Search Results
Return to Search Parameters
Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 Records
Submitted By  Meeting Date:Type   _Title___________________________________________  _Department________________  _Submitted For________________
01/12/2016:BOS  Lewis Rezoning, County File RZ09-3213  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
 

Proposed Project

The applicant requests approval to rezone 22.25-acres from A-4, Agricultural Preserve District to A-2, General Agricultural District. The subject property is located at 1130 Christie Road in the Martinez area.

History of the Project Site

The property was originally zoned A-2, General Agricultural District. Then, in 1973, the property entered into a Williamson Act Contract (AP 3-73) and the property was rezoned to A-4, Agricultural Preserve District. The A-4 zoning designation is for Williamson Act contracted land only. In 1997 the property came out of the Williamson Act program, but the land remained in the A-4 zoning district. The County does not automatically rezone property back to its prior zoning; its up to the land owner to rezone the property. Since the land owner at that time did not rezone the property, the current land owner is applying for the rezoning of the property.

Appropriateness of Rezone

The County Planning Commission found the request reasonable because the land is no longer subject to a Williamson Act contract and therefore the A-4 zoning is inappropriate. The rezoning of the land to its previous zoning of A-2 is consistent with County practices.

General Plan Consistency

The General Plan designation for the property is Agricultural Lands (AL). The AL designation allows for a wide range of agricultural uses and limits density to one living unit per five acres. The A-2 zoning is consistent with the AL designation in terms of density as well as general uses allowed. This AL designation includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of the these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock, or dry grain farming. The purpose of the AL designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant materials. The uses that are allowed in the AL designation include all land-dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. In addition, the following uses may be allowed by issuance of a land use permit, which includes conditions of approval that mitigate impacts of the use upon nearby agricultural operations through the establishment of buffer areas and other techniques:

  • Small scale wineries including small tasting rooms
  • Dude ranches, riding academies and stables
  • Commercial agricultural support services which are ancillary to the agricultural use of a parcel such as veterinarians, feed stores and agricultural equipment repair and welding.

Land Use Element - Urban Limit Line (ULL)

The purpose of the ULL is two-fold: (1) to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural land, open space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses may be established; and (2) facilitate the enforcement  of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. 
 
The subject property is located outside the ULL and the proposed zoning designation is consistent with the intent and purpose of the ULL because it is agricultural (non-urban).

Land Use Element - 65/35 Land Preservation Standard

The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard limits urban development to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County, and requires the remaining 65 percent of all land be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the intent and purpose of the 65/35 Standard because it is agricultural.

Conservation Element - Agricultural Resources

The Conservation Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies related to protection of agricultural resources and encouragement of agricultural production.The Conservation Element does not specifically  favor one agricultural zoning district over another. Rezoning the property from A-4 to A-2 would not threaten agricultural resources or hinder agricultural production.

County Planning Commission (CPC) Hearing

On November 10, 2015 the CPC held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. At that hearing they voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the rezoning.  

Conclusion

The subject property was at one time zoned A-2 but was rezoned to A-4 when it entered into a Williamson Act contract. When the property came out of the Williamson Act Program the A-4 zoning became inappropriate for the property. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt a motion to rezone the property from A-4, Agricultural Preserve District to its previous zoning designation of A-2, General Agricultural District.
Will Nelson 02/02/2016:BOS  Report on 2016 Urban Limit Line Mid-term Review  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
  CONSIDER accepting a report from the Department of Conservation and Development on the proposed approach and schedule for the 2016 Urban Limit Line Mid-term Review required under Measure L - 2006. (John Kopchik and Will Nelson, Department of Conservation and Development) 
Robert Sarmiento 04/12/2016:BOS  Biennial Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure J-2004 Growth Management Program  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
 
The County biennially submits a compliance checklist to CCTA to receive the County's portion (18 percent) of the sale tax funds available for local street maintenance and improvements. Two related actions must precede completion and submission of the Checklist:  
  
1. CEQA review of the proposed 2016-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities; and  
  
2. Adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities, pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program.  
  
CEQA Analysis  
  
To comply with CEQA, staff has found, pursuant to adopted County CEQA Guidelines, that the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not subject to CEQA (see Exhibit A). This follows from the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential to cause significant adverse effects to the environment. All capital facilities programmed are either fully committed, constructed, awaiting occupancy, or undergoing separate environmental review.

Under the provision of §15061(b)3, of the State and County CEQA guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities could have a significant effect on the environment. 
 
Development Mitigation Program   

  
The CIP (see Exhibit B) is adopted pursuant to the requirements of the Measure J Growth Management Program and authorized by Implementation Measure 4-n of the County General Plan. Any capital project sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain adopted levels of performance must be identified in a CIP with a minimum programming period of five years. Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any, must also be identified in the CIP. The CIP demonstrates that development anticipated between 2016-2022 will maintain compliance with the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities.

A seven-year programming period is used to be consistent with the County's other capital improvement programs. The CIP is a summary of Parks and Sheriff Facilities and was prepared as part of the County's Development Mitigation Program.

 
Table 5 of the CIP shows that no expansion of Sheriff Facilities is proposed for the seven-year period for patrol and investigation use. The existing "surplus" capacity is projected to be sufficient to accommodate population growth during this period.   

Checklist   

  
The Checklist (see Exhibit C) covers the compliance reporting period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. The County has satisfied all Checklist requirements during 2014 and 2015. Performance standards for urban services in the unincorporated area were maintained. The County implemented all the required plans, programs and ordinances for mitigating local and regional transportation impacts of development projects, implemented the adopted Housing Element, and constructed the necessary capital improvements for urban services.

 
  
County voters approved an Urban Limit Line measure in 2006 and the County complied with the provisions of the measure during 2014 and 2015. The Board of Supervisors has participated in or taken actions during the reporting period, consistent with the multi-jurisdictional transportation planning process established by Measure J.
John Cunningham 03/08/2016:BOS  Update on the Status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
  RECEIVE update on the status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan for a possible sales tax measure in 2016, including aspects related to the Urban Limit Line, and CONSIDER directing staff as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Conservation and Development Department)
John Cunningham 04/26/2016:BOS  Update on the Status of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
  As established in both the October 21, 2014 and November 3, 2015 letters to the Authority regarding the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), the Board of Supervisors (BOS) has not yet endorsed the proposed transportation sales tax. That broader issue will be addressed at a future meeting of the BOS.

Reports on this issue have been brought to previous BOS meetings. The intent of this report is to provide an update on the subject effort. For background information please reference the last two detailed reports to the BOS:

March 8, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20160308_711/721_03-08-16_1627_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=18

September 15, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20150915_640/650_09-15-15_826_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=128

The latest formal County input on the TEP is found in the November 2015 letter from the BOS to the Authority found at this link:
http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/40751

Recent Events
Since the last update to the BOS in March the TEP development process is moving ahead rapidly. The Authority has been convening their Special TEP Board meetings on an almost weekly basis. The County has been represented by Supervisors Glover, Mitchoff, and Andersen (as alternate). The TEP is being updated based on input from the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee, the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, and the Authority Board.
 
