Agenda packet — Brentwood City Council, April 26, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

Monitoring of restoration, creation, and enhancement sites is assumed to occur 4 times per year for the 5-year period following the restoration activity and will require two associate biologists at $160/hr for one 8-hour day each visit. It will include species-response monitoring. It is assumed to begin in the 5-year period after the creation/restoration/enhancement takes place.
% of times construction surveys are anticipated to be required for covered activities within the preserve system (it is anticipated that Implementing Entity will whenever possible avoid habitat and breeding season of covered species).

Construction monitoring is assumed to occur periodically during construction of covered activities and conservation measures. An average of seven visits by one staff biologist at $100/hour is assumed.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Directed Research
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Average cost per year to fund directed
research $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000
Total cost per period $570,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 Adaptive Management
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Average Independent Conservation
Assessment Team cost per period $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 Average Science Advisors cost per period $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 Total cost per period $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 Assumptions:

Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.

It is assumed that the Independent Conservation Assessment Team will meet once every 4 years and have:
5 members
$6,300 stipend per member per 5-year period
It is assumed that the Science Advisors will contain:
10 members
$15,800 stipend per member per 5-year period
Field monitoring and analysis contractors
Associate Biologist Staff Biologist
Base cost per hour $160 $100 $ per hour
Direct Expenses $5 $3 3% of labor cost
Travel $27 $27 $ per day
assuming 50 50 miles
and $0.54 $0.54 $ per mile
Hours per day 8 8 hours per day
Total cost per hour including expenses and
amortized per diem and travel $168.38 $106.38 $ per hour Assumptions:

Bay Area billing rate, assuming all work will be conducted from a local office (no per diem needed).

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Remedial Measures for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 $3,084,440 Total $0 $0 $0 $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 $3,084,440 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation cost category Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per
period $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $6,988,585 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $243,933 $147,025 $698,859 $1,747,146 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,682 3,292 3,711 3,093 3,093 3,093 Cost for remedial measures for
preserves per period $55,084 $23,608 $26,610 $22,175
Cost for other remedial measures
per period $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Total cost per period $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 Assumptions:
2% Percent of annual preserve management and maintenance cost assumed to be needed for preserve remedial actions. 10% Percent of created/restored habitat for which remedial measures will be required. $359 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 70% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 9 occurring in years 1 - 5 Implementation Period (Years)
Capital costs
Remedial actions are assumed to occur in the second 5-year period after habitat is created/restored or preserve land is purchased, with the exception of remedial actions for habitat created/restored in years 21-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 26-30 so that it can be included in this cost estimate.

The remedial cost for preserve lands is assumed to be a percentage of the cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased.

The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Contingency for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition and habitat restoration
capital costs $0 $0 $0 $21,258,171 $19,277,099 $21,704,136 $23,373,520 $85,612,926 Contingency fund $0 $0 $0 $1,062,909 $963,855 $1,085,207 $1,168,676 $4,280,646 Assumptions:

5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency D.1.a
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $424,686
Land Acquisition $0
Planning and Design $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0
Environmental Compliance $0
Preserve Management and Maintenance $1,738,847
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $358,181
Remedial Measures $0
Contingency $0
Total $2,521,714
Capital Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $0 Included in staff and overhead costs Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 Captured in annual operating costs Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 Captured in annual operating costs Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Total $0
Operational Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $424,686 Reduced staffing and no legal and finanical contractor costs.

Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $1,738,847 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $358,181 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $2,521,714
Total preserve acres 24,250
Annual average cost per acre managed $104
Percent of average annual cost years 26 - 30 21%
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report D-1
APPENDIX D: MAXIMUM UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the maximum urban development area.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 : HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Update) East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Maximum Urban Development Area
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration $160,000 $6,800,000 $5,770,000 $4,640,000 $4,650,000 $4,660,000 $26,680,000 Land Acquisition $170,000 $88,930,000 $51,540,000 $42,670,000 $42,670,000 $42,670,000 $268,650,000 Planning and Design $0 $1,930,000 $2,110,000 $1,640,000 $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $7,810,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,910,000 $13,670,000 $11,390,000 $11,390,000 $11,390,000 $51,750,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,000 $1,060,000 $990,000 $820,000 $0 $3,640,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,930,000 $6,560,000 $7,620,000 $8,690,000 $10,840,000 $35,650,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $900,000 $2,770,000 $3,200,000 $3,790,000 $4,220,000 $14,880,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $330,000 $200,000 $920,000 $2,190,000 $3,650,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,190,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,360,000 $4,890,000 Total $330,000 $105,170,000 $85,000,000 $73,480,000 $75,200,000 $78,390,000 $417,600,000 Capital Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $86,370,000 $49,330,000 $41,220,000 $41,220,000 $41,220,000 $259,370,000 Planning and Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $0 $8,530,000 $7,110,000 $7,110,000 $7,110,000 $29,850,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $330,000 $200,000 $920,000 $2,190,000 $3,650,000 Total $0 $86,370,000 $58,190,000 $48,530,000 $49,250,000 $50,520,000 $292,870,000 Operational Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration $160,000 $6,800,000 $5,770,000 $4,640,000 $4,650,000 $4,660,000 $26,680,000 Land Acquisition: transactional costs $170,000 $2,560,000 $2,220,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $9,280,000 Planning and Design $0 $1,930,000 $2,110,000 $1,640,000 $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $7,810,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,910,000 $5,140,000 $4,280,000 $4,280,000 $4,280,000 $21,900,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,000 $1,060,000 $990,000 $820,000 $0 $3,640,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,930,000 $6,560,000 $7,620,000 $8,690,000 $10,840,000 $35,650,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $900,000 $2,770,000 $3,200,000 $3,790,000 $4,220,000 $14,880,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,190,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,360,000 $4,890,000 Total $330,000 $18,800,000 $26,820,000 $24,950,000 $25,950,000 $27,870,000 $124,730,000 Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration $159,352 $6,795,011 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 $26,678,996 Land Acquisition $165,742 $88,927,630 $51,541,900 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $268,647,705 Planning and Design $0 $1,931,148 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,909,578 $13,668,995 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $51,751,061 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,553 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,929,601 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 $35,650,388 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $897,309 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 $14,882,897 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Contingency $0 $0 $1,187,771 $1,128,603 $1,211,024 $1,363,789 $4,891,187 Total $325,094 $105,160,830 $85,012,706 $73,477,810 $75,208,651 $78,416,724 $417,601,814 Capital Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $86,372,000 $49,326,489 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $259,369,485 Planning and Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $0 $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $29,846,639 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Total $0 $86,372,000 $58,183,203 $48,530,677 $49,251,341 $50,524,054 $292,861,275 Operational Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration $159,352 $6,795,011 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 $26,678,996 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $165,742 $2,555,630 $2,215,411 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $9,278,220 Planning and Design $0 $1,931,148 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,909,578 $5,141,384 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 $21,904,422 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,553 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,929,601 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 $35,650,388 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $897,309 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 $14,882,897 Contingency $0 $0 $1,187,771 $1,128,603 $1,211,024 $1,363,789 $4,891,187 Total $325,094 $18,788,830 $26,829,503 $24,947,133 $25,957,310 $27,892,670 $124,740,539 Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.

Series Id: Data extracted on: March 29, 2017 (8:35:58 PM) Area:

Item:

Base Period:

Years:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.7610 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.7855 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.8112 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.8364 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.8425 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.8540 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.8763 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.8998 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.9199 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.9461 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.9708 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 1.0000 2017 271.626
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2016 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.7893
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.8200
Series Title: 2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.8469
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.8706
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.8792
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.8958
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.9132
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.9329
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.9511
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.9700
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.9858
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2016 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.74759 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.78306 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.82126 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.84413 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.86368 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.90342 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.91944 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.93083 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.95197 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.97241 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 1.00000 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373
The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.

This page last updated: 4/17/17
Available at: https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/PMB/CCCI/Old/cccitable_2017/CCCIMasterListing_4-2017.pdf Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
The California Construction Cost index is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month for the previous month. This table is updated at the end of each month.

All items
1982-84=100
2005 to 2017
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURA422SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Private industry workers f
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:

EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by HEG, 2017
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 9
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-9 Summary actuals supercede model detail
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
Maximum UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 30,200 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Pond acres acquired 16 (Table 5-5a)
Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total reserve acres acquired per period - 10,987 5,489 4,574 4,574 4,574 30,200 Total reserve acres managed, per period 10,067 5,033 5,033 5,033 5,033 30,200 Total reserve acres managed, cumulative - 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 30,200 Pond acres acquired per period 10.86 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 16 Pond acres added to management per period 5.33 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 16 Pond acres managed cumulative, including restoration - 5.37 14.3 22.2 30.1 38.0 38.0 Assumptions:

Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5 and 6-9; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 21 years of the permit term.

Management and monitoring on acquired land and ponds has not kept pace with actual acquisition; land is assumed to come under management in 6 equal increments over the 30-year perm 13,349.6 Total acres acquired through 2016
1,682.3 Easement acres on parcels acquired through 2016 680.0 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to reserve through 2016 10,987.2 Total acres acquired and credited toward reserve Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted)0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
oak savanna - - 47.1 39.3 39.3 39.3 165.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 4.04 14.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 55.0 perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 9.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 32.5 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 5.79 13.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 53.6 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.12 6.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 23.6 slough/channel - - 20.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 72.0
open water - - - - - - -
ponds - 0.04 6.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 22.0
streams (miles) - 1.10 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.8
Total (acres) - 12.82 118.4 98.7 98.7 98.7 427.2
Assumptions:

Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-9; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 21 years of the permit term.

For total acre calculation, streams are assumed to be 5 feet wide 30% % of perennial, seasonal or alkali wetland complex acreage assumed to be jurisdictional wetland; for compensatory restoration only. average
acres/site or
linear feet/site
(streams)
% requiring
substantial soil
disturbance
riparian/woodland scrub sites by acreage conversion: 3 20%

2.0 80%
1,000 90%
Restoration sites that require significant soil disturbance by land-cover type USED IN MONITORING COST ESTIMATE Land Cover Type Restoration Sites0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 3.7
perennial wetland - 0.1 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.1 13.0
seasonal wetland - 2.3 5.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 21.4
alkali wetland - 0.8 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 9.4
ponds - - 8.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 28.8
streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 5.2 6.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 27.6 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 8.7 27.2 22.7 22.7 22.7 103.9 Assumptions:

Average acres/site and percent of sites requiring substantial soil disturbance calculated in table above.

Seasonal, perennial, and alkali wetland acreages in Tables 5-16 and 5-17 are for wetland complexes; for cost estimates and revenue projections the wetted acres of these complexes are assumed to be 30% of the total acres.
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:

Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel
2017 Update

POST PERMIT

STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-300 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Administrative staffing
Principal Planner 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 Senior Planner 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 -
Senior GIS Planner 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner 0.80 - - - - 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 0.50 Assistant Planner/Planning Technician 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Accountant 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 Admin – Secretary (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - IT Support Staff (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - Total 2.35 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 Total 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 1.40 Land acquisition staffing
Principal Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 - Senior GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Total 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 - Planning and design, restoration, and monitoring staffing Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 - - - - - - - - -
Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - -
Associate Planner 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - -
Total 0.80 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 - Habitat restoration and creation staffing
Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner/Project Manager 0.20 - - - - 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - -
Project Manager 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - -
Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - -
Total 0.80 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 - Environmental compliance staffing
Principal Planner - - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 - -
Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 - -
Total - - - - - Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 - -
Preserve management and maintenance staffing
Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner 0.20 - - - - - - - - -
Associate Planner/Preserve Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Preserve Maintenance Staff 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 Total 4.30 5.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Total 5.075 7.075 8.075 ##### 10.075 Monitoring and research staffing
Principal Planner - - - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner 0.10 - - - - - - - - -
Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - -
Associate Planner 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.30 0.33 0.33 - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - -
Total 0.60 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.075 0.325 0.358 0.358 0.025 Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.55 Senior Planner 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - - - - -
Senior GIS Planner 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05 Associate Planner/Preserve Manager 0.80 - - - - 2.95 3.10 3.13 3.03 0.55 Assistant Planner/Planning Technician 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Accountant 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 Admin – Secretary (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - IT Support Staff (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - -
Project Manager 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - -
Technical Support 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 - - - - -
Preserve Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - -
Preserve Maintenance Staff 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 Total 9.05 11.50 13.50 14.50 14.50 Total 9.75 11.90 12.93 14.78 11.50 Monitoring and research staffing
Overall Staffing Plan

UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
Administrative staffing
Planning and design, restoration, and monitoring staffing Habitat restoration and creation staffing
Land acquisition staffing
Preserve management and maintenance staffing
Environmental compliance staffing
2017 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
2012 UPDATE STAFFING
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Program Administration for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Capital Costs
Capital Subtotal INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS
Operational Costs
Staff and overhead $4,587,012 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 Other administrative costs $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Vehicle / mileage allowance $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Travel $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Insurance $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Legal assistance $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Financial analysis assistance $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Financial audit (annual) $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 In-lieu funding for law enforcement and firefighting $50,631 $56,256 $70,320 $84,384 Public relations and outreach $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Operational Subtotal $159,352 $3,328,033 $3,466,978 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 Total $159,352 $3,328,033 $3,466,978 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 $26,678,996 Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Senior Planner and support $177 - - - -
Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85
Planning Technician and support $104 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Accountant and support $133 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
$764,502 $764,502 $764,502 $764,502
$4,587,012 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 $3,822,510
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Some actual costs for program administration staff and contractors through 2016 are included in actual costs under land acquisition, planning and design, preserve management, restoration, monitoring and environmental compliance.

Position
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Other Administrative Costs
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
CHCPC membership (IEH) $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Cost per period $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Assumption:
$5,000 annual cost for CHCPC membership, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 (Institute for Ecological Health) $1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Travel
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Assumption:
$6,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Insurance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Assumption:
$20,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Legal Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 Assumptions:
$100,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 10 - 15 $60,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 15 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.

Legal assistance for land acquisition included in the due diligence cost factor in the land acquisition category.

Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $260,000 Assumptions:
$65,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).

Note: The financial analyis assistance category covers the periodic assistance of a financial analyst to review the program's cost/revenue balance, ensure that charges are adjusted in line with changing land costs and ensure compliance with State requirements on collection of fees.

Annual Financial Audit
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $420,000 Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2016 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.

In-Lieu Payments for Law Enforcement and Firefighting
0 1-5 6-10 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area per period - - 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 In-lieu payments for law enforcement per year $2,221 $3,331 $4,441 $5,552 $6,662 In-lieu payments for firefighting per year $3,405 $5,107 $6,810 $8,512 $10,215 Total cost per year $5,626 $8,438 $11,251 $14,064 $16,877 Cost per period $28,128 $50,630.51 $56,256 $70,320 $84,384 Assumptions:
$4.53 In-lieu law enforcement funding per preserve acre $2.96 In-lieu firefighting funding per preserve acre
In lieu costs per preserve acres are based on CCWD's annual in-lieu payments and the assumption that CCWD manages approximately 20,000 acres of preserve.

Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost per year $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $100,000 Cost per period $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $525,000 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Capital Costs 0 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Acquisition $0 $47,903,038 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $254,032,633 Site improvements $0 $1,423,450 $1,304,467 $1,304,467 $1,304,467 $5,336,851 Capital Subtotal $0 $49,326,489 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $259,369,485 Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead na $778,320 $249,570 $249,570 $249,570 $1,527,030 Due diligence $165,742 $1,437,091 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $7,751,190 Operational Subtotal $165,742 $2,215,411 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $9,278,220 Total $165,742 $51,541,900 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $268,647,705 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 9 + Projections Years 10 - 30 (2016 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total Remainder 10-30 Zone 1 $0 $4,362,019 $3,635,016 $3,635,016 $3,635,016 $23,652,065 $15,267,065 Zone 2 $0 $13,767,038 $11,472,532 $11,472,532 $11,472,532 $79,322,635 $48,184,635 Zone 3 $0 $326,188 $271,823 $271,823 $271,823 $3,358,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $14,517,791 $12,098,160 $12,098,160 $12,098,160 $57,229,270 $50,812,270 Zone 5 $0 $11,382,988 $9,485,823 $9,485,823 $9,485,823 $66,089,456 $39,840,456 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $2,814,940 $2,345,783 $2,345,783 $2,345,783 $15,924,289 $9,852,289 Outside Inventory Area $0 $356,064 $296,720 $296,720 $296,720 $1,246,224 $1,246,224 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $376,011 $313,342 $313,342 $313,342 $7,210,038 $1,316,038 Total $0 $47,903,038 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $254,032,633 $167,660,633 Assumptions: 34% 66%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.

Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20
Total FTEs 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40
Total cost per year $129,720 $49,914 $49,914 $49,914
Total cost per period $778,320 $249,570 $249,570 $249,570 Notes/Assumptions:

Actual staff costs for years 0 - 9 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year
Actual acquisition cost through year 9, in 2016 dollars. Updated 2016 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 21 years of the permit term.
$6,072,000
$86,372,000
1-9
$86,372,000
$0
$86,372,000
na
$2,555,630
$2,555,630
$88,927,630
$5,894,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
1-9
$8,385,000
$31,138,000
$2,217,000
$6,417,000
$26,249,000
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.

Includes Conservancy staff costs on land acquisition projects.

The 2006 cost model used more detailed unit costs. The result of applying those cost factors in the 2006 model was that due diligence represented about 4% of land acquisition costs. 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Due Diligence $165,742 $1,504,429 $1,051,201 $1,437,091 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $7,751,190 Assumptions:

3.0% Due diligence costs as a percentage of land acquisition cost.

Planning Surveys (Pre-Acquisition)
Based on Conservancy and EBRPD experience to date, initial property evaluation and planning is included in staff and consultant time.

Most significant field biological work is done post acquisition and is included as a monitoring cost.

Site Improvements
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Demolition of old facilities $88,113 $73,427 $73,427 $73,427 Repair of boundary fence $709,550 $709,550 $709,550 $709,550 Repair and replacement of gates $296,426 $247,021 $247,021 $247,021 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $181,149 $150,958 $150,958 $150,958 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $148,213 $123,511 $123,511 $123,511 Total $1,423,450 $1,304,467 $1,304,467 $1,304,467
Assumptions:

Most demolition to date is a condition of the transaction and assigned to the seller. Other site improvement costs included in EBRPD operations and maintenance costs to date. $8,026 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$5,400 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$3,300 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$2,700 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 300 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 10 - 30 assuming 100 acres per parcel 15,000 Average parcel boundary length in linear feet (from GIS analysis, grouping adjacent parcels with the same landowner) $5.26 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For the 2012 and 2016 updates the model is simplified to assume due diligence costs (not including Conservancy staff costs) at 3% of land acquisition costs, roughly consistent with the experience of the Conservancy and EBRPD through 2016, during which time about 35 percent of the reserve goals for land acquisition took place. For years 10 -30, Conservancy staff time costs are separately estimated and included in Program Staff line item above.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Management and Restoration Planning and Design for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost Capital subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational costs
Program staff and overhead $578,664 $482,220 $482,220 $482,220 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Contractors $1,520,400 $1,140,300 $570,150 $570,150
Operational subtotal $0 $1,262,793 $668,355 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 Total $0 $1,262,793 $668,355 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
$96,444 $96,444 $96,444 $96,444
$578,664 $482,220 $482,220 $482,220
Technical Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - -
Planning Technician and support $104 - - - -
- - - -
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year
Capital costs Total
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies, .

Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Travel (shared with restoration and monitoring)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget

0.40 Contractors
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Management planning $760,200 $570,150 $0 $0
Restoration planning $760,200 $570,150 $570,150 $570,150 Total per period $0 $1,520,400 $1,140,300 $570,150 $570,150 Assumptions:

Restoration designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost as of 2017 update.

The management and restoration planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:

Management Planning
Management plans prepared for cropland/pasture preserves Management plans prepared for natural area preserves
Grazing leases developed or renewed
Jurisdictional wetland delineation
Exotic Plant Control Program (Preserve System-wide)
Fire management/control plan (System-wide)
Restoration Planning & Design (restoration construction designs included in the habitat restoration/creation cost category) Pond creation plan and construction designs
Wetland creation plan and construction designs
Stream restoration plan and construction designs
Oak savanna restoration plan and construction designs
Riparian woodland/scrub restoration plan and construction designs Contract value per period
Contractor category
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
proportion of travel costs that are used for planning (40% used for restoration and included in the restoration spreadsheet, and 20% used for monitoring and included in the monitoring spreadsheet)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Creation/Restoration $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost Capital Subtotal $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $478,836 $399,030 $399,030 $399,030 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Contractors $4,647,548 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 Operational Subtotal $0 $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $5,141,384 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 Total $0 $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $13,668,995 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $51,751,061 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
oak savanna - - 47.1 39.3 39.3 39.3 165.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 4.0 14.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 55.0
perennial wetland - 0.2 9.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 32.5
seasonal wetland - 5.8 13.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 53.6
alkali wetland - 2.1 6.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 23.6
slough/channel - - 20.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 72.0
open water - - - - - - -
ponds - 0.0 6.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 22.0
streams (miles) - 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.8
Total (acres) - 12.8 118.4 98.7 98.7 98.7 427.2
Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
oak savanna acres $15,000 $848,571 $707,143 $707,143 $707,143 riparian woodland/scrub acres $42,199 $737,308 $614,423 $614,423 $614,423 perennial wetland acres $68,846 $763,364 $636,136 $636,136 $636,136 seasonal wetland acres $82,115 $1,346,026 $1,121,688 $1,121,688 $1,121,688 alkali wetland acres $83,094 $611,949 $509,958 $509,958 $509,958 slough/channel acres $62,538 $1,543,789 $1,286,491 $1,286,491 $1,286,491 open water acres $91,251 $0 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $91,251 $687,040 $572,533 $572,533 $572,533 streams linear feet $234 $1,989,564 $1,657,970 $1,657,970 $1,657,970 $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343
Assumptions:
20% Contingency factor for restoration projects; assumed higher than the standard contingency because of the higher degree of uncertainty in this portion of the conservation program.

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost per unit
Total
Land Cover Type Units
Capital Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres) Total
Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For 2017 update, unit costs increased based on change in the California Construction Cost Index published by the State of California Department of General Services. Available at:
https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/PMB/CCCI/Old/cccitable_2017/CCCIMasterListing_4-2017.pdf Construction costs depend mostly on the amount, depth, and linear extent of earthwork expected, and whether water control structure are required. Plant propagation, seeding, and watering also included.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
$79,806 $79,806 $79,806 $79,806
$478,836 $399,030 $399,030 $399,030
1,880 hours per year
Technical Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - -
Associate Planner and support $112 - - - -
Planning Technician and support $104 - - - -
- - - -
$0 $0 $0 $0
Cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:

Travel (shared with planning and monitoring)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget

0.40 Contractors
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $2,814,112 $2,345,093 $2,345,093 $2,345,093 Bid assistance $127,914 $106,595 $106,595 $106,595
Construction oversight $852,761 $710,634 $710,634 $710,634 Post-construction maintenance $852,761 $710,634 $710,634 $710,634 Cost per period $4,647,548 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 Assumptions:
33%

1.50% percent of total construction cost required for bid assistance 10% percent of total construction cost required for construction oversight 10% percent of total construction cost required for post construction maintenance The total area of restoration that occurs in each period will be designed as three different projects (approximately 14 acres each).

Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place.

Two years of post-construction maintenance will be conducted in the period after construction takes place to maintain irrigation systems, conducting weeding, etc. Management costs after success criteria are met is included in development fee paid for same site (wetland mitigation fee is in addition).

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Contractor category
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Cost includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures
Total cost per year
Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation. Staff shared with other implementation tasks; the amount listed is the estimated portion to support wetland mitigation creation/restoration. proportion of travel costs that are used for restoration (40% used for planning and included in the planning spreadsheet, and 20% used for monitoring and included in the monitoring spreadsheet)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Capital Costs 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Vehicle purchase $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment - capital $0 $0 $0 $0
Field facilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractors - capital $0 $0 $0 $0
Recreation facilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $49,914 $41,595 $41,595 $41,595 Preserve staff and overhead $4,293,168 $4,987,640 $5,692,640 $7,102,640 Facilities Maintenance/Vehicles and
equipment $2,220,000 $2,590,000 $2,960,000 $3,700,000
Equipment - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities maintenance and utilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Water pumping $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractors - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Recreation - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Subtotal $0 $386,065 $1,543,536 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 Total $0 $386,065 $1,543,536 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 $35,650,388 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and Support $177 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner and Support $177 - - - -

0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
$8,319 $8,319 $8,319 $8,319
$49,914 $41,595 $41,595 $41,595
Preserve Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Preserve Manager and support $112 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Preserve maintenance staff 3,000 $75 5.0 7.0 8.0 10.0

5.05 7.05 8.05 10.05
$715,528 $997,528 $1,138,528 $1,420,528
$4,293,168 $4,987,640 $5,692,640 $7,102,640
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation
NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 9 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2016. Details provided by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.

Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per
FTE with Overhead
& Support
Preserve area per
position (acres)
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Position
Covered in facilities maintenance line item below.

Covered in facilities maintenance line item above.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Preserve maintenance including capital and operational costs for all maintenance activities (new cost approach for 2017 update) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30

5.0 7.0 8.0 10.0
Total cost per year $370,000 $518,000 $592,000 $740,000 Total cost per period $2,220,000 $2,590,000 $2,960,000 $3,700,000 Notes/Assumptions:

Annual cost per FTE $74,000
For 2017 update, revised the approach to this component of the cost estimate. Replaced detailed estimates of schedules for vehicle and equipment purchases, field facilities construction, and various maintenance activities with a per-FTE factor derived from analysis of the EBRPD budget for the Maintenance and Skilled Trades Department within the Parks Operations Division. This department acquires, manages, and services the vehicles, trailers, landscaping equipment, heavy equipment, police vehicles, boats and fire apparatus needed to manage and maintain EBRPD properties. The department also repairs and maintains buildings and utilities infrastructure, including water utilities, roads and trails, and sanitation systems.

Vehicles, Maintenance, and Fuel - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total number of FTEs 5.05 7.05 8.05 10.05
New trucks purchased $27,600 $1,200 $1,300 0 0 0 0
Old trucks retired 0 0 0 0
Total trucks 0 0 0 0
New 4WDs purchased $46,000 $2,400 $2,000 0 0 0 0
Old 4WDs retired 0 0 0 0
Total 4WDs 0 0 0 0
New ATVs purchased $7,900 $330 $390 0 0 0 0
Old ATVs retired 0 0 0 0
Total ATVs 0 0 0 0
New dump trucks purchased $39,400 $530 $530 0 0 0 0
Old dump trucks retired 0 0 0 0
Total dump trucks 0 0 0 0
New tractors purchased $52,600 $660 $1,310 0 0 0 0
Old tractors retired 0 0 0 0
Total tractors 0 0 0 0
New auger, mower, scraper for tractor $52,600 $0 $130 0 0 0 0 Old auger, mower, scraper retired 0 0 0 0
Total auger, mower, scraper 0 0 0 0
New small tractors $18,400 $390 $390 0 0 0 0
Old small tractors retired 0 0 0 0
Total small tractors 0 0 0 0
New light 4WD vehicles $13,100 $330 $330 0 0 0 0
Old light 4WD vehicles retired 0 0 0 0
Total light 4WD vehicles 0 0 0 0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:

Cost of 4WD truck includes cost of fire pumper, chain saw, sprayer, and small tool set for vehicle.

Number of vehicles, per period
Maintenance
cost per vehicle
per year
Purchase price per
vehicle
Total vehicle fuel and maintenance per period
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total vehicle fuel and maintenance per year
Total vehicle purchase cost per period
Fuel cost per
vehicle per year
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Equipment and Materials - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 New preserve area managed per period 10,067 5,033 5,033 5,033 5,033 Total preserve area managed per period 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Capital cost of equipment and materials per
year $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational cost of equipment and materials
per year $0 $0 $0 $0
Total capital cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Total operational cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Capital cost of equipment and materials per 1,000 preserve acres per year. $0 Operational cost of equipment and materials per 1,000 preserve acres per year.

Capital costs include the capital component of fire fighting equipment/gear, small tools (pliers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.), glasses, gloves, hard hats, rain gear, irrigation supplies, cargo container, landscape plants and grass, oak trees, lumber, and truck hauling services.

Operational costs include the operational component of fire fighting equipment/gear, small tools (pliers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.), glasses, gloves, hard hats, rain gear, irrigation supplies, cargo container, landscape plants and grass, oak trees, lumber, and truck hauling services.

Operational costs also include portable radios, small pumps, piping, generator, saw, and demolition hammers.

Field Facilities - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total preserve area managed per period 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Total field offices/parking areas - - - -
New field offices/parking areas - - - -
Cost per period for offices/workshops $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
10,000 Number of acres per workshop/parking area
$556,000 Cost to build a workshop/parking area
Note: Field facilities contain an area for equipment storage, a manager's office, a shared office, a locker room, and restrooms.

Based on experience to date, cost assumes donated portable building, with costs representing transportation, installation, utilities, etc.

Facilities Maintenance and Utilities - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) Cost per facility per
year
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total facilities per period - - - - - -
Maintenance cost per year $9,900 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utilities cost per year $5,300 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Water Pumping - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total preserve area managed 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Total cost per year $0 $0 $0 $0
Total cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 Annual cost for pump and well drilling per 1,000 acres Total cost per period
Total cost per year
Number of new units bought per period
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Contractors - operational: for 2017 update assume included in preserve management staffing cost 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total pond area managed 14 22 30 38
Total preserve area managed 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Routine dirt road maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0
Feral pig management $0 $0 $0 $0
Pond maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0
Weed management $0 $0 $0 $0
Other maintenance services $0 $0 $0 $0
Total per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Cost for pond maintenance (dredging) per acre of pond every 5 years. $0 Cost of dirt road maintenance per 100 miles of road per year. 100 miles of dirt roads on preserves
3 miles of dirt roads per 1,000 acres of preserve
$0 Cost of feral pig management per year per 1,000 acres managed $0 Cost of weed management per 1,000 acres of preserve per year. $0 Cost for other maintenance services per 1,000 acres of preserve per year.

Other maintenance services include mowing, grading, pest control, disking for fire breaks, fencing, alarms, janitorial services (pond maintenance subtracted based on the yearly pond maintenance costs above) Contractors - capital - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total preserve area managed 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Construction services $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Cost for construction services per 1,000 preserve acres per year Construction services includes roadway design, paving, fencing, grading, weather station, and boundary surveying services Recreation Facilities and Maintenance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total facilities per period - - - -
Facilities cost - capital, per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities cost - maintenance and operations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:

For this estimate, assumed costs covered by the East Bay Regional Park District. $0 Cost per unit for recreation facilities.
$0 Annual maintenance and operations cost for recreation facilities Contractor category
Total cost per period
Total facilities capital cost
Total cost per year
Contractor category
Contract value per period
Contract value per 5-year period
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost Capital Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $113,082 $357,435 $392,528 $392,528 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $7,500 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250
Field data collection (contractors) $1,889,302 $2,176,122 $2,724,870 $3,160,471 Directed research $570,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000
Adaptive management $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 Operational Subtotal $0 $466,449 $430,860 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 Total $0 $466,449 $430,860 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 $14,882,897 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Associate Planner and support $112 0.05 0.30 0.33 0.33

0.075 0.325 0.358 0.358
$18,847 $71,487 $78,506 $78,506
$113,082 $357,435 $392,528 $392,528
1,880 hours per year
Technical Staff and Overhead (shared with planning and restoration/creation) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Senior scientist and support $177 - - - -
Technical support $104 - - - -
- - - -
$0 $0 $0 $0
Cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Capital costs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Position
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Total cost per year
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Travel (shared with planning and restoration/creation)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $7,500 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget

0.20 Field Data Collection (Contractors)
On-going and Construction Monitoring
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
10,067 5,033 5,033 5,033 5,033
13 118 99 99 99
9 27 23 23 23
2 7 6 6 6
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
pre-construction surveys $2,694 1 site 6 6 6 6
subtotal $16,164 $16,164 $16,164 $16,164
construction monitoring $5,957 1 site 1 1 1 1
subtotal $5,957 $5,957 $5,957 $5,957
post-acquisition biological inventories $18 1 acre 839 1,007 1,007 1,007 subtotal $15,238 $18,286 $18,286 $18,286
monitoring: restoration, creation and
enhancement sites $10,776 10 acres 3 27 44 40
subtotal $3,233 $29,095 $47,414 $43,104
status and trends monitoring: key covered
species and ecosystems $18 1 acre 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 subtotal $274,292 $365,722 $457,153 $548,583
$314,884 $435,224 $544,974 $632,094
$1,889,302 $2,176,122 $2,724,870 $3,160,471
Assumptions:

Implementing entity monitoring staff will plan, coordinate, and report on the monitoring categories described below.

