Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 06241997 - D9-D12
D.9 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 24, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Subject- Continued Hearing on the Appeal Filed by Paul Kimelman and Haleh Shahmohammadi, (County File #DP 3002-97 and File #TP 0021-96) On May 13, 1997, the Board of Supervisors continued to July 15, 1997, the hearing on the recommendation of the appeal of Paul Kimelman (appellant and applicant) and Haleh Shahmohammadi (owner and applicant) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the application of Paul Kimelman (applicant) and Haleh Shahmohammadi (owner) for approval for a development plan to allow a two-story residence on a sub- standard sized lot (County File #DP 97-3002); and an appeal by Paul Kimelman (appellant and applicant) and Haleh Shahmohammadi (owner and appellant) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the application by Paul Kimelman (applicant) and Haleh Shahmohammadi (owner) for approval to remove one oak tree and to alter (build within the root system) four other oak trees (County File #TP 96-0021), Alamo area. The Community Development Department advised the Clerk of the Board of a possible tentative agreement between the appellant's and their neighbors. The Clerk was instructed to renotice the hearing, and it was noticed for June 24, 1997, by mail and publication. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report. He noted that the parties had met with Supervisor Gerber, and an agreement was reached on the issues including the site plan, elevations, and landscaping. The parties signed the agreement in a memorandum dated June 5, 1997. (Attached as Exhibit B). Dennis Barry advised that the County is the final authority for the Conditions of Approval, and the Conditions cannot be delegated to private parties. Supervisor Gerber commented that she felt that a reasonable compromise had been reached. The public hearing was opened, and no one appearing to speak, the hearing was closed. 1 Supervisor Gerber moved to accept staffs recommendations as amended. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion. The Board took the following action: IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED: the Appeal by Paul Kimelman and Haleh Shahmohammadi is GRANTED; the Small Lot Residency application (County File #DP 97-3002) is APPROVED as amended; and the Tree permit (County File #TP 96-0021) is APPROVED as amended. (See attached Exhibit A). I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED June 24, 1997 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors anCo my Administrator BY Barbara S. Gr t, my Clerk c.c. Bob Drake, CDD Paul Kimelman and Haleh Shahmohammadi Edward Mastrangelo Karmont Development Co. County Counsel 2 -----.... . of D 9 Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �' _'_'"" ` County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON c3� DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT csra'coun� DATE : June 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Continued June 24, 1997 Hearing on the Appeal Filed by Paul Kimelman and Haleh Shahmohammadi on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s Denial of Applications for Small Lot Occupancy Review and Tree Permit for a Proposed Residence at #277 Lark Lane in the Alamo Area. (File #DP973002 & #TP960021) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Grant the appeal of Paul Kimelman and Haleh Shahmohammadi . 2 . Approve File #DP973002 with conditions . 3 . Approve File #TP960021 with conditions . FISCAL IMPACT None . The applicant is obligated to pay any supplemental applications fees that are due should staff time and materials costs (including costs with processing the appeal) exceed 120% of the initial filing fee . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This matter was initially heard by the Board of Supervisors on May 13 , 1997 . At that time, the only ones to testify on the matter were the owners and their representatives, and one of the neighbors, Edward Mastrangelo (#399 South Avenue) . After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing to July 15, 1997 to allow for the owners and Mr. Mastrangelo an opportunity to see if the design issues could be resolved. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE 1� n _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE _ APPROVE OTHER TION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVIS I HEREBY CE Y THATT HIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE RRECT COPY OF AN AYES : NO ACTI TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact : Bob Drake (335-1214) ` Orig: Communitv Development Depart ATTESTED CC: \,,� PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -AVD COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY Following the Board hearing, there have been several meetings between the applicant and Mr. Mastrangelo with Supervisor Gerber's office which have resulted in a resolution of the issues. Attached are memoranda from Supervisor Gerber' s office dated June 5, 1997 and June 9, 1997 detailing the terms of the agreement. In summary, the agreement provides for the same site plan as applied for by the applicant except that the building elevations and (by implication) the floor plans have been changed so as to introduce a one-story element adjacent to the Mastrangelo property. The modified building elevation plans shall be presented at the Board hearing. The agreement also provides for specific exterior materials, fencing and tree planting improvements. The agreement still provides for the removal of Tree #2 , the oak tree with the split trunk to be removed. Insofar as the Mastrangelos were the only neighbors to appear in opposition to this project at either the Planning Commission or the Board hearings, it appears that all design issues with the community have been resolved. The staff position has been modified to support the accord reached between the applicant and the neighbors. The conditions of approval have been modified to reflect the accord. Beguired Tree Plantina The original tree permit approval (which was appealed by Mastrangelo) required the planting of seven 15-gallon trees to address the loss of the one tree on the property. The agreement calls for the planting of twelve 15-gallon trees. It is staff's understanding that the planting of the twelve 15-gallon trees would satisfy the condition of the planting of the seven trees associated with the tree permit. The agreement also provides for the planting of one specimen oak tree whose location is to be determined at a later date. The agreement specifies that its location is to be "mutually determined" by both the applicant and the Mastrangelos. To avoid the County subjecting a permit to the approval of a third party, the terms of this agreement have been modified to make it subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (See COA #4 of File #DP973002. Early Continued Hearing At the request of the applicant, staff has rescheduled this matter for an earlier continued hearing than originally scheduled by the Board. The hearing has been re-noticed. -2- e*k� /�- FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE ON A SMALL LOT, COUNTY FILE #DP973002 (Karmont Development (Applicant), Paul Kimelman & Haleh Shahmohommadi (Owners) per Board of Supervisors June 24, 1997 Approval FINDINGS The proposed residence will be compatible with and will not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed residence is approved as generally shown on plans dated December 30, 1996, subject to modified design to be in accord with the revised building elevations dated May 22, 1997. Prior to filing a building permit, the applicant shall submit revised floor plans to be in accord with the 5/22/97 building elevations. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A. Color Palette of Exterior Colors of Residence - Colors of the walls and roof of the proposed residence shall be restricted to 50% reflectivity. The applicant shall submit a color palette which is accompanied by a signed statement from an architect or other qualified individual indicating compliance with the reflectivity standard. The roof materials shall consist of Tamko "heritage" style with a weathered wood color. The color of the siding shall consist of Kelly Moore "Dark Moss", #KM 708.D. The trim shall consist of"Woodmoss" 4197 at gutters and window/door trim. The garage doors shall be painted to match the trim. The brick shall consist of ironwood brown. The windows shall be almond vinyl. B. Landscape improvements Adjacent to Parcel No. 198-230-008 (Mastrangelo) - The applicant shall submit a landscape/irrigation plan for sideyard area along the southeast property line aimed at softening the appearance of the proposed residence as viewed from the Mastrangelo property. The plan shall provide for at least twelve 15-gallon trees to be planted along the southeastern property line and otherwise be in accord with the tree planting requirements of Tree Permit No. TP960021. Trees shall be a minimum 15-gallons in size; shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallons File#DP973002 Karmont Development(A) Kimmelmae&Shahmohammadi(0) in size. The approved plans shall be completed prior to finalization of the building permit for the residence. At least one week prior to finalization of the building permit, the applicant shall contact the Zoning Administrator(335-1214) to notify him that the trees have been planted and may be inspected for verification purposes. 3. Development shall be in accord with the approval of Tree Permit#TP960021. Prior to finalization of the building permit for the residence, required tree plantings under that permit shall be completed. 4. Planting of Specimen Oak Tree - The applicant shall plant a 24-inch by 24-inch box oak tree. Prior to framing inspection of the residence, the applicant shall submit two copies of a site plan to the Community Development Department showing the proposed location of the oak tree for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Prior to approving a location for the oak tree, an opportunity for comment on the proposed location shall be provided to the adjacent property owner at 399 South Avenue (Mastrangelo). At least one week prior to finalization of the building permit, the applicant shall contact the Zoning Administrator (335-1214) to notify him that the trees have been planted and may be inspected for verification purposes. 5. Property Line Fence - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fencing plan consisting of a fence section and site plan providing for a six-foot tall, solid wood fence. The fence shall be located along the southeastern boundary line and shall extend 16 feet west of the existing gate (the location of the existing gate shall be noted on the site plan). At least one week prior to finalization of the building permit, the applicant shall contact the Zoning Administrator (335-1214) to notify him that the fence has been installed and may be inspected for verification purposes. 6. Retention of Existing Drainage Berm - Construction plans for the proposed residence shall also provide for retention or improvement of an existing drainage berm located along the northeast property line of the property to the south (9399 South Avenue, Mastrangelo. 7. Payment of Any Supplemental Application Fees - This application is subject to an initial application fee of$425 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the -2- File#DP973002 Karmont Development-Applicant,Kimehnan&Shahmohammadi-Owners initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be to you shortly after permit issuance. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant is advised to check with the District concerning proposed placement of the residence within the District's easement along the eastern boundary of the site. B. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Survey stakes will be required. D. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. E. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division including sewage disposal, water supply, and any abandoned wells or septic systems. u1weaoul1)a973W2.cm R�\ Rrv.6/1897-b -3- CRITERIA FOR GRANTING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT NO. TP 960021 (Karmont Development - Applicant; Paul Kimelman and Haleh Shahmohammadi - Owners) IN THE ALAMO AREA per Board of Supervisors June 24, 1997 Approval. Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked: 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. 3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means. 4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation, walls, patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc. 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard. 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving. X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. 8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived, weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling. 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, and the Director is satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource. 10. None of the above factors apply. Tree Permit#TP960021 Karmont Development(Ap);Kimebnan/Shahmohammadi(Owners) B. Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked: 1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). 2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability, windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. 3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. 4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual effect, wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. 5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives including an alternate route, use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director. X 7. None of the above factors apply. 2 Tree Permit#TP960021 Karmont Development(Ap.);%imehnandShahmohammadi(owners) Conditions of Approval General I General - The application for removal of a coast live oak tree with a split trunk and alteration within the dripline of four other oak trees is approved as generally based on the following documents: • Topographic Survey Site Plan submitted with the application; • 10/28/96 Arborist Report prepared by Joseph McNeil; Except as otherwise specified, development shall be in accord with the recommendations of the arborist report. All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number corresponding to arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. The construction plans shall provide for the recommendations in the arborist report intended to protect the trees to be preserved on the property including but not limited to: • removal of existing fill around the dripline of Tree #1; • placement of fencing at or beyond the dripline of the trees for the duration of construction activity on the site; • aeration of the entire exposed root zone; • design drainage is directed away from the root zone or at least from the base of the trees. This permit shall be valid until April 25, 1997 and may be extended up to six months beyond that date by the Zoning Administrator upon submission of a written request by the Applicant. 