March 8th: The BOS reviewed TEP Initial Draft version 1.1.
 
March 29th: TEP Initial Draft Version 2.1 is reviewed at the Authority Special TEP Meeting.
 
April 6th: TEP Initial Draft Version 2.2 is reviewed and discussed at the April 6th Authority Special TEP Meeting. Notable at this meeting was the substantial verbal and written testimony from various interest groups including the following:
  • Letter and presentation from the East Bay Leadership Council, Bay Area Council, and the Building Industry Association: Attachment 2: Bus-Econ-Dev-TEPcomments
  • Letter and handout from Save Mount Diablo, Greenbelt Alliance, and Bike East Bay: Attachment 3: Bike-Env-TEPcomments+handout
  • Letter from Public Advocates and TRANSDEF: Attachment 4: TRANSDEF - Public Advocates.pdf
  • East county residents testifying in support of TriLink/239 and the Vasco-Byron Connector Road
  • Advocates for increased bicycle transportation spending including representation from Bike Concord, Bike Walnut Creek and Bike East Bay.

April 8: DRAFT Transportation Expenditure Plan "Version 4-8-16" (Attachment 1) is released by the Authority.

April 20: TEP Version 4-8-16 was reviewed by the Authority Board.
The consultant to the process distributed a memo that proposed revisions to the 4-8-16 TEP, Attachment 5: 4-20-16 CCTA Handout Gray, Bowen, Scott Memo

Also distributed was information from the City of Brentwood, Attachment 6: Brentwood's Vision for Open Space, Farming, and Agriculture.

Next Steps - Schedule: A detailed schedule for BOS, City, and Authority review of the TEP will be presented by staff at the April 26 BOS meeting.


Update 
Below are comments from staff regarding changes of note seen in the current TEP version (Attachment 1) from earlier TEP versions.  General comments are immediately below with page by page comments following.

General Comments
Term of the Measure: Recent dialog at the Regional Transportation Planning Committees include discussion of extending the proposed tax measure from the currently proposed 25 years to 30 in order to generate additional revenue. That proposal was also included in the 4-20-16 memo from the Authority's consultant on the TEP, Gray, Bowen, Scott.

Project Listings: Early versions of the TEP included extensive transportation project lists provided by Authority member agencies, transit districts, etc. More recent versions of the TEP have removed the project listings. Removing the project list is to increase flexibility, which some believe is important because of 1) rapid changes in mobility related technology combined with the fact that 2) we are working with a 25-30 year time span. 

Page 4 of 34
Advance Mitigation Program: The Advance Mitigation Program was removed as a standalone category. The program continues in that capital programs are listed as "Advance Mitigation Program eligible".  This program is discussed in more detail below. 

Page 6 of 34: Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements (LSM): Not shown in the redline/strikeout is the deletion of the phrase, "...and to comply with the GMP requirements." seen in previous TEP versions. The intent of this revision was to restrict the use of the funds to maintenance.

County staff prefers to retain the flexibility in the current Measure J but can work with the proposed restriction. Currently, LSM funds are eligible for use on any project or activity authorized under Measure J. These projects and activities include maintenance in addition to matching grants for capital projects and to implement complete streets.

Staff continues to be concerned with the amount of funding being provided for local streets in the TEP relative to deferred maintenance levels. The recent drop in gas tax revenue and storm related damage to roads and road related, non-pavement infrastructure have substantially magnified concerns. In addition, County staff will work with the authority to ensure the definition of maintenance includes the well-documented funding need for road-related, non-pavement infrastructure including but not limited to signage, lighting, water conveyance infrastructure, pavement delineation, traffic signals, environmental mitigation, guardrails, vegetation, storm damage, traffic control devices, ADA obligations, and road maintenance equipment.

 
 
Page 7 of 34
Complete Streets: Not seen in redline strikeout but new since the March 8th BOS review, is the following language:
"20% of the program funding will be allocated to four Complete Streets demonstration projects within five years of the Measure’s passage, one in each subregion, recommended by the relevant RTPC and approved by Authority, to demonstrate the successful implementation of Complete Streets projects. Demonstration projects will be required to strongly pursue the use of separated bike lane facilities in demonstration project program. The purpose of these demonstration projects is to create examples of successful complete street projects in multiple situations throughout the county."

How these four demonstration projects will be selected is currently unknown.



Page 7 of 34
BART Capacity, Access, and Parking: As seen in the attached draft, there have been substantial revisions to this category to clarify the intent of the program, ensure participation from other funding partners, and to define the use of the funds in the event the planned BART car purchase is not successful. A date certain is set (December 31,2026) for the regional funding approach to be established.
 
County staff recommendation: The BOS may wish to consider, in addition to the deadline of a single date, interim milestone requirements or targets to demonstrate progress towards the regional funding solution. 

Page 9 of 34
East County Corridor (Vasco Rd and/or Byron Highway Corridors): Significant changes were made to this category since the last BOS review, revised/added text is shown below. These changes were made to:
  • Prioritize the Vasco Road/Byron Highway connector portion of the Tri-Link program of projects.
  • Provide additional mitigation detail.
  • Language was also added to make ineligible the use of funds for new roadways on new alignments. 
 
Prioritization of Byron Highway/Vasco Road Connector
"For the Byron Highway (TriLink) corridor, the Authority shall prioritize funding for the design and construction of a new 2-lane limited access Byron Highway / Vasco Road connector south of Camino Diablo Road improving access to the Byron Airport,"

Environmental Mitigation
"Prior to the use of any local sales tax funds to implement capacity improvements to either or both of these corridors, the Authority must find that the project includes measures to prevent growth outside of the Urban Limit Lines (ULL). Such measures might include, but are not necessarily limited to, limits on roadway access in areas outside the ULL, purchase of abutters’ rights of access, preservation of critical habitat and/or the permanent protection / acquisition of agricultural and open space."

Limitation on Use of Funds
"With the exception of the new connection between Vasco Road, the Byron Airport and the Byron Highway, funding from this category is not intended to be used for the construction of new roadways on new alignments"


Page 10 of 34
Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit: The term “bus transit” was added to make explicit that conventional busses were eligible for funds. Additional detail was added to clarify the use of the funds (fare offsets, alternative non-rail transportation, etc) and how the program would be administered, (input from Regional Transportation Planning Committees, etc).
 
Of note to the BOS is the removal of the language, “Recipients of funding under this category are required to participate in the development of the Accessible Transportation Services Strategic Plan included in Category 13 - Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities.” from this programs description.  In order to ensure implementation of accessible transit recommendations, the BOS requested this requirement be included relative to all transit funding. The requirement still exists under the Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities category.
 
Page 11 of 34
Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities: Detail was added to respond to questions from the 3-29 Authority meeting regarding the conduct of the Accessible Transit Strategic (ATS) Plan.
 
Also included is a requirement that the study be adopted within 12 months of the passage of the sales tax Measure. In order to meet this deadline the study will likely need to be substantially expedited. Supervisor Karen Mitchoff at a recent Authority Board meeting suggested that the study move ahead prior to the Measure going to the voters. Staff has been investigating this option.
 
Page 11 of 34
Safe Transportation for Children: Detail was added to include Authority establishment of guidelines and priorities.
 
