will require additional time. At the end of the proposed amended term, the consulting services agreement will terminate and a new solicitation will be completed to seek similar services, if deemed necessary at that time. To retain the services of and to enable timely payment to Nichols Consulting Engineers, CHTD d/b/a NCE, the Public Works Director recommends that the Board approve Contract Amendment #2 and authorize the Public Director, or designee, to sign Contract Amendment #2 for the County. This contract includes services provided by represented classifications, and the County has met its obligations with the respective labor partner(s). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Public Works Department will be unable to provide pavement engineering and pavement management of the County road network in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-623-1 with Harmonic Solutions, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $1,190,142, to provide methadone maintenance treatment services, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,190,142 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal ($595,071) and 50% Drug Medi-Cal Realignment ($595,071) revenues. BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with Harmonic Solutions, LLC., since January 2021. This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing specialized substance abuse treatment and prevention programs to help clients to achieve and maintain sobriety and to experience the associated benefits of self-sufficiency, family reunification, cessation of criminal activity and productive engagement in the community. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 86 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-623-1 with Harmonic Solutions, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 2, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-623 with Harmonic Solutions, LLC., in an amount not to exceed $694,261 to provide methadone treatment services through its Methadone Maintenance Clinics Program (Medi-Cal Drug Abuse Treatment Services), for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #74-623-1 will allow this contractor to continue providing methadone treatment services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa County residents will not receive methadone maintenance treatment services needed to provide them an opportunity to achieve sobriety and recover from the effects of alcohol and other drug use, become self-sufficient, and return to their families as productive individuals. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 4, 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment #74-317-21 with Alternative Family Services, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-317-20 to increase the per minute billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $653,267 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $653,267. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 87 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-317-21 with Alternative Family Services, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-317-20 with Alternative Family Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $653,267, to provide Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) services to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) youth and their families for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $653,267. Approval of Amendment #74-317-21 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the SED youth and their families may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes: 1, 2, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. (dba GameTime), effective July 13, 2021, to extend the term from July 31, 2021 through July 31, 2022, to provide playground repairs at various County sites, with no change to the payment limit of $1,200,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to this action. This amendment is to extend the term only. Contract costs are budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Budget (100% General Fund). BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance of County grounds. PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. (dba GameTime) provides routine maintenance and repairs to a variety of playgrounds and provides these services at rates made available through the U.S. Communities cooperative purchasing program national solicitation. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance, care and upkeep of County buildings and grounds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 88 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. (dba GameTime), to extend On-Call Playground Repair Services. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The contract with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. (dba GameTime), is due to expire July 31, 2021. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to extend this contract to July 31, 2022, to ensure the County has access to the contractor's services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, playground repairs with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. (dba GameTime), will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-577-20 with All Health Services, Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, to provide temporary medical staffing services at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), Contra Costa Health Centers and Detention Facilities, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted annual expenditures of up to $1,000,000 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers have an obligation to provide medical staffing services to patients. Therefore, the County contracts with temporary help firms to ensure patient care is provided during peak loads, temporary absences, vacations and emergency situations where additional staffing is required. The County has been using the contractor’s temporary staffing services since July 1, 2006. On July 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-577-18 with All Health Services, Corporation in an amount not to exceed $850,000 to provide temporary medical staffing services at CCRMC, Contra Costa Health Centers, and Detention Facilities, including specialty registered APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 89 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-577-20 with All Health Services, Corporation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) nurses, nurse practitioners and medical surgery registered nurses, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement 26-577-19, to increase the payment limit by $150,000 from $850,000 to a new payment limit of $1,000,000 to provide additional hours of medical staffing services with no change in the term. Approval of Contract #26-577-20 will allow this contractor to continue to provide temporary medical staffing services at CCRMC, Contra Costa Health Services and Detention Facilities through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department may not have appropriate levels of clinical/medical staff at CCRMC, Contra Costa Health Centers, and Detention Facilities to cover during temporary staff absences, vacations and vacancies. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-439-17 with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $299,236, to provide Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) services, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $299,236 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Federal SAPT Prevention Set-Aside revenues. BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., since March 2012 to provide SAPT services for offenders referred through the AB 109 criminal justice realignment program in West Contra Costa County. This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing specialized substance abuse treatment services so that adults with co-occurring mental disorders are provided an opportunity to achieve sobriety and recover from the effects of alcohol and other drug use, become self-sufficient, and return to their families as productive APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 90 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-439-17 with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) individuals. On August 11, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-439-16 with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., to provide SAPT services including, but not limited to, individual and group counseling services for offenders referred through the AB 109 criminal justice realignment program in West Contra Costa County in an amount not to exceed $299,249, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #74-439-17 allows this contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, individuals will not receive alcohol and drug prevention and treatment services they need to maintain sobriety and reduce risk factors. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #74-622-1 with Paradise Adolescent Homes, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-622 to increase the per minute billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $110,000 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $110,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 91 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-622-1 with Paradise Adolescent Homes, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On March 2, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-622 with Paradise Adolescent Home, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $110,000, to provide short term residential therapeutic program for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) youth, for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $110,000. Approval of Amendment #74-622-1 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the SED youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes, 1, 2, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., effective June 8, 2021, to extend the term from June 30, 2021 through December 31, 2021, to provide on-call landscaping services, with no change to the payment limit of $1,200,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to this action. This amendment is to extend the term only. Contract costs are budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Budget. BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintaining the irrigation and drainage systems at County facilities along with weed abatement of County-owned properties. On-call landscaping contracts are on an as-needed basis, utilized when the demand for landscaping and weed abatement services exceeds staffing levels. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for new on-call landscaping contracts and is requesting this contract be extended while the department evaluates, awards and executes the new landscaping contracts. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County buildings. The contract with Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., expired June 30, 2021. The Public Works Department is requesting to extend this contract through December 31, 2021 to allow time for APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 92 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., to extend On-Call Landscaping Services execution of the new on-call landscaping services contracts. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This contract includes services provided by represented classifications, and the County has met its obligations with the respective labor partner(s). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, landscaping services with Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-037-31 with Contra Costa ARC, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $266,152, to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $266,152 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Federal Substance Abuse Mental Health Works revenues. BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with Contra Costa ARC, since January 2000 to provide mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children. This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing mental health services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems to improve school performance, reduce unsafe behavioral practices, and reduce the need for out-of-home placements. Expected program outcome is increased number of CalWORKs participants ready to return to the labor force and earn income after they and their families receive mental health services under this contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E SUISALA , M WILHELM C. 93 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-037-31 with Contra Costa ARC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On February 9, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-037-30 with Contra Costa ARC for the provision of mental health services to recipients of the CalWORKs Program and their children, including individual, group and family collateral counseling, case management, and medication management services to reduce barriers to employment in an amount not to exceed $133,076, for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #74-037-31 allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CalWORKs recipients will not have sufficient access to the children’s mental health services as needed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcome: 4 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-610-6 with WestCare California, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,924,519, to provide substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and detoxification services for Contra Costa County residents in West County, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,924,519 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded by 35% Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Block Grant ($671,842) and 65% Federal Medi-Cal ($1,252,677) revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with WestCare California, Inc., since October 2019 to provide substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and detoxification treatment services for County residents in West County. This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing specialized substance use disorder treatment services, so that men and women, including women with children, are provided an opportunity to achieve and maintain sobriety and to experience the associated benefits of self-sufficiency, family reunification, cessation of criminal activity and productive APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 94 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74–610-6 with WestCare California, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) engagement in the community. Expected outcomes include increased knowledge about the impact of addiction; decreased use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; increased use of community-based resources; and increased school and community support for youth and parents in recovery On October 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-610-3, with WestCare California, Inc. for the provision of substance use disorder prevention, treatment and detoxification treatment services for county residents in West County who are referred through the Behavioral Health Access Line, in an amount not to exceed $1,521,380, for the period October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. On December 15, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-610-4 to modify the rates with no change in the original payment limit of $1,521,380 and no change in the original term of October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #74-610-6 will allow this contractor to continue providing substance use disorder prevention, treatment and detoxification services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s clients will not receive substance use disorder treatment from contractor, resulting in an overall reduction of services to a community at risk for incarceration. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Alcohol and Drug Abuse prevention program supports the Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes 4 & 5 by providing individual, group, and family counseling; substance abuse education; rehabilitation support services; and substance abuse prevention services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment #74-321-19 with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-321-18 to increase the per minute billing rates for the contract and automatic extension due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $2,864,928 or term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $1,357,464. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 95 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-321-19 with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-321-18 with Bay Area Community Resources, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $2,864,928, to provide school and community based mental health services to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children and youth for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,357,464. Approval of Amendment #74-321-19 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved the SED children and youth may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes: 1, 2, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Agreement #23-722 including mutual indemnification with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its Nelson Lab, a California public corporation, in an amount not to exceed $8,190 to provide analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral concentration in wastewater samples, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will result in annual expenditures of up to $8,190 and will be funded 100% by the Federal Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Enhancing Detection Expansion Grant. BACKGROUND: Under this contract the University’s Nelson lab will analyze SARS-CoV-2 viral concentrations in three wastewater samples per week in July, August and September from Contra Costa County. The data will be shared with local public health departments and the California Department of Public Health to facilitate informed decision-making about COVID-19 response. Approval of new Agreement #23-722 will allow the contractor to analyze the wastewater samples provided by Contra Costa Health Services Department to determine SARS-CoV-2 viral concentrations, through June 30, 2022. This Agreement includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-957-2670 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 96 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #23-722 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its Nelson Lab CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, Contra Costa Health Services will not know the SARS-CoV-2 concentration in wastewater to help prevent COVID-19 transmission. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, an amendment to purchase order #016485 with The Home Depot Pro (formally SupplyWorks), effective July 13, 2021, to extend the term from June 30, 2021 through September 30, 2021 for building material and janitorial supplies, with no change to the payment limit of $2,000,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action. The amendment is to extend the term only with no change to the payment limit. Contract costs are budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Budget. BACKGROUND: Public Works Materials Management is responsible for the purchase of materials and supplies for Custodial Services and Facilities Maintenance. The purchase order is utilized for custodial supplies, cabinets, appliances, furniture, construction and remodeling materials, repairs, office supplies and shop parts. On May 18, 2021, the Board approved a blanket purchase order and participating addendum with Home Depot USA, Inc., to be used by all County Departments. The acceptance agreement and participating APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 97 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order Amendment with The Home Depot Pro (formally SupplyWorks) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) addendum are still being reviewed and executed. This purchase order amendment will allow Facilities Services to continue to purchase building materials and janitorial supplies for County buildings until September 30, 2021, while the blanket purchase order and addendum approved on May 18th are being executed. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the amendment to the purchase order is not approved, then purchasing material and supplies through The Home Depot Pro (formerly SupplyWorks) will discontinue. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-794-20 including mutual indemnification with St. Helena Hospital (dba Adventist Health St. Helena), a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $50,000, to provide inpatient psychiatric hospital services for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a six-month automatic extension in an amount of $25,000 through December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $50,000 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment revenues. BACKGROUND: Assembly Bill (AB) 757, (Chapter 633, Statutes of 1994), authorized the transfer of state funding for Fee-For-Service/Medi-Cal (FFS/MC) acute psychiatric inpatient hospital services from the Department of Health Services (DHCS) to the Department of Mental Health (DMH). On January 1, 1995, the DMH transferred these funds and the responsibility for authorization and funding of Medi-Cal acute psychiatric inpatient hospital services to counties that chose to participate in this program. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 98 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-794-20 with St. Helena Hospital (dba Adventist Health St. Helena) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under new contract #24–794–20, this contractor will provide inpatient psychiatric services for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. This contract contains mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s mental health clients will not receive needed inpatient psychiatric services from the contractor’s facility. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment #74-402-15 with Aspiranet, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-402-13 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $140,234 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $140,234. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 99 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-402-15 with Aspiranet BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On February 9, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-402-13 with Aspiranet, in an amount not to exceed $140,234, to provide Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) for children and youth up to 21 years of age with high-risk behavior for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $140,234. Approval of Amendment #74-402-15 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved, children and youth up to 21 years of age with high-risk behavior may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): RESCIND Board action of May 11, 2021, (C.72) which pertained to a contract with Groupware Technology, Inc.; and APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #23-715 with Trace3, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $268,998 to provide professional services, consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Information Technology Unit, for the period from April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in expenditures of up to $268,998 (inclusive of principal and zero interest) over a five-year period ($53,799.60 annually) as budgeted by the department in FY 2021-22, and 100% funded by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: On May 11, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-715 with Groupware Technology, Inc. for the provision of professional services, consultation and technical assistance for the design, build, on-site testing, and overall implementation of a Cisco Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI), and a Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS), for Health Services Information Technology Unit, for the period from April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022. On June 4, 2021, the department was informed that, effective APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patrick Wilson, 925-335-8777 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C.100 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Rescind Prior Board Action Pertaining to Contracted Services with Groupware Technology, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) April 1, 2021, Groupware Technology and Trace3 went to market under operational platform, Trace3, LLC. There is no change to the third-party lease agreement with Key Government Finance, Inc. The purpose of this Board Order is to change the name of the Contractor to read Trace3, LLC instead of Groupware Technology, Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these actions are not approved, the incorrect Board action will stand, and the department will not have Board authorization for this agreement under the correct contractor's name. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #25-071-10 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $6,776,679 to provide shelter, coordinated entry, outreach and permanent supportive housing programs for homeless youth and adults in Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $6,776,679 and is funded by 35% Federal ($2,404,541), 58% State ($3,925,563), and 4% Local grants ($236,338) including Contra Costa Employment and Human Services Department, Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, and 3% County General Fund ($210,237) revenues. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing shelter, transitional and permanent supportive housing program for homeless youth and adults in Contra Costa County. Public Health Foundation Enterprise, Inc. has been providing CORE services to the County under this agreement since April 1, 2015. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C.101 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #25-071-10 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 23, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #25-071-7 with Public Health Foundation Enterprise, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $5,804,385 for the provision of shelter, transitional and permanent supportive housing program for homeless youth and adults in Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. On February 25, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment/Extension Agreement #25-071-8 to increase the payment limit by $9,613,552 to a new payment limit of $15,417,938 and to extend the termination date from June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2021. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #25-071-9 to decrease the payment limit by $2,381,853 to a new payment limit of $13,036,085 with no change in the term of July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #25–071–10 will allow this contractor to continue to provide supportive housing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s homeless clients will experience longer wait times for shelter and respite services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to submit to the California Department of Community Services and Development Contra Costa County's 2022-2023 Community Action Plan to ameliorate poverty and increase self-sufficiency efforts for impacted County residents. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact. The State of California will prepare and distribute a Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) contract for Contra Costa County once the State receives notice of its 2022 allocation. BACKGROUND: The 2022-23 Community Action Plan (CAP) was developed with input from Contra Costa County residents, Community Partners, Department staff and clients in collaboration with the County's Economic Opportunity Council (EOC). The EOC reviewed and approved the CAP at its regular meeting on June 10, 2021. The CAP guides the CSBG program operated by the Community Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department. Approval of the CAP by the Board of Supervisors will allow the document to move forward for State approval. Once approved, the State will generate APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6389 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theo Trinh, Christina Reich C.102 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorization to submit 2022-2023 Community Action Plan to the State of California BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) a CSBG contract with the County for designated CSBG funds, which is based on County poverty data. The needs assessment is a process used to determine unmet needs of low-income individuals, families, and communities. The needs assessment informs CSBG eligible entities how to utilize CSBG funds to meet the needs of low-income persons in their service areas in accordance with the assurances in the CSBG Act. The CSBG contract will provide continuing funds for CSBG self-sufficiency programs and emergency services for eligible county individuals and families. Funding will be determined by the State upon its receipt of notice of the federal CSBG allocation for California for 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will not have the basis to receive CSBG funding in the 2022 program year. ATTACHMENTS 2022-2023 Community Action Plan Appendix A - Notices of Public Hearings Appendix B - Public Testimony and Responses Appendix C - Community Assessment Appendix D - Community Assessment 2020 COVID-19 Edition with Executive Summary 1 | P a g e 2022/2023 Community Needs Assessment and Community Action Plan California Department of Community Services and Development Community Services Block Grant 2 | P a g e Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Federal CSBG Programmatic Assurances and Certification ........................................................................... 3 State Assurances and Certification ................................................................................................................ 3 Compliance with CSBG Organizational Standards ......................................................................................... 4 What’s New For 2022/2023? .......................................................................................................................... 4 Checklist ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Cover Page and Certification ............................................................................................................................. 7 Public Hearing(s) ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Part I: Community Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................ 10 Community Needs Assessment Narrative .................................................................................................... 11 Community Needs Assessment Results....................................................................................................... 27 Part II: Community Action Plan ........................................................................................................................ 29 Vision and Mission Statement ...................................................................................................................... 29 Tripartite Board of Directors ......................................................................................................................... 30 Service Delivery System .............................................................................................................................. 31 Linkages and Funding Coordination ............................................................................................................. 34 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................... 39 Data Analysis and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 40 Additional Information (Optional) .................................................................................................................. 42 State Assurances and Certification .............................................................................................................. 47 Organizational Standards ............................................................................................................................. 48 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 50 3 | P a g e Introduction The Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) has developed the 2022/2023 Community Needs Assessment (CNA) and Community Action Plan (CAP) template for the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) network. Each agency must submit a completed CAP , including a CNA to CSD on or before June 30, 2021. In an effort to reduce administrative burden during the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, CSD has made changes to the CAP template. The changes are detailed below in the “What’s New for 2022/2023?” section. Provide all narrative responses in 12-point Arial font with 1.5 spacing. When the CNA and CAP are complete, they should not exceed 52 pages, excluding the appendices. Purpose Public Law 105-285 (the CSBG Act) and the California Government Code require that CSD secure a CAP, including a CNA from each agency. Section 676(b)(11) of the CSBG Act directs that receipt of a CAP is a condition to receive funding. Section 12747(a) of the California Government Code requires the CAP to assess poverty-related needs, available resources, feasible goals and strategies that yield program priorities consistent with standards of effectiveness established for the program. Although CSD may prescribe statewide priorities or strategies that shall be considered and addressed at the local level, each agency is authorized to set its own program priorities in conformance to its determination of local needs. The CAP supported by the CNA is a two-year plan that shows how agencies will deliver CSBG services. CSBG funds are by their nature designed to be flexible. They shall be used to support activities that increase the capacity of low-income families and individuals to become self-sufficient. Federal CSBG Programmatic Assurances and Certification The Federal CSBG Programmatic Assurances are found in section 676(b) of the CSBG Act. These assurances are an integral part of the information included in the CSBG State Plan. A list of the assurances that are applicable to CSBG agencies has been provided in the Federal Programmatic Assurances section of this template. CSBG agencies should review these assurances and certify that they are in compliance. State Assurances and Certification As required by the CSBG Act, states are required to submit a State Plan as a condition to receive funding. Information provided in agencies’ CAPs will be included in the CSBG State Plan. Alongside Organizational Standards, the state will be reporting on State Accountability Measures in order to ensure accountability and program performance improvement. A list of the applicable State Assurances and the agency certification for them are found in the State Assurances section of this template. 4 | P a g e Compliance with CSBG Organizational Standards As described in the Office of Community Services (OCS) Information Memorandum (IM) #138 dated January 26, 2015, CSBG agencies will comply with implementation of the Organizational Standards. CSD has identified the Organizational Standards that are met through the completion of the CAP and the CNA. A list of Organizational Standards that will be met upon completion of the CAP can be found in the Organizational Standards section of this template. Agencies are encouraged to utilize this list as a resource when reporting on the Organizational Standards annually. What’s New For 2022/2023? Two-Part Layout. The 2022/2023 template has been divided into two parts: Part I: Community Needs Assessment (CNA); and Part II: Community Action Plan (CAP). The CNA portion has sections for the needs assessment narrative and the results. Surveys and analysis documents may be attached as appendices. The CAP portion encompasses all the usual topics such as Vision and Mission Statement, Tripartite Board of Directors, Service Delivery System, Linkages, Monitoring, etc. Revised Public Hearing Section. In addition to including the statute for the public hearing requirement, CSD has incorporated new guidelines for issuing the Notice of Public Hearing and the draft CAP, and documenting low-income testimony delivered at the public hearing. The Low-Income Testimony and Agency Response document will be required as an appendix. See the section on Public Hearing(s) for more details. CNA Helpful Resources. Part I: Community Needs Assessment contains resources on conducting a needs assessment, influence of COVID-19 on the process, and updated links to state and national quantitative data sets. Revised and Reduced Narrative Sections. Every effort has been made to reduce the administrative burden of conducting a CNA and preparing a CAP during an active pandemic. Although these tasks are fundamental to CSBG and should not be overlooked, CSD is aware of the reduced capacity and other circumstances under which many of the agencies are functioning. CSD has removed questions, utilized check boxes when possible, and made some questions optional. Many ques tions about the federal and state assurances have been removed. However, agencies are still required to certify that they are in compliance with the assurances. In the sections pertaining to the Tripartite Board of Directors and Linkages, for instance, agencies may indicate whether there are changes to the response in the 2020-2021 CAP or whether they would like CSD to accept the 2020 -2021 CAP response without adaptations. Please keep in mind that these flexibilities are made because of the COVID-19 pandemic and may not be utilized in future years. 5 | P a g e Additional Information. CSD has added a section to address disaster preparedness and agency capacity building. While this information is not directly mandated by statue, it is important to know agencies have disaster response plans in place and are making efforts to increase their own capacities. Responses to these questions are optional. Federal and State Assurances Certification. Pertaining to the federal and state assurances, CSD removed questions where possible. If compliance to an assurance could be demonstrated without a narrative, the question was removed. However, agencies will still be required to certify that the Federal CSBG Programmatic Assurances and the State Assurances are being met. Agency certifications are found in those sections. CSBG State Plan References. Information for the CSBG State Plan comes largely from CAPs submitted by agencies. To help agencies understan d their roll in preparing the CSBG State Plan, CSD has indicated which questions contribute to the development of the annual CSBG State Plan. 6 | P a g e Checklist ☒ Cover Page and Certification ☒ Public Hearing(s) Part I: Community Needs Assessment ☒ Narrative ☒ Results Part II: Community Action Plan ☒ Vision Statement ☒ Mission Statement ☒ Tripartite Board of Directors ☒ Service Delivery System ☒ Linkages and Funding Coordination ☒ Monitoring ☒ Data Analysis and Evaluation ☒ Additional Information (Optional) ☒ Federal CSBG Programmatic Assurances and Certification ☒ State Assurances and Certification ☒ Organizational Standards ☒ Appendices 7 | P a g e COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) 2022/2023 Community Needs Assessment and Community Action Plan Cover Page and Certification Agency Name EHSD Community Services Bureau Name of CAP Contact Christina Reich / Nancy Sparks Title Division Manager / Comprehensive Services Manager Phone 925-681-6308 Email Nsparks@ehsd.cccounty.us CNA Completed MM/DD/YYYY: (Organizational Standard 3.1) 04/2021 Board and Agency Certification The undersigned hereby certifies that this agency complies with the Federal CSBG Programmatic and State Assurances as outlined in the CSBG Act and California Government Code, respectively for services provided under the Federal Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Community Action Plan. The undersigned further certifies the information in this Community Needs Assessment and the Community Action Plan is correct and has been authorized by the governing body of this organization. (Organizational Standard 3.5) Supervisor Burgis Board Chair (printed name) Board Chair (signature) Date Kathy Gallagher Executive Director (printed name) Executive Director (signature) Date Certification of ROMA Trainer/Implementer (If applicable) The undersigned hereby certifies that this agency’s Community Action Plan and strategic plan documents the continuous use of the Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) system (assessment, planning, implementation, achievement of results, and evaluation). NCRT/NCRI (printed name) NCRT/NCRI (signature) Date CSD Use Only Dates CAP (Parts I & II) Accepted By Received Accepted 8 | P a g e Public Hearing(s) California Government Code Section 12747(b)-(d) State Statute Requirements As required by California Government Code Section 12747(b)-(d), agencies are required to conduct a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the draft CAP. All testimony presented by low-income individuals and families during the public hearing shall be identified in the final CAP. Agencies shall indicate whether or not the concerns expressed by low-income individuals and families have been addressed. If an agency determines that any of the concerns have not been addressed in the CAP, the agency shall include in its response document, information about the concerns and comment as to their validity. Public Hearing Guidelines Notice of Public Hearing 1. Notice of the hearing and comment period must be published at least 15 calendar days prior to the public hearing. 2. The notice may be published on the agency’s website, Facebook page, social media channels, and/or in newspaper(s) of local distribution. 3. The notice must include information about the draft CAP; where members of the community may review, or how they may receive a copy of, the draft CAP; the dates of the comment period; where written comments may be sent; date, time, and location of the public hearing; and the agency contact information. 4. The comment period should be open for at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing. Agencies may opt to extend the comment period for a selected number of d ays after the hearing. 5. The draft CAP must be made available for public review and inspection at least 30 days prior to the hearing. The draft CAP can be posted on the agency’s website, Facebook page, social media channels, and distributed electronically or in paper format. 6. Attach a copy of the Notice(s) of Public Hearing as Appendix A to the final CAP. Public Hearing 1. Agencies must conduct at least one public hearing on the draft CAP. 2. Public hearing(s) shall not be held outside of the service area(s). 3. Low-income testimony presented at the hearing or received during the comment period must be memorialized verbatim in the Low-Income Testimony and Agency’s Response document and appended to the final CAP as Appendix B. 4. The Low-Income Testimony and Agency’s Response document should include the name of low-income individual, his/her verbatim testimony, an indication of whether or not the need was addressed in the draft CAP, and the agency’s response to the testimony if the concern was not addressed in the draft CAP. 9 | P a g e Guidance for Public Hearings During COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to fulfilling the public hearing requirement. CSD asks that agencies adhere to state and county public health guidance to slow the spread of the virus and ensure public safety. The health and safety of agency staff and the communities you serve is paramount. If a public hearing cannot be conducted in person, CSD encourages agencies to utilize other formats or methods that will still adhere to the state and county public health guidance. If conducing a public hearing through other formats or methods is still not possible , agencies must contact their Field Representative at CSD at least 30 days prior to the submission of the CAP for additional guidance. Agencies will be required to provide documentation to support their constraints to meet the public hearing requirement. Public Hearing Report Date(s) of Public Hearing(s) April 22nd, April 28th, April 29th, May 13th Location(s) of Public Hearing(s) West County, Central County, East County Dates of the Comment Period(s) April 22nd, April 28th, April 29th, May 13th Where was the Notice of Public Hearing published? (agency website, newspaper, social media channels) -Contra Costa County Website, -EHSD.org website -Contra Costa County Community Action Facebook page Date the Notice(s) of Public Hearing(s) was published April 16th 2021 Number of Attendees at the Public Hearing(s) (Approximately) 58 10 | P a g e Part I: Community Needs Assessment CSBG Act Section 676(b)(11) California Government Code Section 12747(a) Helpful Resources In 2011, NASCSP published a Community Action to Comprehensive Community Needs Assessment Tool that supports planning and implementing a comprehensive CNA. The tool lays out design choices, planning steps, implementation practices, analysis, and presentation option s. The National Community Action Partnership has resources such as an online Community Needs Assessment Tool and information about conducting a needs assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Partnership also has a Data Hub designed specifically for the community needs assessment process. To provide a comprehensive “picture” of the community needs in your service area(s), agencies will collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. Links to several national and state quantitative data sets are given below. Local and agency data also provide information about the needs of the community. National and State Data Sets U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Data U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic Data U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing Data & Report U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Data Portal Baseline Census Data by County National Low-Income Housing Coalition Housing Needs by State National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS California Department of Finance Demographics California Attorney General Access RSS Data California Department of Public Health Various Data Sets California Governor’s Office Covid-19 Data California Department of Education School Data via DataQuest California Employment Development Department UI Data by County 11 | P a g e Community Needs Assessment Narrative CSBG Act Sections 676(b)(3)(C), 676(b)(9) Organizational Standards 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 State Plan 1. How did the agency share the CAP, including the CNA, with the community, stakeholders, partner organizations? (Check all that apply.) ☒ The agency’s website ☒ Posted on the agency’s Facebook page ☒ Electronic reports were sent ☐ Printed copies were distributed ☒ Social media channels ☐ Other 2. Describe how your agency collected and included current data specific to poverty and its prevalence related to gender, age, and race/ethnicity for your service area. (Organizational Standard 3.2, State Plan) The Community Assessment process involves a highly collaborative assimilation of input from and engagement with numerous sources, stakeholders, community members and County staff. CSB Assistant Directors work with program managers and active parents to revise or refine the process, develop and implement surveys to identify emerging needs and issues, and compile and maintain demographic and referral information about CSB enrollment. The Policy Council participates in the assessment process throughout the year providing input through regular meetings, reviewing planning data in the context of shared governance and engaging in many other outreach and dialog opportunities. Each spring, the Policy Council receives a full presentation of the Community Assessment and exercises its mandate to evaluate, discuss and pose questions about its findings. Then in August, the Policy Council approves the current Community Assessment. A wide variety of data techniques and sources are used to conduct the Community Assessment. Federal and state agencies, such as the U.S. Census and the Departments of Finance, Education, and Employment Development, provide reliable and regularly updated es timates of residents and conditions that may be compared over time. Internal data sources include parent and family partnership data, parent planning sessions and self-assessment surveys. Program Information Reports (PIR) and data compiled by program managers throughout the year provide a profile of the demographics and needs of Head Start families and children. Local committees, commissions and community-based 12 | P a g e entities that serve low income and at-risk children and families, such as First 5 Contra Costa, the United Way, CalWORKs, the County Health Department, Contra Costa County Local Planning Council for Child Care, and the County Office of Education, also maintain on-the-ground utilization data. Community Care Licensing reports provides information about the demand for and utilization of childcare, as well as the number and location of licensed providers and childcare slots available. In collaboration with McKinney-Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons, the assessment process also helps identify the number and location of age-eligible children experiencing homelessness. Through this compilation of community knowledge, the assessment process helps identify and communicate the emerging needs and interests of community members. It helps determine the population of eligible children and where their families live, and it describes eligible children and families by age, race and ethnicity, primary language, income, family size, social service needs, educational attainment, employment status, work and job training needs, health factors, nutritional needs, special educational needs, foster care status and housing needs. The assessment process also helps program planners recognize and integrate other community strengths and resources. Due to the restrictions set forth by the pandemic, the EOC was not able to have has many members of our most vulnerable population present during the virtual public hearings as in previous year. 3. Describe the geographic location(s) that your agency is funded to serve. If applicable, include a description of the various pockets, high-need areas, or neighborhoods of poverty that are being served by your agency. CSB is funded to serve the entire county of Contra Costa. The greatest need is in East County (Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch), followed by West County (Rodeo, San Pablo, North Richmond and Richmond), and then Central County (Concord). South Contra Costa County presents the area of least need, with only small pockets of poverty existing in the city of San Ramon. 4. Indicate from which sources your agency collected and analyzed quantitative data for the CNA. (Check all that apply.) (Organizational Standard 3.3) Federal Government/National Data Sets ☒ Census Bureau ☒ Bureau of Labor Statistics ☒ Department of Housing & Urban Development ☒ Department of Health & Human Local Data Sets ☒ Local crime statistics ☒ High school graduation rate ☒ School district school readiness ☒ Local employers ☒ Local labor market 13 | P a g e Services ☒ National Low-Income Housing Coalition ☒ National Center for Education Statistics ☒ Other online data resources ☐ Other California State Data Sets ☒ Employment Development Department ☒ Department of Education ☒ Department of Public Health ☒ Attorney General ☒ Department of Finance ☒ State Covid-19 Data ☐ Other Surveys ☒ Clients ☒ Partners and other service providers ☒ General public ☒ Staff ☒ Board members ☒ Private sector ☒ Public sector ☒ Educational institutions ☒ Childcare providers ☒ Public benefits usage ☒ County Public Health Department ☐ Other Agency Data Sets ☒ Client demographics ☒ Service data ☒ CSBG Annual Report ☒ Client satisfaction data ☐ Other 5. If you selected “Other” in any of the data sets in Question 4, list the additional sources. 6. Indicate the approaches your agency took to gather qualitative data for the CNA. (Check all that apply.) (Organizational Standard 3.3) Surveys ☒ Clients ☒ Partners and other service providers ☒ General public ☒ Staff ☒ Board members ☒ Private sector ☒ Public sector ☒ Educational institutions Interviews ☒ Local leaders ☒ Elected officials ☒ Partner organizations’ leadership Focus Groups ☒ Local leaders ☐ Elected officials ☒ Partner organizations’ leadership ☒ Board members ☐ New and potential partners ☒ Clients ☒ Staff ☒ Community Forums ☐ Asset Mapping 14 | P a g e ☒ Board members ☒ New and potential partners ☒ Clients ☐ Other 7. If you selected “Other” in Question 6, please list the additional approaches your agency took to gather qualitative data. 8. Describe your agency’s analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected from low- income individuals and families. Include a description of the data collected. (Organizational Standards 1.1, 1.2, 3.3; State Plan) At $85,837 in 2019, median income for California families rose more than 5% since 2018, while family income in the county ($114,535) rose 6%. Of householders with children age 0 -5, 63% in the state and 64% (48,460) in the county live in families in which all parents work, down 1% since 2018. The 2020 Self-Sufficiency Standard for a Contra Costa family with one adult, an infant and a preschool age child has increased 52% since 2014, and at $124,649, now represents a fulltime hourly wage of $59. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, 65% (590,758) of Contra Costa’s 16 and over residents participated in the civilian labor force, up 7,872 (1%) since 2018. However, December 2020 EDD data indicates the statewide labor force shrank 3% or 561,000 workers since January 2020. The county has 545,800 civilian workers in December 2020, also down 3% or 13,800 since January 2020. Current labor statistics indicate that by December 2020, 829,600 more Californians lost jobs, up 99% since January 2020, due largely to COVID-19. Contra Costa has 43,000 unemployed residents in December 2020, up 139% or 25,000 since January 2020. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, 93% of county workers were commuters, who traveled 38.7 minutes on average, up 2% since 2018. About 50% (222,142) of Contra Costa males 16 and over worked full time in 2019, compared to 34% (160,322) of females, with both rates higher than in the state (49% and 33%, respectively) and both up since 2018. Since 2018, the number of both males and females in the county who worked full time rose 3%. Countywide, 46% (233,583) of commuters were female, 66% (33,622) of women with children age 0-5 worked, and 95% (31,861) were employed in 2019. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, California residents had seen a 5% decline in poverty, while the county had seen a 6% or 6,087 decline. In Contra Costa, 9% (98,595) of individuals, 12% (9,077) of children less than 6, 6% (17,675) of families and 9% of families with children lived below the FPL in 2019, with all rates 15 | P a g e improved since 2018. About 9% of all county residents, 8% of native-born, 10% of foreign-born, 6% of naturalized citizens and 15% of non-citizens lived below the FPL, with all rates improved, but rates among non-citizens most improved since 2018. About 28% (1,978) of Contra Costa married - couples below the FPL have children less than 5, compared to 30% in the state, down 6% in the county and 10% in the state since 2018. About 30% (618) of single male -headed families below the FPL in the county have children less than 5, compared to 32% in the state, up 2% in the county but down 12% in the state. About 36% (3,052) of single female -headed households below the FPL in Contra Costa have children less than 5, compared to 36% in the state, down 3% in the county but down 8% in the state. In all, 28,167 Contra Co sta children of all ages lived below the FPL in 2019, down more than 5% or 1,615. About 9,077 children under 6 lived in poverty, down 4% since 2018. Countywide, of 13,224 women with recent births, 819 (8%) married and 1,339 (39%) unmarried women lived below the FPL in 2019. CalWORKs cases have risen 2% since December 2019, with 6,432 cash grant cases involving 11,597 children in July 2020. Critically, the number of children in cases involving two parents has risen 38% or 228 children since COVID -19. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, 21,069 (5%) county households relied on SSI, up 4%; 9,474 (2%) received cash PA, down 6%; and 24,553 (6%) received SNAP, down 2%. About 45,288 (17%) of all county children live in PA households, down 2% or 1,119 since 2018, 46% (20,848 ) of children in PA households live in married couple families, 44% (20,005) live in single female-headed families, and 9% (4,132) live in single male-headed families, with all down since 2018. About 645 Contra Costa women with births receive PA in 2019, down 22% since 2018, with improvement among both married (down 91) and unmarried (down 93) women. In 2020, the percentage of county homes affordable to median income households had risen just 2.0 points to 28.4%. The 2021 median monthly rent for a 2 -bedroom unit in the county rose another 6% or $144 to $2,383. Although owner-occupied housing costs fell 16% in the county since 2018, the number of unaffordable units rose 12% (up 8,286) to 77,395 in the county. Although rental housing costs rose 7% in the county, the number of unaffordable units fell 1% (down 712) to 67,017. Yet to be reflected in these figures, however, is the COVID-19 effects of businesses allowing employees to telecommute, as Contra Costa prices in March 2021 are up a dramatic 18 - 24% over March 2020. About 2,277 individuals in the county are homeless in 2020, down 1% from 2019, with 31% (707) sheltered. About 5% (92) are families with children, 5% are 18 -24 year olds, 7% (154) are minors under age 18, 80% (1,698) have a disabling mental or physical condition, 50% 16 | P a g e (1,062) struggle with substance abuse, and 68% (1,444) have been incarcerated. Central County now has 33% (514) of all unsheltered homeless, West County has 34% (543) and East County has 33% (513). The 2021 HUD fair market rents (FMR) in the greater San Francisco Bay Area region have all risen since 2020 with 4-7% increases in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 5 -8% increases in Marin and San Francisco Counties and 1-6% increases in Solano County. As of February 2021, the FMR for a 2-bedroom unit in Contra Costa County had risen $144 per month (up 6.4%) from the prior year to $2,383 in 2021. In the first quarter of 2021, the median rent for a 2 -bedroom unit ranged from $1,617 per month in Solano County to $3,553 in Marin, San Francisco a nd San Mateo Counties. ACS data indicates that in 2019, owner-occupied rates increased in both the state and the county by about 1.0%, with 2,716 more owner-occupied units in Contra Costa County since 2018. Brentwood (up 674), Concord (up 430), Discovery Bay (up 159), Hercules (up 334), Martinez (up 247), Pleasant Hill (up 313), San Ramon (up 453) and Walnut Creek (up 283) saw the largest gains in owner-occupied units, while Alamo (down 94), Kensington (down 81), Oakley (down 101), Pinole (down 136), Pittsburg (down 235) and Richmond (down 340) saw the largest loses. The number of renter-occupied units also rose a slight 0.2% in the state but fell a slight 0.2% in the county, with 224 fewer renter-occupied units in Contra Costa County. Brentwood (down 311), Concord (down 450), Martinez (down 192) and Pleasant Hill (down 175) saw the largest loses in renter-occupied units, while Pinole (up 215), Pittsburg (up 634), Richmond (up 219) and Rodeo (up 137) saw the largest gains. Median monthly housing costs for California homeowners fell an estimated $467 (down 20.5%) since 2018, while costs for homeowners in the county fell $430 (down 16.3% to $2,211). In contrast, monthly housing costs for California renters rose 5.2% (up $74) and rose 6.9% (up $117 to $1,819) in the county. HUD defines affordable housing as housing, which costs no more than 30% of household income. Based on this definition, in 2019 California had an estimated 32.0% of owner-occupied units with a mortgage and 54.0% of renter-occupied units, which are unaffordable to their occupants. Of Contra Costa County residents in owner- occupied housing units with a mortgage, 30.3% (77,395) expended at least 30% of their household income on housing costs in 2019, up 12.0% or 8,286 owner-occupied units since 2018. Among Contra Costa renters, 51.5% (67,017) expend at least 30% of their household income on housing costs in 2019, down a slight 1.1% and 712 rental units since 2018. 17 | P a g e 9. Summarize the data gathered from each sector of the community listed below and detail how your agency used the information to assess needs and resources in your agency’s service area(s). Your agency must demonstrate that each sector was included in the needs assessment; A response for each sector is required. (CSBG Act Sections 676(b)(3)(C), 676(b)(9); Organizational Standard 2.2; State Plan) A. Community-based organizations The Economic Opportunity Council holds an Annual Roundtable event for community-based organizations, which function as listening sessions regarding the needs of their clients as well as networking and resource leveraging opportunities. Participants share client success stories as well as challenges. This year, we heard the challenges presented by the pandemic: social isolation causing an increased need for mental health services, need for rental assistance to stave off housing, need for jobs due to those that went out of business or reduced their employees to stay afloat, and increased need for food. Individuals that never used food pantries, food banks, or free meal services are showing up in great need with one free lunch program reporting at 60% rise in clients. B. Faith-based organizations: CSB is fortunate to collaborate with the Interfaith Council of Contra Costa, which is an interfaith community, people from a diversity of religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions, gathering to manifest our unity as we promote the spirit of community and service through caring, diversity and compassion to our Contra Costa Community. They have been active in combatting racism in communities of color, with a renewed fervor since the murder of George Floyd. The have also been working on mental health supports for those suffering the effects of isolation due to the pandemic, as well as housing and food resources. C. Private sector (local utility companies, charitable organizations, local food banks) Contra Costa County ranks number one of all California Counties for water debt – overdue bills for water services for residents. This presents a public health crisis as homes with no running water is unsanitary. Catholic Charities, the largest charitable organization in Contra Costa County reports supporting 36,000 people with essential services including food, rent, and counselling. Nine hundred and fourteen households received an average of $2,800 in rental assistance with 81.3% remaining stably housed at 60 days. They fed 23,570 people, distributing 244,560 pounds of food (15,720 boxes). Disaster response was provided to 10,000 immigrants by way of $500 gift cards 18 | P a g e totaling $5 million in assistance. Finally, they provided in-depth family support services to 84 families, representing 1,234 hours of clinical counseling and case management. D. Public sector (social services departments, state agencies) According to the California Department of Social Services CalWORKs Annual Report (July 2020), California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) caseloads have increased since December 2019. As of July 2020, the county has 6,432 cash grant CalWORKs cases, up 1.6% or 100 cases since 2019. Of 6,432 cases, 31.7% (2,041) involve no parents. Cash grant CalWORKs cases in July 2020 involve 11,597 children, up 2.2% or 245 children, and 30.3% (3,514) of children in the program are parentless. Critically, the number of children in cases involving two parents has increased a considerable 37.7% or 228 children since the COVID -19 outbreak. Based on 2019 ACS estimates, 6.1% of California households receive SSI benefits, compared to 5.3% (21,069) of Contra Costa households, a 1.1% decline in the state but a notable 4.1% increase in the county. Compared to a mean $10,315 statewide, SSI households in the county receive an average of $10,665, ranging from $7,029 (Pacheco) and $14,718 (Moraga) annually. Since 2018, the number of Contra Costa County households with SSI benefits rose most notably in Alamo (up 114), Brentwood (up 114), Richmond (up 128), Pittsburg (up 219) and Antioch (up 274), while Martinez (down 80), Pacheco (down 109) and Concord (down 144) saw the largest declines in SSI households. The number of households receiving cash public assistance fell 4.8% in the state and 6.4% in the county, with 9,474 (2.4%) Contra Costa households on cash PA in 2019. The estimated number of Contra Costa households with cash PA fell most notably in San Pab lo (down 113), Richmond (down 160) and Concord (down 320), while Vine Hill (up 30) and Brentwood (up 46) saw the largest increases. Compared to the countywide average of 2.4%, the percentage of households with cash PA exceeds the county by far in Oakley (3.2%), El Sobrante (3.6%), Pittsburg (4.3%), Crockett (5.5%), Antioch (6.1%), Vine Hill (7.1%) and Rodeo (8.9%). Pittsburg (913), Richmond (1,035), Concord (1,234) and Antioch (2,073) have the highest number of cash PA households and together comprise 55.5% of all Contra Costa cash PA households. Mean annual cash PA is up $20 in the state ($4,578) and $67 ($4,719) in the county, with the highest benefits in Brentwood ($6,003), 19 | P a g e Walnut Creek ($6,025), Rodeo ($6,622), Kensington ($7,267) and Discovery Bay ($7,5 83) and the lowest in Hercules ($3,279), Vine Hill ($2,235) and Lafayette ($1,886). About 24,553 (6.2%) of all Contra Costa households are estimated to receive SNAP benefits prior to the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019, compared to 8.9% statewide, and both state (down 1.7%) and county (down 2.0%) saw a decline in the number of SNAP households since 2018. The number of SNAP households fell most notably in Martinez (down 64), Concord (down 130) and Richmond (down 528) but rose notably in Bethel Island (up 36), Laf ayette (up 55), Antioch (up 61), Rodeo (up 90) and Brentwood (up 102). The 2019 ACS estimates that 24.6% of 0-17 year olds in California and 17.4% (45,288) in Contra Costa County households live in a home that receives SSI, cash PA or SNAP benefits, with both estimates improved since 2018. California saw a 4.8% drop in the number of children in PA households, while the county saw a 2.4% drop, which represents 1,119 fewer children in PA households countywide. Areas with much higher than average rates (17.4 %) of children in PA households include Pinole (20.4%), El Sobrante (20.5%), Bethel Island (25.6%), Richmond (25.9%), San Pablo (27.8%), Vine Hill (28.4%), Pittsburg (32.3%), Antioch (34.9%) and Rodeo (46.7%). More than half (58.4%) of all Contra Costa children age 0-17 in PA households live in Concord (4,928), Pittsburg (5,706), Richmond (6,200) and Antioch (9,627), noting, however, that Concord (down 611) and Richmond (down 951) saw sizable declines in the number of children in PA households between 2018 and 2019. In contrast to the county overall, Vine Hill (up 158), Pittsburg (up 178), Rodeo (up 213), Brentwood (up 256) and Antioch (up 489) saw large gains in the number of children in PA households. Countywide, 46.0% (20,848) of children in PA household s live in married couple families, 44.2% (20,005) live in single female -headed families, and 9.1% (4,132) live in single male-headed families, with all three estimates down since 2018. E. Educational institutions (local school districts, colleges) Communities Served by Head Start Based on 2019 ACS estimates, 8,476 0 -2 year olds (including 2,158 pregnant women) and 6,853 3 - 5 year olds in Contra Costa may be income -eligible for Early Head Start or Head Start services in 2021-22. Income-eligible 0-2 year olds fell 4% or 339, but the number of pregnant women below the FPL is relatively unchanged since 2018. Income -eligible 3-5 year olds fell 6% or 463. Concord (up 20 | P a g e 51), Oakley (up 109), Richmond (up 85) and Walnut Creek (up 721) saw notable increases in income-eligible Early Head Start children and mothers, while Antioch (down 136), Martinez (down 88), Pinole (down 42) and Pittsburg (down 37) saw declines. Brentwood (up 40), Concord (up 36), El Cerrito (up 39) and Walnut Creek (up 631) saw sizable increases in incom e-eligible Head Start children, while estimates fell in Antioch (down 45), Oakley (down 40), Pittsburg (down 139) and Richmond (down 108). In 2020-21, the county’s Early Head Start program served 798 including 33 pregnant women, while Head Start served 1,347. About 27% (216) of Early Head Start enrollees are less than 1, including 33 unborn babies. Another 26% (209) are 2 year olds. Of Head Start enrollees, 40% (540) are 5 or older and 39% (519) are 4 year olds. Latino children make up 62% (477) of Early Head Start and 61% (821) of Head Start enrollees, and Spanish is the primary language of 37% (295) of Early Head Start and 39% (520) of Head Start enrollees. White children make up 60% (458) of Early Head Start and 60% (802) of Head Start enrollment, while African Americans make up 27% (209) of Early Head Start and 24% (325) of Head Start enrollment. Less than 3% (19) of Early Head Start and 5% (66) of Head Start enrollees are Asian. About 73% (530) of families served by Early Head Start, up 30 families, and 73% (911) of those served by Head Start, down 22, are single-parent families. The majority enrolled in both Early Head Start (69%) and Head Start (62%) are eligible based on income. Eligibility based on foster care status accounts for nearly 3% (18) of EHS and 3% (32) of HS children. Eligibility based on homelessness (28 children or 4% in EHS and 35 children or 3% in HS) has increased for both programs since 2018. Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals In the 2019-20 school year, 59.3% of all California students are eligible for free or reduced price meals (FRPM), virtually unchanged since 2018-19. By comparison, 70,401 (39.5%) of all 178,411 students attending Contra Costa County schools in 2019-20 are FRPM-eligible, down 3.2% or 2,315 students since 2018-19. Districts that saw the largest 1-year drop in FRPM-eligible students include Acalanes Union High (down 26 students or 7.0%), San Ramon Valley Unified (down 132 or 7.2%), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 1,327 or 9.2%) and Lafayette Elementary (down 14 students or 12.7%). In contrast, districts with the largest 1-year increase in FRPM-eligible students include John Swett Unified (up 57 students or 6.7%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 179 or 6.8%), Liberty Union High (up 166 or 7.1%) and SBE Synergy Rocketship Future (up 106 students or 33.8%). 21 | P a g e Many Contra Costa districts continue to exceed the county’s overall percentage of FRPM -eligible (39.5%) including SBE–Rocketship Future Academy (78.8%), Pittsburg Unified (70.9%), Antioch Unified (69.2%), West Contra Costa Unified (65.7%), John Swett Unified (63.9%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (48.7%), Oakley Union Elementary (43.2%) and Mt. Diablo Unified (42.3%). Districts with the highest number of FRPM-eligible continue to be West Contra Costa Unified (21,126), Mt. Diablo (13,144), Antioch (11,887) and Pittsburg (8,060). Schools with the highest number of FRPM-eligible students in 2020 also continue to be Mt. Diablo High (1091), Deer Valley High (1,097), Richmond High (1,328), Antio ch High (1,455) and Pittsburg Senior High (2,356). 10. “Causes of poverty” are the negative factors that create or foster barriers to self -sufficiency and/or reduce access to resources in communities in which low-income individuals live. After review and analysis of the data, describe the causes of poverty in your agency’s service area(s). (Organizational Standard 3.4, State Plan) Self-Sufficiency The Self-Sufficiency Standard, a project of the Center for Women’s Welfare (CWW), calculates the local and regional costs associated with each basic need to determine the household income individuals and families need to meet these basic needs without public subsidies or private assistance. It provides a more detailed, up-to-date, and regionally specific measure than the FPL of what people must earn to be self -sufficient. Updated in 2020 for Contra Costa County, the Self -Sufficiency Standard for a family with one adult, an infant and one preschool age child has increased 52% since 2014, and at $124,649 annually, now represents a fulltime hourly wage of $59.02. By comparison, the median family income in Contra Costa County is $114,535 in 2019. However by July 2020, 59% of California and 50% of Bay Area adults had already experienced a loss of employment income through COVID -related layoffs, furloughs and/or reductions in hours or pay. Further, 46% of California and 37% of Bay Area adults expect another drop in household income within the month. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Employment Development Department estimated the county’s January 2020 unemployment rate (2.7%) continued lower than the state overall (3.7%) with both rates improved since 2018. Since 2004, unemployment rates in the county had improved by 42.6%, while the state’s rate had improved 35.1%. Since 2018, the county’s unemployment rate had 22 | P a g e improved by 10.0%, while the state’s rate had improved 9.8%. However, since early 2020 and the outbreak of COVID-19, the unemployment rate in California at 8.8% has risen 5.1 percentage points or 137.8%, while the county’s rate at 7.9%, has risen 5.2 points or 192.6%. In April 2020, 30% of California and 26% of Bay Area adults suffer from frequent feelings of anxiety. Among Bay Area adults, those age 18-39 (30%), females (30%) and those earning below $25,000 (43%) are more likely to have frequent anxiety in April. Importantly, three months later, in July 2020, anxiety has risen notably for California (35%) and Bay Area (31%) adults. Bay Area adults age 18- 39 (48%), female (35%), with some college (40%), with no children (35%) and with income below $35,000 (38%) are most likely to have anxiety in July. Financial concerns appear to underlie this anxiety as Bay Area adults paying bills using credit (35%), money from savings or sold assets (36%), money borrowed from family or friends (65%), or money saved from deferred payments (62%) report higher anxiety. In April 2020, 19% of California and 14% of Bay Area adult s suffer from frequent feelings of depression, and three months later, depression has risen substantially in California (26%) and the Bay Area (21%). In the Bay Area, frequent depression in July is higher than average among 18 to 29 year olds (44%), adults with some college (35%), those with no children (26%), those who have had a loss of household employment income (29%) and adults earning between $25,000 and $34,999 (56%). Bay Area adults paying bills using credit cards or loans (28%), money borrowed from family or friends (51%), unemployment insurance (28%), stimulus checks (26%) or money saved from deferred or forgiven payments (59%) are most likely to experience frequent depression. 11. “Conditions of poverty” are the negative environmental, safety, health and/or economic conditions that may reduce investment or growth in communities where low-income individuals live. After review and analysis of the data, describe the conditions of poverty in your agency’s service area(s). (Organizational Standard 3.4, State Plan) In Contra Costa, 5% (57,973) of residents are uninsured in 2019, compared to 8% statewide, with both rates and numbers improved since 2018. About 3% (7,138) of county children are uninsured; down 4% or 275 since 2018, but 2% (1,456) of the county’s 0-5 year olds are uninsured, up 3% or 37 from 2018. Among 0-18 year olds, 92% (252,714) have one type of insurance, 64% (160,766) have employer-based coverage and 7% (18,636) have direct-purchased coverage. Medicaid-only coverage rates among county children rose 2% or 1,692 children to 28% (71,471), compared to 43% in the state. The rate of uninsured among foreign -born (10%) is more than 3 times that of 23 | P a g e native-born (4%) residents, but both improved. Rates of uninsured among non-citizens (19%), up 1.8 points, are still 5 times higher than among naturalized citizens (4%), up 0.6 points. Whites (97%) are also much more likely than Latinos (89%) and American Indian/Native Alaskans (91%) to have health insurance. The American Lung Association gives Contra Costa an F grade in 2020 on air quality measures and reports that 16,038 children and 76,494 adults with asthma are at risk from poor air quality in the county. In 2018, 9% of California and 14% of count y adults have a current diagnosis of asthma, 15% of state and 18% of county residents of all ages have ever been diagnosed with asthma, including 16% of state and 20% of county adults. In 2020, chlamydia rates rose 8% to 500.2 in the county and rose 6% to 546.1 in the state. Gonorrhea rates also rose to 310.8 per 100,000 females (up 11%) and 426.2 among males (up 19%) in the county, compared to state increases of 12% (females) and 13% (males). HIV/AIDS diagnoses among Contra Costa residents (266.1 per 100,000 or 2,535 cases) still compares favorably to the state (404.6), but rose 4% in the county versus 2% in the state since 2019. In 2020, the county has 148.0 drug -induced deaths per year (12.2 per 100,000), compared to 13.1 statewide, with both up from 201 9. Statewide, opioid-related deaths (3,244) rose 34% since 2018, 17,576,679 opioid prescriptions were written, and 11,767 emergency room visits (28.78 per 100,000) involved opioid overdoses. Countywide, opioid deaths rose 11% since 2018 to 91, 565,236 prescriptions were written (490.0 per 1,000 residents), and 293 ER visits (22.73 per 100,000) involved opioid overdoses in 2020. About 18% of women with births in Contra Costa in 2015 had inadequate weight gain during pregnancy, and 13% had food insecurity du ring pregnancy. In 2016, 42% of the county’s 2-17 year olds ate fast food more than once a week, more than doubled since 2014. About 39% of Contra Costa 2-11 year olds eat five or more serving of fruits and vegetables each day, but 13% of elementary students had not eaten breakfast on the morning surveyed. About 31% of low income 0 - 5 year olds in the county had a recent dental visit in 2020, compared to 19% in the prior year and 39% in California. Infant mortality in the county fell from 4.9 per 1,000 infants in 2010 to 3.2 in 2020, compared to 4.3 in the state, and 7% of county and state births are low birthweight. The percentage of county women who receive first trimester prenatal care rose to 88%, compared to 84% in the state, but just 75% of pregnant women in the county receive adequate or better care throughout pregnancy, down from 76% in 2019. COVID-19 cases worldwide topped 135,756,000 with 2,932,192 deaths and 77,204,630 recoveries as of April 11, 2021. Cases in the U.S. now total 31,348,231, with 567,142 deaths or 1.8% of all cases. A total of 3,696,771 cases and 60,334 deaths (1.6%) have been confirmed in California, with 65,857 cases and 777 deaths (1.2%) in 24 | P a g e Contra Costa as of April 11, 2021. Since the first confirmed U.S. case on January 21, 2020, COVID-19 has impacted all aspects of life, but by mid-December 2020, the FDA granted emergency use approval for two highly effective vaccines (followed by a third in February 2021), and the U.S. vaccine roll out began by targeting front-line workers, first responders, long-term care residents and others at highest risk for illness. As of April 11, 2021, 22,777,893 doses have been administered in California, with 8,767,321 (27%) residents fully vaccinated. In Contra Costa, 825,275 doses have been administered, with 299,470 (26%) residents fully vaccinated. California currently plans to reopen fully on June 15, 2021. In 2019, 21,922 students of all ages receive special education in the county, up 3% or 600 since 2018 and up 27% or 4,645 students since 2011. At least 2,511 children under 6 require special education countywide, up 9% or 204 students since 2018. Speech or language impairment continue as most common, followed by autism, and the proportion of 0-5 year olds with autism continues to climb. The 2019 ACS estimates 4% (9,830) of Contra Costa children have a major disability, including 0.5% (327) of county 0 -4 year olds. Children age 0-4 with hearing difficulties rose 5% in the state and 11% in the county, with notable increases in Martinez (up 11), San Ramon (up 12), Richmond (up 13) and Tara Hills (up 32). Children age 0-4 year with vision difficulties rose 3% in the state and 46% in the county, with notable increases in Antioch (up 24) and Tara Hills (up 32). Since 2018, felony arrests among California adults have fallen 3% or 8,028; those for violent offenses are down 3% or 3,485, while arrests for property offenses are down 6% or 3,835. In contrast, arrests for sex offenses in California has risen 6% or 264. Adult felony arrests in Contra Costa have risen 4% or 360 to 8,829 in 2019, with arrests for violent offenses up 4%, property offenses up 1%, and sex offenses up 20% since 2018. California has a death by homicide rate of 5.1 per 100,000, compared to 5.8 in Contra Costa. California has a firearm-related death rate of 7.8 per 100,000, compared to 8.7 in Contra Costa. The 2016 incarceration rate in California is 700.0 per 1,000 adult felony arrests and 404.0 in the county. Communities have also seen a surge in crime clearly related to COVID, such as c ivil disobedience in the face of restrictions, package theft, speeding on uncongested highways, opioid abuse, assault on medical workers and law enforcement, hate crimes against Asian Americans, vehicle theft, price gouging and financial crimes such as unemployment benefit scams and charity scams. In the past 8 years, the state’s prison population has also been aging, with the percentage age 50 or older up from 4% in 2000 to 23% in 2017. This aging inmate population has cost implications, including costs for health care, with the average annual cost to incarcerate one inmate in the state up 58% since 2011 to $81,000 per year. 25 | P a g e Compared to a 4% decline in the state since 2018, domestic violence calls for assistance from Contra Costa residents fell 6% with 3,066 calls in 2019. Critically, COVID-lockdowns have intensified the conditions of isolation and stress that tend to increase violence against women and children, while also appearing to limit options available to those in abusive relationships. Those who need help may fear shelters are unsafe or closed, emergency personnel are unavailable, and orders are unenforceable since courts have shutdown. Despite the current absence of data showing a link between COVID-19 and rising DV rates, prior experience suggests that the need for domestic violence services and referrals may spike in the near future. The county’s December 2019 rate of substantiated child abuse cases at 3.8 per 1,000 continues lower than 7.5 in California, but the county rate rose 11% or 96 children to 949. About 15% involve children less than 1, another 31% involve children age 1-5, and cases that result in children entering foster care fell another 4% since 2018. As early as March, child advocates began to warn of COVID-19 impacts on the health and welfare of children, as the conditions the virus produces have led to periods of high risk for severe child abuse in the past. COVID conditions such as disruptions in people’s lives, growth in unemployment, stressors such as food insecurity and illness, and the lack of oversight at-risk children usually receive from teachers, school staff and fellow students are all risk factors. Yet in 2020, across 43 states and Washington D.C., child abuse reports are down 14% in March, down 41% in April and down 35% in May as compared to 2019. Nationally, calls to child abuse hotlines have also fallen sharply during lockdowns and school closures. Advocates stress, however, that child welfare systems are largely reactive, that most of those professionals mandated to rep ort suspected abuse have had limited access to at-risk children while schools are closed, and that child abuse data often takes at least a year to become widely available. The county had 869 juvenile arrests in 2019, up 9% or 75 since 2018, with 375 (43%) for felonies and 153 (41%) for violent offenses. Like the state, the county saw an uptick in juvenile felony arrests (up 19% or 59) and arrests for violent offenses (up 15% or 20). In 2019, 59% (222) of all juveniles arrested for felony offenses in Contra Costa are Black, 29% (109) are Latino, and 9% (33) are White. About 4% of Contra Costa 7th graders and 5% of 11th graders report gang membership in 2019, with both improved since 2015. 12. Describe your agency’s approach or system for collecting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction data to the governing board. (Organizational Standard 6.4, State Plan) 26 | P a g e ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 27 | P a g e Community Needs Assessment Results CSBG Act Section 676(b)(11) California Government Code Section 12747(a) Table 1: Needs Table Complete the table below. Insert a row if additional space is needed. Needs Identified Level Integral to Agency Mission (Y/N) Currently Addressing (Y/N) Agency Priority (Y/N) Affordable housing, shelter, services to homeless and rental assistance Family Y Y Y Nutrition County Y Y Y Mental Health Access Family Y Y Y Underemployed families/unemployment Family Y Y Y Needs Identified: List the needs identified in your most recent CNA. Level: List the need level, i.e. community or family. Community Level: Does the issue impact the community, not just clients or potential clients of the agency? For example, a community level employment need is: There is a lack of good paying jobs in our community. Family Level: Does the need concern individuals/families who have identified things in their own life that are lacking? An example of a family level employment need would be: Individuals do not have good paying jobs. Integral to Agency Mission: Indicate if the identified need aligns with your agency’s mission. Currently Addressing: Indicate if your agency is already addressing the identified need. Agency Priority: Indicate if the identified need will be addressed either directly or indirectly. 28 | P a g e Table 2: Priority Ranking Table Prioritize all needs identified as an agency priority in Table 1 . Insert a row if additional space is needed. Agency Priorities Description of programs, services, activities Indicator(s)/Service(s) Category (CNPI, FNPI, SRV) 1.Housing/Shelter Emergency Shelter, Affordable Housing FNPI 2.Food/Nutrition Healthy food/meal distribution, emergency healthy food SRV 3.Mental Health Access Mental Health Services, Medical assistance, and Health screenings FNPI 4.Employment/Job Training Job training programs for living wage jobs FNPI 5. Agency Priorities: Rank your agency priorities. Description of programs, services, activities: Briefly describe the program, services or activities that your agency will provide to address the need. Identify the number of clients to be served or the number of units offered, including timeframes for each. Indicator/Service Category (CNPI, FNPI, SRV): List the indicator(s) or service(s) that will be reported in annual report. 29 | P a g e Part II: Community Action Plan CSBG Act Section 676(b)(11) California Government Code Sections 12745(e), 12747(a) California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 11, Chapter 1, Sections 100651 and 100655 Vision and Mission Statement 1. Provide your agency’s Vision Statement. Contra Costa County will continue to be a thriving community where all individuals and families can be healthy, safe, secure and self -sufficient. 2. Provide your agency’s Mission Statement. The Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) Mission Statement: The Mission of the Economic Opportunity Council, the Community Action Agency of Contra Costa County is to arm the community with hope, knowledge, resources, and voice. Through our advocacy, inclusion and influence, we promote pathways out of poverty to unbar the doors to full participation and self - sufficiency. 30 | P a g e Tripartite Board of Directors CSBG Act Sections 676B(a); 676(b)(10) California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 11, Chapter 1, Section 100605 State Plan 1. Describe how your Advisory or Governing Board is involved in the decision-making process and participates in the development, planning, implementation and evaluation of programs to serve low-income communities. (CSBG Act Section 676B(a)) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 2. Describe your agency’s procedures under which a low-income individual, community organization, religious organization, or representative of low-income individuals that considers its organization or low-income individuals to be inadequately represented on your agency’s board to petition for adequate representation. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(10), State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 3. Describe your Advisory or Governing Board’s policy for filling board vacancies in accordance with established bylaws. Include the recruiting process, democratic selections process for low- income board members, and the timeframe established by your agency to fill vacancies. (State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020 -2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 31 | P a g e Service Delivery System CSBG Act Section 676(b)(3)(A) State Plan 1. Describe your agency’s service delivery system. Include a description of your client intake process or system and specify whether services are delivered via direct services or subcontractors, or a combination of both. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(3)(A), State Plan) Direct Services: Our intake systems for our directly operated program for childcare, energy assistance, and job-training are guided by a “no-wrong door” approach whereby we will accept applications for services at any of our locations, and by any method. We have online app lications, print applications and a bilingual hotline (toll free in with one in each area code in the county). We take referrals from many community-based programs and government agencies as well. Once an application is received, it is assigned to a specif ic point of contact to establish eligibility and then process for services. All of these processes are automated. Sub-contractor Services: With the exception of the Student Intern Program, all CSBG funded programs are delivered via subcontractors. Each of them have different intake processes that are multi-lingual and, for the most part, automated. 2. List your agency’s proposed programs/services/activities that will be funded by CSBG. Include a brief explanation as to why these were chosen and how they relate to the CNA. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(3)(A), State Plan) CSB operates a paid, on-the-job training program directly funded, in part, with CSBG funds in response to the need to equip residents with skills that enable them to obtain jobs that provide a living wage with benefits, in direct response to the needs as presented in the CNA. All other progra ms are selected using a Request for Interest (RFI) process directly related to the priority needs. Currently, these program are:  Bay Area Community Resources: Provides a violence prevention program to East County at-risk youth. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program costs.  Contra Costa Clubhouse: Provides peer support and vocational training for residents diagnosed with serious mental illness who have multiple barriers to gaining and maintaining competitive employment. CSBG funding supports staff salary and program cost. 32 | P a g e  Contra Costa Health Services: Provides safe, no cost shelter, food, clothing, and a full array of services in Calli House including family counseling, and case management services to youth ages 18-24 years. CSBG funding supports program costs.  Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP): Provides homeless diversion intervention, emergency family shelter placement, housing readiness and navigation, daily meal program, and access to basic needs to clients. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program costs.  HOPE Solutions (Contra Costa Interfaith Housing): Provides affordable housing, case management, eviction prevention, healthcare and educational support services to low- income families in East county.  Lao Family Community Development Inc.: Provides a “one-stop” service model, connecting individuals to a variety of bundled and integrated services to clients to obtain and retain employment. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program costs.  Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa: Provides hot meals and a food pantry that include Fresh Produce Access services for low-income clients. CSBG funding supports program cost and staff salary.  Monument Crisis Center: Provide safety net wrap-around services for at-risk, low- income county residents including nutritious food, health, education and wellness activities. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program cost.  Monument Impact: Provides avenues for economic prosperity for Latinx immigrants through the usage of English language software and technology to primarily Spanis h speaking clients.  Opportunity Junction: Provides job training and placement program (JTPP) to low- income residents with multiple employment barriers. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program cost.  Shelter Inc.: Provides 24-hour staffed emergency shelter accommodations to low- income homeless adults and children. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program costs.  St. Vincent de Paul: Provides employment and training for unemployed residents who are experiencing barriers-to-employment. CSBG funding supports staff salaries and program cost/salaries.  Rising Sun Center for Opportunity: Provides training for jobseekers overcoming serious 33 | P a g e barriers to employment for family-sustaining careers in the union construction trades. Participants receive a year of job placement and retention assistance along with wraparound support.  White Pony Express: Provides perishable and non-perishable food to thirteen community nonprofit organizations through their Food Rescue and Recovery program. CSBG funding supports program costs. 34 | P a g e Linkages and Funding Coordination CSBG Act Sections 676(b)(1)(B) and (C), (3)(C) and (D), 676(b)(4), (5), (6), and (9) California Government Code Sections 12747, 12760 Organizational Standards 2.1, 2.4 State Plan 1. Describe how your agency coordinates funding with other providers in your service area. If there is a formalized coalition of social service providers in your service area, list the coalition(s) by name and methods used to coordinate services/funding. (CSBG Act Sections 676(b)(1)(C), 676(b)(3)(C); Organizational Standard 2.1; State Plan) The EOC and CSB coordinates funding with public and non -profit agencies through a Request for Information (RFI) process to serve the needs of low-income residents. It is through those partnerships we ensure CSBG funding continues to support the already su ccessful programs that are vital to our most vulnerable population. Successful methods used by our subcontractors to coordinate services is through the initial referral process where clients are screened and assessed while working collaboratively with organizations within the consortium to ensure clients are provided with the vital services they are lacking. Another method used by our subcontractors to coordinate services and funding is by delivering food at the partner agencies that provide dining halls f or residents. This allows our subcontractors to leverage funding to best meet the needs of the community. Several coalitions and advisory groups attending by staff and board members help to inform our conclusions of needs and best practices in our communities when responding to the needs of our low-income community. They are:  Family Economic Security Partnership – EOC Chair and CSBG Program Manager attends.  Ensuring Opportunity – CSBG Program Director attends and is on leadership team.  Head Start Policy Council – EOC Secretary and CSBG Program Director attends meetings.  Head Start Health and Nutrition Advisory Council – CSBG Program Director attends. There is no CSBG funding currently attached to these efforts. 2. Provide information on any memorandums of understanding and/or service agreements your agency has with other entities regarding coordination of services/funding. (Organizational Standard 2.1, State Plan) In the spirit of cooperation and collaboration, CSB, City of Richmond Workforce Development Board and America’s Job Centers of California (AJCC)/CalJobs have entered into an agreement that will assist clients in the county with the following services: 35 | P a g e  Looking to find a job;  Building basic educational or occupational skills;  Earning a postsecondary certificate or degree;  Obtaining guidance on how to make career choices;  Seeking to identify and hire skilled workers.  Referral of EHSD clients for participation in AJCC Workforce development services  AJCC partner sharing of service information via brochures and/or flyers.  Provide annual cross-training for AJCC staff regarding Contra Costa EHSD Services, policies, and procedures. CSB also has numerous MOUs and Interagency Agreements that facilitate the work we do with pregnant women, children 0-5 years of age, and their families such as:  School Districts  Nurse Family Partnership  Family Development Credential  Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)  Children and Family Services  Bay Area Discovery Museum  Sweet Beginnings Family Resource Center  Regional Centers of the Bay Area  Special Education Local Planning Area 3. Describe how services are targeted to low-income individuals and families and indicate how staff is involved, i.e. attend community meetings, provide information, make referrals, etc. Include how you ensure that funds are not used to duplicate services. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(9), California Government Code Section 12760, State Plan) ☐ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☒ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. Our agency acted quickly to address the issues of the pandemic, getting child care open to essential families, and providing curb side grab and go resources like food, diapers, formula, and educational supplies and resources. We adapted quickly to the virt ual environment, moving critical meetings to Zoom and Microsoft Teams. We worked diligently with our subcontractors to identify and remedy the devastating effects of the pandemic with the CARES Act funding provided to the 36 | P a g e program. Our response was stellar. 4. Describe how your agency will leverage other funding sources and increase programmatic and/or organizational capacity. (California Government Code Section 12747, State Plan) Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) is part of a broad-based coalition called the Funders Forum that looks to private foundations for funding to ensure safety net services remain intact in the event of reduced or eliminated state and/or federal funding. The Economic Opportunity Council has also engaged the CSBG sub-contractors in advocacy efforts to prevent elimination of funding by sharing success stories and by banding together to form a cohesive group of service providers with a shared mission of serving the poor. 5. Describe your agency’s contingency plan for potential funding reductions. (California Government Code Section 12747, State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 6. Describe how your agency documents the number of volunteers and hours mobilized to support your activities. (Organizational Standard 2.4) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 7. Describe how your agency will address the needs of youth in low‐income communities through youth development programs and promote increased community coordination and collaboration in meeting the needs of youth. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(1)(B), State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 37 | P a g e 8. Describe how your agency will promote increased community coordination and collaboration in meeting the needs of youth, and support development and expansion of innovative community - based youth development programs such as the establishment of violence ‐free zones, youth mediation, youth mentoring, life skills training, job creation, entrepreneurship programs, after after-school child care. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(1)(B), State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 9. If your agency uses CSBG funding to provide employment and training services, describe the coordination of employment and training activities as defined in Section 3 of the Workforce and Innovation and Opportunity Act [29 U.S.C. 3102]. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(5), State Plan) CSB provides a directly operated employment and job-training program using CSBG and Head Start funds. CSBG funds seven student interns who are low-income in a 12-month paid program. Once selected by an interview panel for specific job locations, the intern is placed and assigned a mentor coach and an onboarding process commences that includes soft skills training, such as professionalism training, as well training to become a clerical assistant via an evidence -based online training program called Matrix. Over the course of 6 month s, the intern is trained on-the-job and via Matrix and evaluated by the supervisor at the 6 month mark. If the intern is performing satisfactorily, they continue for the final 6 months where completion of Matrix and job placement occurs. Interns are also connected with the AJCCs/CalJobs Centers to enhance resume writing and engage in job placement activities if they choose to work outside the county. If they wish to work inside the county, we train them to pass the test for full-time employment as a county clerk. CSBG funds are also used to fund a job-training program called Opportunity Junction. This program combines computer skills training with life skills, paid work experience, and case management in 12-week full-time training and job placement assistance. 10. Describe how your agency will provide emergency supplies and services, nutritious foods, and related services, as may be necessary, to counteract conditions of starvation and malnutrition among low-income individuals. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(4), State Plan) ☐ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☒ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 38 | P a g e In response to the pandemic and emergency needs of the community, CSB and the EOC awarded over one million CARES funding dollars to subcontractors to provide rental assistance for low-income residents immediately impacted by the pandemic . Additionally, $67,668 was awarded to subcontractors to address water debt for low -income residents and b ackpacks containing blankets, snacks, water, PPE supplies and socks to help our most vulnerable population. Funds were also used to fund mental health services and to expand food programs, which experienced a 60% increase in utilization due to the pandemic. 11. Describe how your agency coordinates with other antipoverty programs in your area, including the emergency energy crisis intervention programs under title XVI (relating to low-income home energy assistance) that are conducted in the community. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(6), State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020 -2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 12. Describe how your agency will use funds to support innovative community and neighborhood-based initiatives, which may include fatherhood and other initiatives, with the goal of strengthening families and encouraging effective parenting. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(3)(D), State Plan) ☒ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP. ☐ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. 39 | P a g e Monitoring CSBG Act Section 678D(a)(1)(A) and (B) 1. Describe how your agency’s monitoring activities are related to establishing and maintaining the integrity of the CSBG program. Include your process for maintaining high standards of program and fiscal performance. The EOC and CSB staff actively monitors and evaluates funded programs and fiscal performance. Methods used to evaluate program and services include: a) site visits by EOC and program staff, b) monitoring contracts by the Contracts and Grants Unit, c) fiscal monitoring by way of reports by the accountant to the EOC fiscal sub-committee, d) presentations by sub-contractors to the EOC that include question and answer sessions, and e) the development of next steps for action by the sub-contractor. Even during the pandemic, the EOC has performed virtual monitoring visits with subcontractors to ensure that the integrity of the programs are still intact despite the restrictions. 2. If your agency utilizes subcontractors, please describe your process for monitoring the subcontractors. Include the frequency, type of monitoring, i.e., onsite, desk review, or both, follow-up on corrective action, and issuance of formal monitoring reports. The EOC partners with several different agencies in the community. CSBG Subcontractors are required to collect and report data annually using the National Performance Indicators and the Client Characteristics report. The information is evaluated, aggre gated and submitted to the Department of Community Services and Development in a timely manner. Also, the Community Services Bureau Staff, the EOC Board Members, and the independent auditors conduct annual program and fiscal monitoring of the contracting agencies budget, demands, and fiscal expenditures. In addition to these methods for measuring the progress in accomplishing Contra Costa’s Community Action Agency’s goals, CSB conducts a provider Roundtable each year that incorporates success stories and includes presentations by clients regarding the services they received via the CSBG funds. 40 | P a g e Data Analysis and Evaluation CSBG Act Section 676(b)(12) Organizational Standards 4.2, 4.3 1. Describe your agency’s method for evaluating the effectiveness of programs and services. Include information about the types of measurement tools, the data sources and collection procedures, and the frequency of data collection and reporting. (Organizational Standard 4.3) Subcontracting agencies providing services are required to collect and report data annually using the National Performance Indicators and the Client Characteristics report. The information is evaluated, aggregated and submitted to the Department of Community Services and Develop ment in a timely manner. Also, the Community Services Bureau Staff, the EOC Board Members, and the independent auditors conduct annual program and fiscal monitoring of the contracting agencies. Monitoring is conducted quarterly, focusing on different aspe cts of performance such as history of performance at time of selection, fiscal monitoring, contract monitoring, and program monitoring. CSB also has a Quality Management Unit charged with monitoring its childcare programs to ensure that they meet, and in most cases exceed, the requirement of local, state, and federal regulations and requirements. The ongoing monitoring system utilized is part of CSB’s award-winning and state and federally recognized management information system called CLOUDs. 2. Applying the Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, achievement of results, and evaluation, describe one change your agency made to improve low-income individuals’ and families’ capacity for self-sufficiency. (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(12), Organizational Standard 4.2) ☐ No change to the response in your agency’s 2020 -2021 CAP. ☒ Adaptations to the response in your agency’s 2020-2021 CAP are described below. During the pandemic, our agency and the EOC acted quickly in awarding subcontractors with CARES funding to support clients with rental assistance. Our subcontractors have assisted many families maintain their homes during the pandemic and we have gathered information on families to ensure there is no duplication. 3. Applying the full ROMA cycle, describe one change your agency facilitated to help revitalize the low-income communities in your agency’s service area(s). (CSBG Act Section 676(b)(12), Organizational Standard 4.2) (Optional) 41 | P a g e Our agency acted quickly to address the issues of the pandemic, getting child care open to essential families, and providing curb side grab and go resources like food, diapers, formula, and educational supplies and resources. We adapted quickly to the virt ual environment, moving critical meetings to Zoom and Microsoft Teams. We worked diligently with our subcontractors to identify and remedy the devastating effects of the pandemic with the CARES Act funding provided to the program. 42 | P a g e Additional Information (Optional) Disaster Preparedness Agency Capacity Building 1. Does your agency have a disaster plan in place that includes strategies on how to remain operational and continue providing services to low-income individuals and families during and following a disaster? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. If so, when was the disaster plan last updated? The Community Services Bureau has a comprehensive disaster plan last updated in February 2021. The plan has been enhanced in an ongoing fashion since the onset of the pandemic. 3. Briefly describe your agency’s main strategies to remain operational during and after a disaster. The Bureau has evacuation plans for all buildings, including childcare centers in the event of an emergency necessitating evacuation. Routes and meeting spots are posted and drill s take place on schedule, twice per year for Admin office and monthly for childcare centers. Children and staff practice drop, cover, and hold on and participate in the Great American Shake out annually. All sites are equipped with satellite phones and disaster preparedness barrels that include food, first aid supplies, water and other necessary supplies for 72 hours. In the wake of the pandemic, closed its program by order of the Health Department on March 17 but was back up and running by April 11th with services to essential workers only. We had all PPE required and policies to operate safely which included masks, social distancing, frequent sanitation of surfaces and hands, and temperature taking upon arrival. We provided grab and go resources like diapers, formula and educational supplies to the rest of our families until we were allowed to open up to 30% capacity in August of 2020 and 50% capacity in March of 2121. We continue distance learning and health and safety protocols at our offices today. 1. Although the CNA focused on Community and Family Level needs, if your agency identified Agency Level need(s) during the CNA process, list them here. 43 | P a g e CSB is in the process of onboarding a new executive director who will need training in Community Action. In addition, CSB hired a new accountant who is responsible for CSBG who needs extensive training. 2. Describe the steps your agency is planning to take to address the Agency Level need(s). CSB will place a formal training request to our field representative in July 2021 and will send the Executive Director and the Accountant to the National Conference in August, accompanied by the CSBG Program Manager. 44 | P a g e Federal CSBG Programmatic Assurances and Certification CSBG Act 676(b) Use of CSBG Funds Supporting Local Activities 676(b)(1)(A): The state will assure “that funds made available through grant or allotment will be used – (A) to support activities that are designed to assist low-income families and individuals, including families and individuals receiving assistance under title IV of the Social Security Act, homeless families and individuals, migrant or seasonal farmworkers, and elderly low-income individuals and families, and a description of how such activities will enable the families and individuals-- i. to remove obstacles and solve problems that block the achievement of self - sufficiency (particularly for families and individuals who are attempting to transition off a State program carried out underpart A of title IV of the Social Security Act); ii. to secure and retain meaningful employment; iii. to attain an adequate education with particular attention toward improving literacy skills of the low-income families in the community, which may include family literacy initiatives; iv. to make better use of available income; v. to obtain and maintain adequate housing and a suitable living environment; vi. to obtain emergency assistance through loans, grants, or other means to meet immediate and urgent individual and family needs; vii. to achieve greater participation in the affairs of the communities involved, including the development of public and private grassroots viii. partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, local housing authorities, private foundations, and other public and private partners to – I. document best practices based on successful grassroots intervention in urban areas, to develop methodologies for wide -spread replication; and II. strengthen and improve relationships with local law enforcement agencies, which may include participation in activities such as neighborhood or community policing efforts; Needs of Youth 676(b)(1)(B) The state will assure “that funds made available through grant or allotment will be used – (B) to address the needs of youth in low-income communities through youth development programs that support the primary role of the family, give priority to the prevention of youth problems and crime, and promote increased community coordination and collaboration in meeting the needs of youth, and support development and expansion of innovative community-based youth development programs that have demonstrated success in preventing or reducing youth crime, such as-- I. programs for the establishment of violence-free zones that would involve youth development and intervention models (such as models involving youth mediation, youth mentoring, life skills training, job creation, and entrepreneurship programs); and II. after-school childcare programs. 45 | P a g e Coordination of Other Programs 676(b)(1)(C) The state will assure “that funds made available through grant or allotment will be used – (C) to make more effective use of, and to coordinate with, other programs related to the purposes of this subtitle (including state welfare reform efforts) Eligible Entity Service Delivery System 676(b)(3)(A) Eligible entities will describe “the service delivery system, for services provided or coordinated with funds made available through grants made under 675C(a), targeted to low-income individuals and families in communities within the state; Eligible Entity Linkages – Approach to Filling Service Gaps 676(b)(3)(B) Eligible entities will describe “how linkages will be developed to fill identified gaps in the services, through the provision of information, referrals, case management, and follow-up consultations.” Coordination of Eligible Entity Allocation 90 Percent Funds with Public/Private Resources 676(b)(3)(C) Eligible entities will describe how funds made available through grants made under 675C(a) will be coordinated with other public and private resources.” Eligible Entity Innovative Community and Neighborhood Initiatives, Including Fatherhood/Parental Responsibility 676(b)(3)(D) Eligible entities will describe “how the local entity will use the funds [made available under 675C(a)] to support innovative community and neighborhood-based initiatives related to the purposes of this subtitle, which may include fatherhood initiatives and other initiatives with the goal of strengthening families and encouraging parenting.” Eligible Entity Emergency Food and Nutrition Services 676(b)(4) An assurance “that eligible entities in the state will provide, on an emergency basis, for the provision of such supplies and services, nutritious foods, and related services, as may be necessary to counteract conditions of starvation and malnutrition among low-income individuals.” State and Eligible Entity Coordination/linkages and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Employment and Training Activities 676(b)(5) An assurance “that the State and eligible entities in the State will coordinate, and establish linkages between, governmental and other social services programs to assure the effective delivery of such services, and [describe] how the State and the eligible entities will coordinate the provision of employment and training activities, as defined in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, in the State and in communities with entities providing activities through statewide and local workforce development systems under such Act.” State Coordination/Linkages and Low-income Home Energy Assistance 676(b)(6) “[A]n assurance that the State will ensure coordination between antipoverty programs in each community in the State, and ensure, where appropriate, that emergency energy crisis intervention programs under title XXVI (relating to low-income home energy assistance) are conducted in such community.” 46 | P a g e Community Organizations 676(b)(9) An assurance “that the State and eligible entities in the state will, to the maximum extent possible, coordinate programs with and form partnerships with other organizations serving low- income residents of the communities and members of the groups served by the State, including religious organizations, charitable groups, and community organizations.” Eligible Entity Tripartite Board Representation 676(b)(10) “[T]he State will require each eligible entity in the State to establish procedures under which a low-income individual, community organization, or religious organization, or representative of low-income individuals that considers its organization, or low-income individuals, to be inadequately represented on the board (or other mechanism) of the eligible entity to petition for adequate representation.” Eligible Entity Community Action Plans and Community Needs Assessments 676(b)(11) “[A]n assurance that the State will secure from each eligible entity in the State, as a condition to receipt of funding by the entity through a community service block grant made under this subtitle for a program, a community action plan (which shall be submitted to the Secretary, at the request of the Secretary, with the State Plan) that includes a community needs assessment for the community serviced, which may be coordinated with the community needs assessment conducted for other programs.” State and Eligible Entity Performance Measurement: ROMA or Alternate System 676(b)(12) “[A]n assurance that the State and all eligible entities in the State will, not later than fiscal year 2001, participate in the Results Oriented Management and Accountability System, another performance measure system for which the Secretary facilitated development pursuant to section 678E(b), or an alternative system for measuring performance and results that meets the requirements of that section, and [describe] outcome measures to be used to measure eligible entity performance in promoting self-sufficiency, family stability, and community revitalization.” Fiscal Controls, Audits, and Withholding 678D(a)(1)(B) An assurance that cost and accounting standards of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are maintained. ☒ By checking this box and signing the Cover Page and Certification, the agency’s Executive Director and Board Chair are certifying that the agency meets the assurances set out above. 47 | P a g e State Assurances and Certification California Government Code Sections 12747(a), 12760, 12768 California Government Code § 12747(a): Community action plans shall provide for the contingency of reduced federal funding. California Government Code § 12760: CSBG agencies funded under this article shall coordinate their plans and activities with other agencies funded under Articles 7 (commencing with Section 12765) and 8 (commencing with Section 12770) that serve any part of their communities, so that funds are not used to duplicate particular services to the same beneficiaries and plans and policies aff ecting all grantees under this chapter are shaped, to the extent possible, so as to be equitable and beneficial to all community agencies and the populations they serve. For MSFW Agencies Only California Government Code § 12768: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) entities funded by the department shall coordinate their plans and activities with other agencies funded by the department to avoid duplication of services and to maximize services for all eligible beneficiaries. ☒ By checking this box and signing the Cover Page and Certification, the agency’s Executive Director and Board Chair are certifying the agency meets assurances set out above. 48 | P a g e Organizational Standards MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PARTICIPATION Category One: Consumer Input and Involvement Standard 1.1 The organization/department demonstrates low-income individuals’ participation in its activities. Standard 1.2 The organization/department analyzes information collected directly from low-income individuals as part of the community assessment. Category Two: Community Engagement Standard 2.1 The organization/department has documented or demonstrated partnerships across the community, for specifically identified purposes; partnerships include other anti -poverty organizations in the area. Standard 2.2 The organization/department utilizes information gathered from key sectors of the community in assessing needs and resources, during the community assessment process or other times. These sectors would include at minimum: community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, private sector, public sector, and educational institutions. Standard 2.4 The organization/department documents the number of volunteers and hours mobilized in support of its activities. Category Three: Community Assessment Private Agency - Standard 3.1 Organization conducted a community assessment and issued a report within the past 3 years. Public Agency - Standard 3.1 The department conducted or was engaged in a community assessment and issued a report within the past 3-year period, if no other report exists. Standard 3.2 As part of the community assessment, the organization/department collects and includes current data specific to poverty and its prevalence related to gender, age, and race/ethnicity for their service area(s). Standard 3.3 The organization/department collects and analyzes both qualitative and quantitative data on its geographic service area(s) in the community assessment. Standard 3.4 The community assessment includes key findings on the causes and conditions of poverty and the needs of the communities assessed. Standard 3.5 The governing board or tripartite board/advisory body formally accepts the completed community assessment. 49 | P a g e VISION AND DIRECTION Category Four: Organizational Leadership Private Agency - Standard 4.1 The governing board has reviewed the organization’s mission statement within the past 5 years and assured that: 1.The mission addresses poverty; and 2.The organization’s programs and services are in alignment with the mission. Public Agency - Standard 4.1 The tripartite board/advisory body has reviewed the department’s mission statement within the past 5 years and assured that: 1.The mission addresses poverty; and 2.The CSBG programs and services are in alignment with the mission. Standard 4.2 The organization’s/department’s Community Action Plan is outcome-based, anti- poverty focused, and ties directly to the community assessment. Standard 4.3 The organization’s/department’s Community Action Plan and strategic plan document the continuous use of the full Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) cycle or comparable system (assessment, planning, implementation, achievement of results, and evaluation). In addition, the organization documents having used the services of a ROMA -certified trainer (or equivalent) to assist in implementation. Category Six: Strategic Planning Standard 6.4 Customer satisfaction data and customer input, collected as part of the community assessment, is included in the strategic planning process, or comparable planning process. 50 | P a g e Appendices Please complete the table below by entering the title of the document and its assigned appendix letter. Agencies must provide a copy of the Notice(s) of Public Hearing and the Low-Income Testimony and the Agency’s Response document as appendices A and B, respectively. Other appendices such as need assessment surveys, maps, graphs, executive summaries, analytical summaries are encouraged. All appendices should be labeled as an appendix (e.g., Appendix A: Copy of the Notice of Public Hearing) and submitted with the CAP. Document Title Appendix Location Copy of the Notice(s) of Public Hearing A Low-Income Testimony and Agency’s Response B Community Assessment C Community Assessment 2020 COVID-19 Edition with Executive Summary D Appendix A – Copy of the Notice(s) of Public Hearing The following notices were posted 72 hours prior to the hearings and were posted on the following websites and locations: https://ehsd.org/headstart/community-action/agendas-and-minutes/ https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/AgendaCenter (Economic Opportunity Council tab) ContraCosta Cap | Facebook 1470 Civic Court, Suite 200, Concord, CA 94520 Central Contra Costa County Public Hearing Copy of Agenda CCC-EHSD-CSB- Policy Council (Zoom) – Wednesday , April 21, 2021, 6:00 to 6:40 p.m. Central Contra Costa County Public Hearing Copy of Agenda Monument Crisis Center (Zoom) – Thursday, April 22, 2021, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. East Contra Costa County Public Hearing Copy of Agenda Opportunity Junction (Zoom) – Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. West Contra Costa County Public Hearing Copy of Agenda Lao Family Community Development (Zoom ) – Thursday, April 29, 2021, 11:00 to 12:00 p.m CSBG Service Provider Roundtable Event - Contra Costa County Public Hearing Roundtable Agenda Community Services Bureau (Zoom) – May 13, 2021 - 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Appendix B Low-Income Testimony and Agency’s Response Central Contra Costa County Public Hearing– April 21, 2021 Central Contra Costa County Public Hear ing – April 22, 2021 East Contra Costa County Public Hearing - April 28, 2021 West Contra Costa County Public Hearing – April 29, 2021 Service Provider Roundtable Event- May 13, 2021 The table below describes the comments/concern noted in the public hearing, the person who stated it, whether it was included the Community Action Plan (CAP) and where, and if not included in the CAP , why not. Comment/Concern Commenter Was the concern addressed in the CAP? If so, page # If not, indicate the reason PH1. Need for childcare Desiree Jordan Y Page 18 PH1. Need for stress reduction Jasmine Cisneros Y Page 19 PH1. Not ready to reopen due to pandemic Desiree Jordan N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH1. The need to be independent of government assistance Jasmine Cisneros N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH1. Challenges with virtual education – children are not learning Myriah Herrington N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH1. Challenges with managing stress Jasmine Cisneros Y Page 19 PH1. Children need to socialize again Nivette MA Page 17 PH1. Challenge with Hybrid education – children are not learning Myriah Herrington N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH1. Need to focus on Mental/ physical health Jasmine Cisneros Y Page 19 PH2. Loss of Employment due to pandemic Claudia Vazquez Y Page 13 -14 PH2. Children suffering from anxiety/ mental health need treatment Rosa Y Page 19 PH2. More families are seeking government assistance Karla Y Throughout CAP Comment/Concern Commenter Was the concern addressed in the CAP? If so, page # If not, indicate the reason PH2. Need for therapists & counselors Olivia Rivera Y Page 19 PH2. Children needs to socialize and not be homebound Claudia Vazquez Y Page 17 PH2. Children need summer opportunities to socialize Claudia Vazquez Y Page 17 PH2. Educate children on gang activities and getting involved in positive activities Claudia Vazquez Y Page 21 PH2. Need more police control Claudia Vazquez Y Page 21 PH2. Parents are struggling as well as children Rosa Y All CAP PH3. Need assistance with utilities, car payments, rent, insurance & medical bills Sara Zoccoli Y All CAP PH3. Unable to work due to family w/ COVID Sara Zoccoli Y Page 19 PH3. Life changing decisions need to be made due to the pandemic in all areas of quality of life – need support with this Nata lie Y Throughout CAP PH3. Challenges with working from home Annabelle N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH3. Stress is weighing on mental health Annabelle Y Page 19 PH3. Staff changes in the work environment are hampering effectiveness Nata lie N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH3. Looking forward to adult time with children back in school soon. Janelle N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH3. Concerns of how people will deal with reopening Alissa Friedman N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH3. Increased health issues due to pandemic put stress on an already overwhelmed health care system. Alissa Friedman Y Page 19 -20 PH3. Concern for childcare, distanc e learning, remotely working Alissa Friedman Y Page 17, 13 -14 PH3. More quality childcare needed Alissa Friedman Y Page 17 Comment/Concern Commenter Was the concern addressed in the CAP? If so, page # If not, indicate the reason PH4. Need for rental assistance and relief for other bills Brittany Ferguson Y Page 16 PH4. Need for PPE supplies for clients Brittany Ferguson Y Page 33 PH4. Need for COVID resources Brittany Ferguson Y All CAP PH4. Need rental assistance Brittany Ferguson Y Page 16 PH4. Need support for clients who need to use computers in the virtual environment Brittany Ferguson Y Page 28 PH4. Need to address f ear of being a victim of a hate crime due to racial and political tension Brittany Ferguson Y Page 21 PH4. Need assistance with EDD process and application Brittany Ferguson Y Page 16 PH4. Subcontractors would like to see more community events Brittany Ferguson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH4. Need to see clients coming in again for support with employment Brittany Ferguson Y Pages 16 PH4. Need more in-person services Brittany Ferguson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. PH4. Concern for staff safety (safety protocols) due to pandemic Adriana N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need assistance with transition to virtual hybr id environment Brittany Ferguson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need assistance with k eeping up with demands for CSBG contract services Barbara Hunt N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Concern for staff safety and need to address racial and political unrest Sara Marsh N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. Comment/Concern Commenter Was the concern addressed in the CAP? If so, page # If not, indicate the reason RT. Need resources to keep staff from feeling depressed Sara Marsh N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Trying to keep up with laws regarding COVID so we keep everyone safe Laura Sharples N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Challenges with staff changes due to effects of the pandemic Kareem T. Ervin N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Not being able to meet deliverables due to staff shortages and resource shortages Samara Cummins N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Keeping up with tremendous need in community with limited resources Sandra Scherer N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Shifting programs to online and then need to pivot and redesign services Dave Thompson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Limiting clients and how many can be served Laura Sharples N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Dealing with Participants who do not want to get vaccinated Brittany Ferguson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Dealing with clients who do not want to be vaccinated Brittany Ferguson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Keeping clients motivated in the pandemic environment Laura Sharples N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Preparation for reopening in a safe manner All Subcontractors N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. Comment/Concern Commenter Was the concern addressed in the CAP? If so, page # If not, indicate the reason RT. Need to adapt to changes from face-to- face to virtual service delivery Dave Thompson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need resources for upkeep of equipment and hiring staff to provide services Sandra Scherer N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need to adapt to changes with face -to- face services and now remotely providing same services Alissa Friedman N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need to moving services outside to accommodate large groups Sandra Scherer N Sta tement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need to offer most programs online and in person appointments with smaller groups/ individuals Brittney Ferguson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need to addre ss staff dealing with their own trauma and with clients at the same time Alissa Friedman N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. RT. Need to gradually open up the building to clients safely while addressing staff concerns Lynna Magnuson N Statement heard by EOC and noted for further consideration. KEY: PH1- Central PH2-Central County PH3- East County PH4- West County RT- County Wide 2021 – 2023 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau Revised 4/2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary _______________________________________________ i Demographics ___________________________________________________ 11 Population Change _____________________________________________________________ 11 Population by Race and Ethnicity __________________________________________________ 12 Population by Age______________________________________________________________ 14 Population by Nativity __________________________________________________________ 18 Households and Families_________________________________________________________ 18 Economic Indicators _____________________________________________ 24 Self-Sufficiency _______________________________________________________________ 24 Annual Income ________________________________________________________________ 24 Unemployment ________________________________________________________________ 26 Employment __________________________________________________________________ 28 Transportation _________________________________________________________________ 34 Poverty Status _________________________________________________________________ 37 Public Assistance ______________________________________________________________ 46 Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals ____________________________________ 49 Housing and Homelessness _______________________________________________________ 55 Health Indicators ________________________________________________ 61 Healthcare Insurance ____________________________________________________________ 61 Physical Fitness________________________________________________________________ 66 Asthma ______________________________________________________________________ 68 Sexually Transmitted Diseases ____________________________________________________ 68 Pediatric Nutrition ______________________________________________________________ 70 Oral Health Status of Children_____________________________________________________ 70 Substance Abuse _______________________________________________________________ 71 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) __________________________________________________ 72 Community Safety Indicators ______________________________________ 73 Crime Rate and Adult Arrests _____________________________________________________ 73 Adult Incarcerations ____________________________________________________________ 73 Domestic Violence _____________________________________________________________ 74 Child Abuse __________________________________________________________________ 75 Juvenile Arrests________________________________________________________________ 75 Gang Membership Among Youth __________________________________________________ 77 Children and Families ____________________________________________ 77 Births _______________________________________________________________________ 77 Child Care____________________________________________________________________ 83 Foster Care ___________________________________________________________________ 94 Foster Students ________________________________________________________________ 95 Education and Training ___________________________________________ 96 Enrollment ___________________________________________________________________ 96 Transitional Kindergarten _______________________________________________________ 103 Special Education _____________________________________________________________ 106 Academic Performance _________________________________________________________ 109 English Learners ______________________________________________________________ 109 Chronic Absenteeism __________________________________________________________ 112 Graduation and Dropout Rates ___________________________________________________ 113 Head Start ___________________________________________________________________ 114 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Population by Census Place and Percentage Change, 2010 – 2019 ________________ 12 Table 2 – Population by Ethnicity 2010 – 2019 ________________________________________ 13 Table 3 – Population by Race, Ethnicity and Geography, 2019 _____________________________ 13 Table 4 – Percentage of Residents by Race, Ethnicity and G eography, 2019 __________________ 14 Table 5 – Contra Costa County Residents by Age Group, 2019 ____________________________ 15 Table 6 – Contra Costa County Children in Households by Age Group, 2012 – 2019 ___________ 16 Table 7 – Population by Age Group and Census Place, 2019 ______________________________ 17 Table 8 – Population by Nativity and Place, 2019 _______________________________________ 19 Table 9 – Family Composition, 2009 – 2019 __________________________________________ 19 Table 10 – Family Composition by Presence of Children, 2019 ____________________________ 20 Table 11 – Children in Households by Family Type, 2019 _________________________________ 21 Table 12 – Population of Children Age 0-5 in Married-Couple Families, 2019 _________________ 22 Table 13 – Population of Children Age 0-5 in Single Male-Headed Families, 2019 _____________ 22 Table 14 – Population of Children Age 0-5 in Single Female-Headed Families, 2019 ___________ 23 Table 15 – Self-Sufficiency Wage for Various Family Types, Contra Costa County, 2020 _________ 24 Table 16 – Householders in Workforce with Children Age 0-5 and Family Income, 2019 ________ 25 Table 17 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2004 – 2021 _________ 26 Table 18 – Annual EDD Unemployment Rates by County Sub-Area, 2006 – 2021 _____________ 27 Table 19 – Civilian Labor Force, Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Area, 2019 __________ 29 Table 20 – COVID-19 Impacts on Labor Force and Number Unemployed, 2020 _______________ 30 Table 21 – Full Time Workers by Sex, 2019 ___________________________________________ 31 Table 22 – Women Age 16-50 with Births in the Past Year in the Labor Force, 2019 ___________ 32 Table 23 – Women Age 20-64 in the Labor Force with Children Age 0-5, 2019 ________________ 33 Table 24 – How Workers Commute to Work by Area, 2019 _______________________________ 35 Table 25 – Time Leave for Work, 2019 _______________________________________________ 35 Table 26 – Federal Poverty Levels (FPL) by Household Size, 2021 __________________________ 37 Table 27 – Percentage of Contra Costa Families with Income below FPL, 2013-2019 __________ 38 Table 28 – Percentage of Residents with Income below FPL by Nativity, 2019 ________________ 38 Table 29 – Poverty Rate of Families by Family Type, 2019 ________________________________ 39 Table 30 – Families below FPL with Children Age 0-4, Contra Costa County 2019 _____________ 40 Table 31 – Residents below Poverty and Poverty Rates, 2019 _____________________________ 41 Table 32 – Population below Poverty Level and Poverty Rates by Age Group, 2019 ____________ 42 Table 33 – Ratio of Income to Poverty Level for Children Age 0-5 by Geography, 2019 __________ 44 Table 34 – Poverty Status of Women with Births in Past Year by Census Place, 2019 __________ 46 Table 35 – CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases and Children, Contra Costa County 2010-2020 _______ 47 Table 36 – Public Assistance Households and Income by Place, 2019 ______________________ 47 Table 37 – Children in Public Assistance Households by Family Type and Place, 2019 __________ 48 Table 38 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by District, 2004 – 2020 _________ 49 Table 39 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by School, 2019 – 2020 _________ 50 Table 40 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006–2020 _______ 56 Table 41 – Median Monthly Rents, 2021 _____________________________________________ 56 Table 42 – Housing Units, Monthly Costs, and Unaffordable Units, 2019 ____________________ 57 Table 43 – Point-In-Time Count of Unsheltered Persons by County Sub-Area, 2011–2020 _______ 59 Table 44 – Estimated Unsheltered Homeless in Contra Costa by Sub-Area, 2015-2020 _________ 60 Table 45 – Homeless Students in Contra Costa County Schools by Grade, 2011–2018 _________ 60 Table 46 – Health Insurance Coverage Rates for Children by Area, 2019 ____________________ 62 Table 47 – Children with Health Insurance Coverage by Coverage Type, 2019 ________________ 63 Table 48 – Health Insurance Coverage Rates by Nativity and Area, 2019 ____________________ 65 Table 49 – Health Insurance Coverage Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 2020 ___________________ 66 Table 50 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit, 2004 – 2019 ____________________ 67 Table 51 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit by Race and Ethnicity, 2019 _________ 67 Table 52 – Percentage of Physically Fit 5th Graders in Contra Costa Districts, 2019 ___________ 67 Table 53 – STD Incidence for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, All Ages __________________________ 69 Table 54 – Drug-Induced Death Rates, 2017-2020 _____________________________________ 71 Table 55 – Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths and Age-Adjusted Rates, 2015-2019 _____________ 72 Table 56 – Arrests for Adult Offenders, 2010 – 2019____________________________________ 73 Table 57 – Total Adult Incarceration Rate, 2013 - 2016 __________________________________ 74 Table 58 – Number of Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, 2008–2019 __________________ 75 Table 59 – Rate of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases, 2005–2019 _________________________ 75 Table 60 – Number of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa, 2009–2019 _________ 75 Table 61 –Child Abuse Allegations, Substantiations and Entries by Age, 2019 ________________ 75 Table 62 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates, 2013–2018 ___________________________________ 76 Table 63 – Juvenile Felony Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, Contra Costa 2017–2019 ___________ 76 Table 64 – Birth Rate of Women Age 15-50, Contra Costa County (2009–2019) ______________ 78 Table 65 – Births and Birth Rates by Census Place, 2019 ________________________________ 78 Table 66 – Births by Nativity and Census Place, 2019 ___________________________________ 79 Table 67 – Women with Births and Public Assistance Income, 2019 ________________________ 80 Table 68 – Infant Mortality Rate, Contra Costa County, 2016–2020 ________________________ 81 Table 69 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Babies, Contra Costa & California, 2015-20 ________ 82 Table 70 – Percentage of Women Receiving Prenatal Care in First Trimester, 2016–20 ________ 82 Table 71 – Age-Specific Rate of Births to Teens, 2002–2020 _____________________________ 83 Table 72 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Facilities by City, February 2021 ___________ 85 Table 73 – Licensed Day Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, February 2021 _____________ 85 Table 74 – Licensed Infant Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, February 2021 ___________ 91 Table 75 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Family Homes by City, February 2021 _______ 92 Table 76 – Child Care Costs by Age and Licensed Facility Type ____________________________ 94 Table 77 – Change in Children in Foster Care, 2006-2020 ________________________________ 94 Table 78 – First Entries into Foster Care by Age, 2011-2020 ______________________________ 94 Table 79 – Foster Care First Entries by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County 2010 –2020 ____________ 95 Table 80 – Contra Costa County Foster Students, 2019-20 _______________________________ 95 Table 81 – Contra Costa County Public School Enrollment, 2010 –2020 _____________________ 96 Table 82 – Enrollment in Contra Costa County by School District, 2019 – 2020 _______________ 96 Table 83 – Enrollment in Contra Costa Schools by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 – 2020 ___________ 97 Table 84 – School Enrollment 2007 – 2019 ___________________________________________ 98 Table 85 – School Enrollment by Census Place, 2019 ___________________________________ 98 Table 86 – School Enrollment by Nativity and Census Place, 2019 _________________________ 99 Table 87 – School Enrollment of Residents Below FPL by Census Place, 2019 _______________ 100 Table 88 – College Enrollment by Census Place, 2019 __________________________________ 101 Table 89 – Educational Attainment by Sex and Census Place, 2019 _______________________ 102 Table 90 – Contra Costa Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment by District, 2018–19 __________ 104 Table 91 – Contra Costa Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment by School, 2018–19 __________ 104 Table 92 – Public School Special Education Enrollment in Contra Costa, 2011-2019 __________ 106 Table 93 – Special Education Enrollment by Disability Type – All Ages, 2011-2019 ___________ 107 Table 94 – Countywide Special Education Enrollment by Age and Disability, 2018-19 _________ 107 Table 95 – Special Education Enrollment by District, 2018-19____________________________ 108 Table 96 – Children with Major Disabilities by Disability Type and Census Place, 2019 ________ 108 Table 97 – Students Who Are English Learners in Contra Costa County, 2006–2019 __________ 109 Table 98 – English Language Learners by District, 2019-20 _____________________________ 110 Table 99 – Language of Children Age 5-17 in Limited-English Households, 2019 _____________ 111 Table 100 – Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism Rates in Contra Costa, 2005 –2019 __________ 112 Table 101 – Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism Rates by District, 2005 – 2019 ______________ 112 Table 102 – Graduation Rates by District, 2019-20 ____________________________________ 113 Table 103 – Dropout Rates by District, 2017-18 ______________________________________ 113 Table 104 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollees by Age, 2020–21___________________ 114 Table 105 – Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollees by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-21 _______ 114 Table 106 – Enrolled Families by Family Type, 2010–2021 ______________________________ 115 Table 107 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2020 –21 _________ 115 Table 108 – Family Services and Referrals Received, 2020-21 ___________________________ 116 Table 109 – Estimates of Income Eligible Children by Age and Poverty Level, 2019 ___________ 117 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Population Change by Area, 2018-2019 _____________________________________ 11 Figure 2 – Population of Children by Age, 2012-2019 ___________________________________ 16 Figure 3 – Annual Median Family Income by Area, 2019 _________________________________ 26 Figure 4 – Unemployment Rates, 2004 – 2021 ________________________________________ 27 Figure 5 – Unemployment Rates, 2020 – 2021 ________________________________________ 28 Figure 6 – Time Leave for Work by Sex of Commuter, Contra Costa County 2019 ______________ 37 Figure 7 – State and County Poverty Rates by Age Group, 2019 ___________________________ 41 Figure 8 – Poverty Rate of Children Age 0-5, 2019 ______________________________________ 43 Figure 9 – Number of Children Age 0-5 Living Below FPL, 2019 ____________________________ 43 Figure 10 – Percentage of FRPM-Eligible Students by District, 2019-20 _____________________ 50 Figure 11 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006-20 _________ 56 Figure 12 – Chlamydia Incidence Rates, 2017-2020 ____________________________________ 69 Figure 13 – Gonorrhea Incidence Rates, 2017-2020 ____________________________________ 69 Figure 14 – Drug-Induced Death Rates, 2017-2020_____________________________________ 71 Figure 15 – Opioid Overdose Death Rates, 2015-2019 __________________________________ 72 Figure 16 – Felony Arrests by Offense, Contra Costa County 2010 – 2019 ___________________ 73 Figure 17 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates, 2013 – 2018 __________________________________ 76 Figure 18 – Percentage of Juvenile Felony Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, 2019 _______________ 77 Figure 19 – Number of Women with Births on Public Assistance, 2019 ______________________ 81 Figure 20 – Infant Mortality Rates, 2016-2020 ________________________________________ 82 Figure 21 – Birth Rate Among Teens, 2010-2020 ______________________________________ 83 Figure 22 – Number of Slots in Licensed Family Homes by City, 2020 – 2021 ________________ 93 Figure 23 – First Entries into Foster Care by Age, 2010 – 2020 ____________________________ 94 Figure 24 – School Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 – 2020 ________________________ 97 Figure 25 – Percentage of Residents 25 and over with No High School Diploma, 2019 ________ 103 Figure 26 – Countywide Special Education Enrollment, 2011 – 2019 ______________________ 107 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Objectives In 2020-21, t he Community Services Bureau of Contra Costa County receives state funding to provide educational support and development services to 1,967 families with 2,145 children eligible for the Early Head Start and Head Start program s. CSB staff are deeply involve d in community engagement activities that ensure appr opriate representation of child and family interests and provide a consistent forum for the discussion of child and family needs. Examples of the CSB’s community commitment and engagement include serving on the county’s Firs t 5 Commission, collaborating with community -based organizations on efforts such as the Building Blocks for Kids initiative, a Harlem Children’s Zone inspired project in the Iron Triangle of Richmond, and data collection that include s the County Office of Education, the Contra Costa Local Planning Council, and First 5 Contra Costa. As part of its mission, the CSB conducts an annual Community Assessment to provide a current profile of the health, economic, educational and safety status of the estimated 65,438 children age 0-4 whose families call Contra Costa County home. The Community Assessment is a multi -phase, ongoing process of data collection and analysis that describes community strengths, needs and resources , and integrally involves the Head Start Policy Council, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and active parents. Staff and engaged parents use the findings to identify emerging needs and factors that impact the well-being of Head Start eligible children and fami lies, as well as the community assets, opportunities and strengths available to address these needs. Findings inform programmatic approaches, optimize and coordinate service delivery across resources, and guide the Policy Council. The CSB also uses the Community Assessment to provide reports and presentations to the County Administrator to keep the Board of Supervisors updated on the program’s responsiveness to the community. Methodology The Community Assessment process involves a highly collaborative assimilation of input from and engagement with numerous sources, stakeholde rs, community members and County staff. CSB Assistant Directors work with program managers and active parents to revise or refine the process, develop and implement surveys to identify emerging needs and issues, and compile and maintain demographic and referral information about CSB enrollment. The Policy Council participates in the assessment process throughout the year providing input through regular meetings, review ing planning data in the context of shared governance and engaging in many other outreach and dialog opportunities. Each spring, the Policy Council receives a full presentation of the Community Assessment and exercises its mandate to evaluate, discuss and pos e questions about its findings. Then in August, the Policy Council approves the current Community Assessment. A wide variety of data techniques and sources are used to conduct the Community Assessment. Federal and state agenc ies, such as the U.S. Census and the Departments of Finance, Education, and Employment Development, provide reliable and regularly updated estimates of residents and conditions that may be compared over time. Internal data sources include parent and family partnership data, parent plan ning sessions and self-assessment surveys . Program Information Reports (PIR ) and data compiled by program managers throughout the year provide a profile of the demographics and needs of Head Start families and children. Local committees, commissions and community -based entities that serve low income and at-risk children and families , such as First 5 Contra Costa, the United Way, CalWORKs , the County Health Department, Contra Costa County Local Planning Council for Child Care, and the County Office of Educat ion, also maintain on-the-ground utilization data. Community Care Licensing reports provides information about the demand for and utilization of child care, as well as the number and location of licensed providers and childcare slots available. In collaboration with McKinney -Vento Local Education Agency Liaisons , the assessment process also helps identify the number and location of age-eligible children experiencing homelessness. Through this compilation of community knowledge , the assessment process helps identify and communicate the emerging needs and interests of community members. It helps determine the population of eligible children and where their families live, and it describes eligible children and families by age, race and ethnicity, primary language, income, family size, social service needs, educational attainment, employment status, work and job training needs, health factors, nutrition al needs, special educational needs, foste r care status and housing needs. The assessment process also helps program planners recognize and integrate other community strengths and resources. The following presents findings of the 202 1–2023 Community Needs Assessment. ii Population Profile The population of Contra Costa County has grown 9% to 1,142,251 since 2010, compared to 5% in the state, with much faster growth in Pittsburg (up 13%), Oakley (up 17%), Pacheco (up 18%), Brentwood (up 20%), Rodeo (up 20%), Discovery Bay (up 21%) and Contra Cos ta Centre (up 22%). Growth since 2018 has been 1% overall with much higher growth in Oakley (up 2%), Brentwood (up 3%), Crockett (up 6%) and Bethel Island (up 8%), while Alamo (down 3%), Blackhawk (down 3%), Bayview (down 5%) and Tara Hills (down 5%) had notable declines. Since 2010, growth among Asians (up 39,514 or 26%), Latinos (up 36,738 or 14%), Caucasians (up 23,392 or 4%) and multi-racial residents (up 15,731 or 25%) has outpaced other groups. The county’s proportion of Black (9%), Asian (17%) and multi-racial (7%) residents remains somewhat higher than California, while its proportion of Latino residents (26%) remains much lower than the state (39%). In 2019, 75% (852,077 ) of Contra Costa residents are U.S. born, 12 % (131,538) are non-citizens, and 1% of non-citizens are 0-4 year olds. In 2019, 23 % of all residents are 0-17 year olds in both the state and county. About 30% (78,532 ) of all 261,203 county children are under 6 and 14% (37,670 ) are under 3. Oakley (up 71), El Sobrante (up 73), Martinez (up 79), Richmond (up 143), Concord (up 232) and Pittsburg (up 293) have seen notable gains in 0-2 year olds, while Antioch (down 113), Brentwood (down 197), Orinda (down 77), Pleasant Hill (down 74) and San Ra mon (down 109) have seen declines. About 25 % (65,438 ) of all county children are age 0-4, with the largest concentrations in Brentwood (2,957), Oakley (3,149), Walnut Creek (3,396), San Ramon (4,071), Pittsburg (5,364), Richmond (6,781), Antioch (6,839) and Concord (8,274). Since 2018, county households rose 2,492 (up 1%) to 394,769, and families rose 2,721 (up 1.0%) to 284,806. Married-couple families saw the largest gains, up 2,345 to 217,370, while families headed by single females rose 360 to 48,256. The county (32%) continues to exceed the state (30%) in its share of families with children, although both rates fell since 2018 . Since 2009, married-couple families in the county grew 10% (up 19,208), while those with children grew 3% (up 2,955). Families headed by single females grew 28% (up 10,397) since 2009, while those with children grew 16% (up 3,181). In 2019, 53,617 children age 0-5 live in married- couple families in the county, down 2% or 1,017 since 2018 , 4,107 live in single male-headed families, up 7% or 254, and 9,964 live in single female-headed families, up 2% or 196. Economic Profile At $85,837 in 2019, m edian incom e for California families rose more than 5% since 2018, while family income in the county ($114,535 ) rose 6%. Of householders with children age 0-5, 63% in the state and 64% (48,460) in the county live in families in which all parents work, down 1% since 2 018. The 2020 Self-Sufficiency Standard for a Contra Costa family with one adult, an infant and a preschool age child has increased 52 % since 2014, and at $124,649, now represents a fulltime hourly wage of $59. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, 65% (590,758) of Contra Costa’s 16 and over residents participated in the civilian labor force, up 7,872 (1%) since 2018. However, December 2020 EDD data indicates the statewide labor force shrank 3% or 561,000 workers since January 2020. The county has 545,800 civilian workers in December 2020, also down 3% or 13,800 since January 2020. Current labor statistics indicate that by December 2020, 829,600 more Californians lost jobs, up 99% since January 2020, due largely to COVID-19. Contra Co sta has 43,000 unemployed residents in December 2020, up 139% or 25,000 since January 2020. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, 93% of county workers were commuters, who travel ed 38.7 minutes on average, up 2% since 2018. About 50% (222,142) of Contra Costa males 16 and over worked full time in 2019, compared to 34% (160,322) of females, with both rates higher than in the state (49% and 33%, respectively) and both up since 2018. Since 2018, the number of both males and femal es in the county who worked full time rose 3%. Countywide, 46% (233,583) of commuters were female, 66% (33,622) of women with children age 0-5 work ed, and 95% (31,861 ) were employed in 2019. In 2019, pr ior to COVID-19, California residents had seen a 5% decline in poverty, while the county had seen a 6% or 6,087 decline. In Contra Costa, 9% (98,595 ) of individuals, 12% (9,077 ) of children less than 6, 6% (17,675 ) of families and 9% of families with children lived below the FPL in 201 9, with all rates improved since 2018. About 9% of all county residents, 8% of native-born, 10% of foreign-born, 6% of naturalized citizens and 15% of non-citizens live d below the FPL, with all rates improved, but rates among non-citizens most improved since 2018. About 28% (1,978) of Contra Costa married-couples below the FPL have children less than 5, compared to 30% in the state, down 6% in the county and 10% in the state since 2018. About 30% (618) of single male-headed families below the FPL in the county have children less than 5, compared to 3 2% in the state, up 2% in the county but down 12% in the state. About 36% (3,052) of single female-headed households below the FPL in Contra Costa have children less than 5, compared to 36% in the state, down 3% in the county but down 8% in the state. In all, 28,167 Contra Costa children of all ages lived below the FPL in 2019, down more than 5% or 1,615 . About 9,077 children under 6 lived in poverty, down 4% since 2018. Countywide, of 13,224 women with recent birth s, 819 (8%) married and 1,339 (39%) unmarried women live d below the FPL in 2019. iii CalWORKs cases have risen 2% since December 2019, with 6,432 cash grant cases involving 11,597 children in July 2020. Critically, the number of children in cases involving two parents ha s risen 38% or 228 children since COVID-19. In 2019, prior to COVID-19, 21,069 (5%) county households rel ied on SSI, up 4%; 9,474 (2%) receive d cash PA, down 6%; and 24,553 (6%) received SNAP, down 2%. About 45,288 (17%) of all county children live in PA households, down 2% or 1,119 since 2018, 46% (20,848) of children in PA households live in married couple families, 44% (20,005) live in single female-headed families, and 9% (4,132) live in single male-headed families, with all down since 2018. About 645 Contra Costa women with births receive PA in 2019, down 22% since 2018, with improvement among both married (down 91) and unmarried (down 93) women. In 2020, the percentage of county homes affordable to median income household s had risen just 2.0 points to 28.4%. The 2021 median monthly rent for a 2-bedroom unit in the county rose another 6% or $144 to $2,383. Although owner-occupied housing costs fell 16% in the county since 2018, the number of unaffordable units rose 12% (up 8,286 ) to 77,395 in the coun ty. Although r ental housing costs rose 7% in the county, the number of unaffordable units fell 1% (down 712) to 67,017. Yet to be reflected in these figures, however, is th e COVID-19 effects of businesses allowing employees to telecommute, as Contra Costa prices in March 2021 are up a dramatic 18-24% over March 2020. About 2,277 individuals in the county are homeless in 2020, down 1% from 2019, with 31% (707 ) sheltered. About 5% (92) are families with children, 5% are 18 -24 year olds, 7% (154) are minors under age 18, 80% (1,698) have a disabling mental or physical condition, 50% (1,062) struggle with substance abuse, and 68% (1,444) have been incarcerated. Central County now has 33% (514) of all unsheltered homeless, West County has 34% (543) and East County has 33% (513). Health and Safety Profile In Contra Costa, 5% (57,973) of residents are uninsured in 201 9, compared to 8% statewide, with both rates and numbers improved since 2018. About 3% (7,138) of county children are uninsured, down 4% or 275 since 2018, but 2% (1,456 ) of the county’s 0-5 year olds are uninsured, up 3% or 37 from 2018. Among 0-18 year olds, 92% (252,714) have one typ e of insurance, 64% (160,766 ) have employer-based coverage and 7% (18,636 ) have direct-purchased coverage. Medicaid-only coverage rates among county children rose 2% or 1,692 children to 28% (71,471 ), compared to 43% in the state. The rate of uninsured among foreign -born (10 %) is more than 3 times that of native-born (4 %) residents, but both improved. Rates of uninsured among non -citizens (19%), up 1.8 points, are still 5 times higher than among naturalized citizens (4%), up 0.6 points. Whites (97%) are also much more likely than Latinos (89 %) and American Indian/Native Alaskan s (91%) to have health insurance. The American Lung Association gives Contra Costa an F grade in 20 20 on air quality measures and reports that 16,038 children and 76,494 adults with asthma are at risk from poor air quality in the county. In 2018, 9% of California and 14% of county adults have a current diagnosis of asthma, 15% of state and 18% of county residents of all ages have ever been diagnosed with asthma , including 16% of state and 20% of county adults . In 2020, chlamydia rates rose 8% to 500.2 in the county and rose 6% to 546.1 in the state. Gonorrhea rates also rose to 310.8 per 100,000 females (up 11%) and 426.2 among males (up 19%) in the c ounty, compared to state increases of 12% (females) and 13% (males). HIV/AIDS diagnoses among Contra Costa residents (266.1 per 100,000 or 2,535 cases ) still compares favorably to the state (404.6 ), but rose 4% in the county versus 2% in the state since 2019. In 2020, the county has 148.0 drug-induced deaths per year (12.2 per 100,000), compared to 13.1 statewide, with both up from 2019. Statewide, opioid-related deaths (3,244 ) rose 34% since 2018, 17,576,679 opioid prescriptions were written, and 11,767 emergency room visits (28.78 per 100,000) involved opioid overdoses. Countywide, opioid deaths rose 11% since 2018 to 91, 565,236 prescriptions were written (490.0 per 1,000 residents), and 293 ER visits (22.73 per 100,000) involved opioid overdoses in 2020. About 18 % of women with births in Contra Costa in 2015 had inadequate weight gain dur ing pregnancy, and 13% had food insecurity during pregnancy. In 2016, 42% of the county’s 2 -17 year olds ate fast food more than once a week, more than doubled since 2014. About 39% of Contra Costa 2 -11 year olds eat five or more serving of fruits and vegetables each day, but 13% of elementary students had not eaten breakfast on the morning surveyed. About 31% of low income 0-5 year olds in the county had a recent dental visit in 2020, compared to 19% in the prior year and 39% in California. Infant mortality in the county fell from 4.9 per 1,000 infants in 2010 to 3.2 in 2020, compared to 4.3 in the state, and 7% of county and state births are low birthweight. The percentage of county women who receive first trimester prenatal care rose to 88%, compared to 8 4% in the state, but just 75% of pregnant women in the county receive adequate or better care throughout pregnancy, down from 76% in 2019. COVID-19 cases worldwide topped 135,756,000 with 2,932,192 deaths and 77,204,630 recoveries as of April 11, 2021. Ca ses in the U.S. now total 31,348,231, with 567,142 deaths or 1.8% of all cases. A total of 3,696,771 cases and 60,334 deaths (1.6%) have been confirmed in California, with 65,857 cases and 777 deaths (1.2%) in Contra Costa as of April 11, 2021. Since the f irst confirmed U.S. case on January 21, 2020, COVID -19 has impacted all aspects of life, but by mid -December 2020, the FDA granted emergency use approval for two highly effective vaccines (followed by a third in February 2021 ), and the U.S. vaccine roll out began by targeting front-line workers, first responders, long -term care residents and others at highest risk for illness. As of April 11, iv 2021, 22,777,893 doses have been administered in California, with 8,767,321 (27%) residents fully vaccinated. In Contra Costa, 825,275 doses have been administered, with 299,470 (26%) residents fully vaccinated. California currently plans to fully reopen on June 15, 2021. In 2019, 21,922 students of all ages receive special education in th e county, up 3% or 600 since 2018 and up 27% or 4,645 students since 2011 . At least 2,511 children under 6 require special education countywide, up 9% or 204 students since 2018. Speech or language impairment continue as most common, followed by autism, and the proportion of 0-5 year olds with autism continues to climb . The 2019 ACS estimates 4% (9,830 ) of Contra Costa children have a major disability, including 0.5 % (327 ) of county 0-4 year olds. Children age 0-4 with hearing difficulties rose 5% in the state and 11% in the county, with notable increases in Martinez (up 11), San Ramon (up 12), Richmond (up 13) and Tara Hills (up 32). Children age 0 -4 year with vision difficulties rose 3% in the state and 46% in the county, with notable increases in Antioc h (up 24) and Tara Hills (up 32). Since 2018, felony arrests among California adults have fallen 3% or 8,028, those for violent offenses are down 3% or 3,485, while arrests for property offenses are down 6% or 3,835. In contrast, arrests for sex offenses in California has risen 6% or 264. Adult felony arrests in Contra Costa have risen 4% or 360 to 8,829 in 2019, with arrests for violent offenses up 4%, property offenses up 1%, and sex offenses up 20% since 2018. California has a death by homicide rate of 5.1 per 100,000, compared to 5.8 in Contra Costa. California has a firearm -related death rate of 7.8 per 100,000, compared to 8.7 in Contra Costa. The 2016 incarceration rate in California is 700 .0 per 1,000 adult felony arrests and 404 .0 in the county. In the past 8 years, the state’s prison population has also been aging, with the percentage age 50 or older up from 4% in 2000 to 23% in 2017. This aging inmate population has cost implications, including costs for health care, with the average annual cost to incarcerate one inmate in the state up 58% since 2011 to $81,000 per year. Compared to a 4% decline in the state since 201 8, domestic violence calls for assistance from Contra Costa residents fell 6% with 3,066 calls in 2019. The county’s December 2019 rate of substantiated child abuse cases at 3.8 per 1,000 continues lower than 7.5 in California, but the county rate rose 11% or 96 children to 949 . About 15% involve children less than 1, another 31% involve children age 1 -5, and cases that result in children entering foster care fell another 4% since 2018. The county had 869 juvenile arrests in 2019, up 9% or 75 since 2018, with 375 (43%) for felonies and 153 (41%) for violent offenses. Like the state, the county saw an uptick in juvenile felony arrests (up 19% or 59) and arrests for violent offenses (up 15% or 20). In 2019, 59% (222) of all juveniles arrested for felony offenses in Contra Costa are Black, 29% (109) are Latino, and 9% (33) are White. About 4% of Contra Costa 7th graders and 5% of 11th graders report gang membership in 2019, with both improved since 2015. Profile of Children and Families In 201 9, 13,236 women age 15-50 gave birth in Contra Costa, up 4% since 2018, for a birth rate of 49.1 per 1,000. The 2020 age-specific teen birth rates in both county (9.1 ) and state (14.2 ) continue to trend downward. About 8,096 native-born women in the county had births, up 3%, while 5,140 foreign -born women had births, up 5%. About 30% of native-born women with births are unmarried, compared to 20% of foreign -born women, but both rates rose since 2018. About 8,403 (64%) women who gave birth were in the labor force, including 60% of married and 74% of unmarried women with births. Countywide, 2,158 women with births live below the FPL in 201 9. As of October 2020, the county has 661 children in foster care, down 21% or 177, with 247 first entries, down 37% or 146 children age 0 -17 since 2019. Foster children age 0-5 continue to represent 32% of all Contra Costa children in care, but the proportion is down from 35%. I nfants comprise 32% (61 ) of first entries, 1-2 year olds comprise 10% (19 ), 3-5 year olds comprise 13 % (25 ), so 0-5 year olds represent 55% (105) of all 2020 first entries. Contra Costa schools enrolled 863 foster students in 201 9-20, down 12% or 113 since 2018-19. A licensed child care space is available to 25% of California and 28% of Contra Costa children of all ages in working families. D emand for childcare for 0-1 year olds rose slightly since 2018, with 38% of requests for care involving children less than 2, but fulltime care requests rose from 75% to 79%. Another 42% of requests are for 2-5 year olds and between 66% (age 5) and 84% (age 3) of requests are for full time care. Although recognized as an essential service, the child care provider sector has nonetheless been negatively impacted by COVID-19, as California lost 14% or 3,635 family homes and 33% or 4,873 centers from January 2020 to January 2021. In Contra Costa, COVI D-19 forced the temporary or permanent closure of 220 child care family homes (down 23%) and 142 centers (down 26%) during the same period. In February 2021, Contra Costa has 19,233 daycare slots and 2,227 infant slots in licensed centers, a 2% decline in daycare slots and a 1% increase in infant slots since 20 20. Contra Costa also has 405 licensed family homes that serve at least 9 children with 5,616 slots, down 30% or 174 homes and 2,366 slots since 2020, most likely due to COVID-19 business closures and stay-at-home orders. The 2019 California Preschool Development Grant Birth Through Five Program Needs Assessment puts California last in the nation for the affordability of infant care, with costs for FT infant care averag ing $12,543 in family homes and $19,460 in centers, up 10 % ($1,149) in homes and 10% ($1,770) in centers since 2018. Costs for FT preschool care in homes ($11,957) also rose 10%, while costs for FT preschool care in centers ($14,284) rose 14% since 2018. v Educational Profile Public school enrollment in the county has grown from 168,228 students in 2011 to 178,411 in 2020. Since last year, Brentwood Union Elementary (up 109 or 1%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 259 or 5%), Orinda Union Elementary (up 22 or 1%), SBE Synergy Rocketship Futuro Academy (up 109 or 26%) and West Contra Costa Unified (up 383 students or 1%) saw larger than average increases, while Acalanes Union High (down 48 or 1%), John Swett Unified (down 17 or 1%), Knightsen Elementary (down 27 or 4%), Lafayette Elementary (down 39 or 1%), Oakley Union Elementary (down 73 or 1%) and San Ramon Valley Unifi ed (down 227 or 1%) saw notable declines. The county’s student population in 2020 is 37% Latino, 29% White, 13% Asian, 9% Black, 7% multi -racial and 4% Filipino, with 1-year declines in Blacks (down 1%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (down 3%) and Whites (down 2%), but increases in Latinos (up 2%), multi -racial students (up 6%), Asians (up 2%) and American Indian / Native Alaskans (up 6%). Contra Costa maintains slightly higher proportions of preschool ers (6%), kindergarten ers (5%), elementary (40%) and high school (22%) students as compared to the state. Of county residents 3 and older in school, 18,584 (6%) attend nursery or preschool in 2019, up 1% or 129, and 45% of preschoolers attend public schools, compared to 58% statewide. About 15,021 (54%) of 3-4 year olds in the county attend school in 201 9, down 128 or 1% since 2018. Although county e nrollment of 3-4 year olds (54%) still surpasses the state (50%), the county rate has fallen steadily since 2015 , while the state rate continues to rise. About 38 % of California ns age 3 and over below the FPL attend school in 201 9, compared to 34% (31,637) in the county, but the number in college (9,090) fell 2% or 138, while the number in preschool (1,615 ) rose 23% or 297 since 2018. Of 79,176 total college students, the county has 35,442 (45%) male and 43,734 (55%) female enrollees, but 11% (41,795) of males age 25 and over have no high school diploma, compared to 10% (41,126) of females . Compared to 59% statewide, 40% (70,401) of the county’s 178,411 students are eligible for free or reduced price meals (FRPM) in 2019-20, down 3% or 2,315 since 2018 -19. Acalanes Union High (down 26 or 7%), San Ramon Valley Unified (down 132 or 7%), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 1,327 or 9%) and Lafayette Elementary (down 14 or 13%) saw the largest declines, while John Swett Unified (up 57 or 7%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 179 or 7%), Liberty Union High (up 166 or 7%) and SBE Synergy Rocketship Future (up 106 or 3 4%) saw notable increases. A total of 2,650 Contra Cos ta students do not have stable housing as of December 2018. Transitional Kindergarten enrollment in the county fell 1% to 2,569, compared to a 2% statewide increase. Byron Union Elementary (down 11), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 40), Pittsburg Unified (down 24) and SBE Rocketship Futuro Academy (down 24) saw the largest decreases, while Brentwood Union Elementary (up 12), Orinda Union Elementary (up 72) and West Contra Costa Unified (up 13) saw notable gains. The county has 575 (22%) English Learners (EL) and 954 (37%) Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SD) students, with both down from 2018. EL students fell 20% (down 142 ) countywide, compared to a 10% drop in the state. SD students fell 10 % (down 103 ) countywide, compared to a 1% increase in the state. As the percentage of EL students of all ages in California fell from 25% in 2004 to 19% in 2020, the countywide EL rate has grown from 15% to 16%. In 2020, Contra Costa has 28,454 (16%) EL students, down 2% or 528 students since 2019. Since 2018, California children in linguistically isolated households fell 5%, while the county saw a 6% drop to 13,839, with large declines in Oakley (down 94 or 28%), San Pablo (down 152 or 11%), San Ramon (down 160 or 14%), Pittsburg (down 250 or 19%), Richmond (down 258 or 9%) and Concord (down 269 or 9%). El Cerrito (up 34 or 33%), Martinez (up 57 or 518%), Antioch (up 72 or 6%) and Brentwood (up 137 or 87%) saw notable increases. About 71 % (9,774) of Contra Costa children in limited-English households speak Spanish, down 7% or 777 since 2018. Across all students in Contra Costa in 2018 -19, 28% meet and 27% exceed the English Language Arts standard, which compares favorably to the state (2 9% and 23%, respectively). Across all county students, 20% meet and 24% exceed the Mathematics standard, which also compares favorably to the state (20% and 20%, respectively). In 2019, the countywide chronic absenteeism rate is 12%, but Pacific Islander (26%) and Black (25%) students have much higher rates than White (9%), Filipino (7%) and Asian (5%) students. The county’s graduation rate remains relatively unchanged at just under 89%, compared to just under 88% statewide. Communities Served by Head Start Based on 2019 ACS estimates, 8,476 0-2 year olds (including 2,158 pregnant women) and 6,853 3-5 year olds in Contra Costa may be income-eligible for Early Head Start or Head Start services in 202 1-22. Income-eligible 0-2 year olds fell 4% or 339, but the number of pregnant women below the FPL is relatively unchanged since 2018. Income-eligible 3-5 year olds fell 6% or 463. Concord (up 51), Oakley (up 109), Richmond (up 85) and Walnut Creek (up 721) saw notable increases in income-eligible Early Head St art children and mothers, while Antioch (down 136), Martinez (down 88), Pinole (down 42) and Pittsburg (down 37) saw declines. Brentwood (up 40), Concord (up 36), El Cerrito (up 39) and Walnut Creek (up 631) saw sizable increases in income-eligible Head Start children, while estimates fell in Antioch (down 45), Oakley (down 40), Pittsburg (down 139) and Richmond (down 108). In 2020-21, the county’s Early Head Start program served 798 including 33 pregnant women, while Head Start served 1,347. About 27% (216) of Early Head Start enrollees are less than 1, including 33 unborn babies. vi Another 26% (209) are 2 year olds. Of Head Start enrollees, 40% (540) are 5 or old er and 39% (519) are 4 year olds. Latino children make up 62% (477) of Early Head Start and 61% (821) of Head Start enrollees, and Spanish is the primary language of 37% (295) of Early Head Start and 39% (520) of Head Start enrollees. White children make up 60% (458) of Early Head Start and 60% (802) of Head Start enrollment, while African Americans make up 27% (209) of Early Head Start and 24% (325) of Head Start enrollment. Less than 3% (19) of Early Head Start and 5% (66) of Head Start enrollees are Asian. About 73% (530) of families served by Early Head Start , up 30 families, and 73% (911) of thos e served by Head Start, down 22, are single-parent families. The majority enrolled in both Early Head Start (69%) and Head Start (62 %) are eligible based on income. Eligibility based on foster care status accounts for nearly 3% (18) of EHS and 3% (32) of H S children. Eligibility based on homelessness (28 children or 4% in EHS and 35 children or 3% in HS) has increased for both programs since 2018. The Community Assessment reports on the conditions of children and families in the zip codes and census places listed below to access the need for Head Start program services. City or CDP Zip code City or CDP Zip code Byron / Discovery Bay 94505 Knightsen 94548 Danville / Blackhawk 94506 Lafayette 94549 Alamo 94507 Martinez / Briones / Pacheco / Vine Hill 94553 Antioch 94509 Moraga 94556 Bethel Island 94511 Oakley 94561 Brentwood 94513 Orinda 94563 Byron / Discovery Bay 94514 Pinole 94564 Canyon 94516 Pittsburg / Bay Point / Port Chicago / W. Pittsburg 94565 Clayton 94517 Port Costa 94569 Concord 94518 Rodeo 94572 Concord 94519 San Ramon 94582 Concord / Clyde 94520 San Ramon 94583 Concord 94521 Walnut Creek 94595 Concord / Pleasant Hill 94523 Walnut Creek / Lafayette 94596 Contra Costa Centre 94597 Walnut Creek 94597 Crockett 94525 Walnut Creek 94598 Danville 94526 Point Richmond / Richmond / North Richmond 94801 Diablo 94528 Richmond / San Pablo / El Sobrante 94803 El Cerrito 94530 Richmond 94804 Antioch 94531 Richmond / East Richmond Heights 94805 Hercules / Rodeo 94547 Richmond / Bayview / San Pablo / Tara Hills 94806 Community Assets and Resources for Head Start Children No single agency would be capable of eliminating the myriad causes and effects of poverty. Collaborations of the private sector, government agencies, community-based and faith-based organizations play a crucial role as they join forc es, multiply individual efforts and leverage resources. The C SB recognizes that the Head Start, Early Head Start, CDD and CSBG programs accessed by many residents are more effective in reducing or eliminating poverty’s impact on children and families when they operate in unison through comprehensive partnerships with other local organizations committed to transforming individuals, families, neighbo rhoods and entire communities. With this perspective, the CSB continues its successful history of merging Head Start and Child Development programs into a unified Child Start program which offers more families full -day, year-round services such as high- quality education; health and dental services; job skills training support for family members in CalWORKs; and family advocacy services. In the 2020-2 1, 53 Early Head Start families needed and 227 received family services or referrals, while 45 Head Start families needed and 342 received family services or referrals. Services accessed most by Early Head Start families include adult education (20) and parenting education (190). Services accessed most by Head Start families include parenting education (243) and health education (133 ). Contra Costa County sponsors its own health care system, the Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS), which offers a wide range of health services to residents. The CCHS uses a broad provider network to support individual, family and community health through primary, specialty, and inpatient medical care, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, public health programs, environmental health protection, hazardous materials response and inspection, and emergency medical services. CCHS operates t he Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP), an HMO that offer s Medi-Cal Managed Care coverage, serves Medicare beneficiaries, provid es quality care to county employees, businesses, individuals, and families, and implements the A CA Medi-Cal expansion to those with incomes below 138% of the FPL. This CCHS system provides a safety net of quality health care and medical services not otherwise available to low income residents. Contra Costa County 11 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 DEMOGRAPHICS Population Change In 2019, American Community Survey data indicates that Contra Costa County is now home to 1,142,251 residents, up 0.8% from 201 8, compared to a slight 0.3% increase statewide . The county’s top population centers remain the same as in prior years led by Concord (129,183 ), Antioch (111,200 ), Richmond (109,884 ), San Ramon (75,648 ), Pittsburg (71,422 ) and Walnut Creek (69,567 ). Nearly half (49.6%) of all Contra Costa County residents live in one of these six population centers . Growth rates since 201 8 exceed the county by far in Bethel Island (up 7.5%), Crockett (up 5.5%), Brentwood (up 2.5%), Oakley (up 1.6%) and Pittsburg (up 1.3%). Communities with declining population estimates include Blackhawk (down 2.6%), Alamo (down 2.7%), Bayview (down 4.7%) and Tara Hills (down 5.3%). As in 2018, Brentwood (up 1,515), Pittsburg (up 930 ) and Oakley (up 655 ) saw the largest 1-year population gains . Alamo (down 412), Tara Hills (down 288) and Blackhawk (down 256) saw the largest population declines since 2018 . Since 2010, population growth in Contra Costa County (up 93,226 or 8.9%) has been steeper than in the state (5.4%) as a whole . Within the county, growth rates have been much high er than average in Brentwood (up 20.4% or 10,480), Clayton (up 10.9% or 1,186), Contra Costa Centre (up 22.3% or 1,194), Discovery Bay (up 21.0% or 2,807), Lafayette (up 10.1% or 2,412), Oakley (up 16.6% or 5,892), Orinda (up 11.4% or 2,003), Pacheco (up 18.3% or 676), Pittsburg (up 12.9% or 8,158) and Rodeo (up 19.9% or 1,730). Antioch (up 8,828 ), Concord (up 7,116 ), Richmond (up 6,188) and Walnut Creek (up 5,394) also saw large population increases since 2010 . Areas with population declines or much lower than average growth since 2010 include East Richmond Heights (down 3.6% or 118), Tara Hills (down 0.2% or 9), Bethel Island (up 1.1% or 24), Alamo (up 2.3% or 335), Blackhawk (up 2.7% or 250) and Vine Hill (up 3.3% or 125). Figure 1 – Population Change by Area, 2018-201 9 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Al a m o Ta r a H i l l s Bl a c k h a w k Ba y v i e w Ke n s i n g t o n E. R i c h m o n d H g h t s Ro d e o Vi n e H i l l Pa c h e c o Pi n o l e Pl e a s a n t H i l l Co n t r a C o s t a C t r e El S o b r a n t e Cl a y t o n Sa n P a b l o Mo r a g a Be t h e l I s l a n d Cr o c k e t t Ma r t i n e z Di s c o v e r y B a y Da n v i l l e El C e r r i t o Or i n d a La f a y e t t e Sa n R a m o n He r c u l e s Co n c o r d An t i o c h Ri c h m o n d Wa l n u t C r e e k Oa k l e y Pi t t s b u r g Br e n t w o o d Contra Costa County 12 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 1 – Population by Census Place and Percentage Change, 2010 – 2019 Location 2010 2013 2016 2018 2019 % Change Since 2010 % Change Since 2018 California 37,253,956 37,659,181 38,654,206 39,148,760 39,283,497 5.4 0.3 Contra Costa 1,049,025 1,065,794 1,107,925 1,133,247 1,142,251 8.9 0.8 Alamo CDP 14,570 15,672 16,078 15,317 14,905 2.3 -2.7 Antioch 102,372 104,035 108,675 110,730 111,200 8.6 0.4 Bayview CDP 1,754 2,287 1,753 1,954 1,862 6.2 -4.7 Bethel Island CDP 2,137 2,172 2,199 2,010 2,161 1.1 7.5 Blackhawk CDP 9,354 9,263 9,468 9,860 9,604 2.7 -2.6 Brentwood 51,481 52,494 56,923 60,446 61,961 20.4 2.5 Clayton 10,897 11,137 11,655 11,967 12,083 10.9 1.0 Concord 122,067 123,658 126,938 128,758 129,183 5.8 0.3 Contra Costa Centre CDP 5,364 5,461 6,190 6,497 6,558 22.3 0.9 Crockett CDP 3,094 3,121 3,103 3,094 3,265 5.5 5.5 Danville 42,039 42,476 43,758 44,417 44,605 6.1 0.4 Discovery Bay CDP 13,352 13,030 14,765 15,981 16,159 21.0 1.1 E. Richmond Heights CDP 3,280 3,576 3,364 3,214 3,162 -3.6 -1.6 El Cerrito 23,549 23,862 24,646 25,203 25,398 7.9 0.8 El Sobrante CDP 12,669 13,478 12,963 13,736 13,818 9.1 0.6 Hercules 24,060 24,340 25,011 25,343 25,616 6.5 1.1 Kensington CDP 5,077 5,201 5,602 5,415 5,329 5.0 -1.6 Lafayette 23,893 24,347 25,381 26,060 26,305 10.1 0.9 Martinez 35,824 36,471 37,544 38,117 38,290 6.9 0.5 Moraga 16,016 16,315 16,977 17,398 17,539 9.5 0.8 Oakley 35,432 36,443 38,968 40,669 41,324 16.6 1.6 Orinda 17,643 18,108 18,936 19,431 19,646 11.4 1.1 Pacheco CDP 3,685 4,001 4,059 4,355 4,361 18.3 0.1 Pinole 18,390 18,587 19,040 19,264 19,279 4.8 0.1 Pittsburg 63,264 64,588 67,998 70,492 71,422 12.9 1.3 Pleasant Hill 33,152 33,513 34,395 34,785 34,840 5.1 0.2 Richmond 103,701 105,280 108,303 109,340 109,884 6.0 0.5 Rodeo CDP 8,679 8,689 9,798 10,411 10,409 19.9 0.0 San Pablo 29,139 29,324 29,991 30,839 30,967 6.3 0.4 San Ramon 72,148 72,707 74,366 75,384 75,648 4.9 0.4 Tara Hills CDP 5,126 4,674 4,950 5,405 5,117 -0.2 -5.3 Vine Hill CDP 3,761 4,128 4,264 3,887 3,886 3.3 0.0 Walnut Creek 64,173 65,122 67,568 69,007 69,567 8.4 0.8 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Population by Race and Ethnicity From 2010 to 2019 , the county’s populati on has grown 93,226 (8.9%) from 1,049,025 to 1,142,251 , maintaining an average growth rate of about 1% per year. The population of White residents has grown by 23,392 (up 3.8%), Asian residents by 39,514 (up 2 6.1 %), Hispanic/Latino residents by 36,738 (up 14.4%), multi -racial residents by 15,731 (up 25.3 %), Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian residents by 786 (up 16.2%) and Black/African American residents by 2,481 (up 2.6%). Since 2010, the county has seen population declines among American Indian/Alaskan Nat ive residents (down 616 or 10.1 %). Since 2018, the number of White residents fell 1.6% and residents who identify as some unspecified race fell 31.0%, but Hispanic residents rose 1.5%, Black residents rose 2.4%, Asian residents rose 3.2 %, multiracial residents rose 58.9%. Note that some increase in multiracial residents is no doubt due to a change in how residents self -identify and/or report their ancestry. Compared to the state, the county as a whole continues to have a much lower propo rtion of Hispanic residents (39 .0% and 25.6%, respectively), White residents (59.7 % and 55 .8%, respectively) and residents of some other race (14.0% and 10.9 %, respectively). Compared to the state, the county also continues to have a higher proportion Contra Costa County 13 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 of African American residents (5.8% and 8.7%, respectively), Asian residents (14.5% and 16.7%, respectively) and multi -racial residents (4.9 % and 6.8 %, respectively). Table 2 – Population by Ethnicity 2010 – 2019 Race / Ethnicity 2010 2019 Contra Costa # Contra Costa % Contra Costa # Contra Costa % California % Caucasian 614,512 58.6 637,904 55.8 59.7 Black / African American 97,161 9.3 99,642 8.7 5.8 American Indian / Alaska Native 6,122 0.6 5,506 0.5 0.8 Asian 151,469 14.4 190,983 16.7 14.5 Pacific Islander / Native Hawaiian 4,845 0.5 5,631 0.5 0.4 Some other race 112,691 10.7 124,629 10.9 14.0 Two or more races 62,225 5.9 77,956 6.8 4.9 Hispanic or Latino 255,560 24.4 292,298 25.6 39.0 Total population 1,049,025 1,142,251 39,283,497 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 3 – Population by Race, Ethnicity and Geography, 201 9 Area Total White Black/Afr. Amer. Amer. Ind. /Alaskan Asian Native HI/ Pac. Islander Other Two or more Hispanic / Latino Alamo 14,905 12,751 43 18 1,299 10 226 558 1,037 Antioch 111,200 45,158 23,873 820 12,998 982 17,469 9,900 36,902 Bayview 1,862 1,284 120 0 318 0 102 38 592 Bethel Island 2,161 1,623 100 0 27 0 390 21 627 Blackhawk 9,604 6,683 161 0 2,059 33 152 516 667 Brentwood 61,961 39,238 5,342 452 6,618 341 5,103 4,867 14,212 Clayton 12,083 10,044 279 15 922 0 136 687 1,241 Concord 129,183 80,796 4,359 587 16,269 732 17,110 9,330 38,663 CC Centre 6,558 4,089 232 0 1,614 0 150 473 737 Crockett 3,265 2,395 239 26 87 0 262 256 662 Danville 44,605 35,927 499 17 6,048 33 304 1,777 2,880 Discovery Bay 16,159 13,105 783 167 1,068 32 214 790 2,726 E Richmond 3,162 1,908 507 0 341 0 215 191 507 El Cerrito 25,398 13,616 1,260 223 7,704 162 656 1,777 2,593 El Sobrante 13,818 7,322 1,571 37 2,461 107 997 1,323 3,977 Hercules 25,616 7,480 3,873 26 11,603 149 1,032 1,453 4,053 Kensington 5,329 4,103 124 18 621 1 18 444 536 Lafayette 26,305 21,374 148 81 2,945 9 311 1,437 2,251 Martinez 38,290 28,869 1,296 104 3,367 0 1,974 2,680 6,406 Moraga 17,539 13,027 121 30 2,841 188 278 1,054 1,352 Oakley 41,324 23,411 4,043 421 2,704 392 6,789 3,564 14,802 Orinda 19,646 14,918 229 0 3,152 61 41 1,245 1,043 Pacheco 4,361 2,583 133 32 913 0 378 322 972 Pinole 19,279 8,290 2,269 114 5,276 28 1,455 1,847 4,119 Pittsburg 71,422 25,288 11,018 550 11,930 408 15,626 6,602 31,011 Pleasant Hill 34,840 25,600 896 62 4,285 265 1,389 2,343 5,102 Richmond 109,884 40,064 22,150 524 16,968 433 23,485 6,260 46,664 Rodeo 10,409 4,618 1,504 0 2,162 98 896 1,131 3,349 San Pablo 30,967 11,414 3,511 156 5,337 134 9,224 1,191 18,622 San Ramon 75,648 32,594 1,767 266 35,324 268 1,057 4,372 5,352 Tara Hills 5,117 1,926 700 45 978 0 1,090 378 2,089 Vine Hill 3,886 2,471 25 0 398 101 535 356 1,259 Walnut Creek 69,567 51,532 1,427 160 10,675 333 1,393 4,047 6,344 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ In 2019, Antioch (23,873), Richmond (22,150) and Pittsburg (11,018) have the highest number of Black or African American residents. San Ramon (35,324), Richmond (16,968) and Concord (16,269) have Contra Costa County 14 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 the largest populations of Asian residents. The cities of Richmond (46,664), Concord (38,663), Antioch (36,902) and Pittsburg (31,011) have the largest population of Hispanic residents. In 2019, the cities of Antioch (21.5%), Richmond (20.2%), Pittsburg (15.4%) and Hercules (15.1%) have much higher proportions of Black or African American residents than the county (8.7%). Contra Costa Centre (24.6%), Pinole (27.4%), El Cerrito (30.3%), He rcules (45.3%) and San Ramon (46.7%) have much higher proportions of Asian residents than the county (16.7%). Compared to the countywide proportion of Hispanics (25.6%), San Pablo (60.1%), Pittsburg (43.4%), Richmond (42.5%), Tara Hills (40.8%), Oakley (35.8%) and Antioch (33.2%) have much higher proportions of Hispanic residents. Table 4 – Percentage of Residents by Race, Ethnicity and Geography, 201 9 Area White Black/Afr. Amer. Amer. Ind. /Alaskan Asian Native HI/ Pac. Islander Other Two or more Hispanic / Latino Alamo 85.5 0.3 0.1 8.7 0.1 1.5 3.7 7.0 Antioch 40.6 21.5 0.7 11.7 0.9 15.7 8.9 33.2 Bayview 69.0 6.4 0.0 17.1 0.0 5.5 2.0 31.8 Bethel Island 75.1 4.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 18.0 1.0 29.0 Blackhawk 69.6 1.7 0.0 21.4 0.3 1.6 5.4 6.9 Brentwood 63.3 8.6 0.7 10.7 0.6 8.2 7.9 22.9 Clayton 83.1 2.3 0.1 7.6 0.0 1.1 5.7 10.3 Concord 62.5 3.4 0.5 12.6 0.6 13.2 7.2 29.9 Contra Costa Ctr 62.4 3.5 0.0 24.6 0.0 2.3 7.2 11.2 Crockett 73.4 7.3 0.8 2.7 0.0 8.0 7.8 20.3 Danville 80.5 1.1 0.0 13.6 0.1 0.7 4.0 6.5 Discovery Bay 81.1 4.8 1.0 6.6 0.2 1.3 4.9 16.9 E Richmond Hts 60.3 16.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 6.8 6.0 16.0 El Cerrito 53.6 5.0 0.9 30.3 0.6 2.6 7.0 10.2 El Sobrante 53.0 11.4 0.3 17.8 0.8 7.2 9.6 28.8 Hercules 29.2 15.1 0.1 45.3 0.6 4.0 5.7 15.8 Kensington 77.0 2.3 0.3 11.7 0.0 0.3 8.3 10.1 Lafayette 81.3 0.6 0.3 11.2 0.0 1.2 5.5 8.6 Martinez 75.4 3.4 0.3 8.8 0.0 5.2 7.0 16.7 Moraga 74.3 0.7 0.2 16.2 1.1 1.6 6.0 7.7 Oakley 56.7 9.8 1.0 6.5 0.9 16.4 8.6 35.8 Orinda 75.9 1.2 0.0 16.0 0.3 0.2 6.3 5.3 Pacheco 59.2 3.0 0.7 20.9 0.0 8.7 7.4 22.3 Pinole 43.0 11.8 0.6 27.4 0.1 7.5 9.6 21.4 Pittsburg 35.4 15.4 0.8 16.7 0.6 21.9 9.2 43.4 Pleasant Hill 73.5 2.6 0.2 12.3 0.8 4.0 6.7 14.6 Richmond 36.5 20.2 0.5 15.4 0.4 21.4 5.7 42.5 Rodeo 44.4 14.4 0.0 20.8 0.9 8.6 10.9 32.2 San Pablo 36.9 11.3 0.5 17.2 0.4 29.8 3.8 60.1 San Ramon 43.1 2.3 0.4 46.7 0.4 1.4 5.8 7.1 Tara Hills 37.6 13.7 0.9 19.1 0.0 21.3 7.4 40.8 Vine Hill 63.6 0.6 0.0 10.2 2.6 13.8 9.2 32.4 Walnut Creek 74.1 2.1 0.2 15.3 0.5 2.0 5.8 9.1 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Population by Age In 2019, Contra Costa County is home to an estimated 261,203 (22.9%) children age 0-17, 93,870 (8.2%) residents age 18 -24, 611,296 (53.5%) age 25-64, 132,773 (11.6%) age 65 -79 and 43,109 (3.8%) age 80 and over. Within the county, the largest populations of children age 0 -17 reside in Antioch (27,630), Concord (26,659), Richmond (23,954) and San Ramon (21,401). The largest populations of residents age 18 -24 reside in Antioch (10,838), Richmond (10,460), Concord (10,438) and Pittsburg (7 ,264). The largest populations of Contra Costa County residents age 80 and over reside in Walnut Creek (7,465), Concord (4,733), Richmond (3,308) and Antioch (3,191). Contra Costa County 15 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 5 – Contra Costa County Residents by Age Group, 2019 Area Total < 18 years 18-24 years 25-64 years 65-79 years 80 and over California 39,283,497 9,022,146 3,789,808 20,985,502 4,111,290 1,374,751 % 23.0 9.6 53.4 10.5 3.5 Contra Costa County 1,142,251 261,203 93,870 611,296 132,773 43,109 % 22.9 8.2 53.5 11.6 3.8 Alamo 14,905 3,415 856 7,059 2,668 907 % 22.9 5.7 47.4 17.9 6.1 Antioch 111,200 27,630 10,838 59,185 10,356 3,191 % 24.8 9.7 53.2 9.3 2.9 Bayview 1,862 346 231 957 216 112 % 18.6 12.4 51.4 11.6 6.0 Bethel Island 2,161 347 218 1,104 365 127 % 16.1 10.1 51.1 16.9 5.9 Blackhawk 9,604 2,014 540 4,963 1,713 374 % 21.0 5.6 51.7 17.8 3.9 Brentwood 61,961 16,396 5,291 30,995 6,802 2,477 % 26.5 8.5 50.0 11.0 4.0 Clayton 12,083 2,762 1,014 6,199 1,605 503 % 22.9 8.4 51.3 13.3 4.2 Concord 129,183 26,659 10,438 72,684 14,669 4,733 % 20.6 8.1 56.3 11.4 3.7 Contra Costa Centre 6,558 640 597 4,759 560 2 % 9.8 9.1 72.6 8.5 0.0 Crockett 3,265 518 187 2,057 386 117 % 15.9 5.7 63.0 11.8 3.6 Danville 44,605 11,217 3,134 22,032 5,955 2,267 % 25.1 7.0 49.4 13.4 5.1 Discovery Bay 16,159 3,740 1,262 8,584 2,268 305 % 23.1 7.8 53.1 14.0 1.9 E. Richmond Heights 3,162 433 82 1,883 632 132 % 13.7 2.6 59.6 20.0 4.2 El Cerrito 25,398 4,497 1,425 14,448 3,548 1,480 % 17.7 5.6 56.9 14.0 5.8 El Sobrante 13,818 2,603 1,267 7,997 1,640 311 % 18.8 9.2 57.9 11.9 2.3 Hercules 25,616 5,001 2,189 14,546 3,333 547 % 19.5 8.5 56.8 13.0 2.1 Kensington 5,329 1,058 224 2,602 1,140 305 % 19.9 4.2 48.8 21.4 5.7 Lafayette 26,305 6,701 1,339 13,546 3,811 908 % 25.5 5.1 51.5 14.5 3.5 Martinez 38,290 7,563 3,259 21,258 4,890 1,320 % 19.8 8.5 55.5 12.8 3.4 Moraga 17,539 3,769 2,791 7,245 2,652 1,082 % 21.5 15.9 41.3 15.1 6.2 Oakley 41,324 12,078 4,431 20,978 3,366 471 % 29.2 10.7 50.8 8.1 1.1 Orinda 19,646 4,532 884 9,781 3,259 1,190 % 23.1 4.5 49.8 16.6 6.1 Pacheco 4,361 762 277 2,631 565 126 % 17.5 6.4 60.3 13.0 2.9 Pinole 19,279 3,315 1,205 10,914 2,972 873 % 17.2 6.3 56.6 15.4 4.5 Pittsburg 71,422 17,698 7,264 38,626 6,215 1,619 % 24.8 10.2 54.1 8.7 2.3 Pleasant Hill 34,840 6,701 2,738 19,803 4,150 1,448 % 19.2 7.9 56.8 11.9 4.2 Richmond 109,884 23,954 10,460 60,780 11,382 3,308 Contra Costa County 16 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Total < 18 years 18-24 years 25-64 years 65-79 years 80 and over % 21.8 9.5 55.3 10.4 3.0 Rodeo 10,409 2,327 1,022 5,654 1,021 385 % 22.4 9.8 54.3 9.8 3.7 San Pablo 30,967 7,622 3,661 16,544 2,358 782 % 24.6 11.8 53.4 7.6 2.5 San Ramon 75,648 21,401 4,436 41,868 6,378 1,565 % 28.3 5.9 55.3 8.4 2.1 Tara Hills 5,117 1,062 493 2,902 500 160 % 20.8 9.6 56.7 9.8 3.1 Vine Hill 3,886 1,083 287 2,154 238 124 % 27.9 7.4 55.4 6.1 3.2 Walnut Creek 69,567 11,804 3,321 33,870 13,107 7,465 % 17.0 4.8 48.7 18.8 10.7 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ In 2018 , Contra Costa County is home to an estimated 261,203 children age 0-17, with 260,785 (99.8%) in households and 78,532 (30.1%) less than 6 years old. Since 201 8 , the number of children age 0 -17 and children in households remains fairly stable, while the number age 0 -5 fell a slight 258 (down 0.3%). The countywide populat ion of 0 -2 year olds (37,670) rose a slight 155 or 0.4%, and the population of 3 -5 year olds fell a slight 413 or 1.0%. Table 6 – Contra Costa County Children in Households by Age Group, 2012 – 2019 Age Group 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 0-2 Years 38,104 37,339 37,441 37,515 37,670 3-5 Years 41,935 42,546 41,893 41,275 40,862 6-8 Years 44,262 44,991 44,451 44,567 44,268 9-11 Years 44,272 43,654 45,666 45,635 45,411 12-14 Years 43,978 45,042 44,919 45,756 46,095 15-17 Years 46,289 45,847 45,646 46,084 46,479 Total Children Age 0 -17 258,840 259,419 260,016 260,832 260,785 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Figure 2 – Population of Children by Age, 2012 -2019 Statewide, 6.2 % of residents are 0-4 years old in 2019 , while 5.7% (65,438 ) are 0-4 years old in Contra Costa County. About 3.3% (37,670) county residents are 0 -2 year olds, while 2.4 % (27,768) are 3 -4 years ol d. Compared to the countywide proportion of residents age 0-4 (5.7 %), proportions are notably higher in Antioch (6.2%), Concord (6.4%), El Cerrito (6.0%), Martinez (6.1%), Oakley (7.6%), Pittsburg 36,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 46,000 48,000 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 0-2 Yrs 3-5 Yrs 6-8 Yrs 9-11 Yrs 12-14 Yrs 15-17 Yrs Contra Costa County 17 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 (7.5%), Pleasant Hill (6.2%), Richmond (6.2%), San Pablo (6.0%) and Vine Hill (8.4%). Places with the highest number of 0 -4 year olds include Antioch (6,839), Brentwood (2,957), Concord (8,274), Oakley (3,149), Pittsburg (5,364), Richmond (6,781), San Ramon (4,071) and Walnut Creek (3,396). Over half (53.9%) of the county’s 0 -2 year olds live in the 6 cities of Concord (4,920 ), Richmond (4,148), Antioch (4,008 ), Pittsburg (3,142 ), Walnut Creek (2,084) and San Ramon (2,011 ). The most notable one -year gains in the number of 0 -2 year olds occur in Oakley (up 71), El Sobrante (up 73), Martinez (up 79), Richmond (up 143), Concord (up 232) and Pittsburg (up 293), while the most notable loses occur in Antioch (down 113), Brentwood (down 197), Orinda (down 77), Pleasant Hill (down 74) a n d San Ramon (down 109). The most notable one -year gains in the number of 3 -4 year olds occur in Discovery Bay (up 72), Antioch (up 105), Concord (up 156), Walnut Creek (up 157) and Martinez (up 188), while the most notable loses occur in Moraga (down 70), Pittsburg (down 71), Bre ntwood (down 126), Pleasant Hill (down 150), Oakley (down 152) and San Ramon (down 159). Table 7 – Population by Age Group and Census Place, 201 9 Area Population 0-2 years 3-4 years 5 years 6-17 years Total 0-17 0-17 in group qtrs 18 and over California 39,283,497 1,428,700 1,021,399 477,011 6,073,749 9,022,146 21,287 30,261,351 % 3.6 2.6 1.2 15.5 23.0 0.1 77.0 Contra Costa County 1,142,251 37,670 27,768 13,094 182,253 261,203 418 881,048 % 3.3 2.4 1.1 16.0 22.9 0.0 77.1 Alamo 14,905 170 149 196 2,895 3,415 5 11,490 % 1.1 1.0 1.3 19.4 22.9 0.0 77.1 Antioch 111,200 4,008 2,831 1,386 19,373 27,630 32 83,570 % 3.6 2.5 1.2 17.4 24.8 0.0 75.2 Bayview 1,862 33 59 0 254 346 0 1,516 % 1.8 3.2 0.0 13.6 18.6 0.0 81.4 Bethel Island 2,161 21 38 0 288 347 0 1,814 % 1.0 1.8 0.0 13.3 16.1 0.0 83.9 Blackhawk 9,604 174 212 48 1,580 2,014 0 7,590 % 1.8 2.2 0.5 16.5 21.0 0.0 79.0 Brentwood 61,961 1,487 1,470 774 12,664 16,396 1 45,565 % 2.4 2.4 1.2 20.4 26.5 0.0 73.5 Clayton 12,083 313 273 91 2,082 2,762 3 9,321 % 2.6 2.3 0.8 17.2 22.9 0.0 77.1 Concord 129,183 4,920 3,354 1,750 16,608 26,659 27 102,524 % 3.8 2.6 1.4 12.9 20.6 0.0 79.4 Contra Costa Centre 6,558 314 39 57 230 640 0 5,918 % 4.8 0.6 0.9 3.5 9.8 0.0 90.2 Crockett 3,265 87 51 44 336 518 0 2,747 % 2.7 1.6 1.3 10.3 15.9 0.0 84.1 Danville 44,605 1,359 1,122 480 8,251 11,217 5 33,388 % 3.0 2.5 1.1 18.5 25.1 0.0 74.9 Discovery Bay 16,159 429 482 184 2,645 3,740 0 12,419 % 2.7 3.0 1.1 16.4 23.1 0.0 76.9 E. Richmond Heights 3,162 68 22 35 304 433 4 2,729 % 2.2 0.7 1.1 9.6 13.7 0.1 86.3 El Cerrito 25,398 880 637 294 2,682 4,497 4 20,901 % 3.5 2.5 1.2 10.6 17.7 0.0 82.3 El Sobrante 13,818 440 287 72 1,804 2,603 0 11,215 % 3.2 2.1 0.5 13.1 18.8 0.0 81.2 Hercules 25,616 650 439 287 3,593 5,001 32 20,615 % 2.5 1.7 1.1 14.0 19.5 0.1 80.5 Kensington 5,329 138 35 71 813 1,058 1 4,271 % 2.6 0.7 1.3 15.3 19.9 0.0 80.1 Lafayette 26,305 614 557 228 5,302 6,701 0 19,604 % 2.3 2.1 0.9 20.2 25.5 0.0 74.5 Contra Costa County 18 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Population 0-2 years 3-4 years 5 years 6-17 years Total 0-17 0-17 in group qtrs 18 and over Martinez 38,290 1,464 871 336 4,799 7,563 93 30,727 % 3.8 2.3 0.9 12.5 19.8 0.2 80.2 Moraga 17,539 264 183 163 3,159 3,769 0 13,770 % 1.5 1.0 0.9 18.0 21.5 0.0 78.5 Oakley 41,324 1,683 1,466 486 8,428 12,078 15 29,246 % 4.1 3.5 1.2 20.4 29.2 0.0 70.8 Orinda 19,646 348 400 244 3,540 4,532 0 15,114 % 1.8 2.0 1.2 18.0 23.1 0.0 76.9 Pacheco 4,361 167 89 49 457 762 0 3,599 % 3.8 2.0 1.1 10.5 17.5 0.0 82.5 Pinole 19,279 545 334 132 2,296 3,315 8 15,964 % 2.8 1.7 0.7 11.9 17.2 0.0 82.8 Pittsburg 71,422 3,142 2,222 757 11,560 17,698 17 53,724 % 4.4 3.1 1.1 16.2 24.8 0.0 75.2 Pleasant Hill 34,840 1,261 882 450 4,082 6,701 26 28,139 % 3.6 2.5 1.3 11.7 19.2 0.1 80.8 Richmond 109,884 4,148 2,633 1,401 15,742 23,954 30 85,930 % 3.8 2.4 1.3 14.3 21.8 0.0 78.2 Rodeo 10,409 332 280 94 1,615 2,327 6 8,082 % 3.2 2.7 0.9 15.5 22.4 0.1 77.6 San Pablo 30,967 1,091 770 259 5,502 7,622 0 23,345 % 3.5 2.5 0.8 17.8 24.6 0.0 75.4 San Ramon 75,648 2,011 2,060 1,014 16,292 21,401 24 54,247 % 2.7 2.7 1.3 21.5 28.3 0.0 71.7 Tara Hills 5,117 134 106 46 776 1,062 0 4,055 % 2.6 2.1 0.9 15.2 20.8 0.0 79.2 Vine Hill 3,886 158 167 48 710 1,083 0 2,803 % 4.1 4.3 1.2 18.3 27.9 0.0 72.1 Walnut Creek 69,567 2,084 1,312 428 7,971 11,804 9 57,763 % 3.0 1.9 0.6 11.5 17.0 0.0 83.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Population by Nativity In 2019 , about 74.6 % (852,077 ) of Contra Costa County residents are U.S. born, virtually unchanged since 2018. The county has an estimated 290,174 residen ts born outside the U.S., up another 6,966 (2 .5%) from the prior year. Of these, 54 .7% (158,636 ) have become naturalized ci tizens, which is up 3.7% or 5,692 from 152,944 in 2018 . Compared to the state (13.0%) and the county (11.5%), the percentage of residents who are non -citizens is notably higher in Concord (15.0%), San Ramon (15.1%), Pittsburg (15.2%), Richmond (20.1%) and San Pablo (29.4 %). In 2019, particularly large numbers of non-citizens live in Concord (19,425 ) and Richmond (22,126 ). Statewide, about 0.9% of non -citizens are 0-4 year olds, compared to about 1.3% in the county as a whole, and the percentage of non-citizens who are 0 -4 year olds exceeds the countywide rate in Antioch (2.0%), Concord (2.5%), San Ramon (2.8%) and Walnut Creek (3 .0%). Households and Families Since 2018, the number of households in Contra Costa County rose 0.6%, for a gain of about 2,492 households to 394,769. The number of Contra Costa County families also rose by 1.0% or 2,721 families to 284,806, which represents about 72.1% of all households in the cou nty, compared to 68.7% in the state. Married-couple families again saw the largest growth, up 1.1% or 2,345 families to 217,370, which represents 55.1% of all households in the county, compared to 49.8% in the state. The number of county families headed by single females, now 48,256, rose 0.8% or 360 families since 2018, representing 12.2% of all households in the county, compared to 13.0% in the state. Since 2018, the number of all county households with children less than 18 has been relatively stable, down a slight Contra Costa County 19 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 0.2% or 282 households, the number of married -couple families with children also fell a slight 0.4% or 347 families, while the number of single female -headed families with children rose a slight 0.5 % or 125 families. Since 2009, the number of California households has risen 7.8% in the state compared to 9.0% or 32,667 households in the county, while the number of county families has risen 12.5% (up 31,702). The number of county households with child ren has also increased 5.9% or 7,910 since 2009. The number of married-couple families has increased 9.7% or 19,208 families, and those with children has grown by 3.2% or 2,955 families. By comparison, the number of families headed by single females (48,256) has increased 27.5% or 10,397 families since 2009, while those with children (23,648) has grown by 15.5% or 3,181 families. Table 8 – Population by Nativity and Place, 201 9 Area Total Pop. % Age 0-4 Native % Age 0-4 Foreign born % Age 0-4 Foreign born; Naturalized % Age 0-4 Foreign born; Non-citizen % Age 0-4 California 39,283,497 6.2 28,736,287 8.3 10,547,210 0.5 5,451,086 0.2 5,096,124 0.9 Countywide 1,142,251 5.7 852,077 7.4 290,174 0.7 158,636 0.2 131,538 1.3 Antioch 111,200 6.2 86,277 7.6 24,923 1.0 13,681 0.1 11,242 2.0 Brentwood 61,961 4.8 52,917 5.5 9,044 0.3 6,017 0.0 3,027 0.8 Concord 129,183 6.4 93,624 8.2 35,559 1.6 16,134 0.4 19,425 2.5 Danville 44,605 5.6 37,463 6.6 7,142 0.3 4,770 0.5 2,372 0.0 El Cerrito 25,398 6.0 17,437 8.2 7,961 1.1 4,844 1.2 3,117 0.9 Hercules 25,616 4.3 17,027 6.3 8,589 0.2 6,664 0.1 1,925 0.4 Pittsburg 71,422 7.5 48,514 10.9 22,908 0.4 12,083 0.2 10,825 0.6 Richmond 109,884 6.2 71,230 9.4 38,654 0.3 16,528 0.3 22,126 0.3 San Pablo 30,967 6.0 16,645 10.7 14,322 0.5 5,212 0.1 9,110 0.7 San Ramon 75,648 5.4 47,681 7.8 27,967 1.3 16,580 0.2 11,387 2.8 Walnut Creek 69,567 4.9 53,346 6.0 16,221 1.0 10,620 0.0 5,601 3.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 9 – Family Composition, 2009 – 2019 HOUSEHOLD TYPE 2009 2019 COUNTY NUMBER COUNTY % OF HHS CALIFORNIA % OF HHS COUNTY NUMBER COUNTY % OF HHS CALIFORNIA % OF HHS Family households (families) 253,104 69.2 68.5 284,806 72.1 68.7 HHs with own children < 18 yrs 120,947 33.4 34.8 127,879 32.4 30.2 Married-couple family 198,162 54.7 49.7 217,370 55.1 49.8 HHs with own children < 18 yrs 92,821 25.6 24.5 95,776 24.3 21.5 Female householder, no husband 37,859 10.5 12.9 48,256 12.2 13.0 HHs with own children < 18 yrs 20,467 5.7 7.4 23,648 6.0 6.1 HHs with individuals < 18 years 133,420 36.8 38.7 141,330 35.8 34.4 Total Households 362,102 12,097,894 394,769 13,044,266 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Figures shown represent the percentage of all households. Since 2018, C ontra Costa County’s 2,492 gain in households is spread unevenly across sub communities with the largest increases in Walnut Creek (up 285), Hercules (up 304), Brentwood (up 363) and Pittsburg (up 399), while Anti och (down 74), Kensington (down 79), Tara Hills (down 81) and Richmond (down 121) saw the largest decreases . Several communities saw sizable gains in the number of families including Danville (up 217), Walnut Creek (up 246), Brentwood (up 315), Pleasant Hill (up 320) and Richmond (up 434). In contrast , Alamo (down 132), Martinez (down 156) and Antioch (down 291) saw the most notable declines in the number of families. Although the county as a whole saw a scant 0.5% or 125 increase in the number of single female -headed families with children age 0 -17, several communities saw more dramatic 1-year changes including large increases in Concord (up 104), Danville (up 114), Walnut Creek (up 154) and Antioch (up 189). In Contra Costa County 20 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 contrast, Contra Costa Centre (down 51), Richmond (down 98), San Pablo (down 98) and P ittsburg (down 190) saw the largest declines. Critically, the countywide percentage of single female -headed families with children (49.0%) is surpassed by far in Oakley (53.6%), San Pablo (54.7%), Antioch (64.3%), San Ramon (64.4%) and Contra Costa Centre (74.5%). Table 10 – Family Composition by Presence of Children, 201 9 Area Total HHs All Families Married-couples Single Male-headed Single Female-headed Total With kids < 18 % with < 18 Total With kids < 18 % with < 18 Total With kids < 18 % with < 18 Total With < 18 % with < 18 California 13,044,266 8,958,436 3,935,576 43.9 6,491,236 2,801,975 43.2 776,575 331,798 42.7 1,690,625 801,803 47.4 CC County 394,769 284,806 127,879 44.9 217,370 95,776 44.1 19,180 8,455 44.1 48,256 23,648 49.0 Alamo 5,156 4,310 1,534 35.6 3,993 1,374 34.4 127 86 67.7 190 74 38.9 Antioch 34,028 25,990 11,856 45.6 16,716 6,448 38.6 2,325 941 40.5 6,949 4,467 64.3 Bayview 587 438 209 47.7 337 159 47.2 61 34 55.7 40 16 40.0 Bethel Isl. 906 532 146 27.4 344 146 42.4 101 0 0.0 87 0 0.0 Blackhawk 3,458 3,116 1,230 39.5 2,894 1,121 38.7 95 50 52.6 127 59 46.5 Brentwood 19,906 16,038 7,716 48.1 12,967 6,196 47.8 777 433 55.7 2,294 1,087 47.4 Clayton 4,232 3,300 1,406 42.6 2,963 1,305 44.0 85 34 40.0 252 67 26.6 Concord 46,455 31,691 13,239 41.8 23,929 9,748 40.7 2,465 1,089 44.2 5,297 2,402 45.3 CC Centre 3,611 1,446 529 36.6 1,281 488 38.1 110 0 0.0 55 41 74.5 Crockett 1,448 775 289 37.3 582 193 33.2 35 20 57.1 158 76 48.1 Danville 16,053 12,451 5,727 46.0 10,578 4,805 45.4 445 242 54.4 1,428 680 47.6 Discov. Bay 5,482 4,442 1,772 39.9 3,619 1,356 37.5 254 154 60.6 569 262 46.0 E Rich. Hts. 1,360 794 249 31.4 678 201 29.6 26 18 69.2 90 30 33.3 El Cerrito 10,034 6,798 2,678 39.4 5,553 2,230 40.2 279 104 37.3 966 344 35.6 El Sobrante 4,901 3,472 1,415 40.8 2,482 1,008 40.6 326 136 41.7 664 271 40.8 Hercules 8,402 6,531 2,553 39.1 5,000 2,017 40.3 434 86 19.8 1,097 450 41.0 Kensington 2,254 1,511 547 36.2 1,328 462 34.8 44 44 100.0 139 41 29.5 Lafayette 9,426 7,239 3,258 45.0 6,351 2,752 43.3 301 215 71.4 587 291 49.6 Martinez 14,723 9,617 3,924 40.8 7,496 2,902 38.7 402 238 59.2 1,719 784 45.6 Moraga 5,867 4,354 1,888 43.4 3,907 1,663 42.6 46 46 100.0 401 179 44.6 Oakley 11,778 9,795 5,208 53.2 7,835 4,131 52.7 639 369 57.7 1,321 708 53.6 Orinda 7,167 5,679 2,427 42.7 5,238 2,234 42.6 101 81 80.2 340 112 32.9 Pacheco 1,692 1,174 452 38.5 848 322 38.0 86 32 37.2 240 98 40.8 Pinole 6,748 4,798 1,604 33.4 3,188 990 31.1 267 153 57.3 1,343 461 34.3 Pittsburg 21,357 16,225 7,239 44.6 10,100 4,503 44.6 2,069 816 39.4 4,056 1,920 47.3 Pleasant Hill 13,817 8,964 3,806 42.5 6,969 2,966 42.6 542 258 47.6 1,453 582 40.1 Richmond 37,088 24,908 11,053 44.4 15,726 6,810 43.3 2,712 1,134 41.8 6,470 3,109 48.1 Rodeo 3,384 2,627 1,042 39.7 1,653 617 37.3 214 36 16.8 760 389 51.2 San Pablo 9,221 6,809 3,525 51.8 3,959 2,113 53.4 931 362 38.9 1,919 1,050 54.7 San Ramon 25,535 20,184 12,586 62.4 17,882 11,184 62.5 599 306 51.1 1,703 1,096 64.4 Tara Hills 1,678 1,227 551 44.9 809 356 44.0 134 69 51.5 284 126 44.4 Vine Hill 1,314 956 495 51.8 749 436 58.2 83 54 65.1 124 5 4.0 Walnut Crk 31,390 18,093 6,729 37.2 15,444 5,392 34.9 736 364 49.5 1,913 973 50.9 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ In 2019 , about 192,278 (73.8%) Contra Costa County children age 0 -17 live in married-couple families, up 7.1% or 12,701 children since 2018. Communities with much lower proportions of children in married -couple families include Pittsburg (59.3%), San Pablo (58.9%), Rodeo (57.0%), Antioch (55.0%) and Pinole (53.9%). Another 10,310 (4.0%) Contra Costa children age 0 -17 live in single male-headed families, which is a considerable decrease of 22.2% or 2,946 children since 2018. Communities with the highest proportions of children in single male -headed families include San Pablo (5.4%), Lafayette (5.7%), Pittsburg (8.1%), Vine Hill (9.2%) and East Richmond Heights (14.5%). An estimated 41,397 (15.9%) Contra Costa County children age 0 -17 live in single female -headed families, up a sign ificant 4.3% or 1,722 children since 2018. Critically, in several communities much higher proportions of Contra Costa County 21 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 children live in families headed by single females including Pittsburg (21.4%), Pacheco (22.4%), Richmond (22.7%), San Pablo (23.6%), Pinole (24.0%), T ara Hills (26.1%), Antioch (31.0%) and Rodeo (38.9%). Over half (52.5%) of those in single female -headed families live in Pittsburg (3,786), Concord (3,977), Richmond (5,440) and Antioch (8,532). Table 11 – Children in Households by Family Type, 2019 Area Children Age 0-17 In Married-Couples In Single Male HHs In Single Female HHs California 8,997,470 6,189,547 427,892 1,596,989 Contra Costa County 260,707 192,278 10,310 41,397 Alamo 3,410 3,057 75 131 Antioch 27,539 15,135 1,018 8,532 Bayview 346 267 0 48 Bethel Island 347 308 12 27 Blackhawk 2,014 1,867 70 47 Brentwood 16,395 13,129 681 2,002 Clayton 2,759 2,595 42 103 Concord 26,632 19,740 1,322 3,977 Contra Costa Centre 640 596 0 22 Crockett 518 400 21 66 Danville 11,212 9,513 329 1,128 Discovery Bay 3,740 2,790 186 522 East Richmond Heights 429 331 62 36 El Cerrito 4,493 3,731 115 412 El Sobrante 2,603 1,811 111 396 Hercules 4,969 4,026 154 630 Kensington 1,057 913 44 91 Lafayette 6,701 5,794 380 308 Martinez 7,470 5,634 226 1,060 Moraga 3,769 3,451 38 242 Oakley 12,063 9,516 222 1,630 Orinda 4,532 4,180 62 197 Pacheco 762 541 0 171 Pinole 3,307 1,783 121 793 Pittsburg 17,681 10,481 1,439 3,786 Pleasant Hill 6,675 5,232 272 907 Richmond 23,924 14,458 902 5,440 Rodeo 2,321 1,322 39 903 San Pablo 7,622 4,486 411 1,795 San Ramon 21,358 19,138 409 1,544 Tara Hills 1,062 668 20 277 Vine Hill 1,083 876 100 107 Walnut Creek 11,795 9,377 348 1,734 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ In 2019, about 53,617 children age 0-5 live in married -couple families in the county overall , down 1.9% or 1,017 children since 2018 . The largest 1 -year declines in the number of 0 -5 year olds in married couple families occurred in Brentwood (down 249), San Ramon (down 393) and Antioch (down 451). In contrast, Concord (up 28 3) and Martinez (up 381) saw large increases in 0 -5 year olds in married couple families since 2018 . Countywide, about 48.1% of all 0 -5 year olds in married couple families are 0 -2 year olds, and 35.2% are 3-4 year olds. About 4,107 children age 0 -5 live in single male -headed families in the county overall, up 6.6% or 254 children since 2018. The largest 1 -year gains in the number of 0 -5 year olds in single male-headed families occurred in Walnut Creek (up 80), Pittsburg (up 158) and Pinole (up 180). In con trast, Pleasant Hill (down 46), Brentwood (down 72) and Concord (down 156) saw large declines in 0 -5 year olds in single male -headed families since 2018. Countywide, about 44.3% of all 0 -5 year olds in single male - headed families are 0 -2 year olds, and 38.1% are 3 -4 year olds. Contra Costa County 22 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 12 – Population of Children Age 0-5 in Married-Couple Families, 2019 Area Total < 18 Age 0-2 Age 3-4 Age 5 California 5,567,122 864,716 626,939 293,369 Contra Costa County 178,989 25,814 18,889 8,914 Alamo 2,981 151 149 153 Antioch 12,988 1,753 1,228 709 Bayview 243 33 59 0 Bethel Island 270 21 11 0 Blackhawk 1,843 174 212 48 Brentwood 12,248 1,238 1,051 492 Clayton 2,547 266 273 91 Concord 18,210 3,464 2,442 1,288 Contra Costa Centre 596 314 39 57 Crockett 380 76 40 24 Danville 9,221 1,250 1,030 430 Discovery Bay 2,593 320 321 140 East Richmond Heights 321 62 22 35 El Cerrito 3,575 711 515 260 El Sobrante 1,686 269 214 49 Hercules 3,697 433 294 250 Kensington 893 138 35 71 Lafayette 5,612 530 537 203 Martinez 5,363 1,121 686 235 Moraga 3,322 250 183 133 Oakley 8,731 1,040 915 369 Orinda 4,163 333 356 224 Pacheco 443 132 72 26 Pinole 1,531 292 171 36 Pittsburg 9,122 1,618 1,054 391 Pleasant Hill 5,104 964 748 372 Richmond 12,879 2,316 1,310 578 Rodeo 1,176 165 171 25 San Pablo 4,022 517 338 143 San Ramon 18,706 1,704 1,883 888 Tara Hills 607 82 49 0 Vine Hill 809 158 134 48 Walnut Creek 9,246 1,841 947 300 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 13 – Population of Children Age 0 -5 in Sing le Male-Headed Families, 2019 Area Total < 18 Age 0-2 Age 3-4 Age 5 California 591,232 95,257 67,950 31,259 Contra Costa County 13,461 1,821 1,565 721 Alamo 94 0 0 20 Antioch 1,560 151 173 128 Bayview 31 0 0 0 Bethel Island 0 0 0 0 Blackhawk 70 0 0 0 Brentwood 783 38 32 25 Clayton 42 0 0 0 Concord 1,692 184 192 140 Contra Costa Centre 0 0 0 0 Crockett 41 0 11 20 Danville 424 0 13 40 Discovery Bay 281 58 43 0 East Richmond Heights 46 0 0 0 El Cerrito 170 10 16 0 El Sobrante 178 36 12 16 Hercules 160 0 39 0 Contra Costa County 23 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Total < 18 Age 0-2 Age 3-4 Age 5 Kensington 53 0 0 0 Lafayette 295 8 0 0 Martinez 322 107 36 19 Moraga 50 0 0 0 Oakley 550 0 166 11 Orinda 135 15 14 0 Pacheco 31 0 0 0 Pinole 418 101 79 0 Pittsburg 1,293 247 349 69 Pleasant Hill 318 93 0 41 Richmond 1,895 511 125 102 Rodeo 51 0 17 0 San Pablo 599 116 58 0 San Ramon 427 28 14 44 Tara Hills 107 12 10 0 Vine Hill 81 0 0 0 Walnut Creek 585 62 86 46 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 14 – Population of Children Age 0 -5 in Sing le Female-Headed Families, 2019 Area Total < 18 Age 0-2 Age 3-4 Age 5 California 1,549,424 193,560 154,765 77,546 Contra Costa County 39,761 4,755 3,538 1,671 Alamo 102 0 0 14 Antioch 7,651 1,108 705 207 Bayview 32 0 0 0 Bethel Island 0 0 0 0 Blackhawk 67 0 0 0 Brentwood 2,011 62 286 111 Clayton 84 19 0 0 Concord 3,946 664 320 79 Contra Costa Centre 44 0 0 0 Crockett 77 11 0 0 Danville 1,084 14 38 0 Discovery Bay 579 0 24 37 East Richmond Heights 31 6 0 0 El Cerrito 463 80 24 18 El Sobrante 388 59 50 7 Hercules 588 49 15 0 Kensington 63 0 0 0 Lafayette 430 37 0 25 Martinez 1,098 115 116 55 Moraga 229 0 0 0 Oakley 1,302 263 131 75 Orinda 205 0 22 20 Pacheco 158 19 17 0 Pinole 810 100 22 87 Pittsburg 3,718 580 260 88 Pleasant Hill 834 142 68 37 Richmond 5,195 468 608 390 Rodeo 865 70 20 69 San Pablo 1,816 269 294 70 San Ramon 1,567 86 95 37 Tara Hills 263 40 40 39 Vine Hill 4 0 0 0 Walnut Creek 1,653 116 209 68 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 24 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 An estimated 9,964 0 -5 year olds live in single female -headed families in 2019, up 2.0% or 196 children since 2018, despite the state’s 3.3% decline. Concord (up 159), Brentwood (up 170) and Antioch (up 176) saw the largest 1 -year increases in the number of 0 -5 year olds in families headed by single females. But several areas saw significant de clines, most notably Discovery Bay (down 107), Pittsburg (down 109) and Richmond (down 219). Countywide, about 47.7% of all 0 -5 year olds in single female - headed families are 0 -2 year olds, and 35.5% are 3 -4 year olds. ECONOMIC INDICATORS Self-Sufficiency The Self -Sufficiency Standard, a project of the Center for Women’s Welfare (CWW), calculates the local and regional costs associated with each basic need to determine the household income individuals and families need to meet these basic needs without publ ic subsidies or private assistance. It provides a more detailed, up -to -date, and regionally -specific measure than the FPL of what people must earn to be self -sufficient. Updated in 2020 for Contra Costa County, the Self-Sufficiency Standard for a family w ith one adult, an infant and one preschool age child has increased 52 % since 2014, and at $124,649 annually, now represents a fulltime hourly wage of $59.02. By comparison, the median family income in Contra Costa County is $114,535 in 2019. Table 15 – Self-Sufficiency Wage for Various Family Types, Contra Costa County, 20 20 Monthly Expenses Adult Adult + Infant Adult + Preschooler Adult + Infant + Preschooler Adult + Infant Preschooler + Schoolage 2 Adults + Infant + Preschooler 2 Adults + Preschooler + Schoolage Housing $1,817 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $3,030 $2,231 $2,231 Child Care $0 $1,905 $1,590 $3,496 $4,336 $3,512 $2,424 Food $299 $446 $455 $598 $852 $882 $970 Transportation $318 $326 $326 $326 $162 $324 $324 Health Care $169 $571 $570 $581 $536 $572 $581 Miscellaneous $260 $550 $519 $725 $892 $752 $653 Taxes $666 $1,697 $1,477 $2,844 $3,967 $2,248 $1,629 Earned Income Tax Credit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Child Care Tax Credit $0 ($50) ($50) ($100) ($100) ($100) ($100) Child Tax Credit $0 ($167) ($167) ($333) ($500) ($333) ($333) Self-Sufficiency Hourly Wage $20.05 $42.78 $39.61 $59.02 $74.85 $28.66 $23.80 per adult per adult Monthly Wages $3,529 $7,529 $6,972 $10,387 $13,174 $10,088 $8,379 Annual Wages $42,343 $90,346 $83,664 $124,649 $158,093 $121,062 $100,544 Source: Self-Sufficiency Standard Report for California, 2020; Center for Women's Welfare, UW; http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/ Annual Income In 2019, median annual income for California households rose to $75,235, while m edian household income in Contra Costa County rose to $99,716. Since 2018, estimates of median family income in California also rose 5.4% or $4,421 to $85,837, while median family income in the county rose 6.1% or $6,628 to $114,535 annually. In the county, median family income ranges from a high of over $250,000 in Alamo and Orinda to a low of $49,018 in Bethel Island . Besides Bethel Island, four other Contra Costa communities have median family incomes that fall below the state as a whole ($85,837), including Antioch ($84,102), Pittsburg ($77,476), Richmond ($74,051) and San Pablo ($60,583). In contrast, annual median family income is much higher than the state wide average ($85,837) in Danville ($192,116), Blackhawk ($218,125), Lafayette ($221,467), Alamo (over $250,000) and Orinda (over $250,000). Since 201 8 , median family income has risen most notably in Concor d (up 8.4% or $7,976 to $102,814), Discovery Bay (up 11.6% or $14,238 to $136,765), East Richmond Heights (up 26.6% or $28,003 to $133,182), El Cerrito (up 10.2% or $12,044 to $129,820), Lafayette (up 11.2% or $22,254 Contra Costa County 25 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 to $221,467), Martinez (up 8.6% or $9,926 to $125,515), Oakley (up 8.5% or $8,712 to $111,438), Pacheco (up 25.2% or $18,199 to $90,276), San Pablo (up 10.7% or $5,836 to $60,583) and San Ramon (up 8.3% or $14,209 to $185,927). In 2019 , an estimated 62.6 % of householders with children under 6 in California and 63.8 % in Contra Costa County are in families in which all parents are in the workforce, whether employed or not. In the county, this represents 48,460 householders, down a slight 318 or 0.7% from a year ago . Areas with significant 1 -year declines in the number of householders with children 0 -5 and all parents in the workforce include Brentwood (down 182), Discovery Bay (down 122), Moraga (down 142), Oakley (down 161), Pittsburg (down 261) and San Ramon (down 164). In contrast, a reas that s aw significant increases in the number of these householders include Antioch (up 354), Concord (up 133) and Martinez (up 238). Especially high concent rations of householders with children 0 -5 whose parents all work occur in communities which also have a much lower than average median family income , such as Antioch (5,272 ), Concord (5,995), Oakley (1,989), Pittsburg (3,418) and Richmond (4,780). Table 16 – Householders in Workforce with Children Age 0-5 and Family Income, 2019 Area Civilian labor force Householders with kids 0-5 With kids 0-5, all parents in workforce % w/ kids 0-5, all parents in workforce Total Families Median family income Mean family income California 19,790,474 2,820,796 1,766,708 62.6 8,958,436 $85,837 $119,126 Contra Costa Cty 590,758 76,005 48,460 63.8 284,806 $114,535 $152,942 Alamo 6,532 515 307 59.6 4,310 $250,000+ $319,657 Antioch 55,494 7,916 5,272 66.6 25,990 $84,102 $97,307 Bayview 874 92 57 62.0 438 $89,643 $113,753 Bethel Island 812 32 0 0.0 532 $49,018 $77,349 Blackhawk 5,068 434 150 34.6 3,116 $218,125 $323,605 Brentwood 30,398 3,669 2,331 63.5 16,038 $120,736 $138,828 Clayton 6,112 649 503 77.5 3,300 $174,741 $210,434 Concord 70,556 9,697 5,995 61.8 31,691 $102,814 $119,709 Contra Costa Ctr 4,650 410 222 54.1 1,446 $140,769 $157,003 Crockett 1,866 182 171 94.0 775 $100,375 $108,760 Danville 21,945 2,941 1,783 60.6 12,451 $192,116 $245,145 Discovery Bay 8,403 1,095 553 50.5 4,442 $136,765 $163,954 E Richmond Hts 1,919 125 113 90.4 794 $133,182 $163,289 El Cerrito 13,714 1,727 1,109 64.2 6,798 $129,820 $161,237 El Sobrante 7,936 784 640 81.6 3,472 $89,431 $107,479 Hercules 14,518 1,346 1,031 76.6 6,531 $124,144 $139,663 Kensington 2,815 244 166 68.0 1,511 $181,050 $249,841 Lafayette 12,662 1,348 696 51.6 7,239 $221,467 $290,452 Martinez 21,744 2,602 1,746 67.1 9,617 $125,515 $145,198 Moraga 7,958 600 326 54.3 4,354 $186,500 $244,495 Oakley 20,755 3,499 1,989 56.8 9,795 $111,438 $120,754 Orinda 9,658 984 667 67.8 5,679 $250,000+ $324,649 Pacheco 2,473 282 234 83.0 1,174 $90,276 $106,352 Pinole 10,695 980 737 75.2 4,798 $107,893 $125,464 Pittsburg 36,653 5,710 3,418 59.9 16,225 $77,476 $95,717 Pleasant Hill 19,062 2,556 1,741 68.1 8,964 $140,121 $160,937 Richmond 57,845 7,808 4,780 61.2 24,908 $74,051 $93,609 Rodeo 5,208 665 472 71.0 2,627 $88,342 $109,654 San Pablo 15,793 2,084 1,328 63.7 6,809 $60,583 $69,481 San Ramon 39,260 4,960 3,389 68.3 20,184 $185,927 $206,785 Tara Hills 2,769 286 230 80.4 1,227 $90,739 $94,056 Vine Hill 1,963 352 222 63.1 956 $112,683 $122,943 Walnut Creek 33,688 3,773 2,453 65.0 18,093 $142,430 $178,572 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 26 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 3 – Annual Median Family Income by Area, 2019 Unemployment Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Employment Development Department estimated the county’s January 2020 unemployment rate (2.7%) continued lower than the state overall (3.7 %) with both rates improved since 201 8. Since 2004, unemployment rates in the county had improved by 42.6 %, while the state’s rate had improved 35.1 %. Since 2018, the county’s unemployment rate had improved by 10.0%, while the state’s rate had improved 9.8%. However, since early 2020 and the outbreak of COVID -19, the unemployment rate in California at 8.8% has risen 5.1 percentage points or 137.8%, while the county’s rate at 7.9%, has risen 5.2 points or 192.6%. Table 17 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2004 – 2021 Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 2004 –2021. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.asp?selectedarea=California&selectedindex= 0&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=true&geogArea=0601000000&countyName= $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Bethel Island San Pablo Richmond Pittsburg Antioch California Rodeo El Sobrante Bayview Pacheco Tara Hills Crockett Concord Pinole Oakley Vine Hill Contra Costa Brentwood Hercules Martinez El Cerrito E Richmond Hghts Discovery Bay Pleasant Hill Contra Costa Ctr Walnut Creek Clayton Kensington San Ramon Moraga Danville Blackhawk Lafayette Alamo Orinda 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 Contra Costa County 4.7 4.0 7.5 10.8 9.0 5.7 4.3 3.0 2.7 7.9 California 5.7 4.7 9.0 12.1 9.6 6.6 5.1 4.1 3.7 8.8 Contra Costa County 27 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 4 – Unemployment Rates, 2004 – 2021 Table 18 – Annual EDD Unemployment Rates by County Sub-Area, 2006 – 2021 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 Alamo (CDP) 1.4 2.0 4.0 3.3 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.8 4.7 Antioch (City) 4.6 6.4 12.2 10.2 6.5 6.3 3.8 3.6 11.5 Bay Point (CDP) 5.1 5.6 13.4 Bethel Island (CDP) 8.1 11.1 20.2 17.2 11.3 5.9 1.3 1.2 5.9 Brentwood (City) 3.5 5.0 9.6 8.0 5.0 3.8 3.4 3.0 8.0 Byron (CDP) 2.8 3.3 14.3 Clayton (City) 0.9 1.3 2.6 2.2 1.3 4.0 2.4 1.6 3.7 Clyde (CDP) 1.0 1.1 6.0 Concord (City) 4.4 6.1 11.6 9.8 6.2 4.9 2.7 2.5 7.3 Crockett (CDP) 8.4 11.6 21.0 17.9 11.8 2.9 2.7 3.2 11.2 Danville (City) 2.1 2.9 5.7 4.7 3.0 3.6 2.6 2.4 5.3 Discovery Bay (CDP) 2.8 3.9 7.7 6.4 4.0 4.6 2.7 2.6 7.3 E. Richmond Hghts (CDP) 4.9 6.8 13.0 10.9 7.0 4.7 1.6 1.3 3.6 El Cerrito (City) 3.6 5.0 9.6 8.0 5.1 4.0 2.3 1.9 5.9 El Sobrante (CDP) 3.6 5.0 9.6 8.0 4.6 4.3 3.4 3.0 9.6 Hercules (City) 2.8 4.0 7.7 6.4 4.0 3.0 2.6 2.8 7.2 Kensington (CDP) 1.4 2.0 3.9 3.2 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.4 5.0 Knightsen (CDP) 2.6 3.2 4.4 Lafayette (City) 1.4 2.0 3.9 3.3 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.3 5.0 Martinez (City) 3.2 4.5 8.6 7.2 4.5 4.1 2.8 2.3 6.8 Mountain View (CDP) 7.0 4.7 14.9 Oakley (City) 2.8 4.0 7.8 6.5 4.1 5.7 3.6 2.9 9.2 Orinda (City) 1.5 2.1 4.1 3.4 2.1 2.2 1.7 1.6 4.6 Pacheco (CDP) 4.2 5.8 11.1 9.3 5.9 7.0 5.1 4.0 13.2 Pinole (City) 2.7 3.9 7.5 6.2 3.9 3.8 2.2 2.2 7.7 Pittsburg (City) 6.6 9.1 16.9 14.3 9.3 5.4 3.6 3.1 10.6 Pleasant Hill (City) 3.2 4.5 8.8 7.3 4.6 3.8 2.5 2.3 6.4 Richmond (City) 6.7 9.3 17.2 14.6 9.5 5.2 3.4 3.2 10.3 Rodeo (CDP) 2.3 3.3 6.5 5.4 8.3 4.8 3.3 3.4 9.0 Rollingwood (CDP) 3.8 3.7 10.8 San Pablo (City) 8.5 11.7 21.1 18.0 11.8 7.0 3.3 3.1 9.9 San Ramon (City) 1.6 2.3 4.5 3.7 2.3 3.0 2.3 2.2 5.6 Tara Hills (CDP) 4.5 6.3 11.9 10.0 6.4 9.2 5.3 3.8 8.2 Vine Hill (CDP) 6.0 8.3 15.6 13.1 8.5 9.8 4.8 3.3 4.6 Walnut Creek (City) 2.7 3.7 7.3 6.1 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.4 5.6 Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 2004 –2021. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/d ataanalysis/labForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 Contra Costa County California Contra Costa County 28 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 In Contra Costa County sub -communities, unemployment is up between 1.2 and 11.0 percentage points since early 2020. Areas that have seen t he mildest impacts on unemployment include Knightsen (up 1.2 points), Vine Hill (up 1.3 points), Clayton (up 2.1 points), East Richmond Heights (up 2.3 points) and Lafayette (up 2.7 percentage points). Sub -areas with more dramatic COVID -related impacts to unemployment include Pittsburg (up 7.5 points), Bay Point (up 7.8 points), Antioch (up 7.9 points), Crocke tt (up 8.0 points), Pacheco (up 9.2 points), Mountain View (up 10.2 points) and Byron (up 11.0 percentage points). Notably, several population centers also have unemployment rates that exceed the countywide rate (7.9%), including Oakley (9.2%), San Pablo (9.9%), Richmond (10.3%), Pittsburg (10.6%) and Antioch (11.5%). Figure 5 – Unemployment Rates, 2020 – 2021 Employment Prior to the COVID -19 outbreak and based on 2019 ACS data, about 64.8% (590,758) of Contra Costa County’s 201 9 population age 16 and over participated in the civilian labor force , and countywide, the work force had grown by 7,872 (1.4 %) since 2018. Both figures compare d favorably to the state with a 63.3% civilian labor force participation rate and just 0.8 % growth since 201 8 . Within the county, growth in the civilian labor force since 201 8 had most notably outpaced the county in Antioch (up 2.3% or 1,238), Bren twood (up 4.3% or 1,260), Contra Costa Centre (up 3.7% or 167), Crockett (up 5.7% or 100), Danville (up 2.5% or 527), Discovery Bay (up 3.4% or 278), Oakley (up 2.0% or 408), Orinda (up 5.0% or 457), Pinole (up 3.4% or 353) and Vine Hill (up 6.9% or 127). In contrast, areas that saw sizable declines in the number of workers from 2018 to 2019 included Alamo (down 3.4% or 227), Bethel Island (down 4.6% or 39), Blackhawk (down 1.9% or 100), East Richmond Heights (down 2.4% or 47), Kensington (down 3.3% or 95), Pacheco (down 7.8% or 209) and Tara Hills (down 5.3% or 154). Prior to the COVID -19 outbreak, ACS data indicated 3.4% (31,392) of the county’s civilian workforce were unemployed, an 11.7% improvement over 35,563 in 2018 and a continuation of steady declines seen since 2014. However, community -level employment disparities persisted, with the highest rates of unemployment among workers in Antioch (5.4%), Bayview (6.8%), Brentwood (4.3%), El Sobrante (3.9%), Pittsburg (5.5%), Richmond (3.9%), Rodeo (5.2%) and San Pablo (4.4%). Areas with the lowest estimated unemployment rates in 2019 include Alamo (1.0%), Bethel Island (2.2%), Clayton (2.0%), Contra Costa Centre (1.8%), Danville (2.1%), East Richmond Heights (1.2%), Moraga (2.2%), San Ramon (2.2%), Tara Hills (1.7%) and Walnut Creek (2.1%). Since 2018 , unemployment estimates had improved most notably in Alamo (down 51.2%), Contra Costa Centre (down 27.2%), Crockett (down 36.4%), East Richmond Heights (down 38.2%), Martinez (down 27.6%), Oakley (down 30.6%), Pacheco (down 52.0%) and Tara 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Al a m o An t i o c h Ba y P o i n t Be t h e l I s l a n d Br e n t w o o d By r o n Cl a y t o n Cl y d e Co n c o r d Cr o c k e t t Da n v i l l e Di s c o v e r y B a y E. R i c h m o n d … El C e r r i t o El S o b r a n t e He r c u l e s Ke n s i n g t o n Kn i g h t s e n La f a y e t t e Ma r t i n e z Mo u n t a i n V i e w Oa k l e y Or i n d a Pa c h e c o Pi n o l e Pi t t s b u r g Pl e a s a n t H i l l Ri c h m o n d Ro d e o Ro l l i n g w o o d Sa n P a b l o Sa n R a m o n Ta r a H i l l s Vi n e H i l l Wa l n u t C r e e k 2020 2021 Contra Costa County 29 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Hills (down 61.1%). The population centers of Antioch (4,666), Conc ord (3,517), Pittsburg (3,033) and Richmond (3,454 ) continue to have the largest number of unemployed residents, and together account for 46.7% of all unemployed residents according to 2019 estimates. The 2019 ACS unemployment rate for the county (5.3%) was exceeded most notably in Antioch (8.4%), Bayview (11.8%), Brentwood (6.7%), Pittsburg (8.3%), Richmond (6.0%), Rodeo (8.4%) and San Pablo (6.7%). Table 19 – Civilian Labor Force, Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Area, 2019 Geography Population 16 and over Civilian labor force % in Civilian labor force Employed % Employed Unemployed % Unemployed Unemployment Rate California 31,284,669 19,790,474 63.3 18,591,241 59.4 1,199,233 3.8 6.1 Contra Costa Cty 912,021 590,758 64.8 559,366 61.3 31,392 3.4 5.3 Alamo 12,036 6,532 54.3 6,414 53.3 118 1.0 1.8 Antioch 87,031 55,494 63.8 50,828 58.4 4,666 5.4 8.4 Bayview 1,516 874 57.7 771 50.9 103 6.8 11.8 Bethel Island 1,839 812 44.2 772 42.0 40 2.2 4.9 Blackhawk 8,021 5,068 63.2 4,846 60.4 222 2.8 4.4 Brentwood 47,933 30,398 63.4 28,359 59.2 2,039 4.3 6.7 Clayton 9,673 6,112 63.2 5,920 61.2 192 2.0 3.1 Concord 104,960 70,556 67.2 67,039 63.9 3,517 3.4 5.0 Contra Costa Ctr 5,948 4,650 78.2 4,543 76.4 107 1.8 2.3 Crockett 2,876 1,866 64.9 1,768 61.5 98 3.4 5.3 Danville 34,978 21,945 62.7 21,209 60.6 736 2.1 3.4 Discovery Bay 12,943 8,403 64.9 8,036 62.1 367 2.8 4.4 E. Richmond Hts 2,757 1,919 69.6 1,885 68.4 34 1.2 1.8 El Cerrito 21,259 13,714 64.5 13,116 61.7 598 2.8 4.4 El Sobrante 11,407 7,936 69.6 7,488 65.6 448 3.9 5.6 Hercules 21,108 14,518 68.8 13,953 66.1 565 2.7 3.9 Kensington 4,396 2,815 64.0 2,690 61.2 125 2.8 4.4 Lafayette 20,501 12,662 61.8 12,090 59.0 572 2.8 4.5 Martinez 31,798 21,744 68.4 20,892 65.7 852 2.7 3.9 Moraga 14,241 7,958 55.9 7,641 53.7 317 2.2 4.0 Oakley 30,599 20,755 67.8 19,950 65.2 805 2.6 3.9 Orinda 15,896 9,658 60.8 9,290 58.4 368 2.3 3.8 Pacheco 3,696 2,473 66.9 2,339 63.3 134 3.6 5.4 Pinole 16,299 10,695 65.6 10,126 62.1 569 3.5 5.3 Pittsburg 55,399 36,653 66.2 33,620 60.7 3,033 5.5 8.3 Pleasant Hill 28,952 19,062 65.8 18,315 63.3 747 2.6 3.9 Richmond 88,315 57,845 65.5 54,391 61.6 3,454 3.9 6.0 Rodeo 8,391 5,208 62.1 4,773 56.9 435 5.2 8.4 San Pablo 24,230 15,793 65.2 14,728 60.8 1,065 4.4 6.7 San Ramon 57,039 39,260 68.8 37,990 66.6 1,270 2.2 3.2 Tara Hills 4,225 2,769 65.5 2,697 63.8 72 1.7 2.6 Vine Hill 2,937 1,963 66.8 1,885 64.2 78 2.7 4.0 Walnut Creek 59,156 33,688 56.9 32,446 54.8 1,242 2.1 3.7 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ According to more recent EDD labor force figures which capture impacts of the COVID -19 outbreak, 18,916,400 Californians participate in the labor force in December 2020, down 561,000 or 2.9% since January 2020. In Contra Costa County, 545,800 participate i n the civilian labor force in D ecember 2020, down 13,800 or 2.5% since 559,600 in January 2020. Within sub -areas of the county, declines in the size of the labor force since January 2020 have most notably surpassed the county (down 2.5%) in Alamo (down 4.5 %), Clayton (down 5.1 %), Clyde (down 25.0 %), Danville (down 4.8 %), East Richmond Heights (down 5.3 %), Lafayette (down 4.8 %), Orinda (down 4.5%), San Ramon (down 4.1%), Vine Hill (down 5.6%) and Walnut Creek (down 4.4%). Contra Costa County 30 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 20 – COVID-19 Impacts on Labor Force and Number Unemployed, 2020 Geography Labor Force Number Unemployed January 2020 December 2020 January 2020 December 2020 California 19,477,400 18,916,400 840,000 1,669,600 Contra Costa 559,600 545,800 18,000 43,000 Alamo 6,600 6,300 100 300 Antioch 50,700 51,000 2,200 5,900 Bay Point 11,900 12,000 700 1,600 Bethel Island 800 800 0 0 Brentwood 29,500 28,700 1,100 2,300 Byron 600 600 0 100 Clayton 5,900 5,600 100 200 Clyde 400 300 0 0 Concord 65,700 63,900 1,900 4,700 Crockett 1,700 1,700 100 200 Danville 20,700 19,700 600 1,000 Diablo 100 100 0 0 Discovery Bay 7,800 7,600 200 600 E. Richmond Hts 1,900 1,800 0 100 El Cerrito 13,800 13,300 100 800 El Sobrante 7,500 7,400 300 700 Hercules 13,900 13,500 400 1,000 Kensington 2,800 2,700 100 100 Knightsen 600 600 0 0 Lafayette 12,600 12,000 400 600 Martinez 20,600 19,900 600 1,300 Moraga 7,700 -- 200 -- Oakley 19,800 19,500 700 1,800 Orinda 8,900 8,500 200 400 Pacheco 2,500 2,500 100 300 Pinole 9,900 9,700 300 700 Pittsburg 34,300 34,200 1,300 3,600 Pleasant Hill 18,100 17,400 500 1,100 Richmond 52,700 52,600 1,900 5,400 Rodeo 4,900 4,800 200 400 San Pablo 13,900 13,800 500 1,400 San Ramon 39,500 37,900 1,000 2,100 Tara Hills 2,800 2,700 100 200 Vine Hill 1,800 1,700 0 100 Walnut Creek 34,300 32,800 1,000 1,800 Source: Employment Development Department, https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-force.html Current labor statistics also indicate that by December 2020, an additional 829,600 Californians became unemployed, up 98.8% since January, due largely to the COVID -19 outbreak and various public health control measures . Contra Costa County has 43,000 residents unemployed in December 2020, up 25,000 or 138.9% from 18,000 in January 2020. Since the COVID -19 outbreak, sub-areas of the county with the largest increases in unemployment include Oakley (up 1,100), San Ramon (up 1,100), Brentwood (up 1,200), Pittsburg (up 2,300), Concord (up 2,800), Richmond (3,500) and Antioch (up 3,700 ). Note that although December 2020 EDD figures are somewhat improved from April 2020, they are not seasonally adjusted and so likely include temporary or seasonal employment . According to ACS data, a bout 50.4% (222,142 ) of Contra Costa County males age 16 and over in the labor force worked full time in 201 9 , compared to 34.0% (160,322 ) of females in the labor force. Both rates were higher than the proportion of full time working males (49.4%) and females (33.3%) in California overall , and both rates were up since 2018 . Rates exceeded the countywide percentage of working males who work full time (50.4 %) by far in Blackhawk (53.2%), Contra Costa Centre (72.1%), Discovery Bay (54.6%), East Richmond Heights (54.1%), Hercules (54.5%), Lafa yette (53.1%), San Contra Costa County 31 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Ramon (62.1%) and Vine Hill (57.7%). Compared to the countywide proportion of working females who worked full time (34.0%), far higher proportions could be found in Costa Contra Centre (46.5%), Crockett (42.8%), Discovery Bay (38.1%), East Richmond Heights (44.6%), Hercules (40.4%), Martinez (40.5%), Pacheco (40.9%) and Pinole (38.2%). The largest populations of working females who worked full time were estimated in Antioch (15,366), Concord (19,374), Pittsburg (9,922), Richmond (15,667), San Ramon (10,920) and Walnut Creek (9,519). Since 201 8, the number of Contra Costa County males who worked full time increased 3.2% or 6,958 workers, while the number of females wh o worked full time increased 3.4% or 5,243. Table 21 – Full Time Workers by Sex, 201 9 Area Pop. 16 & over Male Female Total 16 & over Worked FT % FT Total 16 & over Worked FT % FT California 31,284,669 15,439,989 7,630,114 49.4 15,844,680 5,274,541 33.3 Contra Costa County 912,021 440,954 222,142 50.4 471,067 160,322 34.0 Alamo 12,036 6,178 2,866 46.4 5,858 1,443 24.6 Antioch 87,031 41,558 18,559 44.7 45,473 15,366 33.8 Bayview 1,516 902 416 46.1 614 225 36.6 Bethel Island 1,839 969 245 25.3 870 175 20.1 Blackhawk 8,021 3,782 2,013 53.2 4,239 1,349 31.8 Brentwood 47,933 23,538 11,425 48.5 24,395 7,788 31.9 Clayton 9,673 4,520 2,185 48.3 5,153 1,573 30.5 Concord 104,960 51,759 26,700 51.6 53,201 19,374 36.4 Contra Costa Centre 5,948 3,362 2,425 72.1 2,586 1,202 46.5 Crockett 2,876 1,379 575 41.7 1,497 641 42.8 Danville 34,978 16,814 8,833 52.5 18,164 5,938 32.7 Discovery Bay 12,943 6,349 3,465 54.6 6,594 2,511 38.1 E. Richmond Heights 2,757 1,119 605 54.1 1,638 731 44.6 El Cerrito 21,259 10,029 4,842 48.3 11,230 4,039 36.0 El Sobrante 11,407 5,715 3,020 52.8 5,692 2,131 37.4 Hercules 21,108 10,110 5,515 54.5 10,998 4,442 40.4 Kensington 4,396 2,116 1,039 49.1 2,280 589 25.8 Lafayette 20,501 9,636 5,121 53.1 10,865 3,173 29.2 Martinez 31,798 15,137 7,596 50.2 16,661 6,755 40.5 Moraga 14,241 6,767 2,902 42.9 7,474 1,577 21.1 Oakley 30,599 14,752 7,678 52.0 15,847 5,266 33.2 Orinda 15,896 7,499 3,583 47.8 8,397 2,811 33.5 Pacheco 3,696 1,750 782 44.7 1,946 796 40.9 Pinole 16,299 7,653 3,514 45.9 8,646 3,300 38.2 Pittsburg 55,399 26,691 13,671 51.2 28,708 9,922 34.6 Pleasant Hill 28,952 14,092 7,330 52.0 14,860 5,459 36.7 Richmond 88,315 43,038 20,939 48.7 45,277 15,667 34.6 Rodeo 8,391 3,964 1,791 45.2 4,427 1,381 31.2 San Pablo 24,230 12,196 5,762 47.2 12,034 3,716 30.9 San Ramon 57,039 27,969 17,363 62.1 29,070 10,920 37.6 Tara Hills 4,225 2,268 1,043 46.0 1,957 708 36.2 Vine Hill 2,937 1,457 841 57.7 1,480 393 26.6 Walnut Creek 59,156 26,912 12,894 47.9 32,244 9,519 29.5 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ According to ACS data, 63.6% (8,403) of all Contra Costa County females with births (13,217) in the past year participate in the civilian labor force in 201 9, compared to 60.4% in the state . In the county, labor force participation rates among women with births varies between married (59.8%) and unmarried (74.3%) women . The largest populations of married women with births in the labor force occur in Antioch (597), Concord (800), Richmond (401) and Walnut Creek (423). The largest populations of unmarried women with births in the labor force are found in Antioch (343), Concord (411) and Richmond (501). Contra Costa County 32 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 22 – Women Age 16 -50 with Births in the Past Year in the Labor Force, 2019 Area Females Age 16-50 With births Married Unmarried With births In labor force % in labor force With births In labor force % in labor force California 9,372,910 469,302 322,261 192,783 59.8 147,041 90,893 61.8 Contra Costa County 261,985 13,217 9,788 5,855 59.8 3,429 2,548 74.3 Alamo 2,293 19 19 0 0.0 0 0 -- Antioch 27,343 1,432 991 597 60.2 441 343 77.8 Bayview 335 30 14 14 100.0 16 16 100.0 Bethel Island 364 10 10 0 0.0 0 0 -- Blackhawk 2,008 64 64 46 71.9 0 0 -- Brentwood 13,370 589 524 306 58.4 65 48 73.8 Clayton 2,434 70 70 46 65.7 0 0 -- Concord 29,196 1,745 1,334 800 60.0 411 411 100.0 Contra Costa Centre 1,917 144 144 100 69.4 0 0 -- Crockett 709 28 28 28 100.0 0 0 -- Danville 8,431 393 377 224 59.4 16 16 100.0 Discovery Bay 3,567 200 172 78 45.3 28 21 75.0 E. Richmond Heights 673 6 6 6 100.0 0 0 -- El Cerrito 5,987 232 219 146 66.7 13 6 46.2 El Sobrante 3,042 117 100 61 61.0 17 0 0.0 Hercules 5,876 220 159 133 83.6 61 61 100.0 Kensington 856 45 32 19 59.4 13 13 100.0 Lafayette 5,352 135 124 93 75.0 11 11 100.0 Martinez 8,411 404 314 279 88.9 90 66 73.3 Moraga 4,017 123 110 60 54.5 13 13 100.0 Oakley 10,605 669 431 243 56.4 238 229 96.2 Orinda 3,781 111 95 79 83.2 16 16 100.0 Pacheco 1,036 54 54 54 100.0 0 0 -- Pinole 4,436 250 142 110 77.5 108 88 81.5 Pittsburg 17,591 1,267 778 285 36.6 489 190 38.9 Pleasant Hill 8,188 280 232 124 53.4 48 48 100.0 Richmond 27,792 1,714 1,013 401 39.6 701 501 71.5 Rodeo 2,624 134 56 33 58.9 78 55 70.5 San Pablo 7,764 457 200 107 53.5 257 189 73.5 San Ramon 18,451 606 537 390 72.6 69 48 69.6 Tara Hills 1,091 85 36 29 80.6 49 11 22.4 Vine Hill 877 7 7 7 100.0 0 0 -- Walnut Creek 13,828 661 610 423 69.3 51 39 76.5 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Countywide, 342,872 residents are women age 20 -64 and 129,592 (37.8%) have children less than 18, compared to 35.0% statewide, with both down less than 1% from 2018 . Of Contra Costa women age 20-64 with children, 50,963 (39.3%) have children age 0 -5 in their household, compared to 42.5 % statewide. This represents a 2.8% decreas e in the county (down 1,481), compared to a 1.5% decrease in the state. About 66.0 % (33,622 ) of women with children age 0 -5 participate in the civilian workforce countywide, which although down 3.3% or 1,086 women since 2018, continues higher than the stat e as a whole (64.3%). Estimates in 2019 indicate 94.8% (31,861) of Contra Costa County women in the civilian work force who have children age 0 -5 are employed, compared to 93.3% statewide. These estimates represent a 1.9% decline of 605 women in the county , while the state rate is relatively unchanged. Compared to the county (66.0%), much h igher than average work force participation rates among women with 0 -5 year olds occur in Antioch (69.8%), Clayton (86.1%), Crockett (90.4%), East Richmond Heights (88.9%), El Sobrante (79.8%), Hercules (82.5%), Orinda (71.8%), Pacheco (82.1%), Pinole (81.0%), Rodeo (78.7%), San Ramon (69.3%) and Tara Hills (72.7%). Areas with the highest populations of women Contra Costa County 33 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 with 0 -5 year olds who are employed include Antioch (3,275), Brentwood (1,641), Concord (3,998), Pittsburg (1,912), Richmond (2,949), San Ramon (2,447) and Walnut Creek (1,744). Table 23 – Women Age 20 -64 in the Labor Force with Children Age 0-5, 2019 Area Females Age 20-64 With Children < 18 With Children < 6 In Civilian labor force with Children < 6 Employed California 11,660,274 4,075,279 1,731,508 1,114,200 1,039,586 % 35.0 42.5 64.3 93.3 Contra Costa County 342,872 129,592 50,963 33,622 31,861 % 37.8 39.3 66.0 94.8 Alamo 3,753 1,501 287 185 177 % 40.0 19.1 64.5 95.7 Antioch 34,659 13,436 5,343 3,732 3,275 % 38.8 39.8 69.8 87.8 Bayview 423 200 83 55 55 % 47.3 41.5 66.3 100.0 Bethel Island 626 176 10 0 0 % 28.1 5.7 0.0 -- Blackhawk 2,815 1,183 243 100 91 % 42.0 20.5 41.2 91.0 Brentwood 17,031 7,709 2,658 1,733 1,641 % 45.3 34.5 65.2 94.7 Clayton 3,487 1,372 460 396 396 % 39.3 33.5 86.1 100.0 Concord 39,280 13,139 6,320 4,124 3,998 % 33.4 48.1 65.3 96.9 Contra Costa Centre 2,257 536 351 198 198 % 23.7 65.5 56.4 100.0 Crockett 1,126 268 115 104 104 % 23.8 42.9 90.4 100.0 Danville 12,717 5,494 1,865 1,211 1,211 % 43.2 33.9 64.9 100.0 Discovery Bay 4,761 1,752 684 365 308 % 36.8 39.0 53.4 84.4 E. Richmond Heights 1,123 249 90 80 80 % 22.2 36.1 88.9 100.0 El Cerrito 8,008 2,599 1,190 797 788 % 32.5 45.8 67.0 98.9 El Sobrante 4,467 1,402 575 459 411 % 31.4 41.0 79.8 89.5 Hercules 8,346 2,708 1,013 836 814 % 32.4 37.4 82.5 97.4 Kensington 1,405 526 143 97 97 % 37.4 27.2 67.8 100.0 Lafayette 7,756 3,088 901 544 544 % 39.8 29.2 60.4 100.0 Martinez 12,237 3,911 1,590 1,062 1,037 % 32.0 40.7 66.8 97.6 Moraga 3,904 1,885 456 269 254 % 48.3 24.2 59.0 94.4 Oakley 12,288 5,346 2,426 1,452 1,368 % 43.5 45.4 59.9 94.2 Orinda 5,469 2,306 641 460 460 % 42.2 27.8 71.8 100.0 Pacheco 1,470 458 268 220 206 % 31.2 58.5 82.1 93.6 Pinole 6,196 1,601 569 461 444 % 25.8 35.5 81.0 96.3 Pittsburg 22,385 7,687 3,547 2,089 1,912 % 34.3 46.1 58.9 91.5 Contra Costa County 34 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Females Age 20-64 With Children < 18 With Children < 6 In Civilian labor force with Children < 6 Employed Pleasant Hill 11,046 3,658 1,696 1,091 1,086 % 33.1 46.4 64.3 99.5 Richmond 34,167 11,545 5,103 3,138 2,949 % 33.8 44.2 61.5 94.0 Rodeo 3,316 1,150 445 350 278 % 34.7 38.7 78.7 79.4 San Pablo 9,199 3,548 1,331 837 789 % 38.6 37.5 62.9 94.3 San Ramon 22,710 12,247 3,767 2,610 2,447 % 53.9 30.8 69.3 93.8 Tara Hills 1,432 487 165 120 120 % 34.0 33.9 72.7 100.0 Vine Hill 1,177 494 248 157 157 % 42.0 50.2 63.3 100.0 Walnut Creek 18,678 6,346 2,624 1,761 1,744 % 34.0 41.3 67.1 99.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Transportation In 2019 , 93.4 % of Contra Costa County workers age 16 and older must commute to work, and the mean time workers spend traveling to work has risen to 38.7 minutes. This represents a 1.8% increase in travel time from 38.0 minutes since 2018 and is still notably longer than the statewide average of 29.8 minutes. The county’s commuters continue to drive alone to work less than commuters in the state overall (67.5 % to 73.7%, respectively). The percentage of commuters who drive alone to work exceeds the county (67.5 %) by far in Bayview (81.8%), Bethel Island (92.1%), Brentwood (74.4%), Clayton (74.0%), Danville (74.3%), Discovery Bay (73.5%), Martinez (74.6%), Oakley (75.8%), Pacheco (75.0%), Rodeo (75.0%) and Vine Hill (81.9%). An estimated 11.5% of county commuters carpool compared to just 10.1% in the state , but rates are notably higher among commuters in Antioch (17.2%), Hercules (15.9%), Oakley (15.4%), Pittsburg (15.6%), Richmond (15.1%) and San Pablo (18.0%). Commuters in Contra Costa also continue to use public transportation much more than commuters in the state (10.9% to 5.1 %, respectively), with the highest rates in Contra Costa Centre (40.1%), El Cerrito (26.2%), Kensington (19.9%), Lafayette (19.1%), Moraga (16.1%), Orinda (21.4%) and Walnut Creek (18.5%). Since 2018, the number of Contra Costa County workers age 16 and over who travel to a work place rose another 2.1% or 10,455 workers to 508,264. Antioch (up 1,089), Brentwood (up 1,227) and Richmond (up 1,159) saw the largest estimated increases in work ers who commute, while Alamo (down 181), Kensington (down 119), Pacheco (down 145) and Rodeo (down 134) saw the largest decreases. Countywide, about 46.0% (233,583) of commuters are female, compared to 46.2% (229,964) in 2018. Areas that saw notable incre ases in female commuters since 2018 include Blackhawk (up 5.8% or 100), Brentwood (up 5.4% or 604), Crockett (up 11.5% or 86), Martinez (up 5.1% or 463), Oakley (up 8.4% or 665), Orinda (up 6.6% or 224), San Pablo (up 4.8% or 270) and Vine Hill (up 6.8% or 48). Females are much less likely than males to leave for work between midnight and 6:59 am and somewhat more likely than males to leave for work between 7:00 am to 10:59 am. However, these countywide differences are more or less pronounced within sub -communities. Contra Costa County 35 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 24 – How Workers Commute to Work by Area, 201 9 Area Workers Age 16 and over Drove alone % Drove alone Carpooled % Carpooled Took Public trans. % Public trans. Walked or other % Walked or other Mean Commute (Min.) Countywide 544,376 367,467 67.5 62,385 11.5 59,068 10.9 19,344 3.6 38.7 Alamo 6,285 4,165 66.3 245 3.9 610 9.7 88 1.4 36.0 Antioch 49,236 33,032 67.1 8,454 17.2 3,907 7.9 1,534 3.1 46.7 Bayview 707 578 81.8 93 13.2 17 2.4 19 2.7 49.3 Bethel Island 772 711 92.1 49 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 37.8 Blackhawk 4,787 3,227 67.4 355 7.4 246 5.1 135 2.8 41.1 Brentwood 27,727 20,636 74.4 3,578 12.9 1,020 3.7 864 3.1 46.2 Clayton 5,697 4,215 74.0 271 4.8 621 10.9 125 2.2 42.8 Concord 65,571 44,191 67.4 7,281 11.1 7,295 11.1 3,396 5.2 35.6 Contra Costa Ctr 4,453 2,010 45.1 219 4.9 1,787 40.1 122 2.7 42.2 Crockett 1,768 1,142 64.6 226 12.8 129 7.3 140 7.9 37.6 Danville 20,792 15,439 74.3 1,188 5.7 1,230 5.9 738 3.5 33.3 Discovery Bay 7,868 5,783 73.5 902 11.5 72 0.9 248 3.2 47.9 E Richmond Hts 1,836 1,100 59.9 168 9.2 280 15.3 41 2.2 35.4 El Cerrito 12,604 6,480 51.4 1,055 8.4 3,296 26.2 452 3.6 34.1 El Sobrante 7,303 5,041 69.0 786 10.8 973 13.3 99 1.4 37.5 Hercules 13,536 9,258 68.4 2,152 15.9 1,249 9.2 147 1.1 42.2 Kensington 2,656 1,337 50.3 207 7.8 528 19.9 125 4.7 37.7 Lafayette 11,884 7,294 61.4 600 5.0 2,267 19.1 320 2.7 33.0 Martinez 20,327 15,162 74.6 1,919 9.4 1,254 6.2 809 4.0 32.9 Moraga 7,419 4,282 57.7 531 7.2 1,192 16.1 554 7.5 33.6 Oakley 19,170 14,534 75.8 2,956 15.4 574 3.0 312 1.6 44.0 Orinda 9,103 5,229 57.4 496 5.4 1,949 21.4 227 2.5 36.1 Pacheco 2,294 1,721 75.0 277 12.1 24 1.0 86 3.7 31.2 Pinole 9,761 7,177 73.5 1,000 10.2 968 9.9 237 2.4 38.7 Pittsburg 32,596 21,641 66.4 5,096 15.6 3,582 11.0 1,163 3.6 43.6 Pleasant Hill 18,064 12,587 69.7 991 5.5 2,485 13.8 765 4.2 34.4 Richmond 52,482 32,853 62.6 7,934 15.1 7,114 13.6 2,207 4.2 35.6 Rodeo 4,533 3,399 75.0 597 13.2 362 8.0 61 1.3 38.7 San Pablo 14,206 9,142 64.4 2,552 18.0 1,618 11.4 519 3.7 35.6 San Ramon 37,501 27,009 72.0 3,059 8.2 3,420 9.1 682 1.8 38.8 Tara Hills 2,574 1,892 73.5 266 10.3 258 10.0 48 1.9 37.2 Vine Hill 1,819 1,489 81.9 172 9.5 85 4.7 53 2.9 34.9 Walnut Creek 31,539 19,371 61.4 1,730 5.5 5,838 18.5 1,702 5.4 36.6 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 25 – Time Leave for Work, 201 9 Area Sex Commuters 0:00- 4:59 5:00- 5:59 6:00- 6:59 7:00- 7:59 8:00- 8:59 9:00- 9:59 10:00- 10:59 11:00- 11:59 12:00 - 15:59 16:00- 23:59 County Male 274,681 24,050 35,324 49,800 60,861 41,662 18,606 8,265 4,217 17,408 14,488 Female 233,583 9,366 16,492 37,042 64,874 44,789 19,604 10,200 3,636 15,596 11,984 Alamo Male 3,131 86 320 634 789 747 320 141 8 40 46 Female 1,977 0 94 175 463 771 234 127 53 34 26 Antioch Male 24,681 3,925 4,703 4,190 3,622 2,136 1,248 734 471 2,197 1,455 Female 22,246 1,745 2,635 4,516 4,523 2,752 1,766 913 286 1,555 1,555 Bayview Male 439 15 57 201 87 0 32 30 0 17 0 Female 268 14 44 63 50 16 26 0 0 25 30 Bethel Island Male 428 108 75 39 68 16 32 39 0 51 0 Female 332 0 67 0 118 86 34 27 0 0 0 Blackhawk Male 2,151 97 174 348 569 545 314 48 0 12 44 Female 1,812 40 69 182 482 576 264 86 5 61 47 Brentwood Male 14,367 2,584 2,275 2,408 1,851 1,586 1,125 301 138 1,197 902 Female 11,731 716 1,270 1,995 2,938 1,970 770 222 182 975 693 Clayton Male 2,788 120 306 828 651 292 182 59 35 42 273 Female 2,444 149 93 531 853 282 149 68 0 138 181 Contra Costa County 36 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Sex Commuters 0:00- 4:59 5:00- 5:59 6:00- 6:59 7:00- 7:59 8:00- 8:59 9:00- 9:59 10:00- 10:59 11:00- 11:59 12:00 - 15:59 16:00- 23:59 Concord Male 33,779 2,626 3,252 7,057 8,460 4,485 2,134 959 688 2,378 1,740 Female 28,384 896 1,551 4,116 9,010 5,334 2,481 1,311 332 1,871 1,482 Contra Costa Cntr Male 2,666 69 116 413 526 1,087 209 32 20 181 13 Female 1,472 0 103 158 583 328 119 96 7 56 22 Crockett Male 804 47 53 97 261 143 77 34 28 11 53 Female 833 63 63 95 210 224 23 45 50 41 19 Danville Male 10,128 218 920 1,601 2,954 2,257 770 345 184 436 443 Female 8,467 106 314 856 2,797 2,095 957 354 141 597 250 Discovery Bay Male 4,097 594 920 595 567 610 176 171 36 105 323 Female 2,908 123 328 602 705 513 142 121 0 142 232 E Richmond Heights Male 723 4 7 90 232 203 39 115 0 28 5 Female 866 10 14 148 309 200 124 29 9 23 0 El Cerrito Male 5,837 202 383 535 1,478 1,596 777 245 114 285 222 Female 5,446 150 194 457 1,643 1,504 579 282 124 253 260 El Sobrante Male 3,649 277 462 463 825 467 314 128 125 298 290 Female 3,250 38 161 427 705 800 216 200 62 488 153 Hercules Male 6,688 635 868 1,223 1,315 905 366 372 48 418 538 Female 6,118 199 389 1,220 1,766 1,118 417 134 114 389 372 Kensington Male 1,221 10 74 85 398 425 149 24 9 27 20 Female 976 0 29 108 324 229 204 43 5 16 18 Lafayette Male 5,689 129 354 1,098 1,636 1,452 498 116 0 225 181 Female 4,792 63 367 573 1,321 1,083 657 253 115 209 151 Martinez Male 9,596 656 1,215 1,840 2,361 1,257 597 554 230 376 510 Female 9,548 313 550 1,417 3,511 1,939 503 404 75 510 326 Moraga Male 3,535 135 301 631 1,003 701 221 196 49 174 124 Female 3,024 19 19 286 947 593 336 161 59 458 146 Oakley Male 9,801 2,384 1,434 1,429 1,666 565 388 89 221 761 864 Female 8,575 558 936 1,289 1,887 1,644 499 417 154 519 672 Orinda Male 4,262 134 286 796 1,273 1,139 371 68 13 96 86 Female 3,639 19 100 377 1,194 977 480 208 13 213 58 Pacheco Male 1,053 92 173 96 224 168 95 27 41 41 96 Female 1,055 24 39 178 327 243 167 14 0 44 19 Pinole Male 4,649 414 642 927 824 588 343 123 58 497 233 Female 4,733 92 389 1,040 1,292 1,014 110 227 53 290 226 Pittsburg Male 17,022 2,115 3,305 3,479 2,734 1,276 729 487 285 1,203 1,409 Female 14,460 1,000 1,127 3,341 3,336 2,122 873 559 235 929 938 Pleasant Hill Male 9,225 624 814 1,865 2,386 1,547 745 463 59 467 255 Female 7,603 216 323 1,260 2,750 1,436 565 420 189 198 246 Richmond Male 27,080 2,156 4,019 5,208 6,033 3,627 1,184 696 382 2,069 1,706 Female 23,028 1,400 1,701 3,684 5,643 3,704 1,886 1,245 344 2,034 1,387 Rodeo Male 2,423 265 370 279 388 262 210 35 189 235 190 Female 1,996 64 230 335 466 337 81 90 31 235 127 San Pablo Male 7,909 870 1,459 1,362 1,412 732 424 205 100 828 517 Female 5,922 351 568 1,151 1,347 939 300 219 175 500 372 San Ramon Male 19,459 669 1,492 2,702 5,097 5,111 2,294 608 211 694 581 Female 14,711 191 618 1,715 4,619 3,666 1,864 557 188 594 699 Tara Hills Male 1,373 69 225 402 252 52 133 0 16 135 89 Female 1,091 61 55 217 237 175 28 31 78 138 71 Vine Hill Male 1,042 137 202 189 206 106 85 60 19 17 21 Female 757 48 62 108 263 80 38 40 23 38 57 Walnut Creek Male 14,923 336 1,345 2,759 4,350 3,137 1,262 367 195 710 462 Female 13,718 209 785 1,824 4,049 3,198 1,528 692 215 817 401 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 37 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 6 – Time Leave for Work by Sex of Commuter, Contra Costa County 201 9 Since 2019, Bay Area commuting patterns and use of public transportation has been dramatically altered by the COVID -19 outbreak and stay-at-home public health response . Although analysts predict some Bay Area commun ities may take up to two years to fully recover economically, traffic congestion will return to and surpass pre -COVID levels in the very near future, as travelers may be slow to accept the close confinement of crowded buses and BART trains. Poverty Status The US Department of Health and Human Services issues the official annual federal poverty level (FPL) annually, which provides the income level thresholds used to determine eligibility for a range of social service programs , including Head Start. The 20 21 FPL income limits are presented below. Table 26 – Federal Poverty Levels (FPL) by Household Size, 20 21 Persons in family or household 100% Poverty Income Level 1 $12,880 2 $17,420 3 $21,960 4 $26,500 5 $31,040 6 $35,580 7 $40,120 *8 $44,660 *Add $4,540 for each additional person over 8 Source: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty -guidelines Estimates for 2019 based on results of the 2015 -2019 5 -Year American Community Survey data collected prior to the COVID -19 outbreak indicate that 8.7% of all individuals in Contra Costa County live at income levels below the federal poverty level (FPL), a moderate improvement from 9.1% in the prior year. This compares favorably to California’s poverty rate for individuals (13.4%), which improved notably from 14.3% in 2018 . The county’s poverty rate among families (6.2%) continues to compare favorably to the statewide rate (9.6%), with both rates down since 2018 (6.5% and 10.4%, respectively). Poverty rates among all families with a single female head of household also fell from 18.3% to 17.6% in Contra Costa County and from 24.7% to 23.7% in the state. Notably, since 2017 the poverty rate a mong Contra Costa families with a single female head of household and children age 0 -4 only has increased from 34.8% to 36.0 %, while the statewide rate fell from 37.4% to 34.6 %. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 12:00-4:59 am 5:00-5:59 am 6:00-6:59 am 7:00-7:59 am 8:00-8:59 am 9:00-9:59 am 10:00-10:59 am 11:00-11:59 am 12:00-3:59 pm 4:00-11:59 pm Male Female Contra Costa County 38 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 27 – Percentage of Contra Costa Families with Income below FPL, 2013-2019 Family Type Percent Below Poverty 2013 2016 2017 2018 2019 All families 8.2 7.3 6.9 6.5 6.2 With related children under 18 years 12.4 11.2 10.6 9.7 9.3 With related children under 5 years only 12.0 10.5 9.8 9.0 9.0 Families with single female householder 21.5 20.4 18.9 18.3 17.6 With related children under 18 years 30.9 30.2 28.2 26.8 26.0 With related children under 5 years only 40.0 37.7 34.8 35.3 36.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Importantly, poverty also varies considerably by citizenship status, as 13.4% of all California residents live below the FPL in 201 9, compared to 20.1 % of all non -citizens in the state. In Contra Costa County, 8.7% of all residents, 8.2% of native born, 10.3% of all foreign born, 6.2% of naturalized citizens and 15.2% of non -citizens live below the FPL. All four rates are estimated lower in 2019, with poverty among non-citizens (down 1.1 percentage points) most improved. However, p overty rates among non -citizens remain particularly high in Concord (17.4%), Richmond (20.9%) and San Pablo (20.0 %), while non- citizens in Danville (12.9%), Hercules (11.0 %), San Ramon (6.3 %) and Walnut Creek (10.1%) have much lower than average poverty rates. Table 28 – Percentage of Residents with Income below FPL by Nativity , 2019 Area Population Native Foreign born Naturalized Non-citizen With known poverty status % < FPL With known poverty status % < FPL With known poverty status % < FPL With known poverty status % < FPL With known poverty status % < FPL California 38,535,926 13.4 28,090,609 12.8 10,445,317 14.8 5,414,083 9.9 5,031,234 20.1 Contra Costa 1,132,877 8.7 843,757 8.2 289,120 10.3 158,158 6.2 130,962 15.2 Antioch 110,518 13.9 85,679 14.9 24,839 10.6 13,658 6.2 11,181 15.9 Brentwood 61,862 5.9 52,818 5.4 9,044 8.8 6,017 5.7 3,027 15.1 Concord 128,307 9.8 92,889 8.3 35,418 13.5 16,062 8.9 19,356 17.4 Danville 44,381 3.4 37,262 2.6 7,119 7.9 4,749 5.3 2,370 12.9 El Cerrito 25,308 8.5 17,360 6.5 7,948 12.9 4,843 11.1 3,105 15.6 Hercules 25,538 4.6 16,964 4.0 8,574 5.6 6,664 4.1 1,910 11.0 Pittsburg 70,780 12.9 47,890 13.8 22,890 11.1 12,069 6.9 10,821 15.8 Richmond 108,804 14.7 70,332 14.2 38,472 15.4 16,483 8.1 21,989 20.9 San Pablo 30,573 16.3 16,277 16.8 14,296 15.7 5,203 8.2 9,093 20.0 San Ramon 75,456 3.7 47,519 3.3 27,937 4.3 16,580 3.0 11,357 6.3 Walnut Creek 68,652 5.3 52,609 4.9 16,043 6.7 10,494 4.9 5,549 10.1 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Of population whose poverty status has been determined. Among all married -couple families, the poverty rate in 2019 is 5.7% in the state and 3.3% in the county, with both rates improved since 2018. About 7,132 married -couple Contra Costa families live below the FPL , down 2.8% or 207 families since 2018 . Poverty rates for married -couple families exceeds the county (3.3%) most notably in Antioch (6.4%), Bethel Island (15.1%), Kensington (4.4%), Pittsburg (5.5%), Richmond (6.4%), San Pablo (9.3%) and Tara Hills (4.3%). Among all single male-headed households, the 2019 poverty rate is 12.7% in the state and 10.6% in the county, with both rates improved since 2018. About 2,039 single male -headed Contra Costa families live below the FPL , down 8.0% or 178 families since 2018. The highest poverty rates for single male -h eaded families occur in Bethel Island (28.7%), Brentwood (17.2%), El Sobrante (15.6%), Pittsburg (15.6%), San Pablo (23.4%) and Walnut Creek (16.2%). Among single female -headed households, the poverty rate is 23.1% in the state and 17.6% in the county . The number of single female -headed households below poverty fell 7.2% in the state and 2.7% (down 239 families) in the county since 2018. An estimated 8,504 single female -headed Contra Costa families live below the FPL in 2019, with notable high numbers in Antioch (1,828), Concord (1,113), Pittsburg Contra Costa County 39 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 (744) and Richmond (1,604). The poverty rate for single female -headed families exceeds the county (17.6%) by far in Antioch (26.3%), Bethel Island (26.4%), Contra Costa Centre (36.4%), Richmond (24.8%) and Rodeo (39.6%). Areas that saw the largest 1 -year declines in single female -headed families below the FPL include El Sobrante (down 79), Martinez (down 50), Pittsburg (down 77) and Richmond (down 167). In contrast, Antioch (up 201), Concord (up 27) and Pleasant Hi ll (up 54) saw the largest increases in single female -headed families below the FPL. Table 29 – Poverty Rate of Families by Family Type, 201 9 Area Married-couple family Single Male householder Single Female householder Total < FPL % < FPL Total < FPL % < FPL Total < FPL % < FPL California 6,491,236 372,346 5.7 776,575 98,863 12.7 1,690,625 391,254 23.1 Countywide 217,370 7,132 3.3 19,180 2,039 10.6 48,256 8,504 17.6 Alamo 3,993 65 1.6 127 0 0.0 190 22 11.6 Antioch 16,716 1,071 6.4 2,325 270 11.6 6,949 1,828 26.3 Bayview 337 0 0.0 61 0 0.0 40 0 0.0 Bethel Island 344 52 15.1 101 29 28.7 87 23 26.4 Blackhawk 2,894 56 1.9 95 0 0.0 127 28 22.0 Brentwood 12,967 223 1.7 777 134 17.2 2,294 239 10.4 Clayton 2,963 0 0.0 85 10 11.8 252 7 2.8 Concord 23,929 811 3.4 2,465 181 7.3 5,297 1,113 21.0 Contra Costa Ctr 1,281 0 0.0 110 0 0.0 55 20 36.4 Crockett 582 23 4.0 35 0 0.0 158 10 6.3 Danville 10,578 145 1.4 445 54 12.1 1,428 67 4.7 Discovery Bay 3,619 89 2.5 254 0 0.0 569 107 18.8 E Richmond Hgts 678 0 0.0 26 0 0.0 90 5 5.6 El Cerrito 5,553 189 3.4 279 17 6.1 966 135 14.0 El Sobrante 2,482 96 3.9 326 51 15.6 664 66 9.9 Hercules 5,000 111 2.2 434 5 1.2 1,097 104 9.5 Kensington 1,328 58 4.4 44 0 0.0 139 0 0.0 Lafayette 6,351 40 0.6 301 0 0.0 587 0 0.0 Martinez 7,496 110 1.5 402 24 6.0 1,719 112 6.5 Moraga 3,907 64 1.6 46 0 0.0 401 11 2.7 Oakley 7,835 169 2.2 639 81 12.7 1,321 222 16.8 Orinda 5,238 88 1.7 101 0 0.0 340 20 5.9 Pacheco 848 0 0.0 86 11 12.8 240 20 8.3 Pinole 3,188 56 1.8 267 9 3.4 1,343 45 3.4 Pittsburg 10,100 559 5.5 2,069 322 15.6 4,056 744 18.3 Pleasant Hill 6,969 218 3.1 542 41 7.6 1,453 216 14.9 Richmond 15,726 1,006 6.4 2,712 316 11.7 6,470 1,604 24.8 Rodeo 1,653 52 3.1 214 0 0.0 760 301 39.6 San Pablo 3,959 368 9.3 931 218 23.4 1,919 417 21.7 San Ramon 17,882 393 2.2 599 24 4.0 1,703 169 9.9 Tara Hills 809 35 4.3 134 0 0.0 284 0 0.0 Vine Hill 749 0 0.0 83 0 0.0 124 31 25.0 Walnut Creek 15,444 371 2.4 736 119 16.2 1,913 170 8.9 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Of population whose poverty status has been determined. About 27.7% (1,978) of all married-couple families living below the FPL in Contra Costa County have children less than 5, compared to 30.0% in the state, with the county numbers down 6.2% or 130 families and the state numbers down 10.0% since 2018. Significant 1 -year decreases in married- couples with 0 -4 year olds living below the FPL occurred in Antioch (down 73 families to 404), Oakley (down 59 families to 22), Pittsburg (down 41 families to 207) and Walnut Cree k (down 38 families to 26). In contrast, Richmond (up 30 families to 436) saw a notable 1 -year increase in married -couples with 0 -4 year olds below the FPL. About 30.3% (618) of all single male -headed families living below the FPL in Contra Costa have chil dren less than 5, compared to 31.9% in the state, with the county numbers up 2.0% or 12 families while the state numbers fell 11.9% since 2018. Significant 1 -year decreases in single male -headed families with 0 -4 year olds below the FPL occurred in Concord (down 32 families to Contra Costa County 40 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 98), El Cerrito (down 11 families to 7) and Pittsburg (down 10 families to 75). In contrast, Richmond (up 52 families to 159) and Walnut Creek (up 23 families to 77) saw notable 1 -year increases in single male- headed families with 0 -4 year olds below the FPL. About 35.9 % (3,052 ) of all single female -headed households living below the FPL in Contra Costa County have children less than 5, compared to 36.1 % statewide . Since 2018 , the county saw a moderate 2.6 % or 80 family decrease in the number of single female-headed families with children age 0 -4 living below the FPL, while the state as a whole saw a sizable 8.1% decrease . The number of single female-headed families with 0 -4 year olds below the FPL fell most notably in El Sobrante (down 32 families to 14), Martinez (down 54 families to 27), Pinole (down 22 families to 10), Pittsburg (down 62 families to 270) and Richmond (down 57 families to 591). In contrast, large increases in the number of single female - headed families with 0 -4 year olds below the FPL occurred in Brentwood (up 29 families to 44), Concord (up 130 families to 486), El Cerrito (up 24 families to 40) and Oakley (up 52 families to 174). In 2018, areas with the highest number of single female -headed families with 0 -4 year olds below the FPL include Antioch (661), Concord (486), Oakley (174), Pittsburg (270), Richmond (591) and San Pablo (172). Table 30 – Families below FPL with Children Age 0 -4, Contra Costa County 201 9 Area Total Families Families < FPL Married-Couple HH < FPL Single Male HH < FPL Single Female HH < FPL All < FPL With Kids < 5 % of All < FPL All < FPL With Kids < 5 % of All < FPL All < FPL With Kids < 5 % of All < FPL California 8,958,436 862,463 372,346 111,761 30.0 98,863 31,566 31.9 391,254 141,197 36.1 Countywide 284,806 17,675 7,132 1,978 27.7 2,039 618 30.3 8,504 3,052 35.9 Alamo 4,310 87 65 0 0.0 0 0 -- 22 0 0.0 Antioch 25,990 3,169 1,071 404 37.7 270 90 33.3 1,828 661 36.2 Bayview 438 0 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 -- Bethel Island 532 104 52 11 21.2 29 0 0.0 23 23 100.0 Blackhawk 3,116 84 56 0 0.0 0 0 -- 28 0 0.0 Brentwood 16,038 596 223 24 10.8 134 0 0.0 239 44 18.4 Clayton 3,300 17 0 0 -- 10 0 0.0 7 0 0.0 Concord 31,691 2,105 811 291 35.9 181 98 54.1 1,113 486 43.7 Contra Costa Ctr 1,446 20 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 20 0 0.0 Crockett 775 33 23 0 0.0 0 0 -- 10 0 0.0 Danville 12,451 266 145 9 6.2 54 0 0.0 67 0 0.0 Discovery Bay 4,442 196 89 12 13.5 0 0 -- 107 28 26.2 E Richmond Hts 794 5 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 5 5 100.0 El Cerrito 6,798 341 189 28 14.8 17 7 41.2 135 40 29.6 El Sobrante 3,472 213 96 17 17.7 51 0 0.0 66 14 21.2 Hercules 6,531 220 111 0 0.0 5 0 0.0 104 11 10.6 Kensington 1,511 58 58 0 0.0 0 0 -- 0 0 -- Lafayette 7,239 40 40 17 42.5 0 0 -- 0 0 -- Martinez 9,617 246 110 20 18.2 24 0 0.0 112 27 24.1 Moraga 4,354 75 64 0 0.0 0 0 -- 11 0 0.0 Oakley 9,795 472 169 22 13.0 81 0 0.0 222 174 78.4 Orinda 5,679 108 88 0 0.0 0 0 -- 20 0 0.0 Pacheco 1,174 31 0 0 -- 11 0 0.0 20 0 0.0 Pinole 4,798 110 56 12 21.4 9 0 0.0 45 10 22.2 Pittsburg 16,225 1,625 559 207 37.0 322 75 23.3 744 270 36.3 Pleasant Hill 8,964 475 218 93 42.7 41 0 0.0 216 44 20.4 Richmond 24,908 2,926 1,006 436 43.3 316 159 50.3 1,604 591 36.8 Rodeo 2,627 353 52 16 30.8 0 0 -- 301 105 34.9 San Pablo 6,809 1,003 368 162 44.0 218 105 48.2 417 172 41.2 San Ramon 20,184 586 393 70 17.8 24 0 0.0 169 42 24.9 Tara Hills 1,227 35 35 0 0.0 0 0 -- 0 0 -- Vine Hill 956 31 0 0 -- 0 0 -- 31 0 0.0 Walnut Creek 18,093 660 371 26 7.0 119 77 64.7 170 78 45.9 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Includes population with known poverty status. Contra Costa County 41 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 California has an estimated 5,149,742 (13.4%) residents of all ages living below the FPL in 201 9, which represents a 6.1% decline of 337,399 residents since 201 8. Contra Costa County saw a similar 3.9 % decline of 3,948 residents living below the FPL. In 201 9, Contra Costa has an estimated 102,543 (8.7%) residents of all ages in poverty. The poverty rate among 0 -5 year olds is 18.6% in California, down from 20.2% in 2018, and a 9.1% reduction of the number in poverty. The poverty rate among 0 -5 year olds is 11.7% in the county, down from 12.2% in 2018, and a 4.3% reduction of the number in poverty. The poverty rate among 6 -17 year olds is 17.9% in California and 10.6% in the county, with both rates down since 2018 and with the number of Contra Costa 6 -17 year olds below the FPL (19,090 ) down a sizable 5.9% or 1,207 children. The poverty rate among 60 -84 year olds is 10.2% in California and 6.4% in the county, but the number of 60 -84 year olds below the FPL in the county (14,256) has risen 5.0% and 367728 residents since 201 8 . The poverty rate among seniors age 85 and older is 12.5 % in California and 8.5% in the county, with the rate and number of county seniors age 85 and older below the FPL (1,810 ) relatively unchanged since 2018 . Table 31 – Residents below Poverty and Poverty Rates , 2019 Area Pop. Total < FPL Age 0-5 < FPL Age 6-17 < FPL Age 18-59 < FPL Age 60-84 < FPL > 84 < FPL California 38,535,926 5,149,742 535,885 1,075,038 2,746,769 707,788 84,262 % 13.4 18.6 17.9 12.5 10.2 12.5 Contra Costa 1,132,877 98,595 9,077 19,090 54,362 14,256 1,810 % 8.7 11.7 10.6 8.6 6.4 8.5 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Includes population with known poverty status. Figure 7 – State and County Poverty Rates by Age Group, 201 9 About 28,167 Contra Costa children of all ages live below the FPL in 201 9 , which is a notable 5.4% improvement since 201 8 and 1,615 fewer children in poverty. Several areas saw notable declines in children in poverty including Antioch (down 189), Clayton (down 42), Concord (down 340), El Sobrante (down 78), Hercules (down 42), Martinez (down 95), Pittsburg (down 141), Richmond (down 96), San Pablo (down 105), San Ramon (down 61) and Walnut Creek (down 232). However, several areas saw significant increases in children in poverty since 2018 including Bethel Island (up 89), Crockett (up 37), Danville (up 56), Moraga (up 30), Oakley (up 117), Pleasant Hill (up 110) a nd Rodeo (up 65). Considering children age 0-5, poverty rates in the county are significantly higher than the countywide average (11.7%) in Antioch (24.4%), Bethel Island (100.0%), Pittsburg (15.0%), Richmond (24.0%), Rodeo (29.1%), San Pablo (29.8%) and Walnut Creek (46.6%). Critically, large populations of 0 -5 year olds below the FPL may be found in Antioch (1,986), Concord (1,288), Pittsburg (880), Richmond (1,940) and San Pablo (630). Since 2018, areas that saw the largest de creases in 0 -5 year olds below the FPL include Antioch (down 121), El Sobrante (down 34), Martinez (down 56), Pittsburg (down 94), San Pablo (down 41) and Walnut Creek (down 86). Areas with notable increases include Brentwood (up 77), Concord (up 77) and Richmond (up 66). 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 All Age 0-5 Age 6-17 Age 18-59 Age 60-84 85 and over California Contra Costa Contra Costa County 42 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 32 – Population below Poverty Level and Poverty Rates by Age Group, 2019 Area Pop. Total < FPL Age 0-5 < FPL Age 6-17 < FPL Age 18-59 < FPL Age 60-84 < FPL > 84 < FPL Alamo 14,818 662 14 71 363 201 13 % 4.5 2.7 2.5 5.6 4.3 4.2 Antioch 110,518 15,359 1,986 3,795 8,018 1,396 164 % 13.9 24.4 19.9 12.7 7.6 9.7 Bayview 1,862 14 0 0 0 14 0 % 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 Bethel Island 2,161 510 59 89 256 106 0 % 23.6 100.0 30.9 21.3 17.7 0.0 Blackhawk 9,593 308 0 51 137 120 0 % 3.2 0.0 3.3 2.9 4.6 0.0 Brentwood 61,862 3,641 186 1,157 1,679 558 61 % 5.9 5.0 9.2 5.1 4.9 4.4 Clayton 12,033 164 0 9 95 58 2 % 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.5 2.0 0.8 Concord 128,307 12,533 1,288 1,759 7,196 2,120 170 % 9.8 13.0 10.7 9.6 8.5 8.4 Contra Costa Ctr 6,558 482 0 22 375 83 2 % 7.3 0.0 9.6 7.4 9.8 100.0 Crockett 3,245 280 0 50 203 27 0 % 8.6 0.0 15.8 11.0 3.2 0.0 Danville 44,381 1,528 17 278 717 444 72 % 3.4 0.6 3.4 3.2 4.5 5.8 Discovery Bay 16,133 1,242 75 399 599 162 7 % 7.7 6.8 15.2 6.8 4.7 5.9 E. Richmond Hgts 3,157 101 6 5 56 24 10 % 3.2 4.8 1.6 3.3 2.5 11.4 El Cerrito 25,308 2,154 95 171 1,457 321 110 % 8.5 5.3 6.4 10.3 5.4 15.7 El Sobrante 13,818 1,135 34 178 826 89 8 % 8.2 4.3 9.9 9.7 3.5 4.6 Hercules 25,538 1,169 27 156 726 236 24 % 4.6 2.0 4.4 4.9 4.2 10.0 Kensington 5,329 287 0 14 212 61 0 % 5.4 0.0 1.7 8.7 3.7 0.0 Lafayette 26,120 896 42 82 590 138 44 % 3.4 3.1 1.6 4.5 2.3 11.5 Martinez 37,702 1,933 50 211 1,341 310 21 % 5.1 1.9 4.5 6.3 3.7 3.3 Moraga 15,648 647 0 58 370 174 45 % 4.1 0.0 1.8 5.2 4.2 7.6 Oakley 41,071 3,111 300 657 1,812 342 0 % 7.6 8.5 7.9 7.8 6.0 0.0 Orinda 19,588 603 0 101 274 130 98 % 3.1 0.0 2.9 3.0 2.5 13.4 Pacheco 4,361 237 0 22 141 62 12 % 5.4 0.0 4.8 5.5 6.3 21.1 Pinole 19,117 889 56 103 541 154 35 % 4.7 5.7 4.7 5.0 3.3 6.6 Pittsburg 70,780 9,129 880 2,007 4,933 1,249 60 % 12.9 15.0 17.7 11.8 11.2 11.5 Pleasant Hill 34,535 2,695 177 206 1,832 445 35 % 7.8 6.9 5.1 9.2 6.1 4.4 Richmond 108,804 15,946 1,940 3,132 8,680 2,044 150 % 14.7 24.0 20.1 13.5 10.7 9.4 Rodeo 10,394 1,526 201 503 720 98 4 % 14.7 29.1 31.0 11.8 5.7 1.6 San Pablo 30,573 4,975 630 1,002 2,720 566 57 % 16.3 29.8 18.3 14.5 14.1 25.0 Contra Costa County 43 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Pop. Total < FPL Age 0-5 < FPL Age 6-17 < FPL Age 18-59 < FPL Age 60-84 < FPL > 84 < FPL San Ramon 75,456 2,802 153 403 1,384 710 152 % 3.7 3.1 2.5 3.2 6.9 19.4 Tara Hills 5,117 272 0 79 166 24 3 % 5.3 0.0 10.2 5.5 2.4 4.0 Vine Hill 3,886 277 0 45 172 60 0 % 7.1 0.0 6.3 8.0 10.2 0.0 Walnut Creek 68,652 3,658 320 416 245 1,845 498 % 5.3 46.6 0.6 5.8 5.1 3.6 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Includes population with known poverty status. Figure 8 – Poverty Rate of Children Age 0 -5, 2019 Figure 9 – Number of Children Age 0-5 Living Below FPL, 2019 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Be t h e l I s l a n d Wa l n u t C r e e k Sa n P a b l o Ro d e o An t i o c h Ri c h m o n d Pi t t s b u r g Co n c o r d Oa k l e y Pl e a s a n t H i l l Di s c o v e r y B a y Pi n o l e El C e r r i t o Br e n t w o o d E. R i c h m o n d H g t s El S o b r a n t e La f a y e t t e Sa n R a m o n Al a m o He r c u l e s Ma r t i n e z Da n v i l l e 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 An t i o c h Ri c h m o n d Co n c o r d Pi t t s b u r g Sa n P a b l o Wa l n u t C r e e k Oa k l e y Ro d e o Br e n t w o o d Pl e a s a n t H i l l Sa n R a m o n El C e r r i t o Di s c o v e r y B a y Be t h e l I s l a n d Pi n o l e Ma r t i n e z La f a y e t t e El S o b r a n t e He r c u l e s Da n v i l l e Al a m o E. R i c h m o n d H g t s Cl a y t o n Contra Costa County 44 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 In 2019 , 5.2 % (4,029) of all 0-5 year olds in the county live below 50% of FPL, virtually unchanged since 2018. This rate continues to compare favorably to California as a whole (7.8%), although California saw a 9.5% reduction in 0 -5 year olds below 50% of FPL since 2018. Another 3.0% (2,336 ) of all 0 -5 year olds in the county live between 50% and 74% of FPL, compared to 5.1 % statewide. Overall, 15,203 (19.7%) of all 0 -5 year olds in the county live at or below 149% of FPL in 2019, which represents a sizable 5.6% reduction from 16,105 in 2018. Although the percentage of Contra Costa 0 -5 year olds at or below 149% of FPL still compares favorably to the state (30.2%), the state saw a higher 7.4% reduction since 2018 . Communities with a much higher than average rate (19.7 %) of 0 -5 year olds below 150% of FPL include Antioch (37.9%), Bayview (38.0%), Bethel Island (100.0%), Pittsburg (26.0%), Richmond (40.0%), Rodeo (43.4%) and San Pablo (45.2%). Areas with the largest population of 0 -5 year olds at or below 149% of FPL include Antioch (3,078), Brentwood (593), Concord (2,005), Pittsburg (1,527), Richmond (3,230) and San Pablo (954). Communities that saw the largest 1 -year declines in the number of 0 -5 year olds below 150% of FPL include Pinole (down 71), Pittsburg (down 219 ), Richmond (down 181), San Ramon (down 49) and Walnut Creek (down 106). In 2018 in California as a whole, an estimated 11.3% of married and 40.1% of unmarried women with births live below the FPL, down 1.0 and 2.3 percentage points, respectively. In Contr a Costa County, 8.4% of married and 39.0% of unmarried women with births live below the FPL in 2018, also down 0.5 and 2.8 percentage points, respectively. Within subcommunities, poverty rates among married women with births fell most notably in Antioch (d own 6.1 points to 13.4%), Concord (down 2.4 points to 6.0%), El Cerrito (down 6.1 points to 0.0%), Hercules (down 4.3 points to 4.4%) and San Pablo (own 3.9 points to 18.5%). In contrast, poverty rates among married women with births rose considerably in B rentwood (up 2.0 points to 4.2%), Discovery B ay (up 4.4 points to 22.7%) and Pleasant Hill (up 5.8 points to 36.2%). Since 2018, poverty rates among unmarried women with births fell most notably in Antioch (down 7.4 points to 34.2%), Brentwood (down 22.1 p oints to 26.2%), Discovery Bay (down 50.0 points to 0.0%), Martinez (down 29.0 points to 7.8%), Richmond (down 7.4 points to 40.0%), San Ramon (down 15.4 points to 18.8%) and Walnut Creek (down 59.1 points to 0.0%). In contrast, poverty rates among unmarried women with births rose significantly in Oakley (up 43.1 points to 49.6%), Pittsburg (up 2.6 points to 52.8%) and San Pablo (up 4.2 points to 44.4%). Countywide, of 13,224 women age 15 -50 who gave birth in the past year, 819 married and 1,339 unmarried women live below the FPL in 2019, which represents 38 fewer married women but 30 more unmarried women with births below the FPL since 2018. Estimates of the number of women with births in poverty fell most notably in Antioch (down 67), El Cerrito (down 13), Hercules (down 13), Martinez (down 53), Rodeo (down 22), San Ramon (down 15) and Walnut Creek (down 16). In contrast, the number of women with births living below the FPL rose significantly in Concord (up 26), Oakley (up 117), Richmond (up 90) and San Pa blo (up 28). Table 33 – Ratio of Income to Pove rty Level for Children Age 0 -5 by Geography, 20 19 Area Total 0-5 Under .50 FPL .50 to .74 FPL .75 to .99 FPL 1.00 to 1.24 1.25 to 1.49 Total < 150% California 2,881,148 224,290 147,088 164,507 178,201 156,977 871,063 % 7.8 5.1 5.7 6.2 5.4 30.2 Contra Costa Cnty 77,307 4,029 2,336 2,712 3,306 2,820 15,203 % 5.2 3.0 3.5 4.3 3.6 19.7 Alamo 515 14 0 0 0 0 14 % 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Antioch 8,128 698 347 941 553 539 3,078 % 8.6 4.3 11.6 6.8 6.6 37.9 Bayview 92 0 0 0 35 0 35 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 38.0 Bethel Island 59 32 27 0 0 0 59 Contra Costa County 45 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Total 0-5 Under .50 FPL .50 to .74 FPL .75 to .99 FPL 1.00 to 1.24 1.25 to 1.49 Total < 150% % 54.2 45.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Brentwood 3,731 48 70 68 299 108 593 % 1.3 1.9 1.8 8.0 2.9 15.9 Clayton 649 0 0 0 19 0 19 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 Concord 9,907 603 453 232 460 257 2,005 % 6.1 4.6 2.3 4.6 2.6 20.2 Contra Costa Ctr 410 0 0 0 53 0 53 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 12.9 Crockett 182 0 0 0 11 0 11 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 Danville 2,941 17 0 0 0 0 17 % 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Discovery Bay 1,095 24 0 51 0 0 75 % 2.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 6.8 E Richmond Hts 125 0 0 6 0 0 6 % 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 El Cerrito 1,793 61 10 24 142 26 263 % 3.4 0.6 1.3 7.9 1.5 14.7 El Sobrante 799 0 21 13 33 59 126 % 0.0 2.6 1.6 4.1 7.4 15.8 Hercules 1,346 27 0 0 10 179 216 % 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 13.3 16.0 Lafayette 1,360 29 13 0 0 0 42 % 2.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Martinez 2,644 0 0 50 30 13 93 % 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.1 0.5 3.5 Oakley 3,532 195 78 27 96 93 489 % 5.5 2.2 0.8 2.7 2.6 13.8 Pacheco 305 0 0 0 0 49 49 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 16.1 Pinole 991 18 38 0 9 23 88 % 1.8 3.8 0.0 0.9 2.3 8.9 Pittsburg 5,874 503 267 110 304 343 1,527 % 8.6 4.5 1.9 5.2 5.8 26.0 Pleasant Hill 2,556 68 17 92 16 44 237 % 2.7 0.7 3.6 0.6 1.7 9.3 Richmond 8,076 690 510 740 679 611 3,230 % 8.5 6.3 9.2 8.4 7.6 40.0 Rodeo 691 113 17 71 49 50 300 % 16.4 2.5 10.3 7.1 7.2 43.4 San Pablo 2,112 315 244 71 222 102 954 % 14.9 11.6 3.4 10.5 4.8 45.2 San Ramon 4,973 124 29 0 0 21 174 % 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.5 Tara Hills 286 0 0 0 14 6 20 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 2.1 7.0 Vine Hill 373 0 0 0 73 0 73 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 0.0 19.6 Walnut Creek 3,777 240 61 19 0 5 325 % 6.4 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 8.6 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Based on population age 0-5 with known poverty status. Census places with zero estimates for children age 0-5 at 149% of FPL or less are not reported. Contra Costa County 46 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 34 – Poverty Status of Women with Births in Past Year by Census Place, 201 9 Area Women 15-50 with known poverty status With births Married Unmarried With births With births < FPL % < FPL With births With births < FPL % < FPL California 9,472,961 468,816 321,965 36,362 11.3 146,851 58,816 40.1 Contra Costa Cty 268,188 13,224 9,788 819 8.4 3,436 1,339 39.0 Alamo 2,425 19 19 9 47.4 0 0 -- Antioch 28,336 1,432 991 133 13.4 441 151 34.2 Bayview 335 30 14 0 0.0 16 0 0.0 Bethel Island 364 10 10 10 100.0 0 0 -- Blackhawk 2,090 64 64 0 0.0 0 0 -- Brentwood 14,021 589 524 22 4.2 65 17 26.2 Clayton 2,555 70 70 0 0.0 0 0 -- Concord 29,774 1,745 1,334 80 6.0 411 240 58.4 Contra Costa Ctr 1,917 144 144 0 0.0 0 0 -- Crockett 709 28 28 0 0.0 0 0 -- Danville 8,689 393 377 0 0.0 16 0 0.0 Discovery Bay 3,806 211 172 39 22.7 39 0 0.0 E Richmond Hts 673 6 6 0 0.0 0 0 -- El Cerrito 6,071 231 219 0 0.0 12 6 50.0 El Sobrante 3,097 117 100 0 0.0 17 17 100.0 Hercules 5,971 220 159 7 4.4 61 0 0.0 Kensington 925 45 32 0 0.0 13 0 0.0 Lafayette 5,627 135 124 0 0.0 11 0 0.0 Martinez 8,579 404 314 0 0.0 90 7 7.8 Moraga 2,941 123 110 0 0.0 13 0 0.0 Oakley 10,860 669 431 16 3.7 238 118 49.6 Orinda 3,977 119 95 0 0.0 24 0 0.0 Pacheco 1,056 54 54 0 0.0 0 0 -- Pinole 4,509 250 142 0 0.0 108 0 0.0 Pittsburg 17,980 1,267 778 69 8.9 489 258 52.8 Pleasant Hill 8,255 280 232 84 36.2 48 0 0.0 Richmond 28,257 1,703 1,013 242 23.9 690 276 40.0 Rodeo 2,681 134 56 0 0.0 78 56 71.8 San Pablo 8,093 457 200 37 18.5 257 114 44.4 San Ramon 19,165 606 537 34 6.3 69 13 18.8 Tara Hills 1,116 85 36 0 0.0 49 0 0.0 Vine Hill 885 7 7 0 0.0 0 0 -- Walnut Creek 14,180 661 610 14 2.3 51 0 0.