2. Required Restitution for Approved Tree Removal -At least 30 days prior to a request for framing inspection, the applicant shall submit a landscape/irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide for the proposed planting of at least twelve trees, minimum 15-gallon in size on the site. (Also, note below requirement that plans must 3 Tree Permit#TP960021 Karmont Development(Ap.);Kimebnan/Shahmohammadi(Owners) include provision for other tree plantings for purposes of contingency restitution in the event that trees to be saved are damaged.) Prior to seeking finalization of the building permit for the residence, the applicant's arborist shall verify if the replacement trees have been properly planted and when verified notify the Community Development Department in writing. Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged 3. Oak Trees to be Preserved but Altered - Pursuant to the recommendations in the arborist report, proposed improvements within the dripline areas of four oak trees have been determined to be feasible and still allow preservation of the trees. To address the possibility that development nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant's tree planting plan shall also provide trees for replacement of the four oak trees intended to be preserved but "altered" in the event that they are nonetheless damaged. This contingency replacement shall provide for at least 17 additional oak trees, minimum fifteen-gallons in size to be planted on site, or other equivalent planting that is reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. Any future proposal to remove these four"altered" trees will require approval of a new application for tree removal permit. At least 30 days prior to a request for framing inspection, the applicant shall submit a written statement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator agreeing to install the approved contingency planting improvements, or contractually assure said improvements, prior to finalization of the building permit. Upon completion of improvements within the dripline of any trees to be protected and prior to seeking finalization of the building permit for the residence, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the existing trees for possible significant damage and submit a written report on his findings to the Community Development Department. Construction Period Restrictions 4. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the dripline (or other area as determined by the arborist report) of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. 4 Tree Permit#TP960011 Karmont Development(Ap.);Kimehnan/Shahmohammadi(Owners) 5. Construction Period Restrictions -No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. An arborist shall be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require measures to protect the tree roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction the arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. 6. Prohibition of Parkin - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 7. Construction Tree Damage - The development's property owner or developer shall notify the department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the director. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the director to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. Arborist Expense 8. Arborist Expense - The expenses associated with all required arborist work shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. cA"&cUp960021.coa RDA rev. N2&97-,d 5 R 14 1551 154 1555 1556 1557 r 492 a. ALA-2 i y 1491 I PR A-80 <, ( 1 � + + 14 13 + + 490 23:24 olicies for: Inville/ hawk I + 48.9 A•80 I Ij. + + + V 4e MAY 6 1991 -` T 14 1555 ` t \ © 1 1 t iii's .............. Ot: :::r:ce Rio'ii•.•;:;"::?° Ei..: *iiii"'riii" Bi:::iii;. iii!Ils��t; :,' iiL".ii:�nji:. • .T!ii ii�:iiii:: �. ;ai it it it it i it 000 it i .:......... :::::::::: ;114::•�"ai;, ♦ �::::: .................. �����•• �i�:{ .•::j':%iii ` . J � yy \i >y�4:/� �1 `ty ,t 'J Y • I �/• •».5.-'� aT.,C LRR�<::::^Rl ::r•';,w �£ i:+..r "�,: ,y C�. C �z ��Wt`�•�� S"t�'.:F� .s� � � * 'i p ^►ii % ..*. { �!J34�•r.t Y.;y ate. �a ' r.+ :� yy - � :i:'^��•• t9..yf.YE `4" +'nX.L•� �k i J1wy-," 1•t'` '*S i ,� ':^.:.... is ty, � r. �. F - FST •'a- •_` \ �: • i�$ y Twq NZ � S .511 Y ] '„ Y 1•',fi�iaJ_ y ! � •� � /{� Lr S ,4�k�t 'r= A _ tr i:.ry 'A 3�y� '�ina J_', S'�� � .,•'�'� • / - yt '^ �`-�• J �,t� Ji. 'S I w ,�, '� )•�'p'.jXy# �'hv �� ..: � ft-p �'�, .� ` y4 Y V M.U. B.M. `,, � • �,"1"� 1 1"4-200' Ny0°aA w a xii°56'34'W '�4Dy 99Ac t3 a 4D'Acc.EasE 32' // tt a�-� 'N /O 8 ° 'N µD6'°T'0a"W µ 9.49' `E 94 (t�•°�,,° 8 �y- FM.PCL.198-280-018 _;f25 -•"1599 _'� ` s CC $. ON PG.28 oS°, tS '�Z� \,� +h' 14. a ly� a "G9.35 354 72 Ac T ' \x NS �3'3a'w ��.(•6 A f rol_ 5s,saB°tc,'ss'w 14,1] / a. A4 Q�w lfyb-°ev ti • l�'t�.ft M`J K�f." $CEN1C Ease. �•xseo^w 4Nf ✓ 5�\�'A5 5t . 3 z A]ac) N Q„ 1 \ csea•as'e) zil. a -. cNae•osE) aysao p2.$ \\� a3�x� 4Ac. H v �� � !.n•�°. It . W i i %g% 3,00 c•. 5a� to `. L.L dGeB.Ae. � � l35k 45 1 R i- ' 7.N. •• ,� - 170.oN 74 /B' S •Ml � REVISED CHANGE BY 31]/91 Coot 0i5 046 Ta l.J ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 198 PAGE 23 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIF' Qn^`i 11 \ C /l i i[t01 CD it� iy��`6 fitt i E r ,� ✓ � � d9 , S.\+ J7 kill i 1 i 'cta a s z <<'� i ft mll t � A s18 �fE t VVt t t q �� ` � :�� W t.Ant �t i i'i ii , Yt� "'*'� `+� •`°� , \ f - �a•.ttys [;SEitt. $�ib�: t tsxtlt t�j •4s fi'-#i ! ` t Y ticbSs}#43vi°ij'ivi:�Fiats ��^ ����� 4� ��1 �'(tt� t 1� �, •,�p1F t9 / a q =,i' i:` .�a �"`a9-� t \\ice '':?�k �j-� 's•�/.��M' �'4� 1 v Dtis�tf is d, Li ^, -�AE � t 5iit c� 57. 9"� 3.gt a°'r' - •�-- a j o .x b=p fl, } � t' � �J � � (rJt✓ T Y i i qq l > r 309 Diablo Road Danville,California 94526 (510) 820-8683 FAX(510)82G-6627 Contra Costa County fs Board of Supervisors `7 JUPJ -9 AM 8: 45 DONNA GERSERDP DISTRICT III SUPERVISOR-VEL DEPT June 5, 1997 To: Dennis Barry, Deputy Community Development Director Attention: Bob Drake From: Donna Gerber, District III Supervisor Subject: 277 Lark Lane, Alamo Following a meeting of the owners and neighbor of the referenced project site, agreement was reached on these items: 1. Acceptance of revised plans as presented on June 5 1997 C t5x�,'6,+ k) #5fit 2. The planting of a 24" x 24" box oak tree. Location of the planting to be mutually determined after the house is built. 3. The planting of as many as twelve 15 gallon trees with irrigation along the fence line. 4. The building of a solid wood 6 ft. high fence along the property line extending 16 ft. west of existing gate. 5. Mr. Edward Mastrangelo to have final approval of roof color which is to be an earth tone. 6. Retain or improve the current drainage berm along the Mastrangelo northeast property line. 7. Mr. Mastrangelo will withdraw the appeal of the #2 tree removal permit. $. All other conditions of approval will be met. XAIL 2""ailIaLi aul Kimelman Edward Mas angelo / 7 Haleh Shah ohammadi Kathy rt Witness T0'd i.L6 o£SL 809 0T5 4t':90 L66T-0T-Nflf w u.�r ac•ao �u-exvixnt LIW�ftK Sia sm GG27 P.02 ob&b Rod COM106cafflovis FAX WM MD4NV f �Otfd a$1�lYItOO Dow Guam 20:Cm=wuity Develop um Dgwup ac Atm:Bob Drake Fm=Damn C>Qber,Dow III Supervisor Rr 277 Lark Lens,Alamo Dere:Jnt1e 9,1997 Ddr.Lidweed Maetnmpdo has viewed a s pk of the rooft material that wM be used as 277 Lad[Lace T<is made by (memffwtorcez name)and the .ase ehosm is .Re apptovM this wawn for bis ZOAWX house. 2LZgdo Jun9.1997FUAWW d t( �-vm?c r TOML P_a2 T0'd PESL 809 0T5 7N] 1N31d013fi3Q 1N[wPIFiH cc:9R �rFt-at nnr zo*a %L6 a£SG 809 0TS B17=99 L66T-OT-t4u Z0'd 1H101 A KAgLMatAT 'CDtiVrLtADPt4s*IT Road'; T*Awko YA cte�r� Ws�i�h��rttd 1�Je.o TILU4 �!y M4�re. "W�•.1rvmwIRIP ' �/►r �i1M• "�rkNlo�s '� �dMr"lo�►•a Mi�rV,te�s : Almsv%wd Viol% { �r w�atf•1ti '���. Fs 404Jxck 04# #Ll(ol TOTAL P.02 309 Diablo Road Danville, Cafrfomia 94526 (510)820-8683Contra Costa County FAX(510) 820-6627 0. Board of Supervisors xl -! srn"cbGri DONNA GERBER DISTRICT III SUPERVISOR To: Dennis Barry, Community Development Director Attn.: Bob Drake From: Paul Kimelman Haleh Shahmohammadi Re: Hearing Date for 277 Lark Lane, Alamo Please consider our request to expedite the hearing of the appeal on the abovementioned property. We have reached agreement with our neighbor and would like to start the building process as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration. � ► D TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SE.....