Page 12 of 34
Community Development Transportation Program: This is the renamed, “Community Development Incentive Program” largely unchanged since the early versions of the TEP with some exceptions detailed below. This program was, in part, developed in response to BOS comments regarding a program to address “…the need for economic development and balancing jobs and housing to make more efficient use of our transportation infrastructure.” 

Details on how the program will be administered will be developed at a later date. The 4/20/16 memo from Gray, Bowen, Scott proposes to: 1) reduce the funding from 6% to 3%, 2) allow funds to be used as match for state Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities grants and 3) to merge the program with the existing Transportation for Livable Communities Program in Measure J (5% of Measure J revenues). These two programs have similar goals and would allow the Authority to focus a more significant amount of resources on the combined, restructured program.

Staff recommended revisions:
Funds from this category will be used implement this new Community Development Transportation Program, administered by the Authority’s Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC’s). Funds will be allocated on a competitive basis to transportation projects or programs that promote economic development, job creation (targeting high job multiplier) and/or housing within established (or planned) transit supportive community centers. Project sponsors must demonstrate that at least 20% of the project is funded from other than local transportation sales tax revenue and the Authority will prioritize funding to projects that demonstrate over 50% funding from other sources. Additional priority will be given to projects where the sponsor can demonstrate that the project supports and facilitates development of housing for all income levels or supports creating jobs in areas with a deficit of proximate, well paying employment opportunities. Working with the RTPCs, the Authority will prepare guidelines and establish overall criteria for the program including the recognition of localized jobs/housing imbalances and the consequential impacts, including: imbalanced and excessive commute times; quality of life, higher vehicle miles traveled/greenhouse gas and; under-utilized transportation infrastructure.

Page 13 of 34
Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program

County staff comment: Potentially, this program could be subsumed in to other relevant programs similar to how the Advanced Mitigation Program was handled. In theory, all of the various programs and projects could have technology components. Expenditures fitting this category could be eligible under each relevant category.

Page 14 of 34
Regional Transportation Priorities: This is a catch-all program that was included to provide some ongoing flexibility in the funding program. Eligible expenditures include any project or program eligible under the entire measure.
 
The Growth Management Program
Page 16 of 34
Address Housing Options: Housing staff has commented that these requirements would be duplicative and already being met by submitting the "Annual Element Progress Report: Housing Element Implementation" (California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6202).
 
Page 20 of 34
Urban Limit Line: Since the last BOS review, this program has undergone substantial discussion and revisions at the Authority. Of particular note see the following changes/additions below:
 
4. Local jurisdictions may, without voter approval, enact a Minor Adjustments to their applicable ULL subject to a vote of at least 4/5 of the jurisdiction’s legislative body and the following requirements:
a. Minor adjustment may include one or several parts that in total shall not exceed 30 acres;
b. Adoption of at least one of the findings listed in the County’s Measure L (§82- 1.018 of County Ordinances 2006-06 § 3, 91-1 § 2, 90-66 § 4);
c. The Minor Adjustment is not contiguous to one or more non-voter approved Minor Adjustments that in total exceed 30 acres;
d. The Minor Adjustment does not create a pocket of land outside the existing Urban Limit Line, specifically to avoid the possibility of a jurisdiction wanting to fill in those subsequently through separate adjustments;
e. If the local jurisdiction is a City or a Town, then that City or Town shall not have approved another Minor Adjustment without voter approval in the previous 5 years. If the local jurisdiction is the County, then the County shall not approve more than 3 Minor Adjustments in any 5 year period and no more than 1 per subregion of the County.
…
 
These conditions shall replace the conditions regarding the ULL outlined in Measure J.
 
These changes were made to ensure consistency in ULL requirements throughout the County and be responsive to concerns of the environmental community. At the April 20th Authority meeting, the consultant recommended removal of the cap on the number of non-voter approved amendments to the ULL. 

Page 25 of 34
Advance Mitigation Program: This program was the subject of substantial dialog at the March 29th Authority Special TEP meeting. In response to questions about the program, Authority staff included a report in the April 7th Authority Board packet (Attachment 7), “Development of a Potential Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) – Consideration to Adopt a Policy to Include an Advance Mitigation Program in the Draft TEP” and included the revised text seen in the attachment.

Because this program is related to the ongoing, regional effort being conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the specific policy will be developed after the passage of the measure. Due to the somewhat unknown nature of the MTC program, and by extension the Authority's program, a contingency policy is provided, "If this approach (advance mitigation) cannot be fully implemented, then the identified funds shall be used for environmental mitigation purposes on a project by project basis."

Page 30 of 34
Performance Audits: This existing requirement has been substantially expanded in the draft TEP. The impact on programs is unknown at this time as the performance criteria are to be established by the Authority at a later date. 
 
"Performance Audits: The following funding categories shall be subject to performance audits by the Authority: Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements (No. 1), Major Streets/Complete Streets/Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (No. 2), Advance Mitigation Program (No. 11), Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements (No. 12), Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities (No. 13), Safe Transportation for Children (No. 14), Intercity Rail and Ferry Service (No. 15), Pedestrian and Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (No. 16), Community Development Transportation Program (No. 17), and Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program (No. 18).
 
Each year, the Authority shall select and perform a focused performance audit on two or three of the funding categories listed above, so that at the end of the fourth year all funding categories listed above are audited. . This process shall commence two years after passage of the new sales tax measure. Additional Performance Audits shall continue on a similar cycle for the duration of the Plan. The performance audits shall provide an accurate quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the funding categories to determine the effectiveness in meeting the performance criteria established by the Authority. In the event that any performance audit determines that a funding category is not meeting the performance requirements established by the Authority, the audit shall include recommendations for corrective action including but not limited to revisions to Authority policies or program guidelines that govern the expenditure of funds."
 

 
Julie DiMaggio Enea 04/19/2016:BOS  RECONSTITUTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY TASK FORCE  County Administrator INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
  The recommendation culminates from a thorough review performed by the County's new Agricultural Commissioner as part of the County Administrator's triennial Board advisory body review process. 

The Board of Supervisors, which has a long-standing commitment to supporting and promoting agriculture, seeks to assist farmers and ranchers by addressing emerging agricultural issues. For this reason, the Agricultural Commissioner and the IOC recommend the re-establishment of the Contra Costa County Agricultural Advisory Task Force to provide a forum for people and organizations that have an interest in agriculture.

Contra Costa County has undergone a transition from predominantly rural to become more suburban over the past 50 years. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors created an Agricultural Core zone to preserve the best growing soils located in the Eastern portion of the County. In addition, when the voters passed transportation expenditure plans (Measure C and Measure J), they included growth limits including a requirement that 65% of the land in Contra
 

Costa County be preserved as open space and later added an Urban Limit Line policy to further direct growth into the urban centers. Growth has effectively been limited to no more than 35% of the County.

Due to the flexibility and innovation of local farmers and ranchers, the Contra Costa agricultural industry continues to play an important and vital role in the local economy. The success of Contra Costa's agricultural industry requires producers to adapt to constantly changing environmental, economic, political and social conditions, creating unanticipated needs and opportunities within the agricultural community.