Contractors will conduct the field monitoring and data analysis. 10%

0.25 Ratio of area of other covered activities in preserves to area created/restored.

Planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers.

Post-acquisition inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of noxious weeds.

Status and trends monitoring is assumed to occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.

Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Implementation monitoring will be conducted by the GIS/Database technician in conjunction with the other monitoring staff. The cost for the GIS/database technician's time will be covered by the program administration cost category. The cost for the monitoring staffs' time is assumed to be included in the other monitoring categories.

Preconstruction surveys are assumed to occur prior to construction of covered activites on the Preserve System. Preconstruction surveys are for the following species only: Townsend's bigeared bat, San Joaquin kit fox, golden eagle, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and covered shrimp species. Surveys are assumed to require one visit by two associate biologists at $160/hour each. They are assumed to occur in the same 5-year period in which construction occurs. Assumes negative findings.

Number of restoration sites per period
Total acres of land added to reserve for management and monitoring each period New acres created/restored per period
Proportion of travel costs that are used for monitoring (40% used for planning and included in the planning spreadsheet, and 40% used for restoration and included in the restoration spreadsheet).

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Monitoring type Cost per unit Unit
Average area requiring monitoring per year (acres or sites) and average annual cost per period Number of preserve covered activities requiring pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring per period (sites)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.

Bay Area billing rate, assuming all work will be conducted from a local office (no per diem needed).

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Program staff and overhead $226,164 $188,470 $188,470 $0 Legal assistance $210,000 $175,000 $0 $0
NEPA/CEQA $493,300 $493,300 $493,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $24,700 $24,700 $24,700 $0
CDFG 1602 $20,500 $20,500 $20,500 $0
NHPA $53,200 $53,200 $53,200 $0
Other $0 $632,307 $138,246 $36,900 $36,900 $36,900 $0
Total $0 $632,307 $138,246 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner and support $112 0.10 0.10 0.10 -

0.15 0.15 0.15 -
$37,694 $37,694 $37,694 $0
$226,164 $188,470 $188,470 $0
1,880 hours per year
Legal Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $210,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $385,000
Assumptions:
$35,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 10 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles
4 4 4 - 20
Medium/more complex

10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles
4 4 4 - 20
Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles
2 2 2 - 10
10 10 10 - 30
Assumptions:

Of the total of approximately 50 projects that would require environmental compliance, 1/5 would require compliance in each 5-year period between years 1 and 25.

Operational Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
Total projects
Project size Size Range
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.

Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2016 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $6,490 $0 $1,800 $983 $3,245 $3,077 Medium/more complex

10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $51,923 $0 $2,340 $2,109 $4,543 $3,692 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000
or more 0.073 0.30 $129,809 $0 $4,063 $4,048 $11,034 $4,923 Assumptions:

For NEPA/CEQA, 401/404 and 1602 compliance, varying costs have more to do with project complexity than with project size.

Clean Water Act 401 and 1602 permits will be done on a per-project basis Cultural compliance permits will be done on a per-project basis.

Permitted projects would be completed within the time limit allotted for the permits; no extensions or re-application would be required.

The "other" compliance category could include county grading permits, road encroachment permits, or other local approvals.

NEPA/CEQA
Depending on the level of detail that is provided for specific projects, they may or may not be able to be covered under the HCP EIR/EIS.

For those without sufficient detail, additional environmental documentation may need to be prepared.

It is likely that the majority of those would be in the form of mitigated negative declarations.

Because it is difficult to provide a cost estimate for a project without knowing details such as location, size, etc., the following are some rough numbers based on level of controversy:

Small scale non-controversial projects = Cat Excl/Cat Exemp Medium scale more controversial projects = IS MND/EA FONSI Larger scale more controversial projects = EIR/EIS
All land acquisitions would be a categorical exemption under CEQA as well as under NEPA, when NEPA applies. 401/404
The cost of conducting wetland delineations is not included under CWA 404/401 compliance; it is expected that delineation would be covered under land acquisition costs.

Each project implemented under the HCP will qualify for compliance under the USACE 404 regional permit program for the inventory area; there is no fee for 404 permit applications Tasks associated with Section 402 compliance are not included in this cost estimate.

NHPA
Archaeological surveys can be conducted at an intensive level at a rate of 40 acres per person per day.

No more than one cultural resource will be identified per 40 acres or part thereof.

This scope of work and cost estimate does not include tasks necessary for significance evaluations and resolution of adverse effects.

CDFG 1602
Assumed wetland impact determined by AECOM based experience with typical projects that would be expected to be implemented by the Conservancy. For example wetland restoration/creation projects, stream restoration projects, adaptive management measures for existing wetland features and facilities improvements. In general, it is expected that impacts to wetlands and streams would be avoided if at all possible. Of the stream length indicated, assumed only 10% of that length would be impacted and an average stream width of 10 feet.

Contra Costa Conservancy staff will prepare permit applications and notification for the 401, 404 and 1600 applications, thereby resulting in no consultant cost for permit preparation. This table also assumes that the permits for Water Quality Certification (CWA 401) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (DFG 1602) will not be secured under programmatic or Master permit processes.

CWA 401 fee cost estimate is based on impacts to jurisdictional waters of the state rather than project size. Fee is an average based on the minimum and maximum expected impacts. State Water Resources Control Board Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective Date 11/16/2016) Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/ DFG 1602 costs are estimated based on the assumed cost of project activities within DFW jurisdiction per Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616, and the fee schedule corresponding to the project costs. Average cost based on mean of minimum and maximum fee amounts for standard agreements.

Project Impacts to
Wetlands for CWA 401 Compliance Category
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within
DFG jurisdiction
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective October 1, 2016. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=130459&inline D.1.a
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Remedial Measures for Maximum Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Total $0 $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation cost category Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per
period $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $243,933 $147,025 $852,761 $2,131,903 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,682 3,292 5,371 4,476 4,476 4,476 Cost for remedial measures for
preserves per period $55,170 $23,644 $38,572 $32,143
Cost for other remedial measures
per period $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Total cost per period $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 Assumptions:
2% Percent of annual preserve management and maintenance cost assumed to be needed for preserve remedial actions. 10% Percent of created/restored habitat for which remedial measures will be required. $359 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 70% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 9 occurring in years 1 - 5 Implementation Period (Years)
Capital costs
Remedial actions are assumed to occur in the second 5-year period after habitat is created/restored or preserve land is purchased, with the exception of remedial actions for habitat created/restored in years 21-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 26-30 so that it can be included in this cost estimate.

The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Contingency Fund for Maximum Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition and habitat restoration
capital costs $0 $0 $0 $23,755,424 $22,572,053 $24,220,473 $27,275,781 $97,823,731 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $1,187,771 $1,128,603 $1,211,024 $1,363,789 $4,891,187 Assumptions:

5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency D.1.a
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $428,011
Land Acquisition $0
Planning and Design $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0
Environmental Compliance $0
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,168,847
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $422,375
Remedial Measures $0
Contingency $0
Total $3,019,233
Capital Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $0 Included in staff and overhead costs Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 Captured in annual operating costs Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 Captured in annual operating costs Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Total $0
Operational Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $428,011 Reduced staffing and no legal and finanical contractor costs.

Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,168,847 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $422,375 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,019,233
Total preserve acres 30,200
Annual average cost per acre managed $100
Percent of average annual cost years 26 - 30 19%
D.1.a
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-1
APPENDIX E: ENDOWMENT MODEL
Tables E.1 and E.2 present the endowment model results for the initial and maximum UDA, respectively.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 : HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Update) East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-1
Table E.1: Endowment Fund - Initial Urban Development Area (2016 Dollars) Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Opening Fund Balance1 $2,202,896 $4,497,108 $6,865,881 $9,311,640 $11,836,886 $14,444,203 $17,136,257 $19,915,803 Revenue 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 Investment Earnings2 107,134 181,696 258,681 338,168 420,239 504,977 592,468 682,804 Total Revenues $2,294,212 $2,368,774 $2,445,759 $2,525,246 $2,607,317 $2,692,055 $2,779,546 $2,869,882 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $2,294,212 $2,368,774 $2,445,759 $2,525,246 $2,607,317 $2,692,055 $2,779,546 $2,869,882 Closing Fund Balance $4,497,108 $6,865,881 $9,311,640 $11,836,886 $14,444,203 $17,136,257 $19,915,803 $22,785,685

Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Opening Fund Balance1 $22,785,685 $25,748,838 $28,808,292 $31,967,180 $35,228,731 $38,596,283 $42,073,279 $45,663,279 Revenue 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 Investment Earnings2 776,075 872,377 971,810 1,074,473 1,180,474 1,289,919 1,402,922 1,519,597 Total Revenues $2,963,153 $3,059,455 $3,158,888 $3,261,551 $3,367,552 $3,476,997 $3,590,000 $3,706,675 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $2,963,153 $3,059,455 $3,158,888 $3,261,551 $3,367,552 $3,476,997 $3,590,000 $3,706,675 Closing Fund Balance $25,748,838 $28,808,292 $31,967,180 $35,228,731 $38,596,283 $42,073,279 $45,663,279 $49,369,954 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0-9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2 )) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5-9.

Sources: Appendix C (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-2
Table E.1: Endowment Fund Cash Flow - Initial Urban Development Area (2016 Dollars) (continued) Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Ongoing Total
26 27 28 29 30 31+ Year 1 - 30
Opening Fund Balance $49,369,954 $53,197,095 $57,148,619 $61,228,567 $65,441,113 $69,790,566 $2,202,896 Fee Revenue 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 - 45,928,632 Investment Earnings2 1,640,064 1,764,446 1,892,870 2,025,468 2,162,376 2,268,193 21,659,038 Total Revenues $3,827,142 $3,951,524 $4,079,948 $4,212,546 $4,349,454 $2,268,193 $- Net Post-Permit Costs2 - - - - - 2,268,193 -
Net Cash Flow $3,827,142 $3,951,524 $4,079,948 $4,212,546 $4,349,454 $- $-

Closing Fund Balance $53,197,095 $57,148,619 $61,228,567 $65,441,113 $69,790,566 $69,790,566 $69,790,566 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0-9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2)) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5-9.

Sources: Appendix C (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-3
Table E.2: Endowment Fund - Maximum Urban Development
Area (2016 Dollars)
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Opening Fund Balance1 $1,748,669 $4,577,926 $7,499,134 $10,515,281 $13,629,453 $16,844,836 $20,164,719 $23,592,498 Revenue 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 Investment Earnings2 101,163 193,114 288,053 386,078 487,289 591,789 699,685 811,088 Total Revenues $2,829,257 $2,921,208 $3,016,147 $3,114,172 $3,215,383 $3,319,883 $3,427,779 $3,539,182 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $2,829,257 $2,921,208 $3,016,147 $3,114,172 $3,215,383 $3,319,883 $3,427,779 $3,539,182 Closing Fund Balance $4,577,926 $7,499,134 $10,515,281 $13,629,453 $16,844,836 $20,164,719 $23,592,498 $27,131,680 Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Opening Fund Balance1 $27,131,680 $30,785,885 $34,558,852 $38,454,439 $42,476,634 $46,629,550 $50,917,436 $55,344,678 Revenue 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 Investment Earnings2 926,111 1,044,873 1,167,494 1,294,101 1,424,822 1,559,792 1,699,148 1,843,034 Total Revenues $3,654,205 $3,772,967 $3,895,588 $4,022,195 $4,152,916 $4,287,886 $4,427,242 $4,571,128 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $3,654,205 $3,772,967 $3,895,588 $4,022,195 $4,152,916 $4,287,886 $4,427,242 $4,571,128 Closing Fund Balance $30,785,885 $34,558,852 $38,454,439 $42,476,634 $46,629,550 $50,917,436 $55,344,678 $59,915,806 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0-9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2)) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5-9.

Sources: Appendix D (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-4
Table E.2: Endowment Fund Cash Flow - Maximum Urban Development Area (2016 Dollars) (continued) Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Ongoing Total
26 27 28 29 30 31+ Year 1 - 30
Opening Fund Balance1 $59,915,806 $64,635,495 $69,508,574 $74,540,028 $79,735,004 $85,098,817 $1,748,669

Revenue 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 - 57,289,973 Investment Earnings2 1,991,595 2,144,985 2,303,360 2,466,882 2,635,719 2,765,712 26,060,175 Total Revenues $4,719,689 $4,873,079 $5,031,454 $5,194,976 $5,363,813 $2,765,712 $- Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - 2,765,712 -
Net Cash Flow $4,719,689 $4,873,079 $5,031,454 $5,194,976 $5,363,813 $0 $-

Closing Fund Balance $64,635,495 $69,508,574 $74,540,028 $79,735,004 $85,098,817 $85,098,817 $85,098,817 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0-9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2)) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5-9.

Sources: Appendix D (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report F-1
APPENDIX F: ACTUAL REVENUE THROUGH 2016
The following tables provide detail for revenue received in Year 0-9 (2007 through 2016) of the Plan.

Table F.1 provides the index used to inflate actual costs and revenues from prior years to 2016 dollars. The index is based on changes in the Conservancy’s mitigation fee schedule, thus replicating the same index used to reflect inflation in Plan costs. The Conservancy’s fees are adjusted annually based on published price indices and periodically based on prior audits (the 2011 and 2013 audit).26 Table F.1: Inflation Index
Plan
Year
Fee
Adopted
in Year…
Uses
Inflation
Index
Data for
Year…
Is Applied
to Fiscal
Data For
Year…
Represents
Current
Dollars
For Year…
Zone 1
Fee
Inflation
Index
9 2017 2016 2016 $2016 $13,491.41 1.0000 2017 Audit
8 2016 2015 2015 $2015 12,788.47 0.9479
7 2015 2014 2014 $2014 11,877.42 0.8804
6 2014 2013 2013 $2013 11,146.99 0.8262
5 2013 2012 2012 $2012 10,076.00 0.7468 2013 Audit
4 2012 2011 2011 $2011 10,584.32 0.7845
3 2011 2010 2010 $2010 10,662.15 0.7903
2 2010 2009 2009 $2009 10,558.09 0.7826
1 2009 2008 2008 $2008 10,731.11 0.7954
0 2008 2007 2007 $2007 12,077.65 0.8952
0 2007 2006 2006 $2006 12,456.88 0.9233
0 2006 2005 2005 $2005 11,919.00 0.8835 2006 Plan
Note: Fees for all three UDA zones increase at the same rate. The Zone 1 fee is used in this table.

Fees reflect those charged to Participating Special Entities by the Conservancy, and include both annual inflation adjustments and periodic adjustments based on prior audits, as required by the 2006 Plan.

Source: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.

Table F.2 shows actual revenue to date by source in current dollars (the year received) and inflated to 2016 dollars.
26 See the 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 : HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Update) East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report F-2
Table F.2: Revenue Summary 2007-2016 (Years 0-9)
Year Thru 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Annual
Avg.

Plan Year 0-5 6 7 8 9 0-9 6-9
Current Dollars
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $1,335,717 $1,703,067 $514,563 $975,432 $794,365 $5,323,144 $996,857 Wetland Mitigation Fee 383,296 4,087 207,226 17,564 67,651 679,824 74,132 Rural Road Fee 1,065,044 122,792 70,351 18,529 35,818 1,312,534 61,873 Temporary Impact Fee 830,779 296,551 432,631 59,577 84,252 1,703,790 218,253 Subtotal $3,614,836 $2,126,497 $1,224,771 $1,071,102 $982,086 $9,019,292 $1,351,114 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges 182,004 62,452 35,448 25,816 8,658 314,378 33,094 Payments For Non-covered Activities 3,148,462 - - - - 3,148,462 - Other Development Exactions 812,310 146,502 38,298 141,709 20,160 1,158,979 86,667 Subtotal $4,142,776 $208,954 $73,746 $167,525 $28,818 $4,621,819 $119,761 Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds 30,584,482 1,444,339 14,947,687 1,809,042 7,363,644 56,149,194 6,391,178 Local Land Capital Funds 15,602,742 18,500 5,098,850 224,250 789,700 21,734,042 1,532,825 Local Operating Funds 1,565,808 614,805 534,131 574,651 590,776 3,880,171 578,591 Subtotal $47,753,032 $2,077,644 $20,580,668 $2,607,943 $8,744,120 $81,763,407 $8,502,594 Other Funds
Interest Earnings 182,210 2,937 6,441 12,912 19,905 224,405 10,549 Miscellaneous 13,401 - - - 243 13,644 61
Subtotal $195,611 $2,937 $6,441 $12,912 $20,148 $238,049 $10,610

Total $55,706,255 $4,416,032 $21,885,626 $3,859,482 $9,775,172 $95,642,567 $9,984,078 D.1.a
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report F-3
Table F.2: Revenue Summary 2007-2016 (Years 0-9) (continued) Year Thru 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Annual
Avg.