-`^ Contra _ . SUPERVISOR JIM ROGERS Costa FROM: :iJc!._ a� June 17, 1997 County DATE: CREATION OF A TASK FORCE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT: CONCERNING POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES TO SUPPORT ENGINE-BASED PARAMEDICS SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: CREATE a Task Force to make recommendations concerning possible additional revenue sources to support engine-based paramedics. BACKGROUND: The projection by Chief Little that engine-based paramedics could cost our fire district about a million dollars a year raises serious questions as to whether this vitally important new service can be funded out of existing revenue. The district is facing a major crisis just to avoid operating in the red once the current surplus is used up. It is highly unlikely that the new engine-based paramedic program can be funded during a time of difficult belt-tightening. Although requesting funding from the State and cities is worthwhile, the past response has not been encouraging. I am proposing the creation of an Emergency Response Funding Task Force to report to the Board on new and creative methods to make this vital service a reality. At a minimum, the Task Force should include representatives of: 1k The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Ik United Professional Fighters, IAFF, Local 1230 Ik The Contra Costa Taxpayers' Association �k American Medical Response Ik The County Administrator's Office The Contra Costa Mayors' Conference Ik The Health Services Department's Emergency Medical Service CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIGNAru RE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE —OTHER SIGNATURE(SI IIVA RC)aMQC ACTION OF BOARD ON juna 24, '1007 __ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED — OTHER XX Please See Addendum (Attached) for Board Action, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ------------- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED June 24- 122Z Contact: PH AT ELOR,CLERK OF TH ARID OF CC: See Page 2 UPE RS AND COUNT DM OR BY i%tine Wamolel' P/D Supervisors cc: County Administrator Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District President, Local 1230 John Wolfe, Taxpayers' Association American Medical Response Peg Kovar, Mayors Conference Health Services Director Director of Emergency Medical Services -2- D.10 ADDENDUM Item D.10 June 24, 1997 The Board members discussed issues relative to the following: identifying a revenue source to fund paramedic services; the establishment of a task force to review and recommend funding for engine-based paramedic services; the budget deficit projected for the fire service; studies that have looked at different models of paramedic services which included the transport of patients; and the need to look at the totality of the financial situation facing the County Fire District as opposed to looking at the paramedic issue in isolation. There was also interest among the Board members to review studies that were made previously on County fire services. The Board members further discussed the issues and took the following action: 1. REQUESTED that the County Administrator, the County Fire Chief and the Health Services Director consult regarding the issues discussed today and report to the Board in approximately two weeks with recommendations for the development of a strategic plan; and 2. REQUESTED that the County Administrator and the County Fire Chief provide Board members with copies of prior reports and other pertinent documentation relative to the operation of a fire service paramedic program which includes training, transport and funding issues. cc: Supervisors County Administrator Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District President, Local 1230 John Wolfe, Taxpayers' Association American Medical Response Peg Kovar, Mayors Conference Health Services Director Director of Emergency Medical Services � I I To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IOC - OS " ;' _ . (Contra FROM. INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE a Costa DATE: June 24/ 1997 c°�� ''+n'c'uH`� County SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO REPORT NO. 9704 OF THE 1996-1997 GRAND JURY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)E BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of Supervisors ' response to 1996-1997 Grand Jury Report No. 9704 : "The Costly Contra Costa Club. " 2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: The 1996-1997 Grand Jury filed the above report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee. On June 17 , 1997 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and review proposed responses . At the conclusion of those discussions, we prepared this report which clearly specifies : A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted; B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: —RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT SIGNATURE(S): V _APPROVE _OTHER k4qt DONN G RBER ACTION OF BOARD ON June 24, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X APPROVED the recommendations as set forth above; and AUTHORIZED the County Administrator to seek renegotiation of the premises lease. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT """"""'-- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Dean Lucas 335-1077 ATTESTED June 24, 1997 Contact: Internal Operations Committee PHIL BATC KOF THE BOARD OF cc: County Administrator S ISOR LINTY ADMINISTRA Superior Court Presiding Judge Grand Jury Foreperson County Counsel BY Human Resources Director Christine Wampler "THE COSTLY CONTRA COSTA CLUB" REPORT NO. 9704 The 1996-97 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that: RECOMMENDATION A: The Board of Supervisors close the Club and the facilities be sub- let or used for other County purposes as soon as possible. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The County is obligated to fulfill our lease agreement until its expiration on February 29 , 2000 . Our monthly lease obligations include two forms of payments : a monthly rental payment and a payment which represents the amortization of the improvements made to the building. We are in our eighth year with a $6, 676 monthly lease payment and $4 ,230 monthly lease improvement payment. Club budget estimates for FY 1996-97 are: Estimated Revenues Dues, drop-in fees, laundry, sale of items $134, 000 Estimated Expenditures Salaries $ 5,500 Occupancy Costs Lease 80, 112 Lease improvements 50, 760 Utilities 16 ,000 Other (taxes, insurance, alarm system, maintenance, etc . ) 29 , 000 Services and Supplies Equipment depreciation, towels, soap, etc . 