The new Task Force's mission, seat configuration, and attached bylaws are designed to revitalize and modernize the body’s efforts. A proposal to re-establish the Task Force was reviewed and approved by the Internal Operations Committee on March 28, 2016.

MISSION: 

The mission of the Task Force is to advise and provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on matters that relate to preserving and promoting agriculture in Contra Costa County.  In doing so, the Task Force will also provide a forum to support the exchange of information and ideas, advocate for projects, resolve disagreements, foster consensus and build relationships within the agricultural and ranching community.

POWERS AND DUTIES:

The Task Force shall:
  1. Provide leadership and direction in formulating policy recommendations relevant to preserving and promoting agriculture, and advise the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on applicable planning, zoning, and other land-use issues.
  2. Make recommendations to enhance the economic viability of agriculture and to minimize undesirable environmental impacts.
  3. Provide active participation and leadership to develop a plan to further preserve, enhance and promote agriculture in Contra Costa County.
  4. Participate periodically in the review of Contra Costa County's guidelines for the Williamson Act.
  5. Report to the Board of Supervisors on effects of proposed local, State and federal legislation affecting agricultural resources
  6. Advise and work with city, county, district governments, special interest groups, and individuals concerning conflicts between agriculture, urban development and environmental quality.
  7. Advise and work with city, county, state, federal, special interest groups, individuals, and other entities and district governments concerning Agricultural preservation funding opportunities.
  8. Advise County departments on the impact of programs affecting preserving and promoting agriculture in Contra Costa County.
  9. Determine the committee's work schedule, procedures, and work products.
MEMBERSHIP:

The Agricultural Advisory Task Force will be composed of 12 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors:  8 voting members and 4 ex-officio non-voting members. 

In order to ensure that the Task Force represents each region of the County, one seat representing each of the five county districts shall be filled by a member nominated by each Supervisor. Those appointed shall be technical representatives of their profession or field, and advocates for preserving and promoting agriculture in Contra Costa County. They shall demonstrate expertise by their active involvement in agriculture, professional association and/or academic achievement. They shall be able and committed to meet regularly and should be able to communicate effectively with interested members of the public.

In addition, a seat shall be provided each to a representative of the Contra Costa County Farm Bureau that is nominated by the Bureau, and representatives of Harvest Time and the Cattlemen's Association that is nominated by their membership. These organizations shall submit the names of their selected representative to the Board for approval.  Although it is expected that appointments for these positions will represent the variety of agricultural interests within the county, if the need arises for additional appointments, other experts may be recommended by the Agricultural Advisory Task Force at any time to the Board of Supervisors to become voting members.

Ex officio members will be non-voting and shall be the following persons:
  1. Contra Costa-County Agricultural Commissioner (or designee)
  2. Contra Costa County Director of Conservation and Development (or designee)
  3. A representative of the University of California Cooperative Extension nominated by the Cooperative Extension office
  4. A representative of the Resource Conservation District nominated by the District
TERMS OF OFFICE:

Appointed members of the Agricultural Task Force shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors and shall have terms of three years. No regular member shall serve more than two terms in succession. A regular member shall remain on the committee following expiration of the term being served until he or she is re-appointed to a successive term or until a successor is appointed. The Board of Supervisors shall fill any vacancy on the committee, and may utilize the committee to screen the applicants' qualifications. The person appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the unexpired term of the person he or she succeeds.

Ex officio members and the two seats nominated by industry groups will serve at will in two year terms as long as they represent the entity that selected them to serve as ex officio members of the committee and are willing and able to act as members.
 
 
        Term Length Staggered Terms
  Seat Nominated by Voting in Years First Term Succeeding Term
1 District I District I Supervisor Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/19 7/1/19-6/30/22
2 District II District II Supervisor Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/20 7/1/20-6/30/23
3 District III District III Supervisor Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/19 7/1/19-6/30/22
4 District IV District IV Supervisor Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/20 7/1/20-6/30/23
5 District V District V Supervisor Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/19 7/1/19-6/30/22
6 CCC Farm Bureau CCC Farm Bureau Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/20 7/1/20-6/30/23
7 Harvest Time Harvest Time Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/19 7/1/19-6/30/22
8 Cattlemen's Association Cattlemen's Association Voting 3 6/1/16-6/30/20 7/1/20-6/30/23
9 Agricultural Commissioner Ex-Officio Non-Voting 2 N/A N/A
10 Conservation & Development Director Ex-Officio Non-Voting 2 N/A N/A
11 U.C. Cooperative Extension Cooperative Extension Office Non-Voting 2 6/1/16-6/30/18 7/1/18-6/30/20
12 CC Resource Conservation District CCRCD District Board Non-Voting 2 6/1/16-6/30/18 7/1/18-6/30/20

MEETINGS:
Regular meetings shall be held two times per year at a minimum, pursuant to a schedule of dates, times and places determined at the first meeting of the committee.

STAFF:
Chad Godoy, Contra Costa County Agriculture Department
Phone number: (925) 646-5240 or E-mail: chad.godoy@ag.cccounty.us
Julie DiMaggio Enea 05/10/2016:BOS  RECEIVE Update on Status of Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Development of Transportation Expenditure Plan & take ACTION as appropriate.  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
  As established in previous communication from the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to the Authority regarding the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), BOS has not yet endorsed the proposed transportation sales tax. That broader issue will be addressed at a future meeting of the Board.
 
Reports on this issue have been brought to previous BOS meetings. The intent of this report is to provide an update on the subject effort. For background information please reference the last three detailed reports to the BOS:
 
April 26, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20160426_753/763_04-26-16_1543_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=40
 
March 8, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2016/BOS/20160308_711/721_03-08-16_1627_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=18
 
September 15, 2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20150915_640/650_09-15-15_826_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=128
 
Recent Events
The TEP continues to be updated based on input provided by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, the Authority Board, and other stakeholders.
 
April 26th: The BOS reviewed Draft TEP Version dated April 8, 2016 including the recommended revisions found in the April 20, 2016 Gray, Bowen, Scott (GBS) memo and directed staff to prepare a letter to the Authority regarding the TEP (Attachment #1: BOS Letter to the Authority re TEP).
 
May 4th: The Authority reviewed Draft TEP Version April 29, 2016 (Attachment #2 Draft TEP Version April 29, 2016), and considered recommendations from GBS in two memos dated April 29, 2016 (Attachment #3 GBS Memo: Review of the Draft TEP and Attachment #4 GBS Memo: Supplemental Recommendations).  The Authority also considered handouts received at the meeting (Attachment #5, May 4, 2016 Authority Special TEP Meeting), which include the following:
  • Gray-Bowen-Scott Handout for Agenda Item 1.1 dated May 2, 2016 
  • SWAT Meeting Summary Report for May 2, 2016 Comments and Draft TEP dated April 29, 2016
  • TRANSPLAN Letter documenting actions/discussions of TRANSPLAN Committee Special Meeting dated May 4, 2016
Also considered by the Authority at their May 4th meeting was input from WCCTAC on the Draft TEP (Attachment 6 WCCTAC to Authority re TEP 4-22).