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Public Assistance According to the California Department of Social Services CalWORKs Annual Report (July 20 20), California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) caseloads have increased since December 2019 . As of July 2020, the county has 6,432 c ash grant CalWORKs cases, up 1.6% or 100 cases since 201 9 . Of 6,432 cases, 31.7% (2,041 ) involve no parents. Cash grant CalWORKs cases in July 2020 involve 11,597 children, up 2.2 % or 245 children, and 30.3 % (3,514 ) of children in the program are parentless. Critically, the number of children in cases involving two parents has increased a considerable 37.7% or 228 children since the COVID -19 outbreak. Based on 2019 ACS estimates, 6.1% of California households receive SSI benefits, compared to 5.3% (21,069) of Contra Costa households, a 1.1% decline in the state but a notable 4.1% increase in the county. Compared to a mean $10,315 statewide, SSI househol ds in the county receive an average of $10,665, ranging from $7,029 (Pacheco) and $14,718 (Moraga) annually. Since 2018, the number of Contra Costa County households with SSI benefits rose most notably in Alamo (up 114), Brentwood (up 114), Richmond (up 12 8), Pittsburg (up 219) and Antioch (up 274), while Martinez (down 80), Pacheco (down 109) and Concord (down 144) saw the largest declines in SSI households. Contra Costa County 47 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 35 – CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases and Children, Contra Costa County 2010 - 2020 Two Parent Zero Parent All Other TANF Timed-Out Safety Net / FF / LTS Total Dec 2010 Cases 757 3,633 4,962 828 1,063 11,243 Children in Caseload 1,517 6,335 7,573 1,590 2,276 19,291 Dec 2012 Cases 635 3,413 4,176 720 1,543 10,487 Children in Caseload 1,230 5,853 6,177 1,421 3,169 17,850 Dec 2014 Cases 608 2,949 3,870 757 1,668 9,852 Children in Caseload 1,221 5,143 5,867 1,507 3,403 17,141 Dec 2016 Cases 372 2,632 2,622 551 1,660 7,837 Children in Caseload 794 4,582 3,904 1,098 3,366 13,744 July 2018 Cases 288 2,284 2,171 499 1,631 6,873 Children in Caseload 647 3,971 3,351 989 3,323 12,281 Dec 2019 Cases 255 2,013 1,992 408 1,664 6,332 Children in Caseload 604 3,446 3,012 819 3,471 11,352 July 2020 Cases 346 2,041 1,952 425 1,668 6,432 Children in Caseload 832 3,514 2,987 824 3,440 11,597 Source: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Research-and-Data. Table 36 – Public Assistance Households and Income by Place, 201 9 Area Total HHs Median HH income HHs with SSI % with SSI Mean SSI HHs with cash PA % with cash PA Mean cash PA HHs with SNAP % with SNAP California 13,044,266 $75,235 791,896 6.1 $10,315 421,752 3.2 $4,578 1,164,713 8.9 Contra Costa 394,769 $99,716 21,069 5.3 $10,665 9,474 2.4 $4,719 24,553 6.2 Alamo 5,156 $239,545 289 5.6 $7,343 28 0.5 -- 28 0.5 Antioch 34,028 $76,601 3,530 10.4 $11,476 2,073 6.1 $4,725 4,896 14.4 Bayview 587 $90,984 25 4.3 -- 16 2.7 -- 27 4.6 Bethel Island 906 $33,583 21 2.3 -- 22 2.4 -- 63 7.0 Blackhawk 3,458 $214,754 39 1.1 $12,146 10 0.3 -- 16 0.5 Brentwood 19,906 $108,994 1,180 5.9 $9,123 507 2.5 $6,003 988 5.0 Clayton 4,232 $157,768 202 4.8 $10,726 28 0.7 -- 61 1.4 Concord 46,455 $89,564 2,279 4.9 $10,705 1,234 2.7 $4,419 3,203 6.9 Contra Costa Ctr 3,611 $97,684 161 4.5 $11,289 36 1.0 -- 22 0.6 Crockett 1,448 $79,951 21 1.5 -- 80 5.5 $4,518 145 10.0 Danville 16,053 $160,808 310 1.9 $12,865 199 1.2 $4,407 139 0.9 Discovery Bay 5,482 $130,547 88 1.6 $9,890 93 1.7 $7,583 252 4.6 E Richmond Hts 1,360 $91,100 63 4.6 $12,159 27 2.0 $3,933 12 0.9 El Cerrito 10,034 $108,298 366 3.6 $9,438 119 1.2 $4,041 220 2.2 El Sobrante 4,901 $86,626 354 7.2 $10,661 174 3.6 $4,393 424 8.7 Hercules 8,402 $117,018 412 4.9 $9,577 131 1.6 $3,279 429 5.1 Kensington 2,254 $146,563 12 0.5 -- 24 1.1 $7,267 0 0.0 Lafayette 9,426 $178,889 351 3.7 $9,092 49 0.5 $1,886 118 1.3 Martinez 14,723 $107,328 635 4.3 $9,863 217 1.5 $4,750 332 2.3 Moraga 5,867 $140,378 71 1.2 $14,718 9 0.2 -- 9 0.2 Oakley 11,778 $104,893 723 6.1 $9,571 374 3.2 $4,220 754 6.4 Orinda 7,167 $223,217 152 2.1 $6,338 42 0.6 $4,298 65 0.9 Pacheco 1,692 $72,383 72 4.3 $7,029 23 1.4 -- 142 8.4 Pinole 6,748 $100,315 426 6.3 $13,477 122 1.8 $5,484 415 6.1 Pittsburg 21,357 $74,459 1,730 8.1 $9,857 913 4.3 $4,809 3,041 14.2 Pleasant Hill 13,817 $118,947 417 3.0 $11,240 121 0.9 $4,606 314 2.3 Richmond 37,088 $68,472 2,918 7.9 $10,930 1,035 2.8 $3,973 3,545 9.6 Rodeo 3,384 $74,688 448 13.2 $14,598 300 8.9 $6,622 685 20.2 San Pablo 9,221 $53,198 975 10.6 $9,732 213 2.3 $4,004 1,430 15.5 San Ramon 25,535 $160,783 500 2.0 $10,235 264 1.0 $4,905 281 1.1 Tara Hills 1,678 $73,857 124 7.4 $10,210 0 0.0 -- 31 1.8 Vine Hill 1,314 $106,855 88 6.7 $8,927 93 7.1 $2,235 66 5.0 Walnut Creek 31,390 $105,948 860 2.7 $12,023 423 1.3 $6,025 682 2.2 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 48 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 The number of households receiving cash public assistance fell 4.8% in the state and 6.4% in the county, with 9,474 (2.4%) Contra Costa households on cash PA in 2019. The estimated number of Contra Costa households with cash PA fell most notably in San Pab lo (down 113), Richmond (down 160) and Concord (down 320), while Vine Hill (up 30) and Brentwood (up 46) saw the largest increases. Compared to the countywide average of 2.4%, the percentage of households with cash PA exceeds the county by far in Oakley (3.2%), El Sobrante (3.6%), Pittsburg (4.3%), Crockett (5.5%), Antioch (6.1%), Vine Hill (7.1%) and Rodeo (8.9%). Pittsburg (913), Richmond (1,035), Concord (1,234) and Antioch (2,073) have the highest number of cash PA households and together comprise 55.5% of all Contra Costa cash PA households. Mean annual cash PA is up $20 in the state ($4,578) and $67 ($4,719) in the county, with the highest benefits in Brentwood ($6,003), Walnut Creek ($6,025), Rodeo ($6,622), Kensington ($7,267) and Discovery Bay ($7,5 83) and the lowest in Hercules ($3,279), Vine Hill ($2,235) and Lafayette ($1,886). About 24,553 (6.2%) of all Contra Costa households are estimated to receive SNAP benefits prior to the COVID -19 outbreak in 2019, compared to 8.9% statewide, and both stat e (down 1.7%) and county (down 2.0%) saw a decline in the number of SNAP households since 2018. The number of SNAP households fell most notably in Martinez (down 64), Concord (down 130) and Richmond (down 528) but rose notably in Bethel Island (up 36), Laf ayette (up 55), Antioch (up 61), Rodeo (up 90) and Brentwood (up 102). Table 37 – Children in Public Assistance Households by Family Type and Place, 201 9 Area Pop. 0-17 in HHs 0-17 in SSI, cash PA or SNAP HH % 0-17 in SSI, cash PA or SNAP HH Children in PA Households In married- couple HH In Single Male HH In Single Female HH In Non- families California 9,000,859 2,213,941 24.6 1,057,366 231,564 910,593 14,418 Contra Costa Cnty 260,785 45,288 17.4 20,848 4,132 20,005 303 Alamo 3,410 180 5.3 180 0 0 0 Antioch 27,598 9,627 34.9 3,001 1,213 5,380 33 Bayview 346 48 13.9 0 0 48 0 Bethel Island 347 89 25.6 89 0 0 0 Blackhawk 2,014 20 1.0 20 0 0 0 Brentwood 16,395 2,613 15.9 1,760 247 606 0 Clayton 2,759 144 5.2 76 11 57 0 Concord 26,632 4,928 18.5 2,623 451 1,765 89 Contra Costa Ctr 640 26 4.1 4 0 22 0 Crockett 518 39 7.5 29 0 10 0 Danville 11,212 169 1.5 131 0 38 0 Discovery Bay 3,740 453 12.1 56 123 274 0 E Richmond Hts 429 10 2.3 10 0 0 0 El Cerrito 4,493 293 6.5 140 51 102 0 El Sobrante 2,603 533 20.5 188 94 244 7 Hercules 4,969 911 18.3 669 81 161 0 Kensington 1,057 13 1.2 13 0 0 0 Lafayette 6,701 227 3.4 159 26 42 0 Martinez 7,470 707 9.5 281 0 416 10 Moraga 3,769 4 0.1 4 0 0 0 Oakley 12,063 2,301 19.1 1,456 101 744 0 Orinda 4,532 150 3.3 114 36 0 0 Pacheco 762 124 16.3 60 0 64 0 Pinole 3,307 675 20.4 324 95 183 73 Pittsburg 17,681 5,706 32.3 2,166 595 2,871 74 Pleasant Hill 6,675 647 9.7 362 0 275 10 Richmond 23,924 6,200 25.9 2,541 520 3,132 7 Rodeo 2,321 1,084 46.7 240 11 833 0 San Pablo 7,622 2,122 27.8 1,044 129 949 0 San Ramon 21,377 762 3.6 693 0 69 0 Tara Hills 1,062 40 3.8 0 0 40 0 Vine Hill 1,083 308 28.4 205 0 103 0 Walnut Creek 11,795 982 8.3 426 196 360 0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 49 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 The 2019 ACS estimates that 24.6% of 0 -17 year olds in California and 17.4% (45,288) in Contra Costa County households live in a home that receives SSI, cash PA or SNAP benefits, with both estimates improved since 2018. California saw a 4.8% drop in the nu mber of children in PA households, while the county saw a 2.4% drop, which represents 1,119 fewer children in PA households countywide. Areas with much higher than average rates (17.4%) of children in PA households include Pinole (20.4%), El Sobrante (20.5 %), Bethel Island (25.6%), Richmond (25.9%), San Pablo (27.8%), Vine Hill (28.4%), Pittsburg (32.3%), Antioch (34.9%) and Rodeo (46.7%). More than half (58.4%) of all Contra Costa children age 0 -17 in PA households live in Concord (4,928), Pittsburg (5,70 6), Richmond (6,200) and Antioch (9,627), noting, however, that Concord (down 611) and Richmond (down 951) saw sizable declines in the number of chi l dren in PA households between 2018 and 2019. In contrast to the county overall, Vine Hill (up 158), Pittsbu rg (up 178), Rodeo (up 213), Brentwood (up 256) and Antioch (up 489) saw large gains in the number of children in PA households. Countywide, 46.0% (20,848) of children in PA households live in married couple families, 44.2% (20,005) live in single female -headed families, and 9.1% (4,132) live in single male -headed families, with all three estimates down since 2018. Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals In the 201 9-20 school year , 59.3 % of all California students are eligible for free or reduced price meals (FRPM), virtually unchanged since 2018 -19 . By comparison, 70,401 (39.5%) of all 178,411 students attending Contra Costa County schools in 2019 -20 are FRPM -eligible, down 3.2% or 2,315 students since 2018 -19. Districts that saw the largest 1 -year drop in FRPM-eligible students include Acalanes Union High (down 26 students or 7.0%), San Ramon Valley Unified (down 132 or 7.2%), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 1,327 or 9.2%) and Lafayette Elemen tary (down 14 students or 12.7%). In contrast, districts with the largest 1 -year increase in FRPM -eligible students include John Swett Unified (up 57 students or 6.7%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 179 or 6.8%), Liberty Union High (up 166 or 7.1%) and SBE Synergy Rocketship Future (up 106 students or 33.8%). Table 38 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by District, 2004 – 2020 District 2004-05 Percent 2009-10 Percent 2013-14 Percent 2018-19 Count 2018-19 Percent 2019-20 Count 2019-20 Percent Acalanes Union High 0.9 2.52 5.0 374 6.6 348 6.2 Antioch Unified 36.1 54.1 63.2 11,874 69.1 11,887 69.2 Brentwood Union Elementary 23.5 28.4 27.4 2,613 28.5 2,584 27.8 Byron Union Elementary 15.5 26.5 27.6 748 32.9 750 33.0 Canyon Elementary 9.4 10.1 11.1 6 8.8 6 8.7 Contra Costa Co. Office of Educ. 40.8 62.7 36.1 2,638 47.7 2,817 48.7 John Swett Unified 36.9 45.5 67.5 852 59.2 909 63.9 Knightsen Elementary 8.4 29.1 45.5 186 29.4 176 29.1 Lafayette Elementary 0.9 2.3 2.9 110 3.1 96 2.7 Liberty Union High 13.2 19.7 28.1 2,345 28.2 2,511 30.2 Martinez Unified 15.8 27.3 26.1 1,096 26.3 1,082 26.0 Moraga Elementary 1.0 1.0 1.4 59 3.2 60 3.2 Mt. Diablo Unified 28.5 39 46.2 14,471 46.7 13,144 42.3 Oakley Union Elementary 29 49.1 48.7 2,382 45.2 2,243 43.2 Orinda Union Elementary 0 1.1 32.4 57 2.2 56 2.2 Pittsburg Unified 64.6 78.4 84.3 8,072 71.2 8,060 70.9 San Ramon Valley Unified 1.7 2.7 4.2 1,822 5.7 1,690 5.3 SBE – Synergy, Rocketship Future 0 0 77.1 314 74.1 420 78.8 Walnut Creek Elementary 8.5 12.1 10.5 425 12.0 436 12.3 West Contra Costa Unified 57.5 65.8 70.9 22,272 70.1 21,126 65.7 Contra Costa County 30.0 37.1 40.8 72,716 40.9 70,401 39.5 California 49.7 55.9 59.4 3,675,129 59.4 3,654,943 59.3 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Contra Costa County 50 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 10 – Percentage of FRPM -Eligible Students by District, 201 9-20 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Many Contra Costa districts continue to exceed the county’s overall percentage of FRPM -eligible (39.5%) including SBE–Rocketship Futu re Academy (78.8%), Pittsburg Unified (70.9%), Antioch Unified (69.2%), West Contra Costa Unified (65.7%), John Swett Unified (63.9%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (48.7%), Oakley Union Elementary (43.2%) and Mt. Diablo Unified (42.3%). District s with the highest number of FRPM -eligible continue to be West Contra Costa Unified (21,126), Mt. Diablo (13,144), Antioch (11,887) and Pittsburg (8,060). Schools with the highest number of FRPM -eligible students in 2020 also continue to be Mt. Diablo High (1091), Deer Valley High (1,097), Richmond High (1,328), Antioch High (1,455) and Pittsburg Senior High (2,356). Table 39 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by School, 201 9 – 2020 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Acalanes Union High Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 29 0 0.0 Byron Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 1 0 0.0 Lafayette Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 1 0 0.0 Moraga Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 3 0 0.0 Orinda Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 6 0 0.0 San Ramon Valley Unified District Office 1 0 0.0 Walnut Creek Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 9 0 0.0 Lafayette Elementary Burton Valley Elementary 740 5 0.7 Orinda Union Elementary Glorietta Elementary 458 5 1.1 Moraga Elementary Camino Pablo Elementary 349 6 1.7 San Ramon Valley Unified Green Valley Elementary 501 9 1.8 San Ramon Valley Unified John Baldwin Elementary 514 10 1.9 San Ramon Valley Unified Sycamore Valley Elementary 639 13 2.0 Lafayette Elementary Happy Valley Elementary 536 11 2.1 San Ramon Valley Unified Alamo Elementary 336 7 2.1 Orinda Union Elementary Del Rey Elementary 428 9 2.1 Orinda Union Elementary Wagner Ranch Elementary 424 9 2.1 Lafayette Elementary Springhill Elementary 458 10 2.2 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Orinda Union Elementary Lafayette Elementary Moraga Elementary San Ramon Valley Unified Acalanes Union High Canyon Elementary Walnut Creek Elementary Martinez Unified Brentwood Union Elementary Knightsen Elementary Liberty Union High Byron Union Elementary Contra Costa County Mt. Diablo Unified Oakley Union Elementary Contra Costa Co. Office of Educ. California John Swett Unified West Contra Costa Unified Antioch Unified Pittsburg Unified SBE Synergy, Rocketship Future Contra Costa County 51 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Orinda Union Elementary Sleepy Hollow Elementary 354 8 2.3 San Ramon Valley Unified Rancho Romero Elementary 476 11 2.3 San Ramon Valley Unified Vista Grande Elementary 606 16 2.6 Moraga Elementary Los Perales Elementary 410 11 2.7 Orinda Union Elementary Orinda Intermediate 898 25 2.8 Moraga Elementary Joaquin Moraga Intermediate 673 19 2.8 Walnut Creek Elementary Tice Creek 432 13 3.0 Acalanes Union High Campolindo High 1,376 44 3.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Diablo Vista Middle 954 31 3.2 Acalanes Union High Miramonte High 1,236 42 3.4 Lafayette Elementary M. H. Stanley Middle 1,256 45 3.6 San Ramon Valley Unified San Ramon Valley High 2,062 74 3.6 San Ramon Valley Unified Monte Vista High 2,467 90 3.6 San Ramon Valley Unified Charlotte Wood Middle 985 38 3.9 San Ramon Valley Unified Los Cerros Middle 582 23 4.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Montair Elementary 529 21 4.0 Contra Costa Office of Educ Central County Special Education Programs 24 1 4.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Stone Valley Middle 623 26 4.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Greenbrook Elementary 642 28 4.4 Lafayette Elementary Lafayette Elementary 546 25 4.6 San Ramon Valley Unified Neil A. Armstrong Elementary 545 26 4.8 Acalanes Union High Acalanes High 1,318 66 5.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Windemere Ranch Middle 1,318 69 5.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Bollinger Canyon Elementary 514 28 5.4 San Ramon Valley Unified Creekside Elementary 603 33 5.5 San Ramon Valley Unified Hidden Hills Elementary 654 36 5.5 San Ramon Valley Unified Walt Disney Elementary 541 30 5.5 Moraga Elementary Donald L. Rheem Elementary 420 24 5.7 San Ramon Valley Unified Live Oak Elementary 759 44 5.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Iron Horse Middle 1,098 64 5.8 Mt. Diablo Unified Walnut Acres Elementary 633 37 5.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Montevideo Elementary 650 38 5.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Pine Valley Middle 1,000 59 5.9 San Ramon Valley Unified California High 2,882 172 6.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Dougherty Valley High 3,378 205 6.1 West Contra Costa Unified Kensington Elementary 506 32 6.3 San Ramon Valley Unified Golden View Elementary 674 43 6.4 San Ramon Valley Unified Venture (Alternative) 142 10 7.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Tassajara Hills Elementary 464 33 7.1 San Ramon Valley Unified Coyote Creek Elementary 813 58 7.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Eagle Peak Montessori 313 23 7.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Mt. Diablo Elementary 786 58 7.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Valle Verde Elementary 468 35 7.5 San Ramon Valley Unified Gale Ranch Middle 1,230 96 7.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Country Club Elementary 558 44 7.9 San Ramon Valley Unified Twin Creeks Elementary 557 45 8.1 San Ramon Valley Unified Quail Run Elementary 953 77 8.1 Canyon Elementary Canyon Elementary 69 6 8.7 Walnut Creek Elementary Parkmead Elementary 443 40 9.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Bancroft Elementary 661 66 10.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Foothill Middle 903 94 10.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Northgate High 1,487 155 10.4 Walnut Creek Elementary Walnut Heights Elementary 413 44 10.7 San Ramon Valley Unified Del Amigo High (Continuation) 96 11 11.5 Acalanes Union High Las Lomas High 1,627 190 11.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Strandwood Elementary 599 72 12.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Sequoia Elementary 576 70 12.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Bella Vista Elementary 533 65 12.2 Acalanes Union High Acalanes Center for Independent Study 49 6 12.2 Contra Costa County 52 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Walnut Creek Elementary Indian Valley Elementary 368 46 12.5 Martinez Unified Morello Park Elementary 542 70 12.9 Walnut Creek Elementary Walnut Creek Intermediate 1,051 146 13.9 Walnut Creek Elementary Buena Vista Elementary 460 69 15.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Diablo View Middle 622 97 15.6 Martinez Unified John Swett Elementary 514 82 16.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Highlands Elementary 529 85 16.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Valhalla Elementary 574 101 17.6 West Contra Costa Unified Madera Elementary 480 85 17.7 Liberty Union High Heritage High 2,595 478 18.4 Oakley Union Elementary Almond Grove Elementary 541 101 18.7 Brentwood Union Elementary Ron Nunn Elementary 660 129 19.5 Contra Costa Office of Educ Clayton Valley Charter High 2,234 439 19.7 Brentwood Union Elementary R. Paul Krey Elementary 825 169 20.5 Walnut Creek Elementary Murwood Elementary 379 78 20.6 Mt. Diablo Unified College Park High 2,015 419 20.8 Liberty Union High Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 24 5 20.8 Knightsen Elementary Old River Elementary 286 60 21.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 32 7 21.9 Brentwood Union Elementary Loma Vista Elementary 617 135 21.9 Brentwood Union Elementary Adams (J. Douglas) Middle 1,149 255 22.2 Mt. Diablo Unified Monte Gardens Elementary 508 114 22.4 Brentwood Union Elementary Pioneer Elementary 892 208 23.3 Byron Union Elementary Timber Point Elementary 484 116 24.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Pleasant Hill Elementary 637 153 24.0 Martinez Unified Alhambra Senior High 1,217 300 24.7 Liberty Union High Independence High 202 50 24.8 Martinez Unified Briones (Alternative) 64 16 25.0 Brentwood Union Elementary William B. Bristow Middle 1,182 297 25.1 Antioch Unified Antioch Charter Academy 198 52 26.3 Martinez Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 19 5 26.3 Contra Costa Office of Educ Contra Costa School of Performing Arts 451 123 27.3 Martinez Unified Martinez Junior High 934 262 28.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Horizons School: Independent Study 192 54 28.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Hidden Valley Elementary 879 248 28.2 Brentwood Union Elementary District Office 7 2 28.6 Mt. Diablo Unified District Office 182 52 28.6 West Contra Costa Unified Harding Elementary 454 131 28.9 Brentwood Union Elementary Marsh Creek Elementary 765 230 30.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Ayers Elementary 432 130 30.1 Liberty Union High Liberty High 2,795 844 30.2 Mt. Diablo Unified Gregory Gardens Elementary 378 115 30.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Valley View Middle 795 243 30.6 West Contra Costa Unified Hanna Ranch Elementary 419 131 31.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 105 33 31.4 Pittsburg Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 38 12 31.6 Byron Union Elementary Excelsior Middle 528 169 32.0 Brentwood Union Elementary Brentwood Elementary 805 259 32.2 West Contra Costa Unified Ohlone Elementary 468 151 32.3 West Contra Costa Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 89 29 32.6 Martinez Unified John Muir Elementary 421 141 33.5 West Contra Costa Unified Olinda Elementary 371 126 34.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Sequoia Middle 936 318 34.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Pleasant Hill Middle 815 282 34.6 Brentwood Union Elementary Edna Hill Middle 955 342 35.8 Mt. Diablo Unified Pine Hollow Middle 569 204 35.9 Byron Union Elementary Discovery Bay Elementary 416 150 36.1 Knightsen Elementary Knightsen Elementary 319 116 36.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Silverwood Elementary 530 194 36.6 Contra Costa County 53 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Byron Union Elementary Vista Oaks Charter 845 315 37.3 West Contra Costa Unified Hercules Middle 601 227 37.8 Brentwood Union Elementary Garin Elementary 731 277 37.9 West Contra Costa Unified Hercules High 856 326 38.1 Antioch Unified Antioch Charter Academy II 202 79 39.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Prospect High (Continuation) 51 20 39.2 Martinez Unified Vicente Martinez High 61 24 39.3 Oakley Union Elementary Laurel Elementary 447 176 39.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Woodside Elementary 321 127 39.6 West Contra Costa Unified El Cerrito High 1,605 639 39.8 Brentwood Union Elementary Mary Casey Black Elementary 695 278 40.0 Oakley Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 5 2 40.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Westwood Elementary 297 120 40.4 Oakley Union Elementary Summer Lake Elementary 346 141 40.8 West Contra Costa Unified Lupine Hills Elementary 416 170 40.9 Oakley Union Elementary O'Hara Park Middle 789 324 41.1 Oakley Union Elementary Iron House Elementary 504 207 41.1 Liberty Union High Freedom High 2,545 1,052 41.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Mountain View Elementary 323 134 41.5 Contra Costa Office of Educ Far East County Programs 67 28 41.8 West Contra Costa Unified West County Mandarin 211 89 42.2 West Contra Costa Unified Fred T. Korematsu Middle 708 300 42.4 Brentwood Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 7 3 42.9 West Contra Costa Unified Ellerhorst Elementary 376 167 44.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Delta View Elementary 669 303 45.3 Oakley Union Elementary Gehringer Elementary 757 350 46.2 West Contra Costa Unified Stewart Elementary 432 201 46.5 Martinez Unified Las Juntas Elementary 384 182 47.4 West Contra Costa Unified Fairmont Elementary 504 241 47.8 Oakley Union Elementary Delta Vista Middle 903 436 48.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Concord High 1,295 639 49.3 John Swett Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 4 2 50.0 Contra Costa Office of Educ Heritage CCCOE Special Education Programs 45 23 51.1 Oakley Union Elementary Vintage Parkway Elementary 512 262 51.2 John Swett Unified John Swett High 446 229 51.3 West Contra Costa Unified Valley View Elementary 364 187 51.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Holbrook Language Academy 342 182 53.2 Mt. Diablo Unified Summit High (Continuation) 95 51 53.7 West Contra Costa Unified Middle College High 279 155 55.6 West Contra Costa Unified Pinole Valley High 1,261 721 57.2 Liberty Union High La Paloma High (Continuation) 143 82 57.3 Antioch Unified Dozier-Libbey Medical High 717 413 57.6 Antioch Unified Deer Valley High 1,886 1,097 58.2 West Contra Costa Unified Manzanita Middle 119 70 58.8 West Contra Costa Unified District Office 44 26 59.1 West Contra Costa Unified Mira Vista Elementary 608 363 59.7 Contra Costa Office of Educ Floyd I. Marchus 60 36 60.0 West Contra Costa Unified Collins Elementary 304 185 60.9 West Contra Costa Unified Pinole Middle 514 315 61.3 Mt. Diablo Unified El Dorado Middle 873 536 61.4 Contra Costa Office of Educ Invictus Academy of Richmond 159 98 61.6 West Contra Costa Unified De Anza High 1,401 873 62.3 Oakley Union Elementary Oakley Elementary 390 244 62.6 John Swett Unified Willow High 41 26 63.4 Contra Costa Office of Educ Summit Public School K2 602 382 63.5 Mt. Diablo Unified El Monte Elementary 430 273 63.5 Pittsburg Unified Foothill Elementary 564 361 64.0 Antioch Unified Sutter Elementary 591 379 64.1 Antioch Unified Dallas Ranch Middle 937 603 64.4 Contra Costa County 54 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Antioch Unified Orchard Park 760 492 64.7 Antioch Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 159 103 64.8 West Contra Costa Unified Sheldon Elementary 315 205 65.1 Pittsburg Unified Pittsburg Senior High 3,604 2,356 65.4 West Contra Costa Unified Tara Hills Elementary 429 282 65.7 West Contra Costa Unified Shannon Elementary 365 241 66.0 West Contra Costa Unified Vista High (Alternative) 239 159 66.5 John Swett Unified Carquinez Middle 305 203 66.6 Antioch Unified Bidwell Continuation High 150 100 66.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Sun Terrace Elementary 456 305 66.9 Antioch Unified Muir (John) Elementary 591 396 67.0 Antioch Unified Prospects High (Alternative) 328 221 67.4 West Contra Costa Unified Summit Public School: Tamalpais 446 301 67.5 West Contra Costa Unified Washington Elementary 453 306 67.5 Antioch Unified Grant Elementary 439 297 67.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Olympic Continuation High 253 173 68.4 West Contra Costa Unified Crespi Junior High 371 254 68.5 Antioch Unified Live Oak High (Continuation) 146 100 68.5 Mt. Diablo Unified Sunrise (Special Education) 29 20 69.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Ygnacio Valley High 1,285 893 69.5 Antioch Unified Diablo Vista Elementary 492 342 69.5 Antioch Unified Black Diamond Middle 382 266 69.6 Antioch Unified Lone Tree Elementary 574 402 70.0 Antioch Unified Carmen Dragon Elementary 428 300 70.1 West Contra Costa Unified Aspire Richmond Ca. College Preparatory Academy 549 388 70.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Mt. Diablo High 1,540 1,091 70.8 Pittsburg Unified Hillview Junior High 952 676 71.0 Antioch Unified Antioch High 2,042 1,455 71.3 Antioch Unified Rocketship Delta Prep 474 339 71.5 Pittsburg Unified Rancho Medanos Junior High 891 638 71.6 Mt. Diablo Unified Fair Oaks Elementary 328 235 71.6 Antioch Unified Jack London Elementary 522 374 71.6 John Swett Unified Rodeo Hills Elementary 626 449 71.7 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond College Preparatory 554 398 71.8 West Contra Costa Unified John F. Kennedy High 953 688 72.2 West Contra Costa Unified Ford Elementary 452 327 72.3 Pittsburg Unified Los Medanos Elementary 698 507 72.6 West Contra Costa Unified Murphy Elementary 449 327 72.8 Pittsburg Unified Heights Elementary 595 434 72.9 West Contra Costa Unified Bayview Elementary 496 365 73.6 Pittsburg Unified Stoneman Elementary 633 468 73.9 Mt. Diablo Unified Wren Avenue Elementary 362 269 74.3 Pittsburg Unified Marina Vista Elementary 632 470 74.4 Pittsburg Unified Willow Cove Elementary 654 490 74.9 Antioch Unified Park Middle 1,123 843 75.1 West Contra Costa Unified Voices College-Bound Language Academy at West Contra Costa County 172 130 75.6 Pittsburg Unified Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High 691 524 75.8 Mt. Diablo Unified Crossroads High 25 19 76.0 Pittsburg Unified Highlands Elementary 536 408 76.1 Contra Costa Office of Educ Caliber: Beta Academy 859 660 76.8 Antioch Unified Mission Elementary 572 440 76.9 Antioch Unified Marsh Elementary 669 518 77.4 West Contra Costa Unified Wilson Elementary 421 326 77.4 Contra Costa Office of Educ Making Waves Academy 1,021 792 77.6 Antioch Unified Belshaw Elementary 482 378 78.4 SBE - Rocketship Futuro Acad Rocketship Futuro Academy 533 420 78.8 West Contra Costa Unified Dover Elementary 655 519 79.2 West Contra Costa Unified Greenwood Academy 288 229 79.5 Mt. Diablo Unified Ygnacio Valley Elementary 437 348 79.6 Contra Costa County 55 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Pittsburg Unified Black Diamond High (Continuation) 246 197 80.1 West Contra Costa Unified Highland Elementary 472 378 80.1 Contra Costa Office of Educ Golden Gate Community 142 114 80.3 West Contra Costa Unified Riverside Elementary 367 295 80.4 West Contra Costa Unified Aspire Richmond Technology Academy 375 304 81.1 West Contra Costa Unified Leadership Public Schools: Richmond 599 486 81.1 West Contra Costa Unified Stege Elementary 268 218 81.3 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond Charter Elementary-Benito Juarez 488 397 81.4 Pittsburg Unified Parkside Elementary 633 519 82.0 Antioch Unified Turner Elementary 511 419 82.0 Antioch Unified Antioch Middle 874 717 82.0 Antioch Unified Kimball Elementary 474 391 82.5 Mt. Diablo Unified Rio Vista Elementary 492 411 83.5 Antioch Unified Fremont Elementary 444 371 83.6 West Contra Costa Unified Lake Elementary 390 326 83.6 Mt. Diablo Unified Riverview Middle 842 706 83.8 West Contra Costa Unified Grant Elementary 550 464 84.4 West Contra Costa Unified Helms Middle 851 718 84.4 Contra Costa Office of Educ East County Elementary Special Education 26 22 84.6 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond Charter Academy 267 226 84.6 West Contra Costa Unified Montalvin Manor Elementary 539 464 86.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Oak Grove Middle 790 691 87.5 West Contra Costa Unified John Henry High 328 287 87.5 West Contra Costa Unified Peres Elementary 553 486 87.9 Mt. Diablo Unified Meadow Homes Elementary 839 745 88.8 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond High 1,494 1,328 88.9 Mt. Diablo Unified Shore Acres Elementary 478 426 89.1 West Contra Costa Unified Edward M. Downer Elementary 542 488 90.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Bel Air Elementary 477 431 90.4 West Contra Costa Unified Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary 473 439 92.8 West Contra Costa Unified Coronado Elementary 401 373 93.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Cambridge Elementary 567 528 93.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Diablo Community Day 16 15 93.8 West Contra Costa Unified Verde Elementary 348 327 94.0 West Contra Costa Unified Nystrom Elementary 490 461 94.1 West Contra Costa Unified Lovonya DeJean Middle 446 420 94.2 West Contra Costa Unified Lincoln Elementary 381 359 94.2 West Contra Costa Unified Cesar E. Chavez Elementary 524 497 94.8 Contra Costa Office of Educ. Mt. McKinley 99 99 100.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Gateway High (Continuation) 1 1 100.0 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Housing and Homelessness HOUSING AFFORDABILITY The Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) is a measure used by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and mortgage lenders to determine the affordability of homes in a given region. The HOI is the proportion of homes sold in an area that would have been affordable to a median income family in the same area, assuming families can afford to spend no more than 28% of their income on housing. Based on 2020 HOI data , all major housing markets of the Oakland -Fremont -Hayward region , which includes Contra Costa County , remain significantly less affordable than the national average (28.4 and 58.3 , respectively). In 20 20, the Vallejo -Fairfield (38.3 ) and Santa Rosa-Petaluma (37.3 ) markets are the most affordable of those near Contra Cost a County, and all regions except the Sacramento -Roseville region saw significant improvement in affordability as measured by the HOI since 2019. The Santa Rosa - Petaluma region experienced the largest 1 -year improvement, rising 11.7 points from 25.6 to 37.3 affordable since 201 9. The Oakland-Contra Costa County region experienced the smallest improvement, Contra Costa County 56 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 rising just 2.0 points from 26.4 to 28.4 affordable. Since 2019, t he national housing market and the market of the Sacramento-Roseville region became significantly less affordable, with the HOI falling 5.3 points and 9.7 points, respectively. Table 40 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006 – 2020 Region 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 2020 Napa 4.3 35.3 62.5 64.4 10.2 21.0 15.8 22.3 24.4 Oakland -Fremont -Hayward-Contra Costa 9.3 60.1 67.3 64.4 29.4 29.3 16.4 26.4 28.4 Sacramento --Arden -Arcade--Roseville 9.2 66.0 79.3 79.5 46.2 40.4 31.4 41.8 32.1 San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City 7.5 20.6 31.5 28.4 11.4 9.7 6.0 8.4 11.0 San Jose -Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 13.7 44.0 54.1 48.5 20.9 19.4 12.7 18.4 22.0 Santa Rosa -Petaluma 10.4 47.4 61.9 66.2 25.6 19.5 16.7 25.6 37.3 Vallejo-Fairfield 14.9 64.6 84.8 86.4 56.0 46.8 22.4 33.7 38.3 National Average 41.6 62.4 73.9 74.9 61.8 61.4 56.6 63.6 58.3 Source: National Association of Builders, Housing Opportunity Index, December 2020; http://www.nahb.org/ Figure 11 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006 -20 The 2021 HUD fair market rents (FMR) in the greater San Francisco Bay Area region have all risen since 2020 with 4 -7% increases in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 5 -8% increases in Marin and San Francisco Counties and 1 -6% increases in Solano County. As of February 202 1, the FMR for a 2 -bedroom unit in Contra Costa County had risen $144 per month (up 6.4 %) from the prior year to $2,383 in 2021 . In the first quarter of 2 021 , the median rent for a 2 -bedroom unit ranged from $1,617 per month in Solano County to $3,553 in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Table 41 – Median Monthly Rents, 20 21 County Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Alameda / Contra Costa Counties $1,595 $1,934 $2,383 $3,196 $3,863 Marin / San Francisco / San Mateo $2,350 $2,923 $3,553 $4,567 $4,970 Napa County $1,331 $1,531 $2,018 $2,826 $2,836 Santa Clara County $2,228 $2,558 $3,051 $3,984 $4,593 Solano County $1,190 $1,351 $1,617 $2,314 $2,800 Source: HUD, User Data Sets, 40th percentile rents, FY 202 1. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html ACS data indicates that in 201 9, owner-occupied rates increased in both the state and the county by about 1.0%, with 2,716 more owner -occupied units in Contra Costa County since 201 8. Brentwood (up 674), Concord (up 430), Discovery Bay (up 159), Hercules (up 334), Martinez (up 247), Pl easant Hill (up 313), San Ramon (up 453) and Walnut Creek (up 283) saw the largest gains in owner -occupied units, while Alamo (down 94), Kensington (down 81), Oakley (down 101), Pinole (down 136), Pittsburg (down 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 2006 2019 2020 Oakland/Contra Costa Sacramento/Roseville San Francisco Vallejo/Fairfield National Contra Costa County 57 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 235) and Richmond (down 340) saw the larges t loses. The number of renter-occupied units also rose a slight 0.2 % in the state but fell a slight 0.2% in the county , with 224 fewer renter-occupied units in Contra Costa County. Brentwood (down 311), Concord (down 450), Martinez (down 192) and Pleasant Hill (down 175) saw the largest loses in renter -occupied units, while Pinole (up 215), Pittsburg (up 634), Richmond (up 219) and Rodeo (up 137) saw the largest gains. Median monthly housing costs for California home owners fell an estimated $467 (down 20.5 %) since 2018, while costs for home owners in the county fell $430 (down 16.3% to $2,211). In contrast, monthly housing costs for California renters rose 5.2% (up $74) and rose 6.9 % (up $117 to $1,819 ) in the county. HUD defines affordable housing as housing which costs no more than 30% of household income. Based on this definition, in 201 9 California had an estimated 32.0% of owner-occupied units with a mortgage and 54.0% of renter -occupied units which are unaffordable to their occupants. Of Contra Costa County residents in owner -occupied housing units with a mortgage, 30.3% (77,395 ) expended at least 30% of their household income on housi ng costs in 2019 , up 12.0 % or 8,286 owner -occupied units since 2018 . Among Contra Costa renters, 51.5% (67,017 ) expend at least 30% of their household income on housing costs in 2019 , down a slight 1.1% and 712 rental units since 201 8 . Table 42 – Housing Units, Monthly Costs, and Unaffordable Units, 2019 Area Occupied units Owner- occupied Renter- occupied Median SMOC Owner-Occ. Median costs Renter-Occ. 30% or more of income to housing Owner-occupied Renter-occupied California Count 13,044,266 7,154,580 5,889,686 $1,815 $1,503 2,227,776 3,066,425 % 54.8 45.2 32.0 54.0 Contra Costa Count 394,769 260,244 134,525 $2,211 $1,819 77,395 67,017 % 65.9 34.1 30.3 51.5 Alamo Count 5,156 4,784 372 $4,000+ $2,796 1,274 221 % 92.8 7.2 27.6 59.4 Antioch Count 34,028 20,514 13,514 $1,882 $1,790 6,785 7,954 % 60.3 39.7 33.9 60.3 Bayview Count 587 543 44 $1,715 -- 170 0 % 92.5 7.5 34.0 0.0 Bethel Island Count 906 751 155 $763 $730 256 49 % 82.9 17.1 38.0 31.6 Blackhawk Count 3,458 3,185 273 $3,968 $3,500+ 976 61 % 92.1 7.9 31.3 22.3 Brentwood Count 19,906 15,364 4,542 $2,492 $2,156 5,557 2,415 % 77.2 22.8 36.3 56.1 Clayton Count 4,232 3,933 299 $2,940 $2,627 1,068 139 % 92.9 7.1 27.7 46.4 Concord Count 46,455 27,805 18,650 $2,034 $1,716 8,103 10,067 % 59.9 40.1 29.4 55.5 Contra Costa Ctr Count 3,611 830 2,781 $2,462 $2,223 290 1,137 % 23.0 77.0 34.9 41.7 Crockett Count 1,448 788 660 $1,227 $1,337 199 227 % 54.4 45.6 26.2 34.4 Danville Count 16,053 13,453 2,600 $3,397 $2,489 4,067 1,038 % 83.8 16.2 31.0 40.0 Discovery Bay Count 5,482 4,571 911 $2,552 $2,541 1,326 365 % 83.4 16.6 30.9 40.1 E Richmond Hts Count 1,360 1,081 279 $1,545 $2,007 302 151 % 79.5 20.5 27.9 54.1 El Cerrito Count 10,034 5,969 4,065 $2,271 $1,956 1,693 1,864 % 59.5 40.5 29.0 47.3 El Sobrante Count 4,901 3,074 1,827 $1,992 $1,623 1,033 879 % 62.7 37.3 33.6 49.0 Hercules Count 8,402 6,859 1,543 $2,363 $2,201 2,226 641 Contra Costa County 58 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Occupied units Owner- occupied Renter- occupied Median SMOC Owner-Occ. Median costs Renter-Occ. 30% or more of income to housing Owner-occupied Renter-occupied % 81.6 18.4 32.6 41.5 Kensington Count 2,254 1,898 356 $2,531 $2,763 442 153 % 84.2 15.8 23.6 45.4 Lafayette Count 9,426 6,730 2,696 $3,374 $2,222 1,534 884 % 71.4 28.6 23.1 34.7 Martinez Count 14,723 9,902 4,821 $2,215 $1,728 2,577 1,977 % 67.3 32.7 26.1 43.0 Moraga Count 5,867 4,832 1,035 $2,916 $2,128 1,405 428 % 82.4 17.6 30.1 41.3 Oakley Count 11,778 8,982 2,796 $2,030 $1,688 2,721 1,250 % 76.3 23.7 30.4 46.6 Orinda Count 7,167 6,456 711 $3,715 $2,813 1,523 287 % 90.1 9.9 24.2 41.4 Pacheco Count 1,692 1,199 493 $1,109 $1,709 324 141 % 70.9 29.1 27.0 28.6 Pinole Count 6,748 4,512 2,236 $1,946 $1,835 980 1,120 % 66.9 33.1 22.6 50.9 Pittsburg Count 21,357 11,606 9,751 $1,795 $1,734 3,652 5,714 % 54.3 45.7 32.0 60.6 Pleasant Hill Count 13,817 9,042 4,775 $2,340 $2,014 2,126 1,756 % 65.4 34.6 24.6 40.3 Richmond Count 37,088 18,482 18,606 $1,747 $1,509 6,300 9,932 % 49.8 50.2 34.5 54.7 Rodeo Count 3,384 1,951 1,433 $1,744 $1,406 329 861 % 57.7 42.3 17.8 62.7 San Pablo Count 9,221 3,509 5,712 $1,363 $1,416 1,139 3,245 % 38.1 61.9 33.6 58.4 San Ramon Count 25,535 18,484 7,051 $3,480 $2,391 4,981 3,219 % 72.4 27.6 27.9 47.8 Tara Hills Count 1,678 1,036 642 $1,706 $1,750 333 376 % 61.7 38.3 33.2 58.5 Vine Hill Count 1,314 1,008 306 $2,047 $1,811 396 54 % 76.7 23.3 39.2 17.7 Walnut Creek Count 31,390 20,255 11,135 $1,878 $2,095 6,017 4,562 % 64.5 35.5 30.1 41.9 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Based on units with mortgage or rent for which SMOCAPI or GRAPI can be computed. As compared to the overall county (30.3%), the percentage of owner -occupied housing units that by HUD definition are unaffordable is notably higher in Antioch (33.9%), Bayview (34.0%), Bethel Island (38.0%), Brentwood (36.3%), Contra Costa Centre (34.9%), Richmond (34.5%) and Vine Hill (39.2%). Compared to the countywide rate (51.5%), the percentage of unaffordable renter -occupied units is considerably higher Alamo (59.4%), Antioch (60.3%), Pittsburg (60.6%), Rodeo (62.7%), San Pablo (58.4%) and Ta ra Hills (58.5%). COVID-19 IMPACTS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY In anticipation of widespread impacts of the COVID -19 outbreak on local economies, such as from stay - at-home orders and temporary business closures, Governor Newsom issued several Executive Orders in March 2020 allowing local jurisdictions to restrict COVID -related non -payment evictions of residential and commercial tenants and prohibiting landlords from evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent , with protections effective through May 31, 2020. In A pril 2020, the Judicial Council of California followed suit by temporaril y suspending judicial foreclosures and action on or entry of default in eviction cases statewide. On April 21, 2020, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted an urgency or dinance to temporarily prohibit evictions of residential and commercial tenants and establish a Contra Costa County 59 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 moratorium on some rent increases, recognizing that the COVID -19 outbreak and resulting public health stay-at -home order and business closures threaten to severely reduce the incomes of a widespread portion of the population. These emergency actions took into consideration the county’s pre -COVID housing affordability crisis, with its notable lack of affordable housing, spike in homelessness and displacement of low income families. Major utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company, have further acknowledged the exceptional financial burden of COVID -19 on Bay Area households by offering flexible payment plans, suspending service disconnections for non -payment, waiving security deposit requirements , suspending medical baseline removals, accelerating climate credits on customer bills and providing additional support for low -income customers. But even as the Bay Area gradually recovers from the pandemic, the vast impact COVID-19 has had on housing, work and migration patterns is only beginning to emerge. Analysts report dramatic migration from major cities to the suburbs, causing spikes in home prices and steeper competition. Early evidence also suggests that as businesses have shifted employees from dense office spaces to home offices, it allows workers to live further from workplaces and has contribut ed to significant home price increases in many suburban communities, including in Contra Costa County. In March 2021, Redfin and Realtor.com both confirm that Contra Costa home prices have risen 18% to 24 % over March 2020, with a median sales price of over $800,000. HOMELESSNESS The HUD-based Continuum of Care (CoC) Program promotes and supports community efforts to reduce and eliminate homelessness. California is served by 43 CoCs, including 1 in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa's Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) Point -in -Time (PIT) Count,1 conducted by service agencies, community partners, and volunteers each January, provides a one day snapshot of the conditions of individuals sleeping in emergency shelters or transitional housing and in cars, abandoned properties, or other places not meant for human habitation. Acc ording to this snapshot, in 2020 a total of 2,277 individuals in the county were identified as currently homeless, down 18 people or 0.8% since 2019. Of 2,277 currently homeless, only 31.0% (707 ) live in shelters, up from 29 % in 2019 . About 5 % (92) are families with children , and 30 families are unsheltered . About 5% are transition age youth (18-24 year olds) and 7% (154) are minors under age 18, but no unaccompanied minors were identified . About 80% (1,698) of all homeless in the county report they have a disab ling condition (mental or physical health issue or chronic health condition), and 50 % (1,062) report a substance use disorder. About 68 % (1,444) report they have been incarcerated at least once . Table 43 – Point-In-Time Count of Unsheltered Persons by County Sub-Area, 2011 – 2020 Area 2011 2015 2018 2019 2020 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent West County 581 39.0 196 24.3 323 21.0 510 31.3 543 34% Central County 677 45.4 331 41.0 523 34.0 678 41.7 514 33% East County 232 15.6 280 34.7 692 45.0 439 27.0 513 33% County Total 1,490 807 1,537 1,627 1,570 Source: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2019.pdf. The most not able change in homelessness since 2019 may be the even distribution of unsheltered homeless across the three regions of Contra Costa. In contrast to 2019, Central County cities and census places now have 33 % (514) of all unsheltered homeless, which is abou t equal to West County cities (34% or 543) and East County cities (33% or 513 ). The 20 20 PIT count reveals the majority of Contra Costa County’s unsheltered homeless are found in Richmond (280 ), Antioch (238 ), Concord (160), Martinez (127) and Pittsburg (102). The largest one -year increases in the number of unsheltered homeless occurred in Pleasant Hill (up 31), Oakley (up 37) and Brentwood (up 66 ), while Concord (down 190), Richmond (down 53 ), Martinez (down 29 ) and Pittsburg (down 26) saw the largest decr eases. Due 1 Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report (cchealth.org) Contra Costa County 60 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 to COVID -19, the majority of Bay Area counties have decided to postpone 2021 P -I-T counts to minimize the chance that the census could put volunteers or homeless populations at increased risk of contracting the virus. Currently, Contra Costa plans to conduct its count in late February 2021. Table 44 – Estimated Unsheltered Homeless in Contra Costa by Sub-Area, 2015 – 2020 City 2015 2019 2020 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Alamo 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 Antioch 122 12.1 226 13.9 238 15.2 Bay Point 25 2.5 57 3.5 49 3.1 Bayview 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 Bethel Island 5 0.5 1 0.1 2 0.1 Blackhawk 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.4 Brentwood 11 1.1 14 0.9 80 5.1 Clayton 10 1.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 Concord 114 11.3 350 21.5 160 10.2 Crockett 0 0.0 12 0.7 35 2.2 Danville 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.4 Discovery Bay 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 El Cerrito 30 3.0 8 0.5 24 1.5 El Sobrante 14 1.4 16 1.0 9 0.6 Hercules 12 1.2 1 0.1 7 0.4 Lafayette 1 0.1 3 0.2 3 0.2 Moraga 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.3 Martinez 72 7.2 156 9.6 127 8.1 North Richmond 9 0.9 38 2.3 22 1.4 Oakley 8 0.8 13 0.8 50 3.2 Orinda 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1 Pacheco 18 1.8 10 0.6 26 1.7 Pinole 11 1.1 3 0.2 7 0.4 Pittsburg 56 5.6 128 7.9 102 6.5 Pleasant Hill 63 6.3 59 3.6 90 5.7 Richmond 356 35.4 333 20.5 280 17.8 Rodeo 12 1.2 41 2.5 62 3.9 San Pablo 23 2.3 58 3.6 67 4.3 San Ramon 1 0.1 1 0.1 6 0.4 Walnut Creek 33 3.3 99 6.1 80 5.1 Unspecified 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 1.1 Total 1,006 100.0 1,627 100.0 1,570 100.0 Source: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2020.pdf As part of its mission, the Contra Costa County Health Services Department (CCHS) also operates the Homeless Program, a comprehensive system of care that provides services to the county’s homeless, including information and referrals, case management and support, outreach, SSI benefit eligibility determination, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing for adults, youth, and families. The Homeless Program is the county’s pri mary provider of emergency shelter for single adults, it is the only provider of shelter and transitional housing for transition -age youth, it administrates the Ren tal Assistance Program (Shelter-Plus-Care), and it serves as the advisory body to the Contra Costa Interjurisdictional Council on Homelessness (CCICH). Table 45 – Homeless Students in Contra Costa County Schools by Grade, 2011 – 2018 Grade Level 2011 2012 2014 2016 2018 Pre-Kindergarten - Grade 5 878 957 1,526 1,117 1,027 Grades 6 – Grade 8 506 478 622 589 667 Grades 9 – Grade 12 613 602 1,043 910 956 Total 1,997 2,037 3,191 2,616 2,650 Source: https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/794/homeless-students-grade/ Contra Costa County 61 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Per the McKinney -Vento Homeless Act Demographics Database, 2,650 students attending Contra Costa schools do not have stable housing as of December 2018, up 34 students or 1.2% over 2,616 in 2016. Based on the 2018 distribution, 1,027 or 38.8% are younger t han the sixth grade, down a notable 90 students or 8.1% since 2016. HEALTH INDICATORS One of only a few counties in the U.S. to sponsor its own health care system, Contra Costa offers a broad range of health -related services to residents under one organizational structure known as the Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS). As the largest department of the Contra C osta County government, CCHS is an integrated health care system that serves and supports individual, family and community health. The CCHS program network provides a wide array of primary, specialty and inpatient medical care, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, public health programs, environmental health protection, hazardous materials response and inspection, and emergency m edical services . CCHS also operates the nation’s first federally qualified, state -licensed and county-sponsored HMO , the Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP). The CCHP, the first county -sponsored health plan in California to offer Medi - Cal Managed Care coverage and serve Medicare beneficiaries, has been e xpanded several times in response to the needs of the community. After implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014, it began facilitating the ACA Medi -Cal coverage expansion to include individuals with incomes below 138% of the F PL. For low er-income and uninsured residents, the CCHS system offers a safety net of comprehensive health care and medical services not otherwise available . Through ACA legislation, the CCHS ensures all Medi-Cal recipients in Contra Costa have access to essential health benefits , including doctor visits, hospital care, 3 pregnancy -related services, SNF, home heal th and hospice care, mental health care, autism care and some substance use disorder care. Healthcare Insurance The 2019 American Community Survey estimates that 7.5% of California residents and 5.1% (57,973) of Contra Costa residents are uninsured, with both rates improved since 2018 (8.5% and 5.7%, respectively). The number of uninsured in the county fell another 9.7% or 6,216 since 2018. Coverage among the county’s children also continues to improve and compare favorably to the state. About 3.3% of 0 -18 year olds in the state and 2.6% (7,138) in the county are uninsured in 2019, with the number of uninsured 0 -18 year olds in the county down another 3.7% or 275 since 2018 . The state also saw a notable improvement in the rate of uninsured 0 -5 year olds, now 2.4% compared to 2.7% in 2018 . In contrast, the rate (1.9%) and number (1,456) of uninsured 0 -5 year olds increased 2.6% or 37 children since 2018. Areas of the county with the highest rates of uninsured 0 -5 year olds include Martinez (2.1%), Pittsburg (2.2%), San Ramon (2.3%), Lafayette (2.8%), Pinole (3.6%), Rodeo (3.7%), Clayton (4.1%), Richmond (4.2%) and Vine Hil l (5.4%). The largest numbers of uninsured 0 -5 year olds continue to be in the population centers of San Ramon (118), Pittsburg (137), Antioch (147), Concord (172) and Richmond (343). Since 2018, Concord (up 34), Martinez (up 34), Richmond (up 36) and San Ramon (up 75) saw notable increases in the number of uninsured 0 -5 year olds, while Oakley (down 30), Rodeo (down 77) and Antioch (down 80) saw significant declines. In California, 91.1% of children age 0 -18 have one type of health insurance coverage in 20 19, compared to 91.8% (252,714) in Contra Costa County, with both figures virtually unchanged since 2018. Among 0-18 year olds in the county with one type of insurance, 63.6% (160,766) have employer -based coverage only, which represents a slight 0.2 percen tage point decline or 276 fewer children. Another 7.4% (18,636) have direct -purchased coverage only, down 5.2% or 1,031 children since 2018. Contra Costa County 62 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 46 – Health Insurance Coverage Rates for Children by Area, 201 9 Area Civilian noninstit. population Population Age 0-5 Population Age 0-18 Total Uninsured % Uninsured Total Uninsured % Uninsured Total Uninsured % Uninsured California 38,787,337 2,915,070 7.5 2,928,438 70,548 2.4 9,538,507 313,815 3.3 Contra Costa Cty 1,137,149 57,973 5.1 78,546 1,456 1.9 275,331 7,138 2.6 Alamo 14,886 267 1.8 515 0 0.0 3,653 75 2.1 Antioch 110,870 6,994 6.3 8,225 147 1.8 29,385 846 2.9 Bayview 1,862 119 6.4 92 0 0.0 437 32 7.3 Bethel Island 2,161 281 13.0 59 0 0.0 347 0 0.0 Blackhawk 9,604 87 0.9 434 0 0.0 2,147 17 0.8 Brentwood 61,865 1,431 2.3 3,731 50 1.3 17,356 213 1.2 Clayton 12,083 89 0.7 679 28 4.1 2,851 65 2.3 Concord 128,468 8,267 6.4 10,026 172 1.7 28,090 867 3.1 Contra Costa Ctr 6,558 244 3.7 410 0 0.0 640 0 0.0 Crockett 3,265 65 2.0 182 0 0.0 531 0 0.0 Danville 44,526 932 2.1 2,961 0 0.0 11,922 32 0.3 Discovery Bay 16,159 350 2.2 1,095 9 0.8 4,031 94 2.3 E Richmond Hts 3,157 139 4.4 125 0 0.0 435 0 0.0 El Cerrito 25,355 1,129 4.5 1,813 11 0.6 4,593 89 1.9 El Sobrante 13,818 548 4.0 799 0 0.0 2,776 55 2.0 Hercules 25,542 1,031 4.0 1,376 18 1.3 5,154 101 2.0 Kensington 5,329 86 1.6 244 0 0.0 1,065 12 1.1 Lafayette 26,207 346 1.3 1,399 39 2.8 6,818 89 1.3 Martinez 37,790 1,058 2.8 2,671 55 2.1 7,777 125 1.6 Moraga 17,459 265 1.5 610 0 0.0 4,458 61 1.4 Oakley 41,247 974 2.4 3,635 50 1.4 12,859 246 1.9 Orinda 19,600 237 1.2 992 0 0.0 4,772 64 1.3 Pacheco 4,361 212 4.9 305 0 0.0 824 43 5.2 Pinole 19,259 1,039 5.4 1,011 36 3.6 3,398 62 1.8 Pittsburg 71,208 5,117 7.2 6,121 137 2.2 18,611 777 4.2 Pleasant Hill 34,556 1,122 3.2 2,593 42 1.6 7,084 84 1.2 Richmond 108,968 10,955 10.1 8,185 343 4.2 25,534 1,213 4.8 Rodeo 10,409 531 5.1 706 26 3.7 2,522 77 3.1 San Pablo 30,592 4,016 13.1 2,120 7 0.3 8,115 377 4.6 San Ramon 75,589 1,751 2.3 5,085 118 2.3 22,259 336 1.5 Tara Hills 5,117 421 8.2 286 0 0.0 1,234 64 5.2 Vine Hill 3,886 222 5.7 373 20 5.4 1,120 58 5.2 Walnut Creek 68,720 1,856 2.7 3,824 0 0.0 12,223 164 1.3 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Statewide, 42.5 % of children age 0-18 have Medicaid (means -tested) coverage only, compared to 28.3 % (71,471 ) in the county , which represents a 2.4% or 1,692 increase of Contra Costa children on Medicaid . The highest rates of Medicaid only coverage occur in Pacheco (29.9%), Tara Hills (30.9%), Vine Hill (32.0%), Concord (35.1%), El Sobrante (35.9%), Bayview (40.6%), Antioch (49.0%), Pittsburg (49.0%), Bethel Island (53.3%), Rodeo (55.1 %), Richmond (58.0%) and San Pablo (59.9%). Areas with the highest numbers of children age 0 -18 with Medicaid only include Walnut Creek (1,011), Martinez (1,023), Hercules (1,140), Rodeo (1,261), Oakley (2,445), Brentwood (3,522), San Pablo (4,377 ), Pittsburg (8,152 ), Concord (8,985 ), Antioch (12,883 ) and Richmond (13,227 ). Communities that saw notable 1 - year increases in the number of children with Medicaid only coverage include Rodeo (up 110), Richmond (up 199), Concord (up 407), Brentwood (up 415), Antioch (up 647) and Pittsburg (up 762). About 5.6% (15,479 ) of county children have more than one type of health insurance coverage in 2019 . Contra Costa County 63 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 47 – Children with Health Insurance Coverage by Coverage Type, 201 9 Area Pop. < 19 One Coverage Type Two or more types Total Employer- based Direct- purchase Medicare only Medicaid/ means- test TRICARE/ military VA Care only California 9,538,507 8,688,111 4,275,713 567,626 41,952 3,694,778 105,800 2,242 536,581 % 91.1 49.2 6.5 0.5 42.5 1.2 0.0 5.6 Contra Costa Cnty 275,331 252,714 160,766 18,636 952 71,471 856 33 15,479 % 91.8 63.6 7.4 0.4 28.3 0.3 0.0 5.6 Alamo 3,653 3,369 2,778 498 0 93 0 0 209 % 92.2 82.5 14.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 5.7 Antioch 29,385 26,297 11,871 1,326 38 12,883 146 33 2,242 % 89.5 45.1 5.0 0.1 49.0 0.6 0.1 7.6 Bayview 437 355 172 39 0 144 0 0 50 % 81.2 48.5 11.0 0.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 11.4 Bethel Island 347 347 152 0 0 185 10 0 0 % 100.0 43.8 0.0 0.0 53.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 Blackhawk 2,147 2,060 1,572 429 0 59 0 0 70 % 95.9 76.3 20.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 Brentwood 17,356 15,773 11,401 626 16 3,522 208 0 1,370 % 90.9 72.3 4.0 0.1 22.3 1.3 0.0 7.9 Clayton 2,851 2,744 2,339 278 0 127 0 0 42 % 96.2 85.2 10.1 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 Concord 28,090 25,633 14,586 1,648 387 8,985 27 0 1,590 % 91.3 56.9 6.4 1.5 35.1 0.1 0.0 5.7 Contra Costa Ctr 640 584 400 68 0 116 0 0 56 % 91.3 68.5 11.6 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 8.8 Crockett 531 511 389 54 0 68 0 0 20 % 96.2 76.1 10.6 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 Danville 11,922 11,505 10,076 1,222 0 207 0 0 385 % 96.5 87.6 10.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 Discovery Bay 4,031 3,504 2,657 278 0 524 45 0 433 % 86.9 75.8 7.9 0.0 15.0 1.3 0.0 10.7 E Richmond Heights 435 435 330 8 0 97 0 0 0 % 100.0 75.9 1.8 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 El Cerrito 4,593 4,228 3,149 279 55 745 0 0 276 % 92.1 74.5 6.6 1.3 17.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 El Sobrante 2,776 2,444 1,395 144 27 878 0 0 277 % 88.0 57.1 5.9 1.1 35.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 Hercules 5,154 4,837 3,426 230 0 1,140 41 0 216 % 93.8 70.8 4.8 0.0 23.6 0.8 0.0 4.2 Kensington 1,065 1,040 799 207 0 34 0 0 13 % 97.7 76.8 19.9 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 Lafayette 6,818 6,437 5,329 874 0 234 0 0 292 % 94.4 82.8 13.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 Martinez 7,777 7,225 5,598 579 0 1,023 25 0 427 % 92.9 77.5 8.0 0.0 14.2 0.3 0.0 5.5 Moraga 4,458 4,228 3,714 460 0 38 16 0 169 % 94.8 87.8 10.9 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 3.8 Oakley 12,859 11,352 8,184 723 0 2,445 0 0 1,261 % 88.3 72.1 6.4 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 9.8 Orinda 4,772 4,599 3,898 665 0 36 0 0 109 % 96.4 84.8 14.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.3 Pacheco 824 748 463 61 0 224 0 0 33 % 90.8 61.9 8.2 0.0 29.9 0.0 0.0 4.0 Pinole 3,398 3,145 2,028 218 0 879 20 0 191 % 92.6 64.5 6.9 0.0 27.9 0.6 0.0 5.6 Pittsburg 18,611 16,638 7,519 792 15 8,152 160 0 1,196 % 89.4 45.2 4.8 0.1 49.0 1.0 0.0 6.4 7,084 6,529 5,143 760 105 521 0 0 471 Contra Costa County 64 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Pop. < 19 One Coverage Type Two or more types Total Employer- based Direct- purchase Medicare only Medicaid/ means- test TRICARE/ military VA Care only Pleasant Hill % 92.2 78.8 11.6 1.6 8.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 Richmond 25,534 22,811 8,727 757 11 13,227 89 0 1,510 % 89.3 38.3 3.3 0.0 58.0 0.4 0.0 5.9 Rodeo 2,522 2,288 992 35 0 1,261 0 0 157 % 90.7 43.4 1.5 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 San Pablo 8,115 7,311 2,647 278 9 4,377 0 0 427 % 90.1 36.2 3.8 0.1 59.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 San Ramon 22,259 20,934 17,987 2,070 0 827 50 0 989 % 94.0 85.9 9.9 0.0 4.0 0.2 0.0 4.4 Tara Hills 1,234 1,109 646 109 0 343 11 0 61 % 89.9 58.3 9.8 0.0 30.9 1.0 0.0 4.9 Vine Hill 1,120 1,003 572 31 79 321 0 0 59 % 89.6 57.0 3.1 7.9 32.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 Walnut Creek 12,223 11,820 9,178 1,449 182 1,011 0 0 239 % 96.7 77.6 12.3 1.5 8.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Critically, health insurance coverage and access to coverage vary by nati vity. In the state overall, 14.3% of foreign -born residents have no health insurance, compared to 5.0 % of native-born residents, but the rate of uninsured among foreign -born (down 1.7 percentage points) and native born residents (down 0.7 points) both improved since 201 8 . In Contra Costa County, 10.4% of foreign -born residents and 3.3% of native -born residents are uninsured in 201 9, with rates among foreign -born residents down 1.2 points and rates among native -born down 0.4 points from the prior year. In both the state and the county, naturalized foreign -born residents continue to be much more likely than non -citizens to access health insurance, with rates of uninsured among non -citizens 4.6 times higher in the state and 5.1 times higher in the county as compared to naturalized citizens. Since 201 8 , statewide rates of uninsured among naturalized citizens (5.2%) improved 0.8 points, while rates of uninsured among non -citizens (24.0 %) improved 2.5 percentage points. Countywide, rates of uninsu red among naturalized citizens (3.6 %) improved 0.6 points , while rates of uninsured among non -citizens (18.5 %) improved 1.8 percentage points. Rates of uninsured among non -citizens exceed the countywide average (18.5%) by far in Bayview (65.3%), Concord (2 4.2%), East Richmond Heights (45.6%), Richmond (26.5%), San Pablo (30.3%) and Tara Hills (38.7%), noting that small sample sizes may result in large percentages. Health insurance coverage and access to coverage also varies by race and ethnicity. In California as a whole, white, non -Hispanic residents (96.0%) are much more likely than Hispanic residents (87.7%), American Indian/Native Alaskan residents (88.3%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander residents (92.7%) or residents of another unspecified r ace (85.7%) to have health insurance. In Contra Costa County, white, non -Hispanic residents (97.4%) are much more likely than Hispanic residents (89.3%), American Indian/Native Alaskan residents (91.4%) and residents of another unspecified race (85.7%) to have health insurance. Coverage rates among Hispanics in the county are much lower than average (89.3%) in Concord (85.6%), Richmond (84.2%), San Pablo (82.2%) and Tara Hills (86.7%). Coverage rates among Black or African American residents in the county a re much lower than average (95.5%) in El Sobrante (90.1%), Kensington (90.3%), Lafayette (90.3%), Orinda (91.3%), Pach eco (81.2%) and Tara Hills (87.9%). Coverage rates among the county’s Asian residents are much lower than average (96.1%) in Bayview (72.6 %), Danville (92.6%), Discovery Bay (89.0%), El Cerrito (92.6%), Pittsburg (92.6%) and San Pablo (91.7%). Contra Costa County 65 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 48 – Health Insurance Coverage Rates by Nativity and Area, 201 9 Area Native Born All Foreign born Foreign - Naturalized Foreign - Non-Citizen Total % Uninsured Total % Uninsured Total % Uninsured Total % Uninsured California 28,312,118 5.0 10,475,219 14.3 5,415,359 5.2 5,059,860 24.0 Countywide 847,804 3.3 289,345 10.4 158,150 3.6 131,195 18.5 Alamo 12,583 1.4 2,303 3.8 1,584 0.3 719 11.7 Antioch 86,022 5.2 24,848 10.1 13,634 3.8 11,214 17.8 Bayview 1,469 2.2 393 22.1 344 16.0 49 65.3 Bethel Island 1,938 14.5 223 0.0 95 0.0 128 0.0 Blackhawk 7,250 0.6 2,354 1.9 1,883 0.0 471 9.3 Brentwood 52,833 2.0 9,032 4.3 6,005 1.9 3,027 8.9 Clayton 10,761 0.8 1,322 0.0 979 0.0 343 0.0 Concord 93,044 3.1 35,424 15.1 16,006 4.1 19,418 24.2 Contra Costa Ctr 4,607 4.3 1,951 2.4 724 3.0 1,227 2.0 Crockett 2,969 2.2 296 0.0 149 0.0 147 0.0 Danville 37,407 1.3 7,119 6.3 4,749 3.1 2,370 12.6 Discovery Bay 14,712 2.1 1,447 2.8 967 1.8 480 5.0 E Richmond Hts 2,712 2.4 445 16.9 309 4.2 136 45.6 El Cerrito 17,398 3.1 7,957 7.4 4,843 4.5 3,114 11.9 El Sobrante 10,261 4.3 3,557 3.0 1,952 1.5 1,605 4.7 Hercules 16,968 2.6 8,574 6.9 6,664 3.2 1,910 19.9 Kensington 4,443 1.8 886 0.9 663 0.0 223 3.6 Lafayette 22,216 1.0 3,991 3.1 2,376 0.3 1,615 7.2 Martinez 33,147 2.4 4,643 5.6 3,157 4.5 1,486 7.9 Moraga 14,873 1.6 2,586 1.3 1,810 0.4 776 3.4 Oakley 34,513 1.9 6,734 4.8 3,942 3.9 2,792 6.1 Orinda 16,257 1.4 3,343 0.2 2,527 0.3 816 0.0 Pacheco 3,196 4.5 1,165 5.8 728 1.9 437 12.4 Pinole 14,125 4.3 5,134 8.3 3,559 2.3 1,575 21.9 Pittsburg 48,323 5.1 22,885 11.7 12,064 6.1 10,821 17.8 Pleasant Hill 27,903 2.6 6,653 6.1 3,754 2.1 2,899 11.2 Richmond 70,490 6.1 38,478 17.4 16,483 5.3 21,995 26.5 Rodeo 7,553 5.0 2,856 5.4 1,759 2.2 1,097 10.6 San Pablo 16,296 5.5 14,296 21.9 5,203 7.1 9,093 30.3 San Ramon 47,628 1.7 27,961 3.3 16,580 1.1 11,381 6.5 Tara Hills 3,608 3.2 1,509 20.1 899 7.6 610 38.7 Vine Hill 3,165 4.1 721 12.8 312 0.0 409 22.5 Walnut Creek 52,662 1.8 16,058 5.6 10,509 2.6 5,549 11.3 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Since 2018 , coverage rates among Hispanic residents rose 1.5 percentage points in California and 0.8 points in Contra Costa County. Coverage among Black or African American residents rose a slight 0.8 percentage points in California and 0.3 points in Contra Costa County since 2018 . Coverage rates among Asian residents rose 0.8 percentage points in California and a slight 0.4 points in the county. Coverage rates among white, non -Hispanic residents also rose a slight 0.6 percentage points in California and 0.5 points in the county. In June 2020, a collaborative of First 5 Contra C osta, Contra Costa Health Services Department, Trauma Transformed and the county’s Employment and Human Services Department received a $299,261 grant from the Office of the California Surgeon General and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to par ticipate in California’s ACEs Aware initiative. Part of Governor Newsom’s California for All initiative, ACEs Aware has a goal to reduce Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and toxic stress by half in one generation by developing trauma -informed systems of care through core training, screening tools, clinical protocols and funds for screening children and adults. Especially critical in the midst of COVID - induced stress, funds will be used by First 5 Contra Costa and their partners to expand provider traini ng, provider engagement activities and education and communications strategies to promote the ACEs Aware initiative. Contra Costa County 66 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 49 – Health Insurance Coverage Rates by Race and Ethnicity, 20 20 Area White, non-Hisp. Black/African Amer. Amer. Indian/ Alaskan Asian HI / Pac. Islander Other Two or more Hispanic /Latino California 96.0 94.2 88.3 95.2 92.7 85.7 95.1 87.7 Contra Costa 97.4 95.5 91.4 96.1 97.8 85.7 96.0 89.3 Alamo 99.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 96.2 87.1 Antioch 95.9 95.6 93.7 95.6 100.0 87.3 92.2 90.4 Bayview 100.0 100.0 -- 72.6 -- 100.0 100.0 94.6 Bethel Island 85.1 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 82.8 100.0 89.3 Blackhawk 99.1 100.0 -- 99.4 100.0 100.0 96.7 100.0 Brentwood 98.1 99.0 84.3 96.6 100.0 93.9 98.7 95.5 Clayton 99.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 Concord 97.2 94.9 94.0 96.5 98.6 77.9 96.9 85.6 Contra Costa Ctr 94.2 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 100.0 92.0 100.0 Crockett 97.6 94.1 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 Danville 98.7 100.0 100.0 92.6 100.0 99.7 98.9 98.6 Discovery Bay 98.0 100.0 100.0 89.0 100.0 100.0 98.1 100.0 E Richmond Hts 97.3 96.2 -- 96.5 -- 70.6 100.0 87.5 El Cerrito 97.6 94.6 91.9 92.6 100.0 93.0 97.9 94.2 El Sobrante 97.3 90.1 100.0 98.1 100.0 96.8 96.1 95.5 Hercules 94.8 98.6 100.0 96.7 100.0 91.7 98.2 91.7 Kensington 99.0 90.3 100.0 97.6 100.0 100.0 95.0 100.0 Lafayette 99.1 90.3 92.6 94.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Martinez 97.5 97.5 100.0 96.4 -- 92.9 98.2 96.2 Moraga 98.4 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 99.2 97.4 Oakley 98.2 96.6 100.0 98.5 100.0 96.0 98.9 97.0 Orinda 99.1 91.3 -- 98.4 100.0 100.0 98.3 98.8 Pacheco 92.8 81.2 100.0 100.0 -- 89.7 100.0 97.2 Pinole 94.5 95.3 87.7 95.6 3.6 95.9 91.4 94.5 Pittsburg 97.1 94.8 89.3 92.6 94.1 87.3 97.2 89.6 Pleasant Hill 97.3 92.1 100.0 96.2 87.5 91.0 99.0 95.9 Richmond 94.0 94.5 75.8 95.2 97.8 83.7 88.5 84.2 Rodeo 93.7 99.3 -- 98.2 100.0 91.9 97.1 91.1 San Pablo 95.8 96.9 100.0 91.7 100.0 83.1 96.1 82.2 San Ramon 97.8 97.8 92.9 97.8 100.0 94.4 98.3 96.6 Tara Hills 95.8 87.9 100.0 98.8 -- 75.3 100.0 86.7 Vine Hill 93.8 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 85.2 100.0 92.6 Walnut Creek 97.7 95.0 100.0 96.8 96.4 88.6 99.6 94.3 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Physical Fitness Students who meet all six of the fitness standards of th e California Physical Fitness Test are considered to be physically fit. Since 2004, the percentage of 5th, 7th and 9th graders in Contra Costa County who are physically fit has generally exceeded that of the state. However, in the 2018 -19 school year the proportion of Contra Costa County students who meet all six fitness standards fell across all three grades tested. Among 5th graders, the proportion who meet all six standards fell 2.3 percentage points to 24.5%. Among 7th graders, the proportion fell 1.7 points to 27.2%. Among 9th graders, the proportion fell 0.9 points to 33.5%. Although in 2018 -19, the proportion of 9th graders in the c ounty who meet all six fitness standards has grown from 30.6 % in 2004 to 33.5% in 2019 , this represents a 7.4 percentage point decline from 40.9 % in 2013 . Across all grades, 5th graders continue to be least likely to meet all six fitness standards . Fitness also varies considerably by race, ethnicity and economic status. In 2019 across all grade levels, students who identify as African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Filipino, Asian or multi - racial are less likely to be physically fit, while White and Hispanic students are more likely to be physically fit. Since 2018, the percentage of 5th graders who are physically fit fell most notably among those who Contra Costa County 67 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 identify as Asian (down 1.1 points) or White (down 1.9 points), while the percentage of multi -racial 5th graders who are physically fit gained 2.8 percentage points. The percentage of White 7th graders w ho are physically fit fell 1.2 points since 2018, and the percentage of White 9th graders who are fit fell 1.9 points since 2018. In contrast, 9th graders who identify as multi -racial improved their rate by 1.4 points. Table 50 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit, 2004 – 2019 GRADE 2004 2007 2010 2013 2018 2019 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Grade 5 28.4 30.6 27.1 28.1 26.8 24.5 Grade 7 32.3 34.3 31.4 33.4 28.9 27.2 Grade 9 30.6 39.8 38.3 40.9 34.4 33.5 CALIFORNIA Grade 5 24.8 28.5 25.2 26.6 24.3 23.1 Grade 7 29.1 32.9 32.1 33.0 30.1 28.2 Grade 9 26.3 35.6 36.8 38.1 34.4 33.0 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Table 51 – Percentage of Students who are Physically Fit by Race and Ethnicity, 201 9 Percent in Grade 5 Percent in Grade 7 Percent in Grade 9 Black or African American 8.3 8.7 8.4 American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4 0.3 0.4 Asian 14.0 15.1 14.8 Filipino 3.9 4.2 4.6 Hispanic or Latino 36.9 36.3 34.7 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.7 0.7 0.7 White 27.6 29.1 31.3 Two or more races 8.2 5.6 5.1 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Table 52 – Percentage of Physically Fit 5th Graders in Contra Costa Districts, 201 9 District 2019 Count Percent Antioch Unified 171 14.0 Brentwood Union Elementary 198 20.2 Byron Union Elementary 68 42.8 John Swett Unified 13 11.7 Knightsen Elementary 14 23.7 Lafayette Elementary 166 40.1 Martinez Unified 86 29.1 Moraga Elementary 129 60.3 Mt. Diablo Unified 398 16.7 Oakley Union Elementary 98 19.4 Orinda Union Elementary 153 53.9 Pittsburg Unified 117 14.4 San Ramon Valley Unified 1,141 47.7 Walnut Creek Elementary 54 14.1 West Contra Costa Unified 246 12.8 Contra Costa County 3,111 24.5 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Individual districts in the county vary widely in the percentage of students who meet all six fitness standards. Among 5th graders, Moraga Elementary has the highest proportion at 60.3%, followed by Orinda Unified (53.9%), San Ramon Valley Elementary (47.7%), Byron Union Elementary (42.8%) and Lafayette Elementary (40.1%). Schools on the other end of the fitness spectrum i n the 2018-19 school year include John Swett Unified (11.7%), West Contra Costa Unified (12.8%), Antioch Unified (14.0%), Walnut Creek Elementary (14.1%) and Pittsburg Unified (14.4%). Districts that experienced larger than average 1 -year declines in the p roportion of 5th graders who are physically fit include Knightsen Contra Costa County 68 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Elementary (down 23.8 points), Walnut Creek Elementary (down 15.1 points), Brentwood Union Elementary (down 5.1 points) and San Ramon Valley Unified (down 4.8 points). In contrast, Martinez Unified (up 4.7 points), Byron Union Elementary (up 6.2 points), John Swett Unified (up 9.6 points) and Orinda Union Elementary (up 13.6 points) saw notable improvement in the percentage of physically fit 5th graders. Given that districts with lower than a verage fitness scores are also among those with the highest numbers of SD students, these results support the understanding that healthy outcomes in children, such as physical fitness, are inextricably linked to economic factors. The 2018 -19 results of the California Physical Fitness test are the latest data published by the CDE. Asthma Asthma has long been recognized by national health organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Lung Association, as one of the most common chronic diseases in the United States that overburdens health care systems , carries enormous costs in terms of missed days of work or school and other disruptions in daily life, and disproportionally impacts children, people of color and low -income communities. Because additional risk factors for the disease include workplace an d environmental exposures, asthma is of special concern in Contra Costa County, which in 2020 received an F grade on the air quality measures of high ozone and particle pollution days used by the American Lung Association’s State of the Air evaluation. The ALA further reports that in 2019, about 16,038 Contra Costa children and 76,494 adults with asthma are at special risk from low air quality. According to the most recent public health data available, the air quality impacts of climate change , industrial pollutants and wildfires put about 8.8% of California and 11.8% of Contra Costa County residents of all ages with a current diagnosis of asthma at risk in 2018 . In 2018, about 9.1% of California and 13.5% of county adults have a current diagnosis of asthma . Statewide, 9.5% of 5 -17 year olds have a current asthma diagnosis , and although rates for 5 -17 year olds in the county are unreported, they are estimated to be somewhat higher than the statewide rate. In 2018, about 15.4% of California and 17.5% of Contr a Costa residents of all ages have ever been diagnosed with asthma. About 15.9% of California and 19.7% of Contra Costa adults have ever been diagnosed with asthma. About 4.8% of California 0 -4 year olds have ever been diagnosed with asthma, with higher rates among Contra Costa County 0-4 year olds, based on data patterns seen among other age groups. Sexually Transmitted Diseases Because rates for STDs are considered a proxy for unsafe sexual practices and HIV risk factors, trends in incidence rates are particularly important to maintain healthy communities, and STD rates are closely monitored by a statewide surveillance system tha t defines high -risk populations; assesses STD trends; measures prevalence of select STDs, health impacts , and costs; and evaluates progress toward reducing incidence rates . In recent years, incidence of chlamydia among residents of all ages has been generally lower in the county as compared to the state. In the CDPH 2020 County Health Status Profile report , chlamydia in cidence rates have risen to 500.2 per 100,000 in Contra Costa County and 546.1 in California, based on 3 -year averages. County rates , up 8.1% since the prior year, continue to gradually gain on the state rate , which rose just 6.1%. Incidence of g onorrhea among both females and males age 15-44 has also been steadily increasing since 2015 in both the county and state, with the latest public health data indicating 310.8 cases per 100,000 females and 426.2 cases per 100,000 males in Contra Costa County , compared to 282.9 (females) and 501.4 (males) in the state . Rates among county females have risen 11.4% since the prior year, compared to a 12.1% increase in the state, and rates among county males have risen 19.2%, compared to a 12.7% increase in the stat e. County rates among females continue to exceed state rates, while county rates among males are significantly less than the statewide incidence rate among males. The CDPH reports in its 2020 County Health Status Profile that the rate of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among Contra Costa County residents age 13 and older (266.1 per 100,000 or 2,535 cases) continues to compare favorably to the state (404.6), but both the county rate and number of cases (up 5.1%) have Contra Costa County 69 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 increased since 2019, with the county rate up another 3.7% from 256.7 compared to a 1.7% increase from 397.7 in the state. Table 53 – STD Incidence for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, All Ages Year STD Contra Costa Rate County Cases (3-yr average) California Rate 2017 Chlamydia 395.3 4,331 460.2 Gonorrhea Female 15-44 217.4 459 192.2 Gonorrhea Male 15-44 233.5 492 307.3 2018 Chlamydia 422.6 4,720 480.3 Gonorrhea Female 15-44 246.0 521 218.0 Gonorrhea Male 15-44 295.6 632 372.6 2019 Chlamydia 462.8 5,226 514.6 Gonorrhea Female 15-44 278.6 594 252.4 Gonorrhea Male 15-44 358.3 772 444.8 2020 Chlamydia 500.2 5,693 546.1 Gonorrhea Female 15-44 310.8 662 282.9 Gonorrhea Male 15-44 426.2 920 501.4 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CountyHealthStatusProfiles_2020_ADA.pdf. Rate per 100,000 Figure 12 – Chlamydia Incidence Rates, 2017 -20 20 Figure 13 – Gonorrhea Incidence Rates, 2017 -20 20 350 400 450 500 550 600 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa California 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa California Contra Costa County 70 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Pediatric Nutrition Nutritional status (weight, height, and hematology) among low income, high -risk infants and children is an important indicator of health and wellbeing. Poor nutrition and poverty are also significantly correlated. A baby is considered to be low weight if it weighs less than 2,500 grams (5lb. 8oz.). In 2019 , the overall county rate of low birth weight children (7.0%) slightly exceeds the statewide rate (6.9%), based on three -year averages as calculated by the CDPH . Based on 2015 Maternal and Infant Health Assessment (MIHA) population -based survey data, an estimated 18.4% of women with live births in Contra Costa County had inadequate weight gain during their pregnancy, and 12.8% experience d food insecurity during pregnancy.2 Another indicator of poor nutrition that contributes to multiple health risks such as obesity, dental decay, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure is the consumption of fast food which tends to be very high in fat and sugar. In 2016 the CDC report s that 36.6% of U.S. adults consume fast food on any given day, 91 % of surveyed parents said they had purchased a fast-food meal for their child in the prior week, and the frequency of fast food consumption i s not related to family income.3 Alarmingly, in California the percentage of children age 2 -17 who ate fast food more than once a week increased to 43.2% in 2016, up from 39% in 2014 and 37% in 2012. Although Contra Costa County has steadily maintained a lower rate than the state since 2007, in 2016 the percentage of the county’s 2 -17 year olds who eat fast food more than once a week jumped markedly to 42 .1% from 19% in 2014. In 2016, only a bout 35.4 % of Califo rnia children age 2 -11 eat five or more serving of fruits and vegetables each day, compared to 39 .0% of all 2-11 year olds in Contra Costa County.4 Additionally, the Contra Costa County C alifornia Healthy Kids Survey (2015 -16) indicates that about 13% of elementary school students reported they had not eaten breakfast on the morning surveyed . Oral Health Status of Children Dental disease and oral health problems impact more children in the United States than any other chronic disease. Dental disease may negatively impact a child’s health and development, interfere with proper nutrition, deter speech development, and reduce school attendance and academic performance. When children miss school due to oral health problems, school districts also suffer from t he loss of funding. In California, dental problems result in an estimated 874,000 missed school days annually, over half of kindergarteners have experienced tooth decay, and rates are higher among low -income and Latino children.5 According to the 20 21 Cal ifornia County Scorecard of Children’s Wellbeing published by Children Now ,6 about 31% of low income children age 0-5 in Contra Costa County ha d visited a dentist in the past year, compared to 19% in the prior report and 39% in California as a whole . The percentage is somewhat higher among the county’s low -income 0 -5 year olds who are Latino (40%), but lower among those who are White (17%) or Black/African American (29%). Countywide, 53% of children of all ages in foster care had timely dental exams, c ompared to 67% statewide. The state overall received a C -grade for children’s oral health care in the 2020 Children’s Report Card also published by ChildrenNow.org. In September 2019, the Department of Public Health (CDPH) released its CA Oral Health Surv eillance Plan to further its mission of promoting oral health and reducing oral diseases through “prevention, education and organized community efforts.” The Plan, offered as “a model for monitoring oral disease, identifying emerging oral health issues and detecting changes in oral health -related practices and access to services,” proposes to be a source of reliable and valid oral health data for use in developing, 2 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CFH/DMCAH/MIHA/CDPH%20Document%20Library/2013 -2015/SnapshotCo_ContraCosta_2013 - 2015_MaternalCharacteristics.pdf 3 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db213.htm 4 https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/737/nutrition -fastfood-age/table#fmt=1121&loc=2,171&tf=109&ch=1091,486,1092&sortColumn Id=0&sortType 5 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Document%20 Library/Oral%20Health%20Program/FINAL%20REDESIGNED %20COHP -Oral- Health-Plan-ADA.pdf 6 https://www.childrennow.org/portfolio -posts/2021-california-county-scorecard-of-childrens-well-being/ Contra Costa County 71 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of programs designed to improve the oral health of California residents.7 Substance Abuse The 2020 California Department of Public Health County Health Status Profile reports that Contra Costa County has 148.0 drug -induced deaths per year based on a 3 -year average, which translates into an age-adjusted rate of 12.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 13.1 statewide. The county rate has risen significantly since 10.9 in 2019, similar to the state’s age -adjusted drug -induced death rate, which increased from 12.7 in the prior year. Notably, the sta tewide rate has trended upward since at least 2012, when the rate was 10.8 per 100,000. Table 54 – Drug-Induced Death Rates, 2017 -2020 Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 State 11.8 12.2 12.7 13.1 County 11.4 11.0 10.9 12.2 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CHSP -County%20Profiles%202018.pdf Figure 14 – Drug-Induced Death Rates, 2017 -2020 According to the CDPH, the rise in opioid abuse is closely related to other statewide trends, including the rise in homelessness, rising rates of social inequity, and increases in mental illnesses such as depression. Increases in opioid abuse, addiction and overdoses disproportionately impact a community’s most vulnerable and marginalized residents. CDPH data indicates that in 2019, opioid - related deaths rose an alarming 33.6% since 2018 to 3,244 total deaths in the state. State wide, medical professionals wrote 17,576,679 opioid prescriptions, and opioid overdoses resulted in 11,767 emergency department visits (28.78 per 100,000) in 2019. Opioid -related overdose deaths in the county rose to 91 in 2019, up 11.0% from 82 in 2018, b ut up 75% from 52 in 2017. The 2019 death rate per 100,000 residents (7.86) is exceeded by far in 94507 (14.13), 94506 (14.47), 94526 (14.68), 94518 (17.26), 94521 (17.59), 94595 (20.47), 94517 (25.26) and 94525 (44.29). Countywide, there were 565,236 (490 .0 per 1,000 residents) prescriptions written for opioids (excluding buprenorphine) in Contra Costa in 2019, and opioid overdoses resulted in 293 emergency room visits (22.73 per 100,000) from Q3 2019 to Q3 2020, with much higher rates in 94519 (70.11), 94 518 (79.84), 94521 (80.88), 94520 (117.65) and 94525 (131.83). In 2018, this dramatic surge spurred Contra Costa County to join in a lawsuit brought by a consortium of at least 30 California counties against a number of opioid manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit is intended to provide, in part, cost recovery for 7 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Document %20Library/Oral%20Health%20Program/OH%20Surveillance%20 Plan%20 - %20ADA%209.25.2019.pdf 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 2017 2018 2019 2020 State County Contra Costa County 72 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 tax dollars spent in response to the opioid epidemic, including emergency services, prevention, monitoring, treatment, dependency relief and other ongoing actions required to fight the crisi s.8 Table 55 – Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths and Age -Adjusted Rates , 2015-2019 Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 State Number 1,992 2,039 2,194 2,428 3,244 Rate 4.79 4.87 5.22 5.82 7.90 County Number 49 53 52 82 91 Rate 4.19 4.38 4.35 6.82 7.86 Source: https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/ODdash/. Rate per 100,000 residents. Figure 15 – Opioid Overdose Death Rates, 2015 -2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) COVID -19 has had a rapidly accelerating spread with cases worldwide currently topping 135,756,507 including 2,932,192 deaths and 77,204,630 recoveries as of April 11, 2021 , according to the World Health Organization (WHO). A total of 31,348,231 cases have been confirmed in the United States , including 567,142 deaths or 1.8% of all cases , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A total of 3,696,771 cases and 60,334 deaths or 1.6% of all cases have been confirmed in California , with 65,857 cases and 777 death s or 1.2% of all cas es in Contra Costa County as of April 11, 2021 .9 Since the first confirmed U.S. case on January 21, 2020, COVID -19 has impacted all aspects of life including a decline and destabilizing of financial markets , a steep spike in unemployment, the closure of many small businesses, bans on international and domestic travel, the suspension or postponement of public events such as the MLB season and the 2020 Olympics, a curtailment of social interactions including closing nursing homes and prisons to all visitors , shortages linked to consumer panic -shopping and hoarding , a strain on medical supplies and resources , and a poten tially dangerous overextension of health care systems . But by mid-December 2020, the FDA had approved two highly effective COVID -19 vaccines developed in less than 12 months, and the U.S. COVID -19 vaccine roll out began by targeting front -line workers, first responders, long -term care residents and others at highest risk for illness. As of April 11, 2021, there have been 22,777,893 doses administered in California, with 8,767,321 or 27.1% of residents fully vaccinated. In Contra Costa County, 825,275 doses have been administered, and 299,470 or 26% of resident s are fully vaccinated. California currently plans to fully reopen on June 15, 2021. 8 https://cchealth.org/press -releases/2018/0502-Fight-Against-Opioid-Epidemic.php 9 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 State County Contra Costa County 73 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 COMMUNITY SAFETY INDICATORS Crime Rate and Adult Arrests Since 2018, statewide felony arrests among adults have fallen 2.8% or 8,028 arrests. Arrests for violent offenses are also down 3.3% or 3,485, while arrests for property offenses are down 5.6% or 3,835 since 2018. In contrast, California has seen a 5.7% or 264 increase in arrests for sex offenses since 2018. In contrast to generally declining numbers statewide , adult felony arrests in Contra Costa County have risen 4.3% or 360 arrests to 8,829 in 2019 . Arrests for violent offenses (up 3.5%), property offenses (up 1.1%) and sex offenses (up 20.0%) all increased in Contra Costa County since 2018. According to the 2020 County Health Status Profile published by the CDPH, California has an age -adjusted death by homicide rate of 5.1 per 100,000, compared to 5.8 in Contra Costa County. CDPH also reports that California has an age -adjusted firearm-relate d death rate of 7.8 per 100,000, compared to 8.7 in Contra Costa County. Table 56 – Arrests for Adult Offenders, 2010 – 2019 California 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 FELONY ARRESTS 396,532 393,439 412,307 289,204 285,249 277,221 Violent Offenses 102,937 97,732 99,767 101,849 105,141 101,656 Property Offenses 100,328 95,889 87,672 69,640 68,162 64,327 Drug Offenses 115,089 117,350 133,996 37,655 27,889 26,854 Sex Offenses 6,678 6,233 5,256 4,718 4,667 4,931 Other Offenses 71,500 76,235 85,616 75,342 79,390 79,453 MISDEMEANORS 812,026 724,337 713,715 768,812 760,022 735,220 Contra Costa County 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 FELONY ARRESTS 10,509 10,360 11,519 8,354 8,469 8,829 Violent Offenses 2,360 2,204 2,178 2,335 2,481 2,569 Property Offenses 3,103 2,945 3,105 2,683 2,642 2,671 Drug Offenses 3,165 3,200 3,875 1,027 790 797 Sex Offenses 176 177 152 147 140 168 Other Offenses 1,705 1,834 2,209 2,162 2,416 2,624 MISDEMEANORS 15,719 13,678 13,695 16,218 15,747 14,869 Source: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/arrests Figure 16 – Felony Arrests by Offense, Contra Costa County 2010 – 2019 Most analysts conclude the COVID -19 outbreak has led to significant reductions in arrests, particularly for lower -level offenses, as law enforcement departments sought to limit officers’ and citizens’ exposure 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 Violent Offenses Property Offenses Drug Offenses Sex Offenses Other Offenses Contra Costa County 74 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 to COVID-19 and to reduce the number of people entering county jails and justice systems. Statewide data confirm t he number of weekly bookings dropped nearly 30% from February 2020 to September 2020. Adult Incarcerations According to CJCJ analysis, the 2016 incarceration rate in California is 700 per 1,000 adult felony arrests and 404 in Contra Costa County. Although the incarceration rate per 1,000 arrests remains much lower than that the state, the county incarceration rate has risen 33% since 2013. From 2013 to 2016 , the incarceration rate per 1,000 felony arrests has also increased 34% statewide. Fortunately, the Public Policy Institute of California reports that the number and proportion of female inmates is declining, with 11,800 or 6.8% of the state’s prison population in 2006 and 5,800 or 4.6% in 2017. However, African Americans continue to be over -represented in the statewide prison population, as 28 % of the prison population are African American in 2018 , compared to just 6% of the state’s residents . Hispanics are also over-represented in statewide prisons, representing 44% of the state’s prisoners and just 36% of its population. During the past 10 years, while the number of individuals in prison has fallen 25%, the proportion of Black inmates has grad ually fallen, but the proportion of Hispanic inmates has grown 15%. Notably, f oreign-born Californians are less likely to be imprisoned, as 81.4% of inmates are native -born, compared to 65.4% of all adult Californians. In contrast, just 13.5% of the state’s prison population are foreign -born, while California’s adult immigrant population is 34.6%. Over the past eight years, the state’s prison population has also been aging. The percentage of prisoners age 18 to 29 has declined, while the percentage age 50 or older has increased from 4% in 2000 to 23% in 2017. An aging inmate population also has cost implications, including costs for health care, with the average annual cost to incarcerate one inmate in California up $32,000 or 58% since 2011 to about $81,000 per year. Table 57 – Total Adult Incarceration Rate, 2013 - 2016 Geography 2013 2014 2015 2016 California 523 501 682 700 Contra Costa County 303 268 375 404 Source: http://casi.cjcj.org/Adult/Contra-Costa. Incidence is total of state prison and county jail in carcerations per 1,000 adult felony arrests. Much p revious research suggests a significant linkage between adult prison populations and experience in foster care systems. A 2014 statewide analysis by the California Department of Social Services Research Services Branch 10 was undertaken to explore this linkage in California by matching records from two datasets: 1) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prison admissions data, and 2) CDSS Child Welfare Services Case Management System foster care data. The results of the matche d data analysis found that 27 % of young adult prison inmates who were admitted to state prison between July 2011 and June 2013 had experienced a foster care placement. Additionally, although male inmates had a much higher number of matched records than female inmates , a significantly higher proportion of female inmates (36%) had a foster care history as compared to male inmates (27%). When analysis was limited to a specific age cohort , those born after January 1988 , 25% of male and 34% of female inmates had a foster care history. Domestic Violence In 2019, the number of domestic violence calls for assistance from Contra Costa County residents fell a notable 6.0% or 197 calls over 2018, with 3,066 total calls. During the same period, the total number of domestic violence calls for assistance in Califor nia overall also fell by 3.5% to 161,123. 10 CaliforniaStatePrisonChildWelfareDataLinkageStudy.pdf Contra Costa County 7 5 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 58 – Number of Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, 2008–2019 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 California 166,343 166,361 157,634 155,965 164,569 169,362 166,890 161,123 Contra Costa 3,868 3,687 3,286 3,410 2,947 3,206 3,263 3,066 Source: State of California Dept. of Justice, https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/crime-statistics/domestic-violence Child Abuse Since 2005, the county’s rate of substantiated child abuse cases per 1,000 children age 0 -17 has been considerably lower than in California as a whole , and in December 2019, the county’s rate is 3.8 compared to a state rate of 7.5 per 1,000 . However, the number of substantiated cases in the county rose a substantial 11.3% or 96 children from 853 in 2018 to 949 in 2019 , ending a period of decreasing numbers since 2014 . Table 59 – Rate of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases, 2005 –2019 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 California 11.3 10.7 10.0 9.5 8.9 8.2 7.5 7.5 Contra Costa County 7.6 8.8 5.1 5.5 5.1 4.5 3.8 3.8 Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/. Rate per 1,000 children (ages 0-17); the substantiated rate measures the number of child abuse reports that warrant an in-person investigation and are determined to have occurred. Table 60 – Number of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa, 2009 –2019 Year 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 Number of Cases 1,332 1,422 1,348 1,155 975 853 949 Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/. The distribution of substantiated child abuse cases by age indicates that the percentage of all cases (949 ) involving infants (14.9%) has fallen since 2018 (17.9%), as has the number of substantiated cases (down 7.8% or 12 children). Another 290 (30.6%) substantiated cases involve children age 1 to 5, up 16.0% or 40 children since 2018. Encouragingly, the number of cases that result in children entering foster care (369 ) has fallen another 4.4% or 17 children f rom 386 in 2018. Table 61 –Child Abuse Allegations, Substantiations and Entries by Age, 2019 Age Group Child Population Children w/ Allegations per 1,000 children Children w/ Substantiations per 1,000 % of Allegations Children w/ Entries Entries per 1,000 < 1 12,010 487 40.5 141 11.7 29.0 88 7.3 1-2 24,419 798 32.7 128 5.2 16.0 40 1.6 3-5 37,971 1,431 37.7 162 4.3 11.3 54 1.4 6-10 70,139 2,946 42.0 234 3.3 7.9 78 1.1 11-15 75,148 3,041 40.5 225 3.0 7.4 92 1.2 16-17 31,214 1,028 32.9 59 1.9 5.7 17 0.5 Total 250,901 9,731 38.8 949 3.8 9.8 369 1.5 Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/. Juvenile Arrests According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation and Children Now report, the U .S. leads the industrialized world in the rate at which youth are arrested, and in 2013 California ranked 12th highest among all states .11 Fortunately, the rate of juvenile arrests in the state has fallen significantly in the past several years and this trend continues in 2019. Although Contra Costa County has also seen falling numbers in the past few years, juvenile arrests are up 9.4% in 2019 . Statewide, there were 43,181 juvenile arrests of all types reported by law enforcement agencies in 2019, down another 7.0% or 3,242 juvenile arrests reported by law enforcement agencies in 2018 (4 6,423 ) after a 17.5% drop the prior year . Of 43,181 11 http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/feb/27/youth -incarceration-rates-still-high-california/ Contra Costa County 76 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 arrests, 16,288 (37.7 %) were for felony offenses, and 43.8% (7,129 ) of these were for violent offenses. Unfortunately, the st ate saw a slight uptick in the percentage of arrests that are for felony (up 0.5 points) and violent offenses (up 1.4 points). Countywide, there were 869 juvenile arrests of all types reported by law enforcement agencies in 2019, up 9.4 % or 75 juvenile arrests since 2018 (794 ). Of 869 arrests, 375 (43.2 %) were for felony offenses, and 153 (40.8%) of these were for violent offenses. Like the state, the county saw an uptick in juvenile felony arrests (up 18.7% or 59 arrest s) and arrests for violent offenses (up 15.0% or 20 arrests ). Table 62 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates, 2013–2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 California 7.4 6.6 5.1 4.7 4.6 4.1 Contra Costa County 5.5 5.2 4.4 3.3 3.8 2.6 Source: https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/165/arrest-rate/table#fmt=2332&loc=2,171&tf=108,95,88,84,79,73&sortType=asc . Rates per 1,000 youth age 10-17. Figure 17 – Juvenile Felony Arrest Rates, 2013 – 2018 Juvenile felony arrest rates vary significantly by race and ethnicity with the rate among African American / Black youth the highest across all youth at 13.9 per 1,000 in the county and 20.4 in the state in 2018. Rates among the county’s Latino (2.3 per 1,000) and White (1.3 per 1,000) youth are considerably lower. Although African American juveniles continue d to have the hi ghest arrest rate by far in 2018 , they have nonetheless seen the steepest declines since 2009, with rates in the state dropping from 47.2 (2009) to 20.4 (2018), and rates in the county dropping from 43.8 (2009 ) to 13.9 (2018) per 1 ,000 youth age 0 -17 . In 2019, about 59.2% (222) of all ju veniles arrested for felony offenses in Contra Costa County were African American / Black youth, 29.1% (109) were Hispanic/Latino youth, and 8.8% (33) were White youth. Table 63 – Juvenile Felony Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, Cont ra Costa 2017–2019 2017 2018 2019 Black / African American Count 251 155 222 Percent 54.4 49.1 59.2 Hispanic / Latino Count 107 93 109 Percent 23.2 29.4 29.1 White Count 74 53 33 Percent 16.1 16.8 8.8 Other Count 29 15 11 Percent 6.3 4.7 2.9 TOTAL JUVENILE FELONY ARRESTS 1,179 794 869 Source: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/arrests 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 California Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 77 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 18 – Percentage of Juvenile Felony Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, 2019 Gang Membership Among Youth Despite its recognition as a serious threat to youth and community health, gang activity and membership is not easily tracked and current data is not maintained by most criminal justice agencies. However, data compiled by Helping Gang Youth indicates that 40% of gang members are juveniles. A number of factors increase the chance that youth will turn to gangs including difficulty or failure in school, high rate of truancy, lack of opportunity for positive activities outside of school, being from a low income household or community, and struggling with learning disabilities and/or emotional disorders. An estimated 60% to 78% of all incarcerated gang members have a learning disability or an emotional disorder that may inhibit them from engaging or excelling in school.12 Although gang activity and gang -related crime is not adequately tracked, several gangs are known to be active in Contra Costa County, including in East Contra Costa and on Richmond’s South Side with the Backstreets and Easter Hills in the old GlobeTown projects (Richmond Townhouses) and, more recently, Pullman Point, the 30s, the 40s, the Manor (Kennedy Manor), Maine Line and Crescent Park. The Sheriff’s Office reports that from August 2018 to July 2019, 6 of 107 (6%) violent incidents in Richm ond occurred in or near Crescent Park, with 2 of these in 94804. In the prior year, 2 of 125 (2%) violent incidents in Richmond occurred in or near Crescent Park, with 1 in 94804.13 However, data from the County Sheriff and the Richmond and Lafayette police departments shows that in the past 6 months, 125 of 659 (19%) violent incidents in Richmond occurred in 94804. Compared to a national average of 100, Richmond received a violent crime score of 173.36 in 2017, a marked improvement over 210.72 in 2014. Coun ty authorities are also aware of the Broad Day gang which has been active in East Contra Costa, particularly in Antioch and Pittsburg, since the 1990s. According to the 2017 -19 California Healthy Kids Survey, self -reports of gang membership among Contra Costa County 7th graders encouragingly dropped from 5.5% in 2011 -13 to 4.6% in 2015-17 , and improved further to 4.0% in 2017 -19. Among 11th graders, student reported gang membership rose from 4.8% in 2011 -13 to 5.5% in 2015 -17 , but also fell to 5.0% in 2017 -19 .14 CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Births In 2019, the birth rate in Contra Costa County increased to 49.1 per 1,000 women 15 -50, reversing its downward trend. However, the teen birth rate in both the county (1.9 ) and state (10.1) continues to trend down . An estimated 13,236 women gave birth in Contra Costa in 2019 , up 3.6% or 459 women 12 http://www.helpinggangyouth.com/disability -best_corrections_survey.pdf 13 https://www.crimereports.com/agency/contra -costa#!/ 14 https://data.calschls.org/resources/Contra_Costa_County_1719_Sec_CHKS.pdf 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 2017 2018 2019 Black Latino White Other Contra Costa County 78 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 since 2018, in contrast to California, which saw a 0.7 % decline in women with births . Areas with the largest 1 -year increases in women with births include Antioch (up 10.0% or 130), Concord (up 5.4% or 89), Oakley (up 34.9% or 173), Richmond (up 23.3% or 324) and San Pablo (up 21.9% or 82). However, some areas had notable declines in women with births including Blackhawk (down 37.3% or 38), Brentwood (down 9.0% or 58), Hercules (down 24.1% or 70), Martinez (down 13.7% or 64), Pacheco (down 50.5% or 55), Pinole (down 23.5% or 77) and San Ramon (down 6.2% or 40). The highest birth rates in the county occur in Bayview (89.6 per 1,000), Concord (58.6), Contra Co sta Centre (75.1), Discovery Bay (55.4), Oakley (61.6), Pinole (55.4), Pittsburg (70.5), Richmond (60.3), San Pablo (56.5) and Tara Hills (76.2 per 1,000). In 201 9 as in 2018 and 2017 , the four communities of Pittsburg (1,267 ), Antioch (1,432), Richmond (1 ,714 ) and Concord (1,745 ) have the highest number of women with births . Table 64 – Birth Rate of Women Age 15-50, Contra Costa County (2009–2019) 2009 2011 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate per 1,000 62.3 58.1 58.0 51.1 49.5 47.8 47.6 49.1 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 65 – Births and Birth Rates by Census Place, 201 9 Area Women 15-50 Women with births Rate/1,000 Females 15-19 Teens with births Rate/1,000 California 9,621,148 469,884 48.8 1,255,373 12,727 10.1 Countywide 269,717 13,236 49.1 35,662 66 1.9 Alamo 2,426 19 7.8 512 0 0.0 Antioch 28,351 1,432 50.5 4,322 0 0.0 Bayview 335 30 89.6 38 0 0.0 Bethel Island 364 10 27.5 0 0 -- Blackhawk 2,090 64 30.6 458 0 0.0 Brentwood 14,021 589 42.0 2,664 0 0.0 Clayton 2,555 70 27.4 556 0 0.0 Concord 29,792 1,745 58.6 3,125 0 0.0 Contra Costa Ctr 1,917 144 75.1 9 0 0.0 Crockett 709 28 39.5 103 0 0.0 Danville 8,689 393 45.2 1,251 0 0.0 Discovery Bay 3,806 211 55.4 752 18 23.9 E Richmond Hts 673 6 8.9 26 0 0.0 El Cerrito 6,082 232 38.1 513 0 0.0 El Sobrante 3,097 117 37.8 229 0 0.0 Hercules 5,982 220 36.8 588 0 0.0 Kensington 925 45 48.6 157 0 0.0 Lafayette 5,627 135 24.0 909 0 0.0 Martinez 8,602 404 47.0 1,077 0 0.0 Moraga 4,186 123 29.4 1,228 0 0.0 Oakley 10,863 669 61.6 1,691 9 5.3 Orinda 3,977 119 29.9 790 8 10.1 Pacheco 1,056 54 51.1 86 0 0.0 Pinole 4,516 250 55.4 429 0 0.0 Pittsburg 17,984 1,267 70.5 2,088 31 14.8 Pleasant Hill 8,261 280 33.9 734 0 0.0 Richmond 28,407 1,714 60.3 2,993 0 0.0 Rodeo 2,681 134 50.0 329 0 0.0 San Pablo 8,093 457 56.5 1,401 0 0.0 San Ramon 19,178 606 31.6 2,711 0 0.0 Tara Hills 1,116 85 76.2 176 0 0.0 Vine Hill 885 7 7.9 97 0 0.0 Walnut Creek 14,192 661 46.6 1,436 0 0.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 79 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 In 2019 , about 8,096 native -born women age 15 -50 in Contra Costa County h ad births, up 2.7% or 213 births, while 5,140 foreign -born women had births, up 5.0% or 246 since 2018 . Of native -born women with births, 29.9 % are unmarried, up from 28.9% in the prior year. Of foreign born women with births, 19.9% are unmarried, up from 17.7% in 2018 . The largest number of foreign -born women with births may be found in San Ramon (380), Antioch (463), Pittsburg (533), Concord (652) and Richmond (858). Table 66 – Births by Nativity and Census Place, 201 9 Area Women 15-50 With birth(s) Married with births Unmarried with births All Native Foreign born All Native Foreign born California 9,621,148 469,884 322,272 198,495 123,777 147,612 112,818 34,794 Contra Costa Cnty 269,717 13,236 9,788 5,673 4,115 3,448 2,423 1,025 Alamo 2,426 19 19 0 19 0 0 0 Antioch 28,351 1,432 991 676 315 441 293 148 Bayview 335 30 14 14 0 16 16 0 Bethel Island 364 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 Blackhawk 2,090 64 64 32 32 0 0 0 Brentwood 14,021 589 524 393 131 65 48 17 Clayton 2,555 70 70 36 34 0 0 0 Concord 29,792 1,745 1,334 813 521 411 280 131 Contra Costa Ctr 1,917 144 144 42 102 0 0 0 Crockett 709 28 28 28 0 0 0 0 Danville 8,689 393 377 266 111 16 0 16 Discovery Bay 3,806 211 172 120 52 39 39 0 E Richmond Hts 673 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 El Cerrito 6,082 232 219 111 108 13 7 6 El Sobrante 3,097 117 100 41 59 17 17 0 Hercules 5,982 220 159 100 59 61 56 5 Kensington 925 45 32 32 0 13 13 0 Lafayette 5,627 135 124 53 71 11 11 0 Martinez 8,602 404 314 273 41 90 90 0 Moraga 4,186 123 110 62 48 13 13 0 Oakley 10,863 669 431 361 70 238 161 77 Orinda 3,977 119 95 65 30 24 8 16 Pacheco 1,056 54 54 54 0 0 0 0 Pinole 4,516 250 142 90 52 108 108 0 Pittsburg 17,984 1,267 778 401 377 489 333 156 Pleasant Hill 8,261 280 232 140 92 48 32 16 Richmond 28,407 1,714 1,013 365 648 701 491 210 Rodeo 2,681 134 56 9 47 78 78 0 San Pablo 8,093 457 200 50 150 257 128 129 San Ramon 19,178 606 537 175 362 69 51 18 Tara Hills 1,116 85 36 7 29 49 49 0 Vine Hill 885 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 Walnut Creek 14,192 661 610 414 196 51 51 0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ In California overall, 4.3% of married and 14.7% of unmarried women with births receive some type of public assistance in 2019, down from 2018 rates of 4.4% and 15.9%, respectively . In Contra Costa County, 2.3% (223) of married and 12.2% (422) of unmarried women with births receive PA in 2019, with both rates down from 2018 (3.3% and 16.4%, respectively). Despite these countywide improvements, the proportion of unmarried women with births on are now 5 .3 times more likely to receive PA than married women wit h births. Compared to a countywide 1.0 percentage point improvement since 2018 for the percentage of married women with births on PA, Antioch (down 1.7 points), Concord (down 3.0 points), Danville (down 5.0 points) and El Sobrante (down 8.5 points) saw much larger declines, while San Pablo (up 2.2 points) and Kensington (up 16.5 points) experienced notable increases. Compared to a countywide 4.2 percentage point improvement since 2018 for the percentage of unmarried women with births on PA, Antioch (down 4.7 points), Concord (down 7.7 points), Contra Costa County 80 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Martinez (down 15.6 points) and Richmond (12.0 points) saw larger declines, while Discovery Bay (up 38.5 points), Rodeo (up 27.4 points) and San Ramon (up 3.5 points) saw notable increases. About 645 Contra Costa Coun ty women with births in the past year receive some public assistance, down a significant 22.2 % or 184 from 829 in 2018 , with the number of both married (down 91) and unmarried (down 93) women with births on PA improving . Since 2018, t he largest improvement of women with births on PA occur in Antioch (down 19.4% or 31), Concord (down 30.3% or 54), Danville (down 61.1% or 22), Martinez (down 65.2% or 45) and Richmond (down 49.0% or 49). In contrast, Rodeo (up 13) and Discovery Bay (up 15) saw notable increase s. Table 67 – Women with Births and Public Assistance Income, 2019 Area Women Age 15-50 With births Married with births Receive PA % with PA Unmarried with births Receive PA % with PA California 9,621,148 469,884 322,272 13,705 4.3 147,612 21,710 14.7 Contra Costa Cnty 269,717 13,236 9,788 223 2.3 3,448 422 12.2 Alamo 2,426 19 19 0 0.0 0 0 -- Antioch 28,351 1,432 991 26 2.6 441 103 23.4 Bayview 335 30 14 0 0.0 16 0 0.0 Bethel Island 364 10 10 0 0.0 0 0 -- Blackhawk 2,090 64 64 0 0.0 0 0 -- Brentwood 14,021 589 524 0 0.0 65 0 0.0 Clayton 2,555 70 70 0 0.0 0 0 -- Concord 29,792 1,745 1,334 76 5.7 411 48 11.7 Contra Costa Cntr 1,917 144 144 0 0.0 0 0 -- Crockett 709 28 28 0 0.0 0 0 -- Danville 8,689 393 377 14 3.7 16 0 0.0 Discovery Bay 3,806 211 172 0 0.0 39 15 38.5 E Richmond Hts 673 6 6 0 0.0 0 0 -- El Cerrito 6,082 232 219 0 0.0 13 0 0.0 El Sobrante 3,097 117 100 8 8.0 17 17 100.0 Hercules 5,982 220 159 0 0.0 61 43 70.5 Kensington 925 45 32 10 31.3 13 0 0.0 Lafayette 5,627 135 124 0 0.0 11 0 0.0 Martinez 8,602 404 314 0 0.0 90 24 26.7 Moraga 4,186 123 110 0 0.0 13 0 0.0 Oakley 10,863 669 431 0 0.0 238 9 3.8 Orinda 3,977 119 95 0 0.0 24 0 0.0 Pacheco 1,056 54 54 0 0.0 0 0 -- Pinole 4,516 250 142 0 0.0 108 0 0.0 Pittsburg 17,984 1,267 778 21 2.7 489 28 5.7 Pleasant Hill 8,261 280 232 7 3.0 48 0 0.0 Richmond 28,407 1,714 1,013 0 0.0 701 51 7.3 Rodeo 2,681 134 56 0 0.0 78 41 52.6 San Pablo 8,093 457 200 16 8.0 257 25 9.7 San Ramon 19,178 606 537 31 5.8 69 8 11.6 Tara Hills 1,116 85 36 0 0.0 49 0 0.0 Vine Hill 885 7 7 0 0.0 0 0 -- Walnut Creek 14,192 661 610 0 0.0 51 0 0.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 81 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 19 – Number of Women with Births on Publi c Assistance, 2019 INFANT MORTALITY Based on the County Health Status Profile published in 20 20 by CDPH, infant mortality rates in Contra Costa County as a whole have fallen from a 10 -year high of 4.9 in 2010 to 3.2 per 1,000 infants in 2020. By comparison, California has an infant mortality rate of 4.3 per 1,000 infants in 20 20, which has also fallen since 2010, but not as steeply. Although infant mortality rates rose from 2006 to 2010, the trend since 2010 suggests improvements in factors such as maternal health, health care access, health practices or related socioeconomic con ditions in the county as a whole. Published rates are based on 3 -year averages and indicate infant mortality in the county has been generally lower than in the state. Both the county and state rates have for several years met the Healthy People 2020 Nation al Objective of no more than 6.0 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Table 68 – Infant Mortality Rate, Contra Costa County, 2016 –2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 5.0 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.2 California 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.3 Source: County Profiles at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CountyHealthStatusProfiles_2020 _ADA.pdf. Rate per 1,000. Critically, infant mortality varies by race and ethnicity with the highest rates among Black/African American residents (9.4), while rates among Hispanic residents (3.3), White residents (3.4) and Asian/Pacific Islander residents (2.8) are considerably lower. Some of these sub -group rates are based on 2017 estimates, which are the most recent county -level rates available for Black/African American, White and Asian/Pacific Islander residents. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Oa k l e y Di s c o v e r y B a y Ma r t i n e z Ro d e o He r c u l e s Ri c h m o n d Pl e a s a n t H i l l El S o b r a n t e Ke n s i n g t o n Da n v i l l e Sa n P a b l o Pi t t s b u r g An t i o c h Sa n R a m o n Co n c o r d Married Unmarried Contra Costa County 82 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 20 – Infant Mortality Rates, 2016 -2020 LOW WEIGHT BIRTHS A baby is considered to be low weight if it weighs less than 2,500 grams (5 lb. 8 oz.) at birth. In the United States, low birthweight is a strong predictor of infant mortality and morbidity, and the nutritional status (weight, height, and hematology) among low inco me, high -risk infants and children is an important indicator of health and wellbeing. Poor nutrition and poverty are also significantly correlated, if not causal. Preterm birth, or births occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, is one of the predominant pr oximate causes of low birthweight. Risk factors for preterm delivery include low socioeconomic status, low pre -pregnancy weight, inadequate weight gain during pregnancy, history of infertility problems, smoking and multiple gestations. Infants who are born at low birthweight are at greater risk of developing other problems later in life, such as physical disabilities and developmental delays. Per CDPH data published i n 2020, the overall county rate of low birth weight children (7.0 %) continues to exceed the statewide rate (6.9 %). Although both rates increased slightly since 2018 , rates are unchanged from those published in 2019. B oth rates meet the National Healthy People 2020 objective of no more than 7.8 per 100 live births. Table 69 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Babies, Contra Costa & California, 20 15– 2020 Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.0 California 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CountyHealthStatusProfiles_2020_ADA.pdf. PRENATAL CARE The percentage of Contra Costa pregnant women who receive prenatal care in their first trimester has generally exceeded the state in recent years . The latest CDPH published estimates in 2020 indicate 88.3% of pregnant women in the county receive prenatal care in their first trimester, which is a notably 0.8 percentage point improve ment from 87.5 % in 2019 . By comparison, the state rate of 83.9 % published in 2020 also increased 0.4 points from 83.5% in the prior year. The current county rate (88.3%) exceeds the new MICH -10.1 Healthy People 2020 National Objective of 84.8 % of pregnant women, while the statewide rate (83.9%) does not . Table 70 – Percentage of Women Receiving Prenatal Care in First Trimester, 2016–2020 Area 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 84.4 86.4 86.9 87.5 88.3 California 83.6 83.3 83.3 83.5 83.9 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CountyHealthStatusProfiles_2020_ADA.pdf. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County California Contra Costa County 83 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Because the CDPH recognizes that utilization of prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy does not take into account whether prenatal care continued throughout pregnancy, it also publishes the percentage of pregnant women who receive “adequate or adequate plus ” ongoing prenatal care, which characterizes prenatal care in terms of the trimester in which care is first accessed and the number of prenatal care visits during pregnancy. The latest estimates in Contra Costa County indicate 74.7% of pregnant women received adequate or adequate plus prenatal care, which indicates this health measure continues to trend down from 77.0 % in 2018 and 75.8% in 2019. In contrast, 78.0% of pregnant women statewide receive adequate or adequate plus prenatal care, which is a slight improvement from 77.9% in 2019. Unfortunately, both rates are well below the new MICH -10.1 He althy People 2020 National Objective of 83.2 %. BIRTHS TO TEENS Teenage mothers have historically been more likely than other mothers to have preterm babies, more likely to have low birthweight infants, and less likely to get prenatal care in their first trimester. According to ACS estimates, t he annual teen birth rate in the county , which is 1.9 per 1,000 in 2019 , has been consistently lower than that in the state (10.1 ). According to the California Department of Public Health, rates in both the county and state have shown marked declines since 2014 , with the age-specific rate of teen birth s per 1,000 in the county continuing to improve from 22.8 in 2014 to 9.1 in 2020, while the state rate also continues to improve from 36.0 in 2014 to 14.2 currently . Table 71 – Age-Specific Rate of Births to Teen s, 2002 –2020 Area 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 20.7 14.9 22.8 17.2 11.6 10.9 10.0 9.1 California 31.6 26.2 36.0 32.0 21.0 17.6 15.7 14.2 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CountyHealthStatusProfiles_2020_ADA.pdf. Figure 21 – Birth Rate Among Teens, 2010 -2020 Child Care NEED FOR CHILD CARE Since 1997 the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network has published the California Child Care Portfolio in an effort to standardize and distribute reliable d ata about the status of childcare in California. The Network reports on the potential demand and a vailability of licensed child care in each county . Potential demand for child care is assessed by looking at t rends in population growth, including changes in the age distribution of children, the number of children with parents in the workforce, and the number of children living in poverty. The 2019 California Child Care Portfolio estimated that the total number of slots in licensed child care centers ha d fallen a slight 0.4% since 2017, but the number of 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County California Contra Costa County 84 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 slots in licensed family child care homes, which t end to be more accommodating to parents’ work schedules and somewhat more affordable, had fallen statewide since 2008 , including a 4.8% drop since 2017. The state ha d also seen a 4% reduction in children under 2 and a 2% reduction in children age 2 since 2016. Since 2016, California’s population of 0 -5 year olds in poverty ha d fallen 10%, and the number of single -parent families in the labor force ha d fallen 1%. However, the number of children receiving subsidized care statewide had increased 7%. According to the 2021 California County Scorecard of Children’s Well -Being published by Children Now,15 a licensed child care space is available to about 25% of California and 28% of Contra Costa County children of all ages in working families. About 38% of all parent requests for licensed child care in 2019 were for 0 -1 year olds, down from 48% in 2017. However, the percentage of requests for 0 -1 year olds that were for full time care increased from 75% to 79%. According to the 2019 California Child Care Portfolio, t he number of child care slots in licensed centers in Contra Costa County ha d increased 3% from 24,898 in 2017 to 25,576 in 2019. The number of slots in licensed family child care homes in the county had also increased 3% from 8,288 in 2017 to 8,556 in 2019. The number of facilities and homes providing these services ha d similarly increased. Since 2016, the county ha d seen a 4% decline in children less than 2 , but a 3% growth in children age 2 and a 2 % growth in children age 3 and 4. The number of Contra Costa 0 -5 year olds in poverty had meanwhile risen a considerable 29% from 7,592 in 2016 to 9,771 in 2018, and the number of single -parent families in which the parent works ha d increased 4%. About 7,103 county children receive d subsidized care in 2018, up 8% from 6,584 in 2016. About 35% of all requests for licensed child care in 2019 were for 0-1 year olds, with 89% of these for full time care . Another 42% of requests were for 2 -5 year olds and between 66% (5 year olds) and 84% (3 year olds) of these requests were for full time care. About 76% of families seeking child care in the county did so because parents were working . The California Child Care Resource and Referral Network has not published a new portfolio since 2019, but their data indicates that although the child care provider sector was recognized as an essential service, COVID-19 has dramatically impacted the availability of child care. California lost about 14% or 3,635 child care family homes and 33% or 4,873 child care centers between January 2020 and January 2021. In Contra Costa County, COVID-19 forced the temporary or permanent closure of 220 child care family homes (down 23%) and 142 centers (down 26%) during the same period. ACCESS TO CHILD CARE The California Community Care Licensing Divis ion reports that in February 2021 , Contra Costa County has 19,233 preschool age day care slots in 334 licensed or license -pending centers, down 2.0% or 396 slots and down 1.8% or 6 centers since February 2020. In February 2021, the county also has 2,227 infant slots in 88 licensed or license -pending centers , up 1.1% or 24 slots and up 2.3% or 2 centers since February 2020 . As of February 2021, Contra Costa has 405 licensed or license -pending family homes that serve at leas t 9 children with 5,616 day care slots, down a significant 30.1% or 174 provider homes and 29.6% or 2,366 available family home slots since 2020. These reductions are most likely a direct consequence of COVID -19 business closures and stay-at -home orders. O verall, 22 Contra Costa cities saw capacity declines since 2020, while Bay Point saw a small 16.7% increase, and Alamo and Clayton had no change. Concord (down 328), Antioch (down 304), Richmond (down 254), San Ramon (down 246) and Oakley (down 220) saw th e largest declines in the number of slots. Bethel Island (down 100.0%), Orinda (down 65.0%), Discovery Bay (down 50.0%), Oakley (down 48.2%) and Lafayette (down 42.9%) saw the largest percentage declines. Note that the county has additional licensed or lic ense-pending family homes with the capacity to serve fewer than 9 children, but these slots are excluded from analysis because these locations are not released publicly. 15 https://scorecard.childrennow.org/?ind=childCareSpace&yr=4 Contra Costa County 85 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 72 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Facilities b y City, February 2021 City Day Care Centers Day Care Center Slots Infant Centers Infant Center Slots ALAMO 5 258 0 0 ANTIOCH 17 1,229 6 150 BAY POINT 6 310 2 52 BRENTWOOD 23 1,403 8 215 CLAYTON 5 263 1 28 CONCORD 46 2,518 12 310 CROCKETT 1 22 0 0 DANVILLE 19 1,138 4 72 DISCOVERY BAY 2 108 0 0 EL CERRITO 10 461 1 28 EL SOBRANTE 5 254 2 55 HERCULES 1 100 0 0 KENSINGTON 6 323 0 0 LAFAYETTE 13 893 4 96 MARTINEZ 12 664 6 115 MORAGA 7 555 3 36 OAKLEY 8 402 2 64 ORINDA 7 392 0 0 PINOLE 4 155 0 0 PITTSBURG 20 893 3 60 PLEASANT HILL 18 1,005 5 177 RICHMOND 33 1,717 8 239 RODEO 4 185 3 55 SAN PABLO 11 400 3 89 SAN RAMON 20 1,385 9 232 WALNUT CREEK 31 2,200 6 154 Total 334 19,233 88 2,227 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData Table 73 – Licensed Day Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, February 202 1 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity AIM HIGH CHILD CARE CENTER, INC., TIMBER POINT 40 NEWBURY LANE DISCOVERY BAY 94505 60 ALL GOD'S CHILDREN CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 1900 WILLOW LAKE ROAD DISCOVERY BAY 94505 48 BLACKHAWK MONTESSORI 3380 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR, ST112 DANVILLE 94506 70 BRIGHT MINDS 3380 BLACKHAWK PLZ CIR, STE 220 DANVILLE 94506 42 SAFARI KID - DANVILLE 4135 BLACKHAWK PLZ CIR STE 150 DANVILLE 94506 38 TASSAJARA LEARNING CENTER 1899 CASABLANCA STREET DANVILLE 94506 127 TREE OF LIFE LEARNING CENTER 1800 HOLBROOK DR DANVILLE 94506 77 ALAMO COUNTRY SCHOOL 1261 LAVEROCK LANE ALAMO 94507 64 ALAMO MONTESSORI SCHOOL 1350 DANVILLE BLVD ALAMO 94507 26 CREATIVE LEARNING CENTER 120 HEMME AVENUE ALAMO 94507 52 DORRIS-EATON SCHOOL, THE 1286 STONE VALLEY ROAD ALAMO 94507 90 MEADOWLARK CHILDREN'S CENTER 2964 MIRANDA AVENUE ALAMO 94507 26 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - ANTIOCH 112 EAST TREGALLAS ROAD ANTIOCH 94509 92 CORNERSTONE CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 2800 SUNSET LANE ANTIOCH 94509 60 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - FAIRGROUNDS 1203 W. 10TH ST ANTIOCH 94509 128 FIRST BAPTIST HEADSTART - BELSHAW 2801 ROOSEVELT LANE - PORTABLE ANTIOCH 94509 52 HILLTOP CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 2200 COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE ANTIOCH 94509 80 HOLY ROSARY SCHOOL 25 EAST 15TH STREET ANTIOCH 94509 45 IMAGINATION ACADEMY 2032 HILLCREST AVE ANTIOCH 94509 45 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER, #1039 2300 MAHOGANY WAY ANTIOCH 94509 95 LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. 1350 E. TREGALLAS ANTIOCH 94509 119 LITTLE ANGELS COUNTRY SCHOOL 1816 HILLCREST AVENUE ANTIOCH 94509 39 SO BIG CO-OP PRESCHOOL 1201 W. 10TH ST. CAFETERIA BLD ANTIOCH 94509 24 STARLIGHT ACADEMY III 508 WEST TREGALLAS ANTIOCH 94509 30 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - MARY ROCHA 931 CAVALLO ROAD ANTIOCH 94509 89 BABY YALE ACADEMY 5521 LONE TREE WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 74 Contra Costa County 86 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity BABY YALE ACADEMY-HARVEST PARK 605 HARVEST PARK, STE A BRENTWOOD 94513 22 BRIGHT STAR CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S CENTER 2200 VENTURA DRIVE BRENTWOOD 94513 44 CELEBRATION CENTER 2260 JEFFREY WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 150 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD START - LOS NOGALES CENTER 321 ORCHARD DRIVE BRENTWOOD 94513 40 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEAD START - MARSH CREEK 7251 BRENTWOOD BLVD BRENTWOOD 94513 36 EL CONCILIO 321 ORCHARD DRIVE #B BRENTWOOD 94513 20 GENIUS KIDS - BRENTWOOD 1265 DAINTY AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 24 GODDARD SCHOOL, THE 115 TECHNOLOGY WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 144 KIDDIE ACADEMY 8680 BRENTWOOD BLVD. BRENTWOOD 94513 120 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2321 EAGLE ROCK AVE. BRENTWOOD 94513 104 LITTLE DIAMONDS PRESCHOOL 2015 ELKINS WAY SUITE A BRENTWOOD 94513 34 LOVE FOR LEARNING 833 SECOND ST BRENTWOOD 94513 25 LOVE FOR LEARNING 120 GUTHRIE LN BRENTWOOD 94513 30 MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF BRENTWOOD, INC. 3421 BALFOUR ROAD BRENTWOOD 94513 120 ROCK OF BRENTWOOD DBA LITTLE SCHOLARS, THE 1770 ADAMS LANE BRENTWOOD 94513 40 SMART START PRESCHOOL 2882 O'HARA AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 30 STAY AND PLAY PRESCHOOL 771 GRIFFITH LANE BRENTWOOD 94513 21 SUNSHINE HOUSE - BRENTWOOD 401 CHESTNUT STREET BRENTWOOD 94513 38 SUNSHINE HOUSE - BRENTWOOD II 3700 WALNUT BOULEVARD BRENTWOOD 94513 75 SUNSHINE HOUSE - LOMA VISTA KID ZONE 2110 SAN JOSE AVE. BRENTWOOD 94513 30 TINY TOES 1284 DAINTY AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 52 WEE CARE CENTER 1275 FAIRVIEW AVENUE BRENTWOOD 94513 130 CLAYTON CHILDREN'S CENTER 6760 MARSH CREEK ROAD CLAYTON 94517 45 CLAYTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL 5880 MT. ZION DRIVE CLAYTON 94517 25 CLAYTON VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S CENTER 1578 KIRKER PASS ROAD CLAYTON 94517 63 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 6095 MAIN STREET CLAYTON 94517 72 ST. JOHN'S PRESCHOOL 5555 CLAYTON ROAD CLAYTON 94517 58 CONCORDIA SCHOOL, THE - CONCORD 2353 FIFTH AVENUE CONCORD 94518 34 DIANNE ADAIR AT EL MONTE 1400 DINA DRIVE CONCORD 94518 36 GARDEN COMMUNITY PRESCHOOL, THE 1015 OAK GROVE ROAD CONCORD 94518 39 LA PETITE ACADEMY 4304 COWELL ROAD CONCORD 94518 97 SUPER KIDZ CLUB 2140 MINERT RD. CONCORD 94518 15 WOOD ROSE ACADEMY AND PRESCHOOL 4347 COWELL ROAD CONCORD 94518 72 BRIGHT STARS LEARNING CENTER PRESCHOOL 3036 CLAYTON ROAD CONCORD 94519 37 CALVARY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 3425 CONCORD BLVD. CONCORD 94519 82 FIRST LUTHERAN CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 4006 CONCORD BOULEVARD CONCORD 94519 60 JOYFUL KIDS ACADEMY LLC DBA PARKSIDE JOYFUL KIDS 2898 CONCORD BLVD. CONCORD 94519 73 KIDANGO - BALDWIN 2750 PARKSIDE CIR CONCORD 94519 65 KIDANGO - HOLBROOK 3333 RONALD WAY CONCORD 94519 65 MONTE GARDENS PRE-K - DIANNE ADAIR 3841 LARKSPUR DRIVE CONCORD 94519 24 MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF CONCORD 3039 WILLOW PASS ROAD CONCORD 94519 56 ST. MICHAELS EPISCOPAL DAY PRESCHOOL 2925 BONIFACIO STREET CONCORD 94519 90 WHITE DOVE SCHOOL 1850 SECOND STREET CONCORD 94519 41 ANGELS MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL - CONCORD 1566 BAILEY ROAD CONCORD 94520 49 BAY CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 4725 EVORA ROAD CONCORD 94520 55 BEGINNINGS & BEYOND MONTESSORI CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 1965 COLFAX STREET CONCORD 94520 48 BRIGHT STARS CHILDREN'S CENTER INC. 1581 MEADOW LANE CONCORD 94520 36 CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY CENTER 1146 LACEY LANE CONCORD 94520 93 CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY CENTER II 1187 A MEADOW LANE CONCORD 94520 40 CONCORD CHILD CARE CENTER 1360 A DETROIT CONCORD 94520 44 CONCORD CHILD CARE CENTER / MORNING PRESCHOOL 1360 C DETROIT AVENUE CONCORD 94520 40 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CSB GEORGE MILLER CENTER 3068 GRANT ST. CONCORD 94520 106 NEW HOPE ACADEMY PRESCHOOL 2120 OLIVERA COURT CONCORD 94520 144 QUEEN OF ALL SAINTS SCHOOL 2391 GRANT STREET CONCORD 94520 20 S.S.U.C. CESAR CHAVEZ CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1187 MEADOW LANE CONCORD 94520 142 SUN TERRACE PRESCHOOL 3585 PORT CHICAGO HIGHWAY CONCORD 94520 54 ALL ABOUT CHILDREN CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 3764 CLAYTON RD CONCORD 94521 55 AYERS PRE-K PROGRAM 5120 MYRTLE DRIVE CONCORD 94521 30 BUILDING KIDZ SCHOOL 5100 CLAYTON RD, F36 CONCORD 94521 93 Contra Costa County 87 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity CLAYTON VALLEY PARENT PRE-SCHOOL 1645 WEST STREET CONCORD 94521 25 HAPPY LITTLE FACES 1470 WHARTON WAY CONCORD 94521 30 HIGHLANDS PRE-K PROGRAM 1326 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. CONCORD 94521 30 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1551 BAILEY ROAD CONCORD 94521 72 KING'S VALLEY PRESCHOOL 4255 CLAYTON ROAD CONCORD 94521 120 MYRTLE FARM MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4976 MYRTLE DR CONCORD 94521 30 PIXIE PLAY SCHOOL 1797 AYERS ROAD CONCORD 94521 30 ST. AGNES PRESCHOOL 3886 CHESTNUT AVE CONCORD 94521 20 STEP BY STEP MONTESSORI 1507 HEATHER DRIVE CONCORD 94521 40 STEP BY STEP MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 2 4991 CLAYTON RD. CONCORD 94521 24 TABERNACLE SCHOOL 4380 CONCORD BLVD CONCORD 94521 48 WALNUT COUNTRY PRESCHOOL 4465 SO. LARWIN AVE. CONCORD 94521 30 WE CARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN 2191 KIRKER PASS ROAD CONCORD 94521 60 WESTWOOD PRE-K - DIANNE ADAIR 1748 WEST STREET CONCORD 94521 24 ALICE'S MONTESSORI - ASTRID 105 ASTRID DRIVE PLEASANT HILL 94523 40 CENTER OF GRAVITY, INC. 2702 PLEASANT HILL RD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 60 CHOICE IN LEARNING 490 GOLF CLUB RD PLEASANT HILL 94523 90 CREATIVE PLAY CENTER, INC 2323 PLEASANT HILL ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 48 DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL CHILDREN'S CTR 321 GOLF CLUB ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 80 DISCOVERYLAND PRE-SCHOOL 800 GRAYSON ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 70 EMPIRE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 409 BOYD RD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 72 FOOTPRINTS PRESCHOOL 50 WOODSWORTH LN PLEASANT HILL 94523 32 FOUNTAINHEAD MONTESSORI SCHOOL-PLEASANT HILL 1715 OAK PARK BOULEVARD PLEASANT HILL 94523 72 KIDZ-PLANET, INC 2245 MORELLO AVE. STE. C PLEASANT HILL 94523 81 MARY JANE'S PRESCHOOL 2902 VESSING ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 41 PETER PAN PRE-SCHOOL 399 GREGORY LN PLEASANT HILL 94523 45 PLAY AND LEARN 1898 PLEASANT HILL ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 108 PLEASANT HILL PRE-K 2097 OAK PARK BLVD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 24 SEQUOIA DAY CARE CENTER 277 BOYD ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 30 STEPPING STONES LEARNING CENTER 2750 PLEASANT HILL RD PLEASANT HILL 94523 57 WHERE THE WILD THINGS PLAY PRESCHOOL 2551 PLEASANT HILL RD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 29 YMCA CHILDCARE- RHETT TURNER PRESCHOOL 350 CIVIC DR PLEASANT HILL 94523 26 LITTLE ROSES PRESCHOOL 1180 STARR ST CROCKETT 94525 22 A NEW WORLD OF MONTESSORI 101 SONORA AVENUE DANVILLE 94526 30 ACORN LEARNING CENTER 816 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 42 AUTUMN CREEK LEARNING CENTER 14 OSBORN WAY DANVILLE 94526 80 COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN PRE-SCHOOL 222 WEST EL PINTADO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 102 DANVILLE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 919 CAMINO RAMON DANVILLE 94526 48 DAYSPRING PRESCHOOL 989 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD DANVILLE 94526 80 DIABLO HILLS COUNTRY SCHOOL 1453 SAN RAMON VALLEY BVLD. DANVILLE 94526 37 FOUNTAINHEAD MONTESSORI SCHOOL 939 EL PINTADO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 92 GARDEN MONTESSORI SCHOOL 495 VERONA AVENUE DANVILLE 94526 24 LARSON'S CHILDREN CENTER 920 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 45 SAINT TIMOTHY'S EPISCOPAL NOAH'S ARK PRESCHOOL 1550 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 40 STRATFORD SCHOOL 3201 CAMINO TASSAJARA ROAD DANVILLE 94526 58 SYCAMORE VALLEY DAY SCHOOL 1500 SHERBURNE HILLS ROAD DANVILLE 94526 70 VALLEY PARENT PRE SCHOOL 935 CAMINO RAMON DANVILLE 94526 36 CITY OF EL CERRITO COMM. SVCS. - CASA CERRITO DCC 6927 PORTOLA AVENUE EL CERRITO 94530 21 EL CERRITO PRE-SCHOOL CENTER 7200 MOESER LANE EL CERRITO 94530 30 GOLESTAN 320 SAN CARLOS AVE EL CERRITO 94530 45 KEYSTONE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 6639 BLAKE STREET EL CERRITO 94530 57 LITTLE TREE MONTESSORI INT'L SCHOOL OF EL CERRITO 2603 TASSAJARA AVENUE EL CERRITO 94530 144 MI MUNDO PRESCHOOL EL CERRITO 6305 BARRETT AVENUE EL CERRITO 94530 24 PETER PAN PARENT NURSERY 1422 NAVELLIER STREET EL CERRITO 94530 24 PRIDE AND JOY PRE-SCHOOL 1226 LIBERTY STREET EL CERRITO 94530 45 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST CATHOLIC PRESCHOOL 11156 SAN PABLO AVE. EL CERRITO 94530 41 SYCAMORE CHRISTIAN PRE-SCHOOL 1111 NAVELLIER STREET EL CERRITO 94530 30 FIRST BAPTIST HEAD START-LONE TREE 1931 MOKELUMNE DRIVE ANTIOCH 94531 57 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4108 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94531 72 Contra Costa County 88 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4308 FOLSOM DRIVE ANTIOCH 94531 72 LEARNING EXPERIENCE, THE 4831 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94531 130 HAPPY HARVARD PRESCHOOL 1702 PHEASANT DR HERCULES 94547 100 BUILDING BRIDGES PRESCHOOL 1003 CAROL LANE LAFAYETTE 94549 37 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - LAFAYETTE 1049 STUART STREET LAFAYETTE 94549 83 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - MORAGA 372 PARK ST MORAGA 94549 74 DIABLO VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL 3390 DEERHILL ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 138 GAN ILAN PRESCHOOL - TEMPLE ISAIAH 945 RISA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 95 GROWING LIGHT MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF LAFAYETTE 584 GLENSIDE DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 44 HAPPY DAYS LEARNING CENTER 3205 STANLEY BLVD LAFAYETTE 94549 40 JOYFUL BEGINNINGS PRESCHOOL 955 MORAGA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 45 LAFAYETTE NURSERY SCHOOL 979 FIRST STREET LAFAYETTE 94549 25 MERRIEWOOD CHILDREN'S CENTER 561 MERRIEWOOD DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 59 MICHAEL LANE PRESCHOOL 682 MICHAEL LANE LAFAYETTE 94549 17 OLD FIREHOUSE SCHOOL 984 MORAGA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 81 SEEDLINGS 49 KNOX DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 88 WHITE PONY, THE 999 LELAND DR. LAFAYETTE 94549 141 CHILDTIME CHILDREN'S CENTER 6635 ALHAMBRA AVENUE, STE. 300 MARTINEZ 94553 102 CREEKSIDE MONTESSORI 1333 ESTUDILLO MARTINEZ 94553 30 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL & CHILD CARE 5834 ALHAMBRA AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 81 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE CENTER 127 MIDHILL RD MARTINEZ 94553 78 HELPING HANDS CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 5050 HILLER LANE MARTINEZ 94553 30 KIDS AT WORK 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 35 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1285 MORELLO AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 60 MARTINEZ EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER, INC. 615 ARCH STREET MARTINEZ 94553 99 MORELLO HILLS CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 1000 MORELLO HILLS DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 35 SHINING STARS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE CENTER 244 MORELLO PARK DR. MARTINEZ 94553 24 ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA PRESCHOOL 1125 FERRY ST MARTINEZ 94553 42 SUNSHINE HOUSE CHILDREN'S CENTER - MARTINEZ 4950 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 48 CREATIVE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 1350 MORAGA WAY MORAGA 94556 23 GROWING TREE PRESCHOOL 1695 CANYON ROAD MORAGA 94556 137 LAMORINDA MONTESSORI LLC 1450 MORAGA ROAD MORAGA 94556 70 MORAGA VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH NURTURY 10 MORAGA VALLEY LANE MORAGA 94556 150 MULBERRY TREE PRESCHOOL 1455 ST. MARY'S RD MORAGA 94556 50 SAKLAN VALLEY SCHOOL 1678 SCHOOL STREET MORAGA 94556 51 BRIGHT BEGINNINGS PRESCHOOL AND DAYCARE 132 O'HARA AVENUE OAKLEY 94561 39 CHILD'S PLACE PRESCHOOL & DAYCARE, A 3405 MAIN STREET OAKLEY 94561 29 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD START - LOS ARBOLES 240 LAS DUNAS OAKLEY 94561 24 KIDDIE ACADEMY 1620 NERLOY RD. OAKLEY 94561 114 OAKLEY PRESCHOOL 501 NORCROSS LANE-OAKLEY ELEM. OAKLEY 94561 50 OAKLEY PRESCHOOL - GEHRINGER SITE 100 SIMONI RANCH ROAD OAKLEY 94561 28 SUNSHINE HOUSE - OAKLEY 875 WEST CYPRESS ROAD OAKLEY 94561 58 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - FREEDOM CHILD CARE CENTER 1050 NEROLY ROAD OAKLEY 94561 60 FOUNTAINHEAD MONTESSORI SCHOOL ORINDA CAMPUS 30 SANTA MARIA WAY ORINDA 94563 129 HOLY SHEPHERD CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 433 MORAGA WAY ORINDA 94563 25 MONTESSORI IMPRESSIONS ACADEMY 20 ORINDA FIELDS LANE ORINDA 94563 29 SAINT JOHN PRESCHOOL 501 MORAGA WAY ORINDA 94563 48 SAINT MARK'S NURSERY SCHOOL 451 MORAGA WAY ORINDA 94563 45 SAINT STEPHEN'S PRESCHOOL 66 SAINT STEPHEN'S DRIVE ORINDA 94563 41 TOPS - THE ORINDA PRESCHOOL (PARENT COOP) 10 IRWIN WAY ORINDA 94563 75 DEUELS DAYCARE 2499 SIMAS AVE PINOLE 94564 20 LA CASITA BILINGUE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 592 TENNENT PINOLE 94564 45 ST. JOSEPH PRESCHOOL 1961 PLUM STREET PINOLE 94564 26 TULIP CHILD CARE LLC/PINOLE MONTESSORI 2612 APPIAN WAY PINOLE 94564 64 CONTRA COSTA CO. HEAD START - LAVONIA ALLEN CENTER 94 1/2 MEDANOS AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 48 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-RIVERVIEW CENTER 227 PACIFICA AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 40 DESTINY ACADEMY 1411 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 75 DIANNE ADAIR - DELTA VIEW PRESCHOOL 2916 RIO VERDE DRIVE PITTSBURGH 94565 10 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - KIDS CASTLE 55 CASTLEWOOD DRIVE PITTSBURG 94565 127 Contra Costa County 89 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - LIDO SQUARE 2131 CRESTVIEW LANE PITTSBURG 94565 20 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEADSTART - ODESSA 204 ODESSA AVE PITTSBURG 94565 20 FIRST BAPTIST HEAD START - EAST LELAND COURT CTR. 2555 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 36 KIDS FIRST ACADEMY 2430 WILLOW PASS RD., STE 111 BAY POINT 94565 38 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 150 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 94 LIGHT THE BAY PRESCHOOL 1210 STONEMAN AVENUE PITTSBURG 94565 116 LOS MEDANOS COLLEGE CHILD STUDY CENTER 2700 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 80 LYNN CENTER 300 EAST LELAND RD. PITTSBURG 94565 40 PITTSBURG USD - FOOTHILL STATE PRESCHOOL 1200 JENSEN DRIVE PITTSBURG 94565 24 PITTSBURG USD - LOS MEDANOS STATE PRESHOOL 610 CROWLEY AVE PITTSBURG 94565 24 PITTSBURG USD - MARINA VISTA PRESCHOOL 50 EAST 8TH ST PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - HEIGHTS PRESCHOOL 40 SEENO STREET PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - HIGHLANDS PRESCHOOL 4141 HARBOR ST PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - PARKSIDE PRESCHOOL 985 WEST 17TH STREET PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - STONEMAN PRESCHOOL 2929 LOVERIDGE RD PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - WIILOW COVE PRESCHOOL 1880 HANLON WAY PITTSBURG 94565 24 RAILROAD JUNCTION SCHOOL 2224 RAILROAD AVENUE PITTSBURG 94565 59 ST. PETER MARTYR SCHOOL 425 WEST 4TH STREET PITTSBURG 94565 24 SUNNYBROOK LEARNING CENTER 3255 WILLOW PASS ROAD BAY POINT 94565 53 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - BAY POINT 225 PACIFICA AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 71 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - DELTA YOUTH 605 PACIFICA AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 60 A LITTLE WORLD MONTESSORI ACADEMY 355 PARKER AVE RODEO 94572 34 CONTRA COSTA CO. COMM. SVCS. - BAYO VISTA 2 CALIFORNIA STREET RODEO 94572 42 ST. PATRICK PRESCHOOL 907 SEVENTH STREET RODEO 94572 45 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RODEO CDC 200 LAKE AVENUE RODEO 94572 64 ACORN LEARNING CENTER OF DOUGHERTY VALLEY 17025 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON 94582 167 BRAIN CHAMPS MONTESSORI 21001 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94582 21 GODDARD SCHOOL, THE 100 GATEKEEPER RD SAN RAMON 94582 108 GRACIE'S PLACE PRESCHOOL 17011 BOLLINGER CANYON PL SAN RAMON 94582 13 LITTLE BRIDGES CHILD CARE CENTER 9015 SOUTH GALE RIDGE ROAD SAN RAMON 94582 86 SAFARI KID - LITTLE HEARTS 500 BOLLINGER CANYON WAY #A10 SAN RAMON 94582 30 SRVUSD EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PP - LIVE OAK 5151 SHERWOOD WAY SAN RAMON 94582 24 ACORN LEARNING CENTER OF SAN RAMON 5075 CROW CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 151 BRIGHT HORIZONS AT BISHOP RANCH 2603 CAMINO RAMON, STE. 150 SAN RAMON 94583 144 BUILDING KIDZ OF SAN RAMON 210 PORTER AVENUE, SUITE 110 SAN RAMON 94583 80 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - SAN RAMON 18868 BOLLINGER CANYON RD SAN RAMON 94583 95 DIABLO HILLS COUNTRY SCHOOL 50 CREEKSIDE DRIVE SAN RAMON 94583 60 GENIUS KIDS SAN RAMON 2021 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94583 40 GROWING ROOM EDUCATION COUNCIL, THE 2340 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON 94583 22 HAPPY DAYS PRE-SCHOOL/DAY CARE 20801 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94583 40 LA PETITE ACADEMY SAN RAMON 1001 MARKET PLACE SAN RAMON 94583 105 PANACHE ENFANTS 2410 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD#100 SAN RAMON 94583 60 REDWOODS INTERNATIONALE MONTESSORI, THE 2400 OLD CROW CANYON RD SAN RAMON 94583 60 SRVUSD EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PP - WALT DISNEY 3250 PINE VALLEY ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 24 STEPPING STONES LEARNING CENTER II 2691 CROW CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 55 DIANNE ADAIR DAY CARE 1847 NEWEL AVE. WALNUT CREEK 94595 30 GRACE COOPERATIVE PRE-SCHOOL 2100 TICE VALLEY BLVD WALNUT CREEK 94595 24 LITTLE GENIUS ACADEMY 2151 OLYMPIC BLVD. WALNUT CREEK 94595 117 PIED PIPER CO-OP PRE-SCHOOL 2263 WHYTE PARK AVE. WALNUT CREEK 94595 24 CONTRA COSTA CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 2721 LARKEY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 40 GAN B'NAI SHALOM AT CONGREGATION B'NAI SHALOM 74 ECKLEY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 65 GAN YILADIM PRESCHOOL 1671 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94596 22 KID TIME, INC 2491 SAN MIGUEL DR. WALNUT CREEK 94596 45 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2850 CHERRY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 53 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2521 WALNUT BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK 94596 53 LOVE AND CARE LEARNING CENTER 1985 GEARY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94596 60 MY SPANISH VILLAGE 1924 TRINITY AVE. WALNUT CREEK 94596 59 OLD FIREHOUSE SCHOOL WALNUT CREEK 55 ECKLEY LANE WALNUT CREET 94596 45 WALNUT CREEK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PRESCHOOL 1801 LACASSIE AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94596 94 Contra Costa County 90 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity ALICE'S MONTESSORI LEARNING CENTER - WALNUT CREEK 3158 PUTNAM BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK 94597 45 CRAWLERS 2 SCHOLARS-WALNUT CREEK 1338 LAS JUNTAS WAY WALNUT CREEK 94597 82 GARDEN GATE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 63 SANDY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94597 20 KID TIME, INC 200 MAYHEW WAY WALNUT CREEK 94597 80 KIDS SPEAKING SPANISH PRESCHOOL 2780 CAMINO DIABLO WALNUT CREEK 94597 72 NEW WORLD CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WALNUT CREEK 1919 GEARY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94597 49 SAYBROOK LEARNING CENTER 1355 WALDEN ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94597 70 TRINITY LUTHERAN PRESCHOOL 2317 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94597 48 WALNUT CREEK CHRISTIAN ACADEMY 2336 BUENA VISTA AVE WALNUT CREEK 94597 75 BANCROFT PRE-K 2200 PARISH DR. WALNUT CREEK 94598 46 KLA SCHOOLS OF WALNUT CREEK 298 N. WIGET LANE WALNUT CREEK 94598 170 LITTLE FLOWERS MONTESSORI - MITCHELL 2875 MITCHELL DR WALNUT CREEK 94598 144 NORTHCREEK PRESCHOOL 2303 A YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94598 119 SAFARI KID - WALNUT CREEK 2074 TREAT BLVD. WALNUT CREEK 94598 84 SAFARI KID-WALNUT CREEK 2210 OAK GROVE RD WALNUT CREEK 94598 75 SEVEN HILLS SCHOOL, THE 975 NORTH SAN CARLOS DRIVE WALNUT CREEK 94598 64 SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL 2780 MITCHELL DRIVE WALNUT CREEK 94598 226 CLAREMONT DAY NURSERIES, INC 1550 OAKVIEW AVE KENSINGTON 94707 65 GOOD EARTH SCHOOL, THE 1 LAWSON ROAD KENSINGTON 94707 74 GROWING LIGHT MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF KENSINGTON 52 ARLINGTON AVE. KENSINGTON 94707 68 KENSINGTON NURSERY SCHOOL 52 ARLINGTON AVENUE KENSINGTON 94707 38 PINE CREST SCHOOL 1 LAWSON RD. KENSINGTON 94707 48 NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL AT KENSINGTON ELEMENTARY 90 HIGHLAND BLVD, PORTABLE 2 KENSINGTON 94708 30 BRENDA'S KIDZ KARE 227 17TH STREET RICHMOND 94801 31 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD DEV. CENTER - LAS DELTAS 135 WEST GROVE ST. RICHMOND 94801 20 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD DEV. CENTER - VERDE 2000 GIARAMITA AVENUE RICHMOND 94801 40 ICRI/EL NUEVO MUNDO CHILDRENS CENTER 1707 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. RICHMOND 94801 97 LA PETITE ACADEMY/MAGIC YEARS 1221 NEVIN AVE. SUITE 200 RICHMOND 94801 48 WCCUSD - CHAVEZ SCHOOL 960 - 17TH STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - CORONADO STATE PRESCHOOL 2100 MAINE AVE. RM. K102 RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - LINCOLN 29 SIXTH STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - NYSTROM 230 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - WASHINGTON SCHOOL 565 WINE STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - 8TH STREET CDC 445 8TH STREET RICHMOND 94801 82 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RICHMOND CDC 485 LUCAS AVENUE RICHMOND 94801 69 BRIGHT FUTURES GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1060 MANOR BLVD EL SOBRANTE 94803 45 EAST BAY WALDORF SCHOOL 3800 CLARK RD. EL SOBRANTE 94803 35 HOPE CHILDCARE CENTER & PRESCHOOL 2830 MAY ROAD EL SOBRANTE 94803 80 KIDS CORNER LEARNING CENTER 716 APPIAN WAY EL SOBRANTE 94803 70 PATTY'S MONTESSORI SCHOOL 801 PARK CENTRAL ST RICHMOND 94803 45 SMALL WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. 