11, 128 192 ,500 Projected Net Loss $ 58,500 -1- With respect to sub-letting the Club premises or identifying other parties to utilize this space, we feel that the specific improvements that were made in order to operate as a fitness center, such as showers, locker rooms, mirrored walls, padded exercise floor, most likely precludes the use of this facility for another purpose. Estimates for the lease of the facility, if minimal renovations are made to convert to office space, leaving the showers and locker rooms as they are, are approximately $4 , 555 per month. Assuming the facility would be leased in six months, allowing for conversion and search for a lessee, the revenues for the remaining 26 months ( 32 months on the lease less six month conversion/leasee search) would bring in $118,430 . Less $33,400 estimated costs if minimal conversion to office space, the County would net $85,030 . The County' s monthly lease payment of $6 ,676 and monthly lease improvement payment of $4 , 230 amounts to $283,556 for the same 26-month period. Therefore, if the County were to sub-lease for 26 months, we would realize a deficit of $198, 750, and would be without the benefits of a health facility during that period. It does not seem feasible to close the building for remodeling as office space, meanwhile continuing the lease costs while losing offsetting revenues, since the lease runs out in February, 2000 . RECOMMENDATION B: The Human Resources Department immediately initiate an evaluation to determine what alternative uses can be made of the Club premises and identify parties interested in sub-leasing or taking over the space. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. The County Administrator' s Office evaluates the need for space, allocates and authorizes the use of space by County departments . The cost of converting the Club facility to another use that can afford the rent will be a formidable problem, as discussed above. However, the County Administrator is directed to attempt to identify parties interested in sub-leasing the facility for a health club. While acknowledging that finding such a party is not very likely, the Board feels this action is appropriate and can be conducted at minimal cost. The County Administrator is also directed to prepare an analysis at least 12 months before the current lease expires -2- and a recommendation to the Board as to renewing the lease. If deficits are projected beyond the year 2000, the Board is prepared to let the lease expire and walk away from the improvements to the facility, rather than to continue to sustain annual losses . The Board feels, however, that a health program is a valuable benefit to employees and would seek an economical alternative if necessary. Reviewing the lease 12 months before its expiration would provide the time needed to review alternatives . RECOMMENDATION C. 1 : The Board of Supervisors initiate a review of the County' s leasing process to insure that: The County gets fair and economically reasonable lease conditions on all leases negotiated with outside parties . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The General Service Director is directed to continually review the County' s leasing procedures . The County operates its leasing program in the open market where the economic laws of supply and demand govern the lease terms and conditions available to the County at any point in time. The County advertises for submittals on each project and negotiates vigorously to get the best terms and conditions commensurate with the cost. RECOMMENDATION NO. C.2 : The parties using the space be required to review the lease and the use of the space on a biannual basis . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. Copies of the lease are provided to Departments using leased space. Departments review their leases whenever a change in space requirements is anticipated. Lease terms are one month, month-to-month, to a year and longer. The status of leases is reviewed at least once each year by the General Services Department and the County Administrator' s Office when operating budgets for leased buildings are prepared. There is no apparent benefit to mandating the review of leases and the use of space on a biannual basis . -3- RECOMMENDATION NO. C.3 : A complete review of the lease and the need for the space always be done, by the management of the using organization, before any lease is renewed, extended or amended. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Current policy requires a discussion and review of the lease between the County Administrator' s Office and the user department before instructions are given to General Services to renew, extend or amend any lease. RECOMMENDATION NO. C.4 : Any amendment(s) to a lease be reviewed and agreed to by an appropriate level of management of the user group. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. It is County policy to require the Department Director or a delegated deputy to sign the lease recommending the agreement before new leases and lease amendments are sent to the Board of Supervisors for approval . RECOMMENDATION NO. C .5 : A reasonable right to terminate clause be included in each lease. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. The County makes every effort to negotiate cancellation clauses in leases to match the commitment to pay rent with the funding source. The availability of a termination clause, however, generally depends on the risk and the investment a Lessor must make to meet County requirements and the urgency of the County' s needs . -4- ° TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '"' � '��;. Conga' I Z Costa FROM: SCOTT TANDY, DIRECTOR County COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT c* DATE: June 24, 1997 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN (CAP) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)h BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: a. Receive comments from public hearings held by the Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council on June 9, 1997, June 11, 1997, and June 12, 1997 on the proposed 1998 Community Services Block Grant Community Action Plan. b. Consider any public comments at today's meeting. C. Adopt 1998 Community Action Plan and submit Plan documents to the California Department of Community Services and Development by June 30, 1997. II. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County has been a designated Community Action Agency (CAA) for many years and thus is eligible for Federal Community Services Block Grant Funds. These funds flow through the State government to designated local Community Action Agencies. Each year the State Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) requires that all federally designated Community Action Agencies develop a Community Action Plan (CAP). This Plan outlines documented community needs resulting from poverty. Also in the Plan are proposed strategies and work plans for assisting low income County residents in breaking the cycle of poverty. The State CSD also requires that Community Action Agencies hold a public hearing to gather and consider community input prior to the submission of this Plan to the State. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: VES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURES) ACTION OF BOARD ON .June 24 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CEAFITY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT - - - - - ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CONTACT: SCOTT TANDY, 313-7350 ATTESTED June 24 , 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: CAO SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CSD BY "� _,DEPUTY M382 (10/88) ` Page 2, CSBG Community Action Plan, June 24, 1997 The Economic Opportunity Council, representing the Board of Supervisors, which has been actively involved in this process, conducted three public hearings to hear and consider community input on the proposed 1998 Community Action Plan. The first hearing was held on June 9, 1997 in the city of San Pablo, the second on June 11, 1997 in the city of Pittsburg, and the third hearing was held on June 12, 1997 in the city of Concord. The proposed CAP for 1998, which utilizes approximately $505,000 in CSBG funds, will focus resources on developing and establishing functional linkages and collaborative projects with other County departments and community based organizations. These collaborative efforts will