Below are comments from staff regarding key changes in the current TEP and recommendations found the GBS memos and the GBS May 2nd handout.

The timing of the TEP development and BOS review has resulted in this latest TEP version being released prior to the Authority receiving the most recent BOS input. As a result, the Authority was not able to incorporate or respond to BOS comment in this version of the TEP. There is limited new, unanticipated TEP language to comment on.
 
Substantial discussion took place at the May 4, 2016 Authority Special TEP Meeting. However, staff did not have time to provide a comprehensive review of the meeting for this report. Critical items are mentioned below and staff can provided additional feedback on the May 4th Authority meeting during the staff report. 

TEP Development Schedule
May 4th - Authority TEP Meeting
May 11th - Authority TEP Meeting
May 18th - Authority deadline to approve final TEP and distribute to the Cities and County for approval.

TEP Page 7 of 35
BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements: Consistent with and building on prior revisions, additional language was added to tighten the requirements placed on BART for use of the funds and to clarify the intent of the program.
 
TEP Page 9 of 35
East County Corridor (Vasco Rd and/or Byron Highway Corridors): Program revisions are addressed in the GBS recommendations discussed below.
 
TEP Page 10/11 of 35
Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities: Language was added to ensure the participation of users of the service in the development of the Accessible Transportation Services Program.
 
TEP Page 12 of 35
Community Development Transportation Program: The BOS provided numerous revisions to this program to strengthen the focus on middle-wage job creation. At the time of the release of this TEP, the Authority had not yet had the opportunity to consider the BOS comments. As discussed at the April 26, 2016 BOS meeting, the GBS recommended changes were implemented in the TEP. The program will be merged with the existing Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities Program, and details of this will be developed after the passage of the Measure.
 
TEP Page 13 of 35
Innovative Transportation Technology / Connected Communities Program: Language was added to establish the development of a transportation technology plan to be developed within 18 months of the passage of the measure.
 
TEP Page 31 of 35
Maintenance of Effort (MOE): The MOE requirements are proposed to be changed in the new TEP. Under Measure J, the MOE amount was a static figure. The proposal is to adjust the MOE over time using the Construction Cost Index. It is unclear how the existing Measure J MOE requirements would interact, if at all, with the new requirements. Staff is currently examining the impact of this proposal.
 
Also included is new language allowing jurisdictions to request that the Authority adjust their MOE requirement if the jurisdictions Pavement Condition Index is above 70.
 
Issues Raised in GBS Memos and Handout
East County Corridor Project: This program has been the subject of a number of revisions to address concerns raised by stakeholders. The revisions eliminate specific mention of proposed State Route 239/Tri Link and include other limitations and requirements. The latest revision is seen in page 1 of Attachment #3 GBS Memo: Review of the Draft TEP.

Urban Limit Line (ULL): As we discussed at the last BOS meeting, the cap on less-than 30-acre changes that a local agency may make without a vote of the people has been removed. Provisions have been added or recommended to: a) require a finding of clearly defined public benefit to make a change without a vote of the people; b) require the local agency to either have an Agricultural Protection Ordinance or mitigate impacts to agricultural land; and c) implement additional language edits.

Growth Management Program / Checklist: To receive return to source funds, local agencies are proposed to be required to have or to adopt policies regarding agricultural impacts (if the agency has agricultural lands), hillside development, ridgeline protection, wildlife corridor protection and prohibition of development in non-urban priority conservation conservation areas. The previous recommendation had been to require local agencies to provide disclosure on whether they had ordinances related to these subject areas.  The new proposal requires policies be in place or adopted but does not stipulate what those policies must say.
John Cunningham 07/12/2016:BOS  Resolution Supporting a One-half of One Percent Sales Tax for Countywide Transportation Improvements  Conservation & Development John Kopchik
  The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is responsible for maintaining and improving the county’s transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs that connect communities, foster a strong economy, increase sustainability, and safely and efficiently get people where they need to go.

As discussed at previous Board of Supervisor (BOS) meetings, the Authority is proposing the imposition of a countywide one-half of one percent sales tax for transportation purposes for a period of thirty years through March 31, 2047. Over the past two years, the Authority conducted extensive consultations with local governments and outreach to a wide variety of interest groups and the public in order to develop a mix of projects and programs to be funded by the proposed sales tax. On May 18, 2016, the Authority released a proposed final Transportation
 

Expenditure Plan (TEP) to guide the use of the proposed sales tax revenues. The TEP is attached to this report: CCTA TEP. The proposed final TEP also includes a revised Growth Management Program (GMP), a new Complete Streets Policy, and a new Advance Mitigation Program to help the Authority achieve its goals to reduce future congestion, manage the impacts of growth, and expand alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle.

The Authority also adopted Ordinance 16-01 on May 18, 2016 to conditionally amend the existing GMP inclusive of GMP Attachment A: Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line (ULL) in the Measure J Transportation Expenditure Plan (“Measure J TEP”), to match that found in the 2016 TEP. Measure J is the existing sales tax. This amendment would only apply if the one-half of one percent local transportation sales tax is placed on the ballot as a new measure and successfully approved by the electors on the November 8, 2016 ballot.

The conditional amendment is included in the attached CCTA TEP and can be seen beginning on Page 37. During the TEP development, there was discussion by the BOS on the proposed changes to the ULL policies. "Revisions to the ULL" can be seen in the attached CCTA TEP beginning on Page 41 and explained in detail in the attached Authority document, CCTA GMP (Background & Changes).

Currently, transportation needs significantly exceed projected revenues. Over the next 30 years, Contra Costa population will continue to grow, resulting in new demands on the transportation infrastructure and additional mobility needs. The new sales tax measure is needed to address these demands and needs as well as to assist in developing livable and sustainable communities.

The Board of Supervisors letters to the Authority (October 21, 2014 and November 3, 2015) related to the development of the TEP stressed the importance of increased funding to local streets maintenance, improved transit service, safe routes to schools, bicycle facilities and major projects such as the Vasco-Byron highway connector, and Kirker Pass truck climbing lanes.   The letters also emphasized the need to develop and fund programs for countywide mobility management as well as improved land use coordination to address the jobs/housing balance in the County.

With nearly $2.9 billion (current dollars) expected to be generated by the new sales tax measure, the proposed final TEP is responsive to county recommendations by setting aside 23.8% for local streets maintenance (up from 18% in Measure J), over 10.09% for complete streets projects, 4% for pedestrian and bicycle facilities (up from 1.5% in Measure J), 2.2% for safe transportation for children, 10.25% for bus and non-rail transit enhancements, $117 million for Vasco Road, Byron Highway and the Vasco Rd-Byron Highway Connector, and creates a new community development transportation program that is aimed at encouraging infill development and attracting jobs. In addition, the TEP sets aside 4% for transportation for seniors and people with disabilities, including the requirement to develop an Accessible Transportation Service (ATS) Strategic Plan prior to allocation of funding.

Furthermore, significant funding is assigned in the new Measure to smooth traffic flow on major commute corridors such as I-680, I-80, Route 242 and Route 4, and also to improve the capacity of the BART system.