4555 HILLTOP DRIVE RICHMOND 94803 75 STEP BY STEP PRESCHOOL, INC. 3500 EL PORTAL DR. RICHMOND 94803 38 SUNSHINE PLAYSCHOOL 5151 ARGYLE RD. EL SOBRANTE 94803 24 WCCUSD MARIE MURPHY STATE PRESCHOOL 4350 VALLEY VIEW ROAD RICHMOND 94803 24 CONTRA COSTA CO. CSD - GEORGE MILLER IIICH.CENTER 300 S. 27TH STREET RICHMOND 94804 200 CONTRA COSTA CO. HEAD START - BALBOA CDC 1001 S. 57TH STREET RICHMOND 94804 140 EARLY CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM - 200 - 24TH STREET RICHMOND 94804 15 NOMURA PRESCHOOL 5511 BURLINGAME AVE. RICHMOND 94804 90 NOMURA SCHOOL (THE) 1711 CARLSON BOULEVARD RICHMOND 94804 125 RICHMOND COLLEGE PREP PRESCHOOL 217 SOUTH 11TH ST. RICHMOND 94804 24 W.C.C.U.S.D. - GRANT SCHOOL 2400 DOWNER AVENUE RICHMOND 94804 24 WCCUSD - MARTIN LUTHER KING STATE PRESCHOOL 4022 FLORIDA AVE RM 114 RICHMOND 94804 24 WCCUSD STATE PRESCHOOL - FORD 2711 MARICOPA AVENUE RICHMOND 94804 24 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - RICHMOND CHILDREN'S CENTER 3230 MACDONALD AVENUE RICHMOND 94804 59 A LITTLE WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL 324 37TH ST RICHMOND 94805 49 ADVENTURE KINDERLAND AKADEMY 12411 SAN PABLO AVENUE RICHMOND 94805 35 EARLY CHILDHD ED. SRVCS.DBA CURIOUS EXPLORERS ACAD 4121 MACDONALD AVE RICHMOND 94805 15 SKYTOWN PRESCHOOL 5714 SOLANO AVENUE RICHMOND 94805 36 ST. DAVID'S SCHOOL PRE-KINDERGARTEN 5613 GARVIN AVENUE RICHMOND 94805 36 Contra Costa County 91 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity CONTRA COSTA COLLEGE - EARLY CHILDHOOD LAB SCHOOL 2600 MISSION BELL DRIVE SAN PABLO 94806 75 HAPPY LION DAY CARE CENTER 2929 CASTRO ROAD SAN PABLO 94806 29 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER, #1367 3240 SAN PABLO DAM ROAD SAN PABLO 94806 72 LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. 3891 LAKESIDE DRIVE RICHMOND 94806 84 SONJA'S PRESCHOOL AND CHILDCARE CENTER 2300 EL PORTAL DR STE A SAN PABLO 94806 47 ST. PAUL PRESCHOOL 1825 CHURCH LANE SAN PABLO 94806 21 SUPREME KIDS ACADEMY 3065 RICHMOND PARKWAY RICHMOND 94806 48 W.C.C.U.S.D. - RIVERSIDE SCHOOL 1300 AMADOR ST., ROOM 6 SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - BAYVIEW 3001 16TH STREET, ROOM M4 SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - DOVER 1871 21ST STREET SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - DOWNER PRESCHOOL 1231 18TH STREET, ROOM 126 SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - MONTALVIN C/O PRESCHOOL DEPARTMENT 300 CHRISTINE DRIVE SAN PABLO 94806 24 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - GIANT ROAD CDC 919 LAKE STREET SAN PABLO 94806 36 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData Table 74 – Licensed Infant Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, February 202 1 Infant Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - FAIRGROUNDS 1203 W. 10TH ANTIOCH 94509 20 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4108 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94509 30 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2300 MAHOGANY WAY ANTIOCH 94509 36 LA PETITE ACADEMY 1350 EAST TREGALLAS RD ANTIOCH 94509 12 BABY YALE ACADEMY 5521 LONE TREE WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 66 BABY YALE ACADEMY-HARVEST PARK 605 HARVEST PARK, STE A BRENTWOOD 94513 24 GENIUS KIDS - BRENTWOOD 1265 DAINTY AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 28 GODDARD SCHOOL, THE 115 TECHNOLOGY WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 24 KIDDIE ACADEMY 8680 BRENTWOOD BLVD. BRENTWOOD 94513 24 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2321 EAGLE ROCK AVE. BRENTWOOD 94513 32 STAY AND PLAY PRESCHOOL 771 GRIFFITH LANE BRENTWOOD 94513 5 WEE CARE CENTER 1275 FAIRVIEW AVENUE BRENTWOOD 94513 12 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 6095 MAIN STREET CLAYTON 94517 28 LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. 4304 COWELL ROAD CONCORD 94518 20 MY SECOND HOME 1011 OAK GROVE RD. CONCORD 94518 24 SUPER KIDZ CLUB 2140 MINERT RD CONCORD 94518 9 CALVARY CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 3425 CONCORD BLVD CONCORD 94519 6 FIRST LUTHERAN PRESCHOOL 4006 CONCORD BLVD CONCORD 94519 6 JOYFUL KIDS ACADEMY LLC DBA PARKSIDE JOYFUL KIDS 2898 CONCORD BLVD. CONCORD 94519 20 BRIGHT STARS CHILDREN'S CENTER INC. 1581 MEADOW LANE CONCORD 94520 8 CONCORD CHILD CARE CENTER-INFANTS 1360 B DETROIT AVENUE CONCORD 94520 32 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CSB GEORGE MILLER CENTER 3068 GRANT ST CONCORD 94520 52 GEORGE MILLER CENTER - CONCORD 3020 GRANT STREET CONCORD 94520 74 BUILDING KIDZ SCHOOL 5100 CLAYTON RD, F36 CONCORD 94521 27 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1551 BAILEY ROAD CONCORD 94521 32 A SMALL WORLD INFANT & TODDLER CENTER 1641 OAK PARK BLVD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 51 ALICE'S MONTESSORI LEARNING CENTERS 1041 HOOK AVE. PLEASANT HILL 94523 24 DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL CHILDREN'S CTR 321 GOLF CLUB ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 20 KIDZ-PLANET, INC 2245 MORELLO AVE, SUITE C PLEASANT HILL 94523 70 WHERE THE WILD THINGS PLAY PRESCHOOL 2551 PLEASANT HILL RD PLEASANT HILL 94523 12 A NEW WORLD OF MONTESSORI 101 SONORA AVENUE DANVILLE 94526 24 LARSON'S INFANT CENTER 940 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 14 PLACE TO PLAY & GROW, A 909 CAMINO RAMON DANVILLE 94526 26 SYCAMORE VALLEY DAY SCHOOL 1500 SHERBURNE HILLS ROAD DANVILLE 94526 8 PRIDE AND JOY PRE-SCHOOL 1226 LIBERTY STREET EL CERRITO 94530 28 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4308 FOLSOM DRIVE ANTIOCH 94531 20 LEARNING EXPERIENCE, THE 4831 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94531 32 DIABLO VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. #2 3408 DEERHILL ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 40 FIRST STEPS LEARNING CENTER 3201 STANLEY BOULEVARD LAFAYETTE 94549 32 OLD FIREHOUSE SCHOOL 984 MORAGA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 8 SEEDLINGS 49 KNOX DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 16 Contra Costa County 92 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Infant Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity CHILDTIME CHILDREN'S CENTER 6635 ALHAMBRA AVENUE, STE. 300 MARTINEZ 94553 28 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE 5834 ALHAMBRA AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 16 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE CENTER 127 MIDHILL RD MARTINEZ 94553 12 KIDS AT WORK 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 15 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1285 MORELLO AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 16 MARTINEZ EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER, INC. 615 ARCH STREET MARTINEZ 94553 28 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - MORAGA 372 PARK STREET MORAGA 94556 10 CREATIVE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 1350 MORAGA WAY MORAGA 94556 14 LAMORINDA MONTESSORI LLC 1450 MORAGA RD. MORAGA 94556 12 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD START - LOS ARBOLES 240 LAS DUNAS OAKLEY 94561 16 KIDDIE ACADEMY 1620 NERLOY RD. OAKLEY 94561 48 CONTRA COSTA CO. COMM. SVCS.- AMBROSE 3103 WILLOW PASS RD BAY POINT 94565 22 FIRST BAPTIST HEAD START - EAST LELAND COURT CTR 2555 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 8 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 150 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 36 LIL' GENIUS KID, THE 33 AMBROSE AVE BAY POINT 94565 30 LOS MEDANOS COLLEGE CHILD STUDY CENTER 2700 EAST LELAND RD. PITTSBURG 94565 16 CONTRA COSTA CO. COMM. SVCS. - BAYO VISTA 2 CALIFORNIA STREET RODEO 94572 12 ST. PATRICK INFANT CENTER 907 SEVENTH STREET RODEO 94572 30 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RODEO CDC 200 LAKE AVE RODEO 94572 13 GODDARD SCHOOL, THE 100 GATEKEEPER RD SAN RAMON 94582 53 LITTLE BRIDGES CHILD CARE CENTER 9015 SOUTH GALE RIDGE ROAD SAN RAMON 94582 24 BRIGHT HORIZONS AT BISHOP RANCH 2603 CAMINO RAMON, STE. 150 SAN RAMON 94583 60 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - SAN RAMON 18868 BOLLINGER CANYON RD SAN RAMON 94583 9 GENIUS KIDS SAN RAMON 2021 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94583 27 LA PETITE ACADEMY SAN RAMON - INFANT 1001 MARKET PLACE SAN RAMON 94583 28 LITTLE REDWOODS INFANT CENTER, INC., THE 2400 OLD CROW CANYON ROAD, #A4 SAN RAMON 94583 12 PANACHE ENFANTS 2410 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD#100 SAN RAMON 94583 12 STEPPING STONES LEARNING CENTER II 2691 CROW CANYON RD. SAN RAMON 94583 7 GAN YILADIM PRESCHOOL 1671 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94595 9 LITTLE GENIUS ACADEMY 2151 OLYMPIC BLVD. WALNUT CREEK 94595 30 GAN B'NAI SHALOM AT CONGREGATION B'NAI SHALOM 74 ECKLEY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 10 LOVE AND CARE LEARNING CENTER 1985 GEARY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94596 37 CRAWLERS 2 SCHOLARS-WALNUT CREEK 1338 LAS JUNTAS WAY WALNUT CREEK 94597 8 KLA SCHOOLS OF WALNUT CREEK 298 N. WIGET LANE WALNUT CREEK 94598 60 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD DEV. CENTER - LAS DELTAS 135 WEST GROVE RICHMOND 94801 14 LA PETITE ACADEMY/MAGIC YEARS 1221 NEVIN AVE. SUITE 200 RICHMOND 94801 36 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - 8TH STREET CDC 445 8TH STREET CDC RICHMOND 94801 36 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RICHMOND CDC 485 LUCAS AVENUE RICHMOND 94801 32 HOPE CHILDCARE CENTER & PRESCHOOL 2830 MAY ROAD EL SOBRANTE 94803 29 KIDS CORNER LEARNING CENTER 716 APPIAN WAY EL SOBRANTE 94803 26 SMALL WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. 4555 HILLTOP DR. RICHMOND 94803 19 CONTRA COSTA CO. HEAD START - BALBOA CDC 1001 - SOUTH 57TH ST RICHMOND 94804 38 CONTRA COSTA CO CSD INFANT @ CO CO COLLEGE 2600 MISSION BELL DRIVE SAN PABLO 94806 28 GEORGE MILLER CENTER - RICHMOND 2801 ROBERT MILLER DRIVE RICHMOND 94806 40 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER, #1367 3240 SAN PABLO DAM ROAD SAN PABLO 94806 33 LA PETITE ACADEMY 3891 LAKESIDE DRIVE RICHMOND 94806 24 SONJA'S PRESCHOOL AND CHILDCARE CENTER 2300 EL PORTAL DR STE A SAN PABLO 94806 28 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData Table 75 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Family Homes by City, February 2021 Location Number of Homes Capacity ALAMO 2 26 ANTIOCH 48 670 BAY POINT 7 98 BRENTWOOD 25 348 CLAYTON 4 56 CONCORD 41 570 DANVILLE 5 70 DISCOVERY BAY 3 42 Contra Costa County 93 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Location Number of Homes Capacity EL CERRITO 25 346 EL SOBRANTE 9 126 HERCULES 18 250 LAFAYETTE 4 56 MARTINEZ 7 98 OAKLEY 17 236 ORINDA 1 14 PACHECO 3 42 PINOLE 7 96 PITTSBURG 28 392 PLEASANT HILL 17 222 RICHMOND 55 762 RODEO 3 42 SAN PABLO 9 124 SAN RAMON 44 616 WALNUT CREEK 23 314 Total 405 5,616 Figure 22 – Number of Slots in Licensed Family Homes by City, 2020 – 2021 AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE According to the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, California ranks as the third least affordable state for child care, and the average cost of infant care exceeds the average tuition at a four - year public university.16 The October 2019 California Prescho ol Development Grant Birth Through Five Program Needs Assessment puts California last in the nation for the affordability of infant care. The gap between childcare need and the ability to pay for quality care continues to particularly plague low income, hi gh-need families and communities. But the rising cost of childcare represents a critical barrier to access even for middle class families earning the county’s 2019 estimated family median of $114,535 among families with 0 -5 year olds . In 2019, full -time care for infants costs an average of $12,543 in family childcare homes and $19,460 in childcare centers annually, representing a 10.1% ($1,149) increase for family home care and a 10.0% ($1,770) increase for center care since 2017. The average cost for full time preschool care in a family home ($11,957) has similarly risen 9.9%, while the cost for full time preschool care in a center ($14,284) has increased 13.5% since 2017. 16 https://rrnetwork.org/assets/general-files/Child-Care-Costs-2019.pdf 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 AL A M O AN T I O C H BA Y P O I N T BE T H E L I S L A N D BR E N T W O O D CL A Y T O N CO N C O R D DA N V I L L E DI S C O V E R Y B A Y EL C E R R I T O EL S O B R A N T E HE R C U L E S LA F A Y E T T E MA R T I N E Z OA K L E Y OR I N D A PA C H E C O PI N O L E PI T T S B U R G PL E A S A N T H I L L RI C H M O N D RO D E O SA N P A B L O SA N R A M O N WA L N U T C R E E K 2020 2021 Contra Costa County 94 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 76 – Child Care C osts b y Age and Licensed Facility Type 2017 2019 CENTERS FAMILY HOMES CENTERS FAMILY HOMES Full-time Infant Care $17,690 $11,394 $19,460 $12,543 Full-time Preschool Care $12,589 $10,880 $14,284 $11,957 Source: 2019 CA Child Care Portfolio, CA Child Care Resource & Referral Network; https://www.rrnetwork.org/2017_portfolio . Note that the portfolios are released biennially. Foster Care As of October 2020 , the county has a total of 661 children age 0-17 in the foster care system, with 247 first entries . The total in care in the county is down 21.1 % or 177 children since 201 9, while entries in fell 37.2% or 146 children age 0 -17 since 2019 . Foster children age 0 -5 continue to represent a relatively high proportion of all Contra Cost a County children in care (32.2% or 213 children ), although the proportion has fallen from 34.9% in 2019 . The county has 47 (7.1 %) infants, 80 (12.1 %) 1-2 year olds and 86 (13.0%) 3-5 year olds in foster care as of October 2020 . Table 77 – Change in Children in Foster Care, 2006 -2020 2017 2018 2019 2020 % Change since 2019 Entries into Foster Care 441 366 393 247 -37.2% PIT Children in Foster Care 964 868 838 661 -21.1% Source: CA Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP), UC Berkeley; https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/Entries/MTSG/r/ab636/s In Contra Costa, foster care first entries among infants less than 1 month old fell 13.3% to 39 since 2019, but represent 20.4% of all first entries (191). The number of infants age 1 -11 months with first entries fell 40.5% or 15 infants since 2019, but represent 11.5% of all first entries . First entries involving 1 to 2 year olds (19) in 2020 fell 50.0% since 2019, and represent 10.0% of all first entries. Children age 0-5 now represent 55.0% (105) of all 2020 first entries, up slightly from 54.5 % in 2019. Table 78 – First Entries into Foster Care by Age, 2011-2020 Age Group 2010 2014 2018 2019 2020 < 1 mos. 30 41 77 45 39 1-11 mos. 46 43 36 37 22 1-2 yrs. 57 59 34 38 19 3-5 yrs. 48 61 42 43 25 6-10 yrs. 49 107 54 58 34 11-15 yrs. 58 66 56 60 38 16-17 yrs. 13 12 15 16 14 Total 301 389 314 297 191 Source: CA Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP), UC Berkeley; https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/Entries/MTSG/r/ab636/s Figure 23 – First Entries into Foster Care by Age, 201 0 – 2020 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2010 2014 2018 2019 2020 < 1 mos. 1-11 mos. 1-2 yrs. 3-5 yrs. Contra Costa County 95 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 79 – Foster Care First Entries by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County 2010–2020 Race/Ethnicity 2010 2014 2018 2019 2020 African American/Black 105 153 124 101 51 Asian/Pacific Islander -- -- -- 21 11 Latino 94 102 76 82 67 White 89 122 81 82 45 Source: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/Entries/MTSG/r/ab636/s In 2020 , a total of 51 (26.7%) first entries into foster care in the county are African American children, 11 (5.8%) are Asian/Pacific Islander children, 67 (35.1%) are Latino children and 45 (23.6%) are White children. Foster Students The CDE provides a count of foster students enrolled by school district as maintained in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) who are matched with foster children maintained in the Case Management System of the Child Welfare System. Based on the latest data available, Con tra Costa schools enrolled 863 matched foster students in 201 9 -20 , which is a 11.6 % decline of 113 students from 976 in 2018 -19 . In the 201 9 -20 school year , just 55 (6.4%) foster students are kinderga rteners, which is a 30.4% decrease from 79 (8.1%) in the prior year. As in 2018 -1 9, Antioch (262 ), West Contra Costa (170 ) and Mt. Diablo (154 ) Unified districts have largest number of foster students of all ages. Antioch Unified (25), West Contra Costa Unified (11 ) and Mt. Diablo Unified (6 ) continue to be the districts with the largest share of foster kindergarten ers . Antioch Unified (down 34), Contra Costa County Office of Education (down 21, Mt. Diablo Unified (down 36), Oakley Union Elementary (down 13), Pittsburg Unified (down 12) and West Contra Costa Unified (down 53) saw significant declines in the number of foster students enrolled since 201 8-1 9. Byron Union Elementary, up 8 foster students, saw the largest increase since the prior year. Table 80 – Contra Costa County Foster Students, 20 19-20 District Kindergarten Grade 1-6 Grade 7-12 Total Acalanes Union High 0 0 6 6 Antioch Unified 25 110 127 262 Brentwood Union Elementary 5 31 7 43 Byron Union Elementary 1 12 3 16 Contra Costa County Office of Educ. 0 2 73 75 John Swett Unified 0 7 4 11 Knightsen Elementary 0 1 0 1 Lafayette Elementary 0 0 1 1 Liberty Union High 0 0 50 50 Martinez Unified 2 8 6 16 Moraga Elementary 1 0 0 1 Mt. Diablo Unified 6 62 86 154 Oakley Union Elementary 5 9 10 24 Orinda Union Elementary 1 0 0 1 Pittsburg Unified 1 33 51 85 San Ramon Valley Unified 1 12 23 36 Walnut Creek Elementary 0 1 0 1 West Contra Costa Unified 11 66 93 170 County Total (unduplicated) 55 330 478 863 Statewide (unduplicated) 4,190 19,416 21,701 45,307 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Contra Costa County 96 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 EDUCATION AND TRAINING Enrollment Public school enrollment in Contra Costa County has grown steadily and gradually from 168,228 students in 2010 -11 to 178,411 in 2019 -20 , which represents a slight increase of 0.3 % or 469 students since the prior year . Compared to the county as a whole, most districts experienced more significant shifts. Districts that saw much larger than average 1-year enrollment increases include Brentwood Union Elem entary (up 109 students or 1.2%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 259 or 4.7%), Orinda Union Elementary (up 22 or 0.9%), SBE – Synergy, Rocketship Futuro Academy (up 109 or 25.7%) and West Contra Costa Unified (up 383 students or 1.2%). In contrast, districts that saw notable enrollment declines include Acalanes Union High (down 48 students or 0.8%), John Swett Unified (down 17 or 1.2%), Knightsen Elementary (down 27 or 4.3%), Lafayette Elementary (down 39 or 1.1%), Oakley Union Elementary (down 73 or 1.4%) and San Ramon Valley Unified (down 227 or 0.7%). Table 81 – Contra Costa County Public School Enrollment, 2010 –2020 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 168,228 171,418 174,802 177,370 178,060 177,942 178,411 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Contra Costa school districts wi th the highest enrollment include West Contra Costa Unified (32143), San Ramon Valley (31,911) and Mt . Diablo Unified (31,037 ), and the combined enrollment of these 3 districts accounts for a little over half (53.3%) of the county’s entire enrollment. Table 82 – Enrollment in Contra Costa County by School District, 201 9 – 2020 District 2018-19 2019-20 1-Year Change % Change Countywide 177,942 178,411 469 0.3 Acalanes Union High 5,683 5,635 -48 -0.8 Antioch Unified 17,183 17,167 -16 -0.1 Brentwood Union Elementary 9,181 9,290 109 1.2 Byron Union Elementary 2,277 2,274 -3 -0.1 Canyon Elementary 68 69 1 1.5 Contra Costa Office of Ed 5,530 5,789 259 4.7 John Swett Unified 1,439 1,422 -17 -1.2 Knightsen Elementary 632 605 -27 -4.3 Lafayette Elementary 3,576 3,537 -39 -1.1 Liberty Union High 8,320 8,304 -16 -0.2 Martinez Unified 4,164 4,156 -8 -0.2 Moraga Elementary 1,851 1,855 4 0.2 Mt. Diablo Unified 31,013 31,037 24 0.1 Oakley Union Elementary 5,267 5,194 -73 -1.4 Orinda Union Elementary 2,546 2,568 22 0.9 Pittsburg Unified 11,345 11,367 22 0.2 San Ramon Valley Unified 32,138 31,911 -227 -0.7 SBE – Synergy, Rocketship Futuro Academy 424 533 109 25.7 Walnut Creek Elementary 3,545 3,555 10 0.3 West Contra Costa Unified 31,760 32,143 383 1.2 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ In 2019-20, the county’s student population is 36.7% Latino, 28.7% White, 13.1% Asian, 8.6% Black/African American, 6.6% multi -racial and 4.1% Filipino. Since 2018 -19, county school districts saw declines in the number of African American students (down 186 or 1.2%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students (down 37 or 3.3%) and White students (down 1,005 or 1.9%). Notable 1 -year incre ases in Hispanic/Latino students (up 1,347 or 2.1%), multi -racial students (up 675 or 6.1%), Asian students (up 334 or 1.5%) and American Indian/Native Alaskan students (up 28 or 5.5%) were also reported. The racial and ethnic composition of the student bo dy has changed dramatically since 2010, with the largest Contra Costa County 97 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 increases among multi -racial students (up 6,666 or 130.8%), Asian students (up 6,572 or 39.2%), Latino students (up 13,597 or 26.2%) and Filipino students (up 843 or 12.9%), and the largest decreases among White students (down 12,196 or 19.3%), American Indian/Native Alaskan students (down 104 or 16.3%) and Black/African American students (down 636 or 4.0%). Table 83 – Enrollment in Contra Costa Schools by Race and Ethnicity, 2010 – 2020 Rae/Ethnicity 2010-11 2014-15 2018-19 2019-20 African American/Black Count 15,965 17,401 15,515 15,329 % 9.5 10.0 8.7 8.6 Amer. Indian/Alaskan Count 638 612 506 534 % 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 Asian/Asian American Count 16,751 20,418 22,989 23,323 % 10.0 11.7 12.9 13.1 Filipino Count 6,548 7,466 7,344 7,391 % 3.9 4.3 4.1 4.1 Native HI/Pac. Islander Count 1,162 1,191 1,137 1,100 % 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 White Count 63,337 58,953 52,146 51,141 % 37.6 33.7 29.3 28.7 Two or More Count 5,098 8,111 11,089 11,764 % 3.0 4.6 6.2 6.6 Hispanic/Latino Count 51,921 59,426 64,171 65,518 % 30.9 34.0 36.1 36.7 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Figure 24 – School Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity, 201 0 – 2020 ACS estimates indicate that from 2007 to 201 9 both the state and county have seen relative stability in the proportion of school enrollees who attend preschool and kindergarten , although the state has seen a slight 0.2 percentage point increase in the proportion who attend nursery or preschool, compa red to the county ’s slight 0.2 point decline. Despite this decline, Contra Costa (6.3 %) continues in 2019 to outpace the state (5.8%) in the proportion of children in preschool . Since 2007, both the state and the county have seen declines in the proportion of enrollees who attend elementary school and high school, with a 0.7 point drop of elementary school enrollees and a 1.1 point drop of high school enrollees in the county . Still , the county maintain s a slightly higher proportion of elementary school (39.9%) and high school (22.1 %) enrollees than the state (38.0% and 20.6%, respectively). Since 2007, both the state (up 3.3 points) and the county (up 2.0 points) have seen an increase in the proportion of enrollees who 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 2010-11 2014-15 2018-19 2019-20 Black Asian Filipino White Two or more Latino Contra Costa County 98 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 attend undergraduate or graduate col lege or professional school, but in 2019 the state continues to have a higher proportion of enrollees who attend college (30.7 %) as compared to the county (26.8%). Since 2018 , the number (18,584) and proportion (6.3%) of enrollees who attend nursery or pre school in Contra Costa has increased a slight 0.7 % or 129 students, while the number (14,328) and percentage (4.9%) who attend kindergarten has fallen 4.4% or 667 children . Since 2018, the county has also seen a small 1.6% or 1,035 increase in the number (65,275 ) and percentage (22.1 %) of all school enrollees who attend high school . Table 84 – School Enrollment 2007 – 2019 COUNTY 2007 STATE 2007 COUNTY 2019 STATE 2019 COUNT PERCENT PERCENT COUNT PERCENT PERCENT Nursery school, preschool 17,851 6.5 5.6 18,584 6.3 5.8 Kindergarten 13,878 5.0 4.8 14,328 4.9 5.0 Elementary school (grades 1 - 8) 111,837 40.6 39.7 117,656 39.9 38.0 High school (grades 9-12) 63,847 23.2 22.3 65,275 22.1 20.6 College or graduate school 68,333 24.8 27.4 79,176 26.8 30.7 Total Enrollment 275,746 10,341,546 295,019 10,423,307 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 85 – School Enrollment by Census Place, 201 9 Area Pop. 3 & over in school In Nursery / preschool % in Nursery / preschool Public Nursery/ Preschool % in public preschool Pop. Age 3-4 Age 3-4 in school % Age 3-4 in school California 10,423,307 606,655 5.8 352,309 58.1 1,021,926 507,284 49.6 Contra Costa Cty 295,019 18,584 6.3 8,402 45.2 27,772 15,021 54.1 Alamo 3,940 217 5.5 29 13.4 149 120 80.5 Antioch 29,841 1,334 4.5 905 67.8 2,831 1,015 35.9 Bayview 565 35 6.2 35 100.0 59 35 59.3 Bethel Island 521 11 2.1 11 100.0 38 11 28.9 Blackhawk 2,409 163 6.8 8 4.9 212 115 54.2 Brentwood 19,011 1,128 5.9 523 46.4 1,470 971 66.1 Clayton 3,372 283 8.4 65 23.0 273 237 86.8 Concord 29,653 2,344 7.9 1,237 52.8 3,354 1,907 56.9 Contra Costa Ctr 759 69 9.1 17 24.6 39 39 100.0 Crockett 637 22 3.5 11 50.0 51 22 43.1 Danville 12,149 695 5.7 209 30.1 1,122 592 52.8 Discovery Bay 4,235 165 3.9 63 38.2 482 177 36.7 E Richmond Hts 449 22 4.9 0 0.0 22 22 100.0 El Cerrito 5,658 494 8.7 57 11.5 637 428 67.2 El Sobrante 3,632 177 4.9 60 33.9 287 203 70.7 Hercules 6,408 281 4.4 99 35.2 439 170 38.7 Kensington 1,152 73 6.3 0 0.0 35 24 68.6 Lafayette 7,371 655 8.9 255 38.9 557 543 97.5 Martinez 8,620 666 7.7 360 54.1 871 548 62.9 Moraga 6,333 239 3.8 64 26.8 183 183 100.0 Oakley 13,110 778 5.9 329 42.3 1,466 636 43.4 Orinda 5,193 358 6.9 0 0.0 400 301 75.3 Pacheco 894 46 5.1 46 100.0 89 23 25.8 Pinole 4,484 273 6.1 113 41.4 334 244 73.1 Pittsburg 18,808 977 5.2 683 69.9 2,222 876 39.4 Pleasant Hill 8,474 825 9.7 230 27.9 882 643 72.9 Richmond 26,371 1,472 5.6 1,106 75.1 2,633 1,147 43.6 Rodeo 2,835 155 5.5 101 65.2 280 130 46.4 San Pablo 8,451 301 3.6 248 82.4 770 264 34.3 San Ramon 23,286 1,780 7.6 450 25.3 2,060 1,488 72.2 Tara Hills 1,163 21 1.8 14 66.7 106 21 19.8 Vine Hill 1,011 56 5.5 21 37.5 167 56 33.5 Walnut Creek 12,995 962 7.4 294 30.6 1,312 894 68.1 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 99 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Of Contra Costa residents age 3 and older enrolled in school, 18,584 (6.3%) attend nursery or preschool in 2019, up a slight 0.7% or 129 students since 2018, similar to California overall which saw a 1.0% increase. The number of nursery or preschoolers rose most notably in Brentwood (up 25), Kensington (up 25), Pacheco (up 31), Lafayette (up 38), Oakley (up 42), Pinole (up 57), Antioch (up 63), Concord (up 183) and Martinez (up 199). In contrast, t he number of children in nursery or preschool fell most significantly since 2018 in Alamo (down 36), Danville (down 36), Hercules (do wn 39), Orinda (down 40), San Pablo (down 41), Moraga (down 53), Tara Hills (down 61), Richmond (down 70), Pleasant Hill (down 73), Discovery B ay (down 115) and San Ramon (down 125). Countywide, 45.2% of those enrolled attend public preschools, up 2.0 perc entage points since 2018, while 58.1% attend public preschools in California, up a slight 0.2 points. About 15,021 (54.1%) of all Contra Costa 3 -4 year olds are enrolled in preschool, down 128 children or 0.8% since 2018 . Although county enrollment of 3 -4 year olds (54.1%) continues to surpass the state (49.6%), the county rate has fallen gradually since 2015 while the state rate continues to rise. Areas with notable declines in the enrollment of 3 -4 year olds include Moraga (down 47), Tara Hills (down 61), Danville (down 65), Discovery Bay (down 71), Hercules (down 76), Pittsburg (down 81), Pleasant Hill (down 86) and San Ramon (down 95). Areas with a much lower than average proportion of 3 -4 year olds in school (54.1%) include Pittsburg (39.4%), Hercules (38.7%), Discovery Bay (36.7%), Antioch (35.9%), San Pablo (34.3%), Vine Hill (33.5%), Bethel Island (28.9%), Pacheco (25.8%) and Tara Hills (19.8%). Of all Contra Costa County residents 3 years and older enrolled in school (295,019) in 2019, 6.3% attend nursery or preschool, but rates vary by nativity, with 6.8% of native -born, 0.5% of naturalized citizens and 3.2% of non -citizens 3 and older enrolled in school attending preschool. The county has 32,758 foreign -born residents enrolled in school, with the highest numbers in Pittsburg (3,081), Richmond (4,291) and Concord (4,415). Of enrolled foreign -born residents, 21,471 in school are non -citizens, with the highest numbers in Pittsburg (1,713), San Ramon (1,785), Richmond (3,247) and Concord (3,399). The p ercentage of non -citizens 3 and older in school who attend preschool is much higher than the county as a whole (3.2%) in Brentwood (4.6%), Concord (6.1%), San Ramon (6.4%) and Walnut Creek (7.3%). In contrast, Antioch (1.3%), Danville (0.0%), Hercules (0.0 %), Pittsburg (0.9%) and Richmond (0.6%) have an unusually low percentage of non -citizens in school who attend nursery or preschool. Table 86 – School Enrollment by Nativity and Census Place, 2019 Area Pop. 3 and over in school % Nursery/ preschool Native Foreign born Foreign born; Naturalized Foreign born; Non-citizen 3 and over in school % in Nursery/ preschool 3 and over in school % in Nursery/ preschool 3 and over in school % in Nursery/ preschool 3 and over in school % in Nursery/ preschool California 10,423,307 5.8 9,342,856 6.3 1,080,451 1.6 395,202 0.7 685,249 2.1 Countywide 295,019 6.3 262,261 6.8 32,758 2.3 11,287 0.5 21,471 3.2 Antioch 29,841 4.5 27,208 4.7 2,633 1.9 992 2.7 1,641 1.3 Brentwood 19,011 5.9 17,943 6.1 1,068 2.3 529 0.0 539 4.6 Concord 29,653 7.9 25,238 8.5 4,415 4.7 1,016 0.0 3,399 6.1 Danville 12,149 5.7 11,585 6.0 564 0.0 174 0.0 390 0.0 El Cerrito 5,658 8.7 4,273 10.9 1,385 2.2 517 0.0 868 3.5 Hercules 6,408 4.4 5,945 4.7 463 0.0 253 0.0 210 0.0 Pittsburg 18,808 5.2 15,727 6.1 3,081 0.5 1,368 0.0 1,713 0.9 Richmond 26,371 5.6 22,080 6.6 4,291 0.5 1,044 0.0 3,247 0.6 San Pablo 8,451 3.6 6,878 3.8 1,573 2.4 379 0.0 1,194 3.2 San Ramon 23,286 7.6 20,396 8.1 2,890 4.6 1,105 1.6 1,785 6.4 Walnut Creek 12,995 7.4 11,263 7.8 1,732 5.1 528 0.0 1,204 7.3 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ About 37.5% of all California residents age 3 and over living below the F PL attend school in 2019, compared to 33.6% (31,637) in the county. Since 2018, the county experienced a 3.3% or 1,085 drop in the number of school enrollees age 3 and over who live below the FPL, compared to the state’s 6.9% decline. Communities with the largest declines in enrollees below the FPL include Blackhawk (down Contra Costa County 100 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 106), Antioch (down 131), Concord (down 146), Richmond (down 253) and Walnut Creek (down 265). Areas that saw notable increases in enrollees below the FPL include Crockett (up 60), Bethel Island (up 90), Pittsburg (up 105), Danville (up 108), El Cerrito (up 131) and Oakley (up 289). Compared to the county overall (33.6%), the percentage of those 3 and older in school who live below the FPL is considerably higher than average in El Sobrante (40.5%), Lafayette (40.7%), Kensington (41.1%), Blackhawk (41.2%), Brentwood (43.7%), Discovery Bay (44.6%) and Rodeo (51.8%). An estimated 1,615 Contra Costa residents below the FPL attend nursery or preschool in 2019, which is a notable 22.5% increase of 297 enrollees since 2018. In contrast, the state saw an 8.1% decline in the number of preschool enrollees below the FPL. The highest preschool enrollment numbers among residents below the FPL occur in San Pablo (142), Pittsburg (202), Concord (203), Rich mond (242) and Antioch (250). Areas that saw a notable increase in the number of preschool attendees below the FPL include Richmond (up 34), San Pablo (up 35) and Concord (up 103). Another 9,090 residents below the FPL attend college, down 1.5% or 138 students since 2018, with the highest concentrations of college enrollees in El Cerrito (509), Pittsburg (646), Pleasant Hill (671), Anti och (724), Richmond (870) and Concord (1,266). The number of residents below the FPL who attend college fell most notably i n Richmond (down 114), Walnut Creek (down 139) and Pleasant Hill (down 160), but rose notably in Pittsburg (up 82), Concord (up 132), Oakley (up 149) and El Cerrito (up 161). Table 87 – School Enrollment of Residents Below FPL by C ensus Place, 201 9 Area Total Age 3 & Over Age 3 & Over < FPL Income < FPL Enrolled % of < FPL In nursery/ preschool In kindergarten In Grade 1-12 In college (undergrad) In graduate /prof. school California 37,132,586 4,888,871 1,833,620 37.5 89,300 96,265 1,081,501 483,696 82,858 Contra Costa 1,095,826 94,076 31,637 33.6 1,615 1,561 19,371 7,980 1,110 Alamo 14,648 662 137 20.7 14 0 71 52 0 Antioch 106,540 14,410 5,239 36.4 250 230 4,035 668 56 Bayview 1,829 14 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Bethel Island 2,140 489 151 30.9 11 0 89 51 0 Blackhawk 9,419 308 127 41.2 0 0 51 61 15 Brentwood 60,375 3,594 1,571 43.7 29 97 1,167 267 11 Clayton 11,748 164 39 23.8 0 0 12 18 9 Concord 123,443 11,798 3,630 30.8 203 261 1,900 1,134 132 Contra Costa Ctr 6,244 482 114 23.7 0 0 22 47 45 Crockett 3,158 280 111 39.6 0 0 50 44 17 Danville 43,042 1,519 459 30.2 8 0 351 97 3 Discovery Bay 15,704 1,228 548 44.6 0 60 370 118 0 E Richmond Hts 3,089 95 11 11.6 0 0 11 0 0 El Cerrito 24,437 2,113 691 32.7 11 37 134 439 70 El Sobrante 13,378 1,135 460 40.5 13 0 218 212 17 Hercules 24,898 1,156 307 26.6 0 0 165 123 19 Kensington 5,191 287 118 41.1 0 0 14 31 73 Lafayette 25,545 896 365 40.7 0 13 82 270 0 Martinez 36,238 1,901 453 23.8 0 0 204 249 0 Moraga 15,384 647 175 27.0 0 0 58 111 6 Oakley 39,439 2,948 1,169 39.7 99 29 725 300 16 Orinda 19,240 603 168 27.9 0 0 101 67 0 Pacheco 4,194 237 40 16.9 0 0 0 24 16 Pinole 18,572 863 230 26.7 19 0 105 96 10 Pittsburg 67,758 8,604 2,948 34.3 202 222 1,878 542 104 Pleasant Hill 33,303 2,578 966 37.5 44 18 233 569 102 Richmond 104,695 15,082 4,491 29.8 242 403 2,976 749 121 Rodeo 10,077 1,435 744 51.8 37 42 568 97 0 San Pablo 29,482 4,661 1,611 34.6 142 42 1,008 378 41 San Ramon 73,548 2,679 703 26.2 30 0 390 217 66 Tara Hills 4,983 272 90 33.1 0 0 79 11 0 Vine Hill 3,728 277 45 16.2 0 13 32 0 0 Walnut Creek 66,602 3,505 1,006 28.7 97 16 425 335 133 Contra Costa County 101 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 About 30.6% of California residents age 3 and over and 26.8% (79,176) of Contra Costa residents 3 and over attend undergraduate or graduate college or professional school in 2019. The proportion of residents age 3 and over enrolled in college exceeds the c ountywide average (26.8%) by far in Crockett (36.6%), El Sobrante (37.9%), Pleasant Hill (38.2%), Pinole (38.6%), El Cerrito (39.7%), Pacheco (41.2%), Bethel Island (42.6%), Moraga (43.5%), Bayview (45.7%) and Contra Costa Centre (57.0%). Countywide, 22.7% (67,085) attend undergraduate college and 4.1% (12,091) attend graduate or professional school. Of Contra Costa County’s 79,176 residents in college, 35,442 (44.8%) enrollees are male and 43,734 (55.2%) are female. Table 88 – College Enrollment by Census Place, 201 9 Area Pop. 3 & over in school In College, undergrad % In College, undergrad In Graduate, prof. schl % In Graduate, prof. schl Total in college or grad school % in college or grad school Males in college or grad school Females in college or grad school California 10,423,307 2,660,656 25.5 535,637 5.1 3,196,293 30.7 1,474,993 1,721,300 Contra Costa Cty 295,019 67,085 22.7 12,091 4.1 79,176 26.8 35,442 43,734 Alamo 3,940 499 12.7 97 2.5 596 15.1 339 257 Antioch 29,841 6,735 22.6 915 3.1 7,650 25.6 3,351 4,299 Bayview 565 228 40.4 30 5.3 258 45.7 140 118 Bethel Island 521 222 42.6 0 0.0 222 42.6 131 91 Blackhawk 2,409 466 19.3 108 4.5 574 23.8 241 333 Brentwood 19,011 3,807 20.0 479 2.5 4,286 22.5 2,335 1,951 Clayton 3,372 761 22.6 173 5.1 934 27.7 410 524 Concord 29,653 7,389 24.9 1,301 4.4 8,690 29.3 3,902 4,788 Contra Costa Ctr 759 294 38.7 139 18.3 433 57.0 244 189 Crockett 637 186 29.2 47 7.4 233 36.6 101 132 Danville 12,149 2,023 16.7 374 3.1 2,397 19.7 1,116 1,281 Discovery Bay 4,235 936 22.1 195 4.6 1,131 26.7 493 638 E Richmond Hts 449 51 11.4 30 6.7 81 18.0 23 58 El Cerrito 5,658 1,714 30.3 534 9.4 2,248 39.7 1,060 1,188 El Sobrante 3,632 1,212 33.4 164 4.5 1,376 37.9 541 835 Hercules 6,408 1,805 28.2 459 7.2 2,264 35.3 1,104 1,160 Kensington 1,152 123 10.7 155 13.5 278 24.1 146 132 Lafayette 7,371 976 13.2 245 3.3 1,221 16.6 324 897 Martinez 8,620 2,223 25.8 399 4.6 2,622 30.4 1,386 1,236 Moraga 6,333 2,552 40.3 202 3.2 2,754 43.5 986 1,768 Oakley 13,110 3,065 23.4 205 1.6 3,270 24.9 1,200 2,070 Orinda 5,193 765 14.7 162 3.1 927 17.9 410 517 Pacheco 894 337 37.7 31 3.5 368 41.2 179 189 Pinole 4,484 1,457 32.5 273 6.1 1,730 38.6 705 1,025 Pittsburg 18,808 4,373 23.3 726 3.9 5,099 27.1 2,209 2,890 Pleasant Hill 8,474 2,650 31.3 582 6.9 3,232 38.1 1,576 1,656 Richmond 26,371 6,929 26.3 1,035 3.9 7,964 30.2 3,182 4,782 Rodeo 2,835 850 30.0 34 1.2 884 31.2 356 528 San Pablo 8,451 2,088 24.7 123 1.5 2,211 26.2 1,087 1,124 San Ramon 23,286 3,390 14.6 833 3.6 4,223 18.1 2,163 2,060 Tara Hills 1,163 285 24.5 7 0.6 292 25.1 149 143 Vine Hill 1,011 224 22.2 14 1.4 238 23.5 85 153 Walnut Creek 12,995 2,317 17.8 1,242 9.6 3,559 27.4 1,631 1,928 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ The educational attainment of Contra Costa residents age 25 and over has continued to improve since 2005, and the percentage with at least a high school diploma or GED in 2019 is 89.5%, which exceeds the statewide percentage (83.3%). The proportion of county residents who have at l east a bachelor’s degree (42.5%) also continues to surpass the state’s proportion (33.9%). Countywide, 11.1% (41,795) of males age 25 and over have less than a high school diploma, compared to 10.0% (41,126) of females age 25 and over. An estimated 42.3% (159,682) of males and 42.4% (173,716) of females have at least a bachelor’s degree in 2019. Contra Costa County 102 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 89 – Educational Attainment by Sex and Census Place, 201 9 Area Male Female 25 and over Less than Diploma HS grad / GED < 4 yrs college BA or more 25 and over Less than Diploma HS grad / GED < 4 yrs college BA or more California 12,965,285 2,194,456 2,748,843 3,646,980 4,375,006 13,506,258 2,224,219 2,674,619 4,001,700 4,605,720 % 16.9 21.2 28.1 33.7 16.5 19.8 29.6 34.1 Contra Costa Cnty 377,068 41,795 67,096 108,495 159,682 410,110 41,126 68,729 126,539 173,716 % 11.1 17.8 28.8 42.3 10.0 16.8 30.9 42.4 Alamo 5,302 75 296 865 4,066 5,332 68 209 1,234 3,821 % 1.4 5.6 16.3 76.7 1.3 3.9 23.1 71.7 Antioch 34,523 5,090 9,671 13,018 6,744 38,209 4,904 9,560 15,283 8,462 % 14.7 28.0 37.7 19.5 12.8 25.0 40.0 22.1 Bayview 728 86 262 256 124 557 51 158 200 148 % 11.8 36.0 35.2 17.0 9.2 28.4 35.9 26.6 Bethel Island 823 292 169 322 40 773 126 191 320 136 % 35.5 20.5 39.1 4.9 16.3 24.7 41.4 17.6 Blackhawk 3,324 34 253 598 2,439 3,726 37 385 798 2,506 % 1.0 7.6 18.0 73.4 1.0 10.3 21.4 67.3 Brentwood 19,209 1,371 3,608 7,926 6,304 21,065 1,511 4,230 8,289 7,035 % 7.1 18.8 41.3 32.8 7.2 20.1 39.3 33.4 Clayton 4,036 76 428 1,182 2,350 4,271 130 427 1,263 2,451 % 1.9 10.6 29.3 58.2 3.0 10.0 29.6 57.4 Concord 44,916 5,074 8,533 15,071 16,238 47,170 5,254 8,745 15,850 17,321 % 11.3 19.0 33.6 36.2 11.1 18.5 33.6 36.7 Contra Costa Ctr 3,018 115 179 479 2,245 2,303 59 127 355 1,762 % 3.8 5.9 15.9 74.4 2.6 5.5 15.4 76.5 Crockett 1,225 79 204 477 465 1,335 40 260 420 615 % 6.4 16.7 38.9 38.0 3.0 19.5 31.5 46.1 Danville 14,151 238 1,145 2,591 10,177 16,103 274 1,206 4,078 10,545 % 1.7 8.1 18.3 71.9 1.7 7.5 25.3 65.5 Discovery Bay 5,370 220 1,239 2,214 1,697 5,787 157 1,126 2,667 1,837 % 4.1 23.1 41.2 31.6 2.7 19.5 46.1 31.7 E Richmond Heights 1,086 18 173 367 528 1,561 72 154 362 973 % 1.7 15.9 33.8 48.6 4.6 9.9 23.2 62.3 El Cerrito 9,211 524 890 1,735 6,062 10,265 569 1,179 2,166 6,351 % 5.7 9.7 18.8 65.8 5.5 11.5 21.1 61.9 El Sobrante 4,872 534 1,116 1,927 1,295 5,076 440 914 1,560 2,162 % 11.0 22.9 39.6 26.6 8.7 18.0 30.7 42.6 Hercules 8,582 636 1,476 3,026 3,444 9,844 763 1,460 3,099 4,522 % 7.4 17.2 35.3 40.1 7.8 14.8 31.5 45.9 Kensington 1,936 28 85 159 1,664 2,111 29 64 231 1,787 % 1.4 4.4 8.2 86.0 1.4 3.0 10.9 84.7 Lafayette 8,789 208 392 1,741 6,448 9,476 262 565 2,011 6,638 % 2.4 4.5 19.8 73.4 2.8 6.0 21.2 70.1 Martinez 12,944 490 2,587 4,474 5,393 14,524 676 2,538 5,289 6,021 % 3.8 20.0 34.6 41.7 4.7 17.5 36.4 41.5 Moraga 5,292 38 256 924 4,074 5,687 42 493 1,140 4,012 % 0.7 4.8 17.5 77.0 0.7 8.7 20.0 70.5 Oakley 11,945 1,526 3,354 4,667 2,398 12,870 1,460 3,328 5,543 2,539 % 12.8 28.1 39.1 20.1 11.3 25.9 43.1 19.7 Orinda 6,755 77 136 874 5,668 7,475 155 222 1,019 6,079 % 1.1 2.0 12.9 83.9 2.1 3.0 13.6 81.3 Pacheco 1,573 296 286 472 519 1,749 222 370 708 449 % 18.8 18.2 30.0 33.0 12.7 21.2 40.5 25.7 Pinole 7,021 867 1,358 2,813 1,983 7,738 711 1,392 2,948 2,687 % 12.3 19.3 40.1 28.2 9.2 18.0 38.1 34.7 Pittsburg 22,286 4,792 5,932 7,089 4,473 24,174 4,729 6,083 8,001 5,361 % 21.5 26.6 31.8 20.1 19.6 25.2 33.1 22.2 Pleasant Hill 12,253 332 1,365 3,543 7,013 13,148 559 1,408 4,231 6,950 % 2.7 11.1 28.9 57.2 4.3 10.7 32.2 52.9 Contra Costa County 103 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Male Female 25 and over Less than Diploma HS grad / GED < 4 yrs college BA or more 25 and over Less than Diploma HS grad / GED < 4 yrs college BA or more Richmond 36,690 8,873 8,295 10,096 9,426 38,780 7,396 7,680 11,825 11,879 % 24.2 22.6 27.5 25.7 19.1 19.8 30.5 30.6 Rodeo 3,233 479 785 1,115 854 3,827 507 978 1,506 836 % 14.8 24.3 34.5 26.4 13.2 25.6 39.4 21.8 San Pablo 9,797 3,257 2,797 2,514 1,229 9,887 3,199 2,671 2,671 1,346 % 33.2 28.5 25.7 12.5 32.4 27.0 27.0 13.6 San Ramon 24,007 720 1,643 3,918 17,726 25,804 1,065 2,321 4,972 17,446 % 3.0 6.8 16.3 73.8 4.1 9.0 19.3 67.6 Tara Hills 1,846 333 613 686 214 1,716 276 426 684 330 % 18.0 33.2 37.2 11.6 16.1 24.8 39.9 19.2 Vine Hill 1,251 111 448 394 298 1,265 208 241 422 394 % 8.9 35.8 31.5 23.8 16.4 19.1 33.4 31.1 Walnut Creek 24,573 608 1,851 4,704 17,410 29,869 652 2,752 7,567 18,898 % 2.5 7.5 19.1 70.9 2.2 9.2 25.3 63.3 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Figure 25 – Percentage of Residents 25 and over with No High School Diploma, 2019 Transitional Kindergarten The most recent transitional kindergarten (TK) enrollment data availa ble from the CDE for the 2018 -19 school year indicates that TK cumulative enrollment in Contra Costa County schools fell by 17 students (down 0.7%) from 2,586 in 2017 -18 to 2,569. In contrast, California saw a 1 -year 1.8% rise in enrollment. The districts of Byron Union Elementary (down 11), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 40), Pittsburg Unified (down 24) and SBE Rocketship Futuro Aca demy (down 24) saw the largest decreases in TK enrollment, while Brentwood Union Elementary (up 12), Orinda Union Elementary (up 72) and West Contra Costa Unified (up 13) saw notable increases. Of all TK enrollees in the county , 575 (22.4%) are English Learners (EL) and 954 (37.1%) are Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SD), with both figures down since 2017 -18 . Since 2017-18, the number of EL participants fell 19.8 % or 142 students countywide, compared to a 9.8% drop in the state. Antioch Unified (down 20 students ), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 57), Pittsburg Unified (down 29) and West Contra Costa Unified (down 47 ) experienced the largest declines in EL enrollment . Since 2017 -18 , the number of SD participants also fell 9.7% or 103 students countywide, in contrast to a 0.7% increase in the state. The districts of Mt. Diablo Unified (down 69 ), 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Ca l i f o r n i a Co u n t y w i d e Al a m o An t i o c h Ba y v i e w Be t h e l I s l a n d Bl a c k h a w k Br e n t w o o d Cl a y t o n Co n c o r d Co n t r a C o s t a C t r e Cr o c k e t t Da n v i l l e Di s c o v e r y B a y E R i c h m o n d H g h t s El C e r r i t o El S o b r a n t e He r c u l e s Ke n s i n g t o n La f a y e t t e Ma r t i n e z Mo r a g a Oa k l e y Or i n d a Pa c h e c o Pi n o l e Pi t t s b u r g Pl e a s a n t H i l l Ri c h m o n d Ro d e o Sa n P a b l o Sa n R a m o n Ta r a H i l l s Vi n e H i l l Wa l n u t C r e e k Male Female Contra Costa County 104 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Oakley Union Elementary (down 10), Pittsburg Unified (down 26 ) and SBE Rocketship Futuro Academy (down 9 ) saw the largest declines in SD enrollment. Districts in Contra Costa County with the highest TK pa rticipation in 2018 -19 include the same 5 districts as in prior years , led this year by West Contra Costa Unified (490) and followed by San Ramon Valley Unified (487), Mt. Diablo Unified (403 ), Antioch Unified (285 ) and Brentwood Union Elementary (212). The proportion of TK students who are EL is much higher than average (22.4%) in John Swett Unified (40.0%), Pittsburg Unified (31.8%) and West Contra Costa Unified (39.2 %). The proportion of students who are SD is much higher than average (37.1%) in Antioch (64.2 %), Pittsburg Unified (66.5%), West Contra Costa Unified (71.8%) and SBE Rocketship Futuro Academy (78.6%). Table 90 – Contra Costa Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment by District, 2018–19 Area TK Participation (Cumulative) EL % EL SD % SD California 105,175 31,222 29.7 62,972 59.9 Contra Costa 2,569 575 22.4 954 37.1 Antioch Unified 285 70 24.6 183 64.2 Brentwood Union Elementary 212 26 12.3 67 31.6 Byron Union Elementary 40 4 10.0 12 30.0 John Swett Unified 20 8 40.0 8 40.0 Knightsen Elementary 12 2 16.7 1 8.3 Lafayette Elementary 55 4 7.3 1 1.8 Martinez Unified 60 8 13.3 12 20.0 Moraga Elementary 46 4 8.7 2 4.3 Mt. Diablo Unified 403 90 22.3 98 24.3 Oakley Union Elementary 119 16 13.4 45 37.8 Orinda Union Elementary 72 3 4.2 2 2.8 Pittsburg Unified 170 54 31.8 113 66.5 West Contra Costa Unified 490 192 39.2 352 71.8 San Ramon Valley Unified 487 76 15.6 34 7.0 Walnut Creek Elementary 82 20 24.4 8 9.8 SBE - Rocketship Futuro Academy 28 0 0.0 22 78.6 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Table 91 – Contra Costa Transitional Kindergarten Enrollment by School , 2018–19 School Name TK Participation (Cumulative) EL % EL SD % SD Almond Grove Elementary 22 2 9.1 5 22.7 Aspire Richmond Technology Academy 24 14 58.3 20 83.3 Ayers Elementary 23 0 0.0 1 4.3 Bayview Elementary 25 8 32.0 19 76.0 Bel Air Elementary 17 7 41.2 8 47.1 Bella Vista Elementary 34 9 26.5 7 20.6 Bollinger Canyon Elementary 5 2 40.0 0 0.0 Brentwood Elementary 29 3 10.3 14 48.3 Buena Vista Elementary 3 2 66.7 0 0.0 Burton Valley Elementary 35 4 11.4 1 2.9 Cambridge Elementary 7 6 85.7 6 85.7 Camino Pablo Elementary 22 2 9.1 2 9.1 Carmen Dragon Elementary 30 5 16.7 17 56.7 Cesar E. Chavez Elementary 25 13 52.0 23 92.0 Coronado Elementary 26 12 46.2 23 88.5 Country Club Elementary 47 17 36.2 6 12.8 Coyote Creek Elementary 51 9 17.6 6 11.8 Creekside Elementary 31 2 6.5 5 16.1 Del Rey Elementary 16 1 6.3 0 0.0 Delta View Elementary 22 3 13.6 5 22.7 Diablo Vista Elementary 30 7 23.3 18 60.0 Dover Elementary 17 9 52.9 14 82.4 Edward M. Downer Elementary 11 6 54.5 11 100.0 Contra Costa County 105 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 School Name TK Participation (Cumulative) EL % EL SD % SD El Monte Elementary 15 4 26.7 7 46.7 Fair Oaks Elementary 18 9 50.0 14 77.8 Foothill Elementary 13 4 30.8 7 53.8 Ford Elementary 24 10 41.7 18 75.0 Garin Elementary 26 2 7.7 12 46.2 Gehringer Elementary 24 4 16.7 14 58.3 Glorietta Elementary 20 2 10.0 1 5.0 Golden View Elementary 50 9 18.0 0 0.0 Grant Elementary 27 15 55.6 21 77.8 Green Valley Elementary 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 Greenbrook Elementary 28 1 3.6 3 10.7 Gregory Gardens Elementary 18 1 5.6 2 11.1 Happy Valley Elementary 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 Harding Elementary 25 1 4.0 5 20.0 Heights Elementary 26 6 23.1 16 61.5 Hidden Hills Elementary 21 8 38.1 3 14.3 Hidden Valley Elementary 34 2 5.9 5 14.7 Highlands Elementary 18 1 5.6 3 16.7 Highlands Elementary 22 9 40.9 14 63.6 Holbrook Language Academy 15 2 13.3 2 13.3 Horizons School: Independent Study 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 Indian Valley Elementary 18 3 16.7 3 16.7 Jack London Elementary 29 5 17.2 16 55.2 John Baldwin Elementary 23 1 4.3 0 0.0 John Muir Elementary 24 4 16.7 5 20.8 John Swett Elementary 24 2 8.3 2 8.3 Kimball Elementary 29 8 27.6 21 72.4 Knightsen Elementary 12 2 16.7 1 8.3 Lake Elementary 27 12 44.4 18 66.7 Las Juntas Elementary 12 2 16.7 5 41.7 Laurel Elementary 24 3 12.5 9 37.5 Live Oak Elementary 26 4 15.4 0 0.0 Loma Vista Elementary 25 5 20.0 5 20.0 Los Medanos Elementary 26 10 38.5 14 53.8 Los Perales Elementary 24 2 8.3 0 0.0 Lupine Hills Elementary 28 3 10.7 10 35.7 Marina Vista Elementary 26 7 26.9 22 84.6 Marsh Creek Elementary 29 6 20.7 8 27.6 Marsh Elementary 28 10 35.7 23 82.1 Mary Casey Black Elementary 27 3 11.1 13 48.1 Meadow Homes Elementary 13 13 100.0 9 69.2 Mira Vista Elementary 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 Mission Elementary 38 11 28.9 25 65.8 Montair Elementary 25 0 0.0 2 8.0 Montalvin Manor Elementary 27 9 33.3 22 81.5 Montevideo Elementary 27 5 18.5 1 3.7 Mt. Diablo Elementary 15 0 0.0 1 6.7 Muir (John) Elementary 25 6 24.0 13 52.0 Murwood Elementary 21 6 28.6 3 14.3 Nystrom Elementary 29 15 51.7 22 75.9 Oakley Elementary 24 3 12.5 8 33.3 Olinda Elementary 24 2 8.3 9 37.5 Parkmead Elementary 21 3 14.3 0 0.0 Parkside Elementary 21 6 28.6 14 66.7 Peres Elementary 27 13 48.1 24 88.9 Pioneer Elementary 27 2 7.4 4 14.8 Pleasant Hill Elementary 22 5 22.7 4 18.2 R. Paul Krey Elementary 27 2 7.4 6 22.2 Rancho Romero Elementary 26 1 3.8 0 0.0 Contra Costa County 106 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 School Name TK Participation (Cumulative) EL % EL SD % SD Richmond College Preparatory 22 11 50.0 17 77.3 Rio Vista Elementary 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Riverside Elementary 1 1 100.0 1 100.0 Rocketship Delta Prep 29 0 0.0 19 65.5 Rocketship Futuro Academy 28 0 0.0 22 78.6 Rodeo Hills Elementary 20 8 40.0 8 40.0 Ron Nunn Elementary 26 3 11.5 8 30.8 Shannon Elementary 32 5 15.6 19 59.4 Sheldon Elementary 27 8 29.6 21 77.8 Shore Acres Elementary 10 10 100.0 6 60.0 Silverwood Elementary 18 4 22.2 1 5.6 Sleepy Hollow Elementary 16 0 0.0 1 6.3 Stege Elementary 22 7 31.8 18 81.8 Stoneman Elementary 24 6 25.0 16 66.7 Strandwood Elementary 17 1 5.9 3 17.6 Sun Terrace Elementary 23 7 30.4 4 17.4 Sutter Elementary 29 8 27.6 16 55.2 Timber Point Elementary 28 3 10.7 9 32.1 Turner Elementary 26 10 38.5 21 80.8 Valhalla Elementary 14 2 14.3 2 14.3 Valle Verde Elementary 30 6 20.0 2 6.7 Valley View Elementary 2 0 0.0 1 50.0 Vintage Parkway Elementary 25 4 16.0 9 36.0 Vista Grande Elementary 35 1 2.9 0 0.0 Vista Oaks Charter 12 1 8.3 3 25.0 Voices College-Bound Lang. Acad. at WCCC 30 20 66.7 26 86.7 Wagner Ranch Elementary 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 Walnut Acres Elementary 28 1 3.6 1 3.6 Walnut Heights Elementary 19 6 31.6 2 10.5 Walt Disney Elementary 41 8 19.5 2 4.9 Willow Cove Elementary 13 6 46.2 10 76.9 Woodside Elementary 12 2 16.7 3 25.0 Ygnacio Valley Elementary 12 4 33.3 8 66.7 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Special Education According to the California Department of Education, 21,922 students of all ages required special education services in Contra Costa County in 2018 -19, up 2.8% or 600 students since 2017 -18 . The number of students receiving special education in the county now represents 12.3 % of total enrollment. Since 2011 , special education enrollment in Contra Costa County has incre ased by 4,645 students or 26.9%. Among special education students of all ages, the most common disability type countywide is learning disability, which impacts a minimum of 8,829 students in 2018 -19. The second most common condition is speech or language impairment, which impacts a minimum of 4,684 students. Autism is the third most common condition impacting a minimum of 3,167 students. All three conditions appear to have increased since 2017 -18, noting that CDE public data release rules prohibit the calc ulation of exact totals. Table 92 – Public School Special Education Enrollment in Contra Costa, 2011 -2019 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 Number of Students 17,277 17,498 20,043 20,880 21,322 21,922 Percent of Enrollment 10.3 10.2 11.5 11.8 12.0 12.3 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Contra Costa County 107 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Figure 26 – Countywide Special Education Enrollment, 2011 – 2019 Table 93 – Special Education Enrollment by Disability Type – All Ages, 2011-2019 Disability 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 Autism 1,358 1,625 2,214 2,601 2,859 3,167 Deaf 126 106 116 19 20 20 Deaf-Blindness -- -- -- 5 5 6 Emotional Disturbance 879 850 759 669 688 657 Hard of Hearing 220 239 325 288 274 261 Intellectual Disability 977 967 1,025 960 966 906 Learning Disability 7,841 8,120 8,387 8,728 8,750 8,829 Multiple Disability 85 99 130 34 48 70 Orthopedic Impairment 377 345 392 335 292 257 Other Health Impairment 1,002 1,258 1,693 2,108 2,393 2,620 Speech or Language Impairment 4,235 3,722 4,799 4,693 4,600 4,684 Traumatic Brain Injury 34 31 39 10 11 11 Visual Impairment 138 129 146 76 31 40 Total 17,272 17,491 20,025 20,880 21,322 21,922 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ In 2018 -19, a minimum of 2,511 children age 0 -5 have a disability requiring special education services in the county, up an estimated 8.8% or 204 students from 2,307 in 2017 -18 . The distribution of students by disability type remains similar to prior years, with the largest majority o f 0 -5 year olds di agnosed with speech or language impairments (1,548 ) or autism (702 ), but the proportion of 0-5 year olds with autism continues to climb. Note that exact year -to -year changes may not be calculated due to CDE public data release rules. Table 94 – Countywide Special Education Enroll ment by Age and Disability, 201 8-19 Age 0 1 2 3 4 5 Minimum Intellectual Disability 0 0 0 1 13 19 33 Hard of Hearing 1 14 28 1 13 17 74 Deaf 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Speech/Language Impairment 0 12 75 371 550 540 1,548 Visual Impairment 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Emotional Disturbance 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Orthopedic Impairment 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 Other Health Impairment 1 1 1 30 39 44 116 Specific Learning Disability 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Deaf- Blindness 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Multiple Disability 1 0 0 1 15 1 18 Autism 0 0 1 199 258 244 702 Traumatic Brain Injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 29 107 607 893 871 2,511 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/. Note that CDE’s confidentiality policy prohibits reporting when counts drop below 11 students; therefore, all estimates of 1 reported here represent minimum counts only. 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 Contra Costa County 108 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 95 – Special Education Enrollment by District, 2018 -19 Area Number of Students Percent of Enrollment Antioch Unified 2,484 14.5 Brentwood Union Elementary 1,366 14.9 Byron Union Elementary 214 9.4 John Swett Unified 227 15.8 Knightsen Elementary 94 14.9 Lafayette Elementary 399 11.2 Martinez Unified 580 13.9 Moraga Elementary 247 13.3 Mt. Diablo Unified 4,233 13.6 Oakley Union Elementary 809 15.4 Orinda Union Elementary 235 9.2 Pittsburg Unified 1,273 11.2 San Ramon Valley Unified 3,062 9.5 Walnut Creek Elementary 418 11.8 West Contra Costa Unified 4,167 13.1 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Table 96 – Children with Major Disabilities by Disability Type and Census Place, 201 9 Area Population < 18 Population < 5 Total With disability % with disability Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty Total With disability % with disability Hearing difficulty Vision difficulty California 9,008,544 297,749 3.3 46,542 57,269 2,451,346 16,532 0.7 12,193 9,588 Contra Costa Cty 260,868 9,830 3.8 1,042 1,568 65,449 327 0.5 236 150 Alamo 3,415 41 1.2 18 18 319 18 5.6 18 18 Antioch 27,605 1,568 5.7 143 319 6,839 100 1.5 80 20 Bayview 346 0 0.0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 Bethel Island 347 0 0.0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 Blackhawk 2,014 24 1.2 0 0 386 0 0 0 0 Brentwood 16,396 775 4.7 49 173 2,957 0 0 0 0 Clayton 2,762 49 1.8 18 0 586 0 0 0 0 Concord 26,645 1,140 4.3 69 77 8,275 58 0.7 58 0 Contra Costa Ctr 640 37 5.8 0 0 353 0 0 0 0 Crockett 518 27 5.2 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 Danville 11,212 322 2.9 53 17 2,481 0 0 0 0 Discovery Bay 3,740 79 2.1 41 0 911 0 0 0 0 E Richmond Hts 429 6 1.4 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 El Cerrito 4,497 104 2.3 3 0 1,519 0 0 0 0 El Sobrante 2,603 208 8.0 59 67 727 0 0 0 0 Hercules 4,969 128 2.6 0 18 1,089 0 0 0 0 Kensington 1,058 0 0.0 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 Lafayette 6,701 159 2.4 5 0 1,171 0 0 0 0 Martinez 7,470 319 4.3 0 68 2,335 0 0 0 0 Moraga 3,769 119 3.2 13 0 447 0 0 0 0 Oakley 12,063 439 3.6 24 102 3,149 0 0 0 0 Orinda 4,532 117 2.6 0 8 748 0 0 0 0 Pacheco 762 0 0.0 0 0 256 0 0 0 0 Pinole 3,307 161 4.9 0 9 879 0 0 0 0 Pittsburg 17,681 742 4.2 130 243 5,364 25 0.5 25 0 Pleasant Hill 6,678 96 1.4 9 42 2,143 9 0.4 9 9 Richmond 23,942 887 3.7 207 32 6,784 0 0 0 0 Rodeo 2,327 152 6.5 21 0 612 0 0 0 0 San Pablo 7,622 287 3.8 0 47 1,861 0 0 0 0 San Ramon 21,385 435 2.0 36 123 4,071 66 1.6 14 52 Tara Hills 1,062 32 3.0 32 32 240 32 13.3 32 32 Vine Hill 1,083 116 10.7 0 0 325 0 0 0 0 Walnut Creek 11,804 347 2.9 14 45 3,396 0 0 0 0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Contra Costa County 109 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Mt. Diablo Unified has a total of 4,233 special education students of all ages in 2018 -19, followed by West Contra Costa Unified (4,167) and San Ramon Valley Unified (3,062). Districts with the highest proportion of special education students include John Swett Unified (15.8%), Oakley Union Elementary (15.4%), Brentwood Union E lementary (14.9%) and Knightsen Elementary (14.9%). Based on ACS estimates, California has about 3.3% of children age 0 -17 with a major disability, compared to 3.8% (9,830) in Contra Costa County. The county has 1,077 children age 0 -17 with a hearing difficulty and 1,522 with a vision difficulty. Areas with the largest number of children with hearing difficulties include Antioch (149), Pittsburg (158) and Richmond (216). Areas with the largest number of those with vision difficulties include Oakley (94), Ma rtinez (97), Brentwood (132), Pittsburg (272) and Antioch (361). In both California and Contra Costa County, 0.7% of all 0 -4 year olds have a major disability, which represents 453 0 -4 year olds in the county. Countywide, 370 0 -4 year olds have a hearing difficulty, with the majority in San Ramon (44), Richmond (45), Pittsburg (61) and Antioch (67), and 195 have a vision difficulty, with the majority in Tara Hills (32), Martinez (35) and San Ramon (45). Since 2018 , the number of 0 -4 year olds with a hearing difficulty rose 4.6% in the state and 11.1% in the county, with notable increases in Martinez (up 11 children), San Ramon (up 12 children), Richmond (up 13 children) and Tara Hills (up 32 children). The number of 0 -4 year olds with a vision difficulty ros e 3.1% in the state and 45.5% in the county, with notable increases in Antioch (up 24 children) and Tara Hills (up 32 children). Academic Performance All students, including English Learners (EL) and special education students, participate in academic assessment testing, but in January 2014, California Education Code Section 60640 established the new California Assessment of Student Performance and Prog ress (CAASPP) System to replace the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. Thus, comparisons to STAR results in prior years is not possible. Year-to -year comparisons of CAASPP results are also difficult in that scores are now reported on one of three qualitative performance levels: Level 1 (shows an understanding of core concepts, Level 2 (shows a foundational understanding of core concepts) and Level 3 (shows a limited understanding of core concepts). Across all grade levels in Contra Costa County in 2018 -19 , 54.6% of students meet or exceed the English Language Arts (ELA) standard, including 28.1 % of students who meet and another 26.6% who exceed the standard . These results compare favorably to the state in which 51.1% of stu dents meet or exceed the ELA standard, including 28.6 % who meet the ELA standard and 22.5% who exceed the standard. Across all grade levels in 201 8 -19 , 44.3% of Contra Costa County students meet or exceed the Mathematics standard, including 20.1 % who meet and another 24.2 % who exceed the standard . These results compare favorably to the state in which 39.7% of students meet or exceed the Mathematics standard, including 20.0 % who meet the Mathematics standard and 19.7 % who exceed the standard. English Learners The proportion of students in Contra Costa County who are English Learner (EL) has been lower than that of the state , with this difference generally narrowing over the past 15 years. As the percentage of EL students in California schools has falle n from 25.2% in 2004 to 18.6 % in 2020 , Contra Costa County’s EL student rate has grown from 15.2% to 15.9 %. Thus, in the 201 9 -20 school year, the percentage of EL students in the county is now just 2.7 percentage points less than that of the state. Note , however, that since the 2016 -17 school year , both rates have fallen . In 2019 -20, Contra Costa County schools have 28,454 (15.9%) EL students, down another 1.8% or 528 students since 2018 -19 . Table 97 – Students Who Are English Lea rners in Contra Costa County, 2006 –2019 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 2016-17 2018-19 2019-20 Number of EL Students 27,156 28,483 29,149 29,316 30,947 31,205 28,982 28,454 Percent of All Students 16.3 17.0 17.3 17.1 17.7 17.6 16.3 15.9 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Contra Costa County 110 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 The number of EL students in Contra Costa County varies considerably by school district with the majority by far in West Cont ra Costa Unified (10,045 ), Mt. Diablo Unified (6,185 ), Antioch Unified (3,241) and Pittsburg Unified (2,850). Districts with the highest proportion of EL students include Antioch Unified (18.9%), Mt. Diablo Unified (19.9%), Pittsburg Unified (25.1 %), West Contra Costa Unified (31.3%) and SBE Rocketship Futuro Academy (62.5 %). Since 201 8 -19 , districts with the largest declines in the number of EL students include San Ramon Valley Unified (down 291 students or 16.8%), Antioch Unified (down 177 or 5.2%), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 93 or 1.5%), Oakley Union Elementary (down 57 or 7.5%), Brentwood Union Elementary (down 53 or 5.6%) and Pittsburg Unified (down 38 students or 1.3%). In contrast, districts that saw notable increases in EL student enrollment inclu de Walnut Creek Elementary (up 16 or 3.8%), Liberty Union High (up 26 or 5.7%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 68 or 10.3%) and SBE - Rocketship Futuro Academy (up 101 students or 43.5%). Table 98 – English Language Learners by District, 201 9-20 District Count Percent of All Acalanes Union High 97 1.7 Antioch Unified 3,241 18.9 Brentwood Union Elementary 894 9.6 Byron Union Elementary 119 5.2 Contra Costa County Office of Education 726 12.6 John Swett Unified 249 17.5 Knightsen Elementary 94 15.5 Lafayette Elementary 92 2.6 Liberty Union High 483 5.8 Martinez Unified 374 9.0 Moraga Elementary 47 2.5 Mt. Diablo Unified 6,185 19.9 Oakley Union Elementary 703 13.5 Orinda Union Elementary 43 1.7 Pittsburg Unified 2,850 25.1 San Ramon Valley Unified 1,446 4.5 SBE - Rocketship Futuro Academy 333 62.5 Walnut Creek Elementary 433 12.2 West Contra Costa Unified 10,045 31.3 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ The ACS also provides estimates of children in linguistically isolated households. A linguistically isolated household is one in whic h no household member older than 13 a) speaks English only, or b) speaks a language other than English and speaks English "very well." Since 2018 , the number of California children age 5 -17 in linguistically isolated households fell another 27,922 or 4.6%, while the number in Contra Costa fell 837 or 5.7 % to 13,839 . The largest declines in the county occurred in Oakley (down 94 or 27.6%), San Pablo (down 152 or 11.0%), San Ramon (down 1 60 or 13.8%), Pittsburg (down 250 or 18.8%), Richmond (down 258 or 9.0%) and Concord (down 269 or 9.2%). Despite these declines, several areas saw notable 1 -year increases in the number of children in limited -English households including El Cerrito (up 34 or 33.3%), Martinez (up 57 or 518.2%), Antioch (up 72 or 5.6%) and Brentwood (up 137 or 86.7%), noting that large percentages occur due to small sample sizes . In 2019, the largest populations of children age 5 -17 in limited-English households occur in San Ramon (1,000), Pittsburg (1,079), San Pablo (1,226), Antioch (1,366), Richmond (2,622) and Concord (2,662). About 70.6% (9,774 ) of Contra Costa children in limited -English households speak Spanish, down a notable 7.4% or 777 children since 201 8 . The communities of Oakl e y (down 141 or 48.6%), San Pablo (down 181 or 14.5%), Concord (down 232 or 10.7%), Pittsburg (down 256 or 20.1%) and Richmond (down 263 or 10.3%) saw the largest 1 -year declines of children in limited -English households who speak Spanish. Estimate of th e number of Contra Costa children who speak some other Indo -European language was relatively unchanged, down a slight 1.5% or 18 children to 1,144. Likewise, the number who speak Asian or Pacific Islander languages was relatively unchanged, up a slight 1.3% or 23 children to 1,7 90. Contra Costa County 111 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 99 – Language of Children Age 5-17 in Limited-English Households, 201 9 Area Total Age 5-17 in LEHs Age 5-17, Speak only English Age 5-17, Speak Spanish Age 5-17, Speak other Indo -Euro languages Age 5-17, Speak Asian & Pac. Island languages Age 5-17, Speak other languages California 580,031 40,356 419,359 24,919 82,445 12,952 % 7.0 72.3 4.3 14.2 2.2 Contra Costa County 13,839 1,019 9,774 1,144 1,790 112 % 7.4 70.6 8.3 12.9 0.8 Alamo 32 0 0 18 14 0 % 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 0.0 Antioch 1,366 101 1,096 0 169 0 % 7.4 80.2 0.0 12.4 0.0 Bethel Island 89 0 89 0 0 0 % 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Blackhawk 11 0 0 11 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Brentwood 295 15 280 0 0 0 % 5.1 94.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clayton 35 0 0 35 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Concord 2,662 133 1,946 414 120 49 % 5.0 73.1 15.6 4.5 1.8 Contra Costa Centre 25 0 0 0 25 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Crockett 13 0 0 13 0 0 % 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Danville 143 12 0 0 131 0 % 8.4 0.0 0.0 91.6 0.0 E Richmond Heights 30 0 0 0 30 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 El Cerrito 136 9 78 22 27 0 % 6.6 57.4 16.2 19.9 0.0 El Sobrante 66 44 0 6 16 0 % 66.7 0.0 9.1 24.2 0.0 Hercules 29 0 0 22 7 0 % 0.0 0.0 75.9 24.1 0.0 Lafayette 40 0 0 0 40 0 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Martinez 68 45 0 0 23 0 % 66.2 0.0 0.0 33.8 0.0 Moraga 76 13 0 22 41 0 % 17.1 0.0 28.9 53.9 0.0 Oakley 246 54 149 13 30 0 % 22.0 60.6 5.3 12.2 0.0 Pinole 48 15 24 0 9 0 % 31.3 50.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 Pittsburg 1,079 33 1,019 27 0 0 % 3.1 94.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 Pleasant Hill 167 28 0 18 121 0 % 16.8 0.0 10.8 72.5 0.0 Richmond 2,622 40 2,292 165 109 16 % 1.5 87.4 6.3 4.2 0.6 Rodeo 23 0 23 0 0 0 % 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 San Pablo 1,226 81 1,067 14 55 9 % 6.6 87.0 1.1 4.5 0.7 San Ramon 1,000 252 36 134 540 38 % 25.2 3.6 13.4 54.0 3.8 Tara Hills 114 26 9 79 0 0 % 22.8 7.9 69.3 0.0 0.0 Contra Costa County 112 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Area Total Age 5-17 in LEHs Age 5-17, Speak only English Age 5-17, Speak Spanish Age 5-17, Speak other Indo -Euro languages Age 5-17, Speak Asian & Pac. Island languages Age 5-17, Speak other languages Vine Hill 58 0 58 0 0 0 % 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walnut Creek 445 51 39 131 224 0 % 11.5 8.8 29.4 50.3 0.0 Source: 2019 ACS 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ . Excludes areas with zero cells. Chronic Absenteeism As of December 2017, the California Department of Education now reports on chronic absenteeism rather than truancy rates. Chronic absenteeism is defined as absent from school at least 10% of the instructional days a student was enrolled to attend a school . The chronic absenteeism rate is calculated by dividing the number of students absent at least 10% of instructional days by the school’s enrollment. In 2018-19, Contra Costa County school districts have a chronic absenteeism rate of 12.1%, compared to 12.0% in California overall . Chronic absenteeism varies by student race and ethnicity, with rates among the county’s Pacific Islander (25.9%) and African American (25.0%) students much higher than those among White (8.5%), Filipino (6.5%) and Asian (4.6%) stude nts. The highest chronic absenteeism rates occur in the districts of Contra C osta County Office of Education (29.4%), An ti och Unified (20.7%), John Swett Unified (19.0%), West Contra Costa Unified (17.3%), Liberty Union High (15.9%) and Pittsburg Unified (14.9%). Districts with chronic absenteeism rates much lower than average include Canyon Elementary (1.4%), Moraga Elementary (2.2%), Orinda Union Elementary (3.1%), Lafayette Elementary (3.8%), Walnut Creek Elementary (4.2%), Knightsen Elementary (4.9%) an d San Ramon Valley Unified (5.0%). Nearly two -thirds (64.5%) of all chronically absent students attend Antioch Unified (3,549), Mt. Diablo Unified (3,949) and West Contra Costa Unified (5,058) in the 2018 -19 school year. CDE has not published more recent c hronic absenteeism data. Table 100 – Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism Rates in Contra Costa County, 2005 –2019 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2018-19* Number of Students 57,902 66,184 69,975 71,180 19,462 Percentage of Students 34.9 37.6 38.9 38.9 12.1 Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/. * As of 2018-19, rates reported are chronic absenteeism. Table 101 – Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism Rates by District, 2005 – 2019 District 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 2015-16 2018-19* Acalanes Union High 7.2 23.0 11.6 22.0 43.4 47.4 8.8 Antioch Unified 46.6 52.6 35.2 33.7 42.3 42.2 20.7 Brentwood Union Elementary 19.7 29.6 25.2 17.8 20.1 21.4 -- Byron Union Elementary 32.1 30.9 21.8 25.0 21.3 20.3 10.0 Canyon Elementary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Contra Costa Office Of Ed 12.6 5.7 41.8 19.4 19.0 16.7 29.4 John Swett Unified 63.4 30.8 56.7 21.3 49.3 40.8 19.0 Knightsen Elementary 2.7 3.0 2.3 14.4 9.9 23.7 4.9 Lafayette Elementary 12.5 16.2 14.9 16.3 7.6 29.5 3.8 Liberty Union High 1.8 0.9 0.4 34.5 39.3 37.7 15.9 Martinez Unified 22.2 19.7 24.7 28.9 44.9 42.6 9.9 Moraga Elementary 0.2 0.9 0.3 1.3 15.7 20.9 2.2 Mt. Diablo Unified 6.6 28.4 25.2 21.3 36.6 35.8 12.5 Oakley Union Elementary 38.7 37.5 26.4 32.5 39.1 31.6 10.1 Orinda Union Elementary 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.2 3.1 Pittsburg Unified 59.2 44.9 51.0 45.0 35.0 45.3 14.9 San Ramon Valley Unified 28.0 22.7 21.0 16.4 28.0 27.0 5.0 Walnut Creek Elementary 15.0 12.3 15.9 18.4 17.6 19.9 4.2 West Contra Costa Unified 45.1 47.6 66.9 59.2 60.4 63.8 17.3 Contra Costa County 27.7 32.08 32.4 30.4 37.8 38.9 12.1 California 25.2 24.15 29.8 29.3 31.4 34.1 12.0 Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filestd.asp . *As of 2018-19, CDE rates reported are chronic absenteeism. Contra Costa County 113 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Graduation and Dropout Rates In 2019 -20, the overall graduation rate (cohort, 4 -year adjusted) in Contra Costa County high schools is 88.5%, down slightly from 89.0% in 2018 -19. This rate continues to compare favorably to the statewide rate which also fell slightly to 87 .6% from 88.1% in 2018 -19. Graduation rates are considerably higher than average in San Ramon Valley (97.7%), Acalanes Union High (96.7%), Liberty Union High (92.8%) and Martinez Unified (92.2%), but are notably lower than average in Antioch Unified (79.5%), West Contra Costa Unified (79.1%) and Contra Costa County Office of Education (8.9%). Graduation rates are considerably higher than average in San Ramon Valley (97.4%), Acalanes Union High (96 .3%) and John Swett (92.6%), but are notably lower than average in West Contra Costa Unified (82.3%), Antioch Unified (80.6%) and Contra Costa County Office of Education (35.1%). Table 102 – Graduation Rates by District, 201 9-20 Name Cohort Students Regular Diploma Graduates Cohort Graduation Rate Grads Meeting UC/CSU Reqs Grads Earning Seal of Biliteracy Grads Earning Golden State Seal Merit Diploma Acalanes Union High 1,351 1,307 96.7% 1,031 0 750 Antioch Unified 1,300 1,034 79.5% 251 0 201 Contra Costa Off. of Ed. 79 7 8.9% 0 0 0 John Swett Unified 142 126 88.7% 59 0 0 Liberty Union High 2,001 1,857 92.8% 1,017 336 468 Martinez Unified 307 283 92.2% 2 0 0 Mt. Diablo Unified 2,094 1,810 86.4% 801 192 440 Pittsburg Unified 1,030 891 86.5% 338 119 147 San Ramon Valley Unified 2,703 2,640 97.7% 1,971 689 1,377 West Contra Costa Unified 2,263 1,789 79.1% 841 280 573 Contra Costa County 13,270 11,744 88.5% 6,311 1,616 3,956 Statewide Total 424,058 371,436 87.6% 188,038 47,618 101,889 Source: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dataquest.asp Table 103 – Dropout Rates by District, 2017 -18 District Name 1 Year Dropout Rate Acalanes Union High 0.1 Antioch Unified 2.4 Brentwood Union Elementary 0.0 Byron Union Elementary 4.8 Canyon Elementary 0.0 Contra Costa County Office of Education -- John Swett Unified 0.8 Knightsen Elementary 0.0 Lafayette Elementary 0.0 Liberty Union High 0.7 Martinez Unified 1.3 Moraga Elementary 0.0 Mt. Diablo Unified 1.9 Oakley Union Elementary 0.0 Orinda Union Elementary 0.0 Pittsburg Unified 1.8 San Ramon Valley Unified 0.1 Walnut Creek Elementary 0.0 West Contra Costa Unified 2.4 County Totals: 1.3 State Totals: 2.4 Source: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Cbeds2.asp?Drop1yr=on&cChoice=CoProf2&cYear=2017 -18& Contra Costa County 114 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 The most recent CDE dropout rates published by county and district are for the 2017 -18 school year. At that time, dropout rates varied by district, with 1 -year rates notably higher than the countywide average (1.3%) in Byron Union Elementary (4.8%), Antioch Unified (2.4%), West Contra Costa Unified (2.4%) and Mt. Diablo Unified (1.9%). The county’s overall dropout rate (1.3%) continues to compare favorably to the state (2.4 %). The CDE did publish a report for 2019 -20 indicating that during this past year when COVID -19 forced schools to shift suddenly to distance learning, statewide dropout rates remained stable (8.9%), compared to the prior year (9.0%), although both rates e xceed 2017-18 rates (2.4%). Head Start HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START DEMOGRAPHI CS In the 2020 -21 school year, the county’s Early Head Start program served a cumulative total of 798 enrollees including the children of 33 pregnant women, which is a 6.7% increase from 748 in the prior year. The Head Start program served 1,347 children, including new, continuing and turnover participants, which i s a 1.0% decrease from 1,360 in 2019 -20 . Among Early Head Start participants, 27.1% (216) served are less than 1, including 33 unborn infants. Another 26.2% (209) of Early Head Start enrollees are 2 year olds. Among Head Start participants in 2020 -21 , 40.1% (540) of children are 5 years of age or older, 38.5 % (519) are 4 years of age and 17.5% (235) of enrollees are 3 years of age. Table 104 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollees by Age, 2020–21 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Pregnant women 33 4.1 0 0.0 Under 1 year 183 22.9 0 0.0 1 year old 198 24.8 0 0.0 2 years old 209 26.2 53 3.9 3 years old 157 19.7 235 17.5 4 years old 18 2.3 519 38.5 5 years and older 0 0.0 540 40.1 Total Enrollment 798 100.0 1,347 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21. Actual cumulative enrollment includes turnover. HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START RACE AND E THNICITY In 2020-21 , 62.2% (477) Early Head Start and 61.1% (821) Head Start enrollees are Latino . Spanish is the primary language of 37.0% (295 ) of Early Head Start and 38.6% (520 ) of Head Start enrollees. White children make up 59.7 % (458) of Early Head Start and 59.7% (802) of Head Start enrollment . African American enrollees make up 27.2% (209) of all Early Head Start and 24.2% (325) of all He ad Start participants. Only 2.5% (19) of Early Head Start and 4.9 % (66) of Head Start enrollees are Asian. Table 105 – Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollees by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-21 2020 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Latino/Hispanic 477 62.2 821 61.1 Non-Latino/Hispanic 290 37.8 522 38.9 Total Identified Enrollees 767 100.0 1,343 100.0 African American 209 27.2 325 24.2 Caucasian / White 458 59.7 802 59.7 Multi-racial 72 9.4 137 10.2 Asian 19 2.5 66 4.9 Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian 3 0.4 9 0.7 American Indian / Alaska Native 1 0.1 1 0.1 Other / Unspecified 5 0.7 3 0.2 Total Identified Enrollees 767 100.0 1,343 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21. Actual cumulative enrollment includes turnover. Contra Costa County 115 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 FAMILY CHARACTERISTI CS OF ENROLLED CHILDREN In the 2020 -21 school year, single -parent families represent 73.4 % (530) of all 722 families with children enrolled in Early Head Start, which is 30 more single -parent families than in 201 9-20. Single - parent families rep resent 73.2% (911 ) of all 1,245 families with children enrolled in Head Start, which is down 22 families from the prior year. Table 106 – Enrolled Families by Family Type, 2010 –2021 2009-10 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Two-parent families 119 24.2 738 36.4 Single-parent families 373 75.8 1,291 63.6 Total Families 492 100.0 2,029 100.0 2020-21 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Two-parent families 192 26.6 334 26.8 Single-parent families 530 73.4 911 73.2 Total Families 722 100.0 1,245 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2009-10 & 2020-21 HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY TYPES Children in both Early Head Start (68.7 %) and Head Start (62.2%) are most commonly eligible for services based on income , and both programs saw increases since 2019 -20. Enrollment based on receipt of public assistance represents 14.8% (102) of children in Early Head Start and 15.5% (173) of children in Head Start, with a 20.1% drop in EHS and a 10.8% drop in HS since 2019 -20. O ver-income enrollment accounts for 9.8 % (68) of EHS enrollees and 16.2 % (181) in HS . Eligibility based on foster care status accounts for 2.6% (18) of EHS children and 2.9% (32) of HS children, virtually unchanged since 2019 -20 . Notably, the number and proportion of homeless children in Early Head Start (28 children or 4.1 %) and Head Start (35 children or 3.1%) have both increased since 2019 -20 . Table 107 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 20 20–21 Early Head Start Head Start Count Percent Count Percent Income Eligible 475 68.7 694 62.2 Public Assistance 102 14.8 173 15.5 Foster Child 18 2.6 32 2.9 Homeless 28 4.1 35 3.1 Over Income 68 9.8 181 16.2 Total with Eligibility Status 691 100.0 1,115 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21 FAMILY SERVICES AND REFERRALS RECEIVED During the 20 20-21 program year , a total of 53 Early Head Start families needed and 227 received family services or service referrals, which represents a considerable decline from 198 and 404 in the prior year. Services accessed most by Early Head Start families include adult education services (15 needed and 20 received) and parenting education (37 needed and 190 received). Among Head Start families, 45 needed and 342 received family services or referrals , down significantly from 267 and 855 in the prior year . Services accessed most by Head Start families include parenting education (34 needed and 243 received), health education services (3 needed and 133 received), and adult education services (7 needed and 13 received). Contra Costa County 116 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 108 – Family Services and Referrals Received, 2020-21 Type of Service Early Head Start Head Start # needed # received # needed # received Emergency/crisis intervention (immediate need for food, clothing, shelter) 1 3 3 11 Housing assistance such as subsidies, utilities, repairs, etc. 3 4 4 5 Mental health services 0 0 0 0 English as a Second Language (ESL) training 0 0 1 1 Adult education (GED programs and college selection) 15 20 7 13 Job training 1 1 3 3 Substance abuse prevention / treatment 0 0 0 0 Child abuse and neglect services 0 0 0 0 Domestic violence services 0 0 1 1 Child support assistance 0 0 0 0 Health education 0 41 3 133 Assistance to families of incarcerated individuals 0 0 0 0 Parenting education 37 190 34 243 Relationship/marriage education 0 0 0 0 Asset building services (financial educ., opening accounts, debt counseling) 0 0 4 4 Unduplicated number of families served or referred 53 227 45 342 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21 ESTIMATES OF HEAD START INCOME-ELIGIBLE CHILDREN The number of Contra Costa County children age 0 -2 and 3-5 who may be income -eligible to receive Early Head Start or Head Start services may be estimated from 201 9 American Community Survey 5 - Year estim ates of the population of children age 0 -2 and 3 -5 (Table 7), the number of 0 -5 year olds at each income -to-poverty ratio level by area (Tables 31, 32 and 33), and the number of women living below the federal poverty level with births in the past year (Table 34 ). In the table below, the population of 0-2 and 3-5 year olds has been multiplied by the percentage of all 0 -5 year olds who live be low 100 % of FPL . The population of 0 -2 and 3 -5 year olds has also been multiplied by the estimated percentage of all 0 -5 year olds living at 100 % to 130 % of FPL, assuming the number of children between 125% and 149% of FPL is equally distributed . The number of women below FPL with births in the past year has been used as a proxy to estimate the number of potential income -eligible pregnant women. Totaling all estimates by age group yields an approximate 8,476 0 -2 year olds, including 2,158 pregnant women may be eligible for Early Head Start, which is down 3.8% or 339 from 8,815 0 -2 year olds in 2018. The estimated number of pregnant women below the FPL is relatively unchanged since 2018 . Another 6,853 3 -5 year olds may be eligible for Head Start based on income alone, which is down a sizable 6.3% or 463 from 7,316 3-5 year olds in 201 8. The largest declines in income -eligible Early Head Start children and mothers since 2018 occur in Antioch (down 136), Martinez (down 88), Pinole (down 42) and Pittsburg (down 37). In contrast, Concord (up 51), Oakley (up 109), Richmond (up 85) and Walnut Creek (up 721) saw relatively large 1 -year increases in estimates of in come -eligible Early Head Start children and mothers. The largest 1 -year declines in income -eligible Head Start children since 2018 occur in Antioch (down 45), Oakley (down 40), Pittsburg (down 139) and Richmond (down 108), while Brentwood (up 40), Concord (up 36), El Cerrito (up 39) and Walnut Creek (up 631) all saw notable gains in estimates of income -eligible Head Start children. Contra Costa County 117 of 11 7 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2021 -2023 Table 109 – Estimates of Income Eligible Children by Age and Poverty Level , 2019 Area Population % Age 0- 5 < FPL Estimate < FPL % Age 0-5 100-130% of FPL Estimate at 100-130% FPL Women w/ births < FPL Total income eligible 0-2 3-5 0-2 3-5 0-2 3-5 0-2 3-5 A B C D E F G H I D + G + I E + H (A x C) (B x C) (A x F) (B x F) Countywide 37,670 40,862 11.7 4,407 4,781 5.1 1,910 2,072 2,158 8,476 6,853 Alamo 170 345 2.7 5 9 0.0 0 0 9 14 9 Antioch 4,008 4,217 24.4 978 1,029 8.3 333 350 284 1,594 1,379 Bayview 33 59 0.0 0 0 38.0 13 22 0 13 22 Bethel Isle 21 38 100.0 21 38 0.0 0 0 10 31 38 Blackhawk 174 260 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Brentwood 1,487 2,244 5.0 74 112 8.7 129 195 39 243 308 Clayton 313 364 0.0 0 0 2.8 9 10 0 9 10 Concord 4,920 5,104 13.0 640 664 5.2 256 266 320 1,216 929 Cont. Costa Ctr 314 96 0.0 0 0 12.9 41 12 0 41 12 Crockett 87 95 0.0 0 0 6.0 5 6 0 5 6 Danville 1,359 1,602 0.6 8 10 0.0 0 0 0 8 10 Discovery Bay 429 666 6.8 29 45 0.0 0 0 39 68 45 E Richmond Hts 68 57 4.8 3 3 0.0 0 0 0 3 3 El Cerrito 880 931 5.3 47 49 8.2 72 76 6 125 126 El Sobrante 440 359 4.3 19 15 5.9 26 21 17 62 37 Hercules 650 726 2.0 13 15 3.8 25 28 7 45 42 Kensington 138 106 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Lafayette 614 785 3.1 19 24 0.0 0 0 0 19 24 Martinez 1,464 1,207 1.9 28 23 1.2 18 15 7 53 38 Moraga 264 346 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Oakley 1,683 1,952 8.5 143 166 3.3 55 64 134 332 229 Orinda 348 644 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 Pacheco 167 138 0.0 0 0 3.9 6 5 0 6 5 Pinole 545 466 5.7 31 27 1.4 8 7 0 39 33 Pittsburg 3,142 2,979 15.0 471 447 6.3 198 188 327 997 635 Pleasant Hill 1,261 1,332 6.9 87 92 1.0 13 14 84 184 106 Richmond 4,148 4,034 24.0 996 968 10.1 419 407 518 1,932 1,375 Rodeo 332 374 29.1 97 109 8.6 29 32 56 181 141 San Pablo 1,091 1,029 29.8 325 307 11.6 127 120 151 603 426 San Ramon 2,011 3,074 3.1 62 95 0.1 2 3 47 111 98 Tara Hills 134 152 0.0 0 0 5.4 7 8 0 7 8 Vine Hill 158 215 0.0 0 0 19.6 31 42 0 31 42 Walnut Creek 2,084 1,740 46.6 971 811 0.0 1 1 14 986 811 2020 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT COVID-19 EDITION Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau Revised 8/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary __________________________________________________ i Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) _____________________________________ 11 Demographic Impacts and Response __________________________________ 11 Population Change ________________________________________________________________ 11 Population by Age_________________________________________________________________ 12 Households and Families ___________________________________________________________ 12 Economic Impacts and Response _____________________________________ 13 Annual Income ___________________________________________________________________ 13 Unemployment ___________________________________________________________________ 14 Employment _____________________________________________________________________ 17 Transportation ___________________________________________________________________ 18 Technology ______________________________________________________________________ 19 Poverty Status ____________________________________________________________________ 23 Public Assistance _________________________________________________________________ 24 Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals ______________________________________ 26 Housing and Homelessness _________________________________________________________ 34 Health Impacts and Response________________________________________ 38 Healthcare Insurance ______________________________________________________________ 39 Asthma _________________________________________________________________________ 42 Nutrition ________________________________________________________________________ 42 Oral Health Status of Children _______________________________________________________ 44 Substance Abuse _________________________________________________________________ 44 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) _____________________________________________________ 45 Mental Health ____________________________________________________________________ 45 Community Safety Impacts and Response ______________________________ 47 Crime Rate and Adult Arrests ________________________________________________________ 47 Adult Incarcerations _______________________________________________________________ 48 Domestic Violence ________________________________________________________________ 48 Child Abuse ______________________________________________________________________ 49 Juvenile Arrests___________________________________________________________________ 50 Impacts on Children and Families _____________________________________ 50 Births___________________________________________________________________________ 50 Child Care _______________________________________________________________________ 53 Educational Impacts and Response ___________________________________ 63 Enrollment ______________________________________________________________________ 63 Other Student Groups _____________________________________________________________ 66 Chronic Absenteeism, Graduation and Dropout Rates ____________________________________ 67 Head Start _______________________________________________________________________ 68 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Population and Percentage Change, 2010 – 2025 ___________________________ 12 Table 2 – Family Composition, 2009 – 2018 ________________________________________ 12 Table 3 – Median Income for Contra Costa County and California Families, 2005 – 2018 ____ 13 Table 4 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2004 – 2020 _______ 14 Table 5 – COVID-19 Impacts on Unemployment Rates, January – July 2020 _______________ 15 Table 6 – COVID-19 Impacts on Unemployment Rates by Sub-Area, 2018 – 2020 __________ 16 Table 7 – Civilian Labor Force, Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Area, 2018 _______ 17 Table 8 – COVID-19 Impacts on Labor Force and Number Unemployed by Sub -Area, 2020 ___ 18 Table 9 – Households with a Computing Device in Contra Costa County, 2018 ____________ 20 Table 10 – Internet Access in Contra Costa County, 2018 _____________________________ 21 Table 11 – Computer and Internet Access Among Children Age 0-17 in Households, 2018 ___ 22 Table 12 – Computer and Internet Access Among Labor Force Members, 2018 ___________ 23 Table 13 – Percentage of Contra Costa Families with Income below FPL, 2013 -2018 _______ 24 Table 14 – Poverty Rate of Families by Family Type, 2018 _____________________________ 24 Table 15 – Families below FPL with Children Age 0-4, Contra Costa County 2018 __________ 24 Table 16 – Population below Poverty Level, California and Contra Costa County 2018 ______ 24 Table 17 – CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases and Children, Contra Costa County 2019 - 2020 ____ 25 Table 18 – Public Assistance Households and Income by Place, 2018 ____________________ 26 Table 19 – CALFRESH Cases by Month, 2019-20 ____________________________________ 26 Table 20 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by District, 2004 – 2020 ______ 27 Table 21 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by School, 2019 – 2020 _______ 28 Table 22 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006 – 2020 ___ 34 Table 23 – Median Monthly Rents, 2020 __________________________________________ 34 Table 24 – Percentage Unable to Pay Last Month’s Mortgage or Rent, April and July 2020 ___ 36 Table 25 – Point-In-Time Count of Unsheltered Persons by County Sub-Area, 2011 – 2019 __ 37 Table 26 – Unsheltered Homeless in Contra Costa by Sub-Area, 2015 – 2019 _____________ 38 Table 27 – Children with One Type of Health Insurance by Coverage Type, 2018 __________ 39 Table 28 – Percentage who Delayed Medical Care Due to COVID, April and July 2020 ______ 41 Table 29 – Food Scarcity, March and July 2020 _____________________________________ 43 Table 30 – Drug-Induced Age-Adjusted Death Rates, 2017-2019 _______________________ 45 Table 31 – Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths and Age-Adjusted Rates, 2015-2018 __________ 45 Table 32 – Percentage Experiencing Frequent Anxiety, April and July 2020 _______________ 46 Table 33 – Felony Arrests for Adult Offenders, Contra Costa County 2010 – 2019 __________ 47 Table 34 – Number of Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, 2008–2019 _______________ 49 Table 35 – Rate of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases, 2005–2019 _______________________ 49 Table 36 – Number of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa County, 2009–2019 _ 49 Table 37 – Contra Costa Child Abuse Allegations, Substantiations and Entries by Age, 2019 __ 49 Table 38 – Felony Arrests for Juvenile Offenders, Contra Costa County 2010 – 2019 ________ 50 Table 39 – Births and Birth Rates, California and Contra Costa County – 2018 _____________ 51 Table 40 – Births in California and Contra Costa County, January – June 2020 _____________ 51 Table 41 – Women with Births and Public Assistance Income, 2018 _____________________ 51 Table 42 – Infant Mortality Rate, Contra Costa County, 2016–2020 _____________________ 52 Table 43 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Babies, Contra Costa & California, 2015–2020 ___ 52 Table 44 – Percentage of Women Receiving Prenatal Care in the First Trimester, 2016–2019 53 Table 45 – Age-Specific Rate of Births to Teens, 2002–2019 ___________________________ 53 Table 46 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Facilities by City, July 2020 ____________ 54 Table 47 – Licensed Day Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, July 2020 ______________ 55 Table 48 – Licensed Infant Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, July 2020 ____________ 60 Table 49 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Family Homes by City, July 2020 ________ 62 Table 50 – Child Care Costs by Age and Licensed Facility Type _________________________ 63 Table 51 – Contra Costa County Public School Enrollment, 2012–2020 __________________ 64 Table 52 – Enrollment in Contra Costa County by School District, 2019 – 2020 ____________ 64 Table 53 – Public School Special Education Enrollment in Contra Costa, 2011-2019 ________ 66 Table 54 – Contra Costa County Foster Students, 2018-19 ____________________________ 66 Table 55 – Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism Rates in Contra Costa County, 2005–2019 ____ 67 Table 56 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollees by Age, 2020–21 __________________ 68 Table 57 – Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollees by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-21 _______ 68 Table 58 – Enrolled Families by Family Type, 2021 __________________________________ 68 Table 59 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2020–21 ________ 69 Table 60 – Family Services and Referrals Received, 2020-21 ___________________________ 69 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Unemployment Rates, January 2004 – January 2020 ________________________ 14 Figure 2 – COVID-19 Impacts on Unemployment Rates, January – July 2020 ______________ 15 Figure 3 – COVID-19 Impacts on Sub-Area Unemployment Rates, January – Jun 2020 ______ 16 Figure 4 – Number of CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases and Children in Cases, 2019-20 ________ 25 Figure 5 – Number of CalFresh Cases in Contra Costa County, 2019-20 __________________ 26 Figure 6 – Percentage and Number of FRPM-Eligible Students by District, 2019-20 _________ 28 Figure 7 – Number of Adult Felony Arrests by Type, 2010 -2019 ________________________ 48 Figure 8 – Number of Juvenile Felony Arrests by Type, 2010 -2019 ______________________ 50 Figure 9 – Infant Mortality Rates, 2016-2020 _______________________________________ 51 Figure 10 – Prenatal Care in First Trimester, 2016-2020 ______________________________ 52 Figure 11 – Birth Rate Among Teens, 2014-2020 ____________________________________ 53 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Objectives In 2019-20, the Community Services Bureau (CSB) of Contra Costa County received state funding to provide educational support and development services to families with children eligible for the Early Head Start and Head Start programs. As part of this mission, in March 2020 the CSB completed its annual Community Assessment, which provides a comprehensive profile of the health, economic, educational and safety status of the estimated 65,499 children age 0-4 whose families call Contra Costa County home. However, amid the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, the CSB received additional CARES Act funding intended to support its critical response to rapidly changing community conditions . Recognizing that the success of their coronavirus response depends in part on accurately identifying, if not predicting, these changing conditions , the CSB conducted a second community assessment to gather and analyze available data on how COVID-19 has or will impact Contra Costa families . Staff and others will use these findings to better allocate resources , assess opportunities and anticipate emerging needs, including those of Head Start eligible children and families. Methodology The COVID-19 Edition Community Assessment process involved the assimilation of publicly available data and analysis from numerous sources. Primary among these were reliable, comparable, and frequently updated estimates of conditions from f ederal and state agenc ies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Centers for Disease Control an d Prevention (CDC), the Department of Education (CDE), the Employment Development Department (EDD) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Local committees, commissions and community-based entities that serve low income and at -risk children and families , such as First 5 Contra Costa, the United Way, CalWORKs , the County Health Department, Contra Costa County Local Planning Council for Child Care, and the County Office of Education, also provided on-the- ground utilization data . Because this special edition assessment has been prepared during a period of rapidly changing conditions, many of the estimates included derive from sources that provide more immediate analysis and interpretation of emerging conditions, such as reputable national and regional news media. Another key resource was the U. S. Census Bureau’s new Household Pulse Survey, an experimental product specifically developed to quickly measure social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on communities. However at this time, estimates for the San Francisco -Oakland -Berkeley metropolitan area represent the region most geographically and culturally similar to Contra Costa County . Additionally, Household Pulse data, like all survey -based estimates, are subject to sample error and other methodological anomalies . For these reasons, all estimates based on the Household Pulse Survey should be used with caution. Notably, COVID-19 itself has already impacted methodologies for this and future assessments in several ways. First, the 2020 U.S. Census operations, already well underway when the pandemic stuck, have been delayed by at least 3 months to ensure the health and safety of census takers, bureau staff and the public . Consequently, complete 2020 census results will not be released until July 31, 2021 at the earliest . Many other agencies have similarly adjusted their data release schedules to accommodate telecommuting and temporary or partial closures. Second, not all measures of interest ar e available monthly or mid -cycle; therefore, some gaps have been closed by prudent estimates made from available data. Finally, some new COVID-inspired data tools and statistical products may prove useful to t he CSB assessment process in the future, once their quality standards and reliability are thoroughly established. Results of the 2020 Community Assessment - COVID-19 Edition are presented below. Demographic Impacts In 2018, Contra Costa County had 1,133,247 residents and an average growth rate of 1% per year. Although population projections do not yet account for COVID -related changes, current ABAG projections indicate a slower 5.8% growth in the next seven years with 65,468 more residents by 2025. CDPH data also suggests the county’s birth rate ha s slowed since 2018, with 10,899 births in 2019 and 5,273 so far in 2020. In 2020, the county could see a 6.3% increase in deaths over 2019, with 4,193 deaths in the first 6 months of 2020. In 2018, Contra Costa had 871,947 adults, 261,300 children , 260,83 2 children in households, 78,790 (30%) age 0-5, and 65,499 (6%) less than age 5. Pre -coronavirus projections show the county may see a 4% growth in 0-4 year olds, with 68,506 by 2025, and a 3-4% annual growth in residents 65 and older for the next 12 years , with 186,000 seniors by 2025. In 2018, the county has 392,277 households, 282,085 (72%) are families and 127,996 (33%) are families with children. An estimated 54,634 children age 0 -5 live in married-couple families in Contra Costa, 3,853 0 -5 year olds live in single male -headed families, while 9,768 live in single female -headed families. Economic Impacts In 2018, median income for California families had increased to $81,416, up 6% or $4,441 since 2017, while median family income in Contra Costa h ad increased to $107,907, up 4 % or $4,309. However by July 2020, 59% of California and 50% of Bay Area adults had already experienced a loss of employment income through ii COVID-related layoffs, furloughs and/or reductions in hours or pay . Further, 46% of California and 37 % of Bay Area adults expect another drop in household income within the month. The U.S. Congress , compelled to take swift action to bolster financial stability, passed a bill to give $1,200 of direct aid to taxpayers and add $600 per week to unemployment benefits , but in August, continues to debate the need for additional aid. Meanwhile, 81% of the 2,615,295 Bay Area adults who received stimulus checks said they used them to pay for critical household expenses, like food (75%), mortgage (20%), rent (39%), and utilities (49%). Bay Area Hispanics (92%) and Blacks (95%) were even more likely to need stimulus checks for household expenses, as were those with children (85%) and those earning less than $35,000 (89%). In July, 25% (890,033) of Bay Area adults have not received or do not expect a stimulus check. But more aid will be critical, especially for low - and moderate -income families or single parents with jobs in the service sector , as these families tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck and may not have savings, access to home equity, or assets that may be liquidated. Single parents with service sector jobs are also unable to work from home and thus among those most in need of scarce child care services. Higher-income households were also twice as likely as low income households to see some income rebounds following pa rtial reopenings in May. Prior to COVID , t he county’s January 2020 unemplo yment (2.7%) continued lower than the state (3.7%) with both improved since 2018. Since 2018, unemployment fell 10% in the county and the state . But by June 2020, the state’s unemployment (14.9%) is 10.6 points or 247% higher , and the county’s unemployment (13.4%) is 10.2 points or 319% higher than in January (up 55,300), with 73,300 unemployed. Unemployment is up 4.5 to 19.9 points across the county’s sub -areas. COVID-19 has sharply reduced the number of jobs, with Alameda and Contra Costa counties losing 12% or 143,000 jobs from June 2019 to June 2020. In June 2020, California has 18,948,000 workers, down 529,400 or 3% since January. Contra Costa has 546,600 workers in June 2020, down 13,000 or 2% since 559,600 in January. All industries have seen payroll reductions, with leisure and hospitality down 34% or 42,100 jobs , and arts, entertainment and recreation down 10,500 jobs. Trade, transportation and utilities lost 17,200 jobs in the past year, professional and business services lost 16,300, manufacturing lost 15,100, while durable goods fell by 11,300 jobs. Notably, with partial reopenings in May, jobs in Alameda and Contra Costa counties rose by 31,800 to 1,049,900. Right after March lockdowns, 54% of California and 46 % of Bay Area household s had already seen a loss of employment income , and in the Bay Area, those who earn less than $25,000 (75 %), between $25,000 and $35,000 (59%) or between $35,000 and $50,000 (72 %) are most likely to have seen an income loss. Three months later in mid -July, 59% of Califo rnia and 50% of Bay Area households had experienced a loss of employment income since COVID-19, with higher Bay Area rates among residents age 18 -24 (58%) or 55-64 (66%), females (57%), those with no high school diploma (87 %), and those who earn less than $25,000 (79%), between $25,000 and $35,000 (75%) or between $35,000 and $50,000 (7 0%). Still, 46% of California and 37 % of Bay Area adults expect a loss of employment income within the month. In 2018, 93% (497,809) of Contra Costa workers commuted to work, up 2% or 10,238 workers since 2017 , with 283,631 who work within the county, 100,160 who go to Alameda County, and 58,089 who go to San Francisco County. Contra Costa roadways also accommodated 41,010 Alameda County and 19,504 Solano County workers . But stay-at -home orders have had large impacts on regional transportation , with bridge crossings down 33% to 50%, Silicon Valley traffic down 94%, Bay Area accidents down 63%, express lane toll charges suspended and greenhouse gas emissions down 8-21% from 2019. Yet with partial reopenings and economic rebound, Bay Bridge traffic quickly returned to 75% of normal, with o ver 100,000 crossings on five days between May 26 and June 16. In contrast to freeways and bridges, public transportation, essential to the regi on’s economy and environment, struggles to rebound with BART’s workday ridership at less than 10% of pre -pandemic levels, as commuters believe their private cars are safer than sharing a train or bus with other commuters. As shelter -in-place orders took effect, many businesses and schools hoped to sustain operations through telecommuting and distance learning, and as of July 24, Contra Costa schools planned to open the 2020-21 school year with online instruction only. But in 2018, 22,161 (6%) of all 392,277 Contra Costa households and 2% (9,904) of all 580,898 labor force participants have no computing device, and another 14,229 (4 %) have just a smartphone. About 37,636 (10 %) of all county households and 4 % (20,350) of all workers have no i nternet, and another 29,724 (8%) have internet through a cellular plan only. About 4 % (9,516) of county children have access to a computer but no internet, and another 2% (3,887) do not have computer access. In addition, many businesses, including health care providers, have had to compete for the supplies needed to safeguard workers and patrons, with periodic supply chain shortages of sanitation, testing, PPE and other critical technologies. CalWORKs caseloads in Contra Costa began to trend up in April 2020 and by J une, total 6,559, up 4% from December 2019 (6,332). Cash grant CalWORKs cases in June 2020 involve 11,849 children, up 4 % from 11,352 in December 2019. CalFresh cases have also climbed since March, with 2,632,234 state cases and 42,729 county cases by June 2020. From January to March 2020, CalFresh cases rose less than 1% per month, but April saw increases of 10% in the state and 9% in the county. In May, cases jumped another 6% in the state and 8 % in the county. Since COVID -19 lockdowns, the county has 8,5 85 or 25% more CalFresh cases. Although improved from 26.4 in 2019, the 2020 HOI in Oakland-Fremont-Hayward-Contra Costa housing markets (31.2) remains significantly less th an nationwide (61.3). Prior to COVID, HUD’s 2020 fair market rents (FMR) in the Bay Area had all risen from 2019 with 6 -7% increases in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties . In iii February 2020, the FMR for a 2 -bedroom unit in Contra Costa ($2,239) was up 6% since 2019. Prior to COVID, 36% (69,109) of Contra Costa home owners and 53 % (67,729) of renters expended at least 30% of their income on housing costs. Given the region’s existing housing affordability crisi s and COVID-19 economic impacts, state and local jurisdictions took swift action in March and April to curtail COVID-related evictions and foreclosures and limit rent increases. By July 2020, 8% of California and 4 % of Bay Area home owners did not make their mortgage, with mortgage deferrals in place for 4% of California and 5 % of Bay Area home owners. In the Bay Area, missed mortgages i n July were more common among Hispanics (10%), those with no high school diploma (41%) and those who earn less than $25,000 (7%). About 24 % of Bay Area home owners able pay to their July mortgage used stimulus checks and/or enhanced UI to pa y them. However, in July, 11 % of all Bay Area home owners and 19% of those with children are less than confident they can make thei r August mortgage. About 14% of California and 7 % of Bay Area renters did not make their July rent, with deferrals for just 1 % of California and less than 1% of Bay Area renters. Among Bay Area renters, Hispanics (13%) and Asians (8 %) were more likely to miss their July rent, as were those with no high school diploma (25%), renters with children (19 %), and those earning less than $25,00 0 (12%). About 56% of Bay Area renters who paid their July rent used stimulus and/or UI benefits to do so , and 21% of all Bay Area renters and 26 % of renters with children are less than confident they can pay rent in August. In 2019, the county had 2,295 mostly unsheltered homeless individuals, up 3% or 61 since 2018, and up 43% since 2017 , but throughout 2018, 6,924 individuals and 600 families accessed CoC services. In response to COVID-19, public health agencies have raised concerns about the heightened risk homeless individuals have of contracting more severe forms of the disease. To meet the crisis, the state began purchasing RV trailers in March to house homeless families. Locally through Project Roomkey, the CCHS began moving homeless individuals out of shelters and encampments and into motel rooms. By June 15, the county had leased 5 facilities in Richmond, Concord and Pittsburg, and providing rooms, food, skilled staff, services and referrals to 514 individuals. With the program’s success, advocates have embraced proposals to purchase the facilities and convert them to permanent shelters, particularly as moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures expire and back rent and mortgages become due. Community Safety Impacts Adult felony arrests in the county rose 4% to 8,829 since 2018, but are down 16% from 2010. Drug arrests have had the steepest decline , down 75% or 2,368 arrests since 2010. In contrast , arrests for violent offenses are up 9% or 209 arrests. Although 2020 data are not yet available, crime overall has reportedly fallen 23% across 25 U.S. cities monitored during the pandemic. Some indicators suggest Bay Area crime may be down 50% since the stay- at-home orders. Drug -related crimes have seen the steepest drop, down 63% nationally, but property crime (down 19%) and most violent crime (down 15%) also fell . One exception is gun violence, with mass shootings up 34% and U.S. gun sales up 64% over the same period in 2019. Communities have also seen a surge in crime clearly related to COVID, such as ci vil disobedience in the face of restrictions, package theft, speeding on uncongested highways, opioid abuse, a ssault on medical workers and law enforcement, hate crimes against Asian Americans, vehicle theft, price gouging and financial crimes su ch as unemployment benefit scams and charity scams. California correctional facilities have faced a lack of testing, inadequate infection control procedures, and shortages of cleaning and medical supplies for both staff and inmates that led to large scale COVID-19 outbreaks among th e state’s incarcerated. Because social distancing is not possible in overcrowded institutions, the outbreaks have prompted California authorities to release 3,500 inmates with an elevated risk of contracting the virus. In July, 2,345 additional inmates were granted early release , and 6,500 others with medical conditions that put them at high risk for becoming seriously ill from COVID -19 will be considered for release . Releases have targeted nonviolent offenders, but some considered for release because of serious medical conditions have been convicted of violent crimes. M any prisons remain over capacity despite recent releases , and the spread is difficult to control in these environments. Although controversial, inmate releases also guard against over-running the fragile healthcare systems of surrounding communities which, experts point out , would be tapped to provide medical care and hospitalizations should prisoners contract the virus. In 2019, domestic violence calls for assistance in Contra Costa (3,066) fell 6% or 197 calls o ver 2018, and fell 4% in California overall . Critically, COVID-lockdowns intensif y the conditions of isolation and stress that tend to increase violence against women and children, while also appearing to limit options available to those in abusive relationships. Those who need help may fear shelters are unsafe or closed, emergency personnel are unavailable , and orders are unenforceable since courts have shutdown. Despite the current absence of data showing a link between COVID -19 and rising DV rates, prior experience suggests that the need for domestic violence services and referrals may spike in the near future. The county’s 2019 rate of substantiated child abuse cases at 3.6 per 1,000 continues lower than 7.7 in California, with both rates up from 2018 . The county had 902 substantiated child abuse cases in 2019, up 7% from 2018, but both the number and percentage of case s involving infants (138 or 15 %) are down from 2018. Another 276 or 31% of substantiated cases involve children age 1 -5. Rates per 1,000 fell among infants (down 0.2 to 11.5) and 16 -17 year olds (down 0.5 to 1.7), but rose among 1-2 year olds (up 1.0 to 5.0), 3 -5 year olds (up 0.3 to 4.1), 6-10 year olds (up 0.2 to 3.2) and 11-15 year olds (up 0.6 to 2.8). As early as March, child advocates began to warn of COVID-19 impacts on the health and welfare of children , as the conditions the virus produces have led to periods iv of high risk for severe child abuse in the past. COVID con ditions such as disruptions in people’s lives, growth in unemployment, stressors such as food insecurity and illness, and the lack of oversight at -risk children usually receive from teachers, school staff and fellow students are all risk factors . Yet in 2020, across 43 states and Washington D.C., child abuse reports are down 14% in March, down 41% in April and down 35 % in May as compared to 2 019. Nationally, calls to child abuse hotlines have also fallen sharply during lockdowns and school closures. Advocates stress, however, that child welfare systems are largely reactive, that most of th ose professionals mandated to report suspected abuse have had limited access to at -risk children while schools are closed, and that child abuse data often takes at least a year to become widely available . Health Impacts On March 3, 2020, the county saw its first case of COVID -19, and by March 16, six Bay Area counties issued shelter -in-place orders. A statewide stay-at -home order followed on March 19. Yet in mid-August, the health and economy of many communities remain unsettled. Cases now top 22,192,616 worldwide with 780,457 deaths and 14,902,230 recoveries . The U.S. has 5,438,325 cases as of Augu st 18, including 170,497 deaths . A total of 632,667 cases and 11,342 deaths have been confirmed in California, with 11,442 cases , 157 deaths, 177,729 tested and 10,070 recoveries in Contra Costa County as of August 18, 2020. Residents of all ages contract the virus, although 31% of deaths in the county are among those age 81 to 90. Richmond has the highest number of cases (2,358), followed by Antioch (1,514) and Concord (1,498), but particularly high rates per 100,000 are found in San Pablo (3,279), Bay Point (2,602), Richmond (2,120) and Pittsburg (1,670). On August 1 8, the county reports 98 residents are currently hospitalized for COVID , and there have been 738 cases and 99 deaths in Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF). Among the county’s homeless, 109 cases have been confirmed from 2,378 tested , and 588 high- risk indivi duals have been placed in motels since April 2020. Several county indicators demonstrate a favorable trend with the number of cases flat or declining, the number of hospit alizations flat or declining, and the number of available hospital beds sufficient to meet demand. About 6% (64,189) of Contra Costa residents were uninsured in 2018, including 3% (7,413) of 0-18 year olds and 2% (1,419) of 0-5 year olds. Critically, 59% (161,042) of Contra Costa 0 -18 year olds had employer -based coverage only, putting them at risk of a coverage lapse due to COVID -19 business closures and layoffs. Another 7% (19,667) have coverage purchased directly from providers. Amid fears that COVID ma y cause overcrowding in hospitals, 45% of Bay Area adults had delayed medical care in May. By mid -July, the percentage who had delayed care fell to 36%, but was more common among adults using credit cards or loans to pay bills (45 %), those earning $25,000 to $49,999 (49%), those with at least a bachelor’s degree (43%), 40-49 year olds (43%), white residents (43%) and Black residents (54 %). In May 2020, concerned that its early recommendation to postpone routine dental checkups due to COVID -19 may create its own public health impacts, the CDPH modified its guidance to encourage the safe resumption of preventative and non-emergency dental procedures. COVID-19 has exacerbated food insecurity. About 5% of Bay Area households had food scarcity issues prior to March 2020 , but by July, 9% report food scarcity, with higher proportions among adults age 55 to 64 (13%), Hispanics (22%), African Americans (24%), adults with no high school diploma (35%) or with just a diploma or GED (19%), adults living alone (19%), those currently unemployed (16%), those caring for an elderly person (22%) and those earning less than $50,000 (28%). About 94,898 Bay Area adults used free groceries or food in mid -April, but by July, the number rose 132 % to 219,950. Among those using free food in mid-July, 22% accessed a school - based program and 44% accessed a food pantry or food bank. About 18% of those experiencing food scarcity were not at all confident they could afford food in the next month. Among 51,978 adults with children wh o used free food in July, 74% accessed a school -based program and 18 % used a food pantry or food bank. At the same time , COVID-19 has reduced the capacity of local food banks to meet this rising demand. National food bank network, Feeding America, says food bank use rose 40% as early as March , while donations of surplus food from retailers fell sharply as sheltered -at-home consumers began to empty store shelves, cooking more at home and fearing food shortages . Individual donations also fell in the face of shortages and economic uncertainty. Food banks also struggle to maintain their volunteer workforce s and the cleaning supplies needed to continue operations, and many have had to cancel in -person fundrais ers . Food banks warn that without alternative resourc es, households with children or seniors, which make up 64% of their patrons, will be among those most at risk to go hungry. In April 2020, 30% of California and 2 6% of Bay Area adults suffer from frequent feelings of anxiety. Statewide, anxiety is more pronounced in those less than 40 (36%), females (33%), Latinos (35 %), those with some college (34 %) and adults earning below $35,000 (39 %). Among Bay Area adults, those age 18-39 (30%), females (30%) and those earning below $25,000 (43%) are more likely to have frequent anxiety in April . Importantly, three months later, anxiety has risen notably for California (35%) and Bay Area (31 %) adults. California ns age 18-29 (48%), females (38%), those with only a high school diploma (39%) or some college (41 %), and those with income below $25,000 (39 %) are most likely to have frequent anxiety . Bay Area adults age 18-39 (48%), female (35%), with some college (40%), with no children (35 %) and with income below $35,000 (38 %) are most likely to have anxiety in July. Financial concerns appear to underlie this anxiety as California ns paying bills using credit (47 %), money borrowed from family or friends (45 %), or money from def erred or forgiven payments (52 %) report higher v anxiety, while Bay Area adults paying bills using c redit (35%), money from savings or sold assets (36 %), money borrowed from family or friends (65%), or money saved from def erred payments (62%) report higher anxiety . In April, 19% of California and 14 % of Bay Area adults suffer from frequent feelings of depression, and three months later, depression has risen substantially in California (26%) and the Bay Area (21%). Statewide in July 2020, frequent depression is most pronounced among 18 to 29 year olds (35%), Asian s (33%), unemployed residents (32%) and those earning below $35,000 (31%). In the Bay Area, frequent depression in July is higher than average among 18 to 29 year olds (44%), adults with some college (35 %), those with no children (26%), those who have had a loss of household employment income (29%) and adults earning between $25,000 and $34,999 (56%). Depression among California adults may also stem from financial concerns as those paying bills using credit cards or personal loans (32%), money borro wed from family or friends (39%), unemployment insurance (37 %), stimulus checks (37%) or money from deferred or forgiven payments (45%) are more likely to be depressed. Likewise, Bay Area adults paying bills u sing credit cards or loans (28 %), money borrowed fr om family or friends (51%), unemployment insurance (28 %), stimulus checks (26%) or money saved from deferred or forgiven payments (59%) are most likely to experie nce frequent depression . Impacts on Children and Families In 2018 , 12,777 women gave birth in Contra Costa, for a birth rate of 47.6 per 1,000 , and 2,166 (17%) women with births lived below the FPL countywide. However, the CDPH records a slower pace of births since 2018 with just 10,899 Contra Costa births in 2019 and 5,273 in t he first 6 months of 2020. About 829 Contra Costa women with bi rths in 2018 received PA, up 7 % from 775 in 2017. So far in 2020, infant mortality in the county continues to fall from a 10 -year high of 4.9 in 2010 to 3.2 per 1,000 in 2020 , compared to 4.3 i n California. About 88% of pregnant women in the county receive first trimester prenatal care in 2020, up from 2019, compared to 84% in the state, also up from 2019. In Contra Costa, 75 % of pregnant women receive at least adequate prenatal care in 2020, down from 76% in 2019, compared to a slight improvement to 78 % statewide. The county rate for low birth weight children (7 %) exceeds the state and rose slightly since 2019. Teen births rates per 1,000 in the county have fallen from 10.0 in 2019 to 9.1 in 2 020, while the state rate has fallen from 15.7 to 14.2. While the number of Contra Costa 0 -5 year olds in poverty rose 29% to 9,771 in 2018, and the number of single -parent families in which the parent works increased 4%, 7,103 county children received sub sidized care in 2018, up 8% from 2016. In 2019, 76% of families seeking child care in the county did so because parents work. But COVID-19 school closures, business closures and soaring unemployment has dramatically changed the child care landscape. Many providers have had to reduce enrollment, limit enrollment to children of essential workers , or close. Parents able to work from home have also had to care for and homeschool children. Those able to maintain jobs as essential workers have had to scramble for less convenient and more expensive child care options. As businesses reopen, the need for affordable child care intensifies. However, child care providers still operating face costly challenges to sustainability such as the availability of PPE, limits on group size, new protocols for cleaning and staffing, parents fearful of exposing their children to the virus, and newly unionized care givers. In July 2019, the county’s rate of children in foster care (3.2 per 1,000) is notably improved from the prior year, while the state’s rate remained stable (5.6). The county has 809 children in the system, including 67 in group homes and 202 with relatives . The total in care is down 16 % or 154 since 2018, but children age 0 -5 continue to represent a high proportion of those in care (35% or 282). The county has 71 (9%) infants, 105 (13%) 1 -2 year olds and 106 (13%) 3-5 year olds in foster care as of July 2019. C hildren age 0 -5 also make up 55% (181) of all first entries, with infants 30% (100), 1 -2 year olds 11% (35) and 3-5 year olds 14% (46) of first entries. Children in the foster system also face particular risk from COVID -19 as court actions, family visitations and reunifications may be interrupted or suspended. Foster children may suffer the loss of regular cont act with peers and teachers. COVID may limit crucial child welfare visits, and transitioning youth may lose their foster care protections just as jobs and housing become most scarce. For children dealing with past trauma, COVID -19 disruptions in familiar r outines can trigger psychological stress or traumatic memories. In response to these concerns, the state has appropriated $32 million to broaden the eligibility of transition -age youth and extend their benefits until June 30, 2021. In July 2020, Contra Costa has 19,290 daycare slots in 335 licensed centers, down 5 sites and 339 slots since January. The county also has 2,195 infant slots in 86 centers . As of July 2020, Contra Costa has 398 licensed family homes that serve at least 9 children with 5,516 slots, a dramatic 46% drop of 181 homes and a 31 % drop of 2,466 slots since the outbreak. Although data that reflects the rapidly changing circumstances of the child care industry may not yet be available, a decline in slots and large scale shift away from the more affordable care option of family homes suggest s the cost of child care will increase for many families. Other COVID-related conditions will no doubt also impact child care supply, demand and cost, as 77% of open programs in the state report loss of income, 99% of open centers have reduced enrollment, 78% of open FCC programs have reduced enrollment, 80% have increased cleaning and sanitation costs, and many providers say their current situation is unsustainable. Educational Impacts Public school enrollment in the county has grown steadily from 168,228 students in 2010 -11 to 178,411 in 2019-20. Although COVID forced the closure of most California schools, LEAs were assured they would continue vi to receive state funding and were guided to safely arrange for student supervision during school hours. In July 2020, instruction has been moved online for 76 % of California and 87 % of Bay Area adults with school children. Bay Area parents whose children received online instruction spent 14.0 hours per wee k on teaching activities with their children in April, but by July, that had fallen to just 5.7 hours. Classes we re eventually cancelled for 38 % of Bay Area adults with school children. In July 2020, only 18,712 (0.3%) California and 1,423 (0.3%) Bay Area adults with school children report their schools had not closed. In preparation for the 2020 -21 school year, the CCCOE and CCHS have worked with districts to develop individualized plans to safely reopen each school; however, while the county is on the CDP H watch list for worsening coronavirus trends, schools will remain closed. Reopening strategies include schedules that combine distance and on -campus instruction, smaller class es, and staggered, partial or reduced weeks or hours. But th e success of these strategies depends on ensuring equitable access to technologies, and in July, 2% of Bay Area adults with school children r arely or never have access to an appropriate device. For Bay Area parents, disparities are more pronounced among Hispanics (9 %), those with no high school diploma (21%) and those earning below $35,000 (10 %). About 0.2% of Bay Area parents rarely or never have internet access. By July, many schools have resolved these issues by providing devices a nd internet to students, as 26 % of Bay Area parents overall have a device provided by their child’s school, including 47% of Hispanics, 34% of parents with a bachelor’s degree and 52 % of those earning between $35,000 and $100,000. At the onset of 2019 -20, 59% of California students received free o r reduced price meals (FRPM), down 0.5% and 20,186 students since 2018 -19. By comparison, 70,401 (40 %) of all 178,411 Contra Costa students were FRPM -eligible at the beginn ing of the school year, down 3 % and 2,315 since 2018 -19. Since COVID -19 school closures, the county has strived to rapidly deploy a safe, alternative means to maintain student meal programs, with most districts recognizing the need for the USDA to grant waivers to allow meals to be distributed from more sites, discourage group or “congregate feeding,” and allow communities more flexibility to respond to local need. County school districts worked to align meal distribution strategies with CDC guidance to avoid settings where people might gather to eat as a group, to deliver meals in multiple locations to minimize use of public transportation and maximize social distancing, and to use ‘grab-and-go’ bagged meals, multi -meal packages, or meal delivery options. The resulting individualized plans were rolled out in mid -March 2020, with some distr icts limiting distribution sites to reduce the number of staff breaking shelter -in-place orders, and some using assistance and support from local and non-profit volunteers. To help reduce the economic threat COVID -19 posed to families, many districts made meals available to families with children regardless of their FRPM status or the school they attend. In 2019, 21,922 students of all ages receive special education in the county, up 3% or 600 students since 2018. At least 2,511 children under 6 require special education, up 9% or 204 students since 2018. Critically, the COVID-19 curtailment of in -person instruction presents additional challenges for special education students and their parents, for whom distance learning may not remedy unique issues such as delays in assessments; limited access to occupational, physical or speech therapists; reductions in essential student -teacher interactions; lack of suitable structured settings, appropriate materials or specialized equipment; and parents’ lack of time or competence to deliver special education services. At the same time, parents and educational experts concerned about missing critical developmental windows also acknowledge that many students with disabilities have underlying health or medical conditions that could make returning to school especially risky. Communities Served by Head Start Early in 2020-21, the county plans to serve 551 Early Head Start enrollees, including 6 pregnant women , and 159 2 year olds, down 26% from the prior year. Head Start ha s 1,059 enrollees, incl uding 540 5 year olds, down 22%. In 2020-21, 61% of Early Head Start and 63 % of Head Start enrollees are Latino, and Spanish is the primary language of 39% (210) of Early Head Start and 40 % (422) of Head Start enrollees. White childr en make up 58% of EHS and 61% of HS enrollment, and only 3% of EHS and 5 % of HS enrollees are Asian . African Americans make up 29% of EHS and 23% of HS enrollment. Singl e-parent families represent 74 % (386) of all EHS families and 72% (729) of all HS families. The majority en rolled in Early Head Start (70%) and Head Start (63 %) are eligible based on income. Eligibility based on fo ster care status fell to 13 (3%) in EHS and 22 (3 %) in HS, and the number and proportion of homeless children in EHS (21 or 4%) and HS (23 or 3%) also fell since 2019 -20. Contra Costa County 11 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the COVID -19 an international public health emergency. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services followed suit with the announcement of a nationwide public health emerg ency on January 31, 2020. First identified in Wuhan China but spreading rapidly throughout the world, the coronavirus that causes COVID -19 quickly distinguished itself as a highly contagious illness, capable of person -to-person transmission regardless of symptoms, and somewhere between 10 and 30 times more deadly than seasonal flu. Although much is still unknown about the novel virus, health experts agree that older adults and people of any age with serious underlying health conditions are at especially hi gh risk for developing the most serious complications of COVID-19, including severe respiratory illness and death. On March 3, 2020, Contra Costa Health Services announced the county’s first case of COVID -19, and Placer County reported the state’s first C OVID-related death on March 4, prompting swift action by Governor Gavin Newsom to proclaim a state of emergency. In response to rapidly rising rates worldwide and uncertainty about transmission prevention, the six Bay Area counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Contra Costa and Alameda issued a “shelter in place” order on March 16, requiring an estimated 6.7 million residents to stay in their homes for at least three weeks in order to slow the outbreak. This was followed by a similar stat ewide stay-at-home order announced March 19. The County’s stay -at-home order, extended and modified March 31 and April 29, 2020 , included requirements for social distancing and exceptions for providing and receiving essential services. On May 18, 2020, the county’s stay-at-home order was again modified and extended, allowing resumed operations for a limited number of essential businesses. Despite these unprecedented precautions, COVID-19 advanced to a pandemic with a rapidly accelerating spread. In mid -August 2020, cases top 22,192,616 worldwide including 780,457 deaths and 14,902,230 recoveries , according to the World Health Organization (WHO). A total of 5,438,325 cases have been confirmed in the United States as of August 18, including 170,497 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local government sites . A total of 632,667 cases and 11,342 deaths have been confirmed in California, with 11,442 cases and 157 deaths in Contra Costa County as of August 18, 2020.1 In the short time since the first confirmed U.S. case on January 21, COVID -19 has already impacted all aspects of life including a decline and destabilizing of financial markets, a steep spike in unemployment, the closure of many small businesses, bans on inte rnational and domestic travel, the suspension or postponement of public events such as the MLB season and the 2020 Olympics, a curtailment of social interactions including closing nursing homes and prisons to all visitors, shortages linked to consumer pani c-shopping and hoarding, a strain on medical supplies and resources, and a potentially dangerous overextension of health care systems. Most governors enacted statewide stay-at-home orders in March, and many have been gradually eased since April. In mid -August, despite extensive restrictions and precautions, the health and economy of many U.S. communities appear to have a long recovery road ahead . The Community Services Bureau (CSB) of Contra Costa County have prepared the following analysis of COVID -19 impacts to help guide that recovery. DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACTS AND RESPONSE Population Change In 2018, the American Community Survey estimated Contra Costa County had 1,133,247 residents, up 1% from 2017. Based on ACS estimates prior to the coronavirus outbreak , the county’s population had grown 8.0% or 84,222 in the eight years since 2010 , compared to 5.1% statewide. Although p opulation change has not yet been directly linked to COVID-19, population projection m ethodologies may eventually need to 1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html Contra Costa County 12 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION account for COVID -related migration as the economic impacts on industry, employment, income and housing become known. Available population projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) indicate slightly slower 5.8% growth in the county over the next seven years with 65,468 more residents by 2025. Birth and death figures released from the California Department of Public Health also suggest the county’s birth rate has slowed since 2018, with just 1 0,899 births in 2019 and 5,273 births in the first 6 months of 2020. CDPH data further indicates that in 2020, the county may see at least a 6.3% increase in deaths from all cause s as compared to 2019, with 4,193 deaths already recorded in the first 6 mont hs of 2020. Table 1 – Population and Percentage Change, 2010 – 2025 Location 2010 2018 Change since 2010 2025 Change since 2018 Contra Costa 1,049,025 1,133,247 + 8.0% 1,198,715 + 5.8% Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ and https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections- 2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra Population by Age In 2018, Contra Costa County had an estimated 1,133,247 residents, including 871,947 age 18 and over , 261,300 age 0-17, 260,832 children in households and 78,790 (30.2%) less than 6 years old based on ACS data. Statewide, 6.3% of residents were 0-4 years old in 2018, while 5.8% (65,499) were 0-4 years old in Contra Costa County. Pre-coronavirus ABAG projections indicate the county saw a less than 1% growth in 0 -4 year olds between 2015 and 2020, but may see another 4% increase to 68,506 by 2025. ABAG also projects a relatively steady 3 -4% annual growth in residents 65 and older for the next 12 years , with seniors topping 186,00 0 in Contra Costa County by 2025. Households and Families According to 2018 ACS estimates , households in Contra Costa County rose to 392,277 and families rose to 282,085. Married-couple families (215,025) saw the largest growth since 2017, while families headed by single females (47,896) was virtually unchanged. Since 2009, the number of households has risen 7.2% in the state but 8.3% in the county. Since 2009, the number of Contra Costa County families has risen 11.5%, the number of families with children has risen 5.8%, but the number of families headed by single females with children (23,523) has increased 14.9%. Table 2 – Family Composition, 2009 – 2018 HOUSEHOLD TYPE 2009 2018 COUNTY NUMBER COUNTY % OF HHS CALIFORNIA % OF HHS COUNTY NUMBER COUNTY % OF HHS CALIFORNIA % OF HHS Family households (families) 253,104 69.2 68.5 282,085 71.9 68.8 HHs with own children < 18 yrs 120,947 33.4 34.8 127,996 32.6 30.6 Married-couple family 198,162 54.7 49.7 215,025 54.8 49.7 HHs with own children < 18 yrs 92,821 25.6 24.5 96,123 24.5 21.7 Female householder, no husband 37,859 10.5 12.9 47,896 12.2 13.1 HHs with own children < 18 yrs 20,467 5.7 7.4 23,523 6.0 6.3 HHs with individuals < 18 years 133,420 36.8 38.7 141,612 36.1 34.8 Total Households 362,102 12,097,894 392,277 12,965,435 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Figures shown represent percentage of all households. According to the most recent ACS estimates, 54,634 children age 0-5 live in married -couple families in Contra Costa County in 2018, a nother 3,853 0-5 year olds live in single male-headed families, while 9,768 live in single female -headed families. Contra Costa County 13 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND RESPONSE Annual Income In 2018, ACS data indicated median annual income for Californi a families had increased to $81,416, up 5.8% (up $4,441) since 2017, while me dian family income in Contra Costa had increased to $107,907, up 4.2% ($4,309). Median family income in the county range d from a high of over $250,000 in Alamo to a low of $54,747 in San Pablo. Compared to California’s overall 32.4% (up $19,940) gain in family income since 2005, Contra Costa County families had seen a 30.6% (up $25,266) gain. Table 3 – Median Income for Contra Costa County and California Families, 2005 – 2018 INCOME 2005 2018 CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA Median income $82,641 $61,476 $107,907 $81,416 Total Families 253,104 8,281,119 282,085 8,915,228 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Since March 2020, the U.S. Congress has worked on multiple COVID-19 stimulus bills designed to provide some measure of financial stability to businesses, households and individuals impacted by COVID -19. In July, Congress debates whether to approve a second direct payment of $1,200 to taxpayers and whether to extend an expiring $600 per week enhancement to unemployment benefits . Despite this unparalleled federal assistance, economic analysts warn of an imminent recession an d widening income gaps, with household income falling for many due to layoffs, furloughs and/or a reduction in hours or pay. According to the U.S. Census’ Household Pulse study, an experimental survey conducted each month since April 2020 to assess COVID-19 impacts, in July 2020, about 50.1% of adults in the greater Bay Area already report a loss of employment income since March 13, compared to 58.6% in California overall. Further, about 36.6% of Bay Area adults and 46.3% of California adults expect some one in the household to experience a loss of employment income in the coming month.2 In July 2020, 78 .0% of the 23,982,619 California adults who received or expect to receive a stimulus check said they have or will use the income assistance for critical household expenses, such as food (73.9%), mortgage (25.2%), rent (43.7%) and/or utilities (52.4%). Hispanic adults in California (84.4%) are more likely than Whites (72.3%) and Asians (72.1%) to use stimulus checks on household expenses, as are those with (82.7%) versus those without (75.0%) children in the household. Not surprisingly, among California adults who received stimulus checks, those in the lowest income households (84.2% of those earning less than $35,000 ) are also much more likely than those in the highest income households (60.6% of those earning over $150,000 ) to use them on households exp enses. In July 2020, 80.6% of the 2,615,295 Bay Area adults who received or expect to receive a stimulus check said they have or will use them for critical household expenses, such as food (74.7%), mortgage (20.2%), rent (38.8%) and/or utilities (48.8%). Hispanic (91.7%) and Black (94.8%) Bay Area adults are more likely than Whites (74.5%) and Asians (76.7%) to use stimulus checks on household expenses, as are those with (85.3%) versus those without (78.5%) children in the household. Among Bay Area adults who received stimulus checks, those in the lowest income households (88.5% of those earning less than $35,000 ) are also much more likely than those in the highest income households (57.4% of those earning over $150,000 ) to use them on households expenses. Notably in July 2020, about 19.3% (5,752,554) of California and 25.4% (890,033) of Bay Area adults have not received or do not expect a stimulus check. In California, these percentages are most pronounced among adults age 65 and over (23.2%), Whites (22.7%) and Asians (25.9%). Compared to the Bay Area as a whole 2 https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/hhp/#/?s_state=00006&s_metro=41860&mapAreaSelector=msa&measures=JLR. Results are based on respondents in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley metropolitan area, which is the region most closely resembling Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County 14 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION (25.4%), percentages are most pronounced among adults age 18 -24 (33.8%), adults age 40-54 (34.9%), Whites (31.3%) and males (30.7%). Although the Household Pulse survey does not report the amount of household income lost due to COVID - 19, residents in low- and moderate -income households will certainly be among those most vulnerable to the consequences of any income loss. In particular, residents in lower income households , such as single parents with jobs in the service sector, are most likely to live paycheck -to-paycheck and least likely to have substantial savings , access to home equity, or assets that may be liquidated. Single parents with jobs in the service sector are also unable to work from home, and thus among those most in need of limited child care services . According to a Bankrate survey in June, residents in households earning less than $30,000 per year are also more likely than those earning $80,000 or more to express concern about the length of time it will take for their income to return to normal. Only 12% of lower income households compared to 20% of moderate - to upper-income households report their income had already recovered by late June.3 Although the distribution of $1,200 stimulus checks and $600 per week enhanced unemployment benefits may account for some of this recovery, income rebounds are primarily tied to the state reopening, which began for lower -risk businesses on May 8 and continued for higher -risk businesses on June 12. One month later in mid-July, a bleak rise in COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths in California made it clear that initial attempts to safely reopen had failed, which prompted Governor Newsom to renew restrictions on many businesses and public activities . Unemployment Prior to the COVID -19 outbreak, the Employment Development Department estimated the county’s January 2020 unemployment rate (2.7%) continued lower than the state overall (3.7%) with both rates improved since 2018. Since 20 04, unemployment rates in the county had improved by 42.6%, while the state’s rate had improved 35.1%. Since 2018, the county’s unemployment rate had improved by 10.0%, while the state’s rate had improved 9.8%. EDD rates indicated unemployment had fallen 0.1 to 2.3 percentage points in most areas of the county since 2018. Table 4 – Unemployment Rates in Contra Costa County and California, 2004 – 2020 Source: CA EDD, Labor Market Information Division. 