Plan Year 0-5 6 7 8 9 0-9 6-9
Development Fee Index varies 0.7879 0.8716 0.9288 1.0000 Constant Dollars (2016 $)
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $1,597,438 2,161,527 590,366 1,050,207 794,365 $6,193,903 $1,149,116 Wetland Mitigation Fee 462,897 5,187 237,754 18,910 67,651 792,399 82,376 Rural Road Fee 1,287,188 155,847 80,715 19,949 35,818 1,579,517 73,082 Temporary Impact Fee 991,153 376,382 496,364 64,144 84,252 2,012,295 255,286 Subtotal $4,338,676 $2,698,943 $1,405,199 $1,153,210 $982,086 $10,578,114 $1,559,860 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges 218,645 79,264 40,670 27,795 8,658 375,032 39,097 Payments For Non-Covered Activities 3,358,635 - - - - 3,358,635 - Other Development Exactions 978,158 185,940 43,940 152,572 20,160 1,380,770 100,653 Subtotal $4,555,438 $265,204 $84,610 $180,367 $28,818 $5,114,437 $139,750 Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds 36,605,167 1,833,150 17,149,710 1,947,720 7,363,644 64,899,391 7,073,556 Local Land Capital Funds 18,384,051 23,480 5,849,989 241,441 789,700 25,288,661 1,726,153 Local Operating Funds 1,845,638 780,308 612,817 618,703 590,776 4,448,242 650,651 Subtotal $56,834,856 $2,636,938 $23,612,516 $2,807,864 $8,744,120 $94,636,294 $9,450,360 Other Funds
Interest Earnings 191,774 3,728 7,390 13,902 19,905 236,699 11,231 Miscellaneous 13,855 - - - 243 14,098 61
Subtotal $205,629 $3,728 $7,390 $13,902 $20,148 $250,797 $11,292

Total $65,934,599 $5,604,813 $25,109,715 $4,155,343 $9,775,172 $110,579,642 $11,161,261 Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Table F.1.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: ECCCHCP-NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study - Final Report - June 2017 (2471 :

1135 CLARENDON CRESCENT [email protected]
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94610 (510) 816-9458

MEMORANDUM
To: Abigail Fateman, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy From: Robert Spencer, Urban Economics
Date: February 17, 2021
Subject: 2020 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule
The East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (the Plan) requires that the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (the Conservancy) periodically update the Plan’s funding model to ensure that mitigation fees generated by development and other activities covered by the Plan are adequately covering their fair share of total Plan costs. This “periodic audit” as it is called in the Plan (or “fee audit”) results in an updated mitigation fee schedule based on a comprehensive review of all Plan costs and revenues. In between periodic audits the Conservancy updates fees annually based on inflation indexes prescribed by the Plan.

Local jurisdictions that are permittees under the Plan (the County of Contra Costa and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg) impose the Plan’s mitigation fees on development projects covered by the Plan within their respective jurisdictions, and forward fee revenue to the Conservancy to fund Plan implementation. For a small share of activities covered by the Plan, the Conservancy imposes the Plan’s mitigation fees directly on “participating special entities” (PSEs) such as public utilities that seek coverage under the Plan.

To date the Conservancy has been imposing mitigation fees on PSEs based on the results of the 2013 Fee Audit adjusted annually for inflation. Due to prior litigation, local jurisdictions have been imposing mitigation fees on development projects based on the original 2006 fees included in the Plan, also adjusted annually for inflation. Consequently, two mitigation fee schedules have been used to implement the Plan, one used by local jurisdictions for most covered activities, and one used by the Conservancy for that small share of covered activities associated with PSEs.

The Conservancy completed a fee audit in 2017 (Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study) as required by the Plan but did not adjust the PSE fee schedule pending the resolution of the prior litigation. Now that the prior litigation has been resolved, the Conservancy can adopt the 2017 Fee Audit and both local jurisdictions and PSEs can now use the same mitigation fee schedule.

The updated 2020 mitigation fee schedule based on the 2017 Fee Audit is shown in Table 1. The fee schedule is based on the mitigation fees from the 2017 Fee Audit adjusted for inflation for the intervening three years (2018, 2019, and 2020).

The updated fee schedule results in only a modest change (+/- 5%) to the current development fees that are by all projects covered under the Plan. Wetland fees, paid in addition to the development fee fees when specific land cover types are disturbed, change more substantially because of the results of the 2013 and 2017 Fee Audits.

This fee schedule will be adjusted again for annual inflation this spring and again in 2022. The next periodic review will be conducted in 2022 with results reflected into the 2023 fee schedule.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: HCP-NCCP Fee Audit Memo from Urban Economics - 02.17.21 (2471 : HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Update) To: Abigail Fateman 2020 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule February 17, 2021 Page 2
Table 1: 2020 Mitigation Fee Schedule Based On 2017 Fee Audit Land Cover
Fee
Basis
Current 2020 Fee
Updated
2020 Fee
Based
On 2017
Fee Audit
Change from
Current 2020 Fee
Cities/
County
ConservancyCities/
County
Conservancy
Development Fee
Zone 1 per acre $17,140 $15,694 $16,442 (4.1%) 4.8%
Zone 2 per acre $34,280 $31,387 $32,884 (4.1%) 4.8%
Zone 3 per acre $8,571 $7,847 $8,221 (4.1%) 4.8%
Wetland Fee
Riparian per acre $84,240 $109,088 $99,235 17.8% (9.0%) Perennial Wetland per acre $115,275 $160,276 $150,393 30.5% (6.2%) Seasonal Wetland per acre $249,763 $371,531 $351,945 40.9% (5.3%) Alkali Wetland per acre $236,462 $375,291 $355,792 50.5% (5.2%) Ponds per acre $125,621 $203,316 $193,666 54.2% (4.7%)
Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $63,549 $101,658 $96,834 52.4% (4.7%) Slough / Channel per acre $143,355 $148,158 $138,277 (3.5%) (6.7%) Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $687 $414 $510 (25.7%) 23.2% Streams (>25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $1,035 $621 $766 (26.0%) 23.3% D.1.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: HCP-NCCP Fee Audit Memo from Urban Economics - 02.17.21 (2471 : HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Update) Index data used for Annual Fee Adjustments
Index 2017 2018 2019 2020
CPI 269.483 277.414 289.896 297.007
HPI 327.44 359.22 318.3 376.06
The changes in the two indices utilized to calculate annual adjustments to the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees are shown above. The two indices include:
• The Consumer Price Index data for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Combined Statistical Area for all Urban consumers. In 2013/2014 the index name was changed, and the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index is used. Additional information regarding this index can be found at: www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_sanfrancisco_msa.htm.
• The Home Price Index data for the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division (MSAD). In 2013/2014 the index name was changed name from Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA to Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, however the area did not change. Additional information regarding this index can be found at: www.ofheo.gov/HPI.asp.

D.1.c
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: HCP-NCCP Index Fee Data (2471 : HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Update) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Subject/Title: Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy Per AB 481
Prepared by: Tim Herbert, Captain
Submitted by: Thomas Hansen, Acting Assistant City Manager

PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an ordinance approving Brentwood Police Department Policy 708, Military Equipment, Acquisition, and Use, as required by AB 481 (2021).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
N/A

PREVIOUS ACTION
N/A

BACKGROUND
Last fall, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481 or the Bill), adding a new reporting and authorizing process to California law with regard to the purchase and use of certain law enforcement tools. In particular, AB 481 requires each specified California law enforcement agency (LEA) to obtain approval from the applicable governing body via adoption of a "military equipment" use policy (the Policy) by ordinance (the Ordinance), prior to the LEA funding, acquiring, or using tools identified as “military equipment.” Items deemed to be "military equipment" by AB 481 are used as a component of overall best practices for LEAs throughout the country. These tools have been tested in the field and are used by LEAs to enhance citizen safety and officer safety. The loss of these items would jeopardize the welfare of our citizens and our peace officers within the Brentwood Police Department.

The term "military equipment," as used in AB 481, does not necessarily indicate equipment that the military has used or provided to the LEA. Pursuant to AB 481, items deemed to be "military equipment" include, but are not limited to, unmanned aerial or ground vehicles, armored vehicles, command and control vehicles, less lethal pepper balls, less lethal shotguns, less lethal 40mm projectile launchers, long-range acoustic devices, and flashbangs.

The Brentwood Police Department is committed to using the most up-to-date tools and equipment to safeguard the citizens of Brentwood. Many items deemed “military equipment" by AB 481 are employed by Brentwood Police Department and LEAs across the country to specifically reduce risk to our community members. These items provide peace officers with the ability to safely resolve volatile situations that otherwise might rise to the level of a lethal force encounter. The items at issue in this report and the accompanying Military Equipment Use Policy 708 also provide Brentwood Police Department's peace officers with vital tools that facilitate compliance with its stringent use of force policy.

D.2
Packet Pg. 536
Other items deemed "military equipment" via AB 481 include foundational equipment such as rifles. These rifles allow peace officers to address lethal threats from a greater distance and with greater precision.

The Brentwood Police Department policy 708, “Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use” adheres to this new California law with respect to the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment. In addition, Assembly Bill 481 requires the City to:
 Publish the draft military equipment use policy to the Police Department’s website 30 days ahead of a public hearing to approve the policy. The Department’s draft policy was published on March 25, 2022, 31 days prior to this public hearing.  Publish an annual report to include each type of military equipment approved by City Council.
 Hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual military equipment report.
 Have the City Council annually review the military equipment use ordinance and determine whether to continue the military equipment use policy or not, or whether to disapprove a renewal of a type of military equipment, or amend the military equipment use policy if City Council determines that the military equipment does not comply with standards for approval.

In adopting the ordinance, to which the Military Equipment Policy is an exhibit, the City Council is required by AB 481 to make the following findings, each of which the Department contends can be made:
 The military equipment identified in the policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

The equipment identified in Policy 708 is necessary for the Brentwood Police Department, as there are no reasonable alternative tools that law enforcement can use to achieve the same goal of both officer and civilian safety. Though the Department does not use every item of military equipment identified in Policy 708, those tools it does use are indispensable to the police work that keeps Brentwood safe and have no practical substitutes.  The proposed policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

The policy, attached as Exhibit A to the Ordinance and identified as Brentwood Police Department Policy 708, will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties in that it will create publically-known and adopted usage guidelines and standards, which will be reviewed annually.
 If purchasing the equipment identified in the policy, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

The Department is not purchasing additional equipment identified in the policy.

D.2
Packet Pg. 537
 Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

The City had no previous military equipment policy; this finding therefore does not apply.

After hearing any public comments, if the City Council votes to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance by title only, then as is the City Council’s practice, the second reading would be placed on the consent calendar for the City Council’s next regular meeting.

New Acquisition
Along with seeking authorization to use preexisting equipment, the Brentwood Police Department also would like to inform the City Council and the public that it will acquire, fund, and use a new piece of equipment. In this regard, the Department plans to purchase new Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) replacement rifles in the fiscal year 2022/2023.

The Police Department plans to purchase the LMT MARS-LA automatic rifle 5.56mm. The LMT MARS-LA automatic rifle features a semi-auto piston rifle system, a railed MLOK upper receiver, Ambidextrous Charging Handle, S-A Piston Bolt Carrier Group, and a 14.5" chrome-lined Barrel.

These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our SWAT officers, and are therefore exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per Government Code § 7070 (c)(10). Their acquisition has been included in this staff report in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 2021/22 General Fund Operating Budget includes funding for the use of preexisting equipment. The draft 2022/23 – 2023/24 General Fund Operating Budget will include amounts for the acquisition of new equipment as detailed in the staff report. The draft 2022/23 – 2023/24 General Fund Operating Budget will be presented to the City Council for consideration and direction at the Operating Budget workshop on May 10, 2022.

Attachment:

Ordinance
Attachments:

Ordinance Military Equipment Use policy 708 Draft V3
Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH
D.2
Packet Pg. 538
Draft Ordinance 2022-### Page 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING BRENTWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY 708, MILITARY

EQUPMENT FUNDING, ACQUISITION, AND USE
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, approved September 30, 2021, effective January 1, 2022, and codified as Chapter 12.8 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 7070, et seq.), requires a local law enforcement agency, such as the Brentwood Police Department, to have a military equipment use policy approved by the City Council prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring, collaborating with other jurisdictions about the deployment of military equipment, or using military equipment; and
WHEREAS, in order to fulfill the above requirement, Brentwood Police Department Policy 708, “Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy (“Policy”) is attached as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 defines military equipment in Government Code Section 7070(c) to include a wide range of equipment as described in the Policy; and WHEREAS, in order to promote public safety, civil rights, and officer safety, the Brentwood Police Department desires to continue using, seeking funding for, acquiring, and collaborating, when necessary, with other law enforcement agencies, in the use of the military equipment described in the Policy; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 7071(a)(2) requires a law enforcement agency to commence a city council approval process for the Policy no later than May 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code Section 7071(b), the proposed military equipment use policy was made available on the Brentwood Police Department website on March 25, 2022, which is more than 30 days before the April 26, 2022, meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing on this matter during a regularly-scheduled City Council meeting, and considered all written and verbal comments, as well as the report and presentation from staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are adopted as true and correct and as if restated here in full.

Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Brentwood makes the following findings:

A. The City Council has examined the Policy and finds that the Police Department has submitted all information described in Government Code Section 7070(d), enabling the Council to make the following findings:

1. The military equipment identified in the policy is necessary because there is no D.2.a
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Ordinance Military Equipment Use policy 708 Draft V3 (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Draft Ordinance 2022-### Page 2
reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The proposed policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

The Policy, attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance and identified as Brentwood Police Department Policy 708, will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties in that it will create publically-known and adopted usage guidelines and standards, which will be reviewed annually.

3. If purchasing the equipment identified in the policy, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

The Department is not purchasing additional equipment identified in the policy.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

The City had no previous military equipment policy; this finding therefore does not apply.

Section 3. Approval of the Policy. The City Council of the City of Brentwood approves the Brentwood Police Department Policy 708, “Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy, attached and incorporated as Exhibit A into this Ordinance. In doing so, the City Council directs that:

A. Staff is authorized to request, seek funding, acquire, collaborate with other jurisdictions, and use military equipment consistent with this Policy.

B. Staff shall maintain the Policy on the Police Department’s website page.

C. The Police Department shall annually hold a publicized community engagement meeting regarding the Department’s Policy and use of military equipment, pursuant to Government Code Section 7072(b).

D. The City Council shall annually review this Ordinance, the Policy, and the annual military equipment report prepared by the Police Department pursuant to Government Code Section 7072 and determine by resolution whether to continue the Ordinance and Policy or to modify such Policy or initiate the repeal of the Ordinance; and whether the use of the military D.2.a
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Ordinance Military Equipment Use policy 708 Draft V3 (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Draft Ordinance 2022-### Page 3
equipment in the past year has complied with the Policy, pursuant to Government Code Section 7071.

Section 4. Severability. If any sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions of this Ordinance are for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase or clause of this Ordinance whether or not any one or more sections, subsections, phrases or clauses may be declared invalid or unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

Section 5. CEQA. This Ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” as codified at Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR Sections 15000, et seq.) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it constitutes an organizational or administrative governmental activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. If determined to be a “project” under CEQA, then the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.

Section 7. Publication. The City Clerk’s Office shall publish and post the Ordinance in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

Section 8. Codification. The Ordinance shall not be codified in the Brentwood Municipal Code.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 26th day April 2022, by the following vote:

D.2.a
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Ordinance Military Equipment Use policy 708 Draft V3 (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Draft Ordinance 2022-### Page 4
Exhibit A
BRENTWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY 708

MILITARY EQUPMENT FUNDING, ACQUISITION, AND USE
D.2.a
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Ordinance Military Equipment Use policy 708 Draft V3 (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1
Policy
708
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
State
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
708.1.1 DEFINITIONS
State
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
708.2 POLICY
State
It is the policy of the Brentwood Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 708.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
Best Practice
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Brentwood Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
708.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
State
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:

See attachment A
708.5 APPROVAL
State
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior D.2.b
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 708.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
State
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 708.7 ANNUAL REPORT
State
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 708.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
State
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 4
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Attachment A
D.2.b
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 5
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 8 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Colt A1/A2 rifles converted to fire less-lethal paint marking Simunition rounds.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Colt A1/A2 semiautomatic rifle converted to fire less-lethal paint marking Simunition rounds.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: To train officers how to deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $4000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: Officers use the rifles to train, but due to the fact they still fire less-lethal projectiles (paint marking Simunition rounds) the officers are still required to adhere to requirements set forth by law and policy.