concentrate on the planning, development, implementation and evaluation of the statewide priority of "Family Self- Sufficiency and Support Programs." The Economic Opportunity Council has recommended that 20% of the CSBG funds be awarded through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to community based organizations that develop and implement new and innovative Family Self-Sufficiency projects for program eligible recipients. The Request for Proposal process will be developed this summer and advertised in the fall. Contracts approved as a result of the RFP process will begin January 1, 1998. The Economic Opportunity Council will provide oversight and review of the entire process. The County was notified on June 2, 1997 by the same State agency of serious fiscal problems involving this contract and others for calendar years 1994, 1995 and 1996. It is the intent of both the Department and the Economic Opportunity Council to abide by all rules and regulations with respect to the administration and operation of this 1998 plan. The balance of the CSBG funds (80%) will be used to provide administrative and service staff support to the following programs administered by the Contra Costa County Community Services Department: Child & Adult Care Food Program Child Development/Title IV-A Community Development Block Grant Department of Energy H.E.A.P. Head Start C.C.C. Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds L.1.H.E.A.P. State Preschool C.C.C. Transportation Occupancy Tax Funds CSBG funds will be used for the following departmental positions either in full or in part: Chief Assistant County Administrator Director Administrative Services Officer Community Services Block Grant Program Coordinator Accounting Supervisor Program Specialist Executive Secretary Account Clerk Program Specialist Senior Clerk Senior Clerk The 1998 Community Action Plan is due to the State on June 30, 1997. Community Services DepartmentContra Child Development 374-3994 Child Nutrition 374-3650 Administration Costa CommunityHead Start 646-5540 Martinez, 313-7363 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 101 Martinez, California 94553-4711 Housing and Energy 646-5756County (510)313-7350 Fax: (510)313-7385 Scott Tandy, Director �- a' c 3 s .:. f } s .pk�e• f . S f ...n..:s..�..ro..� p r<. 9 y 6 1 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 1998 PROGRAM YEAR COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN TO: Department of Community Services and Development Attention: Community Services Unit - CAP 700 North 10th Street, Room 258 Sacramento, CA 95814 FROM: Agency: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Address: 1220 MORELLO AVENUE, SUITE 101 City: MARTINEZ, CA 94553 Agency Contact Person Regarding Community Action Plan: Name: AL PRINCE Title: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER Phone: ( 510 ) 313-7350 FAX: ( 510 ) 313-7385 CERTIFICATION of ASSURANCES The undersigned hereby certify that this agency complies with the Assurances described in Requirement 3 of this 1998 Community Action Plan. The descriptions of how these assurances will be met must be included in the Community Information Profile, CSD 410-2a. Board Chairperson Date Executive bqreftor Date 1 State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-1a(Revised 2/97) AGENCY VISION / MISSION STATEMENT Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department The Community Services Department is one of twenty-eight departments in Contra Costa County. It is the Federally designated local Community Action Agency for the County, and is responsible for developing programs for the County that eliminate poverty. The Department's vision statement is to: "Utilize and leverage CSBG dollars efficiently and effectively to assist and enable the poor to pull themselves out of poverty, and to provide assistance and support to prevent others from falling into poverty" The Department's mission statement is to: "Establishing and maintaining collaborative efforts and exchanges with other County Departments and a host of private and community based organizations in the planning, development and implementation of successful joint partnerships to provide comprehensive, quality services to program eligible County families and individuals that over time: (1) limits and/or prevents economic dependence (2) elevates poor individuals and families out of poverty into self sufficiency, and (3) provides a comprehensive support environment to prevent others from falling into poverty" State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department 1. Location / Introduction Contra Costa County is situated northeast of San Francisco, and is bounded by San Francisco and San Pablo bays, the Sacramento River Delta and San Joaquin County to the east, and by Alameda County to the south. At approximately 750 square miles and an estimated population of 792,109 in 1990, it is the tenth largest County in the State of California. Ranges of hills effectively divide the County into three distinct regions. The western portion, with its access to water, contains much of the County's heavy industry. The central section is rapidly developing from a suburban area to a major commercial and financial headquarters region. The eastern part of the County is also undergoing substantial change, from a rural agricultural region to a suburban region. 2. Households / Families in Poverty Of the above referenced 792,109 persons who resided in Contra Costa County as of 1990 for whom poverty status was determined, 57,867, or 7.3 %, were found to be living below the poverty level. Of the total 301,087 households for whom poverty was determined, 19,055, or 6.3 %, were living below the poverty level. Approximately 4,240, or 40 % of these below poverty households consisted of female-headed households. While the percentage of County citizens in poverty in relationship to the overall population has decreased, the actual number of people in poverty continues to increase. It is estimated that the above number of 57,867 derived from the 1990 Census has increased by at least 10,000 over the last six years. This negative trend is reflected in different areas. For example, General Assistance cases nearly doubled and the number of Food Stamp cases increased over 50 % between 1989 and 1992. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number One: The County's Acceptance of the CSD's Statewide priority of "Family Self Sufficiency": Both the Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council and Board of Supervisors have accepted the Community Services and Development's Statewide priority and strategy for making "Family Self Sufficiency" the number one priority for the County's Community Services Block Grant program for 1998. The planning, development and implementation of Family Self Sufficiency programs with CSBG funds will focus on enabling and empowering program eligible families to break the cycle of poverty and dependence on public assistance programs. The Department will develop meaningful, proactive partnerships with other County Departments and local community based organizations and combine resources in a "team approach" to provide comprehensive program assistance to our clients, that, over time, will enable them to become more self sufficient and less dependent on government programs. Critical elements to the success of these new partnerships will be: • the ability of the new partnerships to focus on the overall needs of our clients over time; • the ability of these partnerships to marshal resources; • to provide a continuum of program related services that concentrate specifically on what each family unit requires; thus enabling them over time to become and remain self sufficient via their own resources and abilities, and not through the resources of others. Requirement Number Two: The County's Proposed Contingency Plan for Coping with Reductions In Federal Funding as required by Government Code 12747(a). In the event that reduced funding from the Federal government occurs for 1998, the County will continue to aggressively seek out and secure additional funding sources that constructively replace depleting Federal resources. At the same time, the Department will continue to plan and prepare for funding reductions that realistically preserve program integrity in alignment with available program resources. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Three: The County's Agreement To Comply with Specific Assurances: The County certifies that it will fully comply with the following assurances: Federal Community Services Block Grant Act (Public Law 97-35, Title VI, Subtitle B, as amended), California Government Code Section 12745, and Public Law 103-252 Human Services Amendments of 1994, Title II Community Services Block Grant Amendments of 1994 Further, the County will also comply with the following areas: * Application requirements. * Eligible services and beneficiaries. Cost and accounting standards of the Office of Management and Budget. * Coordination of services between anti-poverty programs in each community and the Energy Crisis Intervention Program. * Coordination with Private Industry Council (PIC). * Coordination with Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN). Coordination of plans and activities among all CSD funded programs. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Four: Documentation of Public Hearing Process: The County scheduled and noticed three (3) public hearings in Contra Costa County to take public comment on the proposed 1998 Community Action Plan. All three hearings were legally noticed in local newspapers in advance of each hearing (see attachment number one). The dates and locations for the above referenced hearings were as follows: Day/Date/Time: Location of Public Hearing: Monday, June 9, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. City of San Pablo Senior Citizen's Center, San Pablo, Ca. Wednesday, June 11, 1997 at City of Pittsburg Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Pittsburg, Ca. Thursday, June 12, 1997 at Contra Costa County Community Services Department 7:00 p.m. Head Start Administrative Offices, Concord, Ca. While members of the EOC and County staff chaired the above referenced public hearings, no public testimony was heard. Requirement Number Five: Description of Needs Assessment and Goals-Setting Process: The Department's strategic planning process for the development of its 1998 Community Action Plan needs assessment and goal setting process utilized the following resources: 1. The most recent Community Needs Assessment conducted by the Bay Area United Way. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile ContractorName:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Five: Description of Needs Assessment and Goals-Setting Process (continued): 2. Input from both Departmental and County staff regarding current needs assessment data and program activity data for Departmental programs impacting the proposed client population; 3. Public testimony provided at the June 9, 11 and 12, 1997, public hearings to discuss the proposed 1998 Community Action Plan; 4. Comments and action provided and taken by the Economic Opportunity Council on June 12, 1997, regarding the proposed 1998 Community Action Plan; 5. Comments and action provided and taken by the Board of Supervisors on June 24, 1997 regarding the proposed 1998 Community Action Plan; 6. Written feedback from 1997 CSBG Subcontractors on contract relationships; As a result of information gathered through steps one through six above, the following five concerns / issues have surfaced that were used by staff for the development of the Problem Statement, Program Goals and Objectives, Program Activities and Delivery Strategies: 1. Welfare Reform will dramatically alter the service delivery systems that currently exist in the County. We need to do everything in our power to assist our clients in preparing for these changes, and to develop new delivery systems that provide a better continuum of services to these clients. 2. Greater emphasis must be placed on improving administrative and accounting controls, systems and procedures in contract oversight. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Five: Description of Needs Assessment and Goals-Setting Process (continued ): 3. Funds designated by the State and Federal government for the CAA network of poverty programs in this County are not sufficient to enable the Department to meet the needs of the poor. We need to become more efficient and effective in our efforts. We also need to continue to use CSBG funds to improve the CAA's capacity to provide services at the Departmental level. 4. Both the Department and members of the EOC would like to devote more time to and effort in developing more proactive volunteer programs within the CAA. 5. Several members of the EOC recommended the allocation of additional CSBG dollars in 1998 for the CSBG Subcontractors. Department staff increased the proposed allocation in 1998 from the current level of$81,600, to $101,000. One member of the EOC at the June 12, 1997 meeting wanted the 1998 CSBG Subcontractor allocation increased to $121,000. Department staff responded that the 1998 allocation had already been increased by approximately 25 %, and that any additional increase would negatively impact required staff levels to administer and operate the new program. Proposed 1998 Service Delivery System 1. For planning purposes, the projected dollar amount of Community Service Block Grant funds available for 1998 from SDCSD is $505,000. 2. The County's Community Action Plan will continue to concentrate its efforts on Family Self Sufficiency as its primary objective and goal for 1998. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Five: Description of Needs Assessment and Goals-Setting Process (continued ): 3. The proposed Community Services Block Grant service delivery system for 1998 will direct approximately $404,000, or at least 80 % of its available CSBG grant funds to: a. Continue to provide administrative and service staff support to the following County, State and Federal funded programs administered by the Community Services Department: Child &Adult Care Food Program Child Development/Title IV-A Community Development Block Grant Department of Energy Home Energy Assistance Program Head Start C.C.C. Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds Low Income Housing and Energy Assistance Program Mentoring Program State Preschool Service delivery systems targeted to low-income individuals and families shall continue to be based on the contract requirements for each of the above programs. b. Develop and implement more efficient and effective linkages and partnerships between other human service agencies in the greater Bay Area. The goal is to establish and maintain collaborative efforts and exchanges with other County Departments as well as private and community based organizations to plan, develop and implement successful joint partnerships to provide comprehensive, State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Five: Description of Needs Assessment and Goals-Setting Process (continued ): quality services to eligible County families and individuals. These efforts, should: (1) Reduce or eliminate the economic dependence of our clients on human services programs; (2) Enable and empower individuals and families to pull themselves out of poverty into self sufficiency, and (3) Provide a supportive environment to protect and prevent others from falling into poverty. C. Continue the