The TEP has a strong focus on technology and innovation, and will deliver a more efficient, cleaner and faster transportation system. The TEP will help reduce emissions through a higher emphasis on transit, technology, and alternative modes of transportation.


The TEP also sets forward clear policies to ensure that while communities grow, the growth is kept within clear Urban Limit Lines. This will allow the county to continue growing while protecting vital open space for parks, farmland, and critical habitat. Furthermore, increased investments in bike and pedestrian facilities bring access to the outdoors to every community.

Process
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180206(b), a Transportation Expenditure Plan may not be finally adopted and placed before the voters until it has received the approval of the County Board of Supervisors and city/town councils which in aggregate represent both a majority of the cities/towns in Contra Costa, and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of Contra Costa.  All jurisdictions have been asked to adopt the proposed final TEP as presented.  The Authority received approval of the proposed final TEP from city and town councils representing both a majority of the cities in Contra Costa County and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of Contra Costa County, and is currently seeking approval of the County Board of Supervisors. The Authority will consider approving the Final TEP and accompanying ordinance in order to impose the sales tax at its meeting on July 20, 2016, or at a special meeting.

The conditional amendment (Page 37 of the attached CCTA TEP) to the existing GMP, inclusive of GMP Attachment A: Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line in the Measure J TEP to Match That Found in the 2016 TEP, would only apply if the one-half of one percent local transportation sales tax is placed on the ballot and successfully approved by the electors on the November 8, 2016 ballot.

For the limited purpose identified in Public Utilities Code Section 180206(b), the Authority seeks the County Board of Supervisors support of the new Measure by adopting the attached Resolution of Support for the Countywide Imposition of One Half of One Percent Sales Tax to Fund Transportation Improvements in Contra Costa.

Adopting the attached Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the TEP is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA. (See 14 C.C.R., §§ 15378, 15352.) Specifically, the Board of Supervisor's adoption of the Resolution of Support does not constitute the approval of a CEQA project for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the TEP does not authorize the construction of any projects that may result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment; (2) the TEP is a mechanism for funding potential future transportation projects, the timing, approval, and construction of which may be modified or not implemented depending on a number of factors, including future site-specific CEQA environmental review; and (3) the TEP is subject to further discretionary approvals insofar as it may not be adopted until and unless the pre-conditions set forth in the Public Utilities Code are satisfied. (See 14 C.C.R., §§ 15378, 15352; Public Utilities Code, § 180206(b).)
10/25/2016:LEG  Draft 2017 State Legislative Platform  County Administrator LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
  CONTRA COSTA SPONSORED BILL PROPOSALS

Authorizing/Enabling Legislation Regarding Title 5, California Code of Regulations (School Facilities Construction)

The County has been engaged in advocating for the reform of school siting policies for a number of years. Late this year the California Department of Education (CDE) announced an effort to revise Title 5 to, among other things, “align school facilities and siting policies with state sustainability goals…” In meeting with CDE staff and our Legislative Delegation over the past 5 years it has become apparent that in order to revise Title 5 such that requirements (as opposed to guidance) can be established, a legislative solution may be necessary. Through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC), staff will work with our legislative delegation and advocate to further develop the necessary solution. This effort is consistent with our current State Legislative Platform (Ag #3, Trans #179, #182) and is reflected in the 2017 Platform revisions submitted by TWIC relative to the aforementioned Title 5 update.


LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY ADVOCACY PRIORITIES

Staff recommends continuing the following advocacy priorities for the County for 2017. The Legislation Committee may wish to provide direction to staff on these priority areas.

Priority 1: State Budget

Priority 2: Health Care

Priority 3: Water and Levees /The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Priority 4: Realignment Implementation


STATE PLATFORM POLICY POSITIONS

The following are the recommended Platform policy position amendments for the 2017 State Platform:

Climate Change

Addition of the following policies and amendments:

19. SUPPORT legislative or administrative efforts that favor allocation of funding from the California Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program to jurisdictions that are the largest emitters of greenhouse gas, have disadvantaged communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution, have Natural Community Conservation Plans or similar land conservation efforts that will address climate change  and have demonstrated a local commitment to climate protection (e.g. established emissions reduction targets, prepared Climate Action Plans, etc.). The County has several good projects that would sequester carbon, such as Creek and wetland restoration projects.

20. SUPPORT efforts to ensure life-cycle costs are considered when planning new projects in the state.  A key challenge for State and local agencies is funding the ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure. This includes all aspects of the built environment: buildings, roads, parks, and other infrastructure.  As California begins to implement more aggressive climate goals, the State should be thinking about new methodologies for anticipating project costs.  In particular, it is evident that California will need a different transportation system than the one we have currently, and that this new transportation system will be more expensive to maintain. Traditional accounting methods that look only at initial project cost lead to situations where infrastructure fails, at greater replacement cost than if ongoing operation and maintenance had been included from the beginning.  This would include methodologies for internalizing the social and environmental costs of projects.

21. SUPPORT revisions to the Public Resources Code and the Air Resources Board’s Investment Plans to provide Cap and Trade funding for the conservation of natural lands, parks and open space through fee title acquisition as well as easements. 

22.  OPPOSE changes to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s protocols for designating disadvantaged communities which result in a reduction in the number or size of disadvantaged communities in Contra Costa County. Disadvantaged communities are prioritized for receipt of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds, the funding source for a number of state grant programs.  Contra Costa County has a number of communities and neighborhoods that are economically and socially disadvantaged and located near large, current and former industrial sites. These industrial operations contribute through the Cap and Trade program to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The state designations should continue to reflect the disproportionally acute needs of these communities.

Elections

Deletion of the following policy:

SUPPORT legislation that would add provisions to the state Elections Code that would allow special elections to fill a vacancy in a congressional or legislative district to be conducted by all mailed ballots at the county’s discretion.

Flood Control and Clean Water

Revision to the following policy:

36. SUPPORT efforts to require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to provide 200 year flood plain mapping for all areas in the legal Delta.  SB 5 requires the County and cities in the Delta to insure certain development projects must have 200 year level of protection and to make certain related findings.  DWR has revisited developing zoning 200-year flood plain mapping maps, and but  if they do, only working in areas protected by project levees which does not include any areas within Contra Costa County.

Health Care

The following revisions are proposed:

84. SUPPORT legislation that extends the restrictions and prohibitions against the smoking of, and exposure to,  tobacco products to include restrictions or prohibitions against electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in various places, including, but not limited to, places of employment, school campuses, public buildings, day care facilities, retail food facilities, multi-family housing, and health facilities; preventing the use of tobacco, electronic smoking devices (e-cigarettes) and flavored tobacco by youth and young adults; eliminating exposure to second-hand and third-hand smoke; restrictions on advertising of electronic smoking devices; reducing and eliminating disparities related to tobacco use and its effects among specific populations; increasing the minimum age to 21 to purchase tobacco products; and the promotion of cessation among young people and adults. 

88. SUPPORT ongoing study of the health impacts of global and regional climate change and ongoing countywide mitigation and adaptation  efforts. 

89. SUPPORT efforts that would preserve the nature and quality and continuity of care associated with safety net services historically provided at the local level, such as the California Children’s Services (CCS) and Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) programs, which are being transitioned into managed care at the state level.