Other Notes: These rifles are converted standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefore exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c) (10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 6
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 31 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Colt A-2 semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Colt A-2 semiautomatic rifle features a carrying handle. Iron sights, and a 16” Barrel.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Officers may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of some general guidelines for deploying the patrol rifle may include but are not limited to:

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $25,200. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: Officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 20-hour patrol rifle course as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our officers and therefor exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 7
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 20 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Colt M4 semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Colt M4 semiautomatic rifle features a magpul foregrip, magpul rear sights, and a 16” Barrel.

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $26,400. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 8
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 4 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The LWRC semiautomatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The LWRC semiautomatic rifle features a railed forend, selfregulating short-stroke gas piston system, dual control fully ambidextrous lower receiver, and a 8.5” cold hammer forged barrel.

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $10,000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our traffic officers and therefor exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 9
Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Automatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 15 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The COLT M4 Commando automatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The COLT M4 Commando automatic rifle features a 11.5” Cold Hammer Forged Barrel.

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

2. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $21,000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: Officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 20-hour patrol rifle course, attend a select fire training course, as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: These rifles are standard issue service weapons for our SWAT officers and therefor exempted from this Military Equipment Use Policy per CA Gov’t Code §7070 (c)(10). They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
10 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Automatic Rifles and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 4 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The LMT MARS-LA automatic rifle is capable of firing 5.56mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The LMT MARS-LA automatic rifle features the railed forend, MLC Upper Receiver, Ambidextrous Charging Handle, S-A Piston Bolt Carrier Group, and a 14.5” Cold Hammer Forged Barrel.

7. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

8. When an officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

9. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

10. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

11. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

12. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $8,000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
11 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifle and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 2 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The Accuracy International AE MkII Sniper Rifle is capable of firing a 7.62mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: Accuracy International AE MkII bolt-action .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO Rifle.

1. 20" heavy profile barrel

2. Two stage trigger
Purpose/Authorized Uses: This rifle is authorized for use by a Sniper-trained, SWAT Operator only and may be deployed in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of some general guidelines for deploying the rifle may include but are not limited to:

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

2. When the officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $10,000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: In addition to patrol rifle and standard SWAT Operator training, SWAT Snipers must successfully complete a CA POST certified sniper course as well as regular SWAT Sniper training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: The Brentwood Police Department does not presently have a SWAT Sniper among its staff, so there are no Brentwood Police personnel presently authorized to use this equipment. They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
12 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifle and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The H&K MP5 is capable of firing a 40 cal projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The H&K MP5 is a sub machine capable of firing either semi or fully automatic.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: This rifle is authorized for use by a SWAT Operator only and may be deployed in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. The SWAT Operator has to have been to the select fire course and pass a police rifle qualification with the rifle. Examples of some general guidelines for deploying the rifle may include but are not limited to:

7. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

8. When the officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

9. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

10. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

11. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

12. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Training Required: SWAT officers must successfully complete a CA POST certified 20-hour patrol rifle course, attend a select fire training course, as well as regular department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: The Brentwood Police Department does not presently have a SWAT member assigned to the rifle, so there are no Brentwood Police personnel presently authorized to use this equipment.

They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
13 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Semiautomatic Rifle and Ammunition - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The H&K MP5 is capable of firing a 9mm projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: The H&K MP5 is a sub machine capable of firing either semi or fully automatic.

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

2. When the officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Firearms.

Other Notes: The Brentwood Police Department does not presently have a SWAT member assigned to the rifle, so there are no Brentwood Police personnel presently authorized to use this equipment.

They have been included in this document in an abundance of caution and in the interest of transparency.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
14 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies Spede Heat Burning CS Gas Munition Quantity Owned/Sought: 30 Canisters Lifespan: 5 Years
Equipment Capabilities: 81.2 Gram Burning CS Tear Gas Munition Manufacturer Product Description: The Spede-Heat CS Grenade is a high volume, continuous burn that expels it’s payload in approximately 20-40 seconds. The payload is discharged through 4 gas ports on top of the canister, 3 on the side, and one on the bottom. This launch able grenade is 6.12in x 2/62in and holds approximately 2.9 oz of active agent.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: SWAT missions / crowd dispersal / high risk tactical missions / intermediate use of force
Fiscal Impacts: Each grenade costs approximately $24
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Chemical agents can be deployed anytime it is deem necessary to safely do so in a tactical situation. These agents greatly reduce the risk of injury to officers and suspects due to their intended effects. Most suspects give up instead of trying to withstand the discomfort of being exposed to these agents.

Training Required: In order to deploy or teach deployment methods, Instructors must attend a 40 hours CATO/POST approved Instructor course. Once individual operators from the SWAT Team have been trained, the deployment is subject to supervisor approval for deployment.

Other Notes: Although launch able, these grenades pose a high threat of fire from deployment. BPD employs several different delivery methods to minimize this risk.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
15 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies 40mm Direct Impact CS Rounds Quantity Owned/Sought: 100 rounds owned Lifespan: 5 years Equipment Capabilities: To be launched as a less-lethal impact weapon with a small chemical payload Manufacturer Product Description: The 40mm Direct Impact Munition is a point-of-aim, point-ofimpact direct fired round. An excellent solution whether you need to incapacitate a single subject or control a crowd. When loaded with CS powder, the Direct Impact combines blunt force trauma with the effects of an irritant powder, maximizing the potential for incapacitation.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: To incapacitate violent suspects / less-lethal intermediate use of force Fiscal Impacts: Approximately $30.30 per round
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Because these munitions are an intermediate use of force, they may deployed in a situation where a reasonable officer would believe them to be useful and lawful. Based on the chemical agent payload, which has a similar effect to OC Spray, proper decontamination regulations must be followed.

Training Required: Instructors for 40mm less lethal training must attend a 24 hour POST certified class and a 4 hours instructional course must be provided to officers deploying a 40mm launcher.

Annual trainings are also necessary for deployment.

Other Notes: Both 40mm non-chemical and CS payload crushable and sponge tip less lethal rounds are available for use at BPD. It is encouraged that officers deploy a non-chemical agent version, unless trained to deploy and decontaminate chemical agents.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
16 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies 6 Round 40mm Launcher Quantity Owned/Sought: 9 Launchers Owned – (5) 6
round launchers, (2) 4 round launchers, (2) single
round launchers
Lifespan: None, maintained by range staff
Equipment Capabilities: Launchers are capable of firing 40mm projectiles of varying payload Manufacturer Product Description: Designed for riot and tactical situations, DEF TECH 1440 40mm Tactical Launcher is a low profile, light weight launcher which can provide multiple follow up shots. A full Picatinny rail allows for multiple attachments.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Less Lethal launcher delivers impact and chemical projectiles Fiscal Impacts: $1,800 per unit
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Based on UOF – Intermediate level UOF - Training Required: Instructors must complete 24 hr POST certified course and user must complete a 4 hours course.

Other Notes: This launcher can deploy both chemical and non-chemical rounds. Specific training is provided to officers to determine the payload of the munition desired. This launcher can be used on patrol as a Less Lethal option or for tactical situations where a combination of chemical and nonchemical payloads are necessary.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
17 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies Shotgun Breaching Rounds – 12 gauge Quantity Owned/Sought: 14 rounds Lifespan: 10 years
Equipment Capabilities: These rounds are capable of defeating door hinges, locking mechanisms and glass for easy entry into a structure during tactical situations.

Manufacturer Product Description: The 12-gauge TKO breaching round is a 12 gauge shell loaded with a compressed zinc slug, utilizing smokeless powder as a propellant. The TKO is a widely used method to breach door locks or hinges for entry during tactical operations. When properly deployed, the TKO is capable of defeating door lock mechanisms, door knobs, hinges, dead bolts, safety chains, and pad locks on both wooden doors and hollow core doors. Upon impact with the target, the zinc slug disintegrates into a fine
Purpose/Authorized Uses: To defeat locked doors in tactical operations. Use is authorized after a planned mission is confirmed by Tac Commander during SWAT operations or when reasonable deemed necessary in a high risk patrol setting.

Fiscal Impacts: $12.00 per round
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Operator must be certified by a POST 16 hour class in the use of Breaching Shotgun.

Training Required: 16 hours POST approved course, bi-annual training is conducted Other Notes:

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
18 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Royal Arms 12 gauge Flash Bang Rounds
Quantity Owned/Sought: 6 rounds Lifespan: 10 years
Equipment Capabilities: Designed as a less lethal / diversionary device. Able to break glass or temporarily stun suspect.

Manufacturer Product Description: Designed as a Less Lethal / Diversionary Device which produces 185 dB and can breach solid wood doors, light steel, sliders, car windows and used in crawl spaces.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Operator must be certified by attending a POST certified 16 hours Shotgun Breacher Course and conduct bi-annual trainings.

Fiscal Impacts: $5 per round
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Less Lethal intermediate UOF guidelines apply. For use during tactical operations or when applicable and deemed safe during patrol functions.

Training Required: 16 hour POST certified course and Bi-annual trainings Other Notes:

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
19 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies 40mm Signaling Flare 50m Quantity Owned/Sought: 140 rounds Lifespan: 5 years
Equipment Capabilities: To be launched from a 40mm launcher and deliver a loud bang and emission of light to disperse a crowd deem unlawful
Manufacturer Product Description: This 40mm aerial warning/signaling munition, 50 m, is intended for use in situations where a stand-off distance is desired, giving the operator the ability to engage crowds, vehicles, or vessels. Launched from a 40mm platform, the munitions deflagrate at a set distance of 50 meters to deliver 170 dB of sound and 5 million candelas of light, noticeable day or night conditions. A tactile feature on the nose of the cone indicates the designated distance.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Crowd dispersion, glass breaking, knock and notice of residence and business during a tactical operation where an operator at the front door is in danger of inhabitants.

Fiscal Impacts: $50.00 per round
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: A POST certified 16 hours instructor course is required to administer training to operators. Bi-annual training in required for deployment Training Required: 16 hours POST certified Less Lethal Instructor Course Other Notes:

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
20 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies 40mm Signaling Flare 50m CS Payload Quantity Owned/Sought: 50 Rounds Lifespan: 5 Years
Equipment Capabilities: To launch a 40mm Signaling Flare which emits light, sound and a small payload of powdered CS chemical irritant.

Manufacturer Product Description: This 40mm aerial warning/signaling munition, 50 m, is intended for use in situations where a stand-off distance is desired, giving the operator the ability to engage crowds, vehicles, or vessels. Launched from a 40mm platform, the munitions deflagrate at a set distance of 50 meters to deliver 170 dB of sound and 5 million candelas of light, noticeable day or night conditions. A tactile feature on the nose of the cone indicates the designated distance.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Crowd dispersion, glass breaking, knock and notice of residence and business during a tactical operation where an operator at the front door is in danger of inhabitants.

These rounds also deliver a chemical payload which can assist in crowd dispersion.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
21 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Defense Technologies Stinger CS Rubber Ball Grenade Quantity Owned/Sought: 30 Grenades Lifespan: 5 Years
Equipment Capabilities: To deliver a payload of light, sound, impact from rubber balls as well as a chemical agent payload in an open air or closed environment.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Stinger CS Rubber Ball Grenade is a maximum effect device that delivers four stimuli for psychological and physiological effects. Rubber pellets, light, sound, and CS. The Stinger Grenade is most widely used as a crowd management tool by LE and Corrections. The Stinger Grenade has an initial 1.5 second delay that initiates fuze assembly separation, followed by another .5 second delay before the blast which is sufficient to project the rubber balls and chemical agent in a 50 foot radius.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Crowd control and violent suspect compliance. For use during tactical operations, as well as patrol situations where the device is deemed necessary for a peaceful resolution. Intermediate UOF.

Fiscal Impacts: $48.75 per grenade
Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: 24 hours NFDD Instructor Course is required to train operators in the use of this device. Bi-Annual training is recommended for operators.

Training Required: 24 hour POST Certified Instructor Course or Bi-Annual 4 hour training for NFDD Devices for operators.

Other Notes:

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
22 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS/Drones) – CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1) Quantity Owned/Sought: 3 owned Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: Remotely piloted aerial vehicles capable of providing live and recorded video images captured from aerial positions, including images enhanced by Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and optical zoom lenses.

Manufacturer Product Description:

Matrice 210: The DJI Matrice 210 is a powerful, industrial-grade fight platform with world-class agility and speed, two barometers, and redundant IMUs for maximum reliability, and new smart flight features that make capturing complex shots easy. The aircraft’s visual sensors enable enhanced hovering precision even when flying indoors or in environments where GNSS is unavailable. The drone’s new airframe design gives it an IP43 Ingress Protection Rating, in accordance with the global IEC 60529 standard. The M210/M210 RTK’s mechanical design, along with quick release landing gears and mounted folding arms, makes it easy to transport, store, and prepare for flight.

Mavic II Enterprise: The DJI Mavic II Enterprise features omnidirectional Vision Systems and Infrared Sensing Systems, and comes with a fully stabilized 3-axis gimbal camera with an equivalent 24-48 mm 2x optical enterprise lens capable of shooting 4k videos and 12 megapixel photos that support up to 6x FHD zoom. DJI signature tecUologies such as Obstacle Sensing and the Advanced Pilot Assistance System, help you capture complex shots effortlessly. Additional features like the built in AirSense make you aware of your surrounding airspace, and password protection helps you maintain secure access to your aircraft and protect your data. The Mavic II Enterprise also has attachable modular accessories like the M2E spotlight, M2E Beacon, and M2E Speaker that are purpose built for various applications. The Mavic II Enterprise boasts a maximum flight speed of 44.7 mph and a maximum flight time of 31 minutes.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: UAS/Drones may be utilized to enhance the Department’s mission of protecting lives and property when other means and resources are not available or are less effective.

Uses may include but are not limited to: search and rescue; suspect apprehension; crime scene documentation; tactical operations; scene security; hazard monitoring, identification and mitigation; response to emergency calls; crisis communications; legally authorized surveillance.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial costs of equipment, licensing, software and training was approximately $70,000 which was funded with Equitable Sharing Asset Forfeiture Funds. Ongoing cost associated with UAS operation and maintenance is estimated to be approximately $15,000 per year.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Any use of a UAS will be in strict accordance with constitutional and privacy rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The use of the UAS potentially involves privacy considerations. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA altitude regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure). Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable precautions can include, for example, deactivating or turning imaging devices away from such areas or persons during UAS operations.

Training Required: Prior to piloting any UAS/Drone staff members must secure an FAA Remote Pilot License and complete all training required by our FAA COA.

Other Notes: None.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
23 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 24 owned Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: The 40mm direct impact marking crushable foam round is Less Lethal and fired from a 40mm less Lethal Launcher.

Manufacturer Product Description: The Defense Technology exact impact 40 mm standard range foam round is a point of aim, point of impact, direct-fire foam round used to mark a location or aggressor. This lightweight, high-speed projectile consisting of a plastic body and sponge nose that is spin stabilized via the incorporated rifling collar and the 40 mm launcher’s rifled barrel. The round utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant, and, therefore, have velocities that are extremely consistent. Used for Crowd Control, Patrol, and Tactical Applications.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $1,000. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Crowd Control.

Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified 40mm course as well as regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: None.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
24 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 99 owned Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: The 40mm exact impact standard range sponge foam round is Less Lethal and fired from a 40mm less Lethal Launcher.

Manufacturer Product Description: The exact impact Sponge Round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact direct-fire round. This lightweight, high-speed projectile consisting of a plastic body and sponge nose that is spin stabilized via the incorporated rifling collar and the 40 mm launcher’s rifled barrel. The round utilizes smokeless powder as the propellant, and, therefore, have velocities that are extremely consistent. Used for Crowd Control, Patrol, and Tactical Applications.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $3,000. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Crowd Control.

Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified 40mm course as well as regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: None.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
25 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 9 owned Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: The 40mm foam baton standard range sponge foam round is Less Lethal and fired from a 40mm less Lethal Launcher.

Manufacturer Product Description: The exact impact Sponge Round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact direct-fire round. The 40 mm Foam Baton Round is most widely used as a crowd management tool where stand-off distances are limited. It may also prove valuable in riot situations where police lines and protestors are in close proximity. It utilizes smokeless powder and has more consistent velocities and tighter patterns compared to its 37 mm counterpart. The foam projectile allows for closer deployment, while minimizing injury.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 40mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $500. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: All applicable State, Federal and Local laws governing police use of force. Various Brentwood Police Department Policies on Use of Force and Crowd Control.

Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified 40mm course as well as regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: None.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/16, All Rights
Reserved. Published with permission by Brentwood
Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment -
26 Brentwood Police Department
Brentwood PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Equipment Type: Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatus that are explosive in nature - CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(7)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 147 rounds owned Lifespan: Approximately 5 years Equipment Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry.

Manufacturer Product Description: 2-3/4” multi grain, blank, copper frangible 12 Ga Shotgun round(s). When properly deployed, the round is capable of defeating door lock mechanisms, door knobs, hinges, dead bolts, safety chains, and pad locks on both wooden doors and hollow core doors.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Breaching doors, gates, windows, and other points of entry.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $2,000. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Breaching apparatus that are explosive in nature can be deployed any time tactical operators determine that it is necessary to complete a lawful breaching, and non-explosive breaching methods are not tactically practicable. For a breaching to be lawful, it will generally need to be supported by a search or arrest warrant, or exigent circumstances.

Training Required: Only members of the SWAT team who have attended a 16 hour shotgun breaching specific training course are authorized to carry and use the breaching rounds.

Other Notes: None.

D.2.b
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Policy 708 Military Equipment Draft V1_TH (2667 : Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting a Military Use CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 1
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Subject/Title: Continued discussion regarding requested information related to the affordable housing inclusionary obligation, in-lieu fees, HOA dues, and State density bonus requirements, and requesting direction with respect to potential changes to existing policies or ordinances related to affordable housing Prepared by: Sylvia Elias, Housing Analyst
Submitted by: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development

PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION
The City Council requested a continued discussion regarding requested information relating to the affordable housing inclusionary obligation, in-lieu fees, HOA dues, and State density bonus requirements. Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction with respect to potential changes to existing polices or ordinances related to affordable housing.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
None.

PREVIOUS ACTION
At its meeting of September 9, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 756, establishing the Affordable Housing Program.

At its meeting of January 11, 2005, the City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 790, amending Chapter 17.725 of the Brentwood Municipal Code (the Affordable Housing Ordinance) pertaining to the Affordable Housing Program.

At its meeting of December 11, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 909, amending the Affordable Housing Program. Among other things, the adoption of Ordinance No. 909 excluded multi-family rental development (consistent with the Palmer/Sixth St. Properties LP v.

City of Los Angeles case), reduced the moderate income affordable obligation to zero, reduced the overall affordable housing obligation from 10% to 2%, increased the threshold for applicability to 25 units, revised the in-lieu fee calculation methodology, allowed the collection of in-lieu fees when building permits are issued, and allowed the Finance Director to utilize housing fees to help fund the Council-approved annual operating budget for the Housing Enterprise fund.

At its meeting of April 28, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1014, amending the Affordable Housing Program. Among other things, the adoption of Ordinance No. 1014 included multi-family projects in the affordable housing program, reinstated the moderate income E.1
Packet Pg. 569
requirement, increased the overall affordable housing obligation from 2% to 10%, decreased the threshold for applicability to 5 units, and revised the in-lieu fee calculation methodology.

At its meeting of March 22, 2022, a presentation was provided to the City Council on requested information related to increasing the Affordable Housing Ordinance’s 10% obligation, possible removal of in-lieu fees, and the use of housing funds for increases in HOA dues for affordable homeowners. The presentation also included information on Brentwood’s Affordable Housing Program and the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Upon conclusion of the presentation, staff requested the City Council provide direction on:

1. Whether to increase the affordability percentage requirement of 10% and, if so, by how much;

2. Whether to conduct an economic feasibility study to support an increase in the affordability percentage requirement above 15%;

3. Whether to remove the in-lieu fee option for ownership units;

4. Whether to modify the in-lieu fee option for rental units; and

5. Whether to assist affordable homebuyers in paying HOA fee increases.

At the same meeting, the City Council also requested additional information related to the Affordable Housing Program, as discussed below.

BACKGROUND
At the March 22, 2022 City Council meeting, staff presented the City Council with requested information pertaining to the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), possible removal of in-lieu fees, assistance of payment of HOA fees for affordable homeowners, and information on Brentwood’s Affordable Housing Program and RHNA. The March 22, 2022 staff report is included as an attachment to this staff report. Staff also received several follow-up questions from Councilmember Rarey related to this item. Also attached for review, please find a memorandum (dated March 22, 2022) and email (dated March 23, 2022) answering Councilmember Rarey’s follow-up questions.

After the presentation by staff, the City Council held a discussion and requested staff return to the City Council with additional information regarding:

A. Allowed uses of the Rental Housing Trust Fund;
B. Possible use of the General Fund for the Affordable Housing Program; C. Options for requiring on-site and off-site units as an alternative to paying in-lieu fees for ownership and rental developments, and examples of alternatives for rental projects other than in-lieu fees consistent with State Law;
D. Clarification of density bonus requirements based on affordability percentages and examples; and
E. Clarification of effects of rounding on density bonus calculations.

As requested, additional information is provided below.

A. Allowed Uses of Rental Housing Trust Fund
E.1
Packet Pg. 570
The City Council requested information regarding the allowed uses of the Rental Housing Trust Fund, and if the fund was a viable option to help fund the Affordable Housing Program if the inlieu fee option was eliminated from the Ordinance.

The Rental Housing Trust Fund deposits the net rental income from all rental units in the City’s affordable rental program. Currently, there is approximately $1M in the trust fund and $0.5M in the rental housing replacement fund. These funds are anticipated to be needed in the coming years as the City’s rental units age and major repairs and replacement needs become much more frequent. The current Ordinance states that “…[t]he finance director is authorized to utilize the city council approved budget to annually fund the city housing operating costs from the rental stream of these affordable rental units to fund city housing personnel and administrative costs directly related to management and administration of the Brentwood rental housing trust fund and program.” (Emphasis added.) In addition, the current Ordinance states that funds may be utilized to purchase, construct or repair rental units. One-half of the rental income may be utilized from time to time at the City Council’s discretion to further the provision of affordable housing in the City, so long as sufficient funds remain available to pay for the maintenance and option of existing affordable housing in the City’s affordable rental program.

If the Council elects to utilize the rental stream to provide funding for future affordable housing projects, further analysis is recommended to ensure sufficient funding is available to continue the administration and management of the affordable rental housing program.

B. Possible Use of the General Fund for the Affordable Housing Program Should the City Council decide to remove the affordable housing in-lieu fee option from the Ordinance, the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund would lose its funding source. The General Fund would then be the funding source for administration and program costs of about $700,000 per year (possibly higher if the affordable percentage were increased). The projected fund balance at June 30, 2022 of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund is $4.5 million and could provide funding for these costs through approximately 2028.

An Affordable Housing Program Expenses sheet is attached to this staff report to illustrate the budgeted and projected use of in-lieu fees for FY2021/22 and FY2022/23 for the affordable housing program. Expenses for the affordable housing program are expected to increase in the future budget years.

C. Options for Requiring On-Site and Off-Site Units as an Alternative to Paying In-Lieu Fees For Ownership and Rental Developments, and Examples of Alternatives for Rental Projects Other Than In-Lieu Fees
Alternatives for Projects in the Current Ordinance:

The current Ordinance provides the following alternatives for ownership and rental projects to provide affordable units, which are consistent with potential alternatives that many other cities in California currently utilize (State law requires alternatives for rental projects, but not ownership projects):
 Payment of an in-lieu fee (applies to ownership developments only); E.1
Packet Pg. 571
 Dedication of vacant developable land (with certain conditions);  Dedication of constructed units to the City’s Rental Housing Program;  Construction of affordable housing units on another site (offsite construction); and  Conversion of existing market rate units (either for sale or for rent) through acquisition and enforcement of affordability restrictions.

In order for a rental project to utilize one of the above alternatives, a developer must demonstrate in writing that the alternative equivalent will provide as much or more affordable housing in the city, be consistent with the Housing Element, and result in about the same geographic distribution of affordable units. Under Municipal Code Section 17.725.011 (Waiver) developers of rental projects can request a waiver of the requirements to construct affordable units on-site or through an alternative equivalent proposal other than payment of in-lieu fees.

The City Council can approve the in-lieu fee on specific findings demonstrating that the City’s goals of increasing affordable housing production are equally met through use of applicant’s proposed alternative. Under Section 17.725.011 C., “… [t]he request for waiver shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim of waiver or modification….” Options for On- and Off-Site Units:

As shown above, the current Ordinance allows developers of projects to meet their inclusionary obligations through on-site construction of units and/or several off-site options. Both on-site and off-site construction of units can be viable options for providing affordable housing. To date, the majority of developers propose to construct units on-site or pay in-lieu fees. Only two projects have proposed off-site options to meet their obligation. For example, the affordable housing agreement for the Rose Garden project (approved by Council in 2004) provided two off-site units that were sold to very low income households, and the Parkside Villas project (approved by Council in 2008) proposed to acquire one unit off-site. The developer for the Parkside Villas project is currently in the process of acquiring the unit.

Developers most likely propose on-site construction or in-lieu fees because they are the least complex and quickest options to meeting the project’s obligation. In the current real estate market (average list price in Brentwood as of February 2022 is over $1M), acquiring market rate units off-site or dedicating vacant land are likely more expensive than either new construction costs on-site or paying the city’s current in-lieu fees. However, there is nothing in the Ordinance precluding developers from pursuing these off-site options.

Examples of Alternatives for Rental Projects Other Than In-Lieu Fees Consistent with State Law:

State law (Government Code § 65850) requires that cities provide alternative means of compliance for rental projects, which may include in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.

The following table shows examples of alternative means of compliance for rental housing that are allowed by a sample of other Bay Area cities with inclusionary housing ordinances. Most of these cities allow the payment of in-lieu fees for rental housing instead of providing units on-site.

Many of these cities require a developer to demonstrate that the use of an alternative means of compliance, such as offsite construction, provides the same amount of affordable housing as would have been provided on-site or provides a greater amount of affordable housing or housing that is more deeply affordable to households.

E.1
Packet Pg. 572
Table 1: Alternative Means of Compliance for Rental Housing – Inclusionary Housing Programs in Other Cities
City Payment of
In-Lieu Fee
Off-site
Construction
Land
Dedication
Acquisition
and
Rehabilitation
of Existing
Units
Credit
Transfers for
Affordable
Housing
Brentwood   
Concord   *
Dublin    
Fremont  *
Lafayette   *
Milpitas   
San Jose     
Walnut
Creek
   
*Land dedication is allowed under Density Bonus Law provisions of the Municipal Code.

D. Density Bonus Requirement and Density Bonus Requirement based on Affordability Percentage
At the Council’s March 22nd meeting, there were questions raised regarding the manner in which density bonuses are calculated. State density bonus law (Government Code § 65915, et seq.) looks at three income categories:

Income Category Area Median Income (AMI)
Very Low Income > 50% AMI “Lower” Low Income 50-80% AMI Moderate Income 80-120% AMI
As noted above, the density bonus statute also uses another term, “lower income,” which can lead to confusion. “Lower income” includes both low and very low income categories. The effect of this is that, for density bonus calculations, very low and low income inclusionary housing requirements will be combined as “lower” income housing to determine if a given project qualifies for a bonus under the “lower” income category. In contrast, the moderate income category does not include the low or very low income categories.

Table 2: Sample State Density Bonus Allowances
Percentage of Affordable Units Increase in Allowed Density 5% Very Low or 10% Low 20% Increase
10% Very Low 32.5% Increase
11% Very Low or 20% Low 35% Increase
15% Very Low or 24% Low 50% Increase
10% Moderate 5% Increase
E.1
Packet Pg. 573
What does this mean for understanding the City’s existing ordinance? First, the inclusionary housing requirements of the City’s existing ordinance for ownership projects do not rise to the density bonus threshold. Individually, the very low requirement (3%) is below the statute’s 5% threshold, and the sum of the very low (3%) and low requirements (4%) totals only 7%, also below the 10% minimum to qualify in the lower income category. Second, the City’s existing moderate income requirement (3%) is less than the 10% required to qualify for the statute.

Currently the Ordinance’s inclusionary requirement for rental projects imposes a 10% affordability requirement with 5% being affordable to very low-income households. Thus, these projects would already qualify for development incentives under the State density bonus law.

In terms of options for increasing the City’s existing inclusionary requirements, the Council provided direction to staff to explore various means to increase the requirement to a cumulative 15% obligation. The table below shows there are at least four options that would accomplish this objective.

Table 3: Options for Increasing the Inclusionary Requirement to 15% for Ownership Projects
Income Category
State
Density
Bonus
Threshold
Existing
Ordinance
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Very Low
(<50% AMI)
“Lower”
5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3%
Low
(50-80% AMI)
10%* 4%
Lower: 7%
5%
Lower: 9%
4%
Lower: 8%
6%
Lower: 9%
5%
Lower: 8%
Moderate
(80-110% AMI)
10% 3% 6% 7% 6% 7%
Total -- 10% 15% 15% 15% 15%
*This threshold combines Very Low and Low Income categories.

Staff will look for Council direction as to whether any of these options should be pursued.

E. Effects of Rounding on Density Bonus Calculations
At the Council’s March 22nd meeting questions were raised about the interpretation of fractions of units or percentages on a project’s density bonus obligation. According to the Density Bonus state law, “[e]ach component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number.” (Government Code § 65915(q); see also § 65915(f)(5).) Brentwood’s Density Bonus ordinance (Chapter 17.720(H)(1)) also requires that: “[a]ll density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.” Therefore, for example, a 16 unit project proposing 5% Very Low Income units is eligible for a 20% density bonus, which equals 3.2 units. Under State Density Bonus law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, this would be rounded to the next whole number, which would be 4 units total.

It is important to note that the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (Chapter 17.725) contains separate provisions for calculating fractions of units for developments consisting of nine or more units for the purposes of determining a project’s inclusionary obligation, which is separate from the Density Bonus process. The Affordable Housing Ordinance specifies that: “[i]n applying this requirement to residential development consisting of ten or more dwelling units, any decimal E.1
Packet Pg. 574
fraction less than 0.50 dwelling units shall be disregarded and any decimal fraction equal to or greater than 0.50 dwelling units shall be construed as one dwelling unit.” (17.725.003 (B)(1).) Therefore, under the current Affordable Housing Ordinance’s 10% inclusionary requirement, a 16 unit project would be required to provide two units with the affordability type (e.g. Very Low Income or Moderate Income) determined by a recommendation from the Land Use Development committee (LUD).

NEXT STEPS
Staff is seeking the City Council’s direction on the following issues:

1. Whether to increase the affordability percentage requirement of 10% and by how much – if the Council is considering a percentage higher than 15%, the Council should consider directing staff to update the ordinance in phases by increasing the percentage in the ordinance to 15% initially while the feasibility study for a higher percentage is conducted;

2. Whether to conduct an economic feasibility study to support an increase in the affordability percentage requirement above 15%;

3. Whether to remove the in-lieu fee option for ownership units;

4. Whether to modify the in-lieu fee option for rental units; and,

5. Whether to assist affordable homebuyers in paying HOA fees either through City funds and/or developer contributions.

Once staff receives the City Council’s direction, staff will draft an amended affordable housing ordinance, take the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, and return to the City Council for adoption of the amended affordable housing ordinance. If Council directs staff to prepare a feasibility study, that would require Council approval of the funds for the study and at least several months to prepare. Staff understands that Council would like changes to the ordinance to be made as quickly as possible; therefore, this task could be undertaken separately from any changes to the in-lieu fee program.

FISCAL IMPACT
Should the City Council decide to amend the Affordable Housing Ordinance and increase the affordability requirement, the City would be able to secure additional housing for its affordable housing rental program, increase affordable housing production, and better meet State mandates. As mentioned above, there would be increased costs to administer the Affordable Housing program if the projected number of units in the program were increased. This is difficult to quantify until the exact percentage increase is known, but it could involve the need for another staff person at least part-time. The City’s Housing Rental program is presently financially self-sustaining, although future increased unit counts may require increased resources to manage the program.

Should the City Council decide to remove the affordable housing in-lieu fee option, the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund would lose its funding source. The General Fund would then be the funding source for administration and program costs of about $700,000 per year (possibly higher if the affordable percentage were increased). The projected fund balance at June 30, 2022 of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fund is $4.5 million and could provide funding for these costs through approximately 2028.

E.1
Packet Pg. 575
However, as mentioned above, should the City Council increase the affordability requirement, costs to administer the City’s affordable housing program would also increase due to the increase in inventory (for sale units, rental units), and could exhaust the remaining funds before the 2028 timeline.