Department's 1995, 1996 and 1997 efforts to open and operate a Family Support Center at the Balboa Elementary school in the City of Richmond. At present, the center is providing space and support in Head Start and Child Development services for approximately 140 children and their families. It is the Department's goal to create at Balboa a center that concentrate program efforts on the needs of the overall family unit. d. Expansion of Head Start in areas of highest need. 4. The remaining $101,000, or no more that 20 % of available CSBG grant funds will be awarded via an RFP process to County based organizations that develop and implement new and innovative projects. These organizations must concentrate on providing client services with respect to the State and CAA priori of Family Self Sufficiency. Linkages: Linkages to fill identified gaps in services through information, referral, case management and follow-up consultations will be dealt with by Community Services Block Grant funded staff who will work closely with staff from the appropriate public and private agency encountering the problem. State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Community Information Profile CSD 410-2a(Revised 2/97) Community Information Profile Contractor Name:Contra Costa County Community Services Department Requirement Number Five: Description of Needs Assessment and Goals-Setting Process (continued): Primary emphasis shall be placed on attempting to fill identified gaps in services with existing resources from the non-CSBG funding sources. Coordination of CSBG Funding with Other Public and Private Resources Currently, 1997 CSBG funding is being used to provide staff support to ten programs / contracts administered directly by the Community Services Department. Funding for these programs and contracts is derived from Federal, State County and Local Municipality funding resources. Further , approximately $81,600 in 1997 CSBG funds are currently being directed to six County based subcontractors to provide a broad array of human services to the poor. The 1998 Community Action Plan, if approved, will continue to provide coordination of required CSBG staff support on developing relationships with other County Departments and local private and non-profit entities to create additional partnerships, starting with the County's GAIN and PIC programs. The Department also proposes to direct additional 1998 CSBG funds for subcontractors with innovative Family Self Sufficiency Projects to a new 1998 allocation of $101,000. nSN o c Ott n C) c '- 9 a 2 A N Q}},,:.. w4 to 040 m a Z J 9Q � 7 � S O Q .� a : spa d w A d G d N •�6 f LSO � � � �.o ny o� n ; 3 aa4 4a m ?. C ? otr oad00 to C 4 G 7 0 10 0 00 �vr 6' 40 0 op p ? 0 w 3 G ` ^ m d m W C G+ G o o 20 0 -0,1 co a n ^ z F n O'3 � tLW3 �• c a rt: 3 �� S n eo m Ow 3. sj G � y A awoo dao CD m ^ ° a o ^ W o9 3 3 •° 3 S Cb s ° .o o ca '" � ° ? W WQ ° m ' 3 C, sw ° os a •o g+ G io 5s KS` 3 00 � o• N W Sb 00 44N N CO O,0m < ' o . 7, 92 3 a °.� � N 7 .% S (00, 8 t0 [3"3g. � � 2 m�,n�. o n ' @ 3 r D 3 1) CD 9! L < � 3 m m $ nw v 3 S > m 6 ch �.?: O 3 io 0 3 NCD C . ca ro m a. 2 c 0-$ 0 40 0 (A � m ?. fD m 3 a a v 2c� o —p Sa �Q 9 0 0 3 m w N p N I t�y,'6 2 1'' tip 1 a s 2N m 0 � 2, � 3 � � � n o -s CD -0 N.. 133 D) 7- iD N 2 O �-w�* 'v T Sig 0, 203 CD c a v $ 3 'A 29 N ,:r a:9 0S CD CD 3 3 � C::3 c1� tp633 O u ;CD 3 �. n. C a o v s� ay� Q (S� oa `(_1tR � s' � N 'U � fD y` 'O C 3 f07 NXm f. O O 2 (D vo � .gfl :1io9 $ N9iop NN oo C 1 f9 y7 C1 cL] CD N N M N w �' m o vCDS n G) N 33 c W0 No �' L�. o �3 O p c � D3 9 �. '� o ° m " 't3 KM o± N o . `s0. m n �� m m v eo U1 o. -1 a. 0— mmt�� m 7 CD03 N �Dc� � 39aN s Z G O N NN '2 (D 3 0 m � 0 a :' 0(D . a O a2 3 m 3 m $ D CD 0CL moo ° 3 m05 m a � 0 otp CD 0 IR$ m no 0 0 N =3 m m wv Q m ro Nz.T N -p�py $ fp CD tb " '!f �. 03 7 a. O } 3 '(ID 0 Z3 uo m m oto $ a a 03 m' 3 S o �g sC, \ t : k , @ <k : # \\0 kk 9t ~ �\% » t \\ . \\f La0 �k tm , c /% Q. 0 �% - � is m gs \ D \ % ¥ \ V-0 \\ . \ o /^ � .� ���� 00Q� " � M e m o , o ON fm 300 300 71 o03 0 03 m 3 qk c < 2O5 U) 0cr m ' Q^ N S C 91 Nto co .a 2 N 30 2 @ O. N O N. O (6 N tD Fjj UD � Fi N O tD � 41Z N [N� yr Om Q 41 471 6 fD K A O OW C� 3 V tS 3 w3 m3 = 'p N Gj = N O 3CD d ' CD f N O n Al �.. N C 3 �$. Q CO' 3 c m N D rf1 CD$ 3 ° o Q .. 0 0 0 a y m 4 4 � ? ? @ p CL cm 3 -00m b y m (a 4. m � O m > > g io 3 � w CD g O d C 0 p 043 co 4 f9 y O to w piG m '— m 0 a mo N K TAa �4 i c z v o p o m -- --""' cn ^ \� o�Lo k0cn 77 o- C - ! ! D CL- CDsOL z_ /}3 - k \ mc\ | . _ � , .. ;%}\ ° - © - e \ § ] / )( 0§ \ \ 30) i � § \ ( ( 3 n ; \ - 00 \CD 0 � £ , CD n n 0- i 9J § o $ \ § 3 � \ ° C � a %] i 2 _ k m ® ® . 2 } Cl)_ i 2 ) / . o , \ \\ - 88 E v E : eee . . . - 2 § lo 3 \ K ( ( h �� \ :3 ] } ` ( CA 0 2 0 k § q / / 2m00 to M 3 _ _ m . m z ° #> ) � C) � C) oo�mn C C 3,,o \ i won m bFc N G x N3 2 `r p o. I z CP '(\ m$ U 9i p d J '• n G '8 G G N N O r y N O a i _ n y,to O m .00 N �p W tfl�p �6 �,4 O 'P 7 c� � 00 c -- w � mem c a a�^ 3 a N $ a m S oat %° to °' -o G1 3 0 A 0) n \ m� y 2�sj N 'w N ?w % O N i p,.. 3 ? G C'-s. 0 ,� o 0 vy w ° m 30. E o o G1 \ a SO o ° � N -cin A u� 0 0 gc� a� °3.0 ? � '0D No tQ y3. � t ON S ) k N N -.o o a o, o° c L_ Z h go p -ff. % yn$ ' � O 'P, 0 G . - O ID, N 0. ID �D �Cm GA CD o ° ° a4ycy ^ Qo 3o° 1&-$ m Zti G it 40 N m v (°!g, 3°�31 � y N (Q Y 3 m 'f, 7'3 p OMfi G -co- ql L �, t3 \ °G N G O@ Ol i 7 VA o, °a8 N n m �. N m ?� 3 " 3 -no o TA s, 5°i m m p N S ?eD 0, q�j� `w � n ° N � '$ m N c8 8 G� 7 m Om 1m `9 a $ � $ 'Op O— N� N a 4� N G O 10, ov3 c�8�3 % 1p. 0CD 7 S O tp OG N °f1 01 m y N O N p -O t° N ao r 4 '�'9 W .`.L d S cr C• N @ OD CD N gyp d �j_ Ni t0 p N 7 Oi �R 4 7 o m CD 01 -010 OCD !. N 7 §W.w w a / OPM E 7 7 !k!a 7 7 < -0 0 9 ( E (! k \} CD } /3 \ ( ( w OM ty | ` || 2 � 0 ■ . { k if 4 4 0 3 ° w § �(! 2 ƒ / , & E ( , ; -0 CD ° ƒ\ C) « ] k -0 Cl) $i ] § !! o ¢ k @k2 ` ; § � / & m ( 7 \ n ; § ( � \ % /> \ § §- \} a 2J g § # S ® / � 2CD 2 . 2 0 : -T -03 § 2 c ( } k k f% �} @ 3 . . § q , §_ ) 4 § : m / ( � _ $ 2 (D _ ' i 2 ° � CL FD' \ a » § ; +_ § A z a CD a & 2 t E m § [ � ; g r 349� M §( m z ■ ■ % ® CD _ cr \ \ C \ w ■ c ) 7 ■CD . \ E / m \ 3\ :3 > % ! 0 x0 > ] 2t e CL \CL iL\ go \ , 3 . State of California Department of Community Services and Development CSBG Community Action Plan-Monitoring and Evaluation Plan CSD 410-7a(Rev. 2/97) MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN Contractor Name: Contra Costa County Community Services Department The Department plans to monitor and evaluate progress employing the following criteria: 1. The Department, as the Federally designated Community Action Agency, will designate general goals and objectives for providing continued administrative and program support for the Department. Results will be monitored and evaluated on a bi-monthly basis. 2. The Department shall propose specific goals and objectives for the continued development of the Family Support Center in Richmond for 1998. For example, by the end of 1998, we would like to: (a) expand the number of programs / tenants providing services on the site from four to six, and (b) to attract additional tenants for the purpose of providing family support services. 3. The Department will also establish specific goals and objectives for participation in and linkages with other County programs such as GAIN and PIC, and with other Bay Area governmental entities and private / non-profit organizations. Results will be monitored and evaluated on a bi-monthly basis. 4. Each 1998 CSBG Subcontractor shall include with their contract specific performance and reporting requirements in accordance with specific contract goals and objectives. Subcontractors will be monitored at least three times a year by the Department with members of the Economic Opportunity Council in attendance.