90. SUPPORT maintaining level or enhanced funding, streamlined processes and greater flexibility for use of State and Federal funding to respond to Public Health Emergency Preparedness initiatives including Pandemic Influenza, emerging diseases, and continued funding for all categories related to Public Health Preparedness, including Hospital Preparedness Program, Homeland Security,  Cities Readiness Initiative and core Public Health Preparedness.

92. SUPPORT increased funding for the public health infrastructure, capacity  and prevention services as outlined in the public health components of the Affordable Care Act and the National Prevention and Public Health Fund.

93. SUPPORT recognition of Local Public Health Departments as an authorized provider for direct billing  reimbursement related to the provision of Immunization, Family Planning, HIV, STD and TB services.

95. SUPPORT enhanced funding and capacity for public health programs,  specifically:

a. Prevention programs in the areas of chronic disease, specifically, obesity, diabetes, asthma and cancer.
b. Prevention and risk reduction programs in the area of HIV, STD, teen pregnancy, injury prevention as well as health promotion programs, such as nutrition and activity education;
c. Oral health programs, especially those which address the needs of children and those with oral health disparities.
a. Prevention programs in the areas of  chronic disease, specifically oral health, obesity, diabetes, cancer, teen pregnancy and injury prevention as well as health promotion programs, such as nutrition and activity education;
d. Protecting the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF), as established in the Affordable Care Act.
e. Increased resources dedicated to surveillance and prevention programs targeting chronic diseases such as cardiovascular, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and asthma, as well as injury and violence;
f. Combating infectious and emerging diseases, such as Zika, novel Influenza, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Chlamydia,  and seasonal Influenza and public health programs which provide screening, diagnosis, and treatment;
g. Provide for adequate State funding for children’s programs, including the California Children’s Services (CCS) program for clients who are not Medi-Cal eligible to assure that counties are not overmatched in their financial participation; and
h. Programs which seek to monitor and address the needs of Foster youth, especially those on psychotropic medication.
i. Best practice programs which seeks to protect and enhance the health of pregnant women and that address maternal, child and adolescent health needs.
f. Programs which seek to limit the effects of injury, violence and abuse on children and adults. 

98. SUPPORT legislative efforts to reduce exposure to toxic air pollutants and the reduction of CO2 emissions greenhouse gases.

99. SUPPORT funding, policy and programs dedicated to suicide, injury and violence prevention. Additionally, support efforts aimed at reducing health disparities and inequities associated with violence against women, communities of color and the LGBT community. Programs which seek to limit the effects of injury, violence and abuse on children, seniors and persons with disability. SUPPORT funding, policy and programs dedicated to suicide and violence prevention.

100. SUPPORT funding, policy and program development aimed at reducing the misuse of prescription drugs, most especially opioids. Additionally, support funding and resources for local capacity to address new state laws regarding  restrictions on the sale and use of powdered alcohol. restrictions on the sale and use of powdered alcohol, which can lead to unsafe levels of intoxication if it is mixed incorrectly or ingested in its powdered form.

101. SUPPORT necessary County infrastructure and adequate funding related to education, regulatory, testing the support and enforcement functions of newly passedassociated with the State Medical Marijuana regulatory controls.

102. SUPPORT legislation such as AB 1357 and/or similar policy efforts to tax certain beverages that contain added sugars, by establishing a per fluid ounce health impact fee on sugar sweetened beverages at the distributor level. In addition, support SB 203, a two year bill, or similar efforts which would create the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Safety warning act, which would require a safety warning on all sealed sugar sweetened beverages.

103. SUPPORT legislation and efforts that support healthy meals and adequate meal time for school-age children.  SUPPORT legislation such as AB 292 (Santiago) and/or similar efforts that support healthy meals and adequate meal time for school-age children. The bill would require school districts, in addition to providing a nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal for each needy pupil each school day, to ensure that each of the schools in their respective jurisdictions makes available to its pupils adequate time to eat after being served lunch. The bill would declare that the State Department of Education specifies that an adequate time to eat school lunch is 20 minutes after being served. The bill would require a school that determines, upon annual review of its bell schedule, that it is currently not providing pupils with adequate time to eat, to identify and develop a plan to implement, in consultation with the school district, ways to increase pupils’ time to eat lunch.

105. Support efforts to address the underlying determinants of health and health equity, such as housing and prevention of displacement, educational attainment and livable wage jobs. 

Human Services

Addition and deletion of the following polices:

113. SUPPORT legislative efforts that allow for coordination of services and data, across state and county Departments that support aging and elder populations. 

124. SUPPORT efforts to increase CalFresh benefit amounts to better meet recipients’ nutritional needs, improve ease and accessibility of the CalFresh application and recertification processes, and adjust CalFresh eligibility requirements to include currently excluded populations with significant need.

125. SUPPORT efforts to restore cuts to the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) Program and reinstate the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA.)

134. SUPPORT legislation to expand early care and education and increase funding for preschool and early learning, through a diverse and multi-faceted delivery system.

135. SUPPORT restoration of child development programs (pre-2011 funding) under Proposition 98 funding.

136. Support legislation that would clarify and streamline the definition of homelessness across categorical eligibility for child care services to homeless children.

137. Support legislation that would clarify the definition of “volunteer” in SB 792. Current law does not specify an established minimum of time spent in a child care facility to be considered a volunteer. SB 792, therefore, would apply to parents/grandparents coming to child care centers for one-time volunteer activities, to provide proof of vaccination.

138. SUPPORT the establishment of a 12-month child care assistance and graduated phase out that allows for tapered assistance to families whose income has increased at the time of re-determination, but still does not exceed the federal income limit of 85% of State Median Income.

141. SUPPORT continued and improved funding for implementation of Continuum of Care Reform.

142. SUPPORT counties to access CWS/CMS to determine family’s child abuse history for the Resource Family Approval process.

143. SUPPORT efforts to improve and expand emergency food assistance networks’ (e.g. local food banks, food pantries) ability to procure, store, and distribute nutritious food to those in need.

144. SUPPORT efforts that seek to address the impact of domestic violence and sexual assault and implement culturally relevant, trauma-informed responses, connect victims to services, and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault.

145. SUPPORT increased investments in housing for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking including the preservation of emergency and long-term housing options for victims.

146. SUPPORT efforts that prevent domestic violence homicide including assessment of risk for assault or lethal force throughout the criminal justice system.

147. SUPPORT investments in continuous training and coordination of training for all law enforcement officers, District Attorneys, Public Defenders, Judges and other court staff on issues of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, elder abuse and trauma informed approaches.

SUPPORT legislation that authorizes juvenile courts to deny reunification services to a parent who has knowingly engaged in or consented to the sexual exploitation of the child.  

SUPPORT revision of CalWORKs Program regulations to eliminate the Welfare to Work 24 Month Time Clock in order to provide clients with a full 48 months to participate in Welfare to Work activities. 

SUPPORT efforts to increase CalFresh participation by eliminating Gross Income Test for all applicants, exempting Veteran’s Benefits from any income test, increasing shelter deduction to average rate based on County of Residence (varied across State), and eliminating countable resources and/or expanding Modified Categorically Eligible regulations to all households.