2004 – January 2020. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/lab ForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE. Figure 1 – Unemployment Rates, January 2004 – January 2020 3 https://www.bankrate.com/surveys/coronavirus-and-income-reduction/ 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Contra Costa County California 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Contra Costa County 4.7 4.0 7.5 10.8 9.0 5.7 4.3 3.0 2.7 California 5.7 4.7 9.0 12.1 9.6 6.6 5.1 4.1 3.7 Contra Costa County 15 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Large scale impacts of the COVID -19 outbreak on unemployment have been reported by the Employment Development Department, which indicates the county’s June 2020 unemployment rate (13.4%) is 10.2 points or 319% higher than in January 2020, while the state’s rate (14.9%) is 10.6 points or 247% higher than in January. Both the state (down 1.3 points) and the county (down 1.1 points) have seen a small improvement since April 2020. Table 5 – COVID-19 Impacts on Unemployment Rates, January – July 2020 Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. Jan-Jun 2020. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/labForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE. Figure 2 – COVID-19 Impacts on Unemployment Rates, January – July 2020 Since the COVID -19 outbreak in January and the resulting lockdowns and business closures in March, EDD unemployment rates have risen from 4.5 to 19.9 percentage points in the county’s sub -areas. Areas that have seen the largest 5 -month increase in unemployment include Byron (up 19.9 points), Pacheco (up 17.7 points), Bay Point (up 16.4 points), Crockett (up 15.3 points), San Pablo (up 13.8 points), Pittsburg (up 13.6 points), Antioch (up 13.5 points) and El Sobrante (up 13.1 points). However, rates in June 2020 are somewhat improved in most sub -areas as compared to April. For instance, Oakley’s rate improved 17.4%, Brentwood’s improved 13.3%, Martinez’s rate improved 11.9% and Concord’s unemployment rate improved 10.7%. The EDD reports that between June 2019 and June 2020, the East Bay counties of Alameda and Contra Costa lost 143,000 or 12.0% of its jobs, and all industries experienced payroll reductions in the past year. The leisure and hospitality industry overall lost 42,100 (down 34.0%) jobs in the past year. Jobs in the accommodations and food services sector fell by 31,600, while the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector lost 10,500 jobs. The trade, transportation, and utilities industry lost 17,200 jobs in the past year, with the majority of losses in retail trade (down 13,100 jobs). Jobs in the professional and business services sector fell by 16,300 jobs, led by 10,100 job losses in administrative and support services. Manufacturing lost 15,100 jobs, while durable goods lost 11,300 jobs. With the partial reopenings in May, the East Bay counties of Alameda and Contra Costa saw some rebound in employment. Between May and June 2020, the number of jobs rose by 31,800 to 1,049,900. Leisure and hospitality saw the largest growth (up 12,400 jobs), includ ing 11,400 more jobs in accommodation and food services. Trade, transportation, and utilities added 7,800 jobs, construction added 5,000 jobs, and health care and social assistance added 4,400 jobs. Unfortunately, government jobs overall also fell by 2,100 jobs, with state government down by 2,300 jobs, and local and federal government each up by 100 jobs. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Contra Costa California Jan 20 Feb 20 Mar 20 Apr 20 May 20 Jun 20 Contra Costa County 3.2 2.7 4.1 14.5 13.8 13.4 California 4.3 3.7 5.8 16.2 16.4 14.9 Contra Costa County 16 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 6 – COVID-19 Impacts on Unemployment Rates by Sub-Area, 2018 – 2020 Area 2018 Jan 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 % Change Since April % Change Since January Alamo (CDP) 1.6 1.8 8.8 8.1 -8.0 350.0 Antioch (City) 3.8 3.6 18.1 17.1 -5.5 375.0 Bay Point (CDP) 5.1 5.6 23.6 22.0 -6.8 292.9 Bethel Island (CDP) 1.3 1.2 11.1 10.2 -8.1 750.0 Brentwood (City) 3.4 3.0 15.8 13.7 -13.3 356.7 Byron (CDP) 2.8 3.3 24.8 23.2 -6.5 603.0 Clayton (City) 2.4 1.6 7.1 6.5 -8.5 306.3 Clyde (CDP) 1.0 1.1 11.0 10.2 -7.3 827.3 Concord (City) 2.7 2.5 14.9 13.3 -10.7 432.0 Crockett (CDP) 2.7 3.2 20.0 18.5 -7.5 478.1 Danville (City) 2.6 2.4 10.1 9.9 -2.0 312.5 Discovery Bay (CDP) 2.7 2.6 13.5 12.4 -8.1 376.9 East Richmond Hghts (CDP) 1.6 1.3 7.0 6.4 -8.6 392.3 El Cerrito (City) 2.3 1.9 12.8 12.9 0.8 578.9 El Sobrante (CDP) 3.4 3.0 17.4 16.1 -7.5 436.7 Hercules (City) 2.6 2.8 14.1 13.5 -4.3 382.1 Kensington (CDP) 1.4 1.4 9.4 8.6 -8.5 514.3 Knightsen (CDP) 2.6 3.2 8.4 7.7 -8.3 140.6 Lafayette (City) 2.2 2.3 9.0 8.4 -6.7 265.2 Martinez (City) 2.8 2.3 13.5 11.9 -11.9 417.4 Moraga 2.0 2.0 9.3 8.6 -7.5 330.0 Oakley (City) 3.6 2.9 17.8 14.7 -17.4 406.9 Orinda (City) 1.7 1.6 8.8 8.1 -8.0 406.3 Pacheco (CDP) 5.1 4.0 23.2 21.7 -6.5 442.5 Pinole (City) 2.2 2.2 14.3 13.2 -7.7 500.0 Pittsburg (City) 3.6 3.1 17.6 16.7 -5.1 438.7 Pleasant Hill (City) 2.5 2.3 12.7 11.8 -7.1 413.0 Richmond (City) 3.4 3.2 17.1 16.1 -5.8 403.1 Rodeo (CDP) 3.3 3.4 16.3 15.2 -6.7 347.1 San Pablo (City) 3.3 3.1 18.1 16.9 -6.6 445.2 San Ramon (City) 2.3 2.2 10.8 10.7 -0.9 386.4 Tara Hills (CDP) 5.3 3.8 15.0 13.9 -7.3 265.8 Vine Hill (CDP) 4.8 3.3 8.7 8.0 -8.0 142.4 Walnut Creek (City) 2.6 2.4 11.1 10.4 -6.3 333.3 Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 2004 –2020. http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/labForceReport.asp?menuchoice=LABFORCE. Figure 3 – COVID-19 Impacts on Sub-Area Unemployment Rates, January – Jun 2020 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 E. R i c h m o n d H t s Cl a y t o n Kn i g h t s e n Vi n e H i l l Al a m o Or i n d a La f a y e t t e Ke n s i n g t o n Mo r a g a Da n v i l l e Be t h e l I s l a n d Cl y d e Wa l n u t C r e e k Sa n R a m o n Pl e a s a n t H i l l Ma r t i n e z Di s c o v e r y B a y El C e r r i t o Pi n o l e Co n c o r d He r c u l e s Br e n t w o o d Ta r a H i l l s Oa k l e y Ro d e o El S o b r a n t e Ri c h m o n d Pi t t s b u r g Sa n P a b l o An t i o c h Cr o c k e t t Pa c h e c o Ba y P o i n t By r o n Jan-20 Jun-20 Contra Costa County 17 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Immediately following the COVID -19 outbreak and March lockdowns, 53.6% of California and 46.3% of Bay Area adults said they lived in a household which had already experienced a loss of employment income, according to the Household Pulse Survey conducted in mid -April. In the state, this loss was most evident among residents with incomes less than $25,000 (59.0%), those with incomes between $25,000 and $35 ,000 (61.4%), and residents with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 (63.0%). In the Bay Area, the loss of employment income by April was most evident among residents with incomes less than $25,000 (75.0%), those with incomes between $25,000 and $35,000 (5 9.1%), and those with incomes between $35,000 and $50,000 (72.2%). Three months later in mid -July, Household Pulse data indicates 58.6% of California and 50.1% of Bay Area adults live in a household that experienced a loss of employment income since the onset of the virus . In the state, this loss was more pronounced than average (58.6%) among residents age 18 -24 (66.9%), those age 40 -54 (67.3%), Hispanic residents (71.4%), those without a high school diploma (77.2%), those in households with ch ildren (65.6%), and among residents with incomes less than $25,000 (74.9%), between $25,000 and $35,000 (66.0%), and between $35,000 and $50,000 (71.8%). In the Bay Area, this loss was more pronounced than average (50.1%) among residents age 18 -24 (57.6%), those age 55 -64 (66.4%), females (57.1%), those without a high school diploma (86.5%), and among residents with incomes less than $25,000 (78.9%), between $25,000 and $35,000 (74.5%), and between $35,000 and $50,000 (70.2%). Additionally, in mid -July, 46.3% of California and 36.6% of Bay Area adults expect a loss of employment income in the coming month. Employment Prior to the COVID -19 outbreak, about 64.6% (582,886) of Contra Costa County’s 2018 population age 16 and over participated in the civilian lab or force, and ACS data indicated that the county’s work force had grown by 7,735 (1.3%) since 2017. Both figures compare d favorably to the state with a 63.1% labor force participation rate and just 0.7% growth since 2017. Table 7 – Civilian Labor Force, Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Area, 2018 Geography Population 16 and over In Civilian labor force % in Civilian labor force Employed % Employed Unemployed % Unemployed Unemployment Rate California 31,109,195 19,630,514 63.1 18,309,012 58.9 1,321,502 4.2 6.7 Contra Costa 902,257 582,886 64.6 547,323 60.7 35,563 3.9 6.1 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ According to the most recent EDD labor force figures which capture impact s of the COVID -19 outbreak, 18,948,000 Californians participate in the labor force in June 2020, down 529,400 or 2.7% since January 2020. In Contra Costa County, 546,600 participate in the civilian labor force in June 2020, down 13,000 or 2.3% since 559,600 in January 2020. Within sub -areas of the county, declines in the labor force since January 2020 have most notably surpassed the county in Clyde (down 25.0%), Clayton (down 8.5%), Alamo (down 7.6%), Kensington (down 7.1%), Lafayette (down 7.1%), Orinda (down 6.7%), Danville (down 5.8%) and Vine Hill (down 5.6%). Sub -areas that saw the largest COVID -19-related declines in the number of workers from January to June 2020 include San Ramon (down 1,800), Walnut Creek (down 1,700), Concord (down 1,400), Danville (down 1,2 00), Lafayette (down 900), Martinez (down 800) and Brentwood (down 800). Current EDD labor statistics also show that in June 2020, an additional 1,991,000 Californians became unemployed, up 2 37% since January, due largely to the CO VID-19 outbreak and various public health control measures. Contra Costa County has 73,300 residents unemployed in June 2020, up 55,300 or 307% from 18,000 in January. Sub -areas of the county with the largest increases in unemployment since January include Richmond (up 6,700), Concord (up 6,700), Antioch (up 6,6 00), Pittsburg (up 4,500), San Ramon (up 3,000), Brentwood (up 2,800), Walnut Creek (up 2,400), Oakley (up 2,200) and Bay Point (up 2,100). Contra Costa County 18 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 8 – COVID-19 Impacts on Labor Force and Number Unemployed by Sub-Area, 2020 Geography Labor Force Number Unemployed January 2020 June 2020 January 2020 June 2020 California 19,477,400 18,948,000 840,000 2,831,000 Contra Costa 559,600 546,600 18,000 73,300 Alamo 6,600 6,100 100 500 Antioch 50,700 51,200 2,200 8,800 Bay Point 11,900 12,600 700 2,800 Bethel Island 800 800 0 100 Brentwood 29,500 28,700 1,100 3,900 Byron 600 600 0 100 Clayton 5,900 5,400 100 400 Clyde 400 300 0 0 Concord 65,700 64,300 1,900 8,600 Crockett 1,700 1,700 100 300 Danville 20,700 19,500 600 1,900 Diablo 100 100 0 0 Discovery Bay 7,800 7,600 200 900 E. Richmond Hts 1,900 1,800 0 100 El Cerrito 2,400 13,500 100 1,700 El Sobrante 7,500 7,500 300 1,200 Hercules 13,900 13,600 400 1,800 Kensington 2,800 2,600 100 200 Knightsen 600 600 0 0 Lafayette 12,600 11,700 400 1,000 Martinez 20,600 19,800 600 2,400 Moraga 7,700 7,300 200 600 Oakley 19,800 19,600 700 2,900 Orinda 8,900 8,300 200 700 Pacheco 2,500 2,700 100 600 Pinole 9,900 9,700 300 1,300 Pittsburg 34,300 34,600 1,300 5,800 Pleasant Hill 18,100 17,400 500 2,000 Richmond 52,700 53,000 1,900 8,600 Rodeo 4,900 4,800 200 700 San Pablo 13,900 14,100 500 2,400 San Ramon 39,500 37,700 1,000 4,000 Tara Hills 2,800 2,700 100 400 Vine Hill 1,800 1,700 0 100 Walnut Creek 34,300 32,600 1,000 3,400 Source: Employment Development Department, https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/unemployment-and-labor-force.html Transportation In 2018, ACS data indicated 93.4 % of Contra Costa County workers age 16 and older commuted to work, and the mean time workers spen t traveling to work had risen to 38.0 minutes, up from 37.1 in 2017 and notably longer than the statewide average of 29.3 minutes. However, t he county’s commuters drove alone to work less than commuters in the state (67.6% to 73.7%, respectively), and Contra Costa commuters were still somewhat more likely to carpool than commuters in the state (11.7% to 10.3%, respectively). In 2018, the number of Contra Costa County workers age 16 and over who travel to a work place had risen to 497,809, up 2.1% or 10,238 workers since 2017. Prior to the COVID -19 outbreak, EDD estimate d that commute patterns among Contra Costa workers include 283,631 who trave l to work within the county, 100,160 who travel to Alameda County, and 58,089 who travel to San Francisco County. Additionally, Contra Costa roadways accommodate an influx of 41,010 workers from Alameda County and another 19,504 from Solano County. However, the COVID -19 outbreak and stay- at-home public health response has had large scale impacts on commuting quantities and patterns , as Bay Area transportation officials report that during the mid -March through April peak of the region’s shelter -in- Contra Costa County 19 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION place actions, bridge crossings fell by 50%. Even after some restrictions were eased, bridge traffic remained down by 33%. By comparison, Bay Area bridge traffic saw a slight 2% drop during the 2008 recession.4 Traffic reductions were perhaps a predictable i mpact of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, as many businesses adjusted operations to allow employees to work from home, while some businesses closed altogether . Although county-specific data is currently unavailable, Joint Venture's Institute for Regional Stud ies report ed a 94% decrease in Silicon Valley traffic, and CHP data indicated a 63% reduction in Bay Area accidents at the height of the outbreak closures in April . However, some impacts may have been unanticipated , such as a sizable spike in the number of 100-mph speeding tickets, a suspension in express lane toll charges, and an 8- 21% projected reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 2019.5 However, with the easing of stay-at-home orders in June to accommodate a partial reopening a nd an economic rebound, many markers raise d concerns about rapidly accelerating traffic congestion , including trends identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Freeway express lane tolls have already resumed in response to i ncreased gr idlock. S tarting as early as May, Bay Bridge traffic nearly overnight returned to about 75% of normal, with over 100,000 crossing s on May 26, the highest volume since the stay- at-home orders in March. In just the next three weeks, traffic on the Bay Bridge surpassed 100,000 four more days, even thou gh a large number of workers have not yet returned to work. But in contrast to freeways and bridges, BART utilization has struggled to rebound to pre -COVID levels. During the partial opening i n early June, BART r eported carrying more than 30,000 passengers each workday, compared to less than 25,000 in mid-April, but workday ridership has stalled at less than 10% of pre -pandemic levels . MTC and other regional transit authorities have begu n to caution that economic recovery will result in much higher levels of traffic congestion than before COVID . For one reason, commuters believe the virus is spread on public transit, and their private car is therefore safer than sharing a train or bus with other commuters. Current CDC reopening guidelines may be feeding this unsupported fear by recommending that employers provide incentives to encourage workers to drive alone to work rather than take public transportation . Further complicating the traffic picture, vacationers also believe private cars are the safest transportation alternative this summer, with 62% saying they would vacation by car , up a dramatic 72% from last summer’s Out of Home Advertising Association of America survey. Technology As the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders took effect, businesses and schools considered whether they could sustain operations remotely by allowing workers to telecommute or by enabling students to access instruction online. Essential service providers also considered how to maintain operations while ensuring the safety and welfare of employees and the public. However, the success of these strategies depends on access to particular technologies , supplies and equipment. Many governmental or technology employe rs had already established VPNs that enable employees to work from home, while others hastily acquired the software and technical support required to set up protocols for secure telecommuting. When Contra Costa County schools closed March 16 due to the cor onavirus, Governor Newsom gave assurance that state funding would continue but should be diverted to fund, among other things, distance learning programs . As of July 24, Contra Costa County schools have been directed to prepare to reopen in the 2020 -21 school year with online instruction only. State funding for online programs will require verification that all students have the technology needed to participate in distance learning and that teachers can take attendance, monitor weekly progress and provide daily interaction with students. When local school districts are able to open for in -person classes, the state indicates it will supply the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). One primary barrier to working or schooling from home is a lack of access to a computing device, such as a tablet, desktop or laptop computer . In 2018, an estimated 1,079,371 (8.3%) California households have no computing device , and the only computing dev ice available to another 605,877 (4.7%) households is a 4 https://abc7news.com/bay-area-bridges-traffic-cars-on-the-tolls/6243610/ 5 https://abc7news.com/traffic/what-will-traffic-look-like-after-covid-19-bay-area-officials-weigh-in/6230200/ Contra Costa County 20 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION smartphone. In Contra Costa County, 22,161 (5.6%) of all 392,277 households do not have a computing device, and the only device available to another 14,229 (3.6%) is a smartphone. Areas with the highest percentage of households that have no computing devices include Bayview (12.1%), Bethel Island (21.9%), San Pablo (10.3%) and Tara Hills (10.0%). Communities with the highest number of households with no computing devices include the county’s population centers of Antioch (2,459), Concord (3,043), Pittsburg (1,225), Richmond (3,218) and Walnut Creek (1,576). Table 9 – Households with a Computing Device in Contra Costa County, 2018 Area Total HHs With computing device(s) % with computing device(s) Tablet / portable wifi device only % Tablet / portable wifi device only Smart- phone only % Smart- phone only No computer % No computer Contra Costa 392,277 370,116 94.4 1,764 0.4 14,229 3.6 22,161 5.6 Alamo 5,223 5,055 96.8 43 0.8 47 0.9 168 3.2 Antioch 34,102 31,643 92.8 145 0.4 1,868 5.5 2,459 7.2 Bayview 610 536 87.9 0 0 45 7.4 74 12.1 Bethel Island 885 691 78.1 0 0 48 5.4 194 21.9 Blackhawk 3,511 3,456 98.4 0 0 26 0.7 55 1.6 Brentwood 19,543 18,588 95.1 59 0.3 343 1.8 955 4.9 Clayton 4,200 4,079 97.1 9 0.2 43 1.0 121 2.9 Concord 46,475 43,432 93.5 177 0.4 1,670 3.6 3,043 6.5 Contra Costa Ctr 3,671 3,556 96.9 68 1.9 128 3.5 115 3.1 Crockett 1,404 1,350 96.2 9 0.6 91 6.5 54 3.8 Danville 15,956 15,085 94.5 84 0.5 217 1.4 871 5.5 Discovery Bay 5,418 5,294 97.7 7 0.1 79 1.5 124 2.3 E Richmond Hts 1,408 1,329 94.4 8 0.6 43 3.1 79 5.6 El Cerrito 9,987 9,459 94.7 42 0.4 187 1.9 528 5.3 El Sobrante 4,885 4,645 95.1 7 0.1 127 2.6 240 4.9 Hercules 8,098 7,831 96.7 28 0.3 260 3.2 267 3.3 Kensington 2,333 2,250 96.4 0 0 7 0.3 83 3.6 Lafayette 9,407 9,068 96.4 0 0 150 1.6 339 3.6 Martinez 14,668 13,876 94.6 18 0.1 262 1.8 792 5.4 Moraga 5,909 5,721 96.8 17 0.3 74 1.3 188 3.2 Oakley 11,812 11,373 96.3 40 0.3 710 6.0 439 3.7 Orinda 7,093 6,876 96.9 0 0 70 1.0 217 3.1 Pacheco 1,709 1,604 93.9 28 1.6 34 2.0 105 6.1 Pinole 6,669 6,321 94.8 29 0.4 179 2.7 348 5.2 Pittsburg 20,958 19,733 94.2 220 1 1,416 6.8 1,225 5.8 Pleasant Hill 13,679 13,077 95.6 14 0.1 141 1.0 602 4.4 Richmond 37,209 33,991 91.4 130 0.3 2,836 7.6 3,218 8.6 Rodeo 3,329 3,064 92.0 33 1 93 2.8 265 8.0 San Pablo 9,136 8,197 89.7 195 2.1 1,012 11.1 939 10.3 San Ramon 25,150 24,661 98.1 96 0.4 203 0.8 489 1.9 Tara Hills 1,759 1,583 90.0 10 0.6 160 9.1 176 10.0 Vine Hill 1,296 1,202 92.7 21 1.6 41 3.2 94 7.3 Walnut Creek 31,105 29,529 94.9 140 0.5 554 1.8 1,576 5.1 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Another barrier to working or schooling from home involves limited or lack of internet access. An estimated 1,933,131 or 14.9% of California households have no internet subscription in 2018 , and another 1,054,391 or 8.1% access the internet through a cellular data plan only. In Contra Costa, 37,636 (9.6%) of all 392,277 households have no internet, and another 29,724 (7.6%) access the internet through a cellular data plan only. Communities within the county that have a particular high percentage of households without an internet subscription include Antioch (13.7%), Bayview (17.2%), Bethel Island (36.0%), Richmond (13.5%), Rodeo (12.1%), San Pablo (14.1%), Tara Hills (18.2%) and Vine Hill (15.6%). However, the population centers of Contra Costa County 21 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Concord (5,185), Pittsburg (2,367) and Walnut Creek (2,867) als o have a particularly high number of households without internet. Table 10 – Internet Access in Contra Costa County, 2018 Area Total HHs With Internet % with Internet Dial-up only % Dial-up only Cellular data plan only % Cellular data only No Internet % No Internet Contra Costa 392,277 354,641 90.4 949 0.2 29,724 7.6 37,636 9.6 Alamo 5,223 4,958 94.9 10 0.2 144 2.8 265 5.1 Antioch 34,102 29,432 86.3 89 0.3 2,644 7.8 4,670 13.7 Bayview 610 505 82.8 13 2.1 84 13.8 105 17.2 Bethel Island 885 566 64.0 0 0.0 69 7.8 319 36.0 Blackhawk 3,511 3,465 98.7 33 0.9 80 2.3 46 1.3 Brentwood 19,543 17,849 91.3 0 0.0 1,005 5.1 1,694 8.7 Clayton 4,200 3,992 95.0 0 0.0 127 3.0 208 5.0 Concord 46,475 41,290 88.8 52 0.1 3,192 6.9 5,185 11.2 Contra Costa Ctr 3,671 3,385 92.2 0 0.0 281 7.7 286 7.8 Crockett 1,404 1,297 92.4 10 0.7 257 18.3 107 7.6 Danville 15,956 14,814 92.8 42 0.3 760 4.8 1,142 7.2 Discovery Bay 5,418 5,093 94.0 20 0.4 157 2.9 325 6.0 E Richmond Hts 1,408 1,322 93.9 5 0.4 92 6.5 86 6.1 El Cerrito 9,987 9,053 90.6 26 0.3 652 6.5 934 9.4 El Sobrante 4,885 4,438 90.8 0 0.0 355 7.3 447 9.2 Hercules 8,098 7,644 94.4 44 0.5 701 8.7 454 5.6 Kensington 2,333 2,206 94.6 19 0.8 140 6.0 127 5.4 Lafayette 9,407 8,910 94.7 35 0.4 481 5.1 497 5.3 Martinez 14,668 13,417 91.5 73 0.5 904 6.2 1,251 8.5 Moraga 5,909 5,542 93.8 17 0.3 183 3.1 367 6.2 Oakley 11,812 10,537 89.2 70 0.6 825 7.0 1,275 10.8 Orinda 7,093 6,696 94.4 22 0.3 228 3.2 397 5.6 Pacheco 1,709 1,524 89.2 13 0.8 78 4.6 185 10.8 Pinole 6,669 6,086 91.3 40 0.6 845 12.7 583 8.7 Pittsburg 20,958 18,591 88.7 68 0.3 2,736 13.1 2,367 11.3 Pleasant Hill 13,679 12,763 93.3 28 0.2 573 4.2 916 6.7 Richmond 37,209 32,179 86.5 81 0.2 5,068 13.6 5,030 13.5 Rodeo 3,329 2,926 87.9 6 0.2 350 10.5 403 12.1 San Pablo 9,136 7,847 85.9 0 0.0 1,753 19.2 1,289 14.1 San Ramon 25,150 24,250 96.4 15 0.1 759 3.0 900 3.6 Tara Hills 1,759 1,438 81.8 0 0.0 137 7.8 321 18.2 Vine Hill 1,296 1,094 84.4 0 0.0 34 2.6 202 15.6 Walnut Creek 31,105 28,238 90.8 98 0.3 1,589 5.1 2,867 9.2 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Looking at children age 0 -17 in households who are likely to become depend ent upon distance learning this fall, an estimated 7.3 % (660,564 ) in California as a whole and 3.6% (9,516) in Contra Costa County have access to a computer but no internet subscription in 2018 . Another 4.0% of children in California households and 1.5 % (3,887 ) of children in the county do not have a computer in their household. Communities within the county that have a particular high number of children with a computer but no internet subscription include Antioch (1,750 ), Concord (1,513 ), Richmond (1,446), Pittsburg (1,057) and Oakley (914). Communities that have a particularly high number of children with no computer in their household include Concord (806), Richmond (443), Antioch (428), Pittsburg (372) and San Pablo (352). Contra Costa County 22 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 11 – Computer and Internet Access Among Children Age 0-17 in Households, 2018 Area Total Age 0- 17 in HH With computer & broadband % with computer & broadband With computer - no internet % with computer - no internet No computer in HH % no computer in HH California 9,051,472 8,010,613 88.5 660,564 7.3 357,726 4.0 Contra Costa 260,832 246,994 94.7 9,516 3.6 3,887 1.5 Alamo 3,653 3,592 98.3 15 0.4 46 1.3 Antioch 27,972 25,753 92.1 1,750 6.3 428 1.5 Bayview 384 384 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Bethel Island 301 248 82.4 53 17.6 0 0.0 Blackhawk 2,173 2,173 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Brentwood 15,978 15,551 97.3 301 1.9 126 0.8 Clayton 2,745 2,745 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Concord 26,628 24,309 91.3 1,513 5.7 806 3.0 Contra Costa Ctr 698 675 96.7 23 3.3 0 0.0 Crockett 458 441 96.3 17 3.7 0 0.0 Danville 11,494 11,375 99.0 119 1.0 0 0.0 Discovery Bay 3,879 3,729 96.1 110 2.8 40 1.0 E Richmond Hts 405 386 95.3 10 2.5 9 2.2 El Cerrito 4,553 4,335 95.2 154 3.4 60 1.3 El Sobrante 2,531 2,397 94.7 114 4.5 20 0.8 Hercules 5,194 5,006 96.4 87 1.7 66 1.3 Kensington 1,029 1,029 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Lafayette 6,571 6,479 98.6 68 1.0 24 0.4 Martinez 7,388 7,131 96.5 209 2.8 48 0.6 Moraga 3,668 3,631 99.0 20 0.5 0 0.0 Oakley 11,831 10,516 88.9 914 7.7 239 2.0 Orinda 4,632 4,588 99.1 44 0.9 0 0.0 Pacheco 548 513 93.6 35 6.4 0 0.0 Pinole 3,408 3,180 93.3 74 2.2 30 0.9 Pittsburg 17,745 16,310 91.9 1,057 6.0 372 2.1 Pleasant Hill 6,868 6,787 98.8 39 0.6 42 0.6 Richmond 24,002 22,067 91.9 1,446 6.0 443 1.8 Rodeo 2,395 2,073 86.6 303 12.7 19 0.8 San Pablo 7,721 7,147 92.6 222 2.9 352 4.6 San Ramon 21,820 21,648 99.2 64 0.3 108 0.5 Tara Hills 1,130 1,096 97.0 34 3.0 0 0.0 Vine Hill 1,013 989 97.6 24 2.4 0 0.0 Walnut Creek 11,442 11,184 97.7 235 2.1 23 0.2 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Businesses have also faced technology-related challenges in the post -COVID climate . Essential businesses have often had to compete with each other or with other residents to maintain an adequate supply of the cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) needed to safeguard workers and patrons. Even health care providers have been periodically hampered by supply chain shortages of COVID -19 testing, PPE and other critical technologies . Further, many of those b usinesses able to maintain operations through telecommutin g have relied on workers having access to appropriate technology. However in 2018, access still remains highly variable. Among residents age 16 and over in the labor force, an estimated 6.0% (1,161,260) in California as a whole and 3.5% (20,350 ) in Contra Costa County have access to a computer but no internet subscription in 2018 . Another 3.5% (684,114 ) of California’s labor force and 1.7% (9,904) of the county’s labor force do not have a computer in their household. Communities within the count y that have a particular high number of residents in the labor force with a computer but no internet subscription include Concord (3,427 ), Antioch (3,045), Richmond (2,593), Pittsburg (1,469), Oakley (1,280) and Brentwood (1,140). Communities that have a particularly high number of labor force members with no computer in their household include Concord (1,812), Richmond (1,793), Antioch (1,398), Pittsburg (671) and San Pablo (635). Contra Costa County 23 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 12 – Computer and Internet Access Among Labor Force Members, 2018 Area Pop. 16 & over in labor force With computer & broadband % with computer & broadband With computer, no internet % with computer, no internet No computer in HH % no computer in HH California 19,499,915 17,606,638 90.3 1,161,260 6.0 684,114 3.5 Contra Costa 580,898 549,979 94.7 20,350 3.5 9,904 1.7 Alamo 6,751 6,536 96.8 138 2.0 77 1.1 Antioch 54,132 49,573 91.6 3,045 5.6 1,398 2.6 Bayview 890 874 98.2 16 1.8 0 0.0 Bethel Island 851 744 87.4 38 4.5 69 8.1 Blackhawk 5,168 5,122 99.1 11 0.2 17 0.3 Brentwood 29,094 27,569 94.8 1,140 3.9 385 1.3 Clayton 6,022 5,840 97.0 146 2.4 36 0.6 Concord 69,973 64,719 92.5 3,427 4.9 1,812 2.6 Contra Costa Ctr 4,482 4,354 97.1 109 2.4 19 0.4 Crockett 1,766 1,681 95.2 58 3.3 27 1.5 Danville 21,398 21,113 98.7 131 0.6 99 0.5 Discovery Bay 8,125 7,705 94.8 350 4.3 58 0.7 E Richmond Hts 1,966 1,877 95.5 50 2.5 34 1.7 El Cerrito 13,664 13,058 95.6 410 3.0 186 1.4 El Sobrante 7,861 7,568 96.3 226 2.9 67 0.9 Hercules 14,337 13,954 97.3 221 1.5 80 0.6 Kensington 2,902 2,825 97.3 42 1.4 16 0.6 Lafayette 12,736 12,453 97.8 203 1.6 80 0.6 Martinez 21,461 20,612 96.0 614 2.9 222 1.0 Moraga 7,104 6,942 97.7 139 2.0 6 0.1 Oakley 20,340 18,750 92.2 1,280 6.3 215 1.1 Orinda 9,197 9,114 99.1 76 0.8 7 0.1 Pacheco 2,682 2,477 92.4 131 4.9 62 2.3 Pinole 10,307 9,866 95.7 313 3.0 75 0.7 Pittsburg 36,509 34,316 94.0 1,469 4.0 671 1.8 Pleasant Hill 18,953 18,535 97.8 244 1.3 147 0.8 Richmond 57,558 53,146 92.3 2,593 4.5 1,793 3.1 Rodeo 5,085 4,695 92.3 219 4.3 171 3.4 San Pablo 15,544 14,438 92.9 471 3.0 635 4.1 San Ramon 38,530 37,937 98.5 380 1.0 200 0.5 Tara Hills 2,917 2,521 86.4 275 9.4 121 4.1 Vine Hill 1,836 1,740 94.8 96 5.2 0 0.0 Walnut Creek 33,393 32,320 96.8 892 2.7 161 0.5 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ COVID-19 shelter -in-place and social distance mandates have driven many more businesses and in stitutions, including Congress, to consider whether and how to go virtual. However, o nce the initial planning and investments have been made to move communications and other transactions online, the entities that have made these investments may be more concerned about supporting the new virtual activities than with maintaining or resuming face-to-face modes. Businesses may focus more on profit margin benefits than on the potential of a widening cyber gap. Public schools may reduce the costs of dorms and lecture halls through remote instruction while overlooking the barrier of students’ differential access . Telemedicine may promise greater health care access , particularly to patients with mobility issues or in remote areas, but further disadvantag e patients who are not tech -savvy or have no internet . Even elections conducted online may vastly improve voter turnout overall while deepening disparities for cit izens without internet . Poverty Status Estimates from the 2014-2018 5 -Year American Community Survey indicate that 9.1% of all individuals in Contra Costa lived at income levels below the federal poverty level (FPL) in 2018, about 11.5% of all county Contra Costa County 24 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION residents less than 18 live d below the FPL, and 18,299 (6.5%) of all 282,085 families in the county live d below the FPL. Among all Contra Costa families with a single female head of household, 18.3% lived in poverty. Notably, poverty rates among most other groups fell, while the poverty rate a mong Contra Costa families with a single female head of household and children age 0 -4 only rose to 35.3% from 34.8% in 2017. Table 13 – Percentage of Contra Costa Families with Income below FPL, 2013-2018 Family Type Percent Below Poverty 2013 2016 2017 2018 All families 8.2 7.3 6.9 6.5 With related children under 18 years 12.4 11.2 10.6 9.7 With related children under 5 years only 12.0 10.5 9.8 9.0 Families with single female householder 21.5 20.4 18.9 18.3 With related children under 18 years 30.9 30.2 28.2 26.8 With related children under 5 years only 40.0 37.7 34.8 35.3 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Among married -couple families, the poverty rate in 2018 was 3.4% in the county, with 7,339 married -couple families below the FPL. Among single male -headed households, the 2018 poverty rate wa s 11.6% in the county, with 2,217 single male -headed families below the FPL. Among the county’s single female-headed households, the povert y rate was 18.3% in 2018, with 8,743 single female -headed families below the FPL. In 2018, about 28.7% (2,108) of Contra Costa married -couple families below the FPL had children less than 5, 27.3% (606) of single male -headed families below the FPL had chil dren less than 5, and 35.8% (3,132) of single female-headed households below the FPL had children less than 5. In 2018, Contra Costa had 102,543 or 9.1% of residents of all ages in poverty. The poverty rate among 0-5 year olds was 12.2% (9,485), among 6 -17 year olds was 11.3% (20,297), among 60 -84 year olds was 6.3% (13,579) and among seniors age 85 and older was 8.7% (1,801). In the county overall, of 12,765 women age 15-50 who gave birth in the past year, 857 married and 1,309 unmarried women lived below the FPL in 2018. Table 14 – Poverty Rate of Families by Family Type, 2018 Area Married-couple family Single Male householder Single Female householder Total < FPL % < FPL Total < FPL % < FPL Total < FPL % < FPL California 6,437,416 398,722 6.2 773,046 107,360 13.9 1,704,766 421,745 24.7 Countywide 215,025 7,339 3.4 19,164 2,217 11.6 47,896 8,743 18.3 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Of population whose poverty status has been determined. Table 15 – Families below FPL with Children Age 0-4, Contra Costa County 2018 Area Total Families Families < FPL Married-Couple HH < FPL Single Male HH < FPL Single Female HH < FPL All < FPL With Kids < 5 % of All All < FPL With Kids < 5 % of All All < FPL With Kids < 5 % of All California 8,915,228 927,827 398,722 124,174 31.1 107,360 35,830 33.4 421,745 153,700 36.4 Contra Costa County 282,085 18,299 7,339 2,108 28.7 2,217 606 27.3 8,743 3,132 35.8 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Of population whose poverty status has been determined. Table 16 – Population below Poverty Level, California and Contra Costa County 2018 Area Pop. Total < FPL Age 0-5 < FPL Age 6-17 < FPL Age 18-59 < FPL Age 60-84 < FPL > 84 < FPL California 38,407,403 5,487,141 589,506 1,157,920 2,960,488 697,305 81,922 14.3 20.2 19.2 13.4 10.4 12.4 Contra Costa County 1,123,857 102,543 9,485 20,297 57,381 13,579 1,801 9.1 12.2 11.3 9.1 6.3 8.7 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Of population whose poverty status has been determined. Public Assistance The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program is the state’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. CalWORKs provides temporary cash Contra Costa County 25 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION assistance to meet basic needs, as well as educat ion, employment, and training programs that shift families towards self -sufficiency. CalWORKs policies include eligibility time limits, work requirements, supportive services, and parental responsibility. California provides TANF benefits to children in ne ed even after their adult caregivers reach the lifetime 48 -month time limit for cash aid , and California continues to aid children of caregivers who fail to meet program requirements. According to the California Department of Social Services, after an extended period of decline, CalWORKs caseloads began to gradually trend up in April 2020. By June 2020, the number of cases (6,559) was 3.6% higher than in December 2019 (6,332). Cash grant CalWORKs cases in December 2019 involve d 11,352 children, which was down 7.6% from the prior period. By June 2020, t he number of children in CalWORKs cases has increased 4.4% to 11,849. Table 17 – CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases and Children, Contra Costa County 2019 - 2020 Two Parent Zero Parent All Other TANF Timed-Out Safety Net / FF / LTS Total Dec 2019 Cases 255 2,013 1,992 408 1,664 6,332 Children in Caseload 604 3,446 3,012 819 3,471 11,352 Jan 2020 Cases 256 2,026 2,005 403 1,689 6,379 Children in Caseload 614 3,475 3,051 811 3,513 11,464 Feb 2020 Cases 267 2,034 1,983 402 1,681 6,367 Children in Caseload 640 3,482 2,999 797 3,466 11,384 Mar 2020 Cases 263 2,034 1,933 409 1,667 6,306 Children in Caseload 644 3,494 2,936 806 3,446 11,326 Apr 2020 Cases 300 2,057 1,963 401 1,676 6,397 Children in Caseload 741 3,551 2,985 792 3,449 11,518 May 2020 Cases 331 2,076 1,997 415 1,715 6,534 Children in Caseload 818 3,588 3,031 809 3,524 11,770 June 2020 Cases 351 2,066 2,009 429 1,704 6,559 Children in Caseload 869 3,565 3,059 840 3,516 11,849 Source: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Research-and-Data. Figure 4 – Number of CalWORKs Cash Grant Cases and Children in Cases, 2019-20 Based on ACS estimates, 5.2% (20,239) of Contra Costa households received SSI benefits in 2018. About 10,126 (2.6%) received cash public assistance in 2018, and 25,060 (6.4 %) received SNAP benefits. The 2018 ACS estimates that 17.8% (46,407) of children age 0 -17 in Contra Costa households live in a home that receives SSI, cash PA or SNAP benefits, down 2.4% or 1,144 fewer children since 2017. Based on ACS estimates, 5.2% (20,239) of Contra Costa house holds received SSI benefits in 2018. About 10,126 (2.6%) received cash public assistance in 2018, and 25,060 (6.4%) received SNAP benefits. The 2018 ACS indicated that 17.8% (46,407) of children age 0 -17 in Contra Costa households live in a home that recei ves SSI, cash PA or SNAP benefits, down 2.4% or 1,144 fewer children since 2017. 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 Cases Children Cases Children Cases Children Cases Children Cases Children Cases Children Cases Children Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Contra Costa County 26 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 18 – Public Assistance Households and Income by Place, 2018 Area Total HHs Median HH income HHs with SSI % with SSI Mean SSI HHs with cash PA % with cash PA Mean cash PA HHs with SNAP % with SNAP California 12,965,435 $71,228 800,477 6.2 $10,206 442,856 3.4 $4,558 1,184,714 9.1 Contra Costa 392,277 $93,712 20,239 5.2 $10,567 10,126 2.6 $4,652 25,060 6.4 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ According to the California Department of Social Services , CalFresh cases have been rapidly rising in the state and county since March, and by June 2020, total 2,632,234 cases in the state and 42,729 cases in the county. From January to February 2020 and from February to M arch 2020, CalFresh cases in the county increased less than 1% each month. However, COVID -19 impacts became apparent in April 2020, when the number of CalFresh cases rose 9.6% in the state and 8.9% in the county. In May, cases jumped another 6.2% in the st ate and 8.1% in the county. June totals indicate cases rose another 2.6% in the state and 6.3% in the county. Since the onset of California’s COVID-19 lockdowns in March, the county has an additional 8,585 CalFresh cases, which is a 25.2% inc rease in just 3 months. Table 19 – CALFRESH Cases by Month, 2019-20 Period Total CALFRESH Cases Statewide Contra Costa Aug-19 2,155,082 32,877 Sep-19 2,172,077 33,245 Oct-19 2,188,424 33,764 Nov-19 2,194,629 33,908 Dec-19 2,204,246 34,025 Jan-20 2,205,289 33,903 Feb-20 2,208,481 34,109 Mar-20 2,205,520 34,134 Apr-20 2,416,961 37,184 May-20 2,566,597 40,197 Jun-20 2,632,234 42,729 Source: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Research-and-Data. Figure 5 – Number of CalFresh Cases in Contra Costa County, 2019-20 Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Meals At the beginning of the 2019-20 school year before the COVID -19 outbreak, 59.3% of all California students received free or reduced price meals (FRPM) at their schools , a 0.5% drop of 20,186 students from 59.4% in 2018-19. By comparison, 70,401 (39.5%) of all 178,411 students attending Contra Costa County schools were FRPM-eligible at the beginning of the 2019 -20 school year, a sizable decline of 3.2% and 2,315 students since 2018-19. Several Contra Costa school districts saw notable 1-year declines in FRPM-eligible student 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Contra Costa County 27 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION enrollment including Acalanes Union High (down 26 or 7.0%), Lafayette Elementary (down 14 or 12.7%), Mt. Diablo Unified (down 1,327 or 9.2%), Oakley Union Elementary (down 139 or 5.8%), San Ramon Valley Unified (down 132 or 7.2%) and West Contra Costa Unified (down 1,146 or 5.1%). In contrast, Contra Costa Co. Office of Education (up 179 or 6.8%), John Swett Unified (up 57 or 6.7%), Liberty Union High (up 166 or 7.1%) and SBE – Synergy, Rocketship Future (up 106 or 33.8%) all saw notable increases in FRPM - eligibility. Contra Costa districts that exceed the county’s overall percentage of FRPM -eligible (39.5%) in the 2019-20 school year include SBE–Rocketship Future Academy (78.8%), Pittsburg Unified (70.9%), Antioch Unified (69.2%), West Contra Costa Unified (65.7%), John Swett Unified (63.9%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (48.7%), Oakley Union Elementary (43.2%) and Mt. Diablo Unified (42.3%). Unified districts with the highest number of FRPM-eligible include West Contra Costa (21,126), Mt. Diablo (13,144), Antioch (11,887) and Pittsburg (8,060). Schools with the highest number of FRPM -eligible students in 2020 are Pittsburg Senior High (2,356 ), Antioch High (1,455), Richmond High (1,328), Deer Valley High (1,097), Mt. Diablo High (1,091), and Freedom High (1,052). Table 20 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by District, 2004 – 2020 District 2004-05 Percent 2009-10 Percent 2013-14 Percent 2017-18 Percent 2018-19 Count 2018-19 Percent 2019-20 Count 2019-20 Percent Acalanes Union High 0.9 2.52 5.0 6.7 374 6.6 348 6.2 Antioch Unified 36.1 54.1 63.2 66.8 11,874 69.1 11,887 69.2 Brentwood Union Elementary 23.5 28.4 27.4 27.6 2,613 28.5 2,584 27.8 Byron Union Elementary 15.5 26.5 27.6 33.5 748 32.9 750 33.0 Canyon Elementary 9.4 10.1 11.1 6.9 6 8.8 6 8.7 Contra Costa Co. Office of Educ. 40.8 62.7 36.1 47.1 2,638 47.7 2,817 48.7 John Swett Unified 36.9 45.5 67.5 67.8 852 59.2 909 63.9 Knightsen Elementary 8.4 29.1 45.5 35.2 186 29.4 176 29.1 Lafayette Elementary 0.9 2.3 2.9 3.6 110 3.1 96 2.7 Liberty Union High 13.2 19.7 28.1 29.7 2,345 28.2 2,511 30.2 Martinez Unified 15.8 27.3 26.1 28.1 1,096 26.3 1,082 26.0 Moraga Elementary 1.0 1.0 1.4 3.7 59 3.2 60 3.2 Mt. Diablo Unified 28.5 39 46.2 45.2 14,471 46.7 13,144 42.3 Oakley Union Elementary 29 49.1 48.7 46.0 2,382 45.2 2,243 43.2 Orinda Union Elementary 0 1.1 32.4 2.2 57 2.2 56 2.2 Pittsburg Unified 64.6 78.4 84.3 73.8 8,072 71.2 8,060 70.9 San Ramon Valley Unified 1.7 2.7 4.2 5.8 1,822 5.7 1,690 5.3 SBE – Synergy, Rocketship Future 0 0 77.1 81.7 314 74.1 420 78.8 Walnut Creek Elementary 8.5 12.1 10.5 12.2 425 12.0 436 12.3 West Contra Costa Unified 57.5 65.8 70.9 69.6 22,272 70.1 21,126 65.7 Contra Costa County 30.0 37.1 40.8 40.6 72,716 40.9 70,401 39.5 California 49.7 55.9 59.4 60.1 3,675,129 59.4 3,654,943 59.3 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Since the COVID -19 outbreak and resulting school closures, the county has struggled to rapidly develop and deploy a safe, alternative means to maintain student meal programs. Although the USDA which oversees in - school food programs has a number of well -planned contingencies already in place for emergencies, most school districts recognized the need for the USDA to grant waivers and exceptions to, among other things, allow meals to be distributed from more locations, discourage group or “congregate feeding,” and increase regulatory flexibility to permit communities to better assess and respond to local need. The county’s school district admin istrators in particular worked to align their meal distribution strategies with the CDC’s COVID - specific guidance for schools that recommends avoiding distribution in settings where people might gather to eat as a group, delivering meals to multiple community locations to minimize use of public transportation and maximize social distancing, and using ‘grab-and-go’ bagged meals, multi -meal packages, or meal delivery options. Contra Costa County 28 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Figure 6 – Percentage and Number of FRPM-Eligible Students by District, 2019-20 Table 21 – Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Meals by School, 2019 – 2020 District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Acalanes Union High Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 29 0 0.0 Byron Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 1 0 0.0 Lafayette Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 1 0 0.0 Moraga Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 3 0 0.0 Orinda Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 6 0 0.0 San Ramon Valley Unified District Office 1 0 0.0 Walnut Creek Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 9 0 0.0 Lafayette Elementary Burton Valley Elementary 740 5 0.7 Orinda Union Elementary Glorietta Elementary 458 5 1.1 Moraga Elementary Camino Pablo Elementary 349 6 1.7 San Ramon Valley Unified Green Valley Elementary 501 9 1.8 San Ramon Valley Unified John Baldwin Elementary 514 10 1.9 San Ramon Valley Unified Sycamore Valley Elementary 639 13 2.0 Lafayette Elementary Happy Valley Elementary 536 11 2.1 San Ramon Valley Unified Alamo Elementary 336 7 2.1 Orinda Union Elementary Del Rey Elementary 428 9 2.1 Orinda Union Elementary Wagner Ranch Elementary 424 9 2.1 Lafayette Elementary Springhill Elementary 458 10 2.2 Orinda Union Elementary Sleepy Hollow Elementary 354 8 2.3 San Ramon Valley Unified Rancho Romero Elementary 476 11 2.3 San Ramon Valley Unified Vista Grande Elementary 606 16 2.6 Moraga Elementary Los Perales Elementary 410 11 2.7 Orinda Union Elementary Orinda Intermediate 898 25 2.8 Moraga Elementary Joaquin Moraga Intermediate 673 19 2.8 Walnut Creek Elementary Tice Creek 432 13 3.0 Acalanes Union High Campolindo High 1,376 44 3.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Diablo Vista Middle 954 31 3.2 56 96 60 1,690 348 6 436 1,082 2,584 176 2,511 750 70,401 13,144 2,243 2,817 909 21,126 11,887 8,060 420 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Orinda Union Elementary Lafayette Elementary Moraga Elementary San Ramon Valley Unified Acalanes Union High Canyon Elementary Walnut Creek Elementary Martinez Unified Brentwood Union Elementary Knightsen Elementary Liberty Union High Byron Union Elementary Contra Costa County Mt. Diablo Unified Oakley Union Elementary Contra Costa Co. Office of Educ. John Swett Unified West Contra Costa Unified Antioch Unified Pittsburg Unified SBE –Synergy, Rocketship Future Contra Costa County 29 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Acalanes Union High Miramonte High 1,236 42 3.4 Lafayette Elementary M. H. Stanley Middle 1,256 45 3.6 San Ramon Valley Unified San Ramon Valley High 2,062 74 3.6 San Ramon Valley Unified Monte Vista High 2,467 90 3.6 San Ramon Valley Unified Charlotte Wood Middle 985 38 3.9 San Ramon Valley Unified Los Cerros Middle 582 23 4.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Montair Elementary 529 21 4.0 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Central County Special Ed Programs 24 1 4.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Stone Valley Middle 623 26 4.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Greenbrook Elementary 642 28 4.4 Lafayette Elementary Lafayette Elementary 546 25 4.6 San Ramon Valley Unified Neil A. Armstrong Elementary 545 26 4.8 Acalanes Union High Acalanes High 1,318 66 5.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Windemere Ranch Middle 1,318 69 5.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Bollinger Canyon Elementary 514 28 5.4 San Ramon Valley Unified Creekside Elementary 603 33 5.5 San Ramon Valley Unified Hidden Hills Elementary 654 36 5.5 San Ramon Valley Unified Walt Disney Elementary 541 30 5.5 Moraga Elementary Donald L. Rheem Elementary 420 24 5.7 San Ramon Valley Unified Live Oak Elementary 759 44 5.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Iron Horse Middle 1,098 64 5.8 Mt. Diablo Unified Walnut Acres Elementary 633 37 5.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Montevideo Elementary 650 38 5.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Pine Valley Middle 1,000 59 5.9 San Ramon Valley Unified California High 2,882 172 6.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Dougherty Valley High 3,378 205 6.1 West Contra Costa Unified Kensington Elementary 506 32 6.3 San Ramon Valley Unified Golden View Elementary 674 43 6.4 San Ramon Valley Unified Venture (Alternative) 142 10 7.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Tassajara Hills Elementary 464 33 7.1 San Ramon Valley Unified Coyote Creek Elementary 813 58 7.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Eagle Peak Montessori 313 23 7.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Mt. Diablo Elementary 786 58 7.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Valle Verde Elementary 468 35 7.5 San Ramon Valley Unified Gale Ranch Middle 1,230 96 7.8 San Ramon Valley Unified Country Club Elementary 558 44 7.9 San Ramon Valley Unified Twin Creeks Elementary 557 45 8.1 San Ramon Valley Unified Quail Run Elementary 953 77 8.1 Canyon Elementary Canyon Elementary 69 6 8.7 Walnut Creek Elementary Parkmead Elementary 443 40 9.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Bancroft Elementary 661 66 10.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Foothill Middle 903 94 10.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Northgate High 1,487 155 10.4 Walnut Creek Elementary Walnut Heights Elementary 413 44 10.7 San Ramon Valley Unified Del Amigo High (Continuation) 96 11 11.5 Acalanes Union High Las Lomas High 1,627 190 11.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Strandwood Elementary 599 72 12.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Sequoia Elementary 576 70 12.2 San Ramon Valley Unified Bella Vista Elementary 533 65 12.2 Acalanes Union High Acalanes Center for Independent Study 49 6 12.2 Walnut Creek Elementary Indian Valley Elementary 368 46 12.5 Martinez Unified Morello Park Elementary 542 70 12.9 Walnut Creek Elementary Walnut Creek Intermediate 1,051 146 13.9 Walnut Creek Elementary Buena Vista Elementary 460 69 15.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Diablo View Middle 622 97 15.6 Contra Costa County 30 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Martinez Unified John Swett Elementary 514 82 16.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Highlands Elementary 529 85 16.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Valhalla Elementary 574 101 17.6 West Contra Costa Unified Madera Elementary 480 85 17.7 Liberty Union High Heritage High 2,595 478 18.4 Oakley Union Elementary Almond Grove Elementary 541 101 18.7 Brentwood Union Elementary Ron Nunn Elementary 660 129 19.5 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Clayton Valley Charter High 2,234 439 19.7 Brentwood Union Elementary R. Paul Krey Elementary 825 169 20.5 Walnut Creek Elementary Murwood Elementary 379 78 20.6 Mt. Diablo Unified College Park High 2,015 419 20.8 Liberty Union High Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 24 5 20.8 Knightsen Elementary Old River Elementary 286 60 21.0 San Ramon Valley Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 32 7 21.9 Brentwood Union Elementary Loma Vista Elementary 617 135 21.9 Brentwood Union Elementary Adams (J. Douglas) Middle 1,149 255 22.2 Mt. Diablo Unified Monte Gardens Elementary 508 114 22.4 Brentwood Union Elementary Pioneer Elementary 892 208 23.3 Byron Union Elementary Timber Point Elementary 484 116 24.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Pleasant Hill Elementary 637 153 24.0 Martinez Unified Alhambra Senior High 1,217 300 24.7 Liberty Union High Independence High 202 50 24.8 Martinez Unified Briones (Alternative) 64 16 25.0 Brentwood Union Elementary William B. Bristow Middle 1,182 297 25.1 Antioch Unified Antioch Charter Academy 198 52 26.3 Martinez Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 19 5 26.3 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Contra Costa School of Performing Arts 451 123 27.3 Martinez Unified Martinez Junior High 934 262 28.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Horizons School: Independent Study 192 54 28.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Hidden Valley Elementary 879 248 28.2 Brentwood Union Elementary District Office 7 2 28.6 Mt. Diablo Unified District Office 182 52 28.6 West Contra Costa Unified Harding Elementary 454 131 28.9 Brentwood Union Elementary Marsh Creek Elementary 765 230 30.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Ayers Elementary 432 130 30.1 Liberty Union High Liberty High 2,795 844 30.2 Mt. Diablo Unified Gregory Gardens Elementary 378 115 30.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Valley View Middle 795 243 30.6 West Contra Costa Unified Hanna Ranch Elementary 419 131 31.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 105 33 31.4 Pittsburg Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 38 12 31.6 Byron Union Elementary Excelsior Middle 528 169 32.0 Brentwood Union Elementary Brentwood Elementary 805 259 32.2 West Contra Costa Unified Ohlone Elementary 468 151 32.3 West Contra Costa Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 89 29 32.6 Martinez Unified John Muir Elementary 421 141 33.5 West Contra Costa Unified Olinda Elementary 371 126 34.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Sequoia Middle 936 318 34.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Pleasant Hill Middle 815 282 34.6 Brentwood Union Elementary Edna Hill Middle 955 342 35.8 Mt. Diablo Unified Pine Hollow Middle 569 204 35.9 Byron Union Elementary Discovery Bay Elementary 416 150 36.1 Knightsen Elementary Knightsen Elementary 319 116 36.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Silverwood Elementary 530 194 36.6 Byron Union Elementary Vista Oaks Charter 845 315 37.3 Contra Costa County 31 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible West Contra Costa Unified Hercules Middle 601 227 37.8 Brentwood Union Elementary Garin Elementary 731 277 37.9 West Contra Costa Unified Hercules High 856 326 38.1 Antioch Unified Antioch Charter Academy II 202 79 39.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Prospect High (Continuation) 51 20 39.2 Martinez Unified Vicente Martinez High 61 24 39.3 Oakley Union Elementary Laurel Elementary 447 176 39.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Woodside Elementary 321 127 39.6 West Contra Costa Unified El Cerrito High 1,605 639 39.8 Brentwood Union Elementary Mary Casey Black Elementary 695 278 40.0 Oakley Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 5 2 40.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Westwood Elementary 297 120 40.4 Oakley Union Elementary Summer Lake Elementary 346 141 40.8 West Contra Costa Unified Lupine Hills Elementary 416 170 40.9 Oakley Union Elementary O'Hara Park Middle 789 324 41.1 Oakley Union Elementary Iron House Elementary 504 207 41.1 Liberty Union High Freedom High 2,545 1,052 41.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Mountain View Elementary 323 134 41.5 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Far East County Programs 67 28 41.8 West Contra Costa Unified West County Mandarin 211 89 42.2 West Contra Costa Unified Fred T. Korematsu Middle 708 300 42.4 Brentwood Union Elementary Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 7 3 42.9 West Contra Costa Unified Ellerhorst Elementary 376 167 44.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Delta View Elementary 669 303 45.3 Oakley Union Elementary Gehringer Elementary 757 350 46.2 West Contra Costa Unified Stewart Elementary 432 201 46.5 Martinez Unified Las Juntas Elementary 384 182 47.4 West Contra Costa Unified Fairmont Elementary 504 241 47.8 Oakley Union Elementary Delta Vista Middle 903 436 48.3 Mt. Diablo Unified Concord High 1,295 639 49.3 John Swett Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 4 2 50.0 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Heritage CCCOE Special Ed Programs 45 23 51.1 Oakley Union Elementary Vintage Parkway Elementary 512 262 51.2 John Swett Unified John Swett High 446 229 51.3 West Contra Costa Unified Valley View Elementary 364 187 51.4 Mt. Diablo Unified Holbrook Language Academy 342 182 53.2 Mt. Diablo Unified Summit High (Continuation) 95 51 53.7 West Contra Costa Unified Middle College High 279 155 55.6 West Contra Costa Unified Pinole Valley High 1,261 721 57.2 Liberty Union High La Paloma High (Continuation) 143 82 57.3 Antioch Unified Dozier-Libbey Medical High 717 413 57.6 Antioch Unified Deer Valley High 1,886 1,097 58.2 West Contra Costa Unified Manzanita Middle 119 70 58.8 West Contra Costa Unified District Office 44 26 59.1 West Contra Costa Unified Mira Vista Elementary 608 363 59.7 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Floyd I. Marchus 60 36 60.0 West Contra Costa Unified Collins Elementary 304 185 60.9 West Contra Costa Unified Pinole Middle 514 315 61.3 Mt. Diablo Unified El Dorado Middle 873 536 61.4 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Invictus Academy of Richmond 159 98 61.6 West Contra Costa Unified De Anza High 1,401 873 62.3 Oakley Union Elementary Oakley Elementary 390 244 62.6 John Swett Unified Willow High 41 26 63.4 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Summit Public School K2 602 382 63.5 Mt. Diablo Unified El Monte Elementary 430 273 63.5 Contra Costa County 32 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible Pittsburg Unified Foothill Elementary 564 361 64.0 Antioch Unified Sutter Elementary 591 379 64.1 Antioch Unified Dallas Ranch Middle 937 603 64.4 Antioch Unified Orchard Park 760 492 64.7 Antioch Unified Nonpublic, Nonsectarian Schools 159 103 64.8 West Contra Costa Unified Sheldon Elementary 315 205 65.1 Pittsburg Unified Pittsburg Senior High 3,604 2,356 65.4 West Contra Costa Unified Tara Hills Elementary 429 282 65.7 West Contra Costa Unified Shannon Elementary 365 241 66.0 West Contra Costa Unified Vista High (Alternative) 239 159 66.5 John Swett Unified Carquinez Middle 305 203 66.6 Antioch Unified Bidwell Continuation High 150 100 66.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Sun Terrace Elementary 456 305 66.9 Antioch Unified Muir (John) Elementary 591 396 67.0 Antioch Unified Prospects High (Alternative) 328 221 67.4 West Contra Costa Unified Summit Public School: Tamalpais 446 301 67.5 West Contra Costa Unified Washington Elementary 453 306 67.5 Antioch Unified Grant Elementary 439 297 67.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Olympic Continuation High 253 173 68.4 West Contra Costa Unified Crespi Junior High 371 254 68.5 Antioch Unified Live Oak High (Continuation) 146 100 68.5 Mt. Diablo Unified Sunrise (Special Education) 29 20 69.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Ygnacio Valley High 1,285 893 69.5 Antioch Unified Diablo Vista Elementary 492 342 69.5 Antioch Unified Black Diamond Middle 382 266 69.6 Antioch Unified Lone Tree Elementary 574 402 70.0 Antioch Unified Carmen Dragon Elementary 428 300 70.1 West Contra Costa Unified Aspire Richmond Ca. College Prep Academy 549 388 70.7 Mt. Diablo Unified Mt. Diablo High 1,540 1,091 70.8 Pittsburg Unified Hillview Junior High 952 676 71.0 Antioch Unified Antioch High 2,042 1,455 71.3 Antioch Unified Rocketship Delta Prep 474 339 71.5 Pittsburg Unified Rancho Medanos Junior High 891 638 71.6 Mt. Diablo Unified Fair Oaks Elementary 328 235 71.6 Antioch Unified Jack London Elementary 522 374 71.6 John Swett Unified Rodeo Hills Elementary 626 449 71.7 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond College Preparatory 554 398 71.8 West Contra Costa Unified John F. Kennedy High 953 688 72.2 West Contra Costa Unified Ford Elementary 452 327 72.3 Pittsburg Unified Los Medanos Elementary 698 507 72.6 West Contra Costa Unified Murphy Elementary 449 327 72.8 Pittsburg Unified Heights Elementary 595 434 72.9 West Contra Costa Unified Bayview Elementary 496 365 73.6 Pittsburg Unified Stoneman Elementary 633 468 73.9 Mt. Diablo Unified Wren Avenue Elementary 362 269 74.3 Pittsburg Unified Marina Vista Elementary 632 470 74.4 Pittsburg Unified Willow Cove Elementary 654 490 74.9 Antioch Unified Park Middle 1,123 843 75.1 West Contra Costa Unified Voices College-Bound Lang Acad at West CCC 172 130 75.6 Pittsburg Unified Martin Luther King Jr. Junior High 691 524 75.8 Mt. Diablo Unified Crossroads High 25 19 76.0 Pittsburg Unified Highlands Elementary 536 408 76.1 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Caliber: Beta Academy 859 660 76.8 Antioch Unified Mission Elementary 572 440 76.9 Antioch Unified Marsh Elementary 669 518 77.4 Contra Costa County 33 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION District School Enrollment (K-12) FRPM Eligible (K-12) % FRPM Eligible West Contra Costa Unified Wilson Elementary 421 326 77.4 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Making Waves Academy 1,021 792 77.6 Antioch Unified Belshaw Elementary 482 378 78.4 SBE - Rocketship Futuro Academy Rocketship Futuro Academy 533 420 78.8 West Contra Costa Unified Dover Elementary 655 519 79.2 West Contra Costa Unified Greenwood Academy 288 229 79.5 Mt. Diablo Unified Ygnacio Valley Elementary 437 348 79.6 Pittsburg Unified Black Diamond High (Continuation) 246 197 80.1 West Contra Costa Unified Highland Elementary 472 378 80.1 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Golden Gate Community 142 114 80.3 West Contra Costa Unified Riverside Elementary 367 295 80.4 West Contra Costa Unified Aspire Richmond Technology Academy 375 304 81.1 West Contra Costa Unified Leadership Public Schools: Richmond 599 486 81.1 West Contra Costa Unified Stege Elementary 268 218 81.3 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond Charter Elem-Benito Juarez 488 397 81.4 Pittsburg Unified Parkside Elementary 633 519 82.0 Antioch Unified Turner Elementary 511 419 82.0 Antioch Unified Antioch Middle 874 717 82.0 Antioch Unified Kimball Elementary 474 391 82.5 Mt. Diablo Unified Rio Vista Elementary 492 411 83.5 Antioch Unified Fremont Elementary 444 371 83.6 West Contra Costa Unified Lake Elementary 390 326 83.6 Mt. Diablo Unified Riverview Middle 842 706 83.8 West Contra Costa Unified Grant Elementary 550 464 84.4 West Contra Costa Unified Helms Middle 851 718 84.4 Contra Costa County Office of Ed East County Elementary Special Ed 26 22 84.6 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond Charter Academy 267 226 84.6 West Contra Costa Unified Montalvin Manor Elementary 539 464 86.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Oak Grove Middle 790 691 87.5 West Contra Costa Unified John Henry High 328 287 87.5 West Contra Costa Unified Peres Elementary 553 486 87.9 Mt. Diablo Unified Meadow Homes Elementary 839 745 88.8 West Contra Costa Unified Richmond High 1,494 1,328 88.9 Mt. Diablo Unified Shore Acres Elementary 478 426 89.1 West Contra Costa Unified Edward M. Downer Elementary 542 488 90.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Bel Air Elementary 477 431 90.4 West Contra Costa Unified Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary 473 439 92.8 West Contra Costa Unified Coronado Elementary 401 373 93.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Cambridge Elementary 567 528 93.1 Mt. Diablo Unified Diablo Community Day 16 15 93.8 West Contra Costa Unified Verde Elementary 348 327 94.0 West Contra Costa Unified Nystrom Elementary 490 461 94.1 West Contra Costa Unified Lovonya DeJean Middle 446 420 94.2 West Contra Costa Unified Lincoln Elementary 381 359 94.2 West Contra Costa Unified Cesar E. Chavez Elementary 524 497 94.8 Contra Costa County Office of Ed Mt. McKinley 99 99 100.0 Mt. Diablo Unified Gateway High (Continuation) 1 1 100.0 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ The resulting meal program distribution plans were rolled out in mid -March 2020, with each district ’s plan individualized to target the safety and needs of its families, staff and facilities. Some districts limited distribution sites to minimize the number of staff breaking the county’ shelter -in-place mandates. Many districts received assistance from local volunteers and support, such as from the Pleasant Hill-based nonprofit White Pony Express and the 32nd District PTA . To help reduce the economic burden COVID -19 posed to families, m ost districts made meals available to families with children regardle ss of their FRPM status or the Contra Costa County 34 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION school they attend . Each district posted meal distribution requirements and instructions to their websites, and several plans were published in local newspapers.6 Housing and Homelessness HOUSING AFFORDABILITY The Housing Op portunity Index (HOI) is a measure used by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and mortgage lenders to determine the affordability of homes in a given region. The HOI is the proportion of homes sold in a n area that would have been affordable to a median income family in the same area, assuming families can afford to spend no more than 28% of their income on housing. Although improved from 26.4 in 2019, b ased on 2020 HOI data, all major housing markets of the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward- Contra Costa region (31.2) remain significantly less affordable than the national average (61.3). In 2020, the Vallejo-Fairfield (40.8) and Sacramento -Roseville (39.2) markets remain the most affordable of those near Contra Costa County. Most regions saw significant improvement in affordability as measured by the HOI since 2019, indicating more homes are affordable to median income families . The housing market that includes Contra Costa County improved a significant 14.8 points from 16.4 to 31.2 affordable since 2018. Table 22 – Percentage of Homes Affordable to Median Income Households, 2006 – 2020 Region 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Napa 4.3 35.3 62.5 64.4 10.2 21.0 15.8 25.3 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward -Contra Costa 9.3 60.1 67.3 64.4 29.4 29.3 16.4 31.2 Sacramento --Arden -Arcade--Roseville 9.2 66.0 79.3 79.5 46.2 40.4 31.4 39.2 San Francisco -San Mateo-Redwood City 7.5 20.6 31.5 28.4 11.4 9.7 6.0 8.9 San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara 13.7 44.0 54.1 48.5 20.9 19.4 12.7 22.9 Santa Rosa -Petaluma 10.4 47.4 61.9 66.2 25.6 19.5 16.7 31.5 Vallejo -Fairfield 14.9 64.6 84.8 86.4 56.0 46.8 22.4 40.8 National Average 41.6 62.4 73.9 74.9 61.8 61.4 56.6 61.3 Source: National Association of Builders, Housing Opportunity Index, March 2020; http://www.nahb.org/reference_list.aspx?sectionID=135 Prior to the COVID -19 outbreak, the 2020 HUD fair market rents (FMR) in the greater San Francisco Bay Area region had all risen from 2019 levels with 6-7% increases in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 10- 12% increases in Napa and Sacramento Counties and 19 -21% increases in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. As of February 2020, t he FMR for a 2-bedroom unit in Contra Costa County had risen $130 per month (up 6.2%) from the prior year to $2,239 in 2020. In the first quarter of 2020, th e median rent for a 2-bedroom unit ranged from $1,349 per month in Sacramento County to $3,339 in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Table 23 – Median Monthly Rents, 2020 County Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Alameda / Contra Costa Counties $1,488 $1,808 $2,239 $3,042 $3,720 Marin / San Francisco / San Mateo $2,197 $2,720 $3,339 $4,365 $4,657 Napa County $1,225 $1,427 $1,880 $2,712 $2,803 Sacramento County $952 $1,072 $1,349 $1,946 $2,368 Santa Clara County $2,103 $2,458 $2,970 $3,943 $4,525 Solano County $1,124 $1,318 $1,589 $2,292 $2,790 Source: HUD, User Data Sets, 40th percentile rents, FY 2020. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html ACS data indicated that in 2018 owner-occupied rates rose in both the state (54.6%) and county (65.6%) by 0.9%, with 2,327 more owner -occupied units in Contra Costa since 2017. The county had 257,528 owner- occupied units in 2018. The number of state and co unty renter-occupied units also both rose 0.3%, with 353 more renter-occupied units in Contra Costa, for a total of 134,749 renter -occupied units in 2018. Median monthly costs for owner-occupied housing rose 3.4% (up $76) to $2,282 in the state and rose 4.5% (up $114) 6 https://www.32ndpta.org/mealservices Contra Costa County 35 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION to $2,641 in the county. Median monthly housing costs for renter -occupied units rose 5.2% (up $71) to $1,429 in the state and rose 6.4% (up $102) to $1,702 in the county. Based on HUD’s definition of affordable housing, 39.0% of owner-occupi ed units with a mortgage and 55.4% of renter -occupied units in California were unaffordable to their occupants prior to the COVID -19 outbreak. Of Contra Costa residents in owner- occupied housing units with a mortgage , 36.4% (69,109) expended at least 30% o f their income on housi ng costs in 2018 . Among Contra Costa renters, 52.6% (67,729) expended at least 30% of their household income on housing costs in 2018. In anticipation of COVID -19 impacts and responses on local economies, such as stay-at-home orders and busine ss closures, in late March 2020 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order s allowing local jurisdictions to restrict COVID-related non-payment evictions of residential and commercial tenants and prohibiting landlords from evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent , with protections effective through July 25, 2020. In early April 2020, the Judicial Council of California followed suit by temporarily suspending judicial foreclosures and action on or ent ry of default in eviction cases statewide. On April 21, 2020, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted an urgency ordinance to temporarily prohibit evictions of residential and commercial tenants and to establish a moratorium on certain rent in creases . These emergency actions are in recognition that the outbreak and resulting public health stay -at-home order and business closures threaten to severely reduce the incomes of a widespread portion of the population , and also take into consideration the county’s pre -COVID housing affordability crisis, with its notable lack of affordable housing, spike in homelessness and displacement of low income families. Major utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), have further acknowledged the special additional financial burden of COVID -19 on Bay Area households by implementing flexible payment plans, suspending service disconnections for non - payment, waiving security deposit requirements, suspending medical baseline removals, accelerating climate credits on customer bills and providing additional support for low -income customers. According to the U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey, about 6.1% of California adults in owner -occupied units did not make their mortgage payment in April , compared to 7.5 % in July 2020. Of California adults in owner-occupied units , an estimated 3.5% in April and 3.7 % in July had their mortgages deferred. About 7.3% of Hispanic and 13.4% of African American home owne rs in the state did not make their mortgage payment in April, compared to 15.1% and 1.8% in July. Note that 2.4% of Hispanic and 5.5% of African American home owners had deferrals in April, versus 4.0% and 14.4 %, respectively, in July. An estimated 14.2% o f California home owners with less than a high school diploma did not pay their mortgage in April, compared to 22.8 % in July. Among California home owners with children, 6.0% in April and 13.4% in July did not make their mortgage payment . Interestingly, among California home owners with incomes less than $25,000, 36.4% in April and just 8.8% in July did not pay their mortgage. Although the number and proportion of deferments did rise for this group of home owners, the Household Pulse data suggests stimulus and/or enhanced unemployment benefits may have improv ed the ability of the lowest income residents’ to pay their mortgages. Still in July 2020, 17.8% of all California home owners and 33.0% of those with children are less than moderately c onfident they can pay their mortgage in August. The U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey further indicates that 4.6% of Bay Area adults in owner -occupied units did not make their mortgage payment in April, compared to 4.0% in July 2020. Of Bay Area adults in owner-occupied units, 2.8 % in April and 4.7% in July had deferred mortgages. About 1.8% of Hispanic and 7.9% of African American Bay Area home owners did not make their mortgage payment in April, compared to 9.5% of Hi spanic and 3.2% of African American home owners in July 2020. Note that in April, 7.5% of Hispanic and 0.0% of African American Bay Area home owners had deferrals, while 12.6% of Hispanics and 5.6% of African Americans had deferrals in July. An estimated 84.8% of Bay Area home owners with less than a high school diploma did not pay their mortgage in April, compared to 40.5% in July. Among Bay Area home owners with children, 2.4% in April and 4.1% in July did not pay their mortgage. Interestingly, among Bay Area home owners with incomes less than $25,000, 11.3% in April and 6.7% in July did not pay their mortgage, even as the number and proportion of deferments also declined for this group of home owners . About 24.1% of all Bay Area home owners who paid their mortgage in July report they used federal stimulus Contra Costa County 36 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION checks and/or enhanced unemployment benefits to pay them. Still in July 2020, 10.5% of all Bay Area home owners and 18.5% of those with children are less than moderately confident they can pay their mortg age in August. Table 24 – Percentage Unable to Pay Last Month’s Mortgage or Rent, April and July 2020 Household Type California SF-Oakland-Berkeley Metro Region Adults in Owner-Occupied Units April July April July All Householders with Mortgage 6.1% 7.5% 4.6% 4.0% Mortgage deferred 3.5% 3.7% 2.8% 4.7% Hispanic householders 7.3% 15.1% 1.8% 9.5% Mortgage deferred, Hispanic HH 2.4% 4.0% 7.5% 12.6% African American householders 13.4% 1.8% 7.9% 3.2% Mortgage deferred, African American HH 5.5% 14.4% 0.0% 5.6% Householders with No diploma/GED 14.2% 22.8% 84.8% 40.5% Householders with children 6.0% 13.4% 2.4% 4.1% Householders with income < $25K 36.4% 8.8% 11.3% 6.7% Adults in Renter-Occupied Units April July April July All Householders with Rent 10.5% 14.4% 10.6% 6.8% Rent deferred 3.8% 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% Hispanic householders 8.4% 21.4% 3.5% 12.5% Rent deferred, Hispanic HH 6.8% 2.2% 1.2% 0.3% Asian householders 8.2% 13.0% 20.1% 8.2% Rent deferred, Asian HH 1.5% 0.4% 1.9% 1.0% African American householders 28.0% 18.5% 25.4% 2.4% Rent deferred, African American HH 5.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Householders with No diploma/GED 16.0% 28.2% 46.9% 24.8% Householders with children 13.8% 16.2% 18.3% 19.3% Householders with income < $25K 22.1% 19.0% 32.7% 11.6% Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html. The U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey indicates 10.5% of California adults in renter -occupied units did not make their rent payment in April, compared to 14.4% in July 2020. Of California adults in rental units, about 3.8% in April but just 1.4% in July had their rent de ferred. About 8.4% of Hispanic , 8.2% of Asian and 28.0% of African American renters in the state did not pay rent in April, compared to 21.4% of Hispanic, 13.0% of Asian and 18.5% of African American renters in July. Note that 6.8% of Hispanic, 1.5% of Asi an and 5.0% of African American renters had deferrals in April, versus 2.2%, 0.4% and 0.9%, respectively, in July. An estimated 16.0% of Cali fornia renters with less than a high school diploma did not pay rent in April, compared to 28.2% in July. Among Cal ifornia renters with children, 13.8% in April and 16.2% in July did not pay their rent. Interestingly, among California renters with income s less than $25,000, 22.1% in April and 19.0% in July did not pay their rent, despite a decline in the number and pro portion of deferments for these renters, which suggests stimulus check, enhanced unemployment benefits or both may have somewhat improved the ability of the lowest income residents’ to pay their rent. Indeed, 47.0% of the 9,088,866 California renters able to pay their rent in July say they used stimulus or UI benefits to do so. However in July 2020 , 35.4 % of all California renters and 46.0% of those with children are less than moderately confident they can pay their rent in August. About 10.6% of Bay Area adults in renter -occupied units did not make their rent payment in April, compared to 6.8% in July 2020. Of Bay Area adults in rental units, 1.0% in April but just 0.4% in July had their rent deferred. About 3.5% of Hispanic, 20.1% of Asian and 25.4% of African American renters in the Bay Area did not pay rent in April, compared to 12.5% of Hispanic, 8.2% of Asian and 2.4% of African American renters in July. Note that 1.2% of Hispanic, 1.9% of Asian and 0.0% of African American rent ers had deferrals in April, versus 0.3%, 1.0% and 0.0%, respectively, in July. An estimated 46.9% of Ba y Area renters with less than a high school diploma did not pay rent in April, compared to 24.8% in July. Among Bay Area Contra Costa County 37 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION renters with children, 18.3% in April and 19.3% in July did not pay their rent , noting the number of Bay Area rental households with children has declined 18.9% since April. Interestingly, among Bay Area renters with incomes less than $25,000, 32.7% in April and just 11.6% in July did no t pay their rent, a n improvement apparently unrelated to deferments for these renters. This suggests that stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits or both may improve the ability of the lowest income residents’ to pay rent, with 56.2% of the 1,269,118 Bay Area renters able to pay rent in July reporting they used stimulus and/or enhanced UI to do so. Still in July 2020, 21.2 % of all Bay Area renters and 26.3% of those with children are less than moderately confident they can pay their August rent . HOMELESSNESS The HUD -based Continuum of Care (CoC) Program promotes and supports community efforts to reduce and eliminate homelessness. California as a whole is served by 43 CoCs, including one in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa's Homeless Continuum of Care (CoC) Point -in-Time (PIT) Count, conducted by service agencies, community partners, and volunteers each January, provides a one day snapshot of the conditions of individuals sleeping in emergency shelters or transitional housing and in cars, abandoned properties, or other places not meant for human habitation. Acc ording to this snapshot, in 2019 a total of 2,295 individuals in the county were identified as currently homeless, up 3 % or 61 persons since 2018, but a 43% increase since 2017 . Importantly, PIT counts are only one measure of county residents in need of housing services and assistance, as throughout 2018, CoC services were accessed by 6,924 individuals, including 600 families. Of 2,295 currently homeless, only 29% (668 ) live in s helters, down from 31% in 2018. About 11% (62) of those sheltered are families. Since the 2018 PIT, the county has significantly reduced homeless ness among those 62 years or older to 165 individuals, which fell by 15%, but homelessness among veterans rose by 14%, with 114 currently homeless in the county . A total of 191 (8%) are children in families, up from 168 in 2018. The PIT count also identified 129 transition age youth (18-24 year olds). Importantly, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act Demographics Datab ase indicates 3,161 students who attend Contra Costa schools do not have stable housing as of January 2019, a 41.5% increase since 2,234 students in January 2018. Table 25 – Point-In-Time Count of Unsheltered Persons by County Sub-Area, 2011 – 2019 Area 2011 2013 2015 2018 2019 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent West County 581 39.0 376 35.1 196 24.3 323 21.0 510 31.3 Central County 677 45.4 467 43.6 331 41.0 523 34.0 678 41.7 East County 232 15.6 228 21.3 280 34.7 692 45.0 439 27.0 County Total 1,490 1,071 807 1,537 1,627 Source: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2019.pdf. Since the COVID -19 outbreak, public service agencies, such as the CDC, have raised specific concerns and issued guidelines regarding the heightened risk homeless individuals have of contracting the virus. Generally limited in their ability to wash hands, d isinfect their immediate environment, social distance, wear protective clothing, or access appropriate health care, the homeless are likely to be among the most susceptible to the virus. Given the higher incidence of underlying medical conditions among thi s population, the homeless are also particularly vulnerable to contracting more severe forms of the disease. Among the initiatives undertaken in California to help address this looming health crisis, the Homeful Foundation, in coordination with the Governor’s Office, has used a $500,000 donation to purchase 28 RV trailers, which now house homeless families in the three California counties of Salinas, San Bernardino and Santa Cruz. The Pfizer Foundation has pledged an additional $250,000 to purchase 12 more trailers. This RV shelter initiative has also been touted as a highly scalable approach that can grow as funding becomes available.7 7 See for instance https://news.yahoo.com/homeful-foundation-brings-rv-shelters-140000677.html; and https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/east-bay/contra- costa-hotels-transformed-into-homeless-shelters/2310833/ Contra Costa County 38 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 26 – Unsheltered Homeless in Contra Costa by Sub-Area, 2015 – 2019 City 2015 2018 2019 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Alamo 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Antioch 122 12.1 350 23.1 226 13.9 Bay Point 25 2.5 61 4.0 57 3.5 Bethel Island 5 0.5 7 0.5 1 0.1 Brentwood 11 1.1 35 2.3 14 0.9 Clayton 10 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Clyde 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Concord 114 11.3 252 16.7 350 21.5 Crockett 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 0.7 Discovery Bay 0 0.0 1 0.1 0 0.0 El Cerrito 30 3.0 14 0.9 8 0.5 El Sobrante 14 1.4 10 0.7 16 1.0 Hercules 12 1.2 2 0.1 1 0.1 Lafayette 1 0.1 6 0.4 3 0.2 Martinez 72 7.2 117 7.7 156 9.6 North Richmond 9 0.9 24 1.6 38 2.3 Oakley 8 0.8 49 3.2 13 0.8 Orinda -- -- 1 0.1 0 0.0 Pacheco 18 1.8 16 1.1 10 0.6 Pinole 11 1.1 0 0.0 3 0.2 Pittsburg 56 5.6 110 7.3 128 7.9 Pleasant Hill 63 6.3 85 5.6 59 3.6 Richmond 356 35.4 270 17.8 333 20.5 Rodeo 12 1.2 14 0.9 41 2.5 San Pablo 23 2.3 46 3.0 58 3.6 San Ramon 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 Walnut Creek 33 3.3 42 2.8 99 6.1 Total 1,006 1,513 1,627 Source: https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2019.pdf. Locally through the Project Roomkey initiative, the CCHS began moving homeless individuals awaiting COVID-19 test results and those considered especially high risk out of shelters and encampments and into motels and hotels in early April 2020 . By June 15, the county had leased five facilitie s, two in Richmond, two in Concord and one in Pittsburg, and made 514 placements. For about $2.5 million per month, mostly from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds, the county has been able to lease rooms, supply food, and staff the program with skilled personnel who manage the sites and provide services and case referrals. Ironically, the need to face the COVID-crisis head on may ultimately serve longer term social justice goals , as the success of Project Roomkey appears to bring within reach a workable, affordable solution to the elusive homeless problem . Homeless advocates and county officials alike have embraced proposals to formally purchase the leased facilities and convert them to permanent shelters. Even as state moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures expire and back rent or mortgage payments become due , fears about a rapid expansion of homelessness may be somewhat tempered now by the new possibilities that evictio ns can be halted, late mortgage s do not have to result in foreclosures, unpaid utilities do not have to be cut off, and the homeless can be housed. The extent of risk in any given community is difficult to calculate without knowing the number of residents who may have been protected under expiring federal and state moratoriums , prior coronavirus legislation, and future legislative actions , but most analysts project that communities of color and residents with lower wage, service -based employment face the greatest risk of homelessness. HEALTH IMPACTS AND RESPONSE One of only a few counties in the U.S. to sponsor its own health care system, Contra Costa offers a broad range of health-related services to residents under one organizational structure known as the Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS). As the largest department of the Contra C osta County government, CCHS is an Contra Costa County 39 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION integrated health care system that serves and supports individual, family and community health. The CCHS program network provides a wide array of primary, specialty and inpatient medical ca re, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, public health programs, environmental health protection, hazardous materials response and inspection, and emergency medical services . CCHS also operates the nation’s first federally qualified, state-licensed and county-sponsored HMO, the Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP). Healthcare Insurance The ACS estimates that 8.5% of California residents and 5.7% (64,189) of Contra Costa County residents were uninsured in 2018, with both rates improved since 2017 (10.5% and 7.2%, respectively). Coverage among children in the county continues to improve and compare favorably to the state. About 3.8% of 0-18 year olds in the state and 2.7% (7,413) in the county were uninsured in 2018. About 2.7% of 0-5 year olds in the state we re uninsured in 2018, down 0.6 points from 2017. About 1.8% of 0-5 year olds in the county were uninsured, down 0.2 points or 199 fewer uninsured 0 -5 year olds since 2017 . Critically, 58.6% (161,042) of Contra Costa 0 -18 year olds had employer-based coverage only, putting them at more risk of a coverage lapse due to COVID-19 business closures and layoffs. Another 7.2% (19,667) have coverage purchased directly from providers which could lapse if residents experiencing loss of income become unable to afford their insurance premiums. Table 27 – Children with One Type of Health Insurance by Coverage Type, 2018 Area Pop. < 19 Total Employer-based Direct-purchase Medicare Medicaid California 9,591,494 8,718,417 4,269,572 583,381 43,597 3,713,847 % 90.9 44.5 6.1 0.5 38.7 Contra Costa County 274,982 252,355 161,042 19,667 888 69,779 % 91.8 58.6 7.2 0.3 25.4 Alamo 3,905 3,624 2,846 668 0 110 % 92.8 72.9 17.1 0.0 2.8 Antioch 29,899 26,584 12,818 1,352 46 12,236 % 88.9 42.9 4.5 0.2 40.9 Bayview 495 412 239 43 0 130 % 83.2 48.3 8.7 0.0 26.3 Bethel Island 301 276 171 0 0 93 % 91.7 56.8 0.0 0.0 30.9 Blackhawk 2,349 2,257 1,581 551 0 125 % 96.1 67.3 23.5 0.0 5.3 Brentwood 16,910 15,559 11,381 743 13 3,107 % 92.0 67.3 4.4 0.1 18.4 Clayton 2,874 2,786 2,354 293 0 139 % 96.9 81.9 10.2 0.0 4.8 Concord 27,877 25,207 14,259 1,915 330 8,578 % 90.4 51.1 6.9 1.2 30.8 Contra Costa Centre 704 661 445 106 0 81 % 93.9 63.2 15.1 0.0 11.5 Crockett 492 474 348 48 0 78 % 96.3 70.7 9.8 0.0 15.9 Danville 12,107 11,706 10,191 1,313 0 202 % 96.7 84.2 10.8 0.0 1.7 Discovery Bay 4,155 3,827 2,855 305 0 629 % 92.1 68.7 7.3 0.0 15.1 E Richmond Heights 410 410 283 15 0 112 % 100.0 69.0 3.7 0.0 27.3 El Cerrito 4,747 4,260 3,133 353 45 720 % 89.7 66.0 7.4 0.9 15.2 El Sobrante 2,743 2,418 1,250 173 23 972 % 88.2 45.6 6.3 0.8 35.4 Hercules 5,371 4,889 3,493 275 0 1,080 % 91.0 65.0 5.1 0.0 20.1 Contra Costa County 40 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Area Pop. < 19 Total Employer-based Direct-purchase Medicare Medicaid Kensington 1,043 1,033 815 178 0 40 % 99.0 78.1 17.1 0.0 3.8 Lafayette 6,762 6,459 5,141 927 0 391 % 95.5 76.0 13.7 0.0 5.8 Martinez 7,691 7,171 5,387 533 0 1,228 % 93.2 70.0 6.9 0.0 16.0 Moraga 4,241 4,039 3,613 384 12 30 % 95.2 85.2 9.1 0.3 0.7 Oakley 12,598 11,038 7,553 725 0 2,760 % 87.6 60.0 5.8 0.0 21.9 Orinda 4,815 4,644 4,089 532 0 23 % 96.4 84.9 11.0 0.0 0.5 Pacheco 599 552 249 62 0 241 % 92.2 41.6 10.4 0.0 40.2 Pinole 3,568 3,391 2,228 270 0 876 % 95.0 62.4 7.6 0.0 24.6 Pittsburg 18,605 16,751 8,385 816 35 7,390 % 90.0 45.1 4.4 0.2 39.7 Pleasant Hill 7,211 6,671 5,413 636 104 518 % 92.5 75.1 8.8 1.4 7.2 Richmond 25,480 22,832 8,686 1,085 13 13,028 % 89.6 34.1 4.3 0.1 51.1 Rodeo 2,555 2,253 1,022 80 0 1,151 % 88.2 40.0 3.1 0.0 45.0 San Pablo 8,112 7,388 2,452 264 8 4,664 % 91.1 30.2 3.3 0.1 57.5 San Ramon 22,799 21,484 18,388 2,138 0 903 % 94.2 80.7 9.4 0.0 4.0 Tara Hills 1,299 1,105 730 71 0 274 % 85.1 56.2 5.5 0.0 21.1 Vine Hill 1,033 978 572 30 62 314 % 94.7 55.4 2.9 6.0 30.4 Walnut Creek 11,853 11,309 8,537 1,374 169 1,229 % 95.4 72.0 11.6 1.4 10.4 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ As early as February 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services began warning that COVID- 19 had the potential to cause serious overcrowding in hospitals , and some localities responded by cancelling or rescheduling elective and non-urgent medical procedures. According to the U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey, in mid -April 2020 , 39.5% of California adults and 42.0% of adults in the greater Bay Area had delayed seeking medical care in the prior month because of the COVID -19 outbreak. By the end of May, 42.7% of California adults and 44.7 % of Bay Area adults said they had delayed seeking medical care due to COVID. However, by mid -July after a partial reopening and easing concerns about overcrowde d in Bay Area hospitals, the percentage of Bay Area adults who had delayed medical care in the past month fell to 36.1%.8 In mid-July 2020, the decision to delay medical care for Bay Area adults appears unrelated to whether a person is currently employed (38.5%) or unemployed (32.9%), but is more likely to have occurred among adults who have been using credit cards or loans to pay their bills (44.9%), those in households with income of $25,000 to $34,999 (48.3%) or $35,000 to $49,999 (49.5%), adults with at least a bachelor’s degree (43.0%), those age 40 -49 (42.5%), white residents (43.2%) and Black residents (53.7%). One potential positive outcome of the COVID -19 crisis may be an increase in public awareness of the interdependence of communities and the need to prioritize quality health care access for all. The destr uctive force of the pan demic has exposed the flaws and limitations of a health care system tied to employment and 8 https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/hhp/#/?measures=CDR&s_state=00006&s_metro=41860&mapAreaSelector=msa Contra Costa County 41 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION may spur support to disentangle health care from its costly, profit -oriented structure geared to market-based objectives. With new , compassionate safety net measures and programs rapidly enactment in just a few months, many lofty social justice goals may appear more reachable than before COVID. People may recognize the incongruity of low income essential service workers, who are their front line of defense against the COVID spread, also being the community members least likely to have the protection of health care access. Facing the hardships of COVID -19 may renew public support for more comprehensive care, universal family care, improved elder care, more public control over the development and availability of medic ines, more health care access through telemedicine, and paid sick leave for all workers. Table 28 – Percentage who Delayed Medical Care Due to COVID, April and July 2020 Respondent Group California SF-Oakland-Berkeley Metro Area April 2020 July 2020 April 2020 July 2020 All residents 18 and Older 39.5% 41.2% 42.0% 36.1% Age 18-29 41.4% 39.4% 51.9% 40.2% Age 30-39 36.8% 41.3% 40.6% 41.9% Age 40-49 37.5% 39.7% 42.7% 42.5% Age 50-59 38.6% 48.1% 34.6% 26.0% Age 60-69 51.9% 39.6% 45.2% 31.0% Age 70-79 32.6% 41.2% 32.1% 40.5% Age 80 and older 18.5% 27.1% 41.1% 13.7% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic residents, any race 32.9% 36.7% 37.4% 30.1% White, non-Hispanic 45.6% 44.8% 48.2% 43.2% Black, non-Hispanic 47.8% 34.4% 44.2% 53.7% Asian, non-Hispanic 32.7% 41.7% 29.8% 24.1% Education Level Less than high school 31.1% 30.2% 24.8% 9.1% HS diploma or GED 41.3% 40.3% 42.2% 25.5% Some college or AA degree 38.2% 43.8% 45.0% 36.8% BA or higher 43.2% 43.7% 41.4% 43.0% Current Employment Status Employed adult 37.3% 40.7% 41.4% 38.5% Unemployed adult 41.9% 41.5% 42.9% 32.9% Annual HH Income Less than $25K 38.8% 30.3% 69.3% 26.6% $25K – 34K 41.8% 47.3% 43.6% 48.3% $35K – 49K 36.1% 36.5% 20.9% 49.5% $50K – 74K 35.6% 43.4% 32.2% 24.1% $75K – 99K 39.5% 47.5% 57.4% 27.9% $100K – 149K 39.7% 42.9% 45.8% 40.6% $150K – 199K 43.8% 46.9% 39.3% 43.9% $200K or more 43.5% 40.4% 38.4% 37.3% Means used to pay bills in past week Used regular income -- 42.6% -- 35.6% Used credit cards/loans -- 54.0% -- 44.9% Used savings or sold assets -- 45.3% -- 41.4% Used money from friends/family -- 42.7% -- 32.4% Used UI benefits -- 45.9% -- 33.4% Used stimulus check -- 41.9% -- 43.7% Used savings from deferred/forgiven payments -- 44.5% -- 26.1% Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html. Contra Costa County 42 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Asthma In 2019, Contra Costa County received an F grade on the air quality measures of high ozone days and particle pollution used by the American Lung Association (ALA) State of the Air evaluation. The ALA also reported that in 2019, about 16,262 Contra Costa County children with asthma were at special risk from low air quality. According to the CDPH, asthma rates in the state have increas ed for the past three decades, with about 40,000 Californians now hospitalized for asthma each year. African -Americans and children are at the greater risk for asthma-related hospitalization and death compared to other groups . Contra Costa C ounty sees higher prevalence rates of asthma and higher rates of asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits than the stat e across all age groups. Among county residents of all ages, 20.7% have had an asthma diagnosis at some point in their lives, compared to 14.8% statewide. In 2017, the rate of asthma -related hospitalizations among all age groups in the county was 5.3 per 10,000 (581 events) compared to 4.7 statewide, and the rate of asthma-related ER visits in the cou nty was 62.6 per 10,000 (6,706 events) compared to 46.9 statewide. Among children age 0 -4, the 2017 rate of asthma-related hospitalizations in the county was 17.6 per 10,000 (111 events) compared to 16.6 statewide, and the rate of asthma-related ER visit s was 112.7 per 10,000 (709 events) in the county compared to 91.5 statewide. Rates of asthma -related hospitalizations a mong African Americans in the county (13.5) are 4 times higher than among whites (3.4), while asthma-related ER visits among African Americans (216.3) are 6 times higher than among whites (36.2).9 Critically, the CDC warns that COVID -19, which affects the respiratory tract, may be particularly threatening for those who suffer from moderate to severe asthma . Not only can the COVID-19 virus itself trigger asthma attacks, but COVID-related anxiety and stress may also trigger an asthma attack . Those with moderate to severe asthma may also be at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID -19, which can lead to pneumonia and acute respiratory disease. Paradoxically, COVID-19 also resulted in regional disr uptions of primary air pollution contributors , such as greenhouse gas -causing industry and automobile use, which consequently led to dramatic improvements in air quality in March and April. In light of these air quality improvements, t he Bay Area Air Distr ict petitioned Bay Area employers in July to extend telecommuting options for workers even after shelter -in-place orders are lifted, citing reduced congestion, cost savings and improved work -life balance. Although these positive effects , including air quality improvements, may end up being short -lived, they nonetheless demonstrate how responsive and resilient the environment is. Nutrition Food insecurity concerns have been exacerbated by COVID -19, with business closures and job losses causing more families to turn to food banks, many for the first time. According to the U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey, 9.7% of California households and 4 .9% of households in the greater Bay Area experienced some degree of food scarcity prior to the onset of COVID . In July 2020 after 4 months of COVID -19 impacts, 14.3% of California households and 9.1% of Bay Area households reported food scarcity. Among Bay Area adult residents, food scarcity reports were most pronounced among those age 55 to 64 (13.4%), Hispanics (22.1%), African Americans (24.3%), adults with less than a high school education (35.3%), those with no more than a diploma or GED (19.2%), those in single person households (18.9%), adults who are currently unemployed (15.6%), adults caring for an elderly person (22.0%), and those earning less than $50,000 annually (27.8%).10 9https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CPE/Pages/CaliforniaBreathingCountyAsthmaProfiles.aspx 10https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/hhp/#/?s_state=00006&s_metro=41860&mapAreaSelector=msa&measures=FIR Contra Costa County 43 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 29 – Food Scarcity, March and July 2020 Sometimes or Often not Enough to Eat California SF-Oakland-Berkeley Metro Area Before COVID July 2020 Before COVID July 2020 All residents 18 and Older in HH with Children 9.7% 15.4% 1.5% 8.0% 65 and older residents in HH with Children 1.4% 12.9% 4.3% 3.5% Hispanic residents in HH with Children 9.8% 21.4% 1.0% 13.9% African American residents in HH with Children 43.2% 12.2% 12.9% 15.1% Residents with less than high school in HH with Children 20.1% 25.9% 0.0% 84.2% Residents with HS diploma or GED in HH with Children 8.8% 20.1% 0.0% 6.0% Unemployed adult in HH with Children 13.6% 19.8% 2.6% 15.9% Adult caring for elderly person in HH with Children 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 9.9% Resident in HH with income < $50,000 and Children 20.2% 19.8% 7.3% 26.2% Adults age 55-64 8.6% 15.9% 2.5% 13.4% Hispanic adults 8.8% 20.7% 1.9% 22.1% African American adults 35.6% 17.7% 8.8% 24.3% Adults with less than high school 17.8% 34.0% 3.8% 35.3% Unemployed adult 10.4% 19.6% 4.4% 15.6% Adult caring for elderly person 0.6% 8.9% 4.3% 22.0% Adult with HH income $50,000 16.5% 23.4% 8.0% 27.8% Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html, Food scarcity defined as sometimes or often not having enough to eat. At the same time as residents report an increased need , local providers, such as Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano which typically serves 180,000 individuals monthly , say COVID-19 has reduced their capacity to meet the rising demand . National food bank network, Feeding America, reported that food bank and food pantry use had already increased 40% as early as March 2020 . However, d onations of surplus food from large retail distributors dropped off sharply as sheltered-at-home consumers began to empty store shelves, cooking more at home and fearing food scarcity. Individual donations also fell off in the face of food shortages and economic uncertainty. Food banks have further struggled to maintain the ir volunteer workforce and the cleaning supplies needed to continue operations ,11 which in March spurred Governor Newsom to deploy the California National Guard to provide statewide assistance to food banks. Locally, the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano has had to cancel in-person fundraising events that typical provide about $200,000 of their annual operating budget. They warn that without alternative resources, households with children or seniors, which make up 64% of their patrons, will be among those most at risk to go hungry. According to the U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey, approximately 1,659,268 California adults used free groceries or food in mid-April, but this figure rose 64.4% to 2,727,287 by July 2020. Among the 2,727,287 California adults who report using free groceries or food in mid -July 2020, 54.4% accessed a school -based program or another program aimed at children and 27.7% accessed a food pantry or food bank. About 21.5% (3,144,965) of adults currently experiencing food scarcity in California said they were not at all confident they could afford food in the next m onth. The U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey estimates about 94,898 Bay Area adults used free groceries or food in mid -April, but this figure rose 131.8% to 219,950 by July 2020. Among the 219 ,950 Bay Area adults who used free groceries or food in mid -July, 22.3% accessed a school -based program or another program aimed at children and 44.1% accessed a food pantry or food bank . About 18.0% (220,142) of adults in the Bay Area currently experiencing food scarcity said they were not at all confident they could afford food in the next month. Looking at California adults in households with children, about 1,161,812 used free groceries or food in mid - April, but this figure rose 46.7% to 1,704,623 by July, according to U.S . Census Household Pulse data . Among the 1,704,623 California adults in households with children who used free groceries or food in mid - July, 73.9% accessed a school -based program or another program aimed at children and 24.7% accessed a 11 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/30/food-a30.html Contra Costa County 44 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION food pantry or food bank. About 21.5% (1,429,711 ) of California adults in households with children who are currently experiencing food scarcity said they were not at all confident they could afford food in the next month. About 71,311 Bay Area adults in households with children used free groceries or food in mid -April, but this figure fell 27.1% to 51,978 by July 2020. Among the 51,978 Bay Area adults in households with children who report using free groceries or food in July, 74.0% accessed a school -based program or another program aimed at children and 17.6% accessed a food pantry or food bank. About 9.9% of adults in the Bay Area currently experiencing food scarcity said they were not at all confident they could afford food in the next month. Note that U.S. Census Household Pulse data is an experimental product that has been updated and corrected several times since its release. Oral Health Status of Children Dental disease and oral health problems impact more children in the United States than any other chronic disease. Dental disease may negatively impact a child’s health and development, interfere with proper nutrition, deter speech development, and reduce school attendance and academic performance. When children miss school due to oral health problems, school districts also suffer from the loss of fundin g. In California, dental problems result in an estimated 874,000 missed school days annually, over half of kindergarteners have experienced tooth decay, and rates are higher among low -income and Latino children.12 According to the 2019-20 California Scorecard published by Children Now, a lthough Medi-Cal includes dental coverage for more than half of California children, only 34% of 0-5 year olds enrolled in Medi -Cal in 2017 received preventive services due to lack of providers, outreach, and coordinat ion. Only 19% of low income children age 0-5 in Contra Costa had visited a dentist in the past year, compared to 21% in the prior report and 26% in California as a whole . The state overall received a C - grade for children’s oral health care in 2020.13 In early April 2020 , the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) released statewide guidance for treating patients with dental emergencies , but recommending the postponement of routine procedures, surgeries, and non -urgent dental visits during the COVID -19 outbreak. In May 2020, concerned that the response to d efer and postpone routine check ups and preventative dental procedures due to COVID -19 may create its own public health impacts, the CDPH consequently released additional guidelines for resuming non-emergency dental procedures, including precautions to avoid the spread of COVID -19 among patients and staff. The CDPH also produced consumer -level guidelines to educate patients how to minimize spread when se eking dental services, such as maintaining physical distance in waiting rooms, wearing face masks while in the dental office, washing or sanitizing hands, preparing to be pre -screened, and using tele -dentistry whenever available.14 Substance Abuse The 2020 California Department of Public Health County Health Status Profile reports that Contra Costa has 148.0 drug-induced deaths per year based on a 3-year average, which translates into an age-adjusted rate of 12.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 13.1 statewide. The county rate rose from 10.9 in the 2019 Profile, while the state’s age-adjusted death rate also rose from 12.7 in the prior year. CDPH data indicates the county also had 53 opioid -related overdose deaths (which includes prescription painkillers and street drugs such as heroin) in 2016 , a 7% increase since 2014. Opioid -related overdose deaths in the county most recently rose 57.7% from 52 in 2017 to 82 in 2018. This dramat ic surge spurred Contra Costa County to join in a lawsuit brought by a consortium of California counties against a number of opioid manufacturers and distributors. The lawsuit is intended to provide, in part, cost recovery for tax dollars spent 12 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Oral%20Health%20Program/FINAL%20REDESIGNED %20COHP-Oral- Health-Plan-ADA.pdf 13 https://www.childrennow.org/portfolio-posts/20-report-card/ 14 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/Pages/OralHealthProgram/OralHealthProgram.aspx# Contra Costa County 45 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION in response to the opioid epidemic, including emergency services, prevention, monitoring, treatment, dependency relief and other ongoing actions required to fight the crisis.15 Table 30 – Drug-Induced Age-Adjusted Death Rates, 2017-2019 Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 State 11.8 12.2 12.7 13.1 County 11.4 11.0 10.9 12.2 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CHSP-County%20Profiles%202018.pdf Table 31 – Opioid-Related Overdose Deaths and Age-Adjusted Rates, 2015-2018 Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 State Number 1,992 2,039 2,194 2,428 Rate 4.79 4.87 5.22 5.82 County Number 49 53 52 82 Rate 4.19 4.38 4.35 6.82 Source: https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/ODdash/ Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Since January 2020, COVID-19 has spread rapidly in many U.S. communities. By August 18, a total of 632,667 cases and 11,342 deaths have been confirmed in California, with 11,442 cases , 157 deaths and 10,070 recoveries in Contra Costa County. The county has also tested 177,729 residents. At its peak so far on August 10, the coronavirus in Contra Costa County added 516 new cases in one 24 -hour period. Residents of all ages contract the virus, although 31% of deaths in the county have occurred among residents age 81 to 90.16 17 Richmond currently has the highest number of cases (2,358), followe d by Antioch (1,514) and Concord (1,498). However, particularly high rates per 100,000 are found in San Pablo (3,279), Bay Point (2,602), Richmond (2,120) and Pittsburg (1,670). On August 18, 2020 the county reports 98 residents are currently hospitalized for COVID, the county has 41 ICU beds and 216 ventilators staffed and available. Among Contra Costa residents and staff living or working in Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF), there have been 738 confirmed COVID cases and 99 deaths, and the county continues to monitor 33 known outbreaks at LTCFs. Among the county’s homeless population, 109 COVID cases have been confirmed from 2,378 tested. The county has also placed 588 homeless individuals at high risk into hotels since April 2020. Several major indicators in the county currently demonstrate a favorable trend with the number of cases flat or declining, the number of hospitalizations flat or declining, and the number of avail able hospital beds sufficient to meet the current demand. Public health officials also indicate that the county has been able to maintain the necessary contact tracing and isolation capacity needed, and healthcare providers have at least a 30-day supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) on hand. Mental Health Based on results of the U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey, in mid -April 2020, 29.7% of California adults and 25.6% of Bay Area adults report feeling nervous, anxious or on edge four or more days per week. Among California adults, these frequent feelings of anxiety are more pronounced in those less than 40 years old (36.2%), females (32.7%), Latinos (35.2%), those with some college or an A.A. degree (34.4%) and those with incomes below $35,000 (38.5%). Among Bay Area adults surveyed in mid-April 2020 , frequent anxiety is most pronounce d among those less than 40 (29.8%), females (29.8%), and those with incomes below $25,000 (43.1%). Importantly, three months later in mid -July, reports of feeling nervous, anxious or on edge four or more days per week have increased substantially for both California (35.0%) and Bay Area (30.7%) adults. California 15 https://cchealth.org/press-releases/2018/0502-Fight-Against-Opioid-Epidemic.php 16 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html 17 https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/dashboard Contra Costa County 46 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION adults much more likely to experience frequent feelings of anxiety include those less than 30 years old (47.7%), females (38.1%), those with just a high school diploma or GED (39.2%), those with s ome college or an A.A. degree (40.8%) and those with incomes below $25,000 (39.3%). Clearly, financial concerns underlie much of this anxiety as California adults most likely to report frequent anxiety in mid -July are those who have been paying bills using credit (46.5%), money borrowed from family or friends (45.2%), and/or money from deferred or forgiven payments (51.6%). Among Bay Area adults surveyed in mid -July, feeling anxiety four or more days per week is more pronounced than average (30.7%) for those less than 40 (48.0%), females (34.6%), those with some college or an A.A. degree (40.4%), those with no children (35.2%) and those with incomes below $35,000 (37.9%). Finances also appear to be a key concern for Bay Area adults in mid -July with those who have been paying bills using credit (35.0%), money from savings or sold assets (35.9%), money borrowed from family or friends (64.7%), and/or money saved from deferred or forgiven payments (61.6%) among the most likely to experience frequent anxiety. The U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey also measures change in the percentage of residents who report depression symptoms. Results in mid -April 2020 indicate that 18.5% of California adults and 13.8% of Bay Area adults report feeling down, depressed or hop eless four or more days per week. Critically, three months later in mid -July, reports of frequent depression symptoms have increased substantially for both California (26.1%) and Bay Area (21.1%) adults. In July 2020, this frequent feeling of depression among California adults is most pronounced among those age 18 to 29 (35.3%), Asian residents (32.8%), adults currently unemployed (31.7%) and adults with incomes below $35,000 (30.7%). Financial concerns also clearly underlie some of this frequent depression as California adults most likely to report these symptoms in mid - July are those who have been paying bills using credit cards or other personal loans (32.3%), money borrowed from family or friends (38.6%), unemployment insuranc e (37.1%), stimulus checks (37.2%) and/or money from deferred or forgiven payments (44.8%). Among Bay Area adults surveyed in mid -July, the percentage feeling down, depressed or hopeless four or more days per week is more pronounced than average (21.1%) f or those less than 30 years old (44.4%), those with some college or an A.A. degree (35.3%), adults with no children (25.5%), adults with a household member who has experienced a loss of employment income (29.0%) and those with incomes between $25,000 and $34,999 (56.1%). Financial struggles also appear to be a key depressant for Bay Area adults in mid -July with those who have been paying bills using credit cards or loans (27.7%), money borrowed from family or friends (51.4%), unemployment insurance (28.4%), stimulus checks (26.3%) and/or money saved from deferred or forgiven payments (59.0%) among the most likely to experience frequent depression symptoms. Table 32 – Percentage Experiencing Frequent Anxiety, April and July 2020 Respondent Group California SF-Oakland-Berkeley Metro Area April 2020 July 2020 April 2020 July 2020 All residents 18 and Older 29.7% 35.0% 25.6% 30.7% Age 18-29 39.1% 47.7% 28.0% 58.1% Age 30-39 33.3% 36.6% 31.4% 39.4% Age 40-49 27.7% 36.6% 29.7% 28.2% Age 50-59 26.9% 32.5% 21.5% 18.8% Age 60-69 29.6% 27.4% 28.1% 16.8% Age 70-79 15.6% 25.3% 4.5% 19.8% Age 80 and older 11.6% 9.7% 15.8% 2.6% Sex Males 26.6% 31.7% 21.7% 26.2% Females 32.7% 38.1% 29.8% 34.6% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic residents, any race 35.2% 36.2% 37.8% 31.8% White, non-Hispanic 28.5% 35.7% 28.2% 33.2% Black, non-Hispanic 29.4% 32.1% 21.6% 29.4% Asian, non-Hispanic 19.8% 27.8% 16.0% 27.0% Contra Costa County 47 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Respondent Group California SF-Oakland-Berkeley Metro Area April 2020 July 2020 April 2020 July 2020 Education Level Less than high school 20.7% 28.0% 28.5% 16.1% HS diploma or GED 31.0% 39.2% 15.9% 16.8% Some college or AA degree 34.4% 40.8% 29.5% 40.4% BA or higher 28.4% 30.3% 25.7% 32.8% Adult with Children in HH Children in HH 29.8% 32.0% 27.7% 20.2% No Children in HH 29.6% 36.8% 24.5% 35.2% Current Employment Status Employed adult 28.7% 33.8% 27.1% 33.1% Unemployed adult 30.7% 36.2% 22.9% 27.5% Annual HH Income Less than $25K 37.2% 39.3% 43.1% 31.2% $25K – 34K 40.5% 36.5% 25.2% 47.4% $35K – 49K 23.3% 37.8% 20.3% 27.4% $50K – 74K 26.5% 35.3% 20.6% 26.4% $75K – 99K 32.1% 37.2% 26.9% 33.5% $100K – 149K 28.0% 37.3% 25.6% 31.4% $150K – 199K 26.6% 26.6% 23.7% 26.1% $200K or more 21.0% 24.0% 23.9% 31.8% Means used to pay bills in past week Used regular income -- 32.4% -- 29.3% Used credit cards/loans -- 46.5% -- 35.0% Used savings or sold assets -- 41.4% -- 35.9% Used money from friends/family -- 45.2% -- 64.7% Used UI benefits -- 44.1% -- 30.5% Used stimulus check -- 44.4% -- 34.3% Used savings from deferred/forgiven payments -- 51.6% -- 61.6% Source: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey/data.html. Frequent anxiety defined as feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge four or more days per week in the past 7 days. COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPACTS AND RESPONSE Crime Rate and Adult Arrests The number of adult arrests for felony offenses in Contra Costa County rose 4.3% to 8,829 since 2018, but adult arrests have fallen 16.0% since 2010. Arrests for drug offenses have had the steepest decline since 2010, down 74.8% or 2,368 arrests. In contrast to all other crime types , arrests for violent offenses have increased 8.9% or 209 arrests. Table 33 – Felony Arrests for Adult Offenders, Contra Costa County 2010 – 2019 Offense 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 ALL FELONY ARRESTS 10,509 10,360 11,519 8,354 8,469 8,829 Violent Offenses 2,360 2,204 2,178 2,335 2,481 2,569 Property Offenses 3,103 2,945 3,105 2,683 2,642 2,671 Drug Offenses 3,165 3,200 3,875 1,027 790 797 Sex Offenses 176 177 152 147 140 168 Source: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/arrests Although state- and county-level statistics are not yet available for the first half of 2020, crime overall has reportedly declined during the pandemic, down an average of 23% across 25 m onitored U.S. cities, although reported crime in the Bay Area fell about 50% since the onset of stay -at-home orders. Drug -related crimes have seen the most dramatic drop, down more than 63% nationally. Both property crime (down 19%) and most violent crime (down 15%) fell since the COVID -19 outbreak, but gun violence rose, possibly related to a pandemic-led surge in gun sales . Between March and May, U.S. gun sales increased 64% over the same Contra Costa County 48 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION time in the prior year, and mass shootings rose 34%. Many communities have also faced a concerning rise in certain crimes which appear to be directly related to COVID, such as civil disobedience in the face of governmental restrictions, package theft, speeding on uncongested highways , opioid abuse, assault on medical workers and/or law enforcement, domestic and family violence, hate crimes, particularly against Asian Americans, vehicle theft , price gouging and financial crimes such as unemployment benefit scams, stimulus check scams and charity scams.18 Figure 7 – Number of Adult Felony Arrests by Type, 2010-2019 Adult Incarcerations One of the best defenses against the spread of the coronavirus disease has been social distancing, but physical separation is virtually impossible to maintain in the state’s jails, prisons, and detention centers. Besides overcrowded conditions, correctiona l facilities in California are also facing a lack of testing, inadequate infection control procedures, and shortages of cleaning and medical supplies for both staff and inmates that have led to large scale outbreaks among those incarcerated. Since these COVID-19 outbreaks, California has expedited the release of 3,500 prison inmates due to their elevated risk of contracting the virus in the state’s overcrowded prison system. In July, 2,345 additional inmates were granted early release . About 6,500 others with medical conditions that are deemed to put them at especially high risk for becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 are also eligible for release consideration. Releases have largely targeted nonviolent offenders, but some inmates considered for release bec ause of serious medical conditions have been convicted of violent crimes. Despite recent releases, many prisons remain at or over capacity, and COVID-19 has been difficult to control in these overcrowded environments. Although the releases have been controversial, medical experts point out that if not released, inmates who contract the virus in prison could need medical care and hospitalizations from the strained healthcare systems of local communities. Domestic Violence In 201 9, t he number of domestic viol ence calls for assistance from Contra Costa County residents fell 6.0% or 197 calls over 2018 , with 3,066 total calls . During the same period, t he total number of domestic violence calls for assistance in California overall also fell by 3.5%. Unfortunately, COVID-19 lockdowns have intensified the conditions of isolation and stress that tend to increase violence against women and children, while simultaneously limiting options available to those in abusive relationships. Those needing help may fear that shelters are unsafe or closed, emergency personnel are unavailable and orders are unenforceable since courts have shutdown. Experience from previous social crises indicates that, despite the current absence of data proving a link between COVID -19 and rising domestic violence rates, communities should prepare for a surge in need for domestic violence services and referrals. 18 https://www.safewise.com/blog/covid-19-crimes/ 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 Violent Offenses Property Offenses Drug Offenses Sex Offenses Contra Costa County 49 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 34 – Number of Domestic Violence Calls for Assistance, 2008–2019 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 California 166,343 166,361 157,634 155,965 164,569 169,362 166,890 161,123 Contra Costa 3,868 3,687 3,286 3,410 2,947 3,206 3,263 3,066 Source: State of California Dept. of Justice, https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/crime-statistics/domestic-violence Child Abuse Since 2005, the county’s rate of substantiated child abuse cases per 1,000 children age 0-17 has been considerably lower than in California as a whole , and in 2019 the county’s adjusted rate is 3.6 compared to a state rate of 7.7 per 1,000, with both rates up from 2018. The number of substantiated cases in the county rose a substantial 6.9 % from 844 in 2018 to 902 in 2019. Table 35 – Rate of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases, 2005–2019 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 California 11.3 10.7 10.0 9.5 8.9 8.2 7.5 7.6 7.7 Contra Costa County 7.6 8.8 5.1 5.5 5.1 4.3 4.0 3.3 3.6 Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/. Rate per 1,000 children (ages 0-17); the substantiated rate measures the number of child abuse reports that warrant an in-person investigation and are determined to have occurred. Table 36 – Number of Substantiated Child Abuse Cases in Contra Costa County, 2009–2019 Year 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 Number of Cases 1,332 1,423 1,300 1,095 807 844 902 Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/. The adjusted 2019 distribution of substantiated child abuse cases by age indicates that both the number and percentage of cases involv ing infants (138 or 15.3%) have fallen since 2018 (152 or 18.1%). Another 276 or 30.6% of substantiated cases involve children age 1 to 5 , which is relatively unchanged from the prior year. Substantiated rates per 1,000 fell slightly among infants (down 0.2 points to 11.5) an d 16-17 year olds (down 0.5 points to 1.7). However, the substantiated rate per 1,000 among 1 -2 year olds (up 1.0 point to 5.0), 3 -5 year olds (up 0.3 to 4.1), 6 -10 year olds (up 0.2 to 3.2) and 11 -15 year olds (up 0.6 points to 2.8) all increased since 2018. In 2019, foster care entry rates for infants (7.3 per 1,000) and 16 -17 year olds (0.5 per 1,000) fell somewhat. Table 37 – Contra Costa Child Abuse Allegations, Substantiations and Entries by Age, 2019 Age Group Child Population Children w/ Allegations per 1,000 children Children w/ Substantiations per 1,000 children % of Allegations Children w/ Entries Entries per 1,000 < 1 12,010 486 40.5 138 11.5 28.4 88 7.3 1-2 24,419 787 32.2 121 5.0 15.4 40 1.6 3-5 37,971 1,423 37.5 155 4.1 10.9 54 1.4 6-10 70,139 2,910 41.5 224 3.2 7.7 78 1.1 11-15 75,148 3,007 40.0 211 2.8 7.0 92 1.2 16-17 31,214 1,013 32.5 53 1.7 5.2 16 0.5 Total 250,901 9,626 38.4 902 3.6 9.4 368 1.5 Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/. Impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic on the health and welfare of children began to concern child advocates as early as March 2020, who warned of a potential spike in severe child abuse . They based these concerns on the conditions COVID-19 produces that have in the past led to periods of high risk for increases in abuse and neglect, such as uncontrollable disruptions in people’s lives, widespread growth in unem ployment, stressors such as food insecurity and illness , and the lack of oversight at -risk children usually receive from teachers, school staff and fellow students. However, initial attempts to monitor this potential impact across 43 states and Washington, D.C. have shown the contrary, with reports of child abuse in 2020 down 14.2% in March, down 40.6% in April and down 35.1% in May as compared to 2019. Nationally, calls to child-abuse hotlines Contra Costa County 50 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION have also fallen sharply during COVID lockdowns and school clos ures. However, because child abuse statistics take 15 -months or more to collect, process and distribute , it remains unclear whether these declines reflect a reduction in incidence or the fact that m ost of the professionals mandated to report suspected abus e have limited access to at-risk children while schools are closed . Child advocates further note that the COVID - crisis amplifies the shortcomings of a child welfare system that has been largely reactive and the need to shift priorities towards education , early intervention and prevention .19 Juvenile Arrests According to Department of Justice crime data, t he number of juvenile felony arrests in Contra Costa County has trended downward since 2010 . In 2019, the number of juvenile felony arrests is 375, down 68.3% from 1,184 in 2010. With 153 in 2019, j uvenile arrests for violent offenses has fallen 53.9% since 2010 . At 145 in 2019, property offenses have fallen 70.6% since 2010. Table 38 – Felony Arrests for Juvenile Offenders, Contra Costa County 2010 – 2019 Offense 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 ALL JUVENILE FELONY ARRESTS 1,184 825 627 394 316 375 Violent Offenses 332 241 233 182 133 153 Property Offenses 494 359 210 111 98 145 Drug Offenses 123 83 76 25 6 6 Sex Offenses 17 35 16 8 6 6 Source: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/arrests Figure 8 – Number of Juvenile Felony Arrests by Type, 2010-2019 IMPACTS ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Births In 2018 , according to ACS data, the birth rate in Contra Costa County (47.6 per 1,000 women 15 -50) continued to trend downward, as did the teen birth rate in both the county (3.6) and state (11.0). An estimated 12,777 women gave birth in Contra Costa County in 2018 , virtually unchanged from 2017, while California saw a 1.1% decline in women with births. However, in July 2020, California ’s Department of Public Health reports that Contra Costa County recorded just 10,899 births in 2019 and 5,273 births in the first 6 months of 2020, which represents a slightly slower pace of births in the current year . 19 See for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/has-child-abuse-surged-under-covid-19-despite-alarming-stories-n1234713; and https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/why-child-welfare-experts-fear-a-spike-of-abuse-during-covid-19 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 Violent Offenses Property Offenses Drug Offenses Sex Offenses Contra Costa County 51 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 39 – Births and Birth Rates, California and Contra Costa County – 2018 Area Women 15-50 Women with births Rate/1,000 1-Yr Change Females 15-19 Teens with births Rate/1,000 California 9,632,116 473,280 49.1 -5,178 1,262,985 13,945 11.0 Countywide 268,615 12,777 47.6 2 35,431 128 3.6 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Table 40 – Births in California and Contra Costa County, January – June 2020 Area January February March April May June Total California 35,975 33,229 34,885 33,641 34,705 33,823 206,258 Countywide 886 776 899 881 950 881 5,273 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CA_county_births_by_month.pdf ACS data from 2018 indicates that in California overall, 4.4% of married and 15.9% of unmarried women with births receive some type of public assistance, with both rates down from 2017. In Contra Costa County, 3.3% of married and 16.4% of unmarried women w ith births receive PA. While the county’s proportion of married women with births on PA (3.3%) fell from 2017 (4.1%), the proportion of unmarried women with births on PA (16.4%) rose from 2017 (12.3%), and unmarried women with births are now 5 times more l ikely to receive PA than married women with births. About 829 Contra Costa women with births in the past year receive PA, up 7.0% from 775 in 2017, but the number of married women fell 87 while the number of unmarried women rose 141. Table 41 – Women with Births and Public Assistance Income, 2018 Area Women 15-50 With births Married Receive PA % with PA Unmarried Receive PA % with PA California 9,632,116 473,280 322,532 14,156 4.4 150,748 23,938 15.9 Contra Costa County 268,615 12,777 9,633 314 3.3 3,144 515 16.4 Source: 2018 ACS 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ INFANT MORTALITY Based on the County Health Status Profile published in 20 20 by CDPH, infant mortality rates in Contra Costa County as a whole have continued to fall from a 10 -year high of 4.9 in 2010 to 3.2 per 1,000 infants in 2020. By comparison, California has an infant mortality rate o f 4.3 per 1,000 infants in 2020 , which is also down since 2010, but not as steeply. Although infant mortality rates rose from 2006 to 2010, the trend since 2010 suggests improvements in factors such as maternal health, health care access, health practices or related socioeconomic conditions in the county as a whole. Published rates are based on 3 -year averages and indicate infant mortality in the county has been generally lower than in the state. Both the county and state rates have for several years met the Healthy People 2020 National Objective of no more than 6.0 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Figure 9 – Infant Mortality Rates, 2016-2020 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County California Contra Costa County 52 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 42 – Infant Mortality Rate, Contra Costa County, 2016–2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 5.0 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.2 California 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.3 Source: County Profiles Three Year Average Rates at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/County HealthStatusProfiles_2020_ADA.pdf. Rate per 1,000. LOW WEIGHT BIRTHS A baby is considered to be low weight if it weighs less than 2,500 grams (5 lb. 8 oz.) at birth. In the United States, low birthweight is a strong predictor of infant mortality and morbidity, and the nutritional status (weight, height, and hematology) among low income, high -risk infants and children is an important indicator of health and wellbeing. Poor nutrition and poverty are also significantly correlated, if not causal. Preterm birth, or births occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, is one of the predominant proximate causes of low birthweight. Risk factors for preterm delivery include low socioeconomic status, low pre -pregnancy weight, inadequate weight gain during pregnancy, history of infertility problems, smoking and multiple gestations. Infants who are born at low birthweight are at greater risk of developing other problems later in life, such as physical disabilities and developmental delays. According to the 2020 County Health Status Profiles, CDPH data shows the overall county rate of low birth weight children (7.0%) exceeds the statewide rate (6.9 %). Although both rates rose slightly since 2019 , both continue to meet the National Healthy People 2020 objective of no more than 7.8 per 100 live births. Table 43 – Percentage of Low Birth Weight Babies, Contra Costa & California, 2015–2020 Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 Contra Costa County 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.0 California 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 Source: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/Pages/County-Health-Status-Profiles.aspx PRENATAL CARE The percentage of Contra Costa pregnant women who receive prenatal care in their first trimester has generally exceeded the state in recent years . The latest published estimates for 2020 from the CDPH County Profiles indicate 88.3% of pregnant women in the county receive prenatal care in their first trimester , which is improved from 87.5% in 2019. By comparison, the state rate of 83.9% in 2020 increased just slightly from 83.5% in the prior year . Both the county (88.3%) and state (83.9%) rates continue to exceed the Healthy People 2020 National Objective of 77.9% of pregnant women . Figure 10 – Prenatal Care in First Trimester, 2016-2020 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa California Contra Costa County 53 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Table 44 – Percentage of Women Receiving Prenatal Care in the First Trimester, 2016–2019 Area 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 84.4 86.4 86.9 87.5 88.3 California 83.6 83.3 83.3 83.5 83.9 Source: CDPH - https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CHSP-County%20Profiles%202020.pdf Because the CDPH recognizes t hat utilization of prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy does not take into account whether prenatal care continue s throughout pregnancy, it also publishes the percentage of pregnant women who receive “adequate or adequate plus” ongoing prenatal care , which characterizes prenatal care in terms of the trimester in which care is first accessed and the number of prenatal care visits during pregnancy. The latest estimates in Contra Costa County indicate 74.7% of pregnant women receive adequat e or adequate plus prenatal care in 2020, which continues to fall, down from 75.8% in 2019, and considerably below the new 2020 National Healthy People objective of 83.2%. Statewide, 78.0% of pregnant women now receive adequate or adequate plus prenatal ca re, which has inched up from 77.9% in 2019. BIRTHS TO TEENS Teenage mothers have historically been more likely than other mothers to have preterm babies, more likely to have low birthweight infants, and less likely to get prenatal care in their first trimester. According to ACS estimates, t he annual t een birth rate in the county, at 3.6 per 1,000 in 2018 , has been consistently lower than that in the state (11.0). According to the most recent data compiled by the California Department of Public Health, rates in both the county and state have shown marked declines since 2014 . Age-specific rates of teen births per 1,000 in the county have most recently fallen from 10.0 in 2019 to 9.1 in 2020, while the state rate has fallen from 15.7 in 2019 to 14.2 in 2020. Table 45 – Age-Specific Rate of Births to Teens, 2002–2019 Area 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County 20.7 14.9 22.8 17.2 10.9 10.0 9.1 California 31.6 26.2 36.0 32.0 17.6 15.7 14.2 Source: CA Department of Public Health https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CHSP- County%20Profiles%202018.pdf Figure 11 – Birth Rate Among Teens, 2014-2020 Child Care NEED FOR CHILD CARE According to the 2019 California Child Care Portfolio and estimates from the 2018 ACS , the county has seen a 4% decline in children less than 2 , but a 3% growth in children age 2 and a 2% growth in children age 3 and 4 since 2016. The number of Contra Costa 0 -5 year olds in poverty has meanwhile risen a considerable 29% from 7,592 in 2016 to 9,771 in 2018, and the number of single -parent families in which the parent works 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2014 2016 2018 2019 2020 Contra Costa County California Contra Costa County 54 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION has increased 4%. About 7,103 county children receive d subsidized care in 2018, up 8% from 6,584 in 2016. About 35% of all requests for licensed child care in 2019 were for 0-1 year olds, with 89% of tho se for full time care . Another 42% of requests were for 2-5 year olds and b etween 66% (5 year olds) and 84% (3 year olds) of those requests were for full time c are. In 2019, a bout 76% of families seeking child care in the county did so because pa rents were working. In the first half of 2020, the COVID -19 outbreak has dramatically changed this landscape with a combination of school closures, business closures and soaring unemployment. Child care providers have been forced to weather the changes by reducing enrollment to a fraction of capacity, by limiting enrollment to children of essential workers or by closing altogether. Parents able to continue to work from home have had to take on the added burdens of caring for and schooling children while working. Parents able to maintain their jobs as essential workers have had to scramble for less convenient and more expensive child care options. As businesses begin to slowly open and recall people to work, the need for affordable child care intensifies. However, for those privately-run facilities able to survive the upheaval so far, costly challenges such as the availability of PPE, safety restrictions regarding group size, stricter protocols for cleaning and staffing, parents fearful of exposing their children and newly unionized care givers all promise to threaten future sustainability. Not surprisingly, a crisis like COVID -19 exposes and exacerbates the vulnerabilities in the child care industry and the weaknesses of a patchwork approach to child care . ACCESS TO CHILD CARE The Californi a Community Care Licensing Divis ion reports that in July 2020, Contra Costa has 19,290 preschool age day care slots in 335 licensed or license -pending centers. This represents 5 fewer sites and 339 fewer slots for day care since January 2020. Areas with the largest decline in day care slots since the COVID- 19 outbreak include Alamo (d own 26), Antioch (down 60 ), Concord (down 43), Discovery Bay (down 120), El Cerrito (down 41), Pinole (down 44), Richmond (down 60) and Walnut Creek (down 59). In contrast to these areas, Byron (up 84) and Orinda (up 30) have been able to add day care capacity to offset some of the losses due to closures . In July 2020, the CCCLD reports the county has 2,195 infant slots in 86 licensed or license -pending centers, which is largely unchanged since January 2020. However, Pinole (down 12) and Richmond (down 30) saw declines in infant slots, while El Sobrante (up 26) added capacity. Table 46 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Facilities by City, July 2020 City Day Care Centers Day Care Center Slots Infant Centers Infant Center Slots ALAMO 6 308 0 0 ANTIOCH 17 1,229 6 150 BAY POINT 6 310 2 52 BRENTWOOD 22 1,259 7 191 BYRON 2 114 0 0 CLAYTON 5 263 1 28 CONCORD 45 2,485 11 302 CROCKETT 1 22 0 0 DANVILLE 21 1,344 4 72 DISCOVERY BAY 1 48 0 0 EL CERRITO 9 420 1 28 EL SOBRANTE 5 266 2 55 HERCULES 2 155 0 0 KENSINGTON 6 302 0 0 LAFAYETTE 13 893 4 96 MARTINEZ 12 664 6 115 MORAGA 7 555 3 36 OAKLEY 8 402 2 64 ORINDA 7 393 0 0 PINOLE 4 149 0 0 PITTSBURG 19 818 3 60 PLEASANT HILL 17 933 5 177 RICHMOND 33 1,741 8 239 RODEO 4 185 3 55 Contra Costa County 55 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION City Day Care Centers Day Care Center Slots Infant Centers Infant Center Slots SAN PABLO 11 400 3 89 SAN RAMON 22 1,491 9 232 WALNUT CREEK 30 2,141 6 154 Total 335 19,290 86 2,195 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData Table 47 – Licensed Day Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, July 2020 Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity AIM HIGH CHILD CARE CENTER, INC.@TIMBER POINT 40 NEWBURY LANE BYRON 94505 84 ALL GOD'S CHILDREN CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 1900 WILLOW LAKE ROAD DISCOVERY BAY 94505 48 BLACKHAWK MONTESSORI 3380 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR,ST112 DANVILLE 94506 70 BRIGHT MINDS 3380 BLACKHAWK PLZ CIR,STE 220 DANVILLE 94506 35 SAFARI KID - DANVILLE 4135 BLACKHAWK PLZ CIR STE 150 DANVILLE 94506 38 TASSAJARA LEARNING CENTER 1899 CASABLANCA STREET DANVILLE 94506 127 TREE OF LIFE LEARNING CENTER 1800 HOLBROOK DR DANVILLE 94506 77 ALAMO COUNTRY SCHOOL 1261 LAVEROCK LANE ALAMO 94507 64 CREATIVE LEARNING CENTER 120 HEMME AVENUE ALAMO 94507 52 DORRIS-EATON SCHOOL, THE 1286 STONE VALLEY ROAD ALAMO 94507 90 MEADOWLARK CHILDREN'S CENTER 2964 MIRANDA AVENUE ALAMO 94507 26 STARLIGHT SCHOOL 1350 DANVILLE BLVD ALAMO 94507 26 UNITED METHODIST PRESCHOOL 902 DANVILLE BLVD ALAMO 94507 50 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - ANTIOCH 112 EAST TREGALLAS ROAD ANTIOCH 94509 92 CORNERSTONE CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 2800 SUNSET LANE ANTIOCH 94509 60 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - FAIRGROUNDS 1203 W. 10TH ST ANTIOCH 94509 128 FIRST BAPTIST HEADSTART - BELSHAW 2801 ROOSEVELT LANE - PORTABLE ANTIOCH 94509 52 HILLTOP CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 2200 COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE ANTIOCH 94509 80 HOLY ROSARY SCHOOL 25 EAST 15TH STREET ANTIOCH 94509 45 IMAGINATION ACADEMY 2032 HILLCREST AVE ANTIOCH 94509 45 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER, #1039 2300 MAHOGANY WAY ANTIOCH 94509 95 LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. 