Attachments:

Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting Memorandum - 3-22-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 Email - 3-23-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 Housing In-lieu Item Expense Budget Sheet
E.1
Packet Pg. 576
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.a
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Staff Report - Update to Affordable Housing Ordinance - 3-22-22 CC Meeting (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable E.1.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Memorandum - 3-22-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing E.1.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Memorandum - 3-22-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing E.1.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Memorandum - 3-22-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing E.1.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Memorandum - 3-22-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing E.1.b
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Memorandum - 3-22-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing E.1.c
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Email - 3-23-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing ordinance) E.1.c
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Email - 3-23-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing ordinance) E.1.c
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Email - 3-23-22 - Follow-up Questions to Agenda Item E.2 (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing ordinance) Housing In‐Lieu Line Item Expense Budget FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Reimbursements to Housing Fund:

Total Personnel Costs 436,086 $         442,383 $
Supplies and Services
Office Supplies               3,215 1,313
Publications and Dues 2,889               3,123
Clothing/Safety                     92 88
Utilities               4,763 4,407
Investment Expenses 3,576               4,808
Advertising                   946 875
Travel/Lodging/Meals 4,377               3,674
Training/Conference Registration 5,252               4,592 Professional Services 59,147             78,883
Legal Expenses             28,369 18,753
Legal Expenses ‐ Strategic Initiatives 30,000             ‐ Total Supplies and Services 130,676           132,463
Citywide Administration (HR, Finance, Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager) 90,889             61,723 Citywide Information Services Fund 14,301             21,168 Information Systems Replacement Fund 3,374               5,269 Facilities Replacement Fund 7,658               9,294
Education Reimbursement Fund 81                     83
Facilities Maintenance Fund 8,128               9,804
Property Insurance Fund 14,932             17,013
Capital Outlay ‐ Technology 875                   946
Total Costs $         700,146 707,002 $
E.1.d
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Housing In-lieu Item Expense Budget Sheet (2647 : Continued discussion regarding affordable housing ordinance) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Subject/Title: Provide the City Council with requested information related to a ballot initiative to protect open space, parks and other properties, as well as provide staff with recommendations and directions regarding a ballot initiative Prepared by: Darin Gale, Assistant City Manager
Submitted by: Tim Ogden, City Manager

PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION
To provide additional direction to staff regarding a proposed land use ballot initiative to protect open space and parks from future development.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 4: Develop Brentwood as a high quality, diverse and balanced community while protecting natural and agricultural resources. 2. Protect natural and agricultural resources. (a) Develop implementation plan for General Plan Conservation and Open Space policies to minimize impacts on the environment
Previous Action
On March 8, 2022, City Council provided direction to staff to begin working on an open space initiative with the following stated goals:
 Protect the City from future State mandates regarding the conversion of certain types of recreational uses or underdeveloped land to other uses;  Protect open space and parks from future development;  Model the proposed initiative after the Martinez measure, and work with key residents to learn from their research regarding open space measures;  Ensure the Deer Ridge and Shadow Lake golf courses are not redeveloped into residential or other commercial uses;
 Place the initiative on the November 2022 General Election ballot;  Ensure future City Councils are unable to adopt General Plan Amendments or rezones to open space and parks without a vote of residents; and  Hire outside counsel with environmental and election law experience to assist with the process.

BACKGROUND
Land Use Initiatives: History and Examples
Growth control ballot measures have appeared on California ballots since the 1970s. In the early days, these measures often came in the form of annual growth caps, building permit limits, and infrastructure requirements. However, these types of measures became disfavored after several initiatives establishing growth caps were found to violate state housing laws.

Currently, the more common and legally defensible approach is to manage growth via land use initiatives that amend the general plan. A leading example includes Napa County’s Measure J.

Enacted in 1990, Measure J amended the Napa County General Plan to ensure that designated agricultural, watershed, and open space lands could not be redesignated and made available E.2
Packet Pg. 614
for more intensive development without a vote of the people. Growth has instead been directed into the cities and urban nodes in the unincorporated area.

After Napa voters approved Measure J, landowner Richard DeVita and the Building Industry Association of Northern California sued, challenging virtually every aspect of Measure J. The end result was the California Supreme Court’s 1995 landmark decision DeVita v. County of Napa, which established that voters may amend a general plan and impose subsequent-vote requirements on development.

Since the California Supreme Court’s decision in DeVita, three general categories of general plan land use initiatives have emerged.

1. “Subsequent voter approval” initiatives to alter existing land use designations.

Like Napa’s Measure J, these initiatives readopt existing general plan polices and land use designations for agricultural, parks and/or open space lands. These initiatives are more common in counties, though some cities have them usually in conjunction with an urban growth boundary. Examples include: Napa County, Ventura County, Alameda County, and City of Ventura.

2. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) initiatives. UGB initiatives establish a line beyond which residents of a city are given a vote on whether that city will be able to expand.

They are effective in both protecting agricultural land outside the UGB and encouraging infill development. According to the Greenbelt Alliance, a local nonprofit that tracks UGB initiatives, there are over 60 cities with UGBs in California. Brentwood’s urban limit line (ULL) operates similarly, even though it was approved by Contra Costa County voters.

Examples of cities with UGB initiatives include: every city in Ventura County, Gilroy, Winters, and Sonoma.

3. Overlay initiatives. The overlay initiative option is a variation of Napa’s Measure J initiative. This option may be preferred where the existing general plan is considered insufficiently protective of open space and agricultural uses. This type of initiative proposes an “overlay” that places additional restrictions on protected lands. Like the Napa initiative, these restrictions may only be lifted with a vote of the people. Examples include: Martinez Measure I and the resident-proposed Brentwood initiative. As noted below, to comply with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), the new land use designations must not lead to a net loss of housing capacity, nor impose moratoria or similar restrictions on housing development.

Procedures for Initiative Adoption
There are generally three pathways to adoption of ballot initiatives. The Brentwood City Council is currently considering the third option.

1. Voter-sponsored; placed on the ballot. This is by far the most common path to the ballot. Under this model, local residents draft and sponsor the measure. Upon collection of a sufficient number of signatures on the initiative petition, the city council (or, in the case of countywide measures, the board of supervisors) places the measure on the ballot. Examples of this approach include Napa County Measure J, Brentwood Measure L (the unsuccessful 2019 initiative to modify Brentwood’s Urban Limit Line), and Martinez Measure I. As discussed below, voter-sponsored measures are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

E.2
Packet Pg. 615

2. Voter-sponsored; council or board adopted. Under this variation, local residents draft and sponsor the measure but it does not go on the ballot. Instead, upon collection of a sufficient number of signatures on the initiative petition, the city council or board of supervisors adopts the measure outright. As with the first option, due to the qualifying signatures on the initiative petition, no CEQA review is required. Even though the measure is not approved by the voters at a general or special election, the measure may not be amended without a vote of the people. This option provides the same land use protections as the first model. Examples of this approach include the Solvang UGB and the Sebastopol UGB extension measure.

3. Council-sponsored; placed on the ballot. Under this variation, local agency staff drafts the ballot measure for the elected body often with input from the community. The city council or board of supervisors then places the measure on the ballot. Councilsponsored measures offer the same protections as the voter-sponsored measures; they can “lock-in” protections that cannot be changed without a vote of the people. However, unlike voter-sponsored measures, council-sponsored measures are subject to CEQA.

CEQA Compliance
As referenced above, CEQA applies differently to voter-sponsored initiatives and councilsponsored initiatives. CEQA compliance is not required before a legislative body submits a voter-sponsored initiative to the voters. The CEQA Guidelines have codified this exemption to CEQA compliance. See Guidelines § 15378(b)(3). Similarly, voter-sponsored measures that obtain sufficient signatures to be placed on the ballot, but are adopted outright by the legislative body, are not subject to CEQA. See Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1036.

On the other hand, council-sponsored initiatives are subject to CEQA. See Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 191.

Common Issues with Voter Initiatives
State law places a number of substantive limitations on the initiative power. For example, an initiative may not regulate matters that have been preempted by the state.

To avoid preemption issues, the City should carefully review any proposed ballot initiative for consistency with state law, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330). SB 330 limits the power of cities to reduce the intensity of development in areas where housing is “an allowable use.” Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(A). SB 330 also prohibits cities from enacting “a development policy, standard, or condition that would . . . [i]mpos[e] a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development.” Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(B). A city can only limit development in such areas if it “concurrently” increases residential capacity in another area.

Gov. Code § 66300(i)(1).

In the past year, several courts have struck down portions of ballot initiatives that conflict with SB 330. Those decisions affirm that land use initiatives that effectively downzone parcels without providing for concurrent upzoning face a strong risk of preemption. See Oak Hill Park v.

City of Antioch, Case No. MSN21-0048 (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, June 7, 2021) (holding that SB 330 largely preempts Antioch’s recent Measure T initiative).

Analysis and Proposed City Council Options
E.2
Packet Pg. 616
As directed by the City Council, outside legal counsel with extensive experience in environmental and election law was retained. The City has contracted with the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, a public interest law firm in the Bay Area. Catherine Engberg, a partner with the firm, is assisting with the proposed ballot measure. Ms. Engberg is experienced in environmental and election law, and has worked on a number of ballot measures.

On March 22, 2022, the City Attorney, Community Development Director and City Manager’s Office all met with Brentwood residents Rod Flohr, Victoria Sandberg, Robert Juracich and Antonio Xavier at the Council’s request to consider their proposed open space initiative. During this meeting, Mr. Flohr reviewed the proposed initiative that was drafted based upon the Martinez measure. This meeting was insightful, extremely beneficial, and provided the City with a foundation to meet the goals of the City Council. Attachment A includes all of the documents that Mr. Flohr and his group provided staff.

On April 20, 2022, City staff met again with Mr. Flohr, Mr. Xavier, Mr. Juraich, and Ms.

Sandberg, along with Marisol Valles, to discuss a variety of options for City Council consideration. Staff has also met numerous times internally with Ms. Engberg and developed three possible options for City Council direction. Each of the options are included in the following matrix and once the options have been evaluated by legal counsel, they will be reviewed based upon timing, CEQA requirements, cost, and effectiveness of meeting the City Council’s stated goals.

Description CEQA Timing for
November 2022
Election
Meets Council Goals

1. Citizen
Drafted
Initiative
Establishes a new general
plan designation and
overlays for open space
and parks.

All future changes to the
overlay would require voter
approval and additional
properties could be added
to the overlay by City
Council
Extensive CEQA
analysis would be
required by law
since this is not a
voter-sponsored
initiative placed on
the ballot by voters,
or by Council with
sufficient qualifying
signatures, and it
establishes new
general plan
definitions that
would alter
development
patterns and likely
result in potential
environmental
impacts.

Not feasible. Due
to extensive CEQA
analysis required,
staff is unable to
complete the
necessary CEQA
review to be place
on the November
ballot but it could
be placed on a
special election, or
the next regular
election.

In general, the draft
language meets
Council goals but
would need to be
revised by legal
counsel to ensure
conformity and
consistency with state
law.

2. Lock in
General Plan
Designations
Locks in Certain General
Plan Designations
Definitions for Specific
Land Use Designations
within the current General
Plan (a list of all “Public,
Semi-Public, and

TBD TBD TBD
E.2
Packet Pg. 617
Description CEQA Timing for
November 2022
Election
Meets Council Goals
Conservation Land Use
Designations” from the
general plan is included in
Attachment B along with
the General Plan Map in
Attachment C)

3. New Open
Space &
Parks
Overlay
Designation
Establishes a new general
plan overlay based upon
current general plan
language for Parks (P) and
Permanent Open Space
(P-OC).

TBD TBD TBD
Recommendations and Next Steps
Since receiving the Citizen Drafted Initiative, the City Attorney’s Office, special counsel and staff have spent a significant time reviewing the document. Based upon this review, it was determined that, due to extensive CEQA analysis, the necessary CEQA analysis cannot be completed in time to place the measure on the November ballot, but this option could be placed on a special election, or the next regular election. Additionally, staff identified two additional options for City Council discussion, but has not fully completed a legal review to determine timing, CEQA requirements and to what extent the options meet the Council’s stated goals, among other considerations.

Staff recommendation is to move forward with legal analysis of both option 2 and 3 and bring back additional details about each option in May for final Council direction.

The proposed timeline for the November 2022 election would be as follows:

April 2022 Finalize review of initiative options for Council consideration May 2022 City Council considers final initiative options, makes budget amendment allocating general funds for the project, staff begins drafting initiative and identifying properties to be included June 2002 Present draft initiative language and map for City Council direction and begin any necessary CEQA analysis
July 2022 City Council considers refined draft initiative language and map August 2022 City Council adopts resolution placing the initiative and any associated maps on the November 2022 Ballot
November 2022 Initiative appears on General Election Ballot This timeline assumes that all CEQA review would be completed by the August 2022 meeting where Council places the measure on the ballot. If that is not feasible, the measure would need to be placed on a later special or general election ballot.

FISCAL IMPACT
As noted in the table above, the costs associated with placing an initiative on the ballot, conducting any necessary CEQA review, and procuring outside counsel services, are estimated to start at approximately $230,000, with the upper end of the estimate reaching approximately $350,000, assuming the ballot measure were to be included on a regularly-scheduled election.

Special election costs would be higher. At this time, no funds have been allocated for this item, and a budget adjustment would be necessary. Staff will be able to more precisely estimate costs once further Council direction has been provided. This estimate does not include funding E.2
Packet Pg. 618
for a public education program. The City cannot campaign for the initiative, but it is limited to providing factual information regarding the initiative. If desired, the City Council can direct staff to include funding for public education materials.

Attachments:

A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents
B. General Plan Definitions
C. General Plan Large Format
E.2
Packet Pg. 619
Attachment A
The following files are included in this presentation packet:

BrentwoodDraftOpenSpaceandParkProtectionInitiative.docx – this is a mostly completed draft of the initiative. Sections in grey background need particular attention. Note that the overlay map included in this document is the actual map from the Martinez initiative, provided as a reference. This map will be replaced by the Brentwood version once it has been finalized.

Contents read this first.docx – this document.

MartinezOpenSpaceandParkProtectionInitiative.pdf – The full initiative that was passed in Martinez, provided here as an informational exhibit.

Proposed task list.docx – A list of tasks needed to complete the initiative and get it ready for the ballot.

Provided here as a starting point for discussion.

Protected properties by APN PARKS.xlsx – A spreadsheet listing the parks (existing and planned) and golf courses in Brentwood. These are the parcels we consider to be of highest concern, but we would like to expand the list as described in the proposed task list. Presented here as an example of how the data might look, and as an example of our intent in creating this initiative.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Things to do for the BRENTWOOD OPEN SPACE AND PARK PROTECTION INITIATIVE The following list of tasks and suggested responsibilities is intended for discussion.

Participants:

Committee – a group of interested and engaged Brentwood citizens who are volunteering to assist with this project.

Planning – City Staff well versed in Planning issues and definitions, who can assist in technical production of the initiative.

Legal – Environmental Attorneys engaged by the City Attorney to ensure that the initiative is valid under applicable laws.

Tasks:

Identify additional parcels that should be included in the overlays. Examples might include permanent open space, the amphitheater, schools, government facilities, open lands currently owned by utilities like the water district or PG&E, lands in the SOI currently used for agriculture, and so on. Planning, Committee
Create overlay designations. Examples from Martinez can be seen in the legend for their map (AV/OS, ESL, NP, and so on). Legal, Planning, Committee
Identify the best format for data to allow the designated protected areas to be mapped. As an example, the Committee has been using GIS data provided by the City. Planning, Committee Produce the Overlay Map for inclusion in the General Plan, in a format that conforms to legal requirements. Planning, Legal, Committee
Section 5.b review and adjust. Include lands in the SOI. Do not restrict definition to zoning in the General Plan. Lands in the PD zones are restricted by use, not just by GP zoning. We need to add protection for PD specific zoning. (Planned Development Zones, Brentwood Municipal Code, Title 17 ZONING, Article VIII. Planned Development Zoning Regulations) Legal, Committee, Planning Identify ULL protections in current Brentwood Code, especially the provisions requiring voter approval.

Strengthen those provisions to insure that they are permanent, and protect areas of any size outside the current City limits, so that there can be no “chipping away”. If no such provisions exist, create them.

Legal, Committee
Complete and submit a robust initiative for review that meets the goals of the citizen led initiative. Legal Review the initiative as provided by Legal, approve or return for revision as needed. Committee, Planning
Prepare the reviewed and finalized initiative for presentation to City Council for consideration as an agendized business item. Present the initiative to City Council when they bring it up for consideration.