SUPPORT efforts to simplify the CalFresh application process through the creation of a statewide telephonic and electronic signature system to reduce denials and discontinuances due to failure to provide. 

SUPPORT expanding CalWORKs Homeless Services Program.

SUPPORT eliminating the Maximum Family Grant (MFG) Rule. MFG prevents families from receiving benefits for children conceived and born while receiving CalWORKs benefits.  

Land Use/Community Development 

The following policy revisions are proposed:

153. SUPPORT efforts to promote economic incentives for "smart growth," in Priority Development and Priority Production Areas  including in-fill and transit-oriented development.  Balancing the need for housing and economic growth with the Urban Limit Line requirements of Measure J (2004) will rely on maximum utilization of “smart growth” and Sustainable Community Strategy principles.

154. SUPPORT efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, including, but not limited to, state issuance of private activity bonds, affordable and low income housing bond measures, low-income housing tax credits and state infrastructure financing.  This position supports a number of goals in Goals 2, 3 and 4 of  the County General Plan Housing Element.

160. SUPPORT allocations, appropriations, and policies that support and leverage the benefits of approved Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), such as the East Contra Costa County NCCP.  Support the granting of approximately $24 million to the East Contra Costa County NCCP from the $90 million allocation for NCCPs in Proposition 84. Support the inclusion of NCCPs for funding in allocations from Proposition 1. Support $90 million for implementation of NCCPs and an additional $100 million for watershed protection and habitat conservation in future park, water or natural resource bonds. Support the position that NCCPs are an effective strategy for addressing the impacts of climate change and encourage appropriate recognition of the NCCP tool in implementation of climate change legislation such as SB 375, AB 32 as well as an appropriate tool for spending CAP Cap and Trade revenues.  Promote effective implementation of NCCPs as a top priority for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Support an increase to $1.6 million for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Local Assistance Grant program. Support efforts to streamline implementation of NCCPs including exemptions from unnecessary regulatory oversight such as the Delta Plan Covered Actions process administered by the Delta Stewardship Council. Support alignment of State and Regional of Water Board permits (Section 401 clean water act and storm water permits) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1602 of the Fish and Game code) and other State natural resource permitting with California Endangered Species Act permitting through NCCPs to improve the overall efficiency, predictability and effectiveness of natural resource regulation. 

OPPOSE legislation that would create substantial uncertainty over the tax allocation bonds issued by redevelopment agencies and possible negative credit impact.   

Law and Justice System  

Addition of the following policies:

171. SUPPORT legislation that requires boater’s insurance. Currently, boaters are not required to carry insurance in California.

172. SUPPORT legislation that provides better funding for local agencies forced to deal with abandoned and sunken vessels and their environmental impacts.

178. SUPPORT legislative reform of current bail provisions that will replace reliance on money bail with a system that incorporates a pretrial risk assessment tool and evidence-based pretrial release decisions.  The current reliance on fixed bail schedules and commercial money bonds ignores public safety factors and unfairly penalizes poor people who are awaiting trial. Bail reform in this manner will ensure that only dangerous persons who cannot be safely supervised in the community while they are awaiting trial will be held in custody pretrial. Locally, our County has moved in this direction with an AB109 funded pretrial program. Many statewide organizations support bail reform.  Among them are the ACLU, Californians for Safety and Justice, the California Public Defenders Association, and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. 

Pipeline Safety

Addition of the following policies:

188. SUPPORT legislation that contains specific mitigations or solutions for installation of Automatic Shutoff Valves for both High Consequence Areas (HCA) and for those that transverse Active Seismic Earthquake Faults for all intrastate petroleum pipelines.

189. SUPPORT legislation that contains specific language for protection of all seasonal and all year creeks and all State Waterways where petroleum pipelines are present.  New and replacement pipelines near environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas should use the best available technology including, but not limited to, the installation of leak detection technology, automatic shutoff systems or remote controlled sectionalized block valves, or any combination of these technologies to reduce the amount of oil released in an oil spill to protect state waters and wildlife.

190. SUPPORT legislation that contains specific language and specific examples to guide health officers in making certain determinations, in taking certain actions related to an active gas pipeline leak and in the structure and installation of state mandated local programs for this purpose.

191. SUPPORT legislation that contains specific language that requires the same standards for installation of Automatic Shutoff Valves or Remote Controlled Sectionalized Block Valves of owners and operators of intrastate petroleum pipelines located in High Consequence Areas or that traverse Active Seismic Earthquake Faults.  To provide the location of existing valves and the proposed location of new valves to the State Fire Marshal’s Office allowing their interaction with the process, to establish action timelines, to adopt standards for how to prioritize installation, to ensure that valves are installed as quickly as reasonably possible and to establish ongoing procedures for monitoring progress in achieving requirements.

Transportation

The following revisions are proposed:

196. SUPPORT regional coordination that provides for local input in addressing transportation needs.  Coordinated planning and delivery of public transit, paratransit, and rail services will help ensure the best possible service delivery to the public.  Regional coordination also will be needed to effectively deal with the traffic impacts of Indian gaming casinos such as those in West County.  Regional coordination also will be essential to complete planning and development of important regional transportation projects that benefit the state and local road system such as TriLink (State Route 239), improvements to Vasco Road, completion of remaining segments of the Bay Trail, improvements to the Delta DeAnza Regional Trail, and the proposed California Delta and Marsh Creek Trails.  There may be interest in seeking enhanced local input requirements for developing the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area mandated by SB 375 for greenhouse gas reduction.  It is important that the regional coordination efforts are based on input gathered from the local level, to ensure the regional approach does not negatively impact local communities.  “Top-down” regional planning efforts would be inconsistent with this goal.

201. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate planning between school districts, the state, and local jurisdictions for the purposes of:  (1) locating and planning new schools, (2) funding programs that foster collaboration and joint use of facilities, and (3) financing off-site transportation improvements for improved access to existing schools. The County supports thewill urge the California Department of Education’s current Title 5 update effort to better leverage include removing the current conflict between current school facilities in developing  siting policies and  sustainable communities. Related to this effort, the County supports reform of school siting practices by way of legislative changes related to any new statewide school construction bond authorization. The County takes the position that reform components should include bringing school siting practices and school zone references in the vehicle code into alignment with local growth management policies, safe routes to school best practices, State SB 375 principles, and the State Strategic Growth Council’s “Health in All Policies Initiative.”

205. SUPPORT funding increases for active transportation projects and planning. Funding is needed for improved pedestrian infrastructure and enhancements and expansion of: trails, on-street bike facilities (Class II and III), and separated facilities (Class I and Class IV [cycle track]). Funding is also needed for corridor and ”bicycle superhighway” planning, trail access improvements, overcrossings, intersection improvements, Class I - IV inter-connectivity projects (gap closures), wayfinding/signage projects, and facilities/designs identified in emerging best practices.

SUPPORT funding increases for active transportation projects including funding for enhancements and expansion of separated trails (Class I, cycle track) including corridor planning, trail access improvements, trail expansion/enhancements, overcrossings, intersection improvements, Class I trail inter-connectivity projects, and wayfinding/signage projects.