1350 E. TREGALLAS ANTIOCH 94509 119 LITTLE ANGELS COUNTRY SCHOOL 1816 HILLCREST AVENUE ANTIOCH 94509 39 SO BIG CO-OP PRESCHOOL 1201 W. 10TH ST. CAFETERIA BLD ANTIOCH 94509 24 STARLIGHT ACADEMY III 508 WEST TREGALLAS ANTIOCH 94509 30 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - MARY ROCHA 931 CAVALLO ROAD ANTIOCH 94509 89 BABY YALE ACADEMY 5521 LONE TREE WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 74 BABY YALE ACADEMY-HARVEST PARK 605 HARVEST PARK, STE A BRENTWOOD 94513 22 BRIGHT STAR CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S CENTER 2200 VENTURA DRIVE BRENTWOOD 94513 44 CELEBRATION CENTER 2260 JEFFREY WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 150 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD START - LOS NOGALES CENTER 321 ORCHARD DRIVE BRENTWOOD 94513 40 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEAD START - MARSH CREEK 7251 BRENTWOOD BLVD BRENTWOOD 94513 36 EL CONCILIO 321 ORCHARD DRIVE #B BRENTWOOD 94513 20 GENIUS KIDS - BRENTWOOD 1265 DAINTY AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 24 KIDDIE ACADEMY 8680 BRENTWOOD BLVD. BRENTWOOD 94513 120 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2321 EAGLE ROCK AVE. BRENTWOOD 94513 104 LITTLE DIAMONDS PRESCHOOL 2015 ELKINS WAY SUITE A BRENTWOOD 94513 34 LOVE FOR LEARNING 833 SECOND ST BRENTWOOD 94513 25 LOVE FOR LEARNING 120 GUTHRIE LN BRENTWOOD 94513 30 MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF BRENTWOOD, INC. 1191 BALFOUR ROAD BRENTWOOD 94513 120 ROCK OF BRENTWOOD DBA LITTLE SCHOLARS, THE 1770 ADAMS LANE BRENTWOOD 94513 40 SMART START PRESCHOOL 2882 O'HARA AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 30 STAY AND PLAY PRESCHOOL 771 GRIFFITH LANE BRENTWOOD 94513 21 SUNSHINE HOUSE - BRENTWOOD 401 CHESTNUT STREET BRENTWOOD 94513 38 SUNSHINE HOUSE - BRENTWOOD II 3700 WALNUT BOULEVARD BRENTWOOD 94513 75 SUNSHINE HOUSE - LOMA VISTA KID ZONE 2110 SAN JOSE AVE. BRENTWOOD 94513 30 TINY TOES 1284 DAINTY AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 52 WEE CARE CENTER 1275 FAIRVIEW AVENUE BRENTWOOD 94513 130 LOVE FOR LEARNING BYRON 2800 CAMINO DIABLO BYRON 94514 30 CLAYTON CHILDREN'S CENTER 6760 MARSH CREEK ROAD CLAYTON 94517 45 CLAYTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL 5880 MT. ZION DRIVE CLAYTON 94517 25 Contra Costa County 56 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity CLAYTON VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S CENTER 1578 KIRKER PASS ROAD CLAYTON 94517 63 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 6095 MAIN STREET CLAYTON 94517 72 ST. JOHN'S PRESCHOOL 5555 CLAYTON ROAD CLAYTON 94517 58 BUILDING BLOCKS CHILDRENS CENTER 1015 OAK GROVE ROAD CONCORD 94518 42 CONCORDIA SCHOOL, THE - CONCORD 2353 FIFTH AVENUE CONCORD 94518 34 DIANNE ADAIR AT EL MONTE 1400 DINA DRIVE CONCORD 94518 36 LA PETITE ACADEMY 4304 COWELL ROAD CONCORD 94518 97 SUPER KIDZ CLUB 2140 MINERT RD. CONCORD 94518 15 WOOD ROSE ACADEMY AND PRESCHOOL 4347 COWELL ROAD CONCORD 94518 72 BRIGHT STARS LEARNING CENTER PRESCHOOL 3036 CLAYTON ROAD CONCORD 94519 37 CALVARY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 3425 CONCORD BLVD. CONCORD 94519 82 FIRST LUTHERAN CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 4006 CONCORD BOULEVARD CONCORD 94519 60 JOYFUL KIDS ACADEMY LLC DBA PARKSIDE JOYFUL KIDS 2898 CONCORD BLVD. CONCORD 94519 73 KIDANGO - BALDWIN 2750 PARKSIDE CIR CONCORD 94519 65 KIDANGO - HOLBROOK 3333 RONALD WAY CONCORD 94519 65 MONTE GARDENS PRE-K - DIANNE ADAIR 3841 LARKSPUR DRIVE CONCORD 94519 24 MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF CONCORD 3039 WILLOW PASS ROAD CONCORD 94519 56 ST. MICHAELS EPISCOPAL DAY PRESCHOOL 2925 BONIFACIO STREET CONCORD 94519 90 WHITE DOVE SCHOOL 1850 SECOND STREET CONCORD 94519 41 ANGELS MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL - CONCORD 1566 BAILEY ROAD CONCORD 94520 49 BAY CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 4725 EVORA ROAD CONCORD 94520 55 BEGINNINGS & BEYOND MONTESSORI CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 1965 COLFAX STREET CONCORD 94520 48 CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY CENTER 1146 LACEY LANE CONCORD 94520 93 CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY CENTER II 1187 A MEADOW LANE CONCORD 94520 40 CONCORD CHILD CARE CENTER 1360 A DETROIT CONCORD 94520 44 CONCORD CHILD CARE CENTER / MORNING PRESCHOOL 1360 C DETROIT AVENUE CONCORD 94520 40 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CSB GEORGE MILLER CENTER 3068 GRANT ST. CONCORD 94520 106 NEW HOPE ACADEMY PRESCHOOL 2120 OLIVERA COURT CONCORD 94520 144 QUEEN OF ALL SAINTS SCHOOL 2391 GRANT STREET CONCORD 94520 20 SSUC CESAR CHAVEZ CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1187 MEADOW LANE CONCORD 94520 142 SUN TERRACE PRESCHOOL 3585 PORT CHICAGO HIGHWAY CONCORD 94520 54 ALL ABOUT CHILDREN CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 3764 CLAYTON RD CONCORD 94521 55 AYERS PRE-K PROGRAM 5120 MYRTLE DRIVE CONCORD 94521 30 BUILDING KIDZ SCHOOL 5100 CLAYTON RD, F36 CONCORD 94521 93 CLAYTON VALLEY PARENT PRE-SCHOOL 1645 WEST STREET CONCORD 94521 25 HAPPY LITTLE FACES 1470 WHARTON WAY CONCORD 94521 30 HIGHLANDS PRE-K PROGRAM 1326 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. CONCORD 94521 30 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1551 BAILEY ROAD CONCORD 94521 72 KING'S VALLEY PRESCHOOL 4255 CLAYTON ROAD CONCORD 94521 120 MYRTLE FARM MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4976 MYRTLE DR CONCORD 94521 30 PIXIE PLAY SCHOOL 1797 AYERS ROAD CONCORD 94521 30 ST. AGNES PRESCHOOL 3886 CHESTNUT AVE CONCORD 94521 20 STEP BY STEP MONTESSORI 1507 HEATHER DRIVE CONCORD 94521 40 STEP BY STEP MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 2 4991 CLAYTON RD. CONCORD 94521 24 TABERNACLE SCHOOL 4380 CONCORD BLVD CONCORD 94521 48 WALNUT COUNTRY PRESCHOOL 4465 SO. LARWIN AVE. CONCORD 94521 30 WE CARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN 2191 KIRKER PASS ROAD CONCORD 94521 60 WESTWOOD PRE-K - DIANNE ADAIR 1748 WEST STREET CONCORD 94521 24 ALICE'S MONTESSORI - ASTRID 105 ASTRID DRIVE PLEASANT HILL 94523 40 CENTER OF GRAVITY, INC. 2702 PLEASANT HILL RD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 60 CHOICE IN LEARNING 490 GOLF CLUB RD PLEASANT HILL 94523 90 CREATIVE PLAY CENTER, INC 2323 PLEASANT HILL ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 48 DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL CHILDREN'S CTR 321 GOLF CLUB ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 80 DISCOVERYLAND PRE-SCHOOL 800 GRAYSON ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 70 EMPIRE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 409 BOYD RD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 72 FOOTPRINTS PRESCHOOL 50 WOODSWORTH LN PLEASANT HILL 94523 32 KIDZ-PLANET, INC 2245 MORELLO AVE. STE. C PLEASANT HILL 94523 81 MARY JANE'S PRESCHOOL 2902 VESSING ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 41 PETER PAN PRE-SCHOOL 399 GREGORY LN PLEASANT HILL 94523 45 Contra Costa County 57 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity PLAY AND LEARN 1898 PLEASANT HILL ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 108 PLEASANT HILL PRE-K 2097 OAK PARK BLVD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 24 SEQUOIA DAY CARE CENTER 277 BOYD ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 30 STEPPING STONES LEARNING CENTER 2750 PLEASANT HILL RD PLEASANT HILL 94523 57 WHERE THE WILD THINGS PLAY PRESCHOOL 2551 PLEASANT HILL RD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 29 YMCA CHILDCARE- RHETT TURNER PRESCHOOL 350 CIVIC DR PLEASANT HILL 94523 26 LITTLE ROSES PRESCHOOL 1180 STARR ST CROCKETT 94525 22 A NEW WORLD OF MONTESSORI 101 SONORA AVENUE DANVILLE 94526 30 ACORN LEARNING CENTER 816 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 42 AUTUMN CREEK LEARNING CENTER 14 OSBORN WAY DANVILLE 94526 80 COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN PRE-SCHOOL 222 WEST EL PINTADO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 102 DANVILLE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 919 CAMINO RAMON DANVILLE 94526 48 DAYSPRING PRESCHOOL 989 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD DANVILLE 94526 80 DIABLO HILLS COUNTRY SCHOOL 1453 SAN RAMON VALLEY BVLD. DANVILLE 94526 37 FOUNTAINHEAD MONTESSORI SCHOOL 939 EL PINTADO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 92 GARDEN MONTESSORI SCHOOL 495 VERONA AVENUE DANVILLE 94526 24 LARSON'S CHILDREN CENTER 920 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 45 PEEKADOODLE ACADEMY OF DANVILLE 2425 CAMINO TASSAJARA DANVILLE 94526 135 SAINT TIMOTHY'S EPISCOPAL NOAH'S ARK PRESCHOOL 1550 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 40 STRATFORD SCHOOL 3201 CAMINO TASSAJARA ROAD DANVILLE 94526 58 STRATFORD SCHOOL 2615 CAMINO TASSAJARA DANVILLE 94526 78 SYCAMORE VALLEY DAY SCHOOL 1500 SHERBURNE HILLS ROAD DANVILLE 94526 70 VALLEY PARENT PRE SCHOOL 935 CAMINO RAMON DANVILLE 94526 36 CITY OF EL CERRITO COMM. SVCS. - CASA CERRITO DCC 6927 PORTOLA AVENUE EL CERRITO 94530 21 EL CERRITO PRE-SCHOOL CENTER 7200 MOESER LANE EL CERRITO 94530 30 GOLESTAN 320 SAN CARLOS AVE EL CERRITO 94530 45 KEYSTONE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 6639 BLAKE STREET EL CERRITO 94530 57 LITTLE TREE MONTESSORI INT'L SCHOOL OF EL CERRITO 2603 TASSAJARA AVENUE EL CERRITO 94530 144 MI MUNDO PRESCHOOL EL CERRITO 6305 BARRETT AVENUE EL CERRITO 94530 24 PETER PAN PARENT NURSERY 1422 NAVELLIER STREET EL CERRITO 94530 24 PRIDE AND JOY PRE-SCHOOL 1226 LIBERTY STREET EL CERRITO 94530 45 SYCAMORE CHRISTIAN PRE-SCHOOL 1111 NAVELLIER STREET EL CERRITO 94530 30 FIRST BAPTIST HEAD START-LONE TREE 1931 MOKELUMNE DRIVE ANTIOCH 94531 57 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4108 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94531 72 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4308 FOLSOM DRIVE ANTIOCH 94531 72 LEARNING EXPERIENCE, THE 4831 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94531 130 HAPPY HARVARD PRESCHOOL 1702 PHEASANT DR HERCULES 94547 100 VALLEY PRESCHOOL DAYCARE 1477 WILLOW AVENUE HERCULES 94547 55 BUILDING BRIDGES PRESCHOOL 1003 CAROL LANE LAFAYETTE 94549 37 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - LAFAYETTE 1049 STUART STREET LAFAYETTE 94549 83 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - MORAGA 372 PARK ST MORAGA 94549 74 DIABLO VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL 3390 DEERHILL ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 138 GAN ILAN PRESCHOOL - TEMPLE ISAIAH 945 RISA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 95 GROWING LIGHT MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF LAFAYETTE 584 GLENSIDE DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 44 HAPPY DAYS LEARNING CENTER 3205 STANLEY BLVD LAFAYETTE 94549 40 JOYFUL BEGINNINGS PRESCHOOL 955 MORAGA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 45 LAFAYETTE NURSERY SCHOOL 979 FIRST STREET LAFAYETTE 94549 25 MERRIEWOOD CHILDREN'S CENTER 561 MERRIEWOOD DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 59 MICHAEL LANE PRESCHOOL 682 MICHAEL LANE LAFAYETTE 94549 17 OLD FIREHOUSE SCHOOL 984 MORAGA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 81 SEEDLINGS 49 KNOX DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 88 WHITE PONY, THE 999 LELAND DR. LAFAYETTE 94549 141 CHILDTIME CHILDREN'S CENTER 6635 ALHAMBRA AVENUE, STE. 300 MARTINEZ 94553 102 CREEKSIDE MONTESSORI 1333 ESTUDILLO MARTINEZ 94553 30 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL & CHILD CARE 5834 ALHAMBRA AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 81 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE CENTER 127 MIDHILL RD MARTINEZ 94553 78 HELPING HANDS CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 5050 HILLER LANE MARTINEZ 94553 30 KIDS AT WORK 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 35 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1285 MORELLO AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 60 Contra Costa County 58 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity MARTINEZ EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER, INC. 615 ARCH STREET MARTINEZ 94553 99 MORELLO HILLS CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 1000 MORELLO HILLS DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 35 SHINING STARS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE CENTER 244 MORELLO PARK DR. MARTINEZ 94553 24 ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA PRESCHOOL 1125 FERRY ST MARTINEZ 94553 42 SUNSHINE HOUSE CHILDREN'S CENTER - MARTINEZ 4950 PACHECO BOULEVARD MARTINEZ 94553 48 CREATIVE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 1350 MORAGA WAY MORAGA 94556 23 GROWING TREE PRESCHOOL 1695 CANYON ROAD MORAGA 94556 137 LAMORINDA MONTESSORI LLC 1450 MORAGA ROAD MORAGA 94556 70 MORAGA VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH NURTURY 10 MORAGA VALLEY LANE MORAGA 94556 150 MULBERRY TREE PRESCHOOL 1455 ST. MARY'S RD MORAGA 94556 50 SAKLAN VALLEY SCHOOL 1678 SCHOOL STREET MORAGA 94556 51 BRIGHT BEGINNINGS PRESCHOOL AND DAYCARE 132 O'HARA AVENUE OAKLEY 94561 39 CHILD'S PLACE PRESCHOOL & DAYCARE, A 3405 MAIN STREET OAKLEY 94561 29 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD START - LOS ARBOLES 240 LAS DUNAS OAKLEY 94561 24 KIDDIE ACADEMY 1620 NERLOY RD. OAKLEY 94561 114 OAKLEY PRESCHOOL 501 NORCROSS LANE-OAKLEY ELEM. OAKLEY 94561 50 OAKLEY PRESCHOOL - GEHRINGER SITE 100 SIMONI RANCH ROAD OAKLEY 94561 28 SUNSHINE HOUSE - OAKLEY 875 WEST CYPRESS ROAD OAKLEY 94561 58 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - FREEDOM CHILD CARE CENTER 1050 NEROLY ROAD OAKLEY 94561 60 FOUNTAINHEAD MONTESSORI SCHOOL ORINDA CAMPUS 30 SANTA MARIA WAY ORINDA 94563 129 HOLY SHEPHERD CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 433 MORAGA WAY ORINDA 94563 25 MONTESSORI IMPRESSIONS ACADEMY 20 ORINDA FIELDS LANE ORINDA 94563 30 SAINT JOHN PRESCHOOL 501 MORAGA WAY ORINDA 94563 48 SAINT MARK'S NURSERY SCHOOL 451 MORAGA WAY ORINDA 94563 45 SAINT STEPHEN'S PRESCHOOL 66 SAINT STEPHEN'S DRIVE ORINDA 94563 41 TOPS - THE ORINDA PRESCHOOL(PARENT COOP) 10 IRWIN WAY ORINDA 94563 75 DEUELS DAYCARE 2499 SIMAS AVE PINOLE 94564 20 LA CASITA BILINGUE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 592 TENNENT PINOLE 94564 45 ST. JOSEPH PRESCHOOL 1961 PLUM STREET PINOLE 94564 26 TULIP CHILD CARE LLC/PINOLE MONTESSORI 2612 APPIAN WAY PINOLE 94564 58 CONTRA COSTA CO. HEAD START - LAVONIA ALLEN CENTER 94 1/2 MEDANOS AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 48 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY-RIVERVIEW CENTER 227 PACIFICA AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 40 DIANNE ADAIR - DELTA VIEW PRESCHOOL 2916 RIO VERDE DRIVE PITTSBURGH 94565 10 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - KIDS CASTLE 55 CASTLEWOOD DRIVE PITTSBURG 94565 127 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - LIDO SQUARE 2131 CRESTVIEW LANE PITTSBURG 94565 20 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEADSTART - ODESSA 204 ODESSA AVE PITTSBURG 94565 20 FIRST BAPTIST HEAD START - EAST LELAND COURT CTR. 2555 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 36 KIDS FIRST ACADEMY 2430 WILLOW PASS RD., STE 111 BAY POINT 94565 38 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 150 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 94 LIGHT THE BAY PRESCHOOL 1210 STONEMAN AVENUE PITTSBURG 94565 116 LOS MEDANOS COLLEGE CHILD STUDY CENTER 2700 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 80 LYNN CENTER 300 EAST LELAND RD. PITTSBURG 94565 40 PITTSBURG USD - FOOTHILL STATE PRESCHOOL 1200 JENSEN DRIVE PITTSBURG 94565 24 PITTSBURG USD - LOS MEDANOS STATE PRESHOOL 610 CROWLEY AVE PITTSBURG 94565 24 PITTSBURG USD - MARINA VISTA PRESCHOOL 50 EAST 8TH ST PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - HEIGHTS PRESCHOOL 40 SEENO STREET PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - HIGHLANDS PRESCHOOL 4141 HARBOR ST PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - PARKSIDE PRESCHOOL 985 WEST 17TH STREET PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - STONEMAN PRESCHOOL 2929 LOVERIDGE RD PITTSBURG 94565 24 PUSD - WIILOW COVE PRESCHOOL 1880 HANLON WAY PITTSBURG 94565 24 RAILROAD JUNCTION SCHOOL 2224 RAILROAD AVENUE PITTSBURG 94565 59 ST. PETER MARTYR SCHOOL 425 WEST 4TH STREET PITTSBURG 94565 24 SUNNYBROOK LEARNING CENTER 3255 WILLOW PASS ROAD BAY POINT 94565 53 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - BAY POINT 225 PACIFICA AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 71 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - DELTA YOUTH 605 PACIFICA AVENUE BAY POINT 94565 60 LITTLE HEARTS LEARNING CENTER DBA SAFARI KID 2500 POSITANO PARKWAY DUBLIN 94568 200 A LITTLE WORLD MONTESSORI ACADEMY 355 PARKER AVE RODEO 94572 34 CONTRA COSTA CO. COMM. SVCS. - BAYO VISTA 2 CALIFORNIA STREET RODEO 94572 42 ST. PATRICK PRESCHOOL 907 SEVENTH STREET RODEO 94572 45 Contra Costa County 59 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RODEO CDC 200 LAKE AVENUE RODEO 94572 64 ACORN LEARNING CENTER OF DOUGHERTY VALLEY 17025 BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON 94582 167 BRAIN CHAMPS MONTESSORI 21001 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94582 21 GODDARD SCHOOL, THE 100 GATEKEEPER RD SAN RAMON 94582 108 GRACIE'S PLACE PRESCHOOL 17011 BOLLINGER CANYON PL SAN RAMON 94582 13 LITTLE BRIDGES CHILD CARE CENTER 9015 SOUTH GALE RIDGE ROAD SAN RAMON 94582 86 SAFARI KID - LITTLE HEARTS 500 BOLLINGER CANYON WAY #A10 SAN RAMON 94582 30 SRVUSD EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PP - LIVE OAK 5151 SHERWOOD WAY SAN RAMON 94582 24 YMCA CHILDCARE- GALE RANCH PRESCHOOL 2200 BROOKCLIFF CIRCLE SAN RAMON 94582 74 ACORN LEARNING CENTER OF SAN RAMON 5075 CROW CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 151 BRIGHT HORIZONS AT BISHOP RANCH 2603 CAMINO RAMON, STE. 150 SAN RAMON 94583 144 BUILDING KIDZ OF SAN RAMON 210 PORTER AVENUE, SUITE 110 SAN RAMON 94583 84 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - SAN RAMON 18868 BOLLINGER CANYON RD SAN RAMON 94583 95 DIABLO HILLS COUNTRY SCHOOL 50 CREEKSIDE DRIVE SAN RAMON 94583 60 GENIUS KIDS SAN RAMON 2021 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94583 40 GROWING ROOM EDUCATION COUNCIL, THE 2340 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON 94583 22 HAPPY DAYS PRE-SCHOOL/DAY CARE 20801 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94583 40 LA PETITE ACADEMY SAN RAMON 1001 MARKET PLACE SAN RAMON 94583 105 PANACHE ENFANTS 2410 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD#100 SAN RAMON 94583 60 PEACE FLOWER MONTESSORI 2120 OMEGA ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 28 REDWOODS INTERNATIONALE MONTESSORI, THE 2400 OLD CROW CANYON RD SAN RAMON 94583 60 SRVUSD EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PP - WALT DISNEY 3250 PINE VALLEY ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 24 STEPPING STONES LEARNING CENTER II 2691 CROW CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON 94583 55 DIANNE ADAIR DAY CARE 1847 NEWEL AVE. WALNUT CREEK 94595 30 GRACE COOPERATIVE PRE-SCHOOL 2100 TICE VALLEY BLVD WALNUT CREEK 94595 24 LITTLE GENIUS ACADEMY 2151 OLYMPIC BLVD. WALNUT CREEK 94595 117 PIED PIPER CO-OP PRE-SCHOOL 2263 WHYTE PARK AVE. WALNUT CREEK 94595 24 CONTRA COSTA CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 2721 LARKEY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 40 GAN B'NAI SHALOM AT CONGREGATION B'NAI SHALOM 74 ECKLEY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 65 GAN YILADIM PRESCHOOL 1671 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94596 22 KID TIME, INC 2491 SAN MIGUEL DR. WALNUT CREEK 94596 45 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2850 CHERRY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 53 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2521 WALNUT BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK 94596 53 LOVE AND CARE LEARNING CENTER 1985 GEARY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94596 60 OLD FIREHOUSE SCHOOL WALNUT CREEK 55 ECKLEY LANE WALNUT CREET 94596 45 WALNUT CREEK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PRESCHOOL 1801 LACASSIE AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94596 94 ALICE'S MONTESSORI LEARNING CENTER - WALNUT CREEK 3158 PUTNAM BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK 94597 45 CRAWLERS 2 SCHOLARS-WALNUT CREEK 1338 LAS JUNTAS WAY WALNUT CREEK 94597 82 GARDEN GATE MONTESSORI SCHOOL 63 SANDY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94597 20 KID TIME, INC 200 MAYHEW WAY WALNUT CREEK 94597 80 KIDS SPEAKING SPANISH PRESCHOOL 2780 CAMINO DIABLO WALNUT CREEK 94597 72 NEW WORLD CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WALNUT CREEK 1919 GEARY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94597 49 SAYBROOK LEARNING CENTER 1355 WALDEN ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94597 70 TRINITY LUTHERAN PRESCHOOL 2317 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94597 48 WALNUT CREEK CHRISTIAN ACADEMY 2336 BUENA VISTA AVE WALNUT CREEK 94597 75 BANCROFT PRE-K 2200 PARISH DR. WALNUT CREEK 94598 46 KLA SCHOOLS OF WALNUT CREEK 298 N. WIGET LANE WALNUT CREEK 94598 170 LITTLE FLOWERS MONTESSORI - MITCHELL 2875 MITCHELL DR WALNUT CREEK 94598 144 NORTHCREEK PRESCHOOL 2303 A YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94598 119 SAFARI KID - WALNUT CREEK 2074 TREAT BLVD. WALNUT CREEK 94598 84 SAFARI KID-WALNUT CREEK 2210 OAK GROVE RD WALNUT CREEK 94598 75 SEVEN HILLS SCHOOL, THE 975 NORTH SAN CARLOS DRIVE WALNUT CREEK 94598 64 SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL 2780 MITCHELL DRIVE WALNUT CREEK 94598 226 CLAREMONT DAY NURSERIES, INC 1550 OAKVIEW AVE KENSINGTON 94707 65 GOOD EARTH SCHOOL, THE 1 LAWSON ROAD KENSINGTON 94707 53 GROWING LIGHT MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF KENSINGTON 52 ARLINGTON AVE. KENSINGTON 94707 68 KENSINGTON NURSERY SCHOOL 52 ARLINGTON AVENUE KENSINGTON 94707 38 PINE CREST SCHOOL 1 LAWSON RD. KENSINGTON 94707 48 NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL AT KENSINGTON ELEMENTARY 90 HIGHLAND BLVD, PORTABLE 2 KENSINGTON 94708 30 Contra Costa County 60 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Day Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity BRENDA'S KIDZ KARE 227 17TH STREET RICHMOND 94801 31 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD DEV. CENTER - VERDE 2000 GIARAMITA AVENUE RICHMOND 94801 40 ICRI/EL NUEVO MUNDO CHILDRENS CENTER 1707 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. RICHMOND 94801 97 LA PETITE ACADEMY/MAGIC YEARS 1221 NEVIN AVE. SUITE 200 RICHMOND 94801 48 WCCUSD - CHAVEZ SCHOOL 960 - 17TH STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - CORONADO STATE PRESCHOOL 2100 MAINE AVE. RM. K102 RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - LINCOLN 29 SIXTH STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - NYSTROM 230 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - PERES 719 FIFTH STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 WCCUSD - WASHINGTON SCHOOL 565 WINE STREET RICHMOND 94801 24 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - 8TH STREET CDC 445 8TH STREET RICHMOND 94801 82 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RICHMOND CDC 485 LUCAS AVENUE RICHMOND 94801 69 BRIGHT FUTURES GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER 1060 MANOR BLVD EL SOBRANTE 94803 45 EAST BAY WALDORF SCHOOL 3800 CLARK RD. EL SOBRANTE 94803 35 HOPE CHILDCARE CENTER & PRESCHOOL 2830 MAY ROAD EL SOBRANTE 94803 80 KIDS CORNER LEARNING CENTER 716 APPIAN WAY EL SOBRANTE 94803 82 PATTY'S MONTESSORI SCHOOL 801 PARK CENTRAL ST RICHMOND 94803 45 SMALL WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. 4555 HILLTOP DRIVE RICHMOND 94803 75 STEP BY STEP PRESCHOOL, INC. 3500 EL PORTAL DR. RICHMOND 94803 38 SUNSHINE PLAYSCHOOL 5151 ARGYLE RD. EL SOBRANTE 94803 24 WCCUSD MARIE MURPHY STATE PRESCHOOL 4350 VALLEY VIEW ROAD RICHMOND 94803 24 CONTRA COSTA CO. CSD - GEORGE MILLER IIICH.CENTER 300 S. 27TH STREET RICHMOND 94804 200 CONTRA COSTA CO. HEAD START - BALBOA CDC 1001 S. 57TH STREET RICHMOND 94804 140 EARLY CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM - 200 - 24TH STREET RICHMOND 94804 15 NOMURA PRESCHOOL 5511 BURLINGAME AVE. RICHMOND 94804 90 NOMURA SCHOOL (THE) 1711 CARLSON BOULEVARD RICHMOND 94804 125 RICHMOND COLLEGE PREP PRESCHOOL 217 SOUTH 11TH ST. RICHMOND 94804 24 W.C.C.U.S.D. - GRANT SCHOOL 2400 DOWNER AVENUE RICHMOND 94804 24 WCCUSD - MARTIN LUTHER KING STATE PRESCHOOL 4022 FLORIDA AVE RM 114 RICHMOND 94804 24 WCCUSD STATE PRESCHOOL - FORD 2711 MARICOPA AVENUE RICHMOND 94804 24 YWCA OF CONTRA COSTA - RICHMOND CHILDREN'S CENTER 3230 MACDONALD AVENUE RICHMOND 94804 59 A LITTLE WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL 324 37TH ST RICHMOND 94805 49 ADVENTURE KINDERLAND AKADEMY 12411 SAN PABLO AVENUE RICHMOND 94805 35 EARLY CHILDHD ED. SRVCS.DBA CURIOUS EXPLORERS ACAD 4121 MACDONALD AVE RICHMOND 94805 10 SKYTOWN PRESCHOOL 5714 SOLANO AVENUE RICHMOND 94805 36 ST. DAVID'S SCHOOL PRE-KINDERGARTEN 5613 GARVIN AVENUE RICHMOND 94805 36 CONTRA COSTA COLLEGE - EARLY CHILDHOOD LAB SCHOOL 2600 MISSION BELL DRIVE SAN PABLO 94806 75 HAPPY LION DAY CARE CENTER 2929 CASTRO ROAD SAN PABLO 94806 29 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER, #1367 3240 SAN PABLO DAM ROAD SAN PABLO 94806 72 LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. 3891 LAKESIDE DRIVE RICHMOND 94806 109 SONJA'S PRESCHOOL AND CHILDCARE CENTER 2300 EL PORTAL DR STE A SAN PABLO 94806 47 ST. PAUL PRESCHOOL 1825 CHURCH LANE SAN PABLO 94806 21 SUPREME KIDS ACADEMY 3065 RICHMOND PARKWAY RICHMOND 94806 48 W.C.C.U.S.D. - RIVERSIDE SCHOOL 1300 AMADOR ST., ROOM 6 SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - BAYVIEW 3001 16TH STREET, ROOM M4 SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - DOVER 1871 21ST STREET SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - DOWNER PRESCHOOL 1231 18TH STREET, ROOM 126 SAN PABLO 94806 24 WCCUSD - MONTALVIN C/O PRESCHOOL DEPARTMENT 300 CHRISTINE DRIVE SAN PABLO 94806 24 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - GIANT ROAD CDC 919 LAKE STREET SAN PABLO 94806 36 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData Table 48 – Licensed Infant Care Facilities and Capacity by Zip Code, July 2020 Infant Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HEAD START - FAIRGROUNDS 1203 W. 10TH ANTIOCH 94509 20 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4108 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94509 30 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2300 MAHOGANY WAY ANTIOCH 94509 36 LA PETITE ACADEMY 1350 EAST TREGALLAS RD ANTIOCH 94509 12 BABY YALE ACADEMY 5521 LONE TREE WAY BRENTWOOD 94513 66 BABY YALE ACADEMY-HARVEST PARK 605 HARVEST PARK, STE A BRENTWOOD 94513 24 Contra Costa County 61 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Infant Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity GENIUS KIDS - BRENTWOOD 1265 DAINTY AVE BRENTWOOD 94513 28 KIDDIE ACADEMY 8680 BRENTWOOD BLVD. BRENTWOOD 94513 24 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 2321 EAGLE ROCK AVE. BRENTWOOD 94513 32 STAY AND PLAY PRESCHOOL 771 GRIFFITH LANE BRENTWOOD 94513 5 WEE CARE CENTER 1275 FAIRVIEW AVENUE BRENTWOOD 94513 12 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 6095 MAIN STREET CLAYTON 94517 28 LA PETITE ACADEMY, INC. 4304 COWELL ROAD CONCORD 94518 20 MY SECOND HOME 1011 OAK GROVE RD. CONCORD 94518 24 SUPER KIDZ CLUB 2140 MINERT RD CONCORD 94518 9 CALVARY CHRISTIAN PRESCHOOL 3425 CONCORD BLVD CONCORD 94519 6 FIRST LUTHERAN PRESCHOOL 4006 CONCORD BLVD CONCORD 94519 6 JOYFUL KIDS ACADEMY LLC DBA PARKSIDE JOYFUL KIDS 2898 CONCORD BLVD. CONCORD 94519 20 CONCORD CHILD CARE CENTER-INFANTS 1360 B DETROIT AVENUE CONCORD 94520 32 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CSB GEORGE MILLER CENTER 3068 GRANT ST CONCORD 94520 52 GEORGE MILLER CENTER - CONCORD 3020 GRANT STREET CONCORD 94520 74 BUILDING KIDZ SCHOOL 5100 CLAYTON RD, F36 CONCORD 94521 27 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1551 BAILEY ROAD CONCORD 94521 32 A SMALL WORLD INFANT & TODDLER CENTER 1641 OAK PARK BLVD. PLEASANT HILL 94523 51 ALICE'S MONTESSORI LEARNING CENTERS 1041 HOOK AVE. PLEASANT HILL 94523 24 DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL CHILDREN'S CTR 321 GOLF CLUB ROAD PLEASANT HILL 94523 20 KIDZ-PLANET, INC 2245 MORELLO AVE SUITE C PLEASANT HILL 94523 70 WHERE THE WILD THINGS PLAY PRESCHOOL 2551 PLEASANT HILL RD PLEASANT HILL 94523 12 A NEW WORLD OF MONTESSORI 101 SONORA AVENUE DANVILLE 94526 24 LARSON'S INFANT CENTER 940 DIABLO ROAD DANVILLE 94526 14 PLACE TO PLAY & GROW, A 909 CAMINO RAMON DANVILLE 94526 26 SYCAMORE VALLEY DAY SCHOOL 1500 SHERBURNE HILLS ROAD DANVILLE 94526 8 PRIDE AND JOY PRE-SCHOOL 1226 LIBERTY STREET EL CERRITO 94530 28 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 4308 FOLSOM DRIVE ANTIOCH 94531 20 LEARNING EXPERIENCE, THE 4831 LONE TREE WAY ANTIOCH 94531 32 DIABLO VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. #2 3408 DEERHILL ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 40 FIRST STEPS LEARNING CENTER 3201 STANLEY BOULEVARD LAFAYETTE 94549 32 OLD FIREHOUSE SCHOOL 984 MORAGA ROAD LAFAYETTE 94549 8 SEEDLINGS 49 KNOX DRIVE LAFAYETTE 94549 16 CHILDTIME CHILDREN'S CENTER 6635 ALHAMBRA AVENUE, STE. 300 MARTINEZ 94553 28 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE 5834 ALHAMBRA AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 16 FOREST HILLS PRESCHOOL AND CHILD CARE CENTER 127 MIDHILL RD MARTINEZ 94553 12 KIDS AT WORK 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ 94553 15 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 1285 MORELLO AVENUE MARTINEZ 94553 16 MARTINEZ EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER, INC. 615 ARCH STREET MARTINEZ 94553 28 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - MORAGA 372 PARK STREET MORAGA 94556 10 CREATIVE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL 1350 MORAGA WAY MORAGA 94556 14 LAMORINDA MONTESSORI LLC 1450 MORAGA RD. MORAGA 94556 12 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD START - LOS ARBOLES 240 LAS DUNAS OAKLEY 94561 16 KIDDIE ACADEMY 1620 NERLOY RD. OAKLEY 94561 48 CONTRA COSTA CO. COMM. SVCS.- AMBROSE 3103 WILLOW PASS RD BAY POINT 94565 22 FIRST BAPTIST HEAD START - EAST LELAND COURT CTR 2555 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 8 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER 150 EAST LELAND ROAD PITTSBURG 94565 36 LIL' GENIUS KID, THE 33 AMBROSE AVE BAY POINT 94565 30 LOS MEDANOS COLLEGE CHILD STUDY CENTER 2700 EAST LELAND RD. PITTSBURG 94565 16 CONTRA COSTA CO. COMM. SVCS. - BAYO VISTA 2 CALIFORNIA STREET RODEO 94572 12 ST. PATRICK INFANT CENTER 907 SEVENTH STREET RODEO 94572 30 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RODEO CDC 200 LAKE AVE RODEO 94572 13 GODDARD SCHOOL, THE 100 GATEKEEPER RD SAN RAMON 94582 53 LITTLE BRIDGES CHILD CARE CENTER 9015 SOUTH GALE RIDGE ROAD SAN RAMON 94582 24 BRIGHT HORIZONS AT BISHOP RANCH 2603 CAMINO RAMON, STE. 150 SAN RAMON 94583 60 CHILD DAY SCHOOL, LLC - SAN RAMON 18868 BOLLINGER CANYON RD SAN RAMON 94583 9 GENIUS KIDS SAN RAMON 2021 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD. SAN RAMON 94583 27 LA PETITE ACADEMY SAN RAMON - INFANT 1001 MARKET PLACE SAN RAMON 94583 28 PANACHE ENFANTS 2410 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD#100 SAN RAMON 94583 12 Contra Costa County 62 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Infant Care Facility Name Address City Zip Capacity REDWOODS INTERNATIONAL MONTESSORI, THE 2400 OLD CROW CANYON ROAD #A4 SAN RAMON 94583 12 STEPPING STONES LEARNING CENTER II 2691 CROW CANYON RD. SAN RAMON 94583 7 GAN YILADIM PRESCHOOL 1671 NEWELL AVENUE WALNUT CREEK 94595 9 LITTLE GENIUS ACADEMY 2151 OLYMPIC BLVD. WALNUT CREEK 94595 30 GAN B'NAI SHALOM AT CONGREGATION B'NAI SHALOM 74 ECKLEY LANE WALNUT CREEK 94596 10 LOVE AND CARE LEARNING CENTER 1985 GEARY ROAD WALNUT CREEK 94596 37 CRAWLERS 2 SCHOLARS-WALNUT CREEK 1338 LAS JUNTAS WAY WALNUT CREEK 94597 8 KLA SCHOOLS OF WALNUT CREEK 298 N. WIGET LANE WALNUT CREEK 94598 60 CONTRA COSTA CO. CHILD DEV. CENTER - LAS DELTAS 135 WEST GROVE RICHMOND 94801 14 LA PETITE ACADEMY/MAGIC YEARS 1221 NEVIN AVE. SUITE 200 RICHMOND 94801 36 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - 8TH STREET CDC 445 8TH STREET CDC RICHMOND 94801 36 YMCA OF THE EAST BAY - RICHMOND CDC 485 LUCAS AVENUE RICHMOND 94801 32 HOPE CHILDCARE CENTER & PRESCHOOL 2830 MAY ROAD EL SOBRANTE 94803 29 KIDS CORNER LEARNING CENTER 716 APPIAN WAY EL SOBRANTE 94803 26 SMALL WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. 4555 HILLTOP DR. RICHMOND 94803 19 CONTRA COSTA CO. HEAD START - BALBOA CDC 1001 - SOUTH 57TH ST RICHMOND 94804 38 CONTRA COSTA CO CSD INFANT @ CO CO COLLEGE 2600 MISSION BELL DRIVE SAN PABLO 94806 28 GEORGE MILLER CENTER - RICHMOND 2801 ROBERT MILLER DRIVE RICHMOND 94806 40 KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER, #1367 3240 SAN PABLO DAM ROAD SAN PABLO 94806 33 LA PETITE ACADEMY 3891 LAKESIDE DRIVE RICHMOND 94806 24 SONJA'S PRESCHOOL AND CHILDCARE CENTER 2300 EL PORTAL DR STE A SAN PABLO 94806 28 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData Table 49 – Number of Child Care Slots in Licensed Family Homes by City, July 2020 Location January 2-20 July 2020 Change in Slots % Change Number of Homes Capacity Number of Homes Capacity ALAMO 2 26 2 26 0 0.0 ANTIOCH 70 974 48 670 -304 -31.2 BAY POINT 6 84 6 84 0 0.0 BETHEL ISLAND 1 14 1 14 0 0.0 BRENTWOOD 36 500 25 348 -152 -30.4 CLAYTON 4 56 3 42 -14 -25.0 CONCORD 65 898 41 570 -328 -36.5 DANVILLE 6 82 5 70 -12 -14.6 DISCOVERY BAY 6 84 3 42 -42 -50.0 EL CERRITO 34 466 25 346 -120 -25.8 EL SOBRANTE 14 196 9 126 -70 -35.7 HERCULES 24 334 16 222 -112 -33.5 LAFAYETTE 7 98 5 70 -28 -28.6 MARTINEZ 10 138 6 84 -54 -39.1 OAKLEY 33 456 18 250 -206 -45.2 ORINDA 3 40 2 26 -14 -35.0 PACHECO 4 56 3 42 -14 -25.0 PINOLE 11 150 6 82 -68 -45.3 PITTSBURG 30 420 27 378 -42 -10.0 PLEASANT HILL 28 366 16 208 -158 -43.2 RICHMOND 74 1,016 57 790 -226 -22.2 RODEO 5 68 3 42 -26 -38.2 SAN PABLO 13 178 9 124 -54 -30.3 SAN RAMON 62 862 42 588 -274 -31.8 WALNUT CREEK 31 420 20 272 -148 -35.2 Total 579 7,982 398 5,516 -2466 -30.9 Source: https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch/DownloadData As of July 2020, Contra Costa has 398 licensed or license -pending family homes that serve at least 9 children with a total capacity of 5,516 day care slots. This represents a dramatic 45.5% drop of 181 family homes and a 30.9% drop of 2,466 day care slots in family homes since the COVID -19 outbreak in early February 2020. Contra Costa County 63 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Cities with the largest decline in capacity include Antioch (down 304), Concord (down 328), Oakley (down 206), Richmond (down 226) and San Ramon (down 274). Additionally, many smaller comm unities also saw sizable capacity declines, such as Discovery Bay (down 50.0%), Martinez (down 39.1%), Pinole (down 45.3%), Pleasant Hill (down 43.2%) and Rodeo (down 38.2%). Although the CCCLD does not publish the reason for any particular closure, the ti ming and volume of these closures strongly suggest they are COVID - related. Note that licensed or license -pending family homes with the capacity to serve fewer than 9 children are excluded from this analysis because these data are not released publicly; however, it is reasonable to assume that COVID -related closures extend to homes serving less than 9 children as well . AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE According to the 2019 California Child Care Resource and Re ferral Network, California ranked as the third least affordable state for child care, with the average cost of infant care exceed ing the average tuition at a four-year public university.20 The October 2019 California Preschool Development Grant Birth Through Fi ve Program Needs Assessment put California last in the nation for the affordability of infant care. Gaps between need and ability to pay for quality child care particularly plague s low income families and communities , but the rising cost of childcare represents a critical barrier to access even for middle class families earning the county’s 2019 family median of $119,911. In 2019, full -time care for infants costed $12,543 in family homes and $19,460 in centers annually, representing a 10.1% ($1,149) increase for family home care and a 10.0% ($1,770) increa se for center care since 2017. The average cost for f ull time preschool care in family homes ($11,957) similarly rose 9.9%, while the cost f or full time preschool care in centers ($14,284) rose 13.5%. Table 50 – Child Care Costs by Age and Licensed Facility Type 2017 2019 CENTERS FAMILY HOMES CENTERS FAMILY HOMES Full-time Infant Care $17,690 $11,394 $19,460 $12,543 Full-time Preschool Care $12,589 $10,880 $14,284 $11,957 Source: 2019 CA Child Care Portfolio, CA Child Care Resource & Referral Network; https://www.rrnetwork.org/2017_portfolio. Note that the portfolios are released biennially. Although public data that reflects the rapidly changing circumstances of the child care industry is not yet available for 2020, many COVID -related conditions directly impact child care supply and demand, a core equation in determining cost. According to a May 2020 Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (CSCCE) study of California child care programs, 77% of open programs have experienced loss of income, 99% of open centers have reduced enrollment, 78% of open FCC programs have reduced enrollment, 80% have increased cleaning and sanitation costs, 66% have made operational changes to meet new safety requirements, and many providers who have been funding the new requirements themselves say their situation is unsustainable. This suggests the cost of care could well spike in the coming months.21 EDUCATIONAL IMPACTS AND RESPONSE Enrollment Public school enrollment in Contra Costa County had grown steadily and gradually from 168,228 students in 2010-11 to 178,411 in 2019 -20 just before the outbreak, which was up slightly from 177,942 in the prior year. Compared to the county as a whole, districts that experienced more significant 1-year increases include Brentwood (up 109 students or 1.2%), Contra Costa County Office of Education (up 259 or 4.7%), SBE Synergy Rocketship Futuro Academy (up 109 or 25.7%) and West Contra Costa Unified (up 383 students or 1.2%). In contrast, districts that experienced significant declines include John Swett Unified (down 17 students or 1.2%), Knightsen Elementary (down 27 or 4.3%), Lafayette Elementary (down 39 or 1.1%), Oakley Union Elementary (down 73 or 1.4%) and San Ramon Valley Unified (down 227 students or 0.7%). 20 https://rrnetwork.org/assets/general-files/Child-Care-Costs-2019.pdf 21 https://cscce.berkeley.edu/california-child-care-in-crisis-covid-19/ Contra Costa County 64 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Contra Costa school districts with the highest enrollment include West Contra Costa (32,143) San Ramon Valley (31,91 1), Mt. Diablo Unified (31,037), Antioch Unified (17,167) and Pittsburg Unified (11,367). The combined enrollment of these 5 largest districts accounts for over two -thirds (69.3%) of the county’s entire enrollment. About 30.7% of California residents age 3 and over and 26.8% (79,385) of all Contra Costa residents 3 and over (295,894) attended undergraduate or graduate college or professional school in 2018. Countywide, 22.5% (66,545) of residents age 3 and over attended undergraduate college and 4.3% (12,840) attend ed graduate or professional school. Of Contra Costa County’s 79,385 residents in college in 2018, 35,721 (45.0%) were male and 43,664 (55.0%) were female. Table 51 – Contra Costa County Public School Enrollment, 2012–2020 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 169,377 171,418 173,020 174,802 176,437 177,370 178,060 177,942 178,411 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Table 52 – Enrollment in Contra Costa County by School District, 2019 – 2020 District 2018-19 2019-20 1-Year Change in Enrollment % Change Countywide 177,942 178,411 469 0.3 Acalanes Union High 5,683 5,635 -48 -0.8 Antioch Unified 17,183 17,167 -16 -0.1 Brentwood Union Elementary 9,181 9,290 109 1.2 Byron Union Elementary 2,277 2,274 -3 -0.1 Canyon Elementary 68 69 1 1.5 Contra Costa Office of Ed 5,530 5,789 259 4.7 John Swett Unified 1,439 1,422 -17 -1.2 Knightsen Elementary 632 605 -27 -4.3 Lafayette Elementary 3,576 3,537 -39 -1.1 Liberty Union High 8,320 8,304 -16 -0.2 Martinez Unified 4,164 4,156 -8 -0.2 Moraga Elementary 1,851 1,855 4 0.2 Mt. Diablo Unified 31,013 31,037 24 0.1 Oakley Union Elementary 5,267 5,194 -73 -1.4 Orinda Union Elementary 2,546 2,568 22 0.9 Pittsburg Unified 11,345 11,367 22 0.2 San Ramon Valley Unified 32,138 31,911 -227 -0.7 SBE – Synergy, Rocketship Futuro Academy 424 533 109 25.7 Walnut Creek Elementary 3,545 3,555 10 0.3 West Contra Costa Unified 31,760 32,143 383 1.2 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Although COVID -19 forced the closure of most California schools, beginning in early March , the governor issued a series of executive orders assuring LEAs would continue to receive state funding despite the physical closures and guiding school districts to safely and collaboratively arrange for student supervision during regular school hours. In July 2020, 76.0% of California and 86.9% (490,034) of Bay Area adults with children in public or private schools report instruction had been moved online. In April 2020, parents whose children received online instruction spent 12.2 hours per week on teaching activities with their children in the s tate overall, compared to 14.0 hours among Bay Area parents. Notably by July 2020, the time parents spent on teaching activities with children receiving online instruction fell to just 4.8 hours per week in the state and 5.7 hours in the Bay Area. Classes were eventually cancelled for 46.6% of California and 38.2% (215,678) of Bay Area adults in households with children attending school. In April 2020, California parents spent 11.0 hours per week on teaching activities with children whose classes had been c ancelled, compared to 11.3 hours among Bay Area parents. Notably by July 2020, California parents whose children faced cancelled classes spent just 6.0 hours per week on teaching activities with their children, while Bay Area parents spent just 4.3 Contra Costa County 65 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION hours p er week. In July 2020, only 18,712 (0.3%) California and 1,423 (0.3%) Bay Area adults in households with school children report no change to instruction because their schools did not close.22 In preparation for the 2020 -21 school year, the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) and Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) have collaborated with school districts to develop individualized plans and procedures to safely and effectively reopen each school. Guidelines that consider the best available COVID-19 public health information and the needs of students, families and staff have been released to inform each schools’ decision about how to prepare and when to reopen. However, w hile Contra Costa remains on the CA Department of Public Health watch list of counties with worsening coronavirus trends, local authorities have indicated they will not pursue waivers to reopen schools , but will let them open only after the county meets state criteria. Meanwhile, as parents learn to deal with this new normal and take advantage of new opportunities to work from home, educators may need to prepare for an eventual increase in homeschooling and a reduction in college campus attendance. Some college students are al ready asking whether their tuitions should be discounted in consideration of the lower costs of distance learning. One key to reopening will be strategies to maintain physical distancing, such as schedules that combine distance and on -campus instruction, smaller class sizes , and staggered, partial or reduced attendance weeks or hours. The success of many social distancing strategies will depend on ensuring students have equitable access to computing device s and the internet. According to U.S. Census Household Pulse data in mid-July, 7.2% of California and 1.9% (10,592) of Bay Area adults in households with school children rarely or never have access to a device that can be used for instruction . For California parents, this barrier is considerably more pronounced among Hispanics (11.1%), Blacks (15.0%), those with less than a high school diploma (18.4%) and those with household incomes below $25,000 (12.6%). For Bay Area parents, this disparity is more pronounced among Hispanics (8.7% or 10,043 p arents), those with less than a high school diploma (21.1% or 7,805 parents) and those with household incomes below $35,000 (9.6% or 2,401 parents). Note that reliable estimates for computer access among African American parents in the Bay Area are not available. Estimates from the July 2020 U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey also indicate that 1.9% of California and 0.2% (926) of Bay Area adults in households with school children rarely or never have access to the internet for instruction. For California p arents, this disparity is more pronounced among Hispanics (3.2%), Blacks (2.7%), those with less than a high school diploma (3.5%), those whose schools provide their internet access (4.2%) and those with household incomes below $50,000 (3.5%). In the Bay Area, lack of internet access is most problematic among Hispanics (0.3%), single female -headed households (0.3%) and those with less than some college or an AA degree (0.4%). However, small sample sizes in the Bay Area make sub -group estimates re garding internet barriers unstable. The U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey also shows that by July 2020, many schools have resolved these equity issues by providing computing devices and internet access to their students. An estimated 43.9% of California p arents and 25.9 % (146,174) of Bay Area parents with kids in public or private school currently have a computer or digital device provided by their child’s school. California parents most likely to have a device provided by their child’s school include Hispanics (61.3%), African Americans (46.6%), those with less than a high school diploma (66.7%) and those with household incomes below $50,000 (59.8%). In the Bay Area, 46.8% (53,795) of Hispanic parents are among those most likely to have a device provi ded by their child’s school, but proportions are also surprisingly high among parents with a Bachelor’s degree (34.4% or 92,376 parents ) and those who earn between $35,000 and $100,000 (51.9% or 66,362 parents ). By July 2020, about 4.8% of all California p arents report their child’s internet access is supplied by their school, with higher proportions among Hispanic parents (9.1%), those with less than a high school diploma (15.4%) and those with household incomes below $25,000 (13.8%). An estimated 0.1% (350) of all Bay Area parents report their child’s internet access is supplied by their school, but small sample sizes make sub -group estimates regarding internet barriers unstable. 22 https://www.census.gov/householdpulsedata Contra Costa County 66 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Other Student Groups The most recent transitional kindergarten (TK) enroll ment data available from the CDE is for the 2018-19 school year which indicated that TK cumulative enrollment in Contra Costa schools fell by 17 students (down 0.7%) from 2,586 in 2017-18 to 2,5 69. In contrast, California saw a 1 -year 1.8% rise in enrollment. Districts in Contra Costa with the highest TK pa rticipation include the same 5 districts as in prior year s, led by West Contra Costa Unified (490) and followed by San Ramon Valley Unified (487), Mt. Diablo Unified (403), Antioch Unified (285 ) and Brentwood Union Elementary (212). The proportion of TK students who are EL is much higher than average (22.4%) in John Swett (40.0%), Pittsburg (31.8%) and West Contra Costa (39.2%) USDs. The proportion of SD students is much higher than average (37.1%) in the Antioch (64.2%), Pittsburg (66.5%), West Contra Costa (71.8%) and SBE Rocketship Futuro Academy (78.6%) USDs. The most recent special education enrollment data from the CDE is for the 2018 -19 school year in which 21,922 students of all ages required special education services in Contra Costa, up 2.8% or 600 students since 2017-18. Students receiving special education in the county now represents 12.3% of total enrollment. Since 2011, special education enrollment in the county has grown by 4,645 students or 26.9%. Among special education students of all ages, the most common disability type is learning disability, which impacts a minimum of 8,829 s tudents in 2018 -19. The second most common condition is speech or language impairment, which impacts a minimum of 4,684 students. Autism is the third most common condition impacting a minimum of 3,167 students. All three conditions appear to have increased since 2017 -18. In 2018-19, a minimum of 2,511 county children age 0-5 have a disability requiring special education, up about 8.8% or 204 students from 2,307 in 2017 -18, noting that CDE public data release rules prohibit the calculation of exact totals. Table 53 – Public School Special Education Enrollment in Contra Costa, 2011-2019 2011 2013 2015 2017 2018 2019 Number of Students 17,277 17,498 20,043 20,880 21,322 21,922 Percent of Enrollment 10.3 10.2 11.5 11.8 12.0 12.3 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Critically, t he COVID-forced curtailment of in -person instruction presents additional challenges for special education studen ts and their parents. For these families, distance learning options may not remedy issues unique to special needs children such as delays in assessments; limited access to occupational, physical or speech therapists ; reductions in essential student -teacher interactions; lack of suitable structured settings , appropriate materials or specialized equipment ; and parents’ lack of time or competence to deliver special education services. In light of these challenges, parents and educational experts raise concerns about missing critical developmental windows, y et many students with disabilities also have underlying health or medical conditions that could make returning to in -person attendance especially risky for them. Based on the latest data available, Contra Costa schools enrolled 976 matched foster students in 2018 -19, which is down 12.2% from 1,112 in 2017 -18. However, in the 2018 -19 school year, 79 (8.1%) foster students are kindergarteners, which is a 2.6% increas e from 77 (6.9%) in the prior year. As in 2017 -18, Antioch (296), West Contra Costa (223) and Mt. Diablo (190) Unified districts have largest number of foster students of all ages. West Contra Costa Unified (22), Antioch Unified (20) and Mt. Diablo Unified (17) all continue as the districts with the largest share of foster kindergarteners. Table 54 – Contra Costa County Foster Students, 2018-19 District Kindergarten Grade 1-6 Grade 7-12 Total County Total (unduplicated) 79 354 543 976 Statewide (unduplicated) 4,479 20,269 22,062 46,810 Source: California Department of Education (CDE), Data & Statistics; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ Contra Costa County 67 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION As of July 2019, the county’s point -in-time rate of children in foster care at 3.2 per 1,000 children age 0 -17 is notably improved from the prior year, while the state’s rate remained stable at 5.6 per 1,000 children. The county has a total of 809 children in the foster care system, including 67 in group homes and 202 with relatives. The total in care is down 16.0% or 154 since 2018 , but children age 0 -5 continue to represent a relatively high proportion of all Contra Costa children in care (34.9% or 282 children). The county has 71 (8.8%) infants, 105 (13.0%) 1 -2 year olds and 106 (13.1%) 3 -5 year olds in foster care as of July 2019. Children age 0 -5 represent 54.5% (181) of all first entries in the county, compared to 56.5% in the state. In the county, infants comprise 30.1% (100) of all first entries, 1 -2 year olds comprise 10.5% (35) and 3 -5 year olds comprise 13.9% (46) of first entries. Entry rates among infants (7.7 per 1,000) remain notably higher than other age group s, but rates among all age groups have trended down since 2015. The 2019 rate of first entry in t he county continues to be highest among African American s (5.9 per 1,000); however, this rate fell sharply from 7.6 per 1,000 in 2018. The rate of first entry among all other major racial and ethnic groups also fell since 2018, with rates among Asian/Pacif ic Islanders down 0.3 percentage points to 0.5 per 1,000, rates among Latino s down 0.3 points to 1.2 and rates among White s down 0.4 points to 1.2 per 1,000. As public crises tend to disproportionately impact th ose most vulnerable , children in the foster system may also face particular risk from COVID-19. Court actions, f amily visitations and reunifications may be interrupted or suspended entirely. M any foster children will suffer the loss of regular contact with peers and teachers who, in the absence of family, make up their primary supportive system. COVID -19 may limit crucial visits and support from child welfare workers , while transitioning youth may lose the protections of their foster care benefits just as jobs and housing become most scarce. For children dealing with past trauma, COVID-19 disruptions in familiar routines and structure can trigger psychological stress or traumatic memories. In response to some of these concerns, the state’s June 22, 2020 Budget Act (SB121, AB89) appropriates $32 million to broaden the eligibility of transition -age youth and extend the foster care program benefits of stability, education, and safe housing until June 30, 2021. Chronic Absenteeism, Graduation and Dropout Rates The most recent chronic absenteeism data available from the CDE is for the 2018 -19 school year in which Contra Costa school districts had a chronic absenteeism rate of 12.1%, compared to 12.0% in California as a whole. The highest rates occurred in Contra Costa County Off ice of Education (29.4%), An tioch Unified (20.7%), John Swett Unified (19.0%), West Contra Costa Unified (17.3%), Liberty Union High (15.9%) and Pittsburg Unified (14.9%). Nearly two -thirds (64.5%) of chronically absent students attend Antioch Unified (3,549), Mt. Diablo Unified (3,949) and West Contra Costa Unified (5,058) in the 2018 -19 school year. Table 55 – Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism Rates in Contra Costa County, 2005–2019 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2018-19* Number of Students 57,902 66,184 69,975 71,180 19,462 Percentage of Students 34.9 37.6 38.9 38.9 12.1 Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/. * As of 2018-19, rates reported are chronic absenteeism. In 2018-19, the overall graduation rate (cohort, 4 -year adjusted) in Contra Costa high schools is 89.0 %, up slightly from 87.9 % in 2017-18. This rate continues to compare favorably to the statewide rate which rose slightly to 88.1 %. Graduation rates are lowest in West Contra Costa Unified (82.3%), Antioch Unified (80.6%) and Contra Costa County Office of Education (35.1%). The most recent CDE-released 1-year dropout rates are for the 2017 -18 school year. The county’s overall dropout rate (1.3%) continues to compar e favorably to the state (2.4%), but rates are notably higher than the countywide average (1.3%) in Byron Union Elementary (4.8%), Antioch Unified (2.4%), West Contra Costa Unified (2.4%) and Mt. Diablo Unified (1.9%). Contra Costa County 68 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION Head Start HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START DEMOGRAPHICS Early in 2020-21, the county plans to serve a cumulative total of 551 Early Head Start enrollees , including the children of 6 pregnant women, and 1,059 Head Start enrollees , including new, continuing and turnover participants. Compared to the prior year, this currently represents a 26.3% decline in Early Head Start and a 22.1% decline in Head Start enrollees. Among Early Head Start participants, 13.8% served are less than 1, including 6 unborn infants. Another 28.9% of Early Head Start enrollees are 2 year olds. Among Head Start participants in 2020, 51.0% of children are 5 years of age and 44.7% of enrollees are 4 year olds. Table 56 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollees by Age, 2020–21 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Pregnant women 6 1.1 0 0.0 Under 1 year 70 12.7 0 0.0 1 year old 142 25.8 0 0.0 2 years old 159 28.9 0 0.0 3 years old 156 28.3 46 4.3 4 years old 18 3.3 473 44.7 5 years and older 0 0.0 540 51.0 Total Enrollment 551 100.0 1,059 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21. Actual cumulative enrollment includes turnover. HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START RACE AND ETHNICITY In 2020-21, 60.6 % of Early Head Start and 62.5% of Head Start enrollees are Latino, and Spanish is the primary language of 38.7% (210 ) of Early Head Start and 40.2% (422) of Head Start enrollees . White children make up 58.2% of Early Head Start and 61.2% of Head Start enrollment . Only 3.1% of EHS and 5.1% of HS enrollees are Asian. African American s make up 29.3% of all EHS and 22.5% of all HS enrollment. Table 57 – Head Start and Early Head Start Enrollees by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-21 2020 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Latino/Hispanic 329 60.6 659 62.5 Non-Latino/Hispanic 214 39.4 395 37.5 Total Identified Enrollees 543 100.0 1,054 100.0 African American 159 29.3 237 22.5 Caucasian / White 316 58.2 645 61.2 Multi-racial 45 8.3 107 10.2 Asian 17 3.1 54 5.1 Pacific Islander/ Native Hawaiian 3 0.6 7 0.7 American Indian / Alaska Native 1 0.2 1 0.1 Other / Unspecified 2 0.4 3 0.3 Total Identified Enrollees 543 100.0 1,054 100.0 FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF ENROLLED CHILDREN So far in the 2020 -21 school year, single -parent families represent 74.2% (386) of all 520 families with childr en enrolled in Early Head Start . Single-parent families rep resent 72.3% (729) of all 1,006 families with children enrolled in Head Start . Table 58 – Enrolled Families by Family Type, 2021 2021 Early Head Start Head Start Number Percent Number Percent Two-parent families 134 25.8 277 27.5 Single-parent families 386 74.2 729 72.5 Total Families 520 100.0 1,006 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2009-10 & 2020-21 Contra Costa County 69 of 69 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT FOR CY 2020 – COVID -19 EDITION HEAD START / EARLY HEAD START ENROLLMENT ELIGIBILITY TYPES The majority of children in both Early Head Start (69.6%) and Head Start (63.0%) are eligible for services based on income. Enrollment based on receipt of public assistance represents 14.8% of Early Head Start enrollees and 15.6% of Head Start enrollees. Over-income enrollment represents 8.7% of Early Head Start enrollees and 16.3 % of Head Start enrollees . Eligibility based on foster care status fell to 13 (2.6%) children in Early Head Start and 22 (2.5%) children in Head Start. The number and proportion of homeless children in Early Head Start (21 children or 4.3%) and Head Start (23 children or 2.6%) also fell since 2019 -20, although it is still early in the year . Table 59 – Early Head Start and Head Start Enrollment by Eligibility Type, 2020–21 Early Head Start Head Start Count Percent Count Percent Income Eligible 343 69.6 549 63.0 Public Assistance 73 14.8 136 15.6 Foster Child 13 2.6 22 2.5 Homeless 21 4.3 23 2.6 Over Income 43 8.7 142 16.3 Total with Eligibility Status 493 100.0 872 100.0 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21 FAMILY SERVICES AND REFERRALS RECEIVED At this early point in the 2020 -21 program year, a total of 2 Early Head Start families needed and 30 received famil y services or service referrals . The types of s ervices received most by Early Head Start families include emergency/crisis intervention (2) and health education (28). Among Head Start families, 5 needed and 120 have received family services or referrals so far early in the school year. Health education services have been those most accessed by Head Start families. Table 60 – Family Services and Referrals Received, 2020-21 Type of Service Early Head Start Head Start # needed # received # needed # received Emergency/crisis intervention (immediate need for food, clothing, shelter) 1 2 5 9 Housing assistance such as subsidies, utilities, repairs, etc. 0 0 0 0 Mental health services 0 0 0 0 English as a Second Language (ESL) training 0 0 0 0 Adult education (GED programs and college selection) 0 0 0 0 Job training 0 0 0 0 Substance abuse prevention / treatment 0 0 0 0 Child abuse and neglect services 0 0 0 0 Domestic violence services 0 0 0 0 Child support assistance 0 0 0 0 Health education 0 28 5 119 Assistance to families of incarcerated individuals 0 0 0 0 Parenting education 1 1 0 0 Relationship/marriage education 0 0 0 0 Asset building services (financial educ., opening accounts, debt counseling) 0 0 0 0 Unduplicated number of families served or referred 2 30 5 120 Source: Contra Costa County Head Start Program Information Reports, 2020-21 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment #74-525-8 with Center of Psychotherapy, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-525-7 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $344,740 or term of January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $344,740. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.103 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-525-8 with Center of Psychotherapy BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On January 5, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-525-7 with Center of Psychotherapy, in an amount not to exceed $344,740, to provide mental health, case management and crisis intervention services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) adolescents and latency-aged children for the period from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $344,740. Approval of Amendment #74-525-8 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved, seriously emotionally disturbed adolescents and latency-aged children may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Sharjo, Inc. d/b/a ServiceMaster Restoration Services, effective March 31, 2021, to extend the term from March 31, 2021 through August 31, 2021, to provide on-call restoration services, with no change to the payment limit of $1,500,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this action. The amendment is to extend the term only. Contract costs have been budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Budget. BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance of County buildings. At times, when an unexpected event such as flooding from a broken water pipe or leaking roof, or fire damage causes massive damage, restoration services are needed. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County buildings. The contract with Sharjo, Inc. d/b/a ServiceMaster Restoration Services, expired March 31, 2021. Initially, the department did not plan to extend APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.104 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Sharjo, Inc., (dba ServiceMaster Restoration Service). BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) this contract because a formal solicitation for restoration services was conducted and new contracts are expected in September 2021. However, the department later learned one of its divisions was using the services provided under the contract. Work was immediately halted. This extension is to ensure the contractor is paid for services rendered during this period, and so the County has access to the contractor's services pending evaluation, award and execution of the new restoration services contracts. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, restoration services with Sharjo, Inc. d/b/a ServiceMaster Restoration Services, will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-9 with Minh Nguyen, M.D., an individual, effective July 1, 2021, to amend Contract #26-721-6 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-7 and #26-721-8) to increase the payment limit by $436,000 from $324,000 to a new payment limit of $760,000, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment will result in additional contractual service expenditures of up to $436,000 for FY 2021/2022 ($218,000) and FY 2022/2023 ($218,000) and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has contracted with Minh Nguyen, M.D. for pulmonary critical care specialty services since June 1, 2012. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C.105 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-9 with Minh Nguyen, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In July 2020, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #26-721-6 with Minh Nguyen, M.D., in an amount of $195,000 to provide pulmonary critical care services including consultation, training, surgical procedures, sleep studies and diagnostic procedures for patients at CCRMC, for the period from June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. On March 2, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-7 with Minh Nguyen, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $60,000 from $195,000 to a new payment limit of $255,000 to provide additional pulmonary critical care services, including consultation, training, medical and surgical procedures for CCRMC and Health Centers patients with no change in the term of June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. On April 27, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-8 with Minh Nguyen, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $69,000 from $255,000 to a new payment limit of $324,000 to provide additional pulmonary critical care services, including consultation, training, medical and surgical procedures for CCRMC and Health Centers patients with no change in the term of June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-9 will allow this contractor to continue to provide additional services including inpatient critical care and pulmonary services through May 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s additional inpatient critical care and pulmonary services at CCRMC. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contact with M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates in the amount of $600,000 to develop the County's Facilities Master Plan at various County Facilities, for the period July 13, 2021 through July 13, 2023, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund/Undesignated Capital. BACKGROUND: The County is preparing a new ten-year Facilities Master Plan that will identify strategic and policy objectives for improving the delivery of services and guide real estate and facility asset decisions over a ten-year planning period. The last County wide facility plan was completed in FY1999-2000. The plan will examine County processes and policies around the use and maintenance of County owned and leased facilities. This plan will not examine HSD facilities or detention facilities at this time as other planning efforts are ongoing with respect to those facilities at present. The Master Planning process will begin in August 2021 and is expected to last APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.106 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates (WH329B) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) nine to ten months and conclude with presentation to the Board in June 2022. On April 27, 2021, the Public Works Department issued a Request for Qualifications to solicit Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for the Comprehensive Master Plan Services. The Public Works Department received 7 SOQ's from interested firms. A selection committee comprised of various County staff conducted evaluation of SOQs and unanimously ranked and selected Gensler as the top ranking firm. It is recommended that Gensler be awarded the agreement for the subject services. The planning process will include extensive outreach to County departments including employee surveys, department head interviews and a County steering committee of senior staff from departments and the County Administrator’s Office. In addition to specific site visits the team will also evaluate the Facility Condition Assessment reports being prepared separately under an already existing contract currently in process across the County. Gensler will examine the County’s existing facilities staffing and organization in light of County best practices and benchmarks and make suggestions accordingly for any proposed alterations. The consultant will evaluate the County’s remote work policies and alternative service delivery models and prepare alternatives based on those policies for Board consideration regarding proposed new construction, consolidation of existing facilities and/or facility closures/disposals to help the County meet its future service needs. Gensler will also examine facility location and distribution from a number of equity lenses to see if alternative locations/structures could improve access to services for underserved populations, decrease employee miles traveled, decrease miles traveled to access services and in light of recent State legislation related to opportunities for traditionally underserved communities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the agreement is not approved and the master planning study cannot be conducted, County will not be able to achieve and identify real estate and facility assets which could continue to be underutilized resulting in higher maintenance costs and continued service delivery challenges. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment #74-586-6 with A Better Way, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-586-5 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $580,467 or term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $290,234. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.107 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-586-6 with A Better Way, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved #74-586-5 with A Better Way, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $580,467, to provide mental health services to children, adolescents, and their families, who are dependents of Contra Costa County, referred by Child Family Services (CFS) and placed out of County for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $290,234. Approval of Amendment #74-586-6 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved, children, adolescents, and their families, who are dependents of Contra Costa County, referred by CFS and placed out of County may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #25-089-1 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,948,057, to provide Coordinated Entry, Outreach, Referral and Engagement (CORE) services to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals in Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $2,948,057 for FY 2021-2022 and is funded by 27% Federal funds ($790,211), 33% State funds ($964,193), and 40% Local grants ($1,193,653). BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of county’s population by providing CORE services to homeless individuals in Contra Costa County. CORE provides outreach services and serves as an entry point into the county’s coordinated entry system (CES) for unsheltered persons and work to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals. Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. has been providing CORE services to the County under this agreement since October 1, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C.108 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #25-089-1 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #25-089 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,785,511 to provide coordinated entry, outreach, referral and engagement services, for the period October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #25-089-1 will allow the contractor to continue to provide CORE services through June 30, 2022 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s homeless clients will experience longer wait times for shelter and respite services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-701-2 with EKB Podiatry, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $760,000 to provide podiatry services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted annual expenditures of up to $760,000 for a three year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers has been contracting with EKB Podiatry, Inc., since May 2020 to provide podiatry services. In August 2020, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #76-701 with EKB Podiatry, Inc., in an amount of $150,000, for the provision of podiatry services at CCRMC and Health Centers, for the period from August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.109 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-701-2 with EKB Podiatry, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On April 20, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #76-701-1 to increase the payment limit by $100,000 to a new payment limit of $250,000, with no change in the term of August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021. Approval of Contract #76-701-2 will allow this contractor to continue to provide podiatry services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through July 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring podiatry services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-328 with Bay Area Behavior Consultants, LLC., a limited liability corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,380,000 to provide applied behavioral analysis (ABA) services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period from June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,380,000 over a two-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network for several years, formerly under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with CCHP and was required to convert to a County contract. Under new contract 77-328, this contractor will provide ABA services for CCHP members for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C.110 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-328 with Bay Area Behavior Consultants, LLC. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialty health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment #74-575-8 with Lincoln, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #74-575-3 to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19, with no change in the original payment limit of $1,886,585 or term of March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 and no change in the six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $754,634. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.111 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-575-8 with Lincoln BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On March 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–575-3 with Lincoln in an amount not to exceed $2,139,128, to provide mental health services and multi-dimensional family therapy for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) adolescents and their families for the period from March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. This Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $800,864. On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-4, to modify the rate schedule for the period April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020, due to COVID-19. On July 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-5, to modify the rate schedule for the period July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, due to COVID-19. On June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-575-7, to decrease the payment limit from $2,139,128 to a new payment limit of $1,886,585, with no change in the term of March 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, and to decrease the automatic extension payment limit from $800,864 to a new payment limit of $754,634 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Amendment #74-575-8 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment agreement is not approved, SED adolescents and their families may experience reduced or discontinued behavioral health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2,4 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-979-42 with Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $5,919,828, to provide methadone maintenance treatment services for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $5,919,828 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded by 50% Federal Medi-Cal ($2,959,914) and 50% State Drug Medi-Cal ($2,959,914) revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc., since October 1998 to provide methadone treatment services through its Methadone Maintenance Clinics Program in East and West Contra Costa County. On July 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-979-39 with Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. to provide methadone treatment services through its Methadone Maintenance Clinics Program (Medi-Cal Drug Abuse Treatment Services) in East and West Contra Costa County, in the amount of $5,733,096, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.112 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-979-42 with Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On September 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #24-979-40 to increase the payment limit by $185,940 from $5,733,096 to a new payment limit of $5,919,036, with no change in the term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #24-979-42 will allow this contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa County residents will not receive the specialized substance abuse treatment services needed to provide them an opportunity to achieve sobriety and recover from the effects of alcohol and other drug use, become self-sufficient, and return to their families as productive individuals. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) in an amount not to exceed $751,605 for the CCCOE to continue providing educational services to inmates for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: $751,605, 100% FY 2021/2022 State AB 109 Public Safety Realignment Funds. BACKGROUND: The County has contracted with the Contra Costa County Office of Education since 1985 to provide educational services at the adult detention facilities. These services provide inmates with educational and vocational training including: basic literacy, GED (General Education) preparation, substance abuse prevention, computer skills, flood control, landscaping, and woodworking. By providing these services, inmates are provided with the opportunity to gain education and skills to prepare for re-entry into the community. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Educational services for inmates within the County's three detention facilities will discontinue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chrystine Robbins, 925-655-0008 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.113 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with the CCC Office of Education for Inmate Education Services RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-681-96(4) with JVTCM Care, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $275,268 to provide augmented board and care services, for the period from August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $275,268 and will be funded as budgeted by the department in FY 2021-22, by 100% Mental Health Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County's population by augmenting room and board and providing twenty-four hour emergency residential care and supervision to eligible mentally disordered clients, who are specifically referred by the Mental Health Program Staff and who are served by County Mental Health Services. The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with JVTCM Care, LLC, since August 1, 2018 to provide augmented board and care services for mentally ill adults. On October 13, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-681-96(3) with JVTCM Care, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $208,068, to provide augmented board and care services for mentally ill adults, through July 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D. 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C.114 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-681-96(4) with JVTCM Care, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #24-681-96(4) will allow this contractor to continue to provide augmented board and care services through July 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not be able to provide augmented board and care services to mentally ill adults in Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the county Contract Amendment Agreement #74-526-11 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Novation Contract #74-526-9 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #74-526-10), to increase the per minute billing rates due to COVID-19 with no change in the payment limit of $2,352,813 or term July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, and no change to the 6-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $1,176,406. FISCAL IMPACT: The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children under age 21 who are enrolled in Medi-Cal. EPSDT services are one hundred percent reimbursable per Medi-Cal guidelines. The contract rates for the April-June time period were lowered assuming a resumption of normal school activity. Because of the unanticipated delay with the schools returning to full capacity the provider was unable to meet the required units of service production. As we have done throughout the COVID epidemic (and allowed per State flexibility regulations) we are reverting back to the higher rates in effect from July 2020-March 2021 until the demand returns to a normalized level. There is no adverse fiscal impact with this action and the incremental cost will be offset by EPSDT/Medi-Cal revenue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C.115 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-526-11 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Inc. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is having continued negative impact on contracted providers’ ability to deliver necessary behavioral health services to Contra Costa County youth who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries eligible for entitlement services. Shelter-in-place orders have required a transition from in-person services, to remote delivery of care through use of tele-health. Since many behavioral health services to youth are school-based, the current suspension of in-person classes continues to require more outreach and engagement of children and their families in the community. While the transition to tele-health occurred fairly rapidly there are continued challenges to operations of these non-profit organizations that provide critical services to vulnerable residents of Contra Costa County. The on-going social distancing requirements to prevent disease transmission are essential but do make delivery of critical services extremely challenging and at times not possible. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-526-9 with Community Options for Families and Youth, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,267,013 for the provision of mental health and functional family therapy (FFT) services for youth who have had serious contact with the Juvenile Justice System for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021. On March 9, 2021 the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #74-526-10 to increase the payment limit by $85,800 to a new payment limit of $2,352,813 and to increase the 6-month automatic extension payment limit by $42,900 to a new payment limit of $1,176,406 through December 31, 2021. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-526-11 will allow the rate adjustments, applicable to the contract and automatic extension, to provide cash flow and budget predictability and allow the services to continue through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, youth who have had serious contact with the Juvenile Justice System may experience reduced or discontinued mental health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcome(s):1,2 & 5 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of County Contract #26-140-5 with East Bay Audiologists, a Professional Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,180,000, to provide audiology evaluation services including hearing evaluations at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers, for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in contractual expenditures of up to $1,180,000 over a two-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has contracted with East Bay Audiologists for audiology services since September 1, 2015. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker , M Wilhelm C.116 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-140-5 with East Bay Audiologists, A Professional Corporation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 23, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-140-3 with East Bay Audiologists, A Professional Corporation, in an amount of $1,000,000 for the provision of audiology services including hearing evaluations, hearing aid evaluations, fitting, dispensing and procurement of hearing aids and supplies at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period September 1, 2019 through August 31, 2021. On September 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-140-4 to increase the payment limit by $140,000, from $1,000,000 to a new payment limit of $1,140,000, with no change in the term. Approval of Contract #26-140-5 will allow this contractor to continue to provide audiology services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through August 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, patients will not receive audiology services from this contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Probation Officer, or designee, to execute an Interagency Agreement with the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) in an amount not to exceed $193,931 for the CCCOE to continue to provide assistance to individuals as they transition from the County’s adult detention facilities for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Community Corrections Performance Incentive funds (SB 678). BACKGROUND: Under this agreement, the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE) provides 1.0 Full time Equivalent (FTE) Reentry Transition Specialist, supported by a .75 FTE office assistant, to assist individuals as they transition from the County’s adult detention facilities back into Contra Costa County communities. They support incarcerated individuals by identifying and addressing barriers to employment, education and community reintegration; providing incarcerated individuals individualized case management services. They link students with appropriate support resources, including reentry centers, social services, housing authorities, drug/alcohol rehabilitations services, the DMV, health services and other appropriate community based resources and providers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.117 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa County Office of Education CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without this agreement, key linkages will be unavailable for Contra Costa's adult reentry population. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Probation Officer, or designee, to execute Interagency Agreements with the Cities of Richmond, Pittsburg and San Ramon, for an aggregate amount not to exceed $473,313 ($157,771 each) for the City Police Departments to provide Mental Health Evaluation Team police services for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% State Public Safety Realignment (AB 109). BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Police Chief’s Association has three (3) positions that have been dedicated to provide Mental Health Evaluation Team (MHET) services. These officers participate in coordinated efforts of handing potentially “high risk” dangerous persons with mental health issues and physically aggressive, combative behaviors towards police and others in the community. Each officer is partnered with a mental health clinician with the goal of reducing conflicts and guiding the person toward appropriate services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval, agreements for MHET services will not be issued for these cities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.118 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreements with the Cities of Richmond, Pittsburg and San Ramon for MHET Services RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-794-7(21) including mutual indemnification with St. Helena Hospital (dba Adventist Health Vallejo), a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to provide inpatient psychiatric hospital services, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $50,000 for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: Assembly Bill (AB) 757, (Chapter 633, Statutes of 1994), authorized the transfer of state funding for Fee-For-Service/Medi-Cal (FFS/MC) acute psychiatric inpatient hospital services from the Department of Health Services (DHCS) to the Department of Mental Health (DMH). On January 1, 1995, the DMH transferred these funds and the responsibility for authorization and funding of Medi-Cal acute psychiatric inpatient hospital services to counties that chose to participate in this program. County has been contracting with St. Helena Hospital under this contract since January 1998. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C.119 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-794-7(21) with St. Helena Hospital (dba Adventist Health Vallejo) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On April 23, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24–794–7(20), in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for the provision of inpatient psychiatric hospital services, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #24–794–7(21) will allow this contractor to provide inpatient psychiatric services through June 30, 2022. This contract contains mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s mental health clients will not receive needed inpatient psychiatric services from this contractor’s facility. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #22–137–58 with Meals on Wheels Diablo Region, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $510,000 to provide home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $510,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $510,000 and will be funded 100% by Title III C-2 of the Older Americans Act of funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing home-delivered meals on 250 serving days, to an average of 1600 nutritionally at-risk, home-bound senior citizens and County residents living with HIV/AIDS, to ensure they receive at least one third of their daily nutritional requirements. On September 22, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #22-137-57 with Meals on Wheels Diablo Region, in an amount not to exceed $508,503 for the provision of home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C.120 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #22-137-58 with Meals on Wheels Diablo Region BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #22-137-58 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows this contractor to continue providing meals for the Senior Nutrition Program through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s homebound senior citizens and HIV/AIDS patients will not receive Senior Nutrition Program meals, which provide at least one third of their daily nutrition. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with the Resource Development Associates Inc. in an amount not to exceed $219,550 to support the work of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council by providing committee consulting services for the term July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) revenue. BACKGROUND: Resource Development Associates (RDA) Inc. provides committee consulting services to the Contra Costa Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) that includes meeting facilitation and planning. RDA’s multidisciplinary team is comprised of 40 in-house employees and dozens of subcontracted partners, offering more than enough capacity to provide committee consulting services to the Contra Costa Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC). From 2018 to 2021, the Contra Costa County Probation Department engaged RDA to lead the development of its Juvenile Probation Consolidated Annual Plan—a cohesive, targeted plan based on two different funding streams, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.121 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Resource Development Associates (RDA) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG), each with their own priorities and requirements. The goal of the consolidated plan is to improve services for youth who are involved in or at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system. RDA will be assisting the Probation Department with updating our JJCPA-YOBG Consolidated Annual Plan, providing project management and communication, data planning, and engaging community based organizations in a capacity building process. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without this contract, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) will not have the proper guidance and support of their work. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This action supports two of the community outcomes established in the Children’s Report Card: 1) “Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for a Productive Adulthood” and 2) “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life.” RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-968-18 with Thomas N. Paige, M.D., an individual, effective July 1, 2021, to amend Contract #26-968-17 to increase the payment limit by $60,000, from $390,000 to a new payment limit of $450,000, with no change in the original term of October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment will result in additional contractual service expenditures of $60,000 for FY 2021/2022 ($30,000) and FY 2022/2023 ($30,000) and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has contracted with Thomas N. Paige, M.D. for dermatology services since October 1, 1999. On October 22, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-968-17 with Thomas N. Paige, M.D. in an amount not to exceed $390,000 for the provision of dermatology services including but APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C.122 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-968-18 with Thomas N. Paige, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) not limited to clinic coverage, consultation, training and medical procedures at CCRMC and Health Centers, for the period from October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2022. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization due to leave of another dermatologist was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-968-18 will allow this contractor to provide additional hours of dermatology services at CCRMC and remotely, through September 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring dermatology services will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, an amendment to Purchase Order #F16049 with Praxair Distribution, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $160,000 to a new payment limit of $400,000 for the purchase of oxygen, compressed medical air, nitrogen and carbon dioxide for use at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the Contra Costa Health Centers with no change in the original term of June 1, 2019 through April 13, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in additional expenditures of up to $160,000 over these next few fiscal years, and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: The CCRMC and Health Centers require oxygen, compressed medical air, nitrogen and carbon dioxide to sustain operations. Due to the onset of the pandemic, the need for extra rooms and the use of gases for patients on High Flow Oxygen has increased, and it is unknown exactly how long the surge of increased usage will continue. CCRMC has been using this vendor since 2007. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Margaret Harris, Marcy Wilhelm C.123 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order Amendment with Praxair Distribution, Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Department, a purchase order including indemnification with Philips Holding USA, Inc, in an amount not to exceed $168,975 for the purchase of Philips IntelliSpace ECG & Tracemaster Software Upgrade and Support, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this purchase order will result in annual expenditures over a four-year period of $168,975.00 ($105,475.73 for FY 2021/2022; $21,166.40 for FY 2022/2023; $21,166.40 for FY 2023/2024; $21,166.40 for FY 2024/2025) and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: Philips IntelliSpace is the platform used to conduct and read electrocardiograms (ECG/EKG) at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. The new system has updated clinical and diagnostic features that improve patient care, timeliness of care, and reduce staff time. The new IntelliSpace (replacement for TraceMaster) runs on the latest windows server operating system, has better disaster recovery capabilities and improved ransomware mitigations. The Terms and Conditions governing the IntelliSpace Software requires the County to indemnify Philips Holding USA, Inc. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patrick Wilson, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.124 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Philips Holding USA, Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #72-039-12 with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $227,857, to provide home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $56,964. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $227,857 and will be funded 100% by Title III-C 2 of the Older Americans Act of funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of county’s population by providing home-delivered meals on 250 serving days, to an average of 550 nutritionally at-risk, homebound senior citizens and an average of 10 county residents living with HIV/AIDS, to ensure they receive at least one third of their daily nutritional requirements. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.125 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #72-039-12 with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In July 2020 the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #72-039-11 with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels for the provision of home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program, in the amount of $186,974, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which included a three month automation extension period through September 30, 2021. Approval of this Novation Contract #72-039-12 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract allowing the contractor to continue to provide home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, West County’s homebound senior citizens and HIV/AIDS patients will not receive meals which provide at least one third of their daily nutrition. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-243-73 with R.E.A.C.H. Project, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,274,284 to provide drug abuse prevention and treatment services to youth and adults in East County, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,274,284 and will be funded by 80% Drug Medi-Cal ($1,014,423), 15% Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Set-Aside Grants ($199,861); 5% Probation Department ($60,000) revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Services Department has been contracting with R.E.A.C.H. Project, since July 1981 to provide drug abuse prevention and treatment services. This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing specialized substance abuse treatment and prevention programs to help clients to achieve and maintain sobriety and to experience the associated benefits of self-sufficiency, family reunification, cessation of criminal activity and productive engagement in the community. Expected program outcomes include addicted youth being provided an opportunity to prevent or recover from the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.126 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-243-73 with R.E.A.C.H. Project BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) effects of alcohol or other drug use, become self-sufficient, and return to their families as productive individuals. On July 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-243-71 with R.E.A.C.H. Project to provide drug abuse prevention and treatment services at Contractor’s facilities throughout East County, in the amount of $1,041,092 ,for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. On June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #24-243-72 to increase the payment limit from $1,041,092 to a new payment limit of $1,281,621, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #24-243-73 will allow the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s clients will not receive substance abuse treatment from contractor, resulting in an overall reduction of services to a community at risk for incarceration. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This prevention and treatment program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: 1, 4 & 5. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Service Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-378-13 with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $240,000, to provide non-emergency taxicab transportation services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers’ patients, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $240,000 for FY 2021-2022 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCRMC has been contracting with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., since July 2002 to provide non-emergency taxicab transportation services for CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers’ patients. On May 12, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-378-12 with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $240,000 to provide taxicab transportation of patients unable to transport themselves to medical appointments due to medical conditions including physical disabilities APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.127 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-378-13 with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) which make it unsafe for patients to travel on public transportation, patients who have a verifiable seizure disorder, or patients who have received medication which has or could, impair their mobility for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #26-378-13 will allow the contractor to continue to provide non-emergency taxicab transportation services to patients from CCRMC and Health Centers to specific destinations, through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring non-emergency taxicab transportation services will not receive services from the contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-627 with Ever Well Health Systems, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $375,585 to provide residential and mental health services to adults diagnosed with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and Serious Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI), for the period from December 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $375,585 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act revenues. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing residential facilities for adults who require support and are being discharged from state hospitals or psychiatric health facilities and require step-down care to transition to community living. Under Contract #74-627, Contractor will provide residential and mental health services to adults diagnosed with SMI and SPMI being stepped down from Institutes for Mental Diseases (IMD) levels of care and transition back into the community, for the period from December 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D. 925-957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C.128 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-627 with Ever Well Health Systems, LLC. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County clients in need of crisis residential or step-down care will not have access to this contractor’s services possibly resulting in higher levels of placement, including hospitalization. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a Purchase Order with Food Service Partners, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for the purchase of meals for patients and staff at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period from September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,400,000 over a two year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: Food Service Partners, Inc. provides daily delivery of bulk and premade food for both staff and patients at the CCRMC. Daily delivery of food ensures product safety, and Food Service Partners, Inc. continues to reliably provide the required deliveries for CCRMC. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, then the CCRMC will not have the capability of providing food to patients or staff. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Margaret Harris, Marcy Wilhelm C.129 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Food Service Partners, Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a Purchase Order with Qiagen, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $500,000 for purchase of tuberculosis diagnostic screening tests and molecular extraction kits for the Contra Costa Public Health laboratory, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this purchase order will result in annual expenditures of up to $500,000 for FY 2021-2022 from the County’s General Fund for the purchase of tuberculosis diagnostic screening tests and molecular extraction kits by the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory. BACKGROUND: This purchase order would decrease the number of purchase orders created throughout the year for Qiagen, LLC laboratory supplies purchased by the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory. Additionally, it allows for increased flexibility for large purchases needed during pandemics. Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory distributes Qiagen’s Quantiferon tuberculosis-screening collection tubes to Contra Costa County Health Services’ clinics for routine screening for tuberculosis infection in patients. Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory additionally screens these patient specimens using Qiagen diagnostic test kits. Lastly, Qiagen provides molecular kits to aid in the detection of other pathogenic infectious organisms in patient samples. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Stephanie Trammell, Marcy Wilhelm C.130 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Qiagen, LLC CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the purchase order is not approved, the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory would need to estimate the time and need to create several smaller purchase orders throughout the year in order to maintain continuous and uninterrupted laboratory services. Delays may be expected due to purchase order processing time. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: If the purchase order is not approved, delays in testing could occur if the purchase order approval process is longer than expected. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a Purchase Order with VWR International, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for purchase of general laboratory supplies for the Contra Costa Public Health laboratory, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this purchase order will result in annual expenditures of up to $1,000,000 for FY 2021-2022 from the County’s General Fund for the purchase of general laboratory supplies for the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory. BACKGROUND: This purchase order would decrease the number of purchase orders created throughout the year for regular laboratory supplies purchased by the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory. Additionally, it allows for increased flexibility for large purchases needed during pandemics. VWR International has provided a large menu of routine-use laboratory supplies to Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory for several years. These laboratory supplies assist in the screening, detection and identification of infectious disease organisms as well as antibody testing. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Stephanie Trammell, Marcy Wilhelm C.131 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with VWR International, LLC CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the purchase order is not approved, the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory would need to estimate the time and need to create several smaller purchase orders throughout the year in order to maintain continuous and uninterrupted laboratory services. Delays may be expected due to purchase order processing time. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a Purchase Order with Fisher Scientific Company, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for purchase of general laboratory testing supplies for the Contra Costa Public Health laboratory, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this purchase order will result in annual expenditures of up to $1,000,000 for FY 2021-2022 from the County’s General Fund for the purchase of general laboratory supplies for the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory. BACKGROUND: This purchase order would decrease the number of purchase orders created throughout the year for regular laboratory supplies purchased by the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory. Additionally, it allows for increased flexibility for large purchases needed during pandemics. Fisher Scientific Company has provided a large menu of routine-use laboratory supplies to Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory for, at minimum, two decades. These laboratory supplies assist in the screening, detection and identification APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Stephanie Trammell, Marcy Wilhelm C.132 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Fisher Scientific Company, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of infectious disease organisms as well as antibody testing. Additionally, supplies from Fisher Scientific Company have been essential for the safety and the disinfection of the laboratory environment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the purchase order is not approved, the Contra Costa Public Health Laboratory would need to estimate the time and need to create several smaller purchase orders throughout the year in order to maintain continuous and uninterrupted laboratory services. Delays may be expected due to purchase order processing time. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: If the purchase order is not approved, delays in testing could occur if the purchase order approval process is longer than expected. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-340 with Behavioral Treatment & Analysis, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000, to provide applied behavioral analysis (ABA) services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $2,000,000 over a two-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network for several years, formerly under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with CCHP and was required to convert to a County contract. Under new contract 77-340, this contractor will provide ABA services for CCHP members for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, K Cyr C.133 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-340 with Behavioral Health & Analysis, Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialty ABA health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): RESCIND Board action of June 22, 2021 (C.138), which pertained to a contract with Thomas B. Hargrave, III, M.D.; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-911-33 with Thomas B. Hargrave, III, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,575,000, to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period from September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of $1,575,000 over a 3-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has contracted with Thomas B. Hargrave, M.D., III for gastroenterology services since 1992. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, Marcy Wilhelm C.134 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Rescind Prior Board Action Pertaining to Contracted Services with Thomas B. Hargrave, III, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-911-31 with Thomas B. Hargrave, M.D., III, in an amount not to exceed $450,000, to provide gastroenterology services including consultation, training, on-call coverage services and medical procedures at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021. On June 8, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-911-32 to increase the payment limit by $70,000, from $450,000 to a new payment limit of $520,000, with no change in the term. On June 22, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved item C.138, Contract #26-911-33, however, the dates and payment limit amount on the Board Order were incorrect. This Board Order will rescind that incorrect Board Order and allow the Department to renew this contract with a payment limit of $1,575,000 over a 3-year period. This will allow the contractor to be paid for gastroenterology services at CCRMC and Health Centers through August 31, 2024. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring gastroenterology services will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-630 with The Contra Costa Clubhouses, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,290,630, to provide community-based mental health support services to adults, including Wellness and Recovery Centers (Putnam Peer Connection Centers), and the Service Provider Individualized Recovery Intensive Training (SPIRIT) program, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $1,290,630 and will be funded by 78% Mental Health Services Act ($1,006,691) and 22% Mental Health Realignment funding ($283,939). BACKGROUND: For a number of years, the County has contracted with Recovery Innovations, Inc. for the operation of Wellness and Recovery Centers in East, Central and West County, as well as, for the organization and operation of the SPIRIT program to provide training to clients interested in working with in the local mental health service delivery system. The Contra Costa Clubhouses, Inc. will begin taking over these services effective July APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C.135 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-630 with The Contra Costa Clubhouses, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 1, 2021. Under new Contract #74-630, this contractor will provide community-based mental health support services including operation of Putnam Peer Connection Centers and the SPIRIT program for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s Adult Mental Health clients will not have access to services provided by this contractor, leading to reduced levels of mental health support and training services throughout the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #76-586-6 with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000, to provide temporary medical staffing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $2,000,000 and will be funded as budgeted by the Department in FY 2021-2022 by 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I allocations. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers have an obligation to provide medical staffing services to patients. Therefore, the County contracts with temporary help firms to ensure patient care is provided during peak loads, temporary absences, vacations and emergency situations where additional staffing is required. The county has been using the contractor’s temporary staffing services since April 1, 2017. On June 23, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-586-4 with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 to provide temporary medical staffing services for coverage of employee sick leaves, vacations and workers compensation leaves, at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C.136 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-586-6 with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #76-586-5 to increase the payment limit by $500,000 from $1,500,000 to a new payment limit of $2,000,000 to cover for CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers staffing needs during COVID-19 pandemic and additional staffing absences due to quarantine and other COVID-19 related County employee absences for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #76-586-6 will allow the contractor to continue providing temporary medical staffing services including crisis rates for high demand classifications at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective July 1, 2021, with AtHoc Inc., increasing the payment limit by $754,956.04 to an amount not to exceed $4,554,956.04 and extending the contract termination date from June 30, 2021 to a new termination date of June 30, 2022, for the provision of proprietary software maintenance for the County's Community Warning System. FISCAL IMPACT: Total cost of $4,554,956; FY 21/22 cost of $754,956, budgeted. This contract is fully funded by the Certified Unified Program Administration (CUPA) with allocated business plan fees. BACKGROUND: AtHoc, Inc., is a full-service alert and warning company specializing in fixed siren systems and emergency notification systems. AtHoc, Inc. provides support for the Contra Costa County Community Warning System. The Contra Costa County Community Warning System consists of 25 separate and linked control centers, monitoring systems, and communication systems between emergency responders, sirens (40), and other alerting devices (700+), and automated links to radio and television stations serving the community. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chrystine Robbins, 925-655-0008 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C.137 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:AtHoc Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County's Community Warning System will not be properly maintained. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the April 2021 Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Community Services Bureau (CSB), as recommended by EHSD Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: EHSD submits a monthly report to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to ensure communication and updates to the County Administrator and BOS regarding any and all issues pertaining to the Head Start Program and CSB. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.138 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:April 2021 Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau ATTACHMENTS CSB April 2021 CAO Report CSB April 2021 HS Financial CSB April 2021 EHS Financials CSB April 2021 EHS-CCP Financials CSB April 2021 Credit Card CSB April 2021 LIHEAP CSB April 2021 CACFP Child Nutrition CSB April 2021 Menu P: 925 681 6300 F: 925 313 8301 1470 Civic Court , Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520 www.cccounty.us/ehsd To: Monica Nino, Contra Costa County Administrator From: Kathy Gallagher, EHSD Director Subject: Community Services Monthly Report Date: April 2021 News /Accomplishments  The Community Services Bureau (CSB) completed the State Contract Monitoring Review (CMR) and Error Rate Review (ERR) on April 13, 2021. During the week and a half long virtual review, state reviewers assessed the Stage 2, Alternative Payment, General Chil dcare and State Preschool program’s verification processes and activities such as: program eligibility, parent and teacher involvement, child assessments, staffing and qualifications, administrative policies, due process and interviews with program staff. Even though we are still awaiting the official report, reviewers stated in their pre -report that CSB had a 0% error rate and no findings of non -compliance.  Teaching staff, Site Supervisors, and Comprehensive Services staff attended a half -day training on Thursday, April 22, 2021 focusing on anti-bias and anti -racism in early childhood. The training included opportunities to engage in brave and difficult conve rsations, and to reflect on personal biases and how they may impact our work and personal lives. Strategies learned also included a framework for anti -bias teaching, which includes the need to listen carefully, making topics accessible to children, and how to appropriately share anti -bias learning with children and families.  The Board of Supervisors signed on to a Letter of Concern spearheaded by California Head Start Association around AB 22 (McCarty), a bill to expand Traditional Kindergarten (TK). The main concerns are that this bill does not address what at -risk children need, nor what parents need to work, and the early learning and care system will be significantly impacted by an expansion of TK.  CSB Health Managers focused on sending COVID vaccine inf ormation to families and staff to keep them informed on how to access the vaccine, and debunk myths that may prevent access to the vaccine.  Week of the Young Child was celebrated at all CSB sites the week of April 12, 2021. The children participated in so many fun activities to celebrate the week including, parades, outdoor chalk activities, music & dancing, cooking projects, and more! Although families cannot be on-site per usual celebrations due to COVID precautions, their participation is still felt as they send their children to school with family photos to share and show their excitement of the celebrations during drop off and pick up. Happy 50 th anniversary to the Week of the Young Child! cc: Policy Council Chair, Jasmine Cisneros Administration for Children and Families Program Specialist, Chris Pflaumer 2  On Friday April 16th, CSB staff in collaboration with several Dentist, Hygienist, Professors and students from Diablo Valley College (DVC) Dental Hygienist program participated in the Annual Give Kids a Smile Day . Volunteers completed dental exams, applied fluoride varnish and provided oral health education to more than 100 children. This event was a success due to the efforts of CSB staff, the DVC Hygienist Program, the children and parents we serve.  During the week of April 5th, select staff participated in the last series of trainings provided by the UCLA Anderson School of Management on Trauma Informed Care and Practice . The last three weeks of learning objectives were to build awareness around our own experiences with trauma and how this affects our current prac tice and work with children and families. Participating staff will develop teams to conduct a self - assessment of our organization that will help identify current practices and next steps for building a trauma-sensitive and responsive organization.  Educati on Managers participated in a three -day STEM Institute training provided by the Office of Head Start this week to learn more ways to include Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math into our classrooms. Workshops included exploring STEM in nature, “Tinke ring”, and supporting anti -bias STEM play at home.  CSB conducted a successful Health and Safety screening for a new EHS -CCP Family Child Care Provider, Giovanna Velasquez, and conducted a Zoom meeting to introduce her to the Comprehensive Services team. Giovanna has BA degree in ECE (Early Care and Education) and is enrolled i n the Quality Matters program.  The Economic Opportunity Council held its three scheduled public hearings to inform priority funding areas as part of the Community Action Plan that is due every two years. The hearings were held virtually at the Head Start Policy Council meeting on Wednesday, April 21st, at Monument Crisis Center on Thursday, April 22nd, and at the LAO Family Development center on Wednesday, April 28th. The Community Action Plan is due on June 30, 2021 and will be sent to the Board for approval in mid -June. cc: Policy Council Chair, Jasmine Cisneros Administration for Children and Families Program Specialist, Chris Pflaumer 3 I. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs)  Head Start enrollment: 60.9%  Early Head Start enrollment: 89.1%  Early Head Start Child Care P artnership enrollment: 75%  Head Start Average Daily attendance: 79.6%  Early Head Start Average Daily attendance: 84.1%  Early Head Start Child Care Partnership attendance: 84.6%  Stage 2: 391 children  CAPP: 331 children - In total: 722 children - Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 13 children  LIHEAP: 343 households have been assisted  CARES LIHEAP: 0 households served  Weatherization: 6 households served b. Staffing:  In April 2021, CSB hired two Intermediate Clerk-Project, one Associate Teachers-Substitute, and a Teacher Assistant Trainee -Project. The Bureau also processed temporary upgrades and extensions. For all other vacancies, the Bureau is working through the established process to fill vacancies permanently or by TU with support from EHSD Personnel and HR. c. Union: o In collaboration with the Labor Relations Unit, Local One has been notified of the relocation of services from Las Deltas center to CSB’s vacant Crescent Park center due to safety concerns and construction in the area and greater need for serv ices at the Crescent Park area. Families will not lose access to services, and staff will not be laid off as all employees will continue to work in the same capacities. o One Grievance – Working with the Labor Relations Unit on an Step 3 Grievance. II. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics:  There are no emerging issues and hot topics to report. MARCH Total Remaining 25% DESCRIPTION YTD Actual Budget Budget %YTD a. PERSONNEL 986,754$ 4,147,590$ 3,160,836$ 24% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 658,641 2,834,447 2,175,806 23% c. TRAVEL - 22,060 22,060 0% d. EQUIPMENT - 30,000 30,000 0% e. SUPPLIES 19,183 213,000 193,817 9% f. CONTRACTUAL 565,282 4,027,919 3,462,637 14% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 179,716 5,545,028 5,365,312 3% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 2,409,576$ 16,820,044$ 14,410,468$ 14% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 788,042 788,042 0% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 2,409,576$ 17,608,086$ 15,198,510$ 14% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)602,394$ 4,402,022$ 3,799,627$ 14% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2021 HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2021 AS OF MARCH 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 Actual Total YTD Total Remaining 25% Mar-21 Actual Budget Budget % YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 353,693 941,982 3,885,308 2,943,326 24% Temporary 1013 16,536 44,772 262,282 217,510 17% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)370,229 986,754 4,147,590 3,160,836 24% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 251,558 658,641 2,834,447 2,175,806 23% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)251,558 658,641 2,834,447 2,175,806 23% c. Travel (Object Class 6c)- - - - - HS Staff - - 22,060 22,060 - c. TRAVEL (Object Class 6c)- - 22,060 22,060 - d. EQUIPMENT (Object Class 6d) 2. Classroom/Outdoor/Home-based/FCC - - 15,000 15,000 - 4. Other Equipment - - 15,000 15,000 - d. EQUIPMENT (Object Class 6d)- - 30,000 30,000 - e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 5,030 11,352 55,000 43,648 21% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)4,856 12,671 80,000 67,329 16% 4. Other Supplies Health and Safety Supplies - - 1,000 1,000 0% Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement (47,168) (4,868) 60,000 64,868 -8% Health/Safety Supplies - - 2,500 2,500 0% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - 500 500 Miscellaneous Supplies - - 9,500 9,500 0% Emergency Supplies - - 500 500 0% Employee Morale 28 28 3,000 2,972 1% Household Supplies - - 1,000 1,000 0% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)(37,255) 19,183 213,000 193,817 9% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - 115,000 115,000 0% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - Health Consultant 5,120 15,360 53,000 37,640 29% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 One Solution 5,530 5,530 15,000 9,470 37% Diane Godard - 1,455 8,500 7,045 17% Josephine Lee - 1,178 4,600 3,423 26% St John Maria/Nalo Ayannakai/Tandem/McClendon - - 16,500 16,500 0% 7. Delegate Agency Costs First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 333,923 333,923 2,285,865 1,951,942 15% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts First Baptist/Fairgrounds Wrap (20 slots x 243days x $15.27)23,452 47,101 436,403 389,302 11% First Baptist/Fairgrounds Enhance (68 slots x 12 x $225)7,072 13,930 136,843 122,913 10% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - - - - Martinez ECC (40 slots x 12 mos. x $225)11,590 23,180 159,080 135,900 15% Tiny Toes - 5,562 86,744 81,182 6% YMCA of the East Bay 118,064 118,064 702,384 584,320 17% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)504,752 565,282 4,027,919 3,462,637 14% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 35,578 54,205 535,000 480,795 10% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- 8,369 - (8,369) 4. Utilities, Telephone 22,264 23,907 218,000 194,093 11% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - 4,100 4,100 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 40,583 50,928 267,000 216,072 19% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)365 414 25,875 25,461 2% 9. Nutrition Services Child Nutrition Costs (13,943) (13,943) 280,000 293,943 -5% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)(4,020) (4,020) (107,000) (102,980) 4% 13. Parent Services Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - 3,000 3,000 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - 500 500 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - - 5,000 5,000 0% Policy Council Activities - - 2,000 2,000 0% Male Involvement Activities - - 500 500 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - 10,300 10,300 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - 5,500 5,500 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Auditor Controllers - - 3,100 3,100 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 4,928 4,928 16,500 11,572 30% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing Outreach/Printing - - 1,500 1,500 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- 5,833 6,000 167 97% 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)3,435 3,767 8,000 4,233 47% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 625 5,842 106,184 100,342 6% 17. Other Site Security Guards 550 550 6,000 5,450 9% Dental/Medical Services - - 1,000 1,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 16,589 30,903 103,600 72,697 30% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 4,753 5,533 63,500 57,967 9% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)833 2,500 10,000 7,500 25% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- - 780,169 780,169 0% Other Departmental Expenses - - 3,189,700 3,189,700 0% h. OTHER (6h)112,541 179,716 5,545,028 5,365,312 3% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)1,201,825 2,409,576 16,820,044 14,410,468 14% j. INDIRECT COSTS - - 788,042 788,042 0% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)1,201,825 2,409,576 17,608,086 15,198,510 14% Non-Federal Share (In-kind)300,456 602,394 4,402,022 3,799,627 14% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2021 HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2021 AS OF MARCH 2021 MARCH Total Remaining 25% DESCRIPTION YTD Actual Budget Budget %YTD a. PERSONNEL 113,253$ 479,714$ 366,461$ 24% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 77,393 295,675 218,282 26% c. TRAVEL - 2,000 2,000 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 6,102 17,100 10,998 36% f. CONTRACTUAL 292,528 1,877,348 1,584,821 16% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 5,514 1,114,151 1,108,637 0% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 494,790$ 3,785,988$ 3,291,198$ 13% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 91,146 91,146 0% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 494,790$ 3,877,134$ 3,382,344$ 13% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)123,697$ 969,284$ 845,586$ 13% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2021 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2021 AS OF MARCH 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 Actual Total YTD Total Remaining 25% Mar-21 Actual Budget Budget % YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 49,214 113,253 396,703 283,450 29% Temporary 1013 - - 83,011 83,011 0% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)49,214 113,253 479,714 366,461 24% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)38,462 77,393 295,675 218,282 26% c. Travel (Object Class 6c) 1. Out-of-Town Travel - - 2,000 2,000 - c. TRAVEL (Object Class 6c)- - 2,000 2,000 - e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 115 2,503 5,000 2,497 50% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)1,378 3,594 2,000 (1,594) 180% 4. Other Supplies Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement - - 8,500 8,500 0% Household Supplies 4 4 1,100 1,096 0% Employee Health and Welfare costs (formerly Employee morale)- - 500 500 0% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)1,498 6,102 17,100 10,998 36% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)9,682 9,682 25,000 15,318 39% 2. Health/Disabilities Services Health Consultant 1,280 3,840 12,000 8,160 32% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 Leadership Trainings/Seminars/Worshops - - 2,800 2,800 0% Demogtaphic/Data Research - - 4,500 4,500 0% Practice Based Coaching/Classroom Observation - 1,063 3,000 1,938 35% Family Development Credential/Reflective Practice 3,000 3,120 12,600 9,480 25% 8. Other Contracts First Baptist/Fairgrounds and Lone Tree 9,785 19,055 117,420 98,365 16% First Baptist/East Leland and Kids Castle 15,450 30,900 185,400 154,500 17% Aspiranet 69,010 138,020 940,820 802,800 15% Crossroads 14,420 28,840 193,040 164,200 15% KinderCare 8,240 8,240 118,880 110,640 7% Martinez ECC 8,240 16,480 98,880 82,400 17% YMCA of the East Bay 29,168 33,288 163,008 129,720 20% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)168,275 292,528 1,877,348 1,584,821 16% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 419 419 35,000 34,581 1% 4. Utilities, Telephone 300 300 5,000 4,700 6% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - 500 500 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 134 134 5,500 5,366 2% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)- - 8,000 8,000 0% 13. Parent Services Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - 3,000 3,000 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - - 4,000 4,000 0% Policy Council Activities - - 1,000 1,000 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - 2,000 2,000 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - 800 800 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Auditor Controllers - - 500 500 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 1,628 1,628 6,000 4,372 27% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- 1,458 2,200 742 66% 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)- 332 1,000 668 33% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 388 388 50,044 49,656 1% 17. Other Site Security Guards 55 55 1,000 945 5% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 437 783 12,000 11,217 7% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 16 16 2,500 2,484 1% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - 1,000 1,000 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- - 123,107 123,107 0% Other Departmental Expenses - - 850,000 850,000 0% h. OTHER (6h)3,378 5,514 1,114,151 1,108,637 0% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)260,827 494,790 3,785,988 3,291,198 13% j. INDIRECT COSTS - - 91,146 91,146 0% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)260,827 494,790 3,877,134 3,382,344 13% Non-Federal Share (In-kind)65,207 123,697 969,284 845,586 13% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2021 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD JANUARY - DECEMBER 2021 AS OF MARCH 2021 DESCRIPTION Original Remaining 50% MARCH Budget Budget Budget YTD Actual Sep 20-Aug 21 Mar-Aug 21 % YTD a. PERSONNEL 636,840 1,044,684 407,844 61% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 402,589 676,672 274,083 59% c. TRAVEL - 7,000 7,000 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 17,644 27,000 9,356 65% f. CONTRACTUAL 424,685 1,181,455 756,770 36% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 704,831 1,918,123 1,213,292 37% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 2,186,588 4,854,934 2,668,346 45% j. INDIRECT COSTS 130,539 175,440 44,901 74% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 2,317,127 5,030,374 2,713,247 46% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - EHSD COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU EARLY HEAD START - CHILDCARE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM BUDGET PERIOD: SEPTEMBER 01, 2020 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2021 AS OF MARCH 2021 Note: Administration for Children and Families (ACF) approved the non-federal share waiver request for this budget year [Head Start Act Section 640.(b)(4)]. The non-federal share requirement is now $0 at 0%. COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE March 2021 Stat. Date Amount Program Purpose/Description 03/22/21 78.60 GM III Site Costs Office Exp 03/22/21 (39.30)GM III Site Costs Office Exp 03/22/21 54.11 Los Nogales Site Costs Office Exp 03/22/21 (39.30)GM III Site Costs Office Exp 54.11 03/22/21 273.94 Head Start T & TA Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 309.88 HS CARES COVID-19 Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 493.17 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 1,479.49 EHS Basis Grant Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 373.31 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 121.04 EHS Basis Grant Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 51.87 HS CARES COVID-19 Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 946.39 EHS Basis Grant Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 405.59 HS CARES COVID-19 Books, Periodicals 03/22/21 517.65 HS Basic Grant Books, Periodicals 4,972.33 03/22/21 55.44 Child Dev Misc Grants: QRIS Minor Furniture/Equipment 03/22/21 3,341.40 HS CARES COVID-19 Minor Furniture/Equipment 03/22/21 38.03 Comm. Svc Block Grant Minor Furniture/Equipment 03/22/21 38.03 Indirect Admin Costs Minor Furniture/Equipment 03/22/21 391.90 Indirect Admin Costs Minor Furniture/Equipment 03/22/21 29.24 Facilities Minor Furniture/Equipment 3,894.04 03/22/21 347.10 Child Nutrition Food Services Food 347.10 03/22/21 533.50 HS CARES COVID-19 Clothing & Personal Suppl 533.50 03/22/21 54.60 Child Nutrition Food Services Household Expense 54.60 03/22/21 275.00 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Memberships 03/22/21 975.00 HS Basic Grant Memberships 03/22/21 462.50 HS Basic Grant Memberships 03/22/21 462.50 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Memberships 03/22/21 495.00 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Memberships 03/22/21 462.50 HS Basic Grant Memberships 03/22/21 462.50 EHS-Child Care Partnership #2 Memberships 3,595.00 03/22/21 125.00 HS Basic Grant Training & Registration 03/22/21 793.00 Head Start T & TA Training & Registration 918.00 03/22/21 (195.60)EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 03/22/21 (19.56)EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 03/22/21 (117.36)EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 03/22/21 260.80 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 03/22/21 197.21 HS CARES COVID-19 Educational Supplies 03/22/21 97.80 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 223.29 Total 14,591.97 CAO Monthly Report Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Community Services Block Grant Year-to-Date Expenditures As of March 31, 2021 1)CONTRACT NO. 20B-2005 / Term: Oct. 1, 2019 through Dec. 31, 2021 2020 LIHEAP WX 1,280,226 (1,278,495)1,731 100% 2020 EHA-16 1,132,577 (883,009)249,568 78% 2020 UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)2,466,877 (2,438,700)28,177 99% TOTAL 2020 LIHEAP CONTRACT 4,879,680 (4,600,204)279,476 94% 2)CONTRACT NO. 20U-2554 / Term: Jul. 1, 2020 - Sept. 30, 2021 2020 CARES EHA-16 387,634 (201,360)186,274 52% 2020 CARES UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)727,903 (727,903)0 100% TOTAL 2020 LIHEAP CARES ACT CONTRACT 1,115,537 (929,263)186,274 83% 3)CONTRACT NO. 21F-4007 / Term: Jan. 1, 2021 - May 31, 2022 2021 CSBG CAA 876,852 (63,005)813,847 7% TOTAL 2021 CSBG CONTRACT 876,852 (63,005)813,847 7% 3)CONTRACT NO. 21B-5005 / Term: November 1, 2020 - June 30, 2022 2021 EHA-16 775,546 (61,819)713,727 8% *2021 LIHEAP WX 876,799 (166,181)710,618 19% 2021 LIHEAP UTILITY ASSISTANCE (UA)1,690,590 (642,031)1,048,559 38% TOTAL 2021 LIHEAP CONTRACT 3,342,935 (870,031)2,472,904 26% *CSB received an amendment and budget will be adjusted once amendment is executed 4)CONTRACT NO. 20F-3007 / Term: Jan. 1, 2020 - May 31, 2021 2020 CSBG CAA 876,852 (602,476)274,376 69% 2020 CSBG DISCRETIONARY 32,000 (11,738)20,262 37% TOTAL 2020 CSBG CONTRACT 908,852 (614,214)294,638 68% 5)CONTRACT NO. 20F-3646 / Term: Mar. 27, 2020 - May 31, 2022 2020 CSBG CARES CAA 1,189,181 (43,969)1,145,212 4% 2020 CSBG CARES CAA DISCRETIONARY 40,370 0 0 0% TOTAL 2020 CSBG CARES CONTRACT 1,189,181 (43,969)1,145,212 4% Prepared: March 26, 2021 fldr/fn:CAO Monthly Reports/WX YTD Exp-CAO Mo Rprt 2-2021 BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED BUDGET SPENT REMAINING BALANCE PERCENT EXPENDED Prepared: January 22, 2021 2021 Month covered MARCH Approved sites operated this month 13 Number of days meals served this month 23 Average daily participation 204 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 3,772 Lunch 4,688 Supplements 3,279 Total Number of Meals Served 11,739 Claim Reimbursement Total $28,074 fldr/fn:2021 CAO Monthly Reports EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU CHILD NUTRITION FOOD SERVICES CHILD and ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM MEALS SERVED FY 2020-2021 April 202 1 – COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU PRESCHOOL MENU MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ALL BREAKFAST & LUNCH SERVED WITH 1 % MILK *Indicates vegetable included in main dish + Indicates Whole Grain Rich WATER IS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DAY 1 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ¾ c. + Rice Chex Cereal LUNCH ½ c. JERK TOFU (garlic, corriander, paprika, cinnamon) ¼ c. Roasted Beets ¼ c. Pineapple Tidbits ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Pita Bread PM SNACK ½ c. + Lets Go Fishing Trail Mix (corn chex, pretzels, fish & cheese crackers) ½ c. 1% Milk 2 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Bagel/Cream Cheese LUNCH ½ c. HOPPIN JOHNS (black eyed peas, smoked turkey, onion, cheddar cheese) ¼ c. Garlic Roasted Radishes ½ ea. Fresh Fuji Apple ¼ c. + Brown Rice PM SNACK ½ c. Fresh Strawberries 1 pkg. Graham Crackers 5 BREAKFAST ½ c. Pineapple Chunks ½ c. + Cheerios LUNCH 1 ½ c. KIDNEY BEAN FIDEO SOUP (kidney beans, tomato, onion, garlic,+ whole wheat pasta) ¼ c. Carrot Sticks ¼ c. Fresh Strawberries PM SNACK 2 pkgs. + Wheatworth Crackers/Hummus ½ c. 1% Milk 6 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Fuji Apple ½ c. + Bran Cereal LUNCH 1 ea. VEGGIE BURGER (black beans,cilantro, lime, sweet potato, ww bread crumbs) (eggless mayo & mustard dressing) ¼ c. Green Leaf Lettuce ⅛ c. Tomato Slice ½ ea. Fresh Orange 1 ea. + Whole Wheat Burger Bun PM SNACK 1 pkg. Graham Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 7 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi ¾ c. + Kix Cereal LUNCH ¾ c. CHICKEN POT PIE (onion, celery & low-fat cream) ¼ c. Roasted Broccoli ½ ea. Fresh Pink Lady Apple 1 ea. + Homemade Wheat Puff Pastry PM SNACK ½ c. Friends Trail Mix (kix, cheerios, corn chex, raisins, pretzels, & dried apricots) ½ c. 1% Milk 8 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ½ ea. + English Muffin/Cream Cheese & Strawberries LUNCH 1 c. BLENDED CARROT & GINGER SOUP (diced tofu) ¼ c. Roasted Brussel Sprouts 1 sl. Fresh Cantaloupe ¼ c. Spanish Quinoa PM SNACK Fruit Sunbutter Pita 1 tbsp. Sunbutter ½ ea. Fresh Banana ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Pita Bread 9 BREAKFAST ½ c. Mango Chunks 1 sq. + A – Z Bread LUNCH 1 ea. ROASTED CHICKEN LEG ¼ c. Roasted Cauliflower & Onion ½ ea. Fresh Apple 1 ea. + Whole Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK ⅛ c. Cottage Cheese ½ c. Pineapple Tidbits 12 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ½ c. + Bran Cereal LUNCH 1 ea. BAJA BEAN WRAP ¼ c. Fresh Jicama Sticks ¼ c. Fresh Papaya 1 ea. + Whole Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK 1 ea. Hard Boiled Egg 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi 13 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ½ c. + Cornflakes LUNCH BUILD YOUR OWN TACO SALAD 1 ½ ozs. Ground Turkey ½ oz. Shredded Cheese ¼ c. Shredded Lettuce ⅛ c. Diced Tomatoes ½ ea. Fresh Satsuma Orange 5 ea. + Whole Corn Tortilla Chips PM SNACK 1 ea. Fresh Pear 1 tbsp. Sunbutter 14 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Smitten Apple ½ sl. + Whole Wheat Cinnamon Toast LUNCH 1 ea. BBQ CHICKEN LEG ¼ c. Cucumber Slices/Ranch Dressing ½ ea. Fresh Red Pear ⅜ c. + Whole Wheat Pasta Salad (celery, red onion, eggless mayo, apple cider vinegar, salt, pepper) PM SNACK 1 pkg. Scooby Doo Graham Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 15 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ½ ea. + Whole Wheat English Muffin/Cream Cheese LUNCH 1 c. * BLACK BEAN SALAD (onion, carrot, bell pepper,diced celery, diced sweet potato, cilantro, lemon juice) ¼ c. Roasted Broccoli Florets 1 sq. + Homemade Whole Wheat Cornbread PM SNACK ½ c. Carrot Sticks & Zucchini Sticks/Italian Dressing 1 pkg. Animal Crackers 16 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh D’anju Pear ½ c. + Cheerios LUNCH ½ c. + CHIX & WHOLE GRAIN GRITS (tomato, red onion, tomato paste, garlic, oregano, basil, & light cream) ¼ c. Carrot Sticks ½ ea. Fresh Apple PM SNACK ½ c. Cucumber Slices & Broccoli Florets ⅛ c. Cottage Cheese Ranch Dip 19 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ½ c. + Cornflakes LUNCH 1 serv. + MIGAS (egg, whole corn tortilla chips) ¼ c. Garlic Roasted Hericovert ½ ea. Fresh Smitten Apple PM SNACK ½ c. Tropical Fruit Salad 1 pkg. Graham Crackers 20 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Hard Boiled Egg ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Bagel/Cream Cheese 1 ea. Fresh Banana LUNCH 1 c. ROPA VIEJA (beef shoulder, onions, bell pepper, fresh garlic) ½ c. Spinach Salad/Ranch Dressing 1 ea. Fresh Tangerine Satsuma ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Dinner Roll PM SNACK 1 pkg. + Goldfish Pretzel Crackers 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi 21 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Apple 1 sq. + Homemade Zucchini Bread LUNCH ½ c. FEIJOADA (brazilian black bean stew) ¼ c. Cucumber Slices ½ ea. Fresh Asian Pear ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Naan Bread PM SNACK 2 tbsps. Sweet Potato Dip 1 pkg. Graham Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 22 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 23 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ¾ c. + Kix Cereal LUNCH ½ c. HERB ROASTED TURKEY BREAST ¼ c. Roasted Green Beans ½ ea. Fresh Pear ¼ c. + Spanish Rice PM SNACK 1 pkg. + Cheese Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 26 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Orange ¾ c. + Rice Chex Cereal LUNCH ½ c. TOFU & BUTTERNUT CHEESY BAKE (tofu, butternut squash, onion, garlic, fennel, ww pasta) ¼ c. Steamed Spinach ½ ea. Fresh Honey Crisp Apple PM SNACK 2 pkgs. Ritz Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 27 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ½ sl. + Wheat Cinnamon & Raisin Bread 1 ea. Turkey Sausage LUNCH ½ c. ROASTED TURKEY & POTATO HASH ¼ c. Baked Zucchini ½ ea. Fresh Pear ½ ea. + Whole Wheat Bread PM SNACK ½ c. Cucumber Slices ⅛ c. Cottage Cheese Ranch Dip 28 BREAKFAST ½ c. Pineapple Chunks 1 sq. + Homemade Banana Bread LUNCH 1 ea. CRUNCHY HAWAIIAN CHICKEN WRAP ¼ c.. Mango Chunks 1 ea. + Whole Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK EARLY CLOSURE 29 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Apple ¾ c. + Corn Chex Cereal LUNCH 1 ea. CHEESE & BEAN QUESADILLA 2 tbsps. Sour Cream ¼ c. Pico De Gallo 1 ea. Fresh Kiwi 1 ea. + Whole Wheat Tortilla PM SNACK 1 pkg. Animal Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk 30 BREAKFAST 1 ea. Fresh Banana ¼ c. + Homemade Oatmeal ¼ c. Plain Yogurt LUNCH ½ c. CHICKEN GUMBO (onions, celery, bell pepper, okra) ¼ c. Broccoli Florets/Ranch Dressing ½ ea. Fresh Pear ¼ c. + Brown Rice PM SNACK 1 pkg. + Cheese Crackers ½ c. 1% Milk RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-575-5 with Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College), an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers to electrocardiograms (EKG), medical assistant externship and phlebotomist students, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024 FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide EKG medical assistant externship and phlebotomist students at Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College), with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College) and the CCRMC and Health Centers have been providing these unpaid student training services since 2006. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C.139 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-575-5 with Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 24, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-575-4 with Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College), to provide supervised fieldwork instruction experience with Health Services for the period from June 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-575-5 will allow Lifesavers Education Inc. (dba Health Career College), students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience, at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through June 30, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers. ATTACHMENTS Health Career College RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District extending the term of the existing emergency ambulance agreement for Emergency Response Area IV through August 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No anticipated General Fund impact; this is a nonfinancial agreement. BACKGROUND: Emergency Response Area IV is one of five ambulance operating areas in Contra Costa County. On December 9, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved an ambulance services contract with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (Contract No. 23-055-19) for the provision of emergency ambulance services in Emergency Response Area IV (San Ramon Valley area). This contract as amended expires June 30, 2021. The County and the Fire District have been negotiating a new long-term emergency ambulance services contract that would authorize the District to continue providing emergency ambulance services in Emergency Response Area IV pursuant to the State EMS Act. The purpose APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Randy Sawyer, (925) 335-3210 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.140 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Extension Agreement BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of extending the term of the existing contract with the Fire District through August 31, 2021, is to give the parties more time to continue negotiating a long-term contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current contract would expire on June 30, 2021. RECOMMENDATION(S): CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999 regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: On November 16, 1999, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 8630 on homelessness in Contra Costa County. Government Code Section 8630 requires that, for a body that meets weekly, the need to continue the emergency declaration be reviewed at least every 60 days until the local emergency is terminated. The Board of Supervisors last reviewed and continued the emergency declaration on May 11, 2021. Nevertheless, with the continuing high number of homeless individuals and insufficient funding available to assist in sheltering all homeless individuals and families, the emergency situation still exists and it is, therefore, appropriate for the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.141 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:CONTINUE EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY DECLARATION REGARDING HOMELESSNESS RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to submit a comment letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG-MTC) on the Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 by the July 20, 2021 deadline. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: By law, each of California's metropolitan regions must develop long-range plans to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets and accommodate future housing development without increasing commutes within the region. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the long-range plan is prepared and updated by ABAG-MTC. The first Plan Bay Area was adopted on July 18, 2013, with an update, Plan Bay Area 2040, adopted on July 26, 2017. ABAG-MTC update the regional plan every four years as required by state law. Plan Bay Area 2050 ("Plan"), currently available in draft form, is the third iteration of the plan that will chart the course for the future of the San Francisco Bay Area. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-655-2894 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C.142 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorization to Send Comment Letter on the Plan Bay Area 2050 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On May 26, 2021, ABAG-MTC released the Plan for review and comments. It is a 30-year plan that accounts for projected economic, environmental, housing, and transportation needs of the counties and cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Contra Costa County. The Plan identifies 35 strategies to help implement its goal to make the Bay Area more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy, and vibrant for all. ABAG-MTC are holding virtual workshops and virtual public hearings through July 7, 2021, for agencies, organizations, and the public to comment on the plan. Comments on the Plan are due by 5 p.m., July 20, 2021. Comments will be reviewed by officials from ABAG-MTC as they consider the adoption of the final Plan Bay Area 2050, slated for fall 2021. After reviewing the Plan, DCD staff has questions and comments concerning some of the strategies and assumptions. When finalized, Plan Bay Area 2050 will influence the County's eligibility for grant funds for projects, funding for public transportation, as well as codify projections that impact Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA). Due to its influence on the County's future needs, staff recommends the Board authorize the Conservation and Development Director to prepare, sign, and submit a comment letter to ABAG-MTC. In general, the comment letter (attached in draft form; still in development) will convey concerns regarding the Plan's applicability to Contra Costa County's unique circumstances and responsibility to each of its more than 30 distinct unincorporated communities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: DCD would not submit a comment letter and ABAG-MTC would not be asked to consider to address comments. ATTACHMENTS Plan Bay Area 2050 Comment Letter Attachment A-PBA letter Contra Costa County July 20, 2021 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission RE: Contra Costa County Comments on D raft Plan Bay Area 2050 Dear Ms. McMillan: The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development appreciates the effort the regional agencies have expended in order to develop the Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 – the Bay Region’s Regional Plan. Staff has reviewed Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 and has some comments and concerns regarding some of the strategies and assumptions that have formed Draft Plan Bay Area 2050. Attachment A outlines our general comments on the draft as it relates to the County as a whole, as well as housing unit and job allocations for Unincorporated Contra Costa County communities. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan Bay Area 2050. Contra Costa County looks forward to working collaboratively with ABAG-MTC as the final plan is developed and adopted in fall 2021. Sincerely, John Kopchik Director John Kopchik Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Jason Crapo Deputy Director Maureen Toms Deputy Director Amalia Cunningham Assistant Deputy Director Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone:1-855-323 -2626   1    Attachment A    Executive Summary  1. EC5. Provide incentives to employers to shift jobs to housing‐rich areas well served by transit.    We appreciate ABAG for recognizing the importance of taking advantage of existing housing and  shifting jobs to where people live but, the plan does not go far enough to address the jobs  housing imbalance in Contra Costa County, which needs greater regional support for increasing  the number of jobs relative to housing units in our county, particularly in unincorporated Contra  Costa.     2. Build Next Generation Transit Network. Would like to see more addressing of the first mile/last  mile challenge.  Look at micro‐ and/or shared mobility solutions.  Because even if we do more  transit‐oriented development, the vast majority of homes in the Bay Area are in suburbs, and if  we want to get people off roads and on to transit, we have to provide them with options to get  to transit stops without using a car.     3. EN2. Provide means‐based financial support to retrofit existing residential buildings.  This is very  important to our collective equity goals. It is complicated and expensive to retrofit existing  buildings.     4. Staff recommends that ABAG address the issue of life cycle costs, particularly for infrastructure  projects.     Chapter 2 Housing  1. This is a regionwide document making recommendations for the local jurisdictions to meet their  housing and economic development needs. The Plan recommends regional coordinated policies  and practices when it’s ultimately up to the local jurisdiction to make that determination on  whether they want to adopt a policy. How are jurisdictions expected to do this when there are  limited resources, staffing, and so many different governing bodies involved?     2. The discussion regarding providing housing opportunities for the missing middle references  teachers as an example of the population it would serve. The missing middle is defined as  moderate income households (81% ‐ 120% AMI), whereas the Table 2‐1 lists teachers as lower  income professionals (50%‐80% AMI). (p. 23)    3. On the section on protect and preserve housing, the recommended renter protections to be  provided regionally (such as rent increase caps, tenant protection services, and fair housing  laws) are measures that should be done at a statewide level as there is no precedent or  framework for “regional” laws.  (p.26)    4. Preserve existing affordable housing by creating pathways to home ownership for working  families by transferring existing affordable deed‐restricted or non‐deed restricted housing to  individual tenants, housing cooperatives, or public or non‐profit housing organizations, including  community land trusts. What is the funding source for this activity? (p.26)      2    5. Putting low‐income persons close to transit would provide opportunities for access to transit;  however, not all low‐income jobs have standard working hours and transit may not operate  during the hours needed to commute to and from work. This means that not everyone will have  equal access to transit and that more should be done to address non‐standard work hours  transit needs. (p. 30)     6. Due to the limited amount of available land for development, the strategy to have inclusionary  housing policies applied to projects on a sliding scale from 10% to 20% to be evaluated on a  project‐by‐project basis could make the requirement for the development of inclusionary  housing subjective, and weaken local jurisdictions’ policies when they are stronger or more  uniform. (p. 30)    Chapter 3 Economy  1. Universal basic income (UBI) is an interesting idea worth exploring for the Bay Area but putting into  a basket for statewide programs is punting it. Everything in Plan Bay Area would be more effective  if implemented on a statewide level. If UBI only works as a statewide program, don’t include it in a  regional plan.     2. What is meant by incentives for employers and how will ABAG‐MTC fund those? Would there be a  minimum pay requirement, living wage or similar? (pg. 48)    3. Allow PPAs to overlap with PDAs to reduce commute times, allow for greater transit use by PPA  employees, allow more opportunities for people to work closer to where they live (pg. 49).    4. Please note Contra Costa County has trademarked the phrase “Capital of the Northern California  Megaregion” (p. 51)    5. We want to see greater recognition of counter‐commute capacity on major transit systems, and  more support in terms of regional infrastructure grants and transit system policy to build up job  centers in transit‐accessible locations outside of Silicon Valley, SF, and downtown Oakland. For  example, BART policy, is to prioritize housing development on surface lots. ABAG‐MTC should  encourage BART to change that policy to also welcome commercial or industrial jobs, or campus  uses (medical, higher education).    6. Typo on page 48: Easy Bay instead of East Bay    Chapter 4 Transportation  1. Maintenance of the existing transportation system should include major paved trail facilities. (p.  56)    2. In the healthy and safe streets bullet and section, respectively, “rollers,” which is a catch‐all  term that includes wheelchairs, scooters, skateboards, other mobility devices, should be  included in the list of road users. MTC’s Active Transportation Working Group has advocated    3    including this term in the MTC Active Transportation Plan, which is tied to PBA 2050. (pgs. 56 &  63)    3. The line representing SR‐239 should extend all the way to the San Joaquin County Line. (Map  4.1)    4. Bicycle/pedestrian facilities that serve as a first‐mile/last‐mile connectivity to transit or as a  major regional connection should be eligible for revenue generated by the proposed freeway  per‐mile tolling. (p. 61)    5. Interstate Freeways and State Highways are often barriers for bicycle and pedestrian travel. PBA  2050 should emphasize eliminating these barriers by acknowledging them and supporting future  planning, policies, and funding efforts to retrofit these areas to better accommodate non‐ motorized travel. (p. 63)    6. The list of new ferry service destinations should include Contra Costa County locations (e.g.,  Hercules and potentially additional Northern Waterfront sites). (p. 70)    7. Show the planned BART to Brentwood extension. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is  currently studying interim transit connections (e.g., express bus service) between Antioch and  Brentwood. (Map 4.2)    8. The Transportation section is silent on issues specific to older persons and those with  disabilities, paratransit, and more broadly accessible transportation. While it is useful to have  specific plans for target population and modes, the Coordinated Public Transit‐Human Services  Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) in this case, the findings and recommendations in those  plans must be included in PBA 2050 as it is MTC’s/ABAG’s principal planning document.  Segregating this topic exclusively to the Coordinated Plan results in the needs of this population  being left out of the critical, priority setting dialog with the other needs of the system. The  current Coordinated Plan paints a dire1 picture of the state of accessible transportation, PBA  2050 should propose a proportionally appropriate response to address the needs of this  vulnerable population.         9. In addition to the grim state of accessible transit as established by MTC’s Coordinated Plan, that  segment of the transportation system is a significant source of GHGs as established2 by the U.S.  Department of Energy, the Federal Highway Administration, and the American Public Transit  Association. Investments in this mode will not only address the under‐investment legacy but  significantly reduce GHGs.    1 “Current senior‐oriented mobility services do not have the capacity to handle the increase in people over 65 years  of age…the massive growth among the aging …points to a lack of fiscal and organizational readiness…the closure  and consolidation of medical facilities while rates of diabetes and obesity are on the rise will place heavy demands  on an already deficient system.”    2 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10309      4        10. We applaud the effort of MTC/ABAG to prioritize issues of equity relative to race and low‐ income populations, this effort must be expanded to include ableism and ageism which also  have a legacy of inequity that must be addressed.    11. The section Build a Next‐Generation Transit Network should include specific references to  accessible transportation and funding the implementation of the Coordinated Plan.     12. Legislative initiatives should be listed to include the passage of a statewide vulnerable road  user’s law and the development of a revenue stream to implement the Coordinated Plan.    13. Consider including aggressive expansion of Class I and IV Bicycle Facilities which is shown to be  the most effective in getting people on bikes. While expansion of recreational trails is addressed  in Chapter 5, Environment, of PBA 2050 their relationship with implementation of  Transportation actions should be noted. (p. 135)    14. County staff appreciates MTC’s advocacy for elimination of the “85th percentile rule” for setting  speed limits and for authorization of automated speed enforcement, as seen to create healthy  and safe streets and advance Vision Zero. (p. 135)    Chapter 5 Environment   1. The goal to reduce climate emissions only focuses on vehicles, it does not address active  transportation. (p. 79) Some of staff’s suggested edits are as follows:     a.  Strategy 2 Reduce climate emissions from vehicles: The strategy should modify the  following sentence, “On an individual level, the plan encourages Bay Area residents to  drive less through transportation demand management initiatives, particularly active  transportation.”    b. Strategy 3 Reduce risks from hazards: Extreme heat needs to be included as a hazard.  Climate change is increasing the temperature in the Bay Area and the number of days  the Bay Area experiences extreme heat. On ABAG’s website there is a page dedicated to  extreme heat, citing a study by the California Energy Commission that found that heat  waves claim more lives in California than all other disasters combined, making it the  number one hazard Bay Area residents’ encounter. Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 should  discuss how to reduce risk from extreme heat in the Bay Area. (p. 79)    2. The discussion on trees, in the strategy to Expand Access to Parks and Open Space, should also  recognize the benefits trees provide in terms of property values in neighborhoods and for  privacy between neighbors. (p. 80) The Arbor Day Foundation website  https://www.arborday.org/trees/benefits.cfm), provide the following statistics on the  importance of trees in a community setting:      5    a. A mature tree can often have an appraised value between $1,000 and $10,000. Council  of Tree and Landscape Appraisers    b. Having large trees in yards along streets increases a home’s value from 3 percent to 15  percent. Wolf, Kathleen L, PhD, University of Washington (2007) City Trees and Property  Values. Arborist News. 16, 4:34‐36.    c. In Portland, Oregon, street trees increase the value of homes by a total of $1.1 billion,  an average increase of $7,020 for each house. Donovan, G.H.; Butry, D.T. (2010). Trees in  the City: Valuing Street Trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning 94:77‐ 83.    d. Landscaping, especially with trees, can increase property values as much as 20 percent.  Management Information Services/ICMA    3. In the third paragraph on p. 80 again should recognize bicycles: “…emissions vary by type of  developed land: walkable, bicycle‐ and transit‐friendly neighborhoods have a lower climate  footprint than poorly connected, low‐density neighborhoods…” (p. 80)    4. The discussion about transportation demand management initiatives needs to acknowledge the  importance of life‐cycle funding for these projects so they can be operated and maintained as  designed. (pg. 84) Suggested edit:     a. Transportation demand management is an area ripe for partnership between regional  government, local jurisdictions, and the private sector, as well as an opportunity to  partner with the state Legislature and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. It  will be important to ensure that transportation demand management projects are  funded on a life‐cycle basis to ensure they are operated and maintained as designed.    5. The discussion on electric vehicles should include electric bicycles. E‐bikes are less expensive to  purchase and maintain than a car, even an electric car, and do not have to be insured. They also  have the potential to help with medium‐length trips. (p. 86)    6.  Extreme heat needs to be added as a hazard to the, Reduce Risks From Hazards strategy. (p. 89)  Suggested edit:    a. The most high‐profile, and more visibly destructive, environmental events come from  hazards like extreme weather (including extreme heat), wildfires, earthquakes, and sea  level rise.    7. Retrofits for energy efficiency, particularly insulation, as well as seismic retrofits should be  discussed. (last paragraph p. 89)      6    8. Edit the following sentence to add building insulation, “Other home modification assistance,  beyond safety upgrades, could include energy efficiency upgrades, building insulation, water  efficiency upgrades, and electrification to replace natural gas for heating and cooking.” (p. 90)    9. Does the final table, on the last page of this chapter reflect both first costs (i.e., installation  costs) and life‐cycle costs? If these costs are not reflected the table should be modified to reflect  both first costs (planning and installation) and life‐cycle costs (ongoing operation and  maintenance).      TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS REPORT (appendix)    1. Staff is checking technical assumptions report to be sure local tax information is up to date and  includes Contra Costa County’s Measure X.       Draft EIR Comments    1. The no project alternative assumes that higher household growth will primarily take place in  Contra Costa County based on data by MTC and ABAG. Why is this, especially compared to other  jurisdictions where there are more jobs to housing? Wouldn’t market forces level it out even  with “no project”?  RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended list of designated positions for the Conflict of Interest Code for the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority ("Tri Delta Transit"). FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Tri Delta Transit has amended the list of designated positions in its Conflict of Interest Code and submitted the revised list, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The change includes the revision of a title of a position designated to file a conflict of interest statement. This change will ensure that the Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects the current positions and organizational structure in use by Tri Delta Transit. A strike-out version of the list of designated positions is attached as Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Assistant County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Assistant County Counsel, Jeanne Krieg, Chief Executive Officer, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority C.143 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary Ann Mason, County Counsel Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri Delta Transit) ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - ECCTA Designated Positions Exhibit B - ECCTA Designated Positions - STRIKEOUT RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSENT to the refinancing of the first mortgage loan and agree to subordinate the County Regulatory Agreement to the new first mortgage lender; 2. APPROVE a subordination agreement among Contra Costa County as Governmental Entity, Merchants Capital Corp as Lender, and Contra Costa County Housing Corporation as Borrower that will subordinate the rights and obligations under the County Regulatory Agreement; 3. ACCEPT repayment of the 2003 Community Development Block Grant loan balance of $253,652.32 plus accrued interest; and 4. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, to execute documents to carry out these items. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. The loan repayment must be used for CDBG eligible projects. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA): CDBG - 14.218 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristin Sherk, (925) 655-2889 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.144 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of and Consent to Refinancing, Subordinating, and Repayment of CDBG Loan - Emerson Arms in Martinez BACKGROUND: On May 9, 2003, the County loaned $1,360,622 in CDBG funds to Contra Costa County Housing Corporation (a subsidiary of Eden Housing, Inc.) for the rehabilitation of Emerson Arms, a 32-unit affordable apartment complex located 326 Ward Street in Martinez (Development). The Development was financed with CalHFA financing. The County entered into a loan with Contra Costa County Housing Corporation, in exchange for the project reserving 31 units for low-income households for a period of 55 years to 2058. Eden Housing, Inc. (Eden) wishes to refinance the first mortgage loan in order to finance a rehabilitation scope of approximately $4,000,000. The project was originally constructed in approximately 1970 and last underwent any significant renovation in 2003. Eden will work with Merchants Capital to secure favorable financing through the Fannie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities Program enabling the project to pay off both the County's CDBG loan in full plus accrued interest and the CalHFA first mortgage plus complete a renovation scope of approximately $4,000,000. The CDBG Loan Agreement allows for prepayment of the CDBG loan without penalty, but the CDBG Regulatory Agreement shall remain in effect for the entire 55-year term. Merchants Capital as new Lender will require that the County subordinate its current CDBG Regulatory Agreement to the new first mortgage loan. The subordination agreement is attached in its substantially final form and will be executed in a form approved by County Counsel. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the subordination agreement and CDBG loan payoff are not approved, Eden will be unable to refinance and complete the planned rehabilitation at Emerson Arms Apartments. ATTACHMENTS Emerson Arms Subordination Agreement Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Prepared by, and after recording return to: Cassin & Cassin LLP 711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10017 Attn: Recording Department APN: 373-211-006-3 County: Contra Costa SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page 1 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR REGULATORY AGREEMENT REGULATORY AGREEMENT ONLY/NO SUBORDINATE DEBT THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT FOR REGULATORY AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is effective as of the ___ day of July, 2021, by the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (“Governmental Entity”), and CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING CORPORATION, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (“Borrower”), for the benefit of MERCHANTS CAPITAL CORP., an Indiana corporation, its successors and assigns (“Lender”). RECITALS: A. Simultaneously herewith Lender is making a loan to Borrower in the original principal amount of $6,854,000.00 (“Loan”) pursuant to a Multifamily Loan and Security Agreement between Lender and Borrower (as supplemented or amended from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”) and evidenced by a Multifamily Note by Borrower to Lender (as supplemented or amended from time to time, the “Note”). The Loan is to be secured by a Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing that will be recorded among the records of Contra Costa County, California (“Official Records”) (as supplemented or amended from time to time, the “Mortgage”) of certain improved real property known as Emerson Arms and located at 326 Ward Street, Martinez, California 94553, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Property”). The Loan Agreement, the Note and the Mortgage, together with all other documents executed with respect to the Loan, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents”. B. In connection with the construction and development of the Property, Borrower entered into a certain Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated as of May 9, 2003 (“Regulatory Agreement”) in favor of the Governmental Entity, which was recorded in Contra Costa County Official Records, as DOC# 2003-0231601-00, on May 19, 2003, pursuant to which the Property was subjected to certain restrictions by Governmental Entity. C. As a condition to making the Loan, Lender requires that the lien of the Mortgage be superior to the lien of the Regulatory Agreement. Lender will not make the Loan unless Governmental Entity and Borrower agree to subordinate their rights and obligations under the Regulatory Agreement. E. Borrower and Governmental Entity hereby agree to subordinate the Regulatory Agreement on and subject to the terms, conditions and requirements set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing to the parties hereto and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page 2 1. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as agreements among the parties. 2. Subordination. The Governmental Entity hereby agrees that the Regulatory Agreement is and shall at all times continue to be, subordinate, subject and inferior to the rights of Lender under the Loan Documents and that the liens, rights (including approval and consent rights), remedies, payment interests, priority interests, and security interests granted to Governmental Entity pursuant to or in connection with the Regulatory Agreement are hereby expressly acknowledged to be in all respects and at all times, subject, subordinate and inferior in all respects to the liens, rights (including approval and consent rights), remedies, payment, priority and security interests granted to Lender pursuant to the Loan Documents and the terms, covenants, conditions, operations and effects thereof. Notwithstanding the above, Governmental Entity may exercise the remedies of specific performance or injunctive relief at any time in the event of a default under or breach of the terms of the Regulatory Agreement. 3. Financing and Encumbrance Approval. Governmental Entity hereby approves and acknowledges the financing evidenced by the Mortgage. Governmental Entity further agrees that any transfer of the Property in connection with foreclosure of the Mortgage or a deed in lieu thereof shall not require Governmental Entity’s consent but shall require notice to Governmental Entity. 4. Satisfaction of Prior Indebtedness. Governmental Entity acknowledges and agrees that the “Loan” associated with and defined in the Regulatory Agreement, owed by Borrower to Governmental Entity has been repaid in full with interest and satisfied, in all respects. 5. Lender Notice of Default. In consideration of Governmental Entity’s agreements contained in this Agreement, Lender agrees that in the event of any default by Borrower under the Loan Documents, Governmental Entity shall be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of default given by Lender to Borrower under the Loan Documents. Neither the giving nor the failure to give a notice to Governmental Entity pursuant to this Section 5 will affect the validity of any notice given by Lender to the Borrower. 6. Governmental Entity Notice of Default. Governmental Entity shall give Lender a concurrent copy of each material notice (including without limitation each notice of default) given by Governmental Entity under or with respect to the Regulatory Agreement, and agrees that Lender, at Lender’s sole election, shall have the right (but not the obligation) to cure any default by Borrower under the Regulatory Agreement on its and/or Borrower’s behalf. Governmental Entity hereby represents that, to the best of its knowledge, there is no current default under the Regulatory Agreement. 7. Governmental Entity's Rights. Except as set forth in Sections 2 and 8 of this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement is intended to abridge or adversely affect any right or obligation of Borrower and/or Governmental Entity, respectively, under the Regulatory Agreement; provided that, (A) the Regulatory Agreement may be released but it may not be modified, amended, changed or otherwise altered without the prior written consent of Lender so long as the Loan is secured by the Property and (B) for so long as the Loan is secured by the Property, notwithstanding the terms of the Regulatory Agreement to the contrary, neither Borrower Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page 3 nor Governmental Entity will, without Lender’s prior written consent, exercise or seek any right or remedy under the Regulatory Agreement or available at law or in equity which will or could result in (i) a transfer of possession of the Property or the control, operations or management thereof, (ii) the collection or possession of rents or revenues from or with respect to the Property by any party other than Borrower or Lender; (iii) appointment of a receiver for the Property; (iv) the application of insurance or condemnation proceeds other than as approved by Lender pursuant to the Loan Documents; (v) the removal or replacement of the existing property manager of the Property; or (vi) a material adverse effect on Lender’s security for the Loan. 8. Foreclosure by Lender. In the event of foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or similar disposition of the Property by Lender, no consent shall be required from Governmental Entity. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto with regard to the subordination of the Regulatory Agreement to the lien or charge of the Loan Documents, and shall supersede and cancel any prior agreements with regard to this subject matter. 10. Binding Provisions. The covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the respective parties to this Agreement. 11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 12. Modifications. This Agreement may not be modified orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors in interest. 13. Notices. All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be deemed to have been received either (i) when delivered by hand and the party giving such notice has received a signed receipt thereof, or (ii) three (3) days following the date deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows (or addressed in such other manner as the party being notified shall have requested by written notice to the other party): If to Governmental Entity: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 30 Muir Road Martinez, California 94553 Attn: Assistant Deputy Director If to Lender: Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page 4 MERCHANTS CAPITAL CORP., an Indiana corporation 255 Kellogg Blvd. E, Suite 103 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Attn: Lisa Lundeen, gse-asset-mgmt@merchantscapital.com If to Borrower: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING CORPORATION, a California non-profit public benefit corporation 22645 Grand Street Hayward, California 94541 Attn: Asset Management 14. Further Instruments. Each of the parties hereto will, whenever and as often as they shall be requested to do so by the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged or delivered, any and all such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement, and to do any and all further acts reasonably necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement. 15. Valid Authorization. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of a party hereto represents and warrants that such person is duly and validly authorized to do so on behalf of such party with full right and authority to execute this Agreement and to bind such party with respect to all of its obligations hereunder. 16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which when taken together constitute one and the same instrument, binding on all of the parties. The signature of any party to any counterpart shall be deemed a signature to, and may be appended to, any other counterpart. NOTICE: THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT RESULTS IN THE REGULATORY AGREEMENT BECOMING SUBJECT TO AND OF LOWER PRIORITY THAN THE LIEN OF THE MORTGAGE. Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page S-1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year above written. GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California By: (SEAL) Name: Title: Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page S-2 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the STATE OF ) ): ss. COUNTY OF ) On __________________ before me, ________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ________________ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Print Name: My commission expires: Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page S-3 : CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING CORPORATION, a California non-profit public benefit corporation By: (SEAL) Name: Tatiana Blank Title: Chief Financial Officer Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page S-4 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the STATE OF ) ): ss. COUNTY OF ) On __________________ before me, ________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ________________ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Print Name: My commission expires: Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page S-5 MERCHANTS CAPITAL CORP., an Indiana corporation By: (SEAL) Name: Katie Guille Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page S-6 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the STATE OF ) ): ss. COUNTY OF ) On __________________ before me, ________________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ________________ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Print Name: My commission expires: Subordination Agreement (Governmental Entity) Emerson Arms Page A-1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 29, ORIGINAL SURVEY OF THE TOWN OF MARTINEZ AS PER MAPS THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ("District"), including the List of Designated Positions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The District has amended its Conflict of Interest Code and submitted the revised code, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The revised code includes updates to the List of Designated Positions to add members of the District's Deferred Compensation Advisory Committee to the list of positions required to file conflict of interest statements. These changes are shown on the attached "red-line" version. (See Exhibit B) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Assistant County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Assistant County Counsel, Katie Young, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District C.145 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mary Ann Mason, County Counsel Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Conflict of Interest Code of the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District Exhibit B - Conflict of Interest Code of the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District - REDLINED RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Unpaid Student Training Agreement #22-845-5 with University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers to physical therapy students, for the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2026. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a nonfinancial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy students with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. The County’s Health Services Department has been contracting with University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy since July 1, 2002. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C.146 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #22-845-5 with University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On June 7, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved contract #22-845-4 with University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy for the provision of clinical field experience and instruction from County’s Health Services Department for the period from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2021. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #22-845-5 will allow University of the Pacific, Department of Physical Therapy students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction and experience at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, through August 31, 2026. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive clinical field experience and instruction at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers. ATTACHMENTS UOP RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT an update on human trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation of children and the work of the Family Justice Centers as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND: On January 6, 2015, the Board approved referring oversight to the Family and Human Services Committee (FHS) on the Family Justice Centers and Commercially Sexually Exploited Children initiatives. This became FHS Referral No. 111. On June 8, 2015, November 14, 2016, February 20, 2018, February 25, 2019, July 27, 2020 and June 28, 2021, FHS received and approved annual reports from the Employment and Human Services Department on the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative, Human Trafficking, Commercially Sexually Exploited Children, and the Family Justice Centers. This report provides an update on collaborative efforts to address human trafficking and the continuing development of the Family Justice Centers over the course APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dennis Bozanich; 925-655-2050 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.147 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Status Report on Human Trafficking and the Family Justice Centers BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of the last year. The additional social risks brought to light by the COVID-19 emergency underscore the importance of our County’s coordinated response, communication, resources distribution and effort to shift toward prevention. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: NA CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This report provides updates on efforts to protect children from commercial and sexual exploitation. ATTACHMENTS Report Presentation to the Family and Human Services Committee 1 To: Family and Human Services Committee, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Date: June 28, 2021 From: Tamina Alon, Assistant Director, Policy & Planning/Alliance to End Abuse, Subject: FHS Report #111 : Human Trafficking and Family Justice Center This report provides an update on collaborative efforts to address human trafficking and the continuing development of the Family Justice Centers over the course of the last year. The additional social risks brought to light by the COVID-19 emergency underscore the importance of our County’s coordinated response, communication, resources distribution and effort to shift toward prevention. Human Trafficking in Contra Costa County: A Snapshot Data on Prevalence Human trafficking can take many forms, but is generally categorized as either sex trafficking or labor trafficking. Sex trafficking is defined as the use of force, fraud, or coercion to perform a commercial sex act. Labor trafficking is a form of severe exploitation where individuals are threatened or otherwise compelled into debt bondage or other forced labor for little or no pay. Both sex and labor trafficking happen in Contra Costa County and are not mutually exclusive — a survivor can be subjected to both sex and labor exploitation. By nature, human trafficking is a hidden crime and is often under reported, especially labor trafficking reports (labor trafficking can be more difficult to identify than sex trafficking).1 1 Data on human trafficking is hard to come by, and is often not reliable, as agencies and systems often are not tracking clients by trafficking specifically. Clients may first be identified and tracked as experiencing other forms of violence (such as domestic violence, sexual assault or economic abuse). Additionally, agencies that are identifying trafficking clients may not be collecting details on the type or setting of trafficking. The data M E M O R A N D U M Kathy Gallagher, Director 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 | (925) 608.4800 | Fax (925) 313.9748 | www.ehsd.org 2 However, five Contra Costa victim service providers and the District Attorney’s Office have consistently collected data over the two years through a Department of Justice Human Trafficking Task Force Grant, facilitating an important snapshot of victims in our county.2 The data was collected over a twelve month period between January 1 and December 31, 2020 and represents more than 36 new victims of human trafficking who were identified and served by victim service providers during this time period. During this same time period, there were 42 new law enforcement human trafficking investigations opened. represented here does not define the totality of trafficking in Contra Costa County. In fact, it is likely under- representative of the amount of trafficking occurring, especially labor trafficking 2 These agencies include STAND! for Families Free of Violence, Community Violence Solutions, Calli House, Bay Area Legal Aid and International Rescue Committee. 11% 83% 6% Type Of Trafficking: New Victims Identifed 2020 Labor trafficking Sex trafficking Both Sex and Labor trafficking 86% 11% 3% Victims Sex Trafficking: New Victims Identifed 2020 Female Male Transgender/Gender non-binary 3 Based on the demographic data collected by both victim service providers and law enforcement partners, a large amount of those served were female US national sex trafficking victims. Data across law enforcement and victim service providers is consistent - far more female US citizen victims are identified than males, or foreign national victims. The types of trafficking investigated by Contra Costa’s law enforcement in the past and the types of trafficking victims being serviced by service provider caseloads tend to follow the national (and local) focus on sex trafficking. Human Trafficking Intervention and Prevention Efforts Human Trafficking Coalition The Alliance to End Abuse, a robust partnership and initiative of the Board of Supervisors, continues to lead and expand the Contra Costa Human Trafficking Coalition by uniting a diverse, culturally relevant group of community agencies, law enforcement, and social services agencies. The Coalition is made up of more than 44 partner agencies including a wide range of service providers, community-based organizations, law enforcement, the District Attorney’s Office and other local and national governmental departments. In addition to agency members, we have had community members join the Coalition as individuals. As a collaboration of agencies and individuals, the Coalition’s goals include: conducting public awareness activities; providing training, technical assistance and a forum to share best practices; establishing policies and protocols; and creating a coordinated system of care. Coalition meetings occur quarterly and include a training component, highlighting the work of one partner agency, and the sharing of resources/networking. The Contra Costa County Human Trafficking Coalition continues to strengthen its outreach and awareness efforts. In 2020 the Coalition added over ten new partner agencies and moved its meetings to a virtual format, increasing participation and engagement with a wider range of 78% 22% Citizenship Status: New Victims Identified 2020 U.S National status Foreign national status 4 agencies and individuals. Highlights from 2020 meetings included presentations and collaboration with Bay Area Anti-Trafficking Coalition (BAATC), Love Never Fails, Justice at Last and the Family Justice Center. Human Trafficking Multi-Disciplinary Case Review Team The Alliance to End Abuse, in collaboration with the Family Justice Center, continues to run human trafficking multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) with a focus on high-risk and complex human trafficking cases. The multidisciplinary team includes multiple agencies (law enforcement, District Attorney’s office, service providers, and culturally responsive agencies) with a focus on helping survivors meet their personal and family goals. According to surveys, participating agencies have reported increased collaboration, increased access to services for survivors and increased relationships built across systems. In 2020, the Human Trafficking MDT met bi-monthly (6 times) and reviewed 11 “complex” cases of human trafficking. 8 of the cases were Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) and 3 were adult sex trafficking related. A total of 25 connections were made to human trafficking MDT partners during and after meetings. During case reviews, partners noted that during the COVID- 19 shelter-in-place, Community Violence Solutions (CVS) and Children & Family Services (CFS) saw an increase in CSEC cases especially in group homes. Since the pandemic, communication between law enforcement partners (including the District Attorney’s Office and Public Defender) around high risk HT cases has been enhanced. From January through December 2020, the Domestic Violence MDT convened for 11 monthly meetings and reviewed a total of 18 cases with 102 partners participating. Out of the 18 cases, a total of 16 were closed (meaning, the survivor met the majority of their goals) within the year. Department of Justice Human Trafficking Task Force Grant In October 2018, the Alliance, in partnership with the District Attorney’s Office, was awarded the Enhanced Collaborative Model Task Force to Combat Human Trafficking grant by the Office of Victims of Crime. This three-year grant is focused on creating and supporting a human trafficking task force that is co-led by both law enforcement and victim service providers – working to increase services for survivors and strengthen investigations. The Task Force works to 1) better identify all types of human trafficking victims; 2) enhance investigation and prosecution of all types of human trafficking; 3) address the individualized needs of all identified human trafficking victims by linking them to comprehensive services; 4) enhance awareness of human trafficking among law enforcement and service providers, as well as within the broader Contra Costa community; and 5) improve trauma-informed practices for human trafficking victims within law enforcement and victim service providers. Service providers participating in the grant include Community Violence Solutions, STAND! for Families Free of Violence, Bay Area Legal Aid, International Rescue Committee and Calli House. These agencies work to provide wrap-around services to all victims of human trafficking as well as increase training and outreach. The Alliance has supported the coordination of services, data collection, data analysis and evaluation of programming for this grant. In the last 5 year, more than 36 new victims were identified, and more than 42 new law enforcement human trafficking investigations were opened. Due to the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order, general Human Trafficking Task Force meetings were halted, but the Human Trafficking Core Team continued to meet consistently virtually. The Task Force Core Team members collaboratively developed and adopted decision making, media and messaging protocols. The Training and Outreach subcommittee developed a draft training presentation to be approved as an official Task Force Human Trafficking Training for Contra Costa service providers and law enforcement. The Alliance in collaboration with the District Attorney’s Office will reapply for the Enhanced Collaborative Model Task Force to Combat Human Trafficking grant in June 2021 as a category 2 Task Force. Grant partners provided over 2,200 units of service to survivors of human trafficking in 2020. The most frequent service recorded was “ongoing case-management,” followed by “legal services” and “crisis intervention or 24-hour hotline support”. In 2020, financial assistance, personal items, and housing/shelter advocacy were services provided that had a significant increase from the previous year. 542 893 459 437 299 164 134 88 60 123 18 106 11 279 116 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Legal Services Ongoing Case Management Crisis Intervention or 24-Hour Hotline Emotional/Moral Support Other Service Social Service Advocacy Transportation Client Intake Protection/Safety Planning Personal Items Criminal Justice System-based Victim Advocacy Housing/Shelter Advocacy Interpreter/Translator Financial Assistance Mental Health and Treatment Services Provided to Trafficking Victims in 2020 (in units*) * Each unit of service is approximately 15min of time spent with a victim 6 Responding to Commercially Sexually Exploited Children/Youth (CSEC/Y) involved with Children and Family Services (CFS) The Children and Family Services Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Team continues to uphold the federal and state guidelines by outlining trauma-informed protocols to support the CSE population. The mission of the program is to eliminate the exploitation of children and build a system of care that addresses the needs of at-risk CSEC youth and survivors across Child Welfare, Probation, and the Contra Costa community. The CFS CSEC Team works by following the mandate of ensuring identification, documentation, and services are provided for all CSE youth. The Team meets on a monthly basis to review any new legal mandates or updates from CDSS, and discuss program needs and resources aimed at increasing CSE awareness, identification, and referrals for services. Since the inception of the program in 2015, there have been innovative additions to create a safety net for youth served. One of the supporting components of the program is the countywide Interagency Steering Committee. The Interagency Steering Committee provides ongoing oversight and leadership to ensure all Contra Costa County departments and community service providers are able to effectively collaborate to identify and serve youth who are at-risk or survivors of commercial sexual exploitation. Additionally, the Interagency Protocol for Serving Commercially Sexually Exploited Children in Contra Costa County was revised last year to include the Contra Costa County Office of Education and the County Sheriff Department. There continues to be ongoing training for social workers and community members to increase the identification of CSE youth. The continuous collaborative efforts have led to the training of community partners to screen all youth ages ten and older with the Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool (CSE-IT). Contra Costa’s Probation Department and Public Health Department also utilize this tool. CFS has trained many professionals, resource caregivers, and community partners and service providers on a range of topics from Harm Reduction, CSEC Red Flags, and the intersection of CSEC and Child Labor Trafficking. A major part of the program is the direct services provided. CFS contracts with Community Violence Solutions (CVS) to provide case management services for all identified CSE youth (at-risk and survivors). Some of CVS’s resources include a Drop-In Center, a 24-hour crisis line, trainings, and ongoing consultation for all social workers with CSEC youth on their caseloads. The program continues to grow with case specialists being present in the district offices to provide immediate consultation and intervention to CFS social workers. The data for CSE youth are documented by social workers in the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS): 7 Age Children who are at-risk or are survivors of human trafficking vary in age. In Contra Costa, the largest groups of children/youth with CSE involvement are between ages 15 and 18, with a significant increase at age 16. Gender Contra Costa data shows there are more females identified as CSEC/Y than males. This has historically been the case in Contra Costa, and is also reflective throughout the state as a whole and the nation; males continue to be underreported. 8 CSE At-Risk Youth and Survivors The number of youths identified as being CSE at-risk continues to grow. This data reflects Statewide and National trends, with almost as many youth identified “at-risk” of exploitation as those identified already as victims. Because of this, CFS continues to work to strengthen prevention programming with community partners. 9 Challenges and Needs in Addressing Human Trafficking While awareness of sex trafficking has increased, understanding, identification, and training on labor trafficking has not continued at the same pace. More resources and attention are required in order to achieve a better understanding of this complicated issue, including looking at the overlap with immigration status, tax evasion and fraud, wage and hour violations, building code inspections, and health inspections. Highlighting and bringing in efforts that increase the level of training, awareness, and funding to address promising practices related to labor trafficking is needed. This includes special attention to the hospitality industry, restaurants, salons, and other industries known to have large numbers of trafficked workers. Historically, sex trafficking cases have been prosecuted in Contra Costa County, but in 2020 the District Attorney’s Office filed the county’s first labor trafficking case. The Human Trafficking Task Force hopes to increase labor trafficking efforts among law enforcement agencies and support from victim service providers in the future. Additional challenges remain related to flexible and timely housing and shelter options, language capacity, and culturally relevant and responsive services for victims. The Family Justice Center The Family Justice Center (FJC) is a one-stop center for families affected by domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, child abuse, and human trafficking. The Family Justice Center coordinates with 63 on-site partners so clients can get safer sooner. The Alliance to End Abuse continues to support the development of the FJC, and County departments remain essential partners among many, supporting residents who are accessing the centers. In 2020, the Family Justice Centers (in three Contra Costa County locations) provided services to 4,444 individuals who experienced interpersonal violence (2,145 clients from Central Center, 1,576 clients from West Center and 723 from East Center). This was a 13% increase of clients from 2019. Those services impacted an additional 3,421 children living with these clients. In 2020, the Family Justice Center decided to remain open to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home is not a safe space to shelter in place for many survivors of interpersonal violence and there needed to be somewhere to go to make a private phone call or have an in- person meeting. The FJC partnered with the Contra Costa Courts, when the courthouses shut down for several weeks, to ensure that community members could come to the FJC to fill out Domestic Violence Restraining Order applications with the assistance of attorneys. The Family Justice Center also partnered with several foundations to distribute direct cash assistance to families impacted by COVID-19 layoffs. A total of $77.000 was provided to 142 families with 263 children impacted. 309 families were given grocery cards and 50 families were provided Chromebooks to ensure distance learning was possible. Below is a snapshot of FJC clients: 10 Types of Violence, Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 Race/ Ethnicity, Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 73% 7%10%6%3%1% 66% 14%9%6%4%1% 56% 16% 9%5% 12% 2% Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Child Abuse Elder Abuse Stalking Human Trafficking Type of Violence, Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 Central West East Latinx 51% White 20% Black/African American 15% Asian 6% Other 5% American Indian / Alaskan Native 2% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 1% Race / Ethnicity of Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 11 Top Client Needs, Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 Additional information about FJC clients in 2020 18% 15% 10%10%10% Advocacy ("Comprehensive Services") Family Law Assistance Mental Health Counseling Financial Assistance Restraining Order Assistance Top Client Needs 12 Coordinated Integrated Services FJC’s services are organized into two groups: crisis support and long-term safety. Crisis support services are coordinated through FJC Navigators, who connect clients to the services they need to leave their abusive situations or deal with their present crisis. After dealing with crisis, FJC staff offer services to get clients to long term safety and independence by working on four domains: health, education and training, wealth and community. Below are highlights from FJC’s work to integrate services in 2020: • The number of IPV clients served (4,444) increased by 13% compared to the previous one-year period. • FJC expanded their partnerships by adding more (7 new partners) on and off site. Capacity Building and Partnership Support FJC’s capacity building and partnership support strategy includes hosting monthly multidisciplinary team (MDT) case reviews of high danger domestic violence and human trafficking cases and law enforcement training coordination. In addition, through the Family Justice Institute, FJC offers trainings and workshops to educate service providers and the public about issues related to IPV. Below are highlights from FJC’s work in capacity building and partnership: • Between January 2020 and November 2020, FJC convened 11 domestic violence multidisciplinary team meetings with 102 partners to discuss high risk domestic violence cases. 18 cases were nominated and discussed. Of the reviewed cases, 100% of the victims experienced verbal threats, 12 of the 18 victims experienced physical assaults, and 50 connections were made to partner agencies. • In 2020, the Family Justice Institute offered 26 workshops and/or trainings, attended by 1,681 individuals. FJC developed and recruited trainers for these workshops and trainings in response to training needs identified by partners. The topics included Suicide Prevention and Risk Assessment, and COVID-19 specific workshops on housing and employment rights. Impact of COVID-19 on Human Trafficking and Interpersonal Violence 3 During natural disasters and other emergencies, rates of interpersonal violence and human trafficking can increase dramatically. During shelter-in-place, tensions in relationships, lack of support systems and exploitation may increase. Increased financial and medical stress, unemployment, as well as generalized anxiety, can lead to more violence and abuse at home and lead individuals to take jobs that may be induced by force, fraud or coercion. COVID-19 has left many individuals without work and in need of money to pay for basic needs such a utility bills, rent and food. This has created a situation in which employers have a lot of power over employees/workers, and there has been heightened fear that exploitation, sex and labor trafficking will rise during Shelter-in-Place. Companies and businesses may lower 3 Interpersonal violence consists of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, elder abuse and child abuse 13 production costs and labor costs as they navigate the economic uncertainty – which can lead some to seek cheap or free labor. As individuals are in need of money, they might be more likely to take a job that is under paid, paid only through tips, or may have an element of force, fraud or coercion at play. According to the Polaris Project, the agency that runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline, “the number of crisis trafficking cases handled by the Trafficking Hotline increased by more than 40 percent in the month following the shelter-in-place orders compared to the prior month (from approximately 60 in a 30 day period to 90). Crisis cases are those in which some assistance – such as shelter, transportation, or law enforcement involvement – is needed within 24 hours. The number of situations in which people needed immediate emergency shelter nearly doubled (from around 29 cases in Feb. 14th – March 15th, 2020 to 54 in April 2020).”4 Economic upheaval and a situation in which many are now without work and in need of cash, has created a situation in which trafficking may thrive. Furthermore, those who may be trafficked during this time are more exposed to the virus and have less resources to recover from it. Furthermore, racism and oppression are deeply embedded in the dynamics of human trafficking. Many trafficking victims have multiple vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to trafficking, such as poverty, immigration status, or involvement with the child welfare or criminal legal system. We know that these vulnerabilities predominately impact Black individuals, Indigenous individuals and People of Color because of institutionalized systems and policies that have historically disenfranchised and left out this population. In order to address the root causes of human trafficking and interpersonal violence, we must address racial and gender inequities. A public health approach to trafficking looks upstream at the root causes of violence and creates environments that support and foster wellness. Contra Costa County’s Call to Action: Preventing Interpersonal Violence The Alliance to End Abuse and the Contra Costa County Public Health are co-leading a planning and capacity-building process to develop and implement a countywide ‘Call to Action’ to promote safety and reduce interpersonal violence, including human trafficking. It was informed by countless community members and service providers who participated in the planning and development process. The Call to Action provides vision and values, and identifies goals and strategies to create a unified direction for multiple stakeholders. It is grounded in prevention and public health principles, and acknowledges that multiple forms of violence and abuse are preventable sources of harm in our communities, shaped by structural and community conditions, that can be significantly reduced through collective, strategic action. The Call to Action serves as a guide for coordinated and strategic action to correct the epidemic of interpersonal violence. By developing a lasting framework that promotes equity, expands and strengthens partnerships, fosters economic opportunity and ensures community connectivity, the County is better able to address the root causes of interpersonal violence and human trafficking. Officially revealed in February 2020, the Call to Action highlighted four goals and accompanying strategies, to move the County towards a more targeted, upstream public health 4 https://polarisproject.org/press-releases/human-trafficking-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ 14 approach to violence prevention. A task force was convened in Summer 2020 to begin implementation of these goals. When COVID-19 hit the Bay Area in March 2020, the Alliance revisited its approach to interpersonal violence in light of a national pandemic and emergency. Furthermore, it became clear that a space was needed to address and respond to immediate COVID-19 needs related to interpersonal violence. As we face both social and physical isolation during shelter-in-place orders, leading to increased anxiety and increased inequity, we need to create protective environments in order to prevent violence. Because of this, the Alliance has identified three specific prevention goals and strategies to focus on during this time, including: 1. Building sustainable, race conscious and value driven prevention infrastructure o Racial equity trainings, workshops and agency specific technical assistance 2. Fostering early childhood development and whole family supports o Community engagement and education campaigns 3. Encouraging community connectedness o Multi-generational community building Investing in these strategies is key to ensuring the safety and well-being of all and is a primary approach the Alliance and Public Health will support in the coming year. Resources • Contra Costa County’s Call to Action: Preventing Interpersonal Violence • Contra Costa County Family Justice Centers • Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse Update on Human Trafficking and Family Justice Centers ALEXANDRA MADSEN, ALLIANCE TO END ABUSE DIVISION MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMIT TEE JUNE 28, 2021 Human Trafficking in Contra Costa County: A Snapshot Human trafficking can take many forms, but is generally categorized as either sex trafficking or labor trafficking Both sex and labor trafficking happen in Contra Costa County and are not mutually exclusive—a survivor can be subjected to both sex and labor exploitation The following data was collected over a twelve month period between January 1 and December 31, 2020, and represents over 36 new survivors of human trafficking who were identified and served during this time period 1 Human Trafficking in Contra Costa County: A Snapshot 2 Labor trafficking 11% Sex trafficking 83% Both Sex and Labor trafficking 6% Type Of Trafficking: New Victims Identified 2020 Female 86% Male 11% Transgender/Gender non-binary 3% Victims Sex Trafficking: New Victims Identifed 2020 U.S National status 78% Foreign national status 22% Citizenship Status: New Victims Identified 2020 Human Trafficking Intervention and Prevention Efforts Human Trafficking Coalition Human Trafficking Multi-Disciplinary Case Review Team Department of Justice Human Trafficking Task Force Grant Responding to Commercially Sexually Exploited Children/Youth (CSEC/Y) involved with Children and Family Services (CFS) CSEC Steering Committee 3 Family Justice Center and Data Highlights The Family Justice Center (FJC) continues to be a one-stop center for families affected by domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, child abuse, and human trafficking. FJC highlights for 2020: 4 Provided services to 4,444 individuals who experienced interpersonal violence, a 13% increase from 2019 Services provided impacted an additional 3,421 children living with clients served Provided comprehensive and integrated services by working together with their 63 on-site partners Remained open to the public during the COVID- 19 pandemic Partnered with foundations to distribute $77,000 to families impacted by COVID-19 layoffs Family Justice Center and Data Highlights 5 73% 7%10% 6%3%1% 66% 14% 9%6%4%1% 56% 16% 9% 5% 12% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Child Abuse Elder Abuse Stalking Human Trafficking Type of Violence, Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 Central West East Family Justice Center and Data Highlights 6 Latinx 51% White 20% Black/African American 15% Asian 6% Other 5% American Indian / Alaskan Native 2% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 1% Race / Ethnicity of Family Justice Center Clients, 2020 Impact of COVID-19 on Human Trafficking and Interpersonal Violence During natural disasters and other emergencies, rates of interpersonal violence and human trafficking can increase dramatically. Tensions in relationships Lack of support systems Increased financial and medical stress, unemployment, as well as generalized anxiety This leads to more violence and abuse at home and may lead individuals to take jobs that may be induced by force, fraud or coercion. 7 Impact of COVID-19 on Human Trafficking and Interpersonal Violence “The number of crisis trafficking cases handled by the Trafficking Hotline increased by more than 40 percent in the month following the shelter-in- place orders compared to the prior month (from approximately 60 in a 30 day period to 90). Crisis cases are those in which some assistance –such as shelter, transportation, or law enforcement involvement –is needed within 24 hours. The number of situations in which people needed immediate emergency shelter nearly doubled (from around 29 cases in Feb. 14th –March 15th, 2020 to 54 in April 2020).” Polaris Project, the agency that runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline: https://polarisproject.org/press-releases/human-trafficking- during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ 8 What’s Next: Moving Upstream While we must respond to the immediate needs and crisis now, we must also begin to look upstream at what is causing human trafficking and interpersonal violence in the first place. 10 What’s Next: Contra Costa County’s Call to Action for Preventing Interpersonal Violence The Alliance and the Contra Costa County Public Health are co-leading a planning and capacity-building process to develop and implement a countywide ‘Call to Action’to promote safety and reduce interpersonal violence, including human trafficking. It was informed by countless community members and services providers who participated in the planning and development process. 9 11 Thank You 12 CONTACT INFO: TAMINA ALON INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT TALON@EHSD.CCCOUNTY.US RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER accepting a report on youth housing, employment, education and well-being services and the Independent Living Skills Program as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND: An annual update of the Independent Living Schools Program administered by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) was first referred to the Family and Human Services Committee by the Board of Supervisors on October 17, 2006. On June 7, 2016, EHSD requested, and the Board approved, expanding Referral #93 – Independent Living Skills Program to include additional youth services updates and retitling the referral to “Youth Services Report”, so that the department can include reports on all youth services offered in the community through EHSD, including Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and CalWORKs youth services. Prior to the report delivered on June 28, 2021, the Family and Human Services APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dennis Bozanich; 925-655-2050 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.148 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Report on the Independent Living Skills Program and other youth services BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Committee had last received an annual report on this referral on October 29, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: NA CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This report provides an update on the status of youth services programs including the Independent Living Skills Program in the Employment and Human Services Department. ATTACHMENTS Report Presentation to the Family and Human Services Committee Monica Nino, County Administrator RECOMMENDATION Accept this report from the Employment and Human Services Department; and continue to support the Children and Family Services Bureau’s efforts to serve transitional age foster youth through the Children and Family Services’ Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP). BACKGROUND OF ILSP SERVICES AND SERVICES FOR TRANSITION AGE YOUTH In 1999, the Federal government passed the Foster Care Independence Act. This legislation, sponsored by the late Senator John Chaffee, doubled funding for statewide Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP). There was overwhelming evidence emerging that youth leaving foster care were in need of greater support from foster care into adulthood. Foster youth nationwide were found to have increased likelihood of early parenting, instability in relationships, not graduating from high school, lower school performance, increased health and mental health problems, homelessness, substance abuse, and a higher rate of unemployment. For the past thirty-three years the Children and Family Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department has provided services through the Independent Living Skill Program (ILSP). ILSP serves youth between the ages of 15.5 to 21. The ILSP has received recognition throughout the State of California and nation for its service and service delivery model. An ILSP Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator and three ILSP Specialists staff the program. ILSP is funded by the federal Title IV-E dollars with a 20% State match towards administrative costs and realignment funds. M E M O R A N D U M Kathy Gallagher, Director 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 | (925) 608.4800 | Fax (925) 313.9748 | www.ehsd.org PROGRESS TO DATE During the pandemic, ILSP offered skill building and youth engagement activities, virtually, all covering four core areas, called the Four Pillars. The Four Pillars consist of Education, Employment/Vocational, Housing and Well Being. ILSP collaborated with partnerships established over the years to create and deliver a series of virtual workshops that met weekly. This year, 415 foster youth have been served both individually and in group settings (i.e. Zoom workshops/classes/activities.) Six hundred and twenty seven (627) youth were deemed eligible for ILSP services. We relied on our donor community during the pandemic. Upwards of $18,500.00 in donations were raised from the general community during the pandemic. This funding offered scholarships, gift cards, and emergency funding via VESTIA, Inc. to assist ILSP participants. ILSP PILLAR – HOUSING Transitional housing for foster youth and emancipated foster youth continues to be delivered in Contra Costa County. Two providers served the in-care foster youth age 16-18 in transitional housing, called THPP. Five providers served non-minor dependent youth, aged 18-21, transitional housing called THP+NMD. This past year, five (5) foster youth were served in THPP and one hundred twenty six (126) youth were served in THP+NMD. Housing continues to be a significant challenge for foster youth as they transition to adulthood. The Housing Continuum has improved communication between CFS ILSP and the housing providers. Efforts continue to be developed creating housing options in the community (i.e. room for rent) through collaborations with community-based organizations and faith based organizations and individual citizens with resources to offer. The long-term goal in this area is to develop more permanent housing options for youth. For example, discussions continue with Health, Housing & Homeless Services (H3) to refer youth to permanent housing options. Additionally, the contracted providers work diligently to develop more permanent housing options and advocate for improved housing options for foster youth (See Table 1) ILSP PILLAR- EMPLOYMENT ILSP collaborates with the Office of Education to refer youth to their WIOA case manager. The Workforce Innovative Opportunities Act (WIOA) helps provide employment services to the ILSP participants enrolled in their program. This past year, ILSP provided employment workshops entitled, Employment Etiquette and How to get a Job during the Pandemic, through our partnership with Travis Credit Union and the Youth Finance Institute of America. In June of 2020, Family Harvest Farm opened, employing twelve (12) of our youth in paid internship positions. (See Table 1) https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/01/08/east-bay-family-harvest-farm-helps-foster-youths-find- purpose-community/ ILSP PILLAR- EDUCATION This current fiscal year, through our collaboration with the Contra Costa County Office of Education, eighty-two (82) youth have been identified to be eligible to graduate from high school this school year. All of the CCC graduates will be honored with the ILSP High School graduation stipend. ILSP continues to collaborate with the Assistance League of Diablo Valley to administer the Senior Sponsorship Program. As there are few funding streams to support extracurricular activities and expenses for foster youth, the program was designed to assist graduating seniors to be able to partake in events that are difficult for caregivers to afford. The Senior Sponsorship program funds such things as senior pictures, yearbooks, and caps and gowns. Thousands of dollars continue to be raised via VESTIA and service organizations to provide scholarship opportunities for our youth each year. In collaboration with the Community Colleges, we host workshops to inform our youth of the supportive services on each community college campus to create a successful college transition. Supporting our foster youth to stay in school through such programs helps assist youth strive to achieve graduation. (See Table 1) ILSP PILLAR WELL-BEING Youth in foster care often do not experience childhood in the way most children do who live with their families of origin. They have suffered child abuse and neglect, been removed from their families and many older youth experience moving from placement to placement. The foster care system provides basic needs. Youth in foster care may miss participating in sports, arts, spending the night at friend’s homes, and the like. ILSP provides activities and supportive services to help encourage positive social development and exposure to activities. This year provided an opportunity to explore therapy through art; participants were able to experience art activities virtually. The State of California Department of Social Services has emphasized the importance of supporting the well-being of foster care and ILSP is an available mechanism to provide this intervention. The ILSP staff are trained in an approach called Positive Youth Development. This approach enables them to engage youth and motivate them to strive to improve their lives. (See Table 2 and 4) SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Youth who emancipate from foster care are expected to become self-sufficient by 21 years of age. This entails the ability to maintain stable housing, maintain employment, and maintain one’s physical health. Research on the outcomes of emancipated foster youth indicates that these tasks are difficult for this population. Rates of homelessness for emancipated foster youth has been found to be as high as 42% and housing moves are generally related to poverty and lack of stable family relationships. Child Welfare programs have implemented ILS programs in order to help prevent these negative outcomes. The Contra Costa County ILSP serves upwards of 500 youth each year. Despite a reduction in staff and funding over the past several years, ILSP continues to strive to improve the lives of at risk foster youth. Much of the work of the ILSP staff is to cultivate collaborative partnerships with community-based organizations and other foster youth serving groups. ILSP Staff have expertise in engaging youth and motivating them to stay in school, graduate, and get life sustaining employment. These services are critical right now. With the Board’s continuing support and commitment to the ILSP, foster youth will continue to be provided quality skill building workshops, social skill development, financial support and improved transitions into adulthood. Table 1 - Workshops Pillars: Housing, Employment, Education Workshop/Activity Offered Workshop/Activity Name Number of Youth Served Online (on-going) Study Less, Study Smart 13 Online (on-going) 50/30/20 Rule for Budgeting 12 Online (on-going) 7 Money Mistakes that are easy to make Workshop Table 2 - Workshop Pillar: Well-Being Workshop/Activity Offered Workshop/Activity Name Number of Youth Served Online (on-going) Anger Management 8 Online (on-going) How to be more Disciplined 3 Online (on-going) 3 ways to get to out of an unmotivated rut Change Relationships Table 3 - Leadership Development/California Youth Connection Activities Meetings and Events Number of Youth Who Attended 2 CYC Meetings held 13 Youths per meeting CYC Day at the Capital 4 City of Richmond Foster Youth Focus Group 12 youth Table 4 - Positive Youth Development Activities Activity Number of Youth Who Attended Virtual Network Event 110 Family Harvest Apprenticeship 12 FHF-Entrepreneurship Event 2 1 •Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-169) •Provides training,services,and benefits to assist current and former foster youth in achieving self-sufficiency prior to,and after leaving, the foster care system •Each county has the flexibility to design services to meet a wide range of individual needs and circumstances. 2 The Independent Living Skills Program “Our vision is to move every youth from stagnation to motivation, from limitations to possibilities; from dependency to self-sufficiency; from the past to the FUTURE.” 3 ILSP spotlights “The Four Pillars” •Education •Employment / Vocational •Housing •Well-Being 4 •Youth placed in out-of-home care after their 16th birthday. •Former dependents who entered into a kinship guardianship at any age and is receiving Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payments (Kin-GAP)at the age between 16 and 18. •Former dependent who entered into a Non-Related Legal Guardianship (NRLG)after their 8th birthday. •Probation Youth with Placement orders at the age of 16. •Former dependent youth at the age of 16. •Youth residing here from other counties of jurisdiction. 5 •Daily living skills •Money management •Building/developing self-esteem •Financial support with college or vocational schools •Educational Resources •Housing via Transitional Housing and Housing Referrals •Employment assistance / WIOA referral •1:1 support •Emergency Food Pantry and Clothes Closet 6 7 8 •415 current and former foster youth served in current fiscal year •34 THP+ provided transitional housing & support services •126 THPP NMD provided transitional housing & support services •82 ILSP youth have been identified to graduate High School in 2021 •Donations via VESTIA, Inc. increased during the pandemic •Collaborative efforts continued, providing virtual workshops RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept the Canvass of Votes for the June 29, 2021 Elections for Police Services Measures in the following County Service Areas: P-6, Zone 3007, Supervisorial District 1 - Unincorporated area of Richmond - DID PASS P-6, Zone 213, Supervisorial District 5 - Unincorporated area of Bay Point - DID NOT PASS FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: For the election results, see the attached Certificates of the County Clerk, providing results of the June 29, 2021 Election for County Service Areas, where each landowner of the affected area was allowed one vote for each acre or portion thereof: P-6 Zone 3007, Resolution No. 2021/138 P-6 Zone 213, Resolution No. 2021/140 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rosa Mena, 925.335.7806 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C.149 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT CANVASS OF VOTES FOR POLICE SERVICE ELECTIONS IN CSA-P6 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Each Resolution, so as to authorize a special tax on said properties, located in unincorporated areas in Richmond and Bay Point, to maintain present level of police protection services and provide additional funding for increased police protection services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not accept the Canvass of Votes, Zone 3007 will not be formed. ATTACHMENTS 06/29/21 Official Certification RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/218 authorizing the issuance and sale of the Pittsburg Unified School District 2021 General Obligation Bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $51,000,000 on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Pittsburg Unified School District has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the direct issuance and sale of the bonds by the District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code in an amount not to exceed $51,000,000. The District adopted a resolution authorizing the sale of bonds on May 26, 2021 (attached). The District's 2021 General Obligation Bonds in the aggregate amount not to exceed $51,000,000, is composed of the following: Series 2014D (2021) in the amount of $17,000,000, Series 2018C (2021) in the amount of $15,000,000 and 2021 General Obligation Refunding APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/13/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-655-2043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C.150 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:July 13, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ISSUE BONDS ON ITS OWN BEHALF BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) bonds in the amount of $19,000,000. The new money portion of the bonds will be used to fund capital improvements throughout the District and the refunding bonds will be issued to refinance existing debt service expenditures. Authority for the 2014 allocation of bonds was approved by the voters on November 4, 2014 in an amount not to exceed $85,000,000 and authority for the 2018 allocation of bonds was approved by the voters on November 6, 2018 in an amount not to exceed $100,000,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorization, the School District would not be able to issue the bonds on it's own behalf. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following Children's Report Card outcome: Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/218 District Resolution MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2021/218 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 07/13/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/218 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONSENTING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ISSUE ITS 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (SERIES 2014D, SERIES 2018C, AND 2021 REFUNDING COMBINED ISSUE) RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of Contra Costa County (the “County”), State of California: WHEREAS, sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code, including section 53508.7 thereof, provide that California public school district may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf at private sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code the Education Code; WHEREAS, section 15140(b) of the California Education Code provides that the board of supervisors of county may authorize California public school district in the county to issue and sell its own bonds without the further action of the board of supervisors or officers of the county; WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Pittsburg Unified School District (the “District”), a California public school district under the jurisdiction of the County, has heretofore adopted and filed with the Clerk of this Board, a resolution (the “District Resolution”) providing for the issuance and sale of its Pittsburg Unified School District to issue its 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C, and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue), in an amount not to exceed $51,000,000 (the “2021 Bonds”), through negotiated sale pursuant to sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, it has been requested on behalf of the District that this Board consent to such issuance of the 2021 Bonds and authorize the District to issue and sell the 2021 Bonds on its own behalf at negotiated sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms set forth in the District Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Consent and Authorization of Negotiated Sale. This Board hereby consents to and authorizes the issuance and negotiated sale by the District on its own behalf of the 2021 Bonds pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code, as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms and conditions set forth in the District Resolution. This consent and authorization set forth herein shall only apply to the 2021 Bonds. Section 3. Source of Payment. The County acknowledges receipt of the District Resolution as adopted and the requests made by the District to levy collect and distribute ad valorem tax revenues pursuant to section 15250 et seq. of the California Education Code to pay for principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds when and if sold. Correspondingly, and subject to the issuance and sale of the 2021 Bonds and transmittal of information concerning the debt service requirements thereof to the appropriate County officers, there shall be levied by the County on all of the taxable property in the District in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem tax annually during the period the 2021 Bonds are outstanding commencing with fiscal year 2018-19 in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds when due which tax revenues when collected will be placed in the Interest and Sinking Fund of the District, as defined in the District Resolution, which Interest and Sinking Fund has been irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds when and as the same fall due. The monies in the Interest and Sinking Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent, as defined in the District Resolution, as necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds as set out in California law and in the District Resolution. Section 4. Approval of Actions. Officers of the Board and County officials and staff are authorized to do any and all things and are hereby authorized and directed jointly and severally to execute and deliver any and all documents which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to assist the District with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds and otherwise carry out give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Such actions heretofore taken by such officers, officials and staff are hereby ratified confirmed and approved. Section 5. Indemnification of County . The County acknowledges and relies upon the fact that the District has represented that it shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject because of action or inaction related to the adoption of this resolution, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the 2021 Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District’s resolution and that the District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. Section 6. Limited Responsibility for Official Statement. Neither the Board nor any officer of the County has prepared or reviewed the official statement of the District describing the 2021 Bonds (the “Official Statement”) and this Board and the various officers of the County take no responsibility for the contents or distribution thereof; provided, however, that solely with respect to a section contained or to be contained therein describing the County’s investment policy, current portfolio holdings and valuation procedures, as they may relate to funds of the District held by the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the Official Statement and in a preliminary official statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the 2021 Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein in the light of the circumstances under which they are made not misleading. Section 7. Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein in the 2021 Bonds or in any other document mentioned herein, neither the County nor the Board shall have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the 2021 Bonds shall be payable solely from the moneys of the District available therefore as set forth in the District Resolution and herein. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-655-2043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 13, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Quint & Thimmig LLP 05/19/21 16010.38/16010.39 BOARD OF TRUSTEES PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 20-40 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE DISTRICT’S 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $51,000,000, CONSISTING OF ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2014, SERIES D (2021), IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000, ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2018, SERIES C (2021), IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000 AND ITS 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $19,000,000 Adopted May 26, 2021 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY Section 1.01. Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................................4 Section 1.02. Authority for this Resolution ...................................................................................................................................7 ARTICLE II THE 2021 BONDS Section 2.01. Authorization .............................................................................................................................................................8 Section 2.02. Terms of 2021 Bonds .................................................................................................................................................8 Section 2.03. Redemption ................................................................................................................................................................9 Section 2.04. Form of 2021 Bonds .................................................................................................................................................10 Section 2.05. Execution of 2021 Bonds .........................................................................................................................................10 Section 2.06. Transfer of 2021 Bonds ...........................................................................................................................................11 Section 2.07. Exchange of 2021 Bonds .........................................................................................................................................11 Section 2.08. Bond Register ...........................................................................................................................................................11 Section 2.09. Temporary 2021 Bonds ...........................................................................................................................................11 Section 2.10. 2021 Bonds Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen ..............................................................................................11 Section 2.11. Book Entry System ..................................................................................................................................................12 ARTICLE III ISSUE OF 2021 BONDS; APPLICATION OF 2021 BOND PROCEEDS; SECURITY FOR THE 2021 BONDS Section 3.01. Issuance, Award and Delivery of 2021 Bonds ....................................................................................................14 Section 3.02. Funds and Accounts ...............................................................................................................................................14 Section 3.03. Application of Proceeds of Sale of 2021 Bonds ...................................................................................................15 Section 3.04. Security for the 2021 Bonds ....................................................................................................................................16 ARTICLE IV SALE OF BONDS; APPROVAL OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT; APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT Section 4.01. Sale of the 2021 Bonds ............................................................................................................................................17 Section 4.02. Approval of Paying Agent Agreement ................................................................................................................17 Section 4.03. Approval of Escrow Agreements ..........................................................................................................................17 Section 4.04. Official Statement ....................................................................................................................................................17 Section 4.05. Continuing Disclosure ............................................................................................................................................17 Section 4.06. Official Action ..........................................................................................................................................................17 ARTICLE V OTHER COVENANTS OF THE DISTRICT Section 5.01. Punctual Payment ...................................................................................................................................................19 Section 5.02. Extension of Time for Payment .............................................................................................................................19 Section 5.03. Protection of Security and Rights of Bondowners .............................................................................................19 Section 5.04. Further Assurances .................................................................................................................................................19 Section 5.05. Tax Covenants .........................................................................................................................................................19 Section 5.06. Acquisition, Disposition and Valuation of Investments ...................................................................................20 Section 5.07. Requirements of Section 15146(b) of the California Education Code ..............................................................20 Section 5.08. Requirements of Section 5852.1 of the California Government Code .............................................................21 ARTICLE VI THE PAYING AGENT Section 6.01. Appointment of Paying Agent ..............................................................................................................................23 Section 6.02. Paying Agent May Hold 2021 Bonds ...................................................................................................................23 Section 6.03. Liability of Agents ...................................................................................................................................................23 Section 6.04. Notice to Agents ......................................................................................................................................................24 Section 6.05. Compensation, Indemnification ............................................................................................................................24 -ii- ARTICLE VII EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF BONDOWNERS Section 7.01. Events of Default .....................................................................................................................................................25 Section 7.02. Other Remedies of Bondowners ...........................................................................................................................25 Section 7.03. Non-Waiver ..............................................................................................................................................................25 Section 7.04. Remedies Not Exclusive .........................................................................................................................................26 ARTICLE VIII SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTIONS Section 8.01. Supplemental Resolutions Effective Without Consent of the Owners ............................................................27 Section 8.02. Supplemental Resolutions Effective With Consent to the Owners .................................................................27 ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.01. Consultants ..............................................................................................................................................................28 Section 9.02. Benefits of Resolution Limited to Parties .............................................................................................................28 Section 9.03. Defeasance ................................................................................................................................................................28 Section 9.04. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Bondowners ................................................................30 Section 9.05. Waiver of Personal Liability ..................................................................................................................................30 Section 9.06. Destruction of Canceled 2021 Bonds ....................................................................................................................30 Section 9.07. Partial Invalidity ......................................................................................................................................................30 Section 9.08. Effective Date of Resolution ..................................................................................................................................31 EXHIBIT A: FORM OF 2021 BOND EXHIBIT B: FORM OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C: FORM OF 2010D BONDS ESCROW AGREMENT EXHIBIT D: FORM OF 2012 REFUNDING BONDS ESCROW AGREMENT EXHIBIT E: FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 20-40 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE DISTRICT’S 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $51,000,000, CONSISTING OF ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2014, SERIES D (2021), IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000, ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2018, SERIES C (2021), IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000 AND ITS 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $19,000,000 RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees (the “Board of Trustees”) of the Pittsburg Unified School District (the “District”), as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 1, Division 1, Part 10, Chapter 2 (commencing with section 15100) of the California Education Code and Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with section 53506) of the California Government Code, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds; WHEREAS, a duly called special municipal election was held in the District on November 4, 2014, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law; WHEREAS, at such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty- five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds of the District to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology, upgrade energy systems, including solar, reduce cost, improve student learning by acquiring, upgrading, constructing, equipping classrooms, science/computer labs, and school facilities, replace aging roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation/electrical systems, improve fire alarms, school security and earthquake safety (the “2014 Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $85,000,000 (the “2014 Authorization”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District; WHEREAS, the District has previously issued an initial series of general obligation bonds under the 2014 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of $30,000,000, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series A (2015), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs; WHEREAS, the District has also previously issued a second series of general obligation bonds under the 2014 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of $18,000,000, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series B (2017), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs; -2- WHEREAS, the District has also previously issued a third series of general obligation bonds under the 2014 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series C (2018), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs; WHEREAS, the District wishes at this time to authorize the issuance and sale of a fourth series of bonds pursuant to the 2014 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $17,000,000, to be designated as the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series D (2021) (the “2014D Bonds”) for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs; WHEREAS, a duly called special municipal election was held in the District on November 6, 2018, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law; WHEREAS, at such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty- five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology and improve student learning by upgrading, constructing and equipping classrooms, science labs, District office facilities and workforce housing (the “2018 Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $100,000,000 (the “2018 Authorization”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District; WHEREAS, the District has previously issued an initial series of general obligation bonds under the 2018 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of $10,505,000, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series A (2019), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2018 Project and other authorized costs; WHEREAS, the District has also previously issued a second series of general obligation bonds under the 2018 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of $2,000,000, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series B (2019), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2018 Project and other authorized costs; WHEREAS, the District wishes at this time to authorize the issuance and sale of a third series of bonds under the 2018 Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $15,000,000, to be designated as the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series C (2021) (the “2018C Bonds”) for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2018 Project and other authorized costs; and WHEREAS, the District has also heretofore issued, on April 22, 2014, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2010, Series D (2014) (the “2010D Bonds”), in the original principal amount of $12,500,000 to finance capital projects authorized by the voters of the District at an election held in 2010; WHEREAS, the District has also heretofore issued, on August 7, 2012, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the “2012 Refunding Bonds”), in the original principal amount of $13,265,000 to refund certain general obligation bonds previously issued by the District in 2003 and 2004; -3- WHEREAS, pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of Chapter 3 (commencing with section 53550) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the District is empowered to issue general obligation refunding bonds; WHEREAS, the District has determined that it is in the best interests of the District to refund all or a portion of the outstanding 2010D Bonds and all or a portion of the outstanding 2012 Refunding Bonds and wishes at this time to authorize the issuance and sale of its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the “2021 Refunding Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $19,000,000, for such purposes; and WHEREAS, in order to sell the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds at the lowest possible rates, it is advantageous to offer a single larger issue to the market than three smaller ones so the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds will be combined into one issue to be designated as the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) (the “2021 Bonds”), in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $51,000,000; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees of the Pittsburg Unified School District, as follows: -4- ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY Section 1.01. Definitions. The terms defined in this Section 1.01, as used and capitalized herein, shall, for all purposes of this Resolution, have the meanings ascribed to them below, unless the context clearly requires some other meaning. “Act” means Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1, of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with section 53506) of the California Government Code, as is in effect on the date of adoption hereof and as amended hereafter. “Articles,” “Sections” and other subdivisions are to the corresponding Articles, Sections or subdivisions of this Resolution, and the words “herein,” “hereof,” “hereunder” and other words of similar import refer to this Resolution as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section or subdivision hereof. “Authorized Investments” means any investments permitted by law to be made with moneys belonging to, or in the custody of, the District, but only to the extent that the same are acquired at Fair Market Value. “Board” means the Board of Trustees of the District. “Bond Counsel” means any attorney or firm of attorneys nationally recognized for expertise in rendering opinions as to the legality and tax exempt status of securities issued by public entities. “Bond Purchase Agreement” means the Bond Purchase Agreement by and between the District and the Underwriter, for the purchase and sale of the 2021 Bonds. “Bond Register” means the registration books for the 2021 Bonds maintained by the Paying Agent. “Closing Date” means the date upon which there is an exchange of the 2021 Bonds for the proceeds representing the purchase of the Bonds by the Underwriter. “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on the date of issuance of the 2021 Bonds or (except as otherwise referenced herein) as it may be amended to apply to obligations issued on the date of issuance of the 2021 Bonds, together with applicable temporary and final regulations promulgated, and applicable official public guidance published, under the Code. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” shall mean that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the District and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the 2021 Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. “Costs of Issuance” means all items of expense directly or indirectly reimbursable to the District relating to the issuance, execution and delivery of the 2021 Bonds including, but not limited to, filing and recording costs, settlement costs, printing costs, reproduction and binding costs, legal fees and charges, fees and expenses of the Paying Agent, financial and other -5- professional consultant fees, costs of obtaining credit ratings, fees for execution, transportation and safekeeping of the 2021 Bonds and charges and fees in connection with the foregoing. “County” means Contra Costa County, California. “Debt Service” means the scheduled amount of interest and amortization of principal payable on the 2021 Bonds during the period of computation, excluding amounts scheduled during such period which relate to principal which has been retired before the beginning of such period. “District Representative” means the Superintendent, the Associate Superintendent, or any other person authorized by resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District to act on behalf of the District with respect to this Resolution and the 2021 Bonds. “Escrow Agreements” means, collectively, the 2010D Bonds Escrow Agreement and the 2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Agreement. “Escrow Bank” means The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as escrow bank under the Escrow Agreements. “Fair Market Value” means the price at which a willing buyer would purchase the investment from a willing seller in a bona fide, arm’s length transaction (determined as of the date the contract to purchase or sell the investment becomes binding) if the investment is traded on an established securities market (within the meaning of section 1273 of the Code) and, otherwise, the term “Fair Market Value” means the acquisition price in a bona fide arm’s length transaction (as referenced above) if (i) the investment is a certificate of deposit that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (ii) the investment is an agreement with specifically negotiated withdrawal or reinvestment provisions and a specifically negotiated interest rate (for example, a guaranteed investment contract, a forward supply contract or other investment agreement) that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (iii) the investment is a United States Treasury Security—State and Local Government Series that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States Bureau of Public Debt, or (iv) any commingled investment fund in which the District and related parties do not own more than a ten percent (10%) beneficial interest therein if the return paid by the fund is without regard to the source of the investment. “Federal Securities” means United States Treasury Bonds, bills or certificates of indebtedness or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. “Interest Payment Date” means with respect to interest, February 1 and August 1 of each year commencing on February 1, 2022, and with respect to principal, August 1, of each year commencing on August 1 in such year as shall be set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. “Municipal Advisor” means Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC, as Municipal Advisor to the District in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds. “Net Proceeds,” when used with reference to the 2021 Bonds, means the face amount of the 2021 Bonds, plus accrued interest and premium, if any, less original issue discount, if any. “Outstanding” means, when used as of any particular time with reference to 2021 Bonds, all 2021 Bonds except: -6- (a) 2021 Bonds theretofore canceled by the Paying Agent or surrendered to the Paying Agent for cancellation; (b) 2021 Bonds paid or deemed to have been paid within the meaning of Section 9.03 hereof; and (c) 2021 Bonds in lieu of or in substitution for which other 2021 Bonds shall have been authorized, executed, issued and delivered by the District pursuant to this Resolution. “Owner” or “Bondowner” mean any person who shall be the registered owner of any Outstanding 2021 Bond. “Participating Underwriter” shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Paying Agent” means The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., the Paying Agent appointed by the District and acting as paying agent, registrar and authenticating agent for the 2021 Bonds, or such other paying agent as shall be appointed by the District prior to the delivery of the 2021 Bonds, its successors and assigns, and any other corporation or association which may at any time be substituted in its place, as provided in Section 6.01 hereof. “Paying Agent Agreement” means the Paying Agent/Bond Registrar/Costs of Issuance Agreement, dated the Closing Date, by and between the District and the Paying Agent. “Principal Office” means the principal corporate trust office of the Paying Agent in San Francisco, California. “Record Date” means the 15th day of the month preceding each Interest Payment Date. “Regulations” means temporary and permanent regulations promulgated under the Code. “Resolution” means this Resolution, including all amendments hereto and supplements hereof which are duly adopted by the Board of Trustees from time to time in accordance herewith. “2010D Bonds” means the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2010, Series D (2014). “2010D Bonds Escrow Agreement” means that certain Escrow Agreement, by and between the District and the Escrow Bank, relating to the defeasance of the 2010D Bonds to be refunded. “2010D Bonds Escrow Fund” means the escrow fund established by the Escrow Bank under the 2010D Bonds Escrow Agreement. “2012 Refunding Bonds” means Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. “2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Agreement” means that certain Escrow Agreement, by and between the District and the Escrow Bank, relating to the defeasance of the 2012 Refunding Bonds to be refunded. -7- “2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Fund” means the escrow fund established by the Escrow Bank under the 2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Agreement. “2014D Bonds” means the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series D (2021), issued and at any time Outstanding pursuant to this Resolution. “2018C Bonds” means the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series C (2021), issued and at any time Outstanding pursuant to this Resolution. “2021 Bonds” means the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue), combining the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds. “2021 Refunding Bonds” means the Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds. “Supplemental Resolution” means any resolution supplemental to or amendatory of this Resolution, adopted by the District in accordance with Article VIII hereof. “Term Bonds” means those 2021 Bonds for which mandatory redemption dates have been established pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement. “Treasurer-Tax Collector” means the County Treasurer-Tax Collector. “Underwriter” means Raymond James & Associates, Inc., as underwriter of the 2021 Bonds. “Written Request of the District” means an instrument in writing signed by the District Representative or by any other officer of the District duly authorized by the District and listed on a Written Request of the District for that purpose. Section 1.02. Authority for this Resolution. This Resolution is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act. -8- ARTICLE II THE 2021 BONDS Section 2.01. Authorization. 2021 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed fifty-one million dollars ($51,000,000), comprised of the 2014D Bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000), the 2018C Bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), and the 2021 Refunding Bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed nineteen million dollars ($19,000,000), are hereby authorized to be issued by the District under and subject to the terms of the Act and this Resolution. The amount of 2021 Bonds shall be determined on the date of sale thereof in accordance with the Bond Purchase Agreement. This Resolution constitutes a continuing agreement with the Owners of all of the 2021 Bonds issued or to be issued hereunder and then Outstanding to secure the full and final payment of principal of and the interest on all 2021 Bonds which may from time to time be executed and delivered hereunder, subject to the covenants, agreements, provisions and conditions herein contained. The 2021 Bonds shall be designated the “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue).” Section 2.02. Terms of 2021 Bonds. (a) Form; Numbering. The 2021 Bonds shall be issued as fully registered 2021 Bonds, without coupons, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, but in an amount not to exceed the aggregate principal amount of 2021 Bonds maturing in the year of maturity of the 2021 Bond for which the denomination is specified. 2021 Bonds shall be lettered and numbered as the Paying Agent shall prescribe. (b) Date of 2021 Bonds. The 2021 Bonds shall be dated as of the Closing Date. (c) CUSIP Identification Numbers. “CUSIP” identification numbers shall be imprinted on the 2021 Bonds, but such numbers shall not constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the 2021 Bonds and any error or omission with respect thereto shall not constitute cause for refusal of any purchaser to accept delivery of and pay for the 2021 Bonds. In addition, failure on the part of the District to use such CUSIP numbers in any notice to Owners of the 2021 Bonds shall not constitute an Event of Default (hereinafter defined) or any violation of the District’s contract with such Owners and shall not impair the effectiveness of any such notice. (d) Maturities; Interest. The 2021 Bonds shall mature (or, alternatively, be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption as hereinafter provided) and become payable on August 1 in the years and in the amounts set forth in, and subject to the alteration thereof permitted by, the Bond Purchase Agreement. The 2021 Bonds shall bear interest at such rate or rates as shall be determined upon the sale thereof, payable semi-annually on each Interest Payment Date. Each 2021 Bond shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of registration and authentication thereof unless (i) it is registered and authenticated as of an Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such date, or (ii) it is registered and authenticated prior to an Interest Payment Date and after the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding such Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date, or (iii) it is registered and authenticated prior to January 15, 2022, in which event it shall bear interest from the date described in paragraph (b) of this Section 2.02; provided, however, that if at the time of authentication of a 2021 Bond, interest is -9- in default thereon, such 2021 Bond shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment thereon. Interest on the 2021 Bonds shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. (e) Payment. Interest on the 2021 Bonds (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) is payable by check of the Paying Agent mailed via first-class mail to the Owner thereof at such Owner’s address as it appears on the Bond Register on each Record Date or at such other address as the Owner may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose; provided however, that payment of interest may be by wire transfer in immediately available funds to an account in the United States of America to any Owner of 2021 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more who shall furnish written wire instructions to the Paying Agent at least five (5) days before the applicable Record Date. Principal of the 2021 Bonds is payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the Principal Office. Section 2.03. Redemption. (a) Optional Redemption. The 2021 Bonds are subject to optional redemption on the dates and at the redemption prices set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement. The District shall be required to give the Paying Agent written notice of its intention to redeem 2021 Bonds. (b) Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. In the event and to the extent specified in the Bond Purchase Agreement, any maturity of 2021 Bonds may be designated as “Term Bonds” and shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption. If some but not all of such Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to the preceding subsection (a) of this Section 2.03, the aggregate principal amount of such Term Bonds to be redeemed in each year pursuant to this subsection (b) shall be reduced on a pro rata basis in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the District with the Paying Agent. (c) Notice of Redemption. The Paying Agent on behalf and at the expense of the District shall mail (by first class mail) notice of any redemption to: (i) the respective Owners of any 2021 Bonds designated for redemption, at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption date, at their respective addresses appearing on the Bond Register, and (ii) the Securities Depositories and to one or more Information Services, at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption; provided, however, that neither failure to receive any such notice so mailed nor any defect therein shall affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of such 2021 Bonds or the cessation of the accrual of interest thereon. Such notice shall state the date of the notice, the redemption date, the redemption place and the redemption price and shall designate the CUSIP numbers, the 2021 Bond numbers and the maturity or maturities (in the event of redemption of all of the 2021 Bonds of such maturity or maturities in whole) of the 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, and shall require that such 2021 Bonds be then surrendered at the Principal Office for redemption at the redemption price, giving notice also that further interest on such 2021 Bonds will not accrue from and after the redemption date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of any optional redemption of the 2021 Bonds, the notice of redemption shall state that the redemption is conditioned upon receipt by the Paying Agent of sufficient moneys to redeem the 2021 Bonds on the scheduled redemption date, and that the optional redemption shall not occur if, by no later than the scheduled redemption date, sufficient moneys to redeem the 2021 Bonds have not been deposited with the Paying Agent. In the event that the Paying Agent does not receive sufficient funds by the scheduled optional redemption date to so redeem the 2021 Bonds to be optionally redeemed, -10- the Paying Agent shall send written notice to the Owners, to the Securities Depositories and to one or more of the Information Services to the effect that the redemption did not occur as anticipated, and the 2021 Bonds for which notice of optional redemption was given shall remain Outstanding for all purposes. (d) Selection of 2021 Bonds for Redemption. Whenever provision is made for the redemption of 2021 Bonds of more than one maturity, the 2021 Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the District evidenced by a Written Request of the District filed with the Paying Agent or, absent such selection by the District, on a pro rata basis among the maturities subject to redemption; and in each case, the Paying Agent shall select the 2021 Bonds to be redeemed within any maturity by lot in any manner which the Paying Agent in its sole discretion shall deem appropriate and fair. For purposes of such selection, all 2021 Bonds shall be deemed to be comprised of separate $5,000 portions and such portions shall be treated as separate 2021 Bonds which may be separately redeemed. (e) Partial Redemption of 2021 Bonds. In the event only a portion of any 2021 Bond is called for redemption, then upon surrender of such 2021 Bond the District shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver to the Owner thereof, at the expense of the District, a new 2021 Bond or Bonds of the same maturity date, of authorized denominations in aggregate principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion of the 2021 Bond to be redeemed. 2021 Bonds need not be presented for mandatory sinking fund redemptions. (f) Effect of Redemption. From and after the date fixed for redemption, if funds available for the payment of the principal of and interest (and premium, if any) on the 2021 Bonds so called for redemption shall have been duly provided, such 2021 Bonds so called shall cease to be entitled to any benefit under this Resolution other than the right to receive payment of the redemption price, and no interest shall accrue thereon from and after the redemption date specified in such notice. All 2021 Bonds redeemed pursuant to this Section 2.03 shall be canceled and shall be destroyed by the Paying Agent. Section 2.04. Form of 2021 Bonds. The 2021 Bonds, the form of the Paying Agent’s certificate of authentication and registration and the form of assignment to appear thereon shall be substantially in the forms, respectively, with necessary or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions, as permitted or required by this Resolution, as are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 2.05. Execution of 2021 Bonds. The 2021 Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the District by the facsimile signatures of the President of its Board of Trustees and its Clerk who are in office on the date of adoption of this Resolution or at any time thereafter. If any officer whose signature appears on any 2021 Bond ceases to be such officer before delivery of the 2021 Bonds to the purchaser, such signature shall nevertheless be as effective as if the officer had remained in office until the delivery of the 2021 Bonds to the purchaser. Any 2021 Bond may be signed and attested on behalf of the District by such persons as at the actual date of the execution of such 2021 Bond shall be the proper officers of the District although at the nominal date of such 2021 Bond any such person shall not have been such officer of the District. Only such 2021 Bonds as shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication and registration in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, executed and dated by the Paying Agent, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Resolution, and such certificate of the Paying Agent shall be conclusive evidence that the 2021 Bonds so registered have been duly authenticated, registered and delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this Resolution. -11- Section 2.06. Transfer of 2021 Bonds. Any 2021 Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the books required to be kept pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.08 hereof, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such 2021 Bond for cancellation at the Principal Office, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Paying Agent, duly executed. The Paying Agent shall require the payment by the Owner requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer. Whenever any 2021 Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for transfer, the District shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver a new 2021 Bond or Bonds, for like aggregate principal amount. No transfers of 2021 Bonds shall be required to be made (a) fifteen days prior to the date established by the Paying Agent for selection of 2021 Bonds for redemption or (b) with respect to a 2021 Bond after such 2021 Bond has been selected for redemption. Section 2.07. Exchange of 2021 Bonds. 2021 Bonds may be exchanged at the Principal Office for a like aggregate principal amount of 2021 Bonds of authorized denominations and of the same maturity. The Paying Agent shall require the payment by the Owner requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. No exchanges of 2021 Bonds shall be required to be made (a) fifteen days prior to the date established by the Paying Agent for selection of 2021 Bonds for redemption or (b) with respect to a 2021 Bond after such 2021 Bond has been selected for redemption. Section 2.08. Bond Register. The Paying Agent shall keep or cause to be kept sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the 2021 Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the District upon reasonable notice; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Paying Agent shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on said books, 2021 Bonds as herein before provided. Section 2.09. Temporary 2021 Bonds. The 2021 Bonds may be initially issued in temporary form exchangeable for definitive 2021 Bonds when ready for delivery. The temporary 2021 Bonds may be printed, lithographed or typewritten, shall be of such denominations as may be determined by the District, and may contain such reference to any of the provisions of this Resolution as may be appropriate. Every temporary 2021 Bond shall be executed by the District upon the same conditions and in substantially the same manner as the definitive 2021 Bonds. If the District issues temporary 2021 Bonds it will execute and furnish definitive 2021 Bonds without delay, and thereupon the temporary 2021 Bonds may be surrendered, for cancellation, in exchange therefor at the Principal Office and the Paying Agent shall deliver in exchange for such temporary 2021 Bonds an equal aggregate principal amount of definitive 2021 Bonds of authorized denominations. Until so exchanged, the temporary 2021 Bonds shall be entitled to the same benefits pursuant to this Resolution as definitive 2021 Bonds executed and delivered hereunder. Section 2.10. 2021 Bonds Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen. If any 2021 Bond shall become mutilated the District, at the expense of the Owner of said 2021 Bond, shall execute, and the Paying Agent shall thereupon authenticate and deliver, a new 2021 Bond of like maturity and principal amount in exchange and substitution for the 2021 Bond so mutilated, but only upon surrender to the Paying Agent of the 2021 Bond so mutilated. Every mutilated 2021 Bond so surrendered to the Paying Agent shall be canceled by it and delivered to, or upon the order -12- of, the District. If any 2021 Bond shall be lost, destroyed or stolen, evidence of such loss, destruction or theft may be submitted to the District and, if such evidence be satisfactory to the District and indemnity satisfactory to it shall be given, the District, at the expense of the Owner, shall execute, and the Paying Agent shall thereupon authenticate and deliver, a new 2021 Bond of like maturity and principal amount in lieu of and in substitution for the 2021 Bond so lost, destroyed or stolen. The District may require payment of a sum not exceeding the actual cost of preparing each new 2021 Bond issued under this Section and of the expenses which may be incurred by the District and the Paying Agent in the premises. Any 2021 Bond issued under the provisions of this Section 2.10 in lieu of any 2021 Bond alleged to be lost, destroyed or stolen shall constitute an original additional contractual obligation on the part of the District whether or not the 2021 Bond so alleged to be lost, destroyed or stolen be at any time enforceable by anyone, and shall be equally and proportionately entitled to the benefits of this Resolution with all other 2021 Bonds issued pursuant to this Resolution. Section 2.11. Book Entry System. Except as provided below, the owner of all of the 2021 Bonds shall be The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), and the 2021 Bonds shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. The 2021 Bonds shall be initially executed and delivered in the form of a single fully registered 2021 Bond for each maturity date of the 2021 Bonds in the full aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Bonds maturing on such date. The Paying Agent and the District may treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the 2021 Bonds registered in its name for all purposes of this Resolution, and neither the Paying Agent nor the District shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Paying Agent and the District shall not have any responsibility or obligation to any participant of DTC (a “Participant”), any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the 2021 Bonds under or through DTC or a Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the register of the District as being an owner, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or any Participant or the payment by DTC or any Participant by DTC or any Participant of any amount in respect of the principal or interest with respect to the 2021 Bonds. The Paying Agent shall cause to be paid all principal and interest with respect to the 2021 Bonds received from the District only to DTC, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the District’s obligations with respect to the principal and interest with respect to the 2021 Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Except under the conditions noted below, no person other than DTC shall receive a 2021 Bond. Upon delivery by DTC to the District of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the term “Cede & Co.” in this Resolution shall refer to such new nominee of DTC. If the District determines that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners that they be able to obtain 2021 Bonds and delivers a written certificate to DTC to that effect, DTC shall notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of 2021 Bonds. In such event, the District shall issue, transfer and exchange 2021 Bonds as requested by DTC and any other owners in appropriate amounts. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the 2021 Bonds at any time by giving notice to the District and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances (if there is no successor securities depository), the District shall be obligated to deliver 2021 Bonds as described in this Resolution. Whenever DTC requests the District to do so, the District will cooperate with DTC in taking appropriate action after reasonable notice to (a) make available one or more separate 2021 Bonds evidencing the 2021 Bonds to any DTC Participant having 2021 Bonds credited to its DTC account or (b) arrange for another securities depository to maintain custody of certificates evidencing the 2021 Bonds. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as any 2021 Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, all payments with -13- respect to the principal and interest with respect to such 2021 Bond and all notices with respect to such 2021 Bond shall be made and given, respectively, to DTC as provided as in the representation letter delivered on the date of issuance of the 2021 Bonds. -14- ARTICLE III ISSUE OF 2021 BONDS; APPLICATION OF 2021 BOND PROCEEDS; SECURITY FOR THE 2021 BONDS Section 3.01. Issuance, Award and Delivery of 2021 Bonds. At any time after the execution of this Resolution the District may issue and deliver 2021 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed fifty-one million dollars ($51,000,000). The District Representatives shall be, and are hereby, directed to cause the 2021 Bonds to be printed, signed and delivered to the Underwriter on receipt of the purchase price therefor and upon performance of the conditions contained in the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Paying Agent is hereby authorized to deliver the 2021 Bonds to the Underwriter, upon receipt of a Written Request of the District. Section 3.02. Funds and Accounts. (a) Interest and Sinking Fund. A fund, known as the “Pittsburg Unified School District, General Obligation Bonds Interest and Sinking Fund” (the “Interest and Sinking Fund”), previously established by the Treasurer is hereby continued for the 2021 Bonds. Moneys deposited therein shall be used only for payment of principal and interest on general obligation bonds of the District. Any amounts in the Interest and Sinking Fund not needed for the payment of debt service on the Bonds shall be used to pay other general obligation bonds of the District or, if there are no other general obligation bonds of the District outstanding, shall be paid to the District. The interest earned on the moneys deposited to the Interest and Sinking Fund shall be retained in the Interest and Sinking Fund and used for the purposes thereof. (b) Building Funds. (i) A fund, to be known as the “Pittsburg Unified School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series D (2021) Building Fund” (the “2014D Building Fund”), is hereby established and maintained by the Treasurer-Tax Collector for the 2014D Bonds. Moneys deposited therein from the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds shall be used solely for the purpose for which the 2014D Bonds are being issued and shall be applied solely to authorized purposes which relate to the acquisition or improvement of real property and for the payment of Costs of Issuance of the 2014D Bonds if insufficient moneys are available therefor in the Costs of Issuance Fund. The interest earned on the moneys deposited to the 2014D Building Fund shall be retained in the 2014D Building Fund and used for the purposes thereof. At the written request of the District filed with the County, any amounts remaining on deposit in the 2014D Building Fund and not needed for the purposes of the 2014D Bonds shall be withdrawn from the 2014D Building Fund and transferred to Interest and Sinking Fund, to be applied to the payment of Debt Service on the bonds of the 2014 Authorization. By receipt of a copy of this resolution, the Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby requested to establish and maintain the 2014D Building Fund. The County is not responsible for the use of funds disbursed from the 2014D Building Fund. (ii) A fund, to be known as the “Pittsburg Unified School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series C (2021) Building Fund” (the “2018C Building Fund”), is hereby established and maintained by the Treasurer-Tax Collector for the 2018C Bonds. Moneys deposited therein from the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds shall be -15- used solely for the purpose for which the 2018C Bonds are being issued and shall be applied solely to authorized purposes which relate to the acquisition or improvement of real property and for the payment of Costs of Issuance of the 2018C Bonds if insufficient moneys are available therefor in the Costs of Issuance Fund. The interest earned on the moneys deposited to the 2018C Building Fund shall be retained in the 2018C Building Fund and used for the purposes thereof. At the written request of the District filed with the County, any amounts remaining on deposit in the 2018C Building Fund and not needed for the purposes of the 2018C Bonds shall be withdrawn from the 2018C Building Fund and transferred to the Interest and Sinking Fund, to be applied to the payment of Debt Service on the bonds of the 2014 Authorization. By receipt of a copy of this resolution, the Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby requested to establish and maintain the 2018C Building Fund. The County is not responsible for the use of funds disbursed from the 2018C Building Fund. (c) Costs of Issuance Fund. A fund, to be known as the “Pittsburg Unified School District, 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) Costs of Issuance Fund” (the “Costs of Issuance Fund”), is hereby created and established with the Paying Agent, acting as costs of issuance custodian (the “Custodian”) for the 2021 Bonds. Moneys deposited therein shall be used solely for the payment of costs of issuance of the 2021 Bonds, as provided in the Paying Agent Agreement. (d) Investment of Moneys in the Building Funds and the Interest and Sinking Fund. Moneys held in the 2014D Building Fund, the 2018C Building Fund and the Interest and Sinking Fund shall be invested at the Treasurer’s discretion, unless otherwise directed in writing by the District, pursuant to law and the investment policy of the County. In addition, at the written direction of the District, all or any portion of the moneys in the 2014D Building Fund and the 2018C Building Fund may be invested (i) in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the treasury of the State of California, or (ii) in investment agreements which comply with the requirements of each rating agency then rating the 2021 Bonds necessary in order to maintain the current rating on the 2021 Bonds, provided that the Treasurer shall be a signatory to any such investment agreement. Consent by the County to a request by the District to use any investments requested by the District specified in clause (d)(ii) shall in no way imply any endorsement by the County of such investment and the County assumes no liability for the results of such investment or of the provider thereof. Section 3.03. Application of Proceeds of Sale of 2021 Bonds. On the Closing Date, the proceeds of sale of the 2021 Bonds shall be paid by the Underwriter as follows: (a) to the Treasurer, an amount equal to the premium if any, on the 2021 Bonds, for deposit in the Interest and Sinking Fund; (b) to the Treasurer for deposit in the 2014D Building Fund, the portion of the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds; (c) to the Treasurer for deposit in the 2018C Building Fund, the portion of the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2018C Bonds; (d) to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the 2010D Bonds Escrow Fund to provide for the defeasance of the 2010D Bonds to be refunded; (e) to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the 2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Fund to provide for the defeasance of the 2012 Refunding Bonds to be refunded; and -16- (f) to the Custodian for deposit in the Costs of Issuance Fund the amount required for the payment of Costs of Issuance,. Section 3.04. Security for the 2021 Bonds. There shall be levied by the County on all the taxable property in the District, in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct and ad valorem tax annually during the period the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds are outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds when due, which moneys when collected will be placed in the Interest and Sinking Fund which fund is irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds when and as the same fall due. The moneys in the Interest and Sinking Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2014D Bonds, the 2018C Bonds and the 2021 Refunding Bonds as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent, as paying agent for the 2021 Bonds, as necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds. The property taxes and amounts held in the Interest and Sinking Fund shall immediately be subject to this pledge, and the pledge shall constitute a lien and security interest which shall be effective, binding, and enforceable against the District, its successors, creditors and all others irrespective of whether those parties have notice of the pledge and without the need of any physical delivery, recordation, filing, or further act. The pledge is an agreement between the District and the Owners of the 2021 Bonds in addition to any statutory lien that may exist, the 2014D Bonds were issued to finance one or more projects specified in the 2014 Authorization and not to finance the general purposes of the District and the 2018C Bonds were issued to finance one or more projects specified in the 2018 Authorization and not to finance the general purposes of the District. Additionally, in accordance with section 53515(a) of the California Government Code, the 2021 Bonds shall be secured by a statutory lien on all revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of the tax for the Authorization. The lien shall automatically attach without further action or authorization by the District or the County. The lien shall be valid and binding from the time the 2021 Bonds are issued and delivered. The revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of the taxes shall be immediately subject to the lien, and the lien shall automatically attach to the revenues and be effective, binding, and enforceable against the District, its successors, transferees, and creditors, and all others asserting rights therein, irrespective of whether those parties have notice of the lien and without the need for any physical delivery, recordation, filing, or further act. -17- ARTICLE IV SALE OF BONDS; APPROVAL OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT; APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL STATMENT Section 4.01. Sale of the 2021 Bonds. The Board hereby authorizes the negotiated sale of the 2021 Bonds to the Underwriter. The Bond Purchase Agreement is hereby authorized to be prepared to be brought before the Board at a subsequent meeting for approval and to set the parameters of the sale of the 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the final maturity date of the portion of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2021 Refunding Bonds is not later than the final maturity date of the 2010D Bonds and the 2012 Refunding Bonds being refunded and the present value savings to be realized by the District with respect to the 2010D Bonds and the 2012 Refunding Bonds, as a result of the issuance of the 2021 Bonds, shall not be less than 4%. Section 4.02. Approval of Paying Agent Agreement. The Paying Agent Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by a District Representative, is hereby approved by the Board. The District Representatives are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Paying Agent Agreement for and in the name and on behalf of the District. The Board hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the Paying Agent Agreement. Section 4.03. Approval of Escrow Agreements. (a) The 2010D Bonds Escrow Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by a District Representative, is hereby approved by the Board. The District Representatives are hereby authorized and directed to execute the 2010D Bonds Escrow Agreement for and in the name and on behalf of the District. The Board hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the 2010D Bonds Escrow Agreement. (b) The 2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, together with any additions thereto or changes therein deemed necessary or advisable by a District Representative, is hereby approved by the Board. The District Representatives are hereby authorized and directed to execute the 2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Agreement for and in the name and on behalf of the District. The Board hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the 2012 Refunding Bonds Escrow Agreement. Section 4.04. Preliminary Official Statement. A preliminary official statement is hereby authorized to be prepared to be brought before the Board at a subsequent meeting for approval. Section 4.05. Continuing Disclosure. The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the District to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate shall not be considered an Event of Default; however, any holder or beneficial owner of the 2021 Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to compel performance, including seeking mandate of specific performance by court order. Section 4.06. Official Action. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the District with respect to the sale and issuance of the 2021 Bonds are hereby approved, and the President of the Board of Trustees, the Superintendent, the Associate Superintendent, and any and all other officers of the District are hereby authorized and directed for and in the name and -18- on behalf of the District, to do any and all things and take any and all actions relating to the execution and delivery of any and all certificates, requisitions, agreements and other documents, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the 2021 Bonds in accordance with this resolution. -19- ARTICLE V OTHER COVENANTS OF THE DISTRICT Section 5.01. Punctual Payment. The District will punctually pay, or cause to be paid, the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds, in strict conformity with the terms of the 2021 Bonds and of this Resolution, and it will faithfully observe and perform all of the conditions, covenants and requirements of this Resolution and of the 2021 Bonds. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the District from making advances of its own moneys, howsoever derived, to any of the uses or purposes permitted by law. Section 5.02. Extension of Time for Payment. In order to prevent any accumulation of claims for interest after maturity, the District will not, directly or indirectly, extend or consent to the extension of the time for the payment of any claim for interest on any of the 2021 Bonds and will not, directly or indirectly, approve any such arrangement by purchasing or funding said claims for interest or in any other manner. In case any such claim for interest shall be extended or funded, whether or not with the consent of the District, such claim for interest so extended or funded shall not be entitled, in case of default hereunder, to the benefits of this Resolution, except subject to the prior payment in full of the principal of all of the 2021 Bonds then Outstanding and of all claims for interest which shall not have so extended or funded. Section 5.03. Protection of Security and Rights of Bondowners. The District will preserve and protect the security of the 2021 Bonds and the rights of the Bondowners, and will warrant and defend their rights against all claims and demands of all persons. From and after the sale and delivery of any of the 2021 Bonds by the District, the 2021 Bonds shall be incontestable by the District. Section 5.04. Further Assurances. The District will adopt, make, execute and deliver any and all such further resolutions, instruments and assurances as may be reasonably necessary or proper to carry out the intention or to facilitate the performance of this Resolution, and for the better assuring and confirming unto the Owners of the 2021 Bonds of the rights and benefits provided in this Resolution. Section 5.05. Tax Covenants. (a) Private Activity 2021 Bond Limitation. The District shall assure that the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds are not so used as to cause the 2021 Bonds to satisfy the private business tests of section 141(b) of the Code or the private loan financing test of section 141(c) of the Code. (b) Federal Guarantee Prohibition. The District shall not take any action or permit or suffer any action to be taken if the result of the same would be to cause any of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds to be “federally guaranteed” within the meaning of section 149(b) of the Code. (c) Rebate Requirement. The District shall take any and all actions necessary to assure compliance with section 148(f) of the Code, relating to the rebate of excess investment earnings, if any, to the federal government, to the extent that such section is applicable to the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds. (d) No Arbitrage. The District shall not take, or permit or suffer to be taken, any action with respect to the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C -20- Bonds which, if such action had been reasonably expected to have been taken, or had been deliberately and intentionally taken, on the date of issuance of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds would have caused the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of section 148 of the Code. (e) Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The District shall take all actions necessary to assure the exclusion of interest on the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds from the gross income of the Owners of the 2021 Bonds to the same extent as such interest is permitted to be excluded from gross income under the Code as in effect on the date of issuance of the 2021 Bonds allocable to the 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds. Section 5.06. Acquisition, Disposition and Valuation of Investments. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Section 5.06, the District covenants that all investments of amounts deposited in any fund or account created by or pursuant to this Resolution, or otherwise containing gross proceeds of the 2021 Bonds (within the meaning of section 148 of the Code) shall be acquired, disposed of, and valued (as of the date that valuation is required by this Resolution or the Code) at Fair Market Value. (b) Investments in funds or accounts (or portions thereof) that are subject to a yield restriction under applicable provisions of the Code shall be valued at their present value (within the meaning of section 148 of the Code). Section 5.07. Requirements of Section 15146(b) of the California Education Code. As required by section 15146(b) of the California Education Code (AB 1482, 2006), the District hereby states and certifies the following information: (a) Express Approval of Sale. The Board hereby approves the sale of the 2021 Bonds by negotiated sale. (b) Statement of Reason for Method of Sale Selected. Negotiated sales have been successfully employed by the District in the past and negotiated sales offer greater flexibility in changing the time and terms of the sale than a competitive sale. (c) Disclosure of Consultants. The Bond Counsel to the District in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds will be Quint & Thimmig LLP. The disclosure counsel to the District in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds will be Quint & Thimmig LLP. The Municipal Advisor to the District in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds will the Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC. The Associate Superintendent Business Services of the District is hereby authorized to enter into contracts with such consultants. The Underwriter to the District in connection with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds will be Raymond James & Associates, Inc. -21- (d) Costs Associated with the Sale of the 2021 Bonds. Assuming a 2021 Bond issue of $51,000,000, estimates of the costs associated with the issuance of the 2021 Bonds are shown below: Role Consultant Fee Financial Advisor Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC $ 90,000 Bond Counsel Quint & Thimmig LLP 75,000 Disclosure Counsel Quint & Thimmig LLP 40,000 Rating Agency Moody's Investor Service 50,000 Paying Agent The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. 4,000 Escrow Bank The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. 4,000 Verification Agent Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C. 4,000 Municipal Data California Municipal Statistics 2,000 Printing To be determined 2,000 Contingency 20,000 Total $291,000 The 2021 Bonds are currently assumed to be comprised new money bonds and refunding bonds. Such fees will be substantially reduced if only the new money series is completed. (e) No Capital Appreciation Bonds. The 2021 Bonds will be issued as current interest bonds. Section 5.08. Requirements of Section 5852.1 of the California Government Code. As required by section 5852.1 of the California Government Code, the District hereby provides the following good faith estimates regarding the 2021 Bonds, assuming a 2021 Bond issue of $51,000,000: (a) The true interest cost of the 2021 Bonds: 3.50%. (b) The finance charge of the 2021 Bonds (the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties): $291,000. (c) The amount of proceeds to be received less the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties, any reserves or capitalized interest: $50,738,000. (d) The sum total of all payments the District will make to pay debt service on the 2021 Bonds, calculated to the final maturity of the Bonds: $102,000,000. The foregoing constitute good faith estimates only. The principal amount of the 2021 Bonds, the true interest cost of the 2021 Bonds, the finance charges thereof, the amount of proceeds received therefrom and total payment amount with respect thereto may differ from such good faith estimates due to (a) the actual date of the sale of the 2021 Bonds being different than the date assumed for purposes of such estimates, (b) the actual principal amount of 2021 Bonds sold being different from the estimated amount used for purposes of such estimates, (c) the actual amortization of the 2021 Bonds being different than the amortization assumed for purposes of such estimates, (d) the actual market interest rates at the time of sale of the 2021 Bonds being different than those estimated for purposes of such estimates, (e) other market conditions, or (f) alterations in the District’s financing plan, or a combination of such factors. The actual date of sale of the 2021 Bonds and the actual principal amount of 2021 Bonds sold will be determined based on the timing of the need for proceeds of -22- the 2021 Bonds and other factors. The actual interest rates with respect to the 2021 Bonds will depend on market interest rates at the time of sale thereof. The actual amortization of the 2021 Bonds will also depend, in part, on market interest rates at the time of sale thereof. Market interest rates are affected by economic and other factors beyond the control of the District. -23- ARTICLE VI THE PAYING AGENT Section 6.01. Appointment of Paying Agent. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. is hereby appointed Paying Agent for the 2021 Bonds. The Paying Agent undertakes to perform such duties, and only such duties, as are specifically set forth in this Resolution, and, even during the continuance of an Event of Default, no implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Resolution against the Paying Agent. The Paying Agent shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by this Resolution by executing and delivering to the District a certificate to that effect. The District may remove the Paying Agent initially appointed, and any successor thereto, and may appoint a successor or successors thereto, but any such successor shall be a bank or trust company doing business in the State of California, having a combined capital (exclusive of borrowed capital) and surplus of at least fifty million dollars ($50,000,000), and subject to supervision or examination by federal or state authority. If such bank or trust company publishes a report of condition at least annually, pursuant to law or to the requirements of any supervising or examining authority above referred to, then for the purposes of this Section 6.01 the combined capital and surplus of such bank or trust company shall be deemed to be its combined capital and surplus as set forth in its most recent report of condition so published. The Paying Agent may at any time resign by giving written notice to the District and the Bondowners of such resignation. Upon receiving notice of such resignation, the District shall promptly appoint a successor Paying Agent by an instrument in writing. Any resignation or removal of the Paying Agent and appointment of a successor Paying Agent shall become effective upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Paying Agent. Section 6.02. Paying Agent May Hold 2021 Bonds. The Paying Agent may become the owner of any of the 2021 Bonds in its own or any other capacity with the same rights it would have if it were not Paying Agent. Section 6.03. Liability of Agents. The recitals of facts, covenants and agreements herein and in the 2021 Bonds contained shall be taken as statements, covenants and agreements of the District, and the Paying Agent assumes no responsibility for the correctness of the same, nor makes any representations as to the validity or sufficiency of this Resolution or of the 2021 Bonds, nor shall incur any responsibility in respect thereof, other than as set forth in this Resolution. The Paying Agent shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder, except for its own negligence or willful default. In the absence of bad faith, the Paying Agent may conclusively rely, as to the truth of the statements and the correctness of the opinions expressed therein, upon certificates or opinions furnished to the Paying Agent and conforming to the requirements of this Resolution; but in the case of any such certificates or opinions by which any provision hereof are specifically required to be furnished to the Paying Agent, the Paying Agent shall be under a duty to examine the same to determine whether or not they conform to the requirements of this Resolution. The Paying Agent shall not be liable for any error of judgment made in good faith by a responsible officer unless it shall be proved that the Paying Agent was negligent in ascertaining the pertinent facts. -24- No provision of this Resolution shall require the Paying Agent to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers, if it shall have reasonable grounds for believing that repayment of such funds or adequate indemnity against such risk or liability is not reasonably assured to it. The Paying Agent may execute any of the powers hereunder or perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents or attorneys and the Paying Agent shall not be responsible for any misconduct or negligence on the part of any agent or attorney appointed with due care by it hereunder. Section 6.04. Notice to Agents. The Paying Agent may rely and shall be protected in acting or refraining from acting upon any notice, resolution, request, consent, order, certificate, report, warrant, bond or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or proper parties. The Paying Agent may consult with counsel, who may be of counsel to the District, with regard to legal questions, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by it hereunder in good faith and in accordance therewith. Whenever in the administration of its duties under this Resolution the Paying Agent shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking or suffering any action hereunder, such matter (unless other evidence in respect thereof be herein specifically prescribed) may, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the Paying Agent, be deemed to be conclusively proved and established by a certificate of the District, and such certificate shall be full warrant to the Paying Agent for any action taken or suffered under the provisions of this Resolution upon the faith thereof, but in its discretion the Paying Agent may, in lieu thereof, accept other evidence of such matter or may require such additional evidence as to it may seem reasonable. Section 6.05. Compensation, Indemnification. (a) The District shall pay to the Paying Agent from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered under this Resolution, and also all reasonable expenses, charges, counsel fees and other disbursements, including those of their attorneys, agents and employees, incurred in and about the performance of their powers and duties under this Resolution. Any District Representative is hereby authorized to execute an agreement or agreements with the Paying Agent in connection with such fees and expenses. The District further agrees to indemnify and save the Paying Agent harmless against any liabilities which it may incur in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties hereunder which are not due to its negligence or bad faith. (b) The District shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the 2021 Bonds in accordance therewith and herewith. The District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. -25- ARTICLE VII EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF BONDOWNERS Section 7.01. Events of Default. The following events (“Events of Default”) shall be events of default hereunder: (a) if default shall be made in the due and punctual payment of the principal of on any 2021 Bond when and as the same shall become due and payable, whether at maturity as therein expressed, by declaration or otherwise; (b) if default shall be made in the due and punctual payment of any installment of interest on any 2021 Bond when and as such interest installment shall become due and payable; (c) if default shall be made by the District in the observance of any of the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part in this Resolution or in the 2021 Bonds contained, and such default shall have continued for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the District; or (d) if the District shall file a petition seeking reorganization or arrangement under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve a petition, seeking reorganization of the District under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or if, under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors, any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or control of the District or of the whole or any substantial part of its property. Section 7.02. Remedies of Bondowners. Any Bondowner shall have the right, for the equal benefit and protection of all Bondowners similarly situated: (a) by mandamus, suit, action or proceeding, to compel the District and its members, officers, agents or employees to perform each and every term, provision and covenant contained in this Resolution and in the 2021 Bonds, and to require the carrying out of any or all such covenants and agreements of the District and the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon it; (b) by suit, action or proceeding in equity, to enjoin any acts or things which are unlawful, or the violation of any of the Bondowners’ rights; or (c) upon the happening of any Event of Default, by suit, action or proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction, to require the District and its members and employees to account as if it and they were the trustees of an express trust. Section 7.03. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Article VII or in any other provision of this Resolution, or in the 2021 Bonds, shall affect or impair the obligation of the District, which is absolute and unconditional, to pay the principal of and interest on the 2021 Bonds to the respective Owners of the 2021 Bonds at the respective dates of maturity, as herein provided, or affect or impair the right of action, which is also absolute and unconditional, of such Owners to institute suit to enforce such payment by virtue of the contract embodied in the 2021 Bonds. A waiver of any default by any Bondowner shall not affect any subsequent default or impair any rights or remedies on the subsequent default. No delay or omission of any Owner of any of the 2021 Bonds to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any -26- such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or an acquiescence therein, and every power and remedy conferred upon the Bondowners by this Article VI may be enforced and exercised from time to time and as often as shall be deemed expedient by the Owners of the 2021 Bonds. If a suit, action or proceeding to enforce any right or exercise any remedy be abandoned or determined adversely to the Bondowners, the District and the Bondowners shall be restored to their former positions, rights and remedies as if such suit, action or proceeding had not been brought or taken. Section 7.04. Remedies Not Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon the Owners of 2021 Bonds shall be exclusive of any other remedy and that each and every remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or thereafter conferred on the Bondowners. -27- ARTICLE VIII SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTIONS Section 8.01. Supplemental Resolutions Effective Without Consent of the Owners. For any one or more of the following purposes and at any time or from time to time, a Supplemental Resolution of the District may be adopted, which, without the requirement of consent of the Owners of the 2021 Bonds, shall be fully effective in accordance with its terms: (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of the District in this Resolution, other covenants and agreements to be observed by the District which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (b) to add to the limitations and restrictions in this Resolution, other limitations and restrictions to be observed by the District which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (c) to confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any lien or pledge created or to be created by, this Resolution, of any moneys, securities or funds, or to establish any additional funds or accounts to be held under this Resolution; (d) to cure any ambiguity, supply and omission, or cure or correct any defect or inconsistent provision in this Resolution; or (e) to make such additions, deletions or modifications as may be necessary or desirable to assure exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the 2021 Bonds. Section 8.02. Supplemental Resolutions Effective With Consent to the Owners. Any modification or amendment of this Resolution and of the rights and obligations of the District and of the Owners of the 2021 Bonds, in any particular, may be made by a Supplemental Resolution, with the written consent of the Owners of at least two-thirds in aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Bonds Outstanding at the time such consent is given. No such modification or amendment shall permit a change in the terms of maturity of the principal of any Outstanding 2021 Bonds or of any interest payable thereon or a reduction in the principal amount thereof or in the rate of interest thereon, or shall reduce the percentage of 2021 Bonds the consent of the Owners of which is required to effect any such modification or amendment, or shall change any of the provisions in Section 7.01 hereof relating to Events of Default, or shall reduce the amount of moneys pledged for the repayment of the 2021 Bonds without the consent of all the Owners of such 2021 Bonds, or shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations of any Paying Agent without its written assent thereto. -28- ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.01. Consultants. (a) Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC is hereby retained as municipal advisor to the District in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the 2021 Bonds. The Associate Superintendent is authorized to negotiate an appropriate fee with such firm. (b) Quint & Thimmig LLP is hereby retained as bond counsel and disclosure counsel to the District in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the 2021 Bonds. The Associate Superintendent is authorized to negotiate an appropriate fee with such firm. (c) Raymond James & Associates, Inc. is hereby retained as underwriter to the District in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the 2021 Bonds. The fee of the underwriter will be set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement when executed. Section 9.02. Benefits of Resolution Limited to Parties. Nothing in this Resolution, expressed or implied, is intended to give to any person other than the District, the Paying Agent and the Owners of the 2021 Bonds, any right, remedy, claim under or by reason of this Resolution. Any covenants, stipulations, promises or agreements in this Resolution contained by and on behalf of the District shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Owners of the 2021 Bonds. Section 9.03. Defeasance. (a) Discharge of Resolution. 2021 Bonds may be paid by the District in any of the following ways, provided that the District also pays or causes to be paid any other sums payable hereunder by the District: (i) by paying or causing to be paid the principal or redemption price of and interest on 2021 Bonds Outstanding, as and when the same become due and payable; (ii) by depositing, in trust, at or before maturity, money or securities in the necessary amount (as provided in Section 9.03(c) to pay or redeem 2021 Bonds Outstanding; or (iii) by delivering to the Paying Agent, for cancellation by it, 2021 Bonds Outstanding. If the District shall pay all 2021 Bonds Outstanding and shall also pay or cause to be paid all other sums payable hereunder by the District, then and in that case, at the election of the District (evidenced by a certificate of a District Representative, filed with the Paying Agent, signifying the intention of the District to discharge all such indebtedness and this Resolution), and notwithstanding that any 2021 Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, this Resolution and other assets made under this Resolution and all covenants, agreements and other obligations of the District under this Resolution shall cease, terminate, become void and be completely discharged and satisfied, except only as provided in Section 9.03(b). In such event, upon request of the District, the Paying Agent shall cause an accounting for such period or periods as may be requested by the District to be prepared and filed with the District and shall execute and deliver to the District all such instruments as may be necessary to evidence -29- such discharge and satisfaction, and the Paying Agent shall pay over, transfer, assign or deliver to the District all moneys or securities or other property held by it pursuant to this Resolution which are not required for the payment or redemption of 2021 Bonds not theretofore surrendered for such payment or redemption. (b) Discharge of Liability on 2021 Bonds. Upon the deposit, in trust, at or before maturity, of money or securities in the necessary amount (as provided in Section 9.03(c) to pay or redeem any Outstanding 2021 Bond (whether upon or prior to its maturity or the redemption date of such 2021 Bond), provided that, if such 2021 Bond is to be redeemed prior to maturity, notice of such redemption shall have been given as in Section 2.03 provided or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then all liability of the District in respect of such 2021 Bond shall cease and be completely discharged, except only that thereafter the Owner thereof shall be entitled only to payment of the principal of and interest on such 2021 Bond by the District, and the District shall remain liable for such payment, but only out of such money or securities deposited with the Paying Agent as aforesaid for such payment, provided further, however, that the provisions of Section 9.03(d) shall apply in all events. The District may at any time surrender to the Paying Agent for cancellation by it any 2021 Bonds previously issued and delivered, which the District may have acquired in any manner whatsoever, and such 2021 Bonds, upon such surrender and cancellation, shall be deemed to be paid and retired. (c) Deposit of Money or Securities with Paying Agent. Whenever in this Resolution it is provided or permitted that there be deposited with or held in trust by the Paying Agent money or securities in the necessary amount to pay or redeem any 2021 Bonds, the money or securities so to be deposited or held may include money or securities held by the Paying Agent in the funds and accounts established pursuant to this Resolution and shall be: (i) lawful money of the United States of America in an amount equal to the principal amount of such 2021 Bonds and all unpaid interest thereon to maturity, except that, in the case of 2021 Bonds which are to be redeemed prior to maturity and in respect of which notice of such redemption shall have been given as in Section 2.03 provided or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall have been made for the giving of such notice, the amount to be deposited or held shall be the principal amount or redemption price of such 2021 Bonds and all unpaid interest thereon to the redemption date; or (ii) Federal Securities (not callable by the issuer thereof prior to maturity) the principal of and interest on which when due, in the opinion of a certified public accountant delivered to the District, will provide money sufficient to pay the principal or redemption price of and all unpaid interest to maturity, or to the redemption date, as the case may be, on the 2021 Bonds to be paid or redeemed, as such principal or redemption price and interest become due, provided that, in the case of 2021 Bonds which are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption shall have been given as in Section 2.03 provided or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall have been made for the giving of such notice; provided, in each case, that the Paying Agent shall have been irrevocably instructed (by the terms of this Resolution or by request of the District) to apply such money to the payment of such principal or redemption price and interest with respect to such 2021 Bonds. (d) Payment of 2021 Bonds After Discharge of Resolution. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Resolution, any moneys held by the Paying Agent in trust for the payment of the principal or redemption price of, or interest on, any 2021 Bonds and remaining unclaimed for -30- one year after the principal of all of the 2021 Bonds has become due and payable (whether at maturity or upon call for redemption or by acceleration as provided in this Resolution), if such moneys were so held at such date, or one year after the date of deposit of such moneys if deposited after said date when all of the 2021 Bonds became due and payable, shall, upon request of the District, be repaid to the District free from the trusts created by this Resolution, and all liability of the Paying Agent with respect to such moneys shall thereupon cease; provided, however, that before the repayment of such moneys to the District as aforesaid, the Paying Agent may (at the cost of the District) first mail to the Owners of all 2021 Bonds which have not been paid at the addresses shown on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent a notice in such form as may be deemed appropriate by the Paying Agent, with respect to the 2021 Bonds so payable and not presented and with respect to the provisions relating to the repayment to the District of the moneys held for the payment thereof. Section 9.04. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Bondowners. Any request, declaration or other instrument which this Resolution may require or permit to be executed by Bondowners may be in one or more instruments of similar tenor, and shall be executed by Bondowners in person or by their attorneys appointed in writing. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the fact and date of the execution by any Bondowner or his attorney of such request, declaration or other instrument, or of such writing appointing such attorney, may be proved by the certificate of any notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds to be recorded in the state in which he purports to act, that the person signing such request, declaration or other instrument or writing acknowledged to him the execution thereof, or by an affidavit of a witness of such execution, duly sworn to before such notary public or other officer. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the ownership of registered 2021 Bonds and the amount, maturity, number and date of holding the same shall be proved by the registry books. Any request, declaration or other instrument or writing of the Owner of any 2021 Bond shall bind all future Owners of such 2021 Bond in respect of anything done or suffered to be done by the District or the Paying Agent in good faith and in accordance therewith. Section 9.05. Waiver of Personal Liability. No boardmember, officer, agent or employee of the District shall be individually or personally liable for the payment of the principal of or interest on the 2021 Bonds; but nothing herein contained shall relieve any such boardmember, officer, agent or employee from the performance of any official duty provided by law. Section 9.06. Destruction of Canceled 2021 Bonds. Whenever in this Resolution provision is made for the surrender to the District of any 2021 Bonds which have been paid or canceled pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution, a certificate of destruction duly executed by the Paying Agent shall be deemed to be the equivalent of the surrender of such canceled 2021 Bonds and the District shall be entitled to rely upon any statement of fact contained in any certificate with respect to the destruction of any such 2021 Bonds therein referred to. Section 9.07. Partial Invalidity. If any Section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution shall for any reason be held illegal or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The District hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every other Section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof and authorized the issue of the 2021 Bonds pursuant thereto irrespective of the fact that any one or more Sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Resolution may be held illegal, invalid or unenforceable. If, by reason of the judgment of any -31- court, the District is rendered unable to perform its duties hereunder, all such duties and all of the rights and powers of the District hereunder shall be assumed by and vest in the District in trust for the benefit of the Bondowners. Section 9.08. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A FORM OF 2021 BOND United States of America State of California Contra Costa County PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) INTEREST RATE: MATURITY DATE: ISSUE DATE: CUSIP: _______% August 1, ____ August 10, 2021 ____ REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL SUM: ________________________________________ DOLLARS The PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of California (the “District”), for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner stated above, or registered assigns (the “Owner”), on the Maturity Date stated above (subject to any right of prior redemption hereinafter provided for), the Principal Sum stated above, in lawful money of the United States of America, and to pay interest thereon in like lawful money from the interest payment date next preceding the date of authentication of this Bond (unless (i) this Bond is authenticated on an interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from such date of authentication, or (ii) this Bond is authenticated prior to an interest payment date and after the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding such interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from such interest payment date, or (iii) this Bond is authenticated on or prior to January 15, 2022, in which event it shall bear interest from the Issue Date stated above; provided however, that if at the time of authentication of this Bond, interest is in default on this Bond, this Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment on this Bond) until payment of such Principal Sum in full, at the rate per annum stated above, payable on February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2022, calculated on the basis of 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Principal hereof is payable at the office of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (the “Paying Agent”), in San Francisco, California. Interest hereon (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) is payable by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed by first- class mail to the Owner at the Owner’s address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding such interest payment date (the “Record Date”), or at such other address as the Owner may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose; provided however, that payment of interest may be by wire transfer in immediately available funds to an account in the United States of America to any Owner of 2021 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more who shall furnish written wire instructions to the Paying Agent at least five (5) days before the applicable Record Date. This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of 2021 Bonds of the District designated as “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue)” (the “2021 Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of _____________ dollars ($_______), all of like tenor and date (except for such variation, if any, as may be required to designate varying numbers, maturities, interest rates or redemption and other provisions). The 2021 Bonds combines three issues of general obligation bonds of the District, its “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series D (2021)” (the “2014D Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000), Exhibit A Page 2 its “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series C (2021)” (the “2018C Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), and its “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds” (the “2021 Refunding Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of _________ dollars ($___________). The 2014D Bonds and the 2018C Bonds are issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1, of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with section 53506) of the California Government Code (the “Act”), and pursuant to Resolution No. ___ of the District adopted May 26, 2021 (the “Resolution”). The 2021 Refunding Bonds are issued pursuant to the provisions of pursuant to the provisions of Articles 9 and 11 of Chapter 3 (commencing with section 53550) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code, section 53558(b) of the California Government Code and the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution (copies of which are on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board of Trustees of the District) and the Act for a description of the terms on which the 2021 Bonds are issued and the rights thereunder of the owners of the 2021 Bonds and the rights, duties and immunities of the Paying Agent and the rights and obligations of the District thereunder, to all of the provisions of which Resolution the Owner of this Bond, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees. A duly called special municipal election was held in the District on November 4, 2014, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law. At such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty-five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology, upgrade energy systems, including solar, reduce cost, improve student learning by acquiring, upgrading, constructing, equipping classrooms, science/computer labs, and school facilities, replace aging roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation/electrical systems, improve fire alarms, school security and earthquake safety (the “2014 Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $85,000,000 (the “2014 Authorization”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District. The District has previously issued, pursuant to the 2014 Authorization, (a) its $30,000,000 Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series A (2015), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs, (b) its $18,000,000 Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series B (2017), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs, and (c) its $20,000,000, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series C (2018), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2014 Project and other authorized costs. The 2014D Bonds represent the fourth issue under the 2014 Authorization. Including the 2014D Bonds, the District has issued the total 2014 Authorization. A duly called special municipal election was held in the District on November 6, 2018, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law. At such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty-five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology and improve student learning by upgrading, constructing and equipping classrooms, science labs, District office facilities and workforce housing (the “2018 Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $100,000,000 (the “2018 Authorization”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District. The District has previously issued, pursuant to the 2018 Authorization, (a) its $10,505,000 Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series A (2019), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2018 Project and other authorized costs, and (b) its $2,000,000 Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series B (2019), for the purpose of raising moneys for the 2018 Project and other authorized costs. The 2018C Bonds represent the third issue under the 2018 Authorization under the 2018 Authorization. Including the 2018C Bonds, the District has issued a total principal amount of $27,505,000 of the 2018 Authorization. The 2021 Refunding Bonds are being issued to refund, on an advance basis (a) all or a portion of the District’s outstanding Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2010, Series D (2014), and (b) all or a portion of the District’s outstanding Exhibit A Page 3 Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. This Bond and the interest hereon and on all other 2021 Bonds and the interest thereon (to the extent set forth in the Resolution) are general obligations of the District and do not constitute an obligation of the County of Contra Costa. The District has the power and is obligated to cause the Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector to levy ad valorem taxes for the payment of the 2021 Bonds and the interest thereon upon all property within the District subject to taxation by the District. No part of any fund of the County is pledged or obligated to the payment of the 2021 Bonds. The 2021 Bonds maturing on or before August 1, ____, are non-callable. The 2021 Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, or any time thereafter, are callable for redemption prior to their stated maturity date at the option of the District, as a whole, or in part on any date on or after August 1, ____ (in such maturities as are designated by the District, or, if the District fails to designate such maturities, on a proportional basis), and may be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof by payment of all principal, plus accrued interest to date of redemption, without premium. [If applicable:] The 2021 Bonds maturing on August 1, 20___ (the “Term Bonds”) are also subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on August 1 in the years, and in the amounts, as set forth in the following table, at a redemption price equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the aggregate principal amount of Term Bonds to be redeemed under this paragraph shall be reduced on a pro rata basis in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the District with the Paying Agent: Sinking Fund Principal Redemption Date Amount to be (August 1) Redeemed †Maturity The Paying Agent shall give notice of the redemption of the 2021 Bonds at the expense of the District. Such notice shall specify: (a) that the 2021 Bonds or a designated portion thereof are to be redeemed, (b) the numbers and CUSIP numbers of the 2021 Bonds to be redeemed, (c) the date of notice and the date of redemption, (d) the place or places where the redemption will be made, and (e) descriptive information regarding the 2021 Bonds including the issue date, interest rate and stated maturity date. Such notice shall further state that on the specified date there shall become due and payable upon each 2021 Bond to be redeemed, the portion of the principal amount of such 2021 Bond to be redeemed, together with interest accrued to said date, and that from and after such date interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue and be payable. If an Event of Default, as defined in the Resolution, shall occur, the principal of all 2021 Bonds may be declared due and payable upon the conditions, in the manner and with the effect provided in the Resolution, but such declaration and its consequences may be rescinded and annulled as further provided in the Resolution. The 2021 Bonds are issuable as fully registered 2021 Bonds, without coupons, in denominations of $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. Subject to the limitations and conditions and upon payment of the charges, if any, as provided in the Resolution. 2021 Bonds may be exchanged for a like aggregate principal amount of 2021 Bonds of other authorized denominations and of the same maturity. This Bond is transferable by the Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at said office of the Paying Agent in San Francisco, California, but only in the manner and subject Exhibit A Page 4 to the limitations provided in the Resolution, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon registration of such transfer a new 2021 Bond or Bonds, of authorized denomination or denominations, for the same aggregate principal amount and of the same maturity will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. The District and the Paying Agent may treat the Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes, and the District and the Paying Agent shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Resolution may be amended without the consent of the Owners of the 2021 Bonds to the extent set forth in the Resolution. It is hereby certified that all of the things, conditions and acts required to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond do exist, have happened or have been performed in due and regular time and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, and that the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the District, does not exceed any limit prescribed by any laws of the State of California, and is not in excess of the amount of 2021 Bonds permitted to be issued under the Resolution. This Bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Resolution or become valid or obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been signed manually by the Paying Agent. Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company; a New York corporation (“DTC”), to the District or the Paying Agent for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Pittsburg Unified School District has caused this Bond to be executed in its name and on its behalf with the facsimile signatures of the President of its Board of Trustees and the Clerk of the Board of Trustees, all as of the Issue Date stated above. PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By President of the Board of Trustees ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Trustees Exhibit A Page 5 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the 2021 Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution. Authentication Date: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent By Authorized Signatory Exhibit A Page 6 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned do(es) hereby sell, assign and transfer unto (Name, Address and Tax Identification or Social Security Number of Assignee) the within 2021 Bond and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute(s) and appoint(s) attorney, to transfer the same on the registration books of the Paying Agent with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: _______________ Signature Guaranteed: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Notice: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a qualified guarantor institution. Notice: The signature on this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written on the face of the within bond in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever.” Exhibit B Page 1 EXHIBIT B FORM OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT $___________ PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) PAYING AGENT/BOND REGISTRAR/COSTS OF ISSUANCE AGREEMENT THIS PAYING AGENT/BOND REGISTRAR/COSTS OF ISSUANCE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is entered into as of August 1, 2021, by and between the PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (the “District”) and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. (the “Bank”), relating to the $__________ Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds, (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) (the “Bonds”). The District hereby appoints the Bank to act as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds and as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds. RECITALS WHEREAS, the District has duly authorized and provided for the issuance of the Bonds as fully registered bonds without coupons; WHEREAS, the District will ensure all things necessary to make the Bonds the valid obligations of the District, in accordance with their terms, will be done upon the issuance and delivery thereof; WHEREAS, the District and the Bank wish to provide the terms under which the Bank will act as Paying Agent to pay the principal, redemption premium (if any) and interest on the Bonds, in accordance with the terms thereof, and under which the Bank will act as Bond Registrar for the Bonds; WHEREAS, the District and the Bank also wish to provide the terms under which the Bank will act as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds; WHEREAS, the Bank has agreed to serve in such capacities for and on behalf of the District and has full power and authority to perform and serve as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds and as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the District has duly authorized the execution and delivery of this Agreement; and all things necessary to make this Agreement a valid agreement have been done. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: Exhibit B Page 2 ARTICLE ONE DEFINITIONS Section 1.01. Definitions. For all purposes of this Agreement except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires: “Bank” means The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America. “Bond Register” means the book or books of registration kept by the Bank in which are maintained the names and addresses and principal amounts registered to each Registered Owner. “Bond Registrar” means the Bank when it is performing the function of registrar for the Bonds. “Bond Resolution” means the resolution of the District pursuant to which the Bonds were issued. “Bond” or “Bonds” means the $_________ Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds, (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue). The 2021 Bonds combines three issues of general obligation bonds of the District, its “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series D (2021)” (the “2014D Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000), its “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2018, Series C (2021)” (the “2018C Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), and its “Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds” (the “2021 Refunding Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of ______________ dollars ($__________). “Custodian and Disbursing Agent” means the Bank when it is performing the function of custodian and disbursing agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds. “District” means Pittsburg Unified School District. “District Request” means a written request signed in the name of the District and delivered to the Bank. “Fiscal Year” means the fiscal year of the District ending on June 30 of each year. “Paying Agent” means the Bank when it is performing the function of paying agent for the Bonds. “Person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated organization or government or any agency or political subdivision of a government or any entity whatsoever. “Registered Owner” means a Person in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register. “Stated Maturity” when used with respect to any Bond means the date specified in the Bond Resolution as the date on which the principal of such Bond is due and payable. “Transfer Agent” means the Bank when it is performing the function of transfer agent for the Bonds. “Underwriter” means Raymond James & Associates, Inc. Exhibit B Page 3 ARTICLE TWO APPOINTMENT OF BANK AS PAYING AGENT, TRANSFER AGENT, BOND REGISTRAR AND CUSTODIAN AND DISBURSING AGENT Section 2.01. Appointment and Acceptance. The District hereby appoints the Bank to act as Paying Agent and Transfer Agent with respect to the Bonds, to pay to the Registered Owners in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the Bond Resolution, the principal of, redemption premium (if any), and interest on all or any of the Bonds. The District hereby appoints the Bank as Bond Registrar with respect to the Bonds. As Bond Registrar, the Bank shall keep and maintain for and on behalf of the District, books and records as to the ownership of the Bonds and with respect to the transfer and exchange thereof as provided herein and in the Bond Resolution. The District hereby appoints the Bank as Custodian and Disbursing Agent. The Bank hereby accepts its appointment, and agrees to act as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent, Bond Registrar and Custodian and Disbursing Agent. Section 2.02. Compensation. As compensation for the Bank’s services as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, the District hereby agrees to pay the Bank the fees and amounts set forth in a separate agreement between the District and the Bank. In addition, the District agrees to reimburse the Bank, upon its request, for all reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses, disbursements, and advances, including without limitation the reasonable fees, expenses, and disbursements of its agents and attorneys, made or incurred by the Bank in connection with entering into and performing under this Agreement and in connection with investigating and defending itself against any claim or liability in connection with its performance hereunder. ARTICLE THREE PAYING AGENT Section 3.01. Duties of Paying Agent. As Paying Agent, the Bank, provided sufficient collected funds have been provided to it for such purpose by or on behalf of the District, shall pay on behalf of the District the principal of, and interest on each Bond in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution. None of such moneys will be transferred to the District. Section 3.02. Payment Dates. The District hereby instructs the Bank to pay the principal of, redemption premium (if any) and interest on the Bonds on the dates specified in the debt service schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. ARTICLE FOUR BOND REGISTRAR Section 4.01. Initial Delivery of Bonds. The Bonds will be initially registered and delivered to the purchaser designated by the District as one Bond for each maturity. If such purchaser delivers a written request to the Bank not later than five business days prior to the date of initial delivery, the Bank will, on the date of initial delivery, deliver Bonds of authorized denominations, registered in accordance with the instructions in such written request. Section 4.02. Duties of Bond Registrar. The Bank shall provide for the proper registration of transfer, exchange and replacement of the Bonds. Every Bond surrendered for transfer or exchange shall Exhibit B Page 4 be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, the signature on which has been guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution, in form acceptable to the Bank, duly executed by the Registered Owner thereof or his attorney duly authorized in writing. The Bond Registrar may request any supporting documentation it deems necessary or appropriate to effect a re-registration. Section 4.03. Unauthenticated Bonds. The District shall provide to the Bank on a continuing basis, an adequate inventory of unauthenticated Bonds to facilitate transfers. The Bank agrees that it will maintain such unauthenticated Bonds in safekeeping. Section 4.04. Form of Bond Register. The Bank as Bond Registrar will maintain its records as Bond Registrar in accordance with the Bank’s general practices and procedures in effect from time to time. Section 4.05. Reports. The District may request the information in the Bond Register at any time the Bank is customarily open for business, provided that reasonable time is allowed the Bank to provide an up-to-date listing and to convert the information into written form. The Bank will not release or disclose the content of the Bond Register to any person other than to the District at its written request, except upon receipt of a subpoena or court order or as may otherwise be required by law. Upon receipt of a subpoena or court order the Bank will notify the District. Section 4.06. Cancelled Bonds. All Bonds surrendered for payment, redemption, transfer, exchange, or replacement, if surrendered to the Bank, shall be promptly cancelled by it and, if surrendered to the District, shall be delivered to the Bank and, if not already cancelled, shall be promptly cancelled by the Bank. The District may at any time deliver to the Bank for cancellation any Bonds previously authenticated and delivered which the District may have acquired in any manner whatsoever, and all Bonds so delivered shall be promptly cancelled by the Bank. All cancelled Bonds held by the Bank for its retention period then in effect and shall thereafter be destroyed and evidence of such destruction furnished to the District upon its written request. ARTICLE FIVE CUSTODIAN AND DISBURSING AGENT Section 5.01. Receipt of Moneys. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent has received, from the Underwriter, the sum of $__________ which has been deposited in a special account to be held and maintained by the Custodian and Disbursing Agent in the name of the District (the “Costs of Issuance Fund”). Section 5.02. No Investment. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent will hold funds in the Costs of Issuance Account until November 10, 2021, or upon prior written order of the District. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent shall have no obligation to invest amounts deposited in the Costs of Issuance Fund. Section 5.03. Payment of Costs of Issuance. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent will pay costs of issuance of the Bonds as directed by the District from time to time via a written requisition of the District. Section 5.04. Transfer of Remaining Amounts. Any balances remaining in the Costs of Issuance Fund (including any earnings) on November 10, 2021, or upon the earlier written order of the District, will be transferred to the Treasurer-Tax Collector for deposit in the Interest and Sinking Fund maintained for the District. None of such moneys will be transferred to the District. Section 5.05. Limited Liability. The liability of the Custodian and Disbursing Agent as custodian and disbursing agent is limited to the duties listed above. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent will not be liable for any action taken or neglected to be taken by it in good faith in any exercise of Exhibit B Page 5 reasonable care and believed by it to be within the discretion of power conferred upon it by this Agreement. ARTICLE SIX THE BANK Section 6.01. Duties of the Bank. The Bank undertakes to perform the duties set forth herein. No implied duties or obligations shall be read into this Agreement against the Bank. The Bank hereby agrees to use the funds deposited with it for payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds to pay the same as it shall become due and further agrees to establish and maintain such accounts and funds as may be required for the Bank to function as Paying Agent. Section 6.02. Reliance on Documents, Etc. (a) The Bank may conclusively rely, as to the truth of the statements and correctness of the opinions expressed therein, on certificates or opinions expressed therein, on certificates or opinions furnished to the Bank by the District. (b) The Bank shall not be liable for any error of judgment made in good faith. The Bank shall not be liable for other than its negligence or willful misconduct in connection with any act or omission hereunder. (c) No provision of this Agreement shall require the Bank to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability for performance of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers. (d) The Bank may rely, or be protected in acting or refraining from acting, upon any resolution, certificate, statement, instrument, opinion, report, notice, request, direction, consent, order, bond, note, security or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or parties. The Bank need not examine the ownership of any Bond, but shall be protected in acting upon receipt of Bonds containing an endorsement or instruction of transfer or power of transfer which appears on its face to be signed by the Registered Owner or agent of the Registered Owner. (e) The Bank may consult with counsel, and the written advice or opinion of counsel shall be full authorization and protection with respect to any action taken, suffered or omitted by it hereunder in good faith and reliance thereon. (f) The Bank may exercise any of the powers hereunder and perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents or attorneys and shall not be liable for the actions of such agent or attorney if appointed by it with reasonable care. (g) The Paying Agent shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligation under this Agreement arising out of or caused, directly or indirectly, by circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including, without limitation, acts of God; earthquakes; fire; flood; wars; terrorism; military disturbances; sabotage; epidemic; riots; interruptions; loss or malfunctions of utilities; computer (hardware or software) or communications services; accidents; labor disputes; acts of civil or military authority or governmental action; it being understood that Paying Agent shall use commercially reasonable efforts which are consistent with accepted practices in the banking industry to resume performance as soon as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. (h) The Bank shall have the right to accept and act upon instructions, including funds transfer instructions (“Instructions”) given pursuant to this Agreement and delivered using Electronic Means ("Electronic Means" shall mean the following communications methods: e-mail, facsimile transmission, secure electronic transmission containing applicable authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys issued by the Bank, or another method or system specified by the Bank as available for use in connection with its services hereunder); provided, however, that the District shall provide to Exhibit B Page 6 the Bank an incumbency certificate listing officers with the authority to provide such Instructions (“Authorized Officers”) and containing specimen signatures of such Authorized Officers, which incumbency certificate shall be amended by the District whenever a person is to be added or deleted from the listing. If the District elects to give the Bank Instructions using Electronic Means and the Bank in its discretion elects to act upon such Instructions, the Bank’s understanding of such Instructions shall be deemed controlling. The District understands and agrees that the Bank cannot determine the identity of the actual sender of such Instructions and that the Bank shall conclusively presume that directions that purport to have been sent by an Authorized Officer listed on the incumbency certificate provided to the Bank have been sent by such Authorized Officer. The District shall be responsible for ensuring that only Authorized Officers transmit such Instructions to the Bank and that the District and all Authorized Officers are solely responsible to safeguard the use and confidentiality of applicable user and authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys upon receipt by the District. The Bank shall not be liable for any losses, costs or expenses arising directly or indirectly from the Bank’s reliance upon and compliance with such Instructions notwithstanding such directions conflict or are inconsistent with a subsequent written instruction. The District agrees: (i) to assume all risks arising out of the use of Electronic Means to submit Instructions to the Bank, including without limitation the risk of the Bank acting on unauthorized Instructions, and the risk of interception and misuse by third parties; (ii) that it is fully informed of the protections and risks associated with the various methods of transmitting Instructions to the Bank and that there may be more secure methods of transmitting Instructions than the method(s) selected by the District; (iii) that the security procedures (if any) to be followed in connection with its transmission of Instructions provide to it a commercially reasonable degree of protection in light of its particular needs and circumstances; and (iv) to notify the Bank immediately upon learning of any compromise or unauthorized use of the security procedures. Section 6.03. Recitals of District. The recitals contained in the Bond Resolution and the Bonds shall be taken as the statements of the District, and the Bank assumes no responsibility for their correctness. Section 6.04. May Own Bonds. The Bank, in its individual or any other capacity, may become the owner or pledgee of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Paying Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds. Section 6.05. Money Held by the Bank. Money held by the Bank hereunder need not be segregated from other funds. The Bank shall have no duties with respect to investment of funds deposited with it and shall be under no obligation to pay interest on any money received by it hereunder. Any money deposited with or otherwise held by the Bank for the payment of the principal, redemption premium (if any) or interest on any Bond and remaining unclaimed for two years after such deposit will be paid by the Bank to the District, and the District and the Bank agree that the Registered Owner of such Bond shall thereafter look only to the District for payment thereof, and that all liability of the Bank with respect to such moneys shall thereupon cease. Section 6.06. Other Transactions. The Bank may engage in or be interested in any financial or other transaction with the District. Section 6.07. Interpleader. The District and the Bank agree that the Bank may seek adjudication of any adverse claim, demand, or controversy over its person as well as funds on deposit, in a court of competent jurisdiction. The District and the Bank further agree that the Bank has the right to file an action in interpleader in any court of competent jurisdiction to determine the rights of any person claiming any interest herein. Section 6.08. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the District shall indemnify the Bank, its officers, directors, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) for, and hold them harmless against any loss, cost, claim, liability or expense arising out of or in connection with the Bank’s acceptance or administration of the Bank’s duties hereunder or under the Bond Resolution (except any loss, liability or expense as may be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be attributable to the Bank’s negligence or willful misconduct), including the cost and expense (including its counsel fees) of defending itself against any claim or liability in connection with the exercise or performance of any of its Exhibit B Page 7 powers or duties under this Agreement. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement or discharge of the Bonds. ARTICLE SEVEN MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 7.01. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by an agreement in writing signed by both of the parties hereto. Section 7.02. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, except that no such prior written consent shall be required for the Bank’s assignment pursuant to the following sentence. Any bank, corporation or association into which the Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated, or any bank, corporation or association resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which the Bank shall be a party, or any bank, corporation or association succeeding to all or substantially all of the corporate trust business of the Bank shall be the successor of the Bank hereunder without the execution or filing of any paper with any party hereto or any further act on the part of any of the parties hereto except on the part of any of the parties hereto where an instrument of transfer or assignment is required by law to effect such succession, anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding.. Section 7.03. Notices. Any request, demand, authorization, direction, notice, consent, waiver or other document provided or permitted hereby to be given or furnished to the District or the Bank shall be mailed or delivered to the District or the Bank, respectively, at the address shown herein, or such other address as may have been given by one party to the other by fifteen (15) days written notice. Section 7.04. Effect of Headings. The Article and Section headings herein are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction hereof. Section 7.05. Successors and Assigns. All covenants and agreements herein by the District and the Bank shall bind their successors and assigns, whether so expressed or not. Section 7.06. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 7.07. Benefits of Agreement. Nothing herein, express or implied, shall give to any Person, other than the parties hereto and their successors hereunder, any benefit or any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim hereunder. Section 7.08. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Bond Resolution constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto relative to the Bank acting as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds and as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds. Section 7.09. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Section 7.10. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall be effective from and after its date and until the Bank resigns or is removed in accordance with the Bond Resolution; provided, however, that no such termination shall be effective until a successor has been appointed and has accepted the duties of the Bank hereunder. The Bank may resign at any time by giving written notice thereof to the District. If the Bank shall resign, be removed or become incapable of acting, the District shall promptly appoint a successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. If an instrument of acceptance by a successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar shall not have been delivered to the Bank within thirty 30 days after the Bank gives notice of Exhibit B Page 8 resignation, the Bank may petition any court of competent jurisdiction at the expense of the District for the appointment of a successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. In the event of resignation or removal of the Bank as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, upon the written request of the District and upon payment of all amounts owing to the Bank hereunder the Bank shall deliver to the District or its designee all funds and unauthenticated Bonds, and a copy of the Bond Register. The provisions of Section 2.02 and Section 6.08 hereof shall survive and remain in full force and effect following the termination of this Agreement. Section 7.11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Section 7.12. Documents to be Filed with Bank. At the time of the Bank’s appointment as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, the District shall file with the Bank the following documents: (a) a certified copy of the Bond Resolution and a specimen Bond; (b) a copy of the opinion of bond counsel provided to the District in connection with the issuance of the Bonds; and (c) a District Request containing written instructions to the Bank with respect to the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, including the name of the Registered Owners and the denominations of the Bonds. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By Name Title THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent By Authorized Signatory Exhibit B Page 1 EXHIBIT A TO PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Interest Payment Allocable to 2014D Bonds Allocable to 2018C Bonds Allocable to 2021 Refunding Bonds Date Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Total Exhibit C Page 1 EXHIBIT C FORM OF 2010D BONDS ESCROW AGREEMENT This Escrow Agreement (this “Escrow Agreement”), dated August , 2021, is by and between the PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school unified district duly created and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California (the “District”), and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as escrow agent (the “Escrow Bank”). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the District has heretofore issued, on April 22, 2014, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2010, Series D (2014) (the “2010D Bonds”), in the original principal amount of $12,500,000 to finance projects authorized by the voters of the District in 2014; WHEREAS, the 2010D Bonds were issued under and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District (the “2010 Bond Resolution”); WHEREAS, pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of Chapter 3 (commencing with section 53550) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the District is empowered to issue general obligation refunding bonds; WHEREAS, the District has determined that it is in the best interests of the District to refund the outstanding 2010D Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2025 (the “Refunded 2010D Bonds”); WHEREAS, the Board, by resolution adopted on May 26, 2021 (the “2021 Bond Resolution”), has authorized the issuance and sale of the District’s $_________ Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) (the “2021 Bonds”), and has determined to use a portion of the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds to redeem all outstanding Refunded 2010D Bonds on August 1, 2024 (the “Redemption Date”), at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount (the “Redemption Price”); WHEREAS, the District, in the 2021 Bond Resolution, has directed that a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the 2021 Bonds be deposited hereunder, and that such amount will be in an amount sufficient to provide for the redemption of the Refunded 2010D Bonds as described above; WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Discharge of Bonds. The District hereby irrevocably elects to pay and discharge all indebtedness payable by the District under the 2010 Bond Resolution with respect to the Refunded 2010D Bonds and to terminate all obligations of the District thereunder with respect thereto. Section 2. Escrow Fund. (a) There is hereby established a special fund, to be held by the Escrow Bank for the benefit of the owners of the Refunded 2010D Bonds, to be known as the “Escrow Fund.” Upon the issuance of the 2021 Bonds, there shall be deposited into the Escrow Fund an amount equal to $___________, derived from the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds. Exhibit C Page 2 (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the securities set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities and such cash shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated August 10, 2021, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to pay the interest on the Refunded 2010D Bonds to and including August 1, 2024, and to redeem all outstanding Refunded 2010D Bonds in full on the Redemption Date at the Redemption Price. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. (e) Any money left on deposit in the Escrow Fund after payment in full of the Refunded 2010D Bonds, and the payment of all amounts due to the Escrow Bank hereunder, shall be transferred to the County for deposit in the interest and sinking fund maintained by the County for the District. Section 3. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The moneys and Escrowed Federal Securities deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 2 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of paying the interest on the Refunded 2010D Bonds to and including August 1, 2024, and of redeeming the outstanding Refunded 2010D Bonds in full on the Redemption Date at the Redemption Price, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as paying agent for the 2010D Bonds, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as paying agent for the 2010D Bonds, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the Refunded 2010D Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as paying agent for the 2010D Bonds is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, as paying agent for the 2010D Bonds, hereby agrees to give timely notice of the redemption of the Refunded 2010D Bonds on the Redemption Date in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 2010 Bond Resolution and the form of redemption notice attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 4. Investment of Any Remaining Moneys. The Escrow Bank shall invest and reinvest the proceeds received from any of the Escrowed Federal Securities, and the cash originally deposited into the Escrow Fund, for a period ending not later than the next succeeding interest payment date relating to the Refunded 2010D Bonds, in Federal Securities pursuant to written directions of the District; provided, however, that (a) such written directions of the District shall be accompanied by (i) a certification of an independent certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants of favorable national reputation experienced in the refunding of obligations of political subdivisions that the Federal Securities then to be so deposited in the Escrow Fund, together with the cash then on deposit in the Escrow Fund, together with the interest to be derived therefrom, shall be in an amount at all times at least sufficient to make the payments specified in Section 3 hereof, and (ii) an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel (“Bond Counsel”) that investment in accordance with such directions will not affect, for Federal income tax purposes, the exclusion from gross income of interest due with respect to the Refunded 2010D Bonds, and (b) if the District directs such investment or reinvestment to be made in United States Treasury Securities-State and Local Government Series, the District shall, at its cost, cause to be prepared all necessary subscription forms therefor in sufficient time to enable the Escrow Bank to acquire such securities. In the event that the District shall fail to file any such written directions with the Escrow Bank concerning the reinvestment of any such proceeds, such proceeds shall be held uninvested by the Escrow Bank. Any interest income resulting from investment or reinvestment of moneys pursuant to this Section 4 and not required for the purposes set forth in Section 2, as indicated by such verification, shall, promptly upon the receipt of such interest income by the Escrow Bank, be paid to the District. Exhibit C Page 3 If the Escrow Bank learns that the Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Fiscal Service will not, for any reason, accept a subscription of state and local government series securities (“SLGS”) that is to be submitted pursuant to this Agreement, the Escrow Bank shall promptly request alternative written investment instructions from the District with respect to funds which were to be invested in SLGS. The Escrow Bank shall follow such instructions and, upon the maturity of any such alternative investment, the Escrow Bank shall hold such funds uninvested and without liability for interest until receipt of further written instructions from the District. In the absence of investment instructions from the District, the Escrow Bank shall not be responsible for the investment of such funds or interest thereon. The Escrow Bank may conclusively rely upon the District’s selection of an alternative investment as a determination of the alternative investment's legality and suitability and shall not be liable for any losses related to the alternative investments or for compliance with any yield restriction applicable thereto. Section 5. Substitution or Withdrawal of Federal Securities. The District may, at any time, direct the Escrow Bank in writing to substitute Federal Securities for any or all of the Escrowed Federal Securities then deposited in the Escrow Fund, or to withdraw and transfer to the District any portion of the Federal Securities then deposited in the Escrow Fund, provided that any such direction and substitution or withdrawal shall be simultaneous and shall be accompanied by (a) a certification of an independent certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants of favorable national reputation experienced in the refunding of obligations of political subdivisions that the Federal Securities then to be so deposited in the Escrow Fund together with interest to be derived therefrom, or in the case of withdrawal, the Federal Securities to be remaining in the Escrow Fund following such withdrawal together with the interest to be derived therefrom, together with the cash then on deposit in the Escrow Fund, shall be in an amount at all times at least sufficient to make the payments specified in Section 3 hereof; and (b) an opinion of Bond Counsel that the substitution or withdrawal will not affect, for Federal income tax purposes, the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Refunded 2010D Bonds. In the event that, following any such substitution of Federal Securities pursuant to this Section 5, there is an amount of moneys or Federal Securities in excess of an amount sufficient to make the payments required by Section 2 hereof, as indicated by such verification, such excess shall be paid to the District. Section 6. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The District shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 7. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Agreement unless the District shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the District or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth herein, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non- negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the District, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth herein or to the validity of this Escrow Agreement as to the District and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Agreement except for its own negligence or willful misconduct, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the District, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall Exhibit C Page 4 have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the District. Anything in this Escrow Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, in no event shall the Escrow Bank be liable for special, indirect, punitive or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever (including but not limited to lost profits), even if the Escrow Bank has been advised of the likelihood of such loss or damage and regardless of the form of action. The Escrow Bank shall have the right to accept and act upon instructions, including funds transfer instructions (“Instructions”) given pursuant to this Agreement and delivered using Electronic Means ("Electronic Means" shall mean the following communications methods: e-mail, facsimile transmission, secure electronic transmission containing applicable authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys issued by the Escrow Bank, or another method or system specified by the Escrow Bank as available for use in connection with its services hereunder.); provided, however, that the District shall provide to the Escrow Bank an incumbency certificate listing officers with the authority to provide such Instructions (“Authorized Officers”) and containing specimen signatures of such Authorized Officers, which incumbency certificate shall be amended by the District, whenever a person is to be added or deleted from the listing. If the District elects to give the Escrow Bank Instructions using Electronic Means and the Escrow Bank in its discretion elects to act upon such Instructions, the Escrow Bank’s understanding of such Instructions shall be deemed controlling. The District understands and agrees that the Escrow Bank cannot determine the identity of the actual sender of such Instructions and that the Escrow Bank shall conclusively presume that directions that purport to have been sent by an Authorized Officer listed on the incumbency certificate provided to the Escrow Bank have been sent by such Authorized Officer. The District shall be responsible for ensuring that only Authorized Officers transmit such Instructions to the Escrow Bank and that the District and all Authorized Officers are solely responsible to safeguard the use and confidentiality of applicable user and authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys upon receipt by the District. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable for any losses, costs or expenses arising directly or indirectly from the Escrow Bank’s reliance upon and compliance with such Instructions notwithstanding such directions conflict or are inconsistent with a subsequent written instruction. The District agrees: (i) to assume all risks arising out of the use of Electronic Means to submit Instructions to the Escrow Bank, including without limitation the risk of the Escrow Bank acting on unauthorized Instructions, and the risk of interception and misuse by third parties; (ii) that it is fully informed of the protections and risks associated with the various methods of transmitting Instructions to the Escrow Bank and that there may be more secure methods of transmitting Instructions than the method(s) selected by the District; (iii) that the security procedures (if any) to be followed in connection with its transmission of Instructions provide to it a commercially reasonable degree of protection in light of its particular needs and circumstances; and (iv) to notify the Escrow Bank immediately upon learning of any compromise or unauthorized use of the security procedures. The District hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents, officers, directors, employees and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the District shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 7 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Exhibit C Page 5 The District acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the District the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the District specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the District monthly cash transaction statements which include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. No provision of this Escrow Agreement shall require the Escrow Bank to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance or exercise of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of its rights or powers. The Escrow Bank may execute any of the trusts or powers hereunder or perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents, attorneys, custodians or nominees appointed with due care and shall not be responsible for any willful misconduct or negligence on the part of any agent, attorney, custodian or nominee so appointed. The Escrow Bank may conclusively rely and shall be fully protected in acting or refraining from acting upon any resolution, certificate, statement, instrument, opinion, report, notice, request, consent, order, approval or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or parties. The Escrow Bank may at any time resign by giving 30 days written notice of resignation to the District. Upon receiving such notice of resignation, either District shall promptly appoint a successor and, upon the acceptance by the successor of such appointment, release the resigning Escrow Bank from its obligations hereunder by written instrument, a copy of which instrument shall be delivered to each of the District, the resigning Escrow Bank and the successor. If no successor shall have been so appointed and have accepted appointment within 30 days after the giving of such notice of resignation, the resigning Escrow Bank may petition any court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor. Section 8. Amendment. This Escrow Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the Refunded 2010D Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (1) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the District, (2) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (3) in regard to questions arising hereunder or thereunder, as the parties hereto or thereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the Refunded 2010D Bonds or the 2021 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the Refunded 2010D Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any contemplated amendment or revocation of this Escrow Agreement, prior written notice thereof and draft copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the District to each rating agency then rating the 2010D Bonds. Section 9. Notice of Escrow Bank and District. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the corporate trust office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2010 Paying Agent in accordance with the provisions of the 2010 Bond Resolution. Any notice to or demand upon the District shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2010 Bond Resolution (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the District with the Escrow Bank). Section 10. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2010 Bond Resolution, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Exhibit C Page 6 Section 11. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 12. Governing Law. This Escrow Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 13. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Escrow Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Escrow Agreement, but this Escrow Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid or illegal or unenforceable provisions had never been contained herein. Section 14. Counterparts. This Escrow Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and such counterparts, or as many of them as the District and the Escrow Bank shall preserve undestroyed, shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 15. Business Days. Whenever any act is required by this Escrow Agreement to be done on a specified day or date, and such day or date shall be a day other than a business day for the Escrow Bank, then such act may be done on the next succeeding business day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Escrow Agreement to be executed in their respective names by their respective duly authorized officers, all as of the day and year first above written. PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By Hitesh Haria, Associate Superintendent of Business Services THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Escrow Bank By Authorized Officer Exhibit C Page 7 EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price Cost Accrued Total SLGS 2/1/22 SLGS 8/1/22 SLGS 2/1/23 SLGS 8/1/23 SLGS 2/1.24 SLGS 8/1/24 Exhibit C Page 8 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT AND REDEMPTION SCHEDULE Interest Payment Maturing Called Redemption Total Date Principal Principal Interest Premium Payment 02/01/22 — — $267,375.00 — $ 267,375.00 08/01/22 — — 267,375.00 — 267,375.00 02/01/23 — — 267,375.00 — 267,375.00 08/01/23 — — 267,375.00 — 267,375.00 02/01/24 — — 267,375.00 — 267,375.00 08/01/24 — $11,640,000 267,375.00 — 11,907,375.00 Exhibit C Page 9 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds Election of 2010, Series D (2014) Principal Maturity Date Amount Defeased Interest Rate CUSIP No. 8/1/25 $ 150,000 5.000% 724581 PD9 8/1/26 165,000 5.000 724581 PE7 8/1/27 200,000 5.000 724581 PF4 8/1/28 225,000 5.000 724581 PG2 8/1/29 250,000 5.000 724581 PH0 8/1/30 275,000 3.500 724581 PJ6 8/1/31 300,000 3.625 724581 PK3 8/1/32 350,000 3.750 724581 PL1 8/1/33 375,000 4.000 724581 PM9 8/1/34 400,000 4.000 724581 PN7 8/1/37 1,600,000 4.000 724581 PP2 8/1/40 2,100,000 4.125 724581 QG1 8/1/43 5,400,000 5.000 724581 PQ0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the Pittsburg Unified School District (the “District”) to the owners of the outstanding bonds described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Resolution”), the lien of the Resolution with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated August 10, 2021, by and between the District and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as escrow agent. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Resolution. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Resolution and all other obligations of the District to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. As evidenced by the verification report delivered to the Escrow Bank, cash and U.S. Treasury securities deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the interest on the Bonds to and including August 1, 2024, and to redeem the outstanding Bonds in full on August 1, 2024 (the “Redemption Date”), at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount or accreted value thereof. From and after the Redemption Date, interest with respect to the Bonds shall cease to accrue or accrete and be payable. Dated: ________ ___, 2021 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent and Escrow Bank Exhibit C Page 10 EXHIBIT D FORM OF REDEMPTION NOTICE NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION OF Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds Election of 2010, Series D (2014) Issue Principal Date Maturity Date Amount Redeemed Interest Rate CUSIP No. 4/22/14 8/1/25 $ 150,000 5.000% 724581 PD9 4/22/14 8/1/26 165,000 5.000 724581 PE7 4/22/14 8/1/27 200,000 5.000 724581 PF4 4/22/14 8/1/28 225,000 5.000 724581 PG2 4/22/14 8/1/29 250,000 5.000 724581 PH0 4/22/14 8/1/30 275,000 3.500 724581 PJ6 4/22/14 8/1/31 300,000 3.625 724581 PK3 4/22/14 8/1/32 350,000 3.750 724581 PL1 4/22/14 8/1/33 375,000 4.000 724581 PM9 4/22/14 8/1/34 400,000 4.000 724581 PN7 4/22/14 8/1/37 1,600,000 4.000 724581 PP2 4/22/14 8/1/40 2,100,000 4.125 724581 QG1 4/22/14 8/1/43 5,400,000 5.000 724581 PQ0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Pittsburg Unified School District (the “District”) has called for redemption on August 1, 2024 (the “Redemption Date”), the outstanding general obligation bonds described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal thereof (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrete from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after the Redemption Date, at the following addresses: If by Mail: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Global Corporate Trust 111 Sanders Creek Parkway East Syracuse, NY 13057 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: The Bank of New York Mellon Global Corporate Trust Corporate Trust Window 101 Barclay Street, 1st Floor East New York, NY 10286 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Exhibit C Page 11 Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, 24% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. Neither the District nor the paying agent shall be held responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is any representation made as to its correctness as shown in the Redemption Notice. It is included solely for convenience of the Holders. Dated: ________ ___, 2024 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent and Escrow Bank Exhibit D Page 1 EXHIBIT D FORM OF 2012 REFUNDING BONDS ESCROW AGREEMENT This Escrow Agreement (this “Escrow Agreement”), dated August 10, 2021, is by and between the PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school unified district duly created and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California (the “District”), and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as escrow agent (the “Escrow Bank”). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the District has heretofore issued, on August 7, 2012, its Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the “2012 Refunding Bonds”), in the original principal amount of $13,265,000 to refund certain general obligation bonds previously issued by the District in 2003 and 2004; WHEREAS, the 2012 Refunding Bonds were issued under and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District (the “2012 Bond Resolution”); WHEREAS, pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of Chapter 3 (commencing with section 53550) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “Act”), the District is empowered to issue general obligation refunding bonds; WHEREAS, the District has determined that it is in the best interests of the District to refund the outstanding 2012 Refunding Bonds maturing on and after 2023 (the “Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds”); WHEREAS, the Board, by resolution adopted on May 26, 2021 (the “2021 Bond Resolution”), has authorized the issuance and sale of the District’s Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) (the “2021 Bonds”), and has determined to use a portion of the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds to redeem all outstanding Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds on August 1, 2022 (the “Redemption Date”), at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof (the “Redemption Price”); WHEREAS, the District, in the 2021 Bond Resolution, has directed that a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the 2021 Bonds be deposited hereunder, and that such amount will be in an amount sufficient to provide for the payment and redemption of the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds as described above; WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Discharge of Bonds. The District hereby irrevocably elects to pay and discharge all indebtedness payable by the District under the 2012 Bond Resolution with respect to the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds and to terminate all obligations of the District thereunder with respect thereto. Section 2. Escrow Fund. (a) There is hereby established a special fund, to be held by the Escrow Bank for the benefit of the owners of the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds, to be known as the “Escrow Fund.” Upon the issuance of the 2021 Bonds, there shall be deposited into the Escrow Fund an amount equal to $__________, derived from the proceeds of the 2021 Bonds. Exhibit D Page 2 (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $_________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the securities set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities and such cash shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated August 10, 2021, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to pay the interest on the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds to and including August 1, 2022, and to redeem all outstanding Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds in full on the Redemption Date at the Redemption Price. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. (e) Any money left on deposit in the Escrow Fund after payment in full of the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds, and the payment of all amounts due to the Escrow Bank hereunder, shall be transferred to the County for deposit in the interest and sinking fund maintained by the County for the District. Section 3. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The moneys and Escrowed Federal Securities deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 2 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds to and including August 1, 2022, and of redeeming the outstanding Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds in full on the Redemption Date at the Redemption Price, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as paying agent for the 2012 Refunding Bonds, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as paying agent for the 2012 Refunding Bonds, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as paying agent for the 2012 Refunding Bonds is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, as paying agent for the 2012 Refunding Bonds, hereby agrees to give timely notice of the redemption of the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds on the Redemption Date in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 2012 Bond Resolution and the form of redemption notice attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 4. Investment of Any Remaining Moneys. The Escrow Bank shall invest and reinvest the proceeds received from any of the Escrowed Federal Securities, and the cash originally deposited into the Escrow Fund, for a period ending not later than the next succeeding interest payment date relating to the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds, in Federal Securities pursuant to written directions of the District; provided, however, that (a) such written directions of the District shall be accompanied by (i) a certification of an independent certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants of favorable national reputation experienced in the refunding of obligations of political subdivisions that the Federal Securities then to be so deposited in the Escrow Fund, together with the cash then on deposit in the Escrow Fund, together with the interest to be derived therefrom, shall be in an amount at all times at least sufficient to make the payments specified in Section 3 hereof, and (ii) an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel (“Bond Counsel”) that investment in accordance with such directions will not affect, for Federal income tax purposes, the exclusion from gross income of interest due with respect to the Refunded 2012 Refunding Bonds, and (b) if the District directs such investment or reinvestment to be made in United States Treasury Securities-State and Local Government Series, the District shall, at its cost, cause to be prepared all necessary subscription forms therefor in sufficient time to enable the Escrow Bank to acquire such securities. In the event that the District shall fail to file any such written directions with the Escrow Bank concerning the reinvestment of any such proceeds, such proceeds shall be held uninvested by the Exhibit D Page 3 Escrow Bank. Any interest income resulting from investment or reinvestment of moneys pursuant to this Section 4 and not required for the purposes set forth in Section 2, as indicated by such verification, shall, promptly upon the receipt of such interest income by the Escrow Bank, be paid to the District. If the Escrow Bank learns that the Department of the Treasury or the Bureau of Fiscal Service will not, for any reason, accept a subscription of state and local government series securities (“SLGS”) that is to be submitted pursuant to this Agreement, the Escrow Bank shall promptly request alternative written investment instructions from the District with respect to funds which were to be invested in SLGS. The Escrow Bank shall follow such instructions and, upon the maturity of any such alternative investment, the Escrow Bank shall hold such funds uninvested and without liability for interest until receipt of further written instructions from the District. In the absence of investment instructions from the District, the Escrow Bank shall not be responsible for the investment of such funds or interest thereon. The Escrow Bank may conclusively rely upon the District’s selection of an alternative investment as a determination of the alternative investment's legality and suitability and shall not be liable for any losses related to the alternative investments or for compliance with any yield restriction applicable thereto. Section 5. Substitution or Withdrawal of Federal Securities. The District may, at any time, direct the Escrow Bank in writing to substitute Federal Securities for any or all of the Escrowed Federal Securities then deposited in the Escrow Fund, or to withdraw and transfer to the District any portion of the Federal Securities then deposited in the Escrow Fund, provided that any such direction and substitution or withdrawal shall be simultaneous and shall be accompanied by (a) a certification of an independent certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants of favorable national reputation experienced in the refunding of obligations of political subdivisions that the Federal Securities then to be so deposited in the Escrow Fund together with interest to be derived therefrom, or in the case of withdrawal, the Federal Securities to be remaining in the Escrow Fund following such withdrawal together with the interest to be derived therefrom, together with the cash then on deposit in the Escrow Fund, shall be in an amount at all times at least sufficient to make the payments specified in Section 3 hereof; and (b) an opinion of Bond Counsel that the substitution or withdrawal will not affect, for Federal income tax purposes, the exclusion from gross income of interest on the 2012 Refunding Bonds. In the event that, following any such substitution of Federal Securities pursuant to this Section 5, there is an amount of moneys or Federal Securities in excess of an amount sufficient to make the payments required by Section 2 hereof, as indicated by such verification, such excess shall be paid to the District. Section 6. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The District shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 7. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Agreement unless the District shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the District or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth herein, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non- negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the District, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth herein or to the validity of this Escrow Agreement as to the District and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Agreement except for its own Exhibit D Page 4 negligence or willful misconduct, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the District, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the District. Anything in this Escrow Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, in no event shall the Escrow Bank be liable for special, indirect, punitive or consequential loss or damage of any kind whatsoever (including but not limited to lost profits), even if the Escrow Bank has been advised of the likelihood of such loss or damage and regardless of the form of action. The Escrow Bank shall have the right to accept and act upon instructions, including funds transfer instructions (“Instructions”) given pursuant to this Agreement and delivered using Electronic Means ("Electronic Means" shall mean the following communications methods: e-mail, facsimile transmission, secure electronic transmission containing applicable authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys issued by the Escrow Bank, or another method or system specified by the Escrow Bank as available for use in connection with its services hereunder.); provided, however, that the District shall provide to the Escrow Bank an incumbency certificate listing officers with the authority to provide such Instructions (“Authorized Officers”) and containing specimen signatures of such Authorized Officers, which incumbency certificate shall be amended by the District, whenever a person is to be added or deleted from the listing. If the District elects to give the Escrow Bank Instructions using Electronic Means and the Escrow Bank in its discretion elects to act upon such Instructions, the Escrow Bank’s understanding of such Instructions shall be deemed controlling. The District understands and agrees that the Escrow Bank cannot determine the identity of the actual sender of such Instructions and that the Escrow Bank shall conclusively presume that directions that purport to have been sent by an Authorized Officer listed on the incumbency certificate provided to the Escrow Bank have been sent by such Authorized Officer. The District shall be responsible for ensuring that only Authorized Officers transmit such Instructions to the Escrow Bank and that the District and all Authorized Officers are solely responsible to safeguard the use and confidentiality of applicable user and authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys upon receipt by the District. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable for any losses, costs or expenses arising directly or indirectly from the Escrow Bank’s reliance upon and compliance with such Instructions notwithstanding such directions conflict or are inconsistent with a subsequent written instruction. The District agrees: (i) to assume all risks arising out of the use of Electronic Means to submit Instructions to the Escrow Bank, including without limitation the risk of the Escrow Bank acting on unauthorized Instructions, and the risk of interception and misuse by third parties; (ii) that it is fully informed of the protections and risks associated with the various methods of transmitting Instructions to the Escrow Bank and that there may be more secure methods of transmitting Instructions than the method(s) selected by the District; (iii) that the security procedures (if any) to be followed in connection with its transmission of Instructions provide to it a commercially reasonable degree of protection in light of its particular needs and circumstances; and (iv) to notify the Escrow Bank immediately upon learning of any compromise or unauthorized use of the security procedures. The District hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents, officers, directors, employees and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the District shall not Exhibit D Page 5 be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 7 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. The District acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the District the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the District specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the District monthly cash transaction statements which include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. No provision of this Escrow Agreement shall require the Escrow Bank to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance or exercise of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of its rights or powers. The Escrow Bank may execute any of the trusts or powers hereunder or perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents, attorneys, custodians or nominees appointed with due care and shall not be responsible for any willful misconduct or negligence on the part of any agent, attorney, custodian or nominee so appointed. The Escrow Bank may conclusively rely and shall be fully protected in acting or refraining from acting upon any resolution, certificate, statement, instrument, opinion, report, notice, request, consent, order, approval or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or parties. The Escrow Bank may at any time resign by giving 30 days written notice of resignation to the District. Upon receiving such notice of resignation, either District shall promptly appoint a successor and, upon the acceptance by the successor of such appointment, release the resigning Escrow Bank from its obligations hereunder by written instrument, a copy of which instrument shall be delivered to each of the District, the resigning Escrow Bank and the successor. If no successor shall have been so appointed and have accepted appointment within 30 days after the giving of such notice of resignation, the resigning Escrow Bank may petition any court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor. Section 8. Amendment. This Escrow Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2012 Refunding Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (1) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the District, (2) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (3) in regard to questions arising hereunder or thereunder, as the parties hereto or thereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2012 Refunding Bonds or the 2021 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 2012 Refunding Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any contemplated amendment or revocation of this Escrow Agreement, prior written notice thereof and draft copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the District to each rating agency then rating the 2012 Refunding Bonds. Section 9. Notice of Escrow Bank and District. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the corporate trust office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2012 Paying Agent in accordance with the provisions of the 2012 Bond Resolution. Any notice to or demand upon the District shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2012 Bond Resolution (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the District with the Escrow Bank). Section 10. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Exhibit D Page 6 Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2012 Bond Resolution, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 11. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 12. Governing Law. This Escrow Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 13. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Escrow Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions of this Escrow Agreement, but this Escrow Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid or illegal or unenforceable provisions had never been contained herein. Section 14. Counterparts. This Escrow Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and such counterparts, or as many of them as the District and the Escrow Bank shall preserve undestroyed, shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 15. Business Days. Whenever any act is required by this Escrow Agreement to be done on a specified day or date, and such day or date shall be a day other than a business day for the Escrow Bank, then such act may be done on the next succeeding business day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Escrow Agreement to be executed in their respective names by their respective duly authorized officers, all as of the day and year first above written. PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By Hitesh Haria, Associate Superintendent of Business Services THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Escrow Bank By Authorized Officer Exhibit D Page 7 EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price Cost Accrued Total SLGS 2/1/22 SLGS 8/1/22 Exhibit D Page 8 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT AND REDEMPTION SCHEDULE Maturing Called Redemption Total Date Principal Principal Interest Premium Payment 02/01/22 — — $72,475.00 — $ 72,475.00 08/01/22 — $4,215,000 72,475.00 — 4,287,475.00 Exhibit D Page 9 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds Maturity Date Amount Defeased Interest Rate CUSIP No. 8/1/23 $ 925,000 5.000% 724581 NL3 8/1/24 1,000,000 3.000 724581 NM1 8/1/25 1,110,000 3.000 724581 NN9 8/1/26 1,180,000 3.000 724581 NP4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the Pittsburg Unified School District (the “District”) to the owners of the outstanding bonds described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Resolution”), the lien of the Resolution with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated December 12, 2021, by and between the District and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A, as escrow agent. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Resolution. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Resolution and all other obligations of the District to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. As evidenced by the verification report delivered to the Escrow Bank, cash and U.S. Treasury securities deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the interest on the Bonds to and including August 1, 2022, and to redeem the outstanding Bonds in full on August 1, 2020 (the “Redemption Date”), at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof. From and after the Redemption Date, interest with respect to the Bonds shall cease to accrue and be payable. Dated: ________ ___, 2021 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent and Escrow Bank Exhibit D Page 10 EXHIBIT D FORM OF REDEMPTION NOTICE NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION OF Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds Dated Date Maturity Date Redemption Price Interest Rate CUSIP No. 8/7/12 8/1/23 $ 925,000 5.000% 724581 NL3 8/7/12 8/1/24 1,000,000 3.000 724581 NM1 8/7/12 8/1/25 1,110,000 3.000 724581 NN9 8/7/12 8/1/26 1,180,000 3.000 724581 NP4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Pittsburg Unified School District (the “District”) has called for redemption on August 1, 2022 (the “Redemption Date”), the outstanding general obligation bonds described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the accreted value thereof (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrete from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after the Redemption Date, at the following addresses: If by Mail: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Global Corporate Trust 111 Sanders Creek Parkway East Syracuse, NY 13057 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: The Bank of New York Mellon Global Corporate Trust Corporate Trust Window 101 Barclay Street, 1st Floor East New York, NY 10286 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, 24% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. Neither the District nor the paying agent shall be held responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is any representation made as to its correctness as shown in the Redemption Notice. It is included solely for convenience of the Holders. Dated: ________ ___, 2020 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent and Escrow Bank Exhibit E Page 1 EXHIBIT E FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE This Continuing Disclosure Certificate (the “Disclosure Certificate”) is executed and delivered by the PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (the “District”) in connection with the issuance by the District of its $_________ Pittsburg Unified School District (County of Alameda, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds, (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) (the “Bonds”). The Bonds are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the District on May 26, 2021 (the “Resolution”). The District covenants and agrees as follows: Section 1. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth above and, in the Resolution, which apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Certificate unless otherwise defined in this Section 1, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: “Annual Report” means any Annual Report provided by the District pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. “Annual Report Date” means March 31 after the end of the District’s fiscal year. “Dissemination Agent” shall mean, initially, Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC, or any successor Dissemination Agent designed in writing by the District and which has been filed with the then current Dissemination Agent a written acceptance of such designation. “Fiscal Year” means any twelve–month period beginning on July 1 in any year and extending to the next succeeding June 30, both dates inclusive, or any other twelve–month period selected and designated by the District as its official fiscal year period under a Certificate of the District filed with the Trustee. “MSRB” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, which has been designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission as the sole repository of disclosure information for purposes of the Rule, or any other repository of disclosure information that may be designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission as such for purposes of the Rule in the future. “Official Statement” means the final official statement executed by the District in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. “Participating Underwriter” means the original underwriter of the Bonds. “Rule” means Rule 15c2–12(b)(5) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as it may be amended from time to time. “Significant Events” means any of the events listed in Section 5(a) of this Disclosure Certificate. Section 2. Purpose of the Disclosure Certificate. This Disclosure Certificate is being executed and delivered by the District for the benefit of the holders and beneficial owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with S.E.C. Rule 15c2– 12(b)(5). Section 3. Provision of Annual Reports. (a) The District shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent to, not later than the Annual Report Date, commencing March 31, 2022, with the report for fiscal year 2020-21 provide to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, an Annual Report that is consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. Not later than 15 Business Days prior to the Annual Report Date, the District shall provide the Annual Report to the Dissemination Agent (if other than the District). If by 15 Business Days prior to the Annual Report Date the Dissemination Agent (if other than the District) has not received a copy of the Annual Report, the Dissemination Agent shall contact the District Exhibit E Page 2 to determine if the District is in compliance with the previous sentence. The Annual Report may be submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package and may include by reference other information as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate; provided that the audited financial statements of the District may be submitted separately from the balance of the Annual Report, and later than the Annual Report Date, if not available by that date. If the District’s fiscal year changes, it shall give notice of such change in the same manner as for a Significant Event under Section 5(c). The District shall provide a written certification with each Annual Report furnished to the Dissemination Agent to the effect that such Annual Report constitutes the Annual Report required to be furnished by the District hereunder. (b) If the District does not provide (or cause the Dissemination Agent to provide) an Annual Report by the Annual Report Date, the District in a timely manner shall provide (or cause the Dissemination Agent to provide) to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, a notice in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A. (c) With respect to each Annual Report, the Dissemination Agent shall: (i) determine each year prior to the Annual Report Date the then–applicable rules and electronic format prescribed by the MSRB for the filing of annual continuing disclosure reports; and (ii) if the Dissemination Agent is other than the District, file a report with the District certifying that the Annual Report has been provided pursuant to this Disclosure Certificate, and stating the date it was provided. Section 4. Content of Annual Reports. The District’s Annual Report shall contain or incorporate by reference the following: (a) The District’s audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as promulgated to apply to governmental entities from time to time by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. If the District’s audited financial statements are not available by the Annual Report Date, the Annual Report shall contain unaudited financial statements in a format similar to the financial statements contained in the final Official Statement, and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same manner as the Annual Report when they become available. (b) Unless otherwise provided in the audited financial statements filed on or prior to the annual filing deadline for Annual Reports provided for in Section 3 above, financial information and operating data with respect to the District for preceding fiscal year, substantially similar to that provided in the Official Statement, as follows: (i) the District’s most recent approved annual budget; (ii) the most recent assessed value of taxable property in the District; and (iii) if Contra Costa County no longer includes the tax levy for payment of the Bonds pursuant to the Teeter Plan, the most recent property tax levies, collections and delinquencies of the District. (c) In addition to any of the information expressly required to be provided under this Disclosure Certificate, the District shall provide such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the specifically required statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. (d) Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents, including official statements of debt issues of the District or related public entities, which are available to the public on the MSRB’s Internet web site or filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The District shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference. Exhibit E Page 3 Section 5. Reporting of Significant Events. (a) The District shall give, or cause to be given, notice of the occurrence of any of the following Significant Events with respect to the Bonds: (i) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (ii) Non–payment related defaults, if material; (iii) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (iv) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (v) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (vi) Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701–TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security; (vii) Modifications to rights of security holders, if material; (viii) Bond calls, if material, and tender offers; (ix) Defeasances; (x) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material; (xi) Rating changes; (xii) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the District or other obligated person; (xiii) The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the District or an obligated person, or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the District or an obligated person (other than in the ordinary course of business), the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action, or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; or (xiv) Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material; (xv) The incurrence of a financial obligation of the District or other obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the District or other obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; or (xvi) A default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a financial obligation of the District or other obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. (b) Whenever the District obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Significant Event, the District shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent (if not the District) to, file a notice of such occurrence with the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, in a timely manner not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the Significant Event. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice of Significant Events described in subsection (a)(viii) above need not be given under this subsection any Exhibit E Page 4 earlier than the notice (if any) of the underlying event is given to holders of affected Bonds under the Resolution. (c) The District acknowledges that the events described in subparagraphs (a)(ii), (a)(vii), (a)(viii) (if the event is a bond call), (a)(x), (a)(xiii), (a)(xiv) and (a)(xv) of this Section 5 contain the qualifier “if material.” The District shall cause a notice to be filed as set forth in paragraph (b) above with respect to any such event only to the extent that the District determines the event’s occurrence is material for purposes of U.S. federal securities law. The District intends that the words used in paragraphs (xv) and (xvi) and the definition of “financial obligation” to have the meanings ascribed thereto in SEC Release No. 34-83885 (November 8, 2018) and/or any further guidance or releases provided by the SEC. (d) For purposes of this Disclosure Certificate, any event described in paragraph (a)(xii) above is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent, or similar officer for the District in a proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the District, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement, or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the District. Section 6. Identifying Information for Filings with the MSRB. All documents provided to the MSRB under this Disclosure Certificate shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB. Section 7. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The District’s obligations under this Disclosure Certificate shall terminate upon the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. If such termination occurs prior to the final maturity of the Bonds, the District shall give notice of such termination in the same manner as for a Significant Event under Section 5(b). Section 8. Dissemination Agent. The District may, from time to time, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate, and may discharge any Dissemination Agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. Any Dissemination Agent may resign by providing 30 days’ written notice to the District. Section 9. Amendment; Waiver. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure Certificate, the District may amend this Disclosure Certificate, and any provision of this Disclosure Certificate may be waived, provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (a) if the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Sections 3(a), 4 or 5(a), it may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature, or status of an obligated person with respect to the Bonds, or type of business conducted; (b) the undertakings herein, as proposed to be amended or waived, would, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances; and (c) the proposed amendment or waiver either (i) is approved by holders of the Bonds in the manner provided in the Resolution for amendments to the Resolution with the consent of holders, or (ii) does not, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, materially impair the interests of the holders or beneficial owners of the Bonds. If the annual financial information or operating data to be provided in the Annual Report is amended pursuant to the provisions hereof, the first annual financial information filed pursuant hereto containing the amended operating data or financial information shall explain, in narrative form, the Exhibit E Page 5 reasons for the amendment and the impact of the change in the type of operating data or financial information being provided. If an amendment is made to the undertaking specifying the accounting principles to be followed in preparing financial statements, the annual financial information for the year in which the change is made shall present a comparison between the financial statements or information prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. The comparison shall include a qualitative discussion of the differences in the accounting principles and the impact of the change in the accounting principles on the presentation of the financial information, in order to provide information to investors to enable them to evaluate the ability of the District to meet its obligations. To the extent reasonably feasible, the comparison shall be quantitative. The Dissemination Agent shall not be obligated to enter into any amendment increasing or affecting its duties or obligations hereunder. A notice of any amendment made pursuant to this Section 9 shall be filed in the same manner as for a Significant Event under Section 5(b). Section 10. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Certificate shall be deemed to prevent the District from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Certificate or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Significant Event, in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Certificate. If the District chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Significant Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Certificate, the District shall have no obligation under this Disclosure Certificate to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Significant Event. Section 11. Default. If the District fails to comply with any provision of this Disclosure Certificate, the Participating Underwriter or any holder or beneficial owner of the Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the District to comply with its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate. A default under this Disclosure Certificate shall not be deemed an Event of Default under the Resolution, and the sole remedy under this Disclosure Certificate in the event of any failure of the District to comply with this Disclosure Certificate shall be an action to compel performance. Section 12. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Dissemination Agent. (a) Article VIII of the Resolution is hereby made applicable to this Disclosure Certificate as if this Disclosure Certificate were (solely for this purpose) contained in the Resolution. The Dissemination Agent shall be entitled to the protections and limitations from liability afforded to the Trustee thereunder. The Dissemination Agent shall have only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Disclosure Certificate, and the District agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless against any loss, expense and liabilities which they may incur arising out of or in the exercise or performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) of defending against any claim of liability, but excluding liabilities due to the Dissemination Agent’s negligence or willful misconduct. The Dissemination Agent shall have no duty or obligation to review any information provided to it by the District hereunder and shall not be deemed to be acting in any fiduciary capacity for the District, the Bond holders or any other party. The obligations of the District under this Section shall survive resignation or removal of the Dissemination Agent and payment of the Bonds. (b) The Dissemination Agent shall be paid compensation by the District for its services provided hereunder in accordance with its schedule of fees as amended from time to time, and shall be reimbursed for all expenses, legal fees and advances made or incurred by the Dissemination Agent in the performance of its duties hereunder. Exhibit E Page 6 Section 13. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Certificate shall inure solely to the benefit of the District, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriter and the owners and Beneficial Owners from time to time of the Bonds and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. Date: August 10, 2021 PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By Authorized Officer ACKNOWLEDGED: BACKSTROM MCCARLEY BERRY & CO., LLC, as Dissemination Agent By Authorized Officer Exhibit E Page 7 EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO EMMA OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT Name of Obligor: Pittsburg Unified School District Name of Issue: $__________ Pittsburg Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) 2021 General Obligation Bonds, (Series 2014D, Series 2018C and 2021 Refunding Combined Issue) Date of Issuance: August 10, 2021 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Obligor has not provided an Annual Report with respect to the above-named Bonds as required by the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, dated August 10, 2021, furnished by the Obligor in connection with the Issue. The Obligor anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by _____________. Dated: ______________________ BACKSTROM MCCARLEY BERRY & CO., LLC, Dissemination Agent By Authorized Officer cc: Paying Agent