Planning, Committee
E.2.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) What the Initiative Does Not Do:

It DOES NOT require anything to be torn down.

It DOES NOT prevent anything being built that the owner is already entitled to build by zoning.

It DOES NOT prevent anything being built that is required by State law.

It DOES NOT absolutely prevent any project from being constructed. It only adds an additional requirement for voter approval for certain types of projects in certain locations.

What the Initiative Does Do:

It DOES identify areas that should be protected for open space and recreational uses.

It DOES create an overlay that defines these areas.

It DOES specify a process that allows the overlay to be expanded to protect additional areas.

It DOES specify uses for the protected areas that do not require a citizen vote.

It DOES require a citizen vote to approve any use that is not covered by specification, owner entitlement, or State law.

It DOES require a citizen vote to approve any additional construction beyond the absolute minimum required by owner entitlement or State law.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative)

BRENTWOOD OPEN SPACE AND PARK PROTECTION INITIATIVE
The People of the City of Brentwood do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this initiative is to increase protections for open space, park and outdoor recreation land in the City by requiring approval by Brentwood voters for any General Plan amendment to change allowable uses or land use designations for such land. The protections provided by this Initiative will help ensure that these lands and their valued uses are not changed to uses associated with more intensive development without approval by Brentwood voters.

SECTION 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF MEASURE
This Initiative amends the Brentwood General Plan to require approval by Brentwood voters in order to change land uses or designations of open space, park and outdoor recreation land beyond those allowed by this Initiative.

The Initiative amends the Brentwood General Plan to identify “Protected Open Space and Parks” as an overlay land use designation. It places in that designation all land that, as of January 1, 2021, was within the Brentwood City Limits and had been designated in the General Plan for open space, park and outdoor recreation use as defined under Government Code Section 66530(b).

Typical examples of allowable open space uses are nature conservation and habitat preservation, outdoor open space recreation, hiking, grazing, and similar uses. Typical examples of allowable park and outdoor recreation land uses are outdoor sports and recreation facilities (such as playgrounds, picnic areas, playing fields and sport courts), dog parks, recreational trails, and similar uses.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS
The People of the City of Brentwood do find and declare:
a. Approval by Brentwood Voters
Brentwood open space, park and recreation lands are critical to the health and wellbeing of the residents of Brentwood. Their continued protection is of great importance to the community. This Initiative requires approval by Brentwood voters to change land uses or designations of open space, park and outdoor recreation land beyond those allowed by this Initiative. b. Pressure from Increasing Population
As our population continues to grow, there will be increasing pressure to convert existing open space, park, and recreation land to other more intensive development uses, both residential and commercial. Increases in population in and around the City are also placing increased demands on existing park and recreation land.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) c. Current City Council Powers
At present, the City Council can convert existing open space, park, and outdoor recreation land to other uses.
d. Importance of Voter Approval
Decisions removing lands from open space, park and outdoor recreation use and changing them to more intensively developed uses are too important to be left solely to the discretion of the five people on the City Council. e. Benefits Open Space and Parks give to Brentwood Residents that Make Their Increased Protection Important
These lands provide sites for native plants and animals (including rare and endangered ones); keep wildlife areas connected; protect creeks and wetlands; provide scenic views and beautiful settings; help protect and preserve water and air quality; help people learn about their environment; reduce damage from landslides and earthquakes in steep and unstable hillside areas; and help absorb greenhouse gasses – a major cause of damaging climate change.

They provide outdoor recreation and sports uses – including playing fields, outdoor courts for sport use (e.g., tennis, basketball, bocce ball, etc.), picnic areas, playgrounds, dog parks, recreation and hiking trails, outdoor swimming facilities, and numerous additional uses.

Open space, park and recreation lands increase property values, improve our health and sense of well-being, provide us with enjoyment and tranquility, reduce the stress and strain of modern life, and connect us with the natural world. f. Burden of Proof
This Initiative is designed to protect agricultural use as defined in Government Code Section 51201(b), and open space land as defined in Government Code Section 65560(b), for purposes of California Evidence Code Section 669.5(c)(3). g. Federal and State Law
This Initiative is subject to Federal and State law. Because that law is not always clear and changes, this Initiative provides explicitly that it does not apply, notwithstanding its literal terms, when its application would be inconsistent with Federal or State law. This inapplicability is designed to prevent the Initiative from being in conflict with law or subjecting the City to any liability.

SECTION 4. TITLE
This Initiative is entitled the Brentwood Open Space and Park Protection Initiative. It is referred to in the text interchangeably as the “Initiative,” “measure,” or “ordinance.” SECTION 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Preamble: This General Plan Amendment shall, upon adoption, become a part of the Brentwood General Plan. Additions to the General Plan are indicated by italics; deletions are indicated by strike-out marks. Headings are included to assist in reading the amendment, but in case of any ambiguity, the actual text shall govern. All General E.2.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Plan provisions adopted or readopted through this Initiative shall be distinctively identified in the General Plan as having been adopted by initiative. a. Approval by Brentwood Voters
Approval by Brentwood voters is required to change land use designations or allowable uses of Protected Open Space and Parks to uses or designations not permitted under Protected Open Space and Parks, except as otherwise provided for in this Initiative. “Protected Open Space and Parks” is defined in subsection (b) below. b. “Protected Open Space and Parks” Overlay Established A new land use overlay designation of “Protected Open Space and Parks” is established within the General Plan’s Land Use Element. All lands within the Brentwood City Limits designated for open space, park, and outdoor recreation use as of January 1, 2021 are hereby also designated as “Protected Open Space and Parks.” In addition, any land later designated in the General Plan for open space, park, and outdoor recreation use shall also automatically be included in the Protected Open Space and Parks overlay designation. “Protected Open Space and Parks” specifically includes, but is not limited to, those lands designated in the 2014 General Plan as Public Permanent Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Open Space/Conservation Use Land, Environmentally Sensitive Land and Open Space.

The lands covered on January 1, 2021, by this overlay designation are shown in the attached map provided by the City and titled “EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP Updated with September 2013 Map Amendments and December 2012 City Boundary Change.” The map is marked as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by this reference. It has been modified, for ease of identification, by enlarging written land use designations shown on the map for those areas included within the overlay designation. However, in all cases the land use designations, as shown by map coloration, shall govern inclusion in the overlay designation. c. Open Space, Park and Outdoor Recreation Uses
Allowable uses on land designated as Protected Open Space and Parks are as follows:
i. for open space lands, permitted uses are: nature conservation or study; ecosystem, habitat, and watershed preservation; hiking trails and outdoor open space recreation; agricultural use; forestry use; grazing lands; and other similar uses consistent with the purpose and intent of this Initiative; ii. for park and recreation lands, permitted uses are: park use; outdoor recreation and sports uses – including but not limited to playing fields, outdoor swimming facilities, golf course, outdoor courts for sport use (e.g., tennis, basketball, bocce ball, pickleball, volleyball, etc.); historic site preservation; stables and riding facilities; picnic areas; playgrounds; dog parks; recreation trails; and other similar uses consistent with the intent of this Initiative.

Except as provided for in this Initiative, residential or commercial uses are not allowed on Protected Open Space and Parks.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) d. Ancillary Uses
In addition to the uses allowable under subsection (c) of this section, other ancillary uses may be allowed on Protected Open Space and Parks land, so long as the ancillary use is subsidiary and is customarily associated with a use allowed on the open space, park, and outdoor recreation land.

Examples include: rest rooms for open space, park, or outdoor recreation uses; changing rooms, showers, vending machines and/or a snack bar or a small concessionaire structure in association with permitted park and outdoor recreation uses; smaller indoor recreational facilities associated with a primarily outdoor recreation facility; facilities for the processing, storage, or retail sale of agricultural products where necessary for agricultural use of contiguous open space land; buildings or parking areas for storage of equipment or vehicles where the vehicles or equipment are intended for use in and/or in association with open space, park, and outdoor recreation use; administrative facilities if necessary for the associated open space, park, and outdoor recreation uses.
e. Development-Intensive Uses Allowed if Approved by Brentwood Voters Uses on any one or more categories of open space, park and recreation land may be changed to allow more development-oriented uses and land use designations than those above, including commercial and residential uses, but this Initiative requires that any such change of uses be approved by Brentwood voters. f. Existing Legal Uses Are Permitted
If uses are currently legal and already existing or are vested on Protected Open Space and Parks land, but are not permitted under this Initiative on Protected Open Space and Parks land when this Initiative takes effect, they may continue unaffected by the Initiative’s restrictions; but such uses may not be expanded except as allowed under the Initiative.
g. City Council Can Increase Restrictions
The City Council may further restrict, through zoning or other legal means, permitted uses on any category of Protected Open Space and Parks. h. Residential Use Required by State Housing Law
Development on Protected Open Space and Parks for residential use shall be allowed to the extent it is specifically necessary to satisfy a residential development requirement under State law and on the condition that the requirements cannot otherwise be satisfied; provided, however, that such development shall only be allowed to the extent specifically required, and that the area involved in such development shall be the minimum so required.
i. Protection of Constitutional Rights
If a court of competent jurisdiction rules that the application of this Initiative to a specific proposed use or project would deprive a person of Constitutional rights or privileges, or otherwise would be contrary to Federal or State law, the Initiative shall not apply to the extent required to allow that use or project. This explicit limitation on applicability is to make certain that the provisions do not infringe any person’s legal E.2.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) rights or privileges, violate the law in any respect, or subject the City to legal liability.

SECTION 6. – IMPLEMENTATION
a. This Initiative’s provisions become effective upon approval, and the General Plan Amendment included as Section 5 of the Initiative shall be inserted into the General Plan as soon as is legally allowed.
b. If the provisions of this General Plan Amendment would conflict or be inconsistent with any other existing or proposed future provision of the Brentwood General Plan, or with any existing or proposed future map, diagram, or chart within the Brentwood General Plan, or any zoning provision, specific plan, or other City law or regulation, those conflicting provisions, maps, diagrams, charts, laws or regulations are, to the extent they are in conflict with or inconsistent with the provisions of this Initiative, hereby declared void and unenforceable.
c. Other than as provided herein, upon the effective date of this General Plan Amendment, the City and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and employees shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any General Plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, conditional use permit, building permit or any other ministerial or discretionary entitlement, which is inconsistent with the purposes of this Initiative or its included General Plan Amendment. d. This measure shall be interpreted liberally to further its purposes. It is the intent of the voters that the provisions of this measure shall be interpreted by the City and others in a manner that protects open space, park, and recreation lands as set forth herein. e. Any resident of the City of Brentwood, any organization with members living in the City of Brentwood, and any other party with standing may enforce the provisions of this measure by judicial proceedings. If, as result of that proceeding, the court issues a judgment finding that a violation has or was about to occur and providing appropriate relief for that violation, such legal proceedings shall be considered to have protected important public rights and benefited the public.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this measure is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this measure. The voters hereby declare that this measure, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed, even if one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. If any provision of this Initiative is declared invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this measure that can be given effect without the invalid application.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) SECTION 8. CONFLICTING MEASURES
If another measure appears on the same ballot in the election where this Initiative is approved by the voters, this Initiative shall be fully effective unless that other competing measure received more votes and one of the following applies: a) the other measure constitutes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the areas and subjects covered by this Initiative, or b) there are actual, definite and irreconcilable conflicts between the other measure and this Initiative, in which case the conflicting provisions of this Initiative shall be deemed ineffective. Any provision of a competing measure purporting to nullify the effect of this Initiative or to declare that the two measures are in irreconcilable conflict are, in and of themselves, ineffective.

SECTION 9. AMENDMENT
This Initiative may be amended or repealed only by Brentwood voters. The City Council may make technical, non-substantive modifications to the provisions of this measure; however any such modification or amendment must be fully consistent with the intent and purposes of the measure. The City Council may also amend this measure to strengthen the environmental protections it contains; however any such amendment must be fully consistent with the purposes and intent of the measure.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Exhibit A – Areas included in the Protected Open Space and Parks Overlay Designation.

The attached map, modified from a map provided by the City and titled “EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP Updated with September 2013 Map Amendments and December 2012 City Boundary Change,” shows the areas within the Brentwood City Limits, as of January 1, 2021, that are included in the Protected Open Space and Parks overlay designation being created by this Initiative. For ease in identification, written land use designations shown on the map have been enlarged for those areas included in the overlay designation. However, in all cases the land use designations, as shown by map coloration, shall govern inclusion in the overlay designation.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) E.2.a
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) E.2.a
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Name Type Zoning District DESC Use Code Current Use Address APN APNNoDash Park Id Operdays Fulladdr Park Type Global ID Accepted Barbecues Baseball Baskeball Benches Bikepath Bmxpark Bocce Dogpark FeatId1 Grassarea Numparking Operhours Parkarea Parkurl Picnicrent Picnictabl Playground Publicart Restroom Shade Skatepark Soccer Tennis Waterplay Geometry (parksShape STAr Shape STLe Latitude (generated) Longitude (generated) S_STR_NM S_STR_SUF S_STR_NBR S_FRAC S_APT_NBR S_CTY_ABBR S_ZIP S_ZIP_EXT Arbor View Park Park T8226 PCL B TO 79 Park None ATHERTON018‐380‐043 18380043 85 Open Daily 2 {BC44767B‐22CB 1 No No No No No No No No 63 Yes 0 5.6 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 243948.55 3790.38967 37.9674707 ‐121.709 Arbor View Park Park T8402 PCL E 79 Park 817 ATHERTON B018‐410‐041 18410041 85 Open Daily 2 {BC44767B‐22CB 1 No No No No No No No No 63 Yes 0 5.6 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 243948.55 3790.38967 37.9674707 ‐121.709 Anastasia Park Park T8561 PARK PCL 79 Park None TANGO LN018‐480‐073 18480073 64 Open Daily 1774 Anastasia Drive 0 {32787099‐593E 1 No No No Yes No No No No 42 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.77 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 33724.323 727.480842 37.9669893 ‐121.721 Granville Green Park T8724 PCL C 79 Park None GRANVILLE018‐560‐046 18560046 55 Open Daily 1091 Granville Lane 0 {8C5AF642‐F94D 1 No No No Yes No No No No 33 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.76 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Polygon 76463.236 1201.17675 37.9671181 ‐121.717 Celeste Park Park T8675 PCL B PAR 79 Park None CELESTE W018‐540‐061 18540061 60 Open Daily 2955 Celeste Way 0 {570CB309‐7C56 1 No No No Yes No No No No 38 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.09 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 47536.548 882.363638 37.9669377 ‐121.726 Rose Garden ParPark T8561 SWIM CLU 87 Public Pool 2724 CATHEDRA018‐470‐081 18470081 56 Open Daily 2732 Cathedral Circle 0 {E6327ECC‐F6DB 1 No No No Yes No No No No 34 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 3.13 No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Polygon 136482.39 1830.51649 37.9649822 ‐121.722 Rainbows End PaPark T8561 PARK PCL 79 Park None SOLITUDE 018‐500‐033 18500033 57 Open Daily 1626 Marina Way 0 {1BDC063A‐7269 1 No No No Yes No No No No 35 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.8 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Polygon 35021.865 740.713741 37.965621 ‐121.724 Meadowhawk PaPark T9412 PCL A CITY 79 Park 2700 CLAUDIA LN019‐940‐049 19940049 0 No Address 0 {5CAC9F0E‐F851 0 0 0 0.73 Polygon 31437.394 719.788573 37.9650824 ‐121.731 Rose Garden ParPark T8561 PCL C 79 Park None CATHEDRA018‐470‐082 18470082 56 Open Daily 2732 Cathedral Circle 0 {E6327ECC‐F6DB 1 No No No Yes No No No No 34 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 3.13 No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Polygon 136482.39 1830.51649 37.9649822 ‐121.722 Steeplechase Pa Park T8674 PCL B 79 Park None BLUMEN A018‐610‐086 18610086 86 Open Daily 1082 Steeple Boulevard 0 {16480E62‐E705 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 2 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.11 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 48633.516 882.039103 37.9647336 ‐121.715 Kaleidoscope Pa Park T8675 PCL E PAR 79 Park None MARGARE 018‐510‐032 18510032 54 Open Daily 2581 Margaret Lane 0 {2D89F2EC‐BB41 1 No No No Yes No No No No 32 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.54 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Polygon 23591.351 632.709382 37.9645713 ‐121.719 Pistachio Park Park T8674 PCL C 79 Park 2512 SHADOWB 018‐620‐077 18620077 12 Open Daily 2617 Brookshire Street 0 {BCC84B21‐0219 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 15 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.07 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 46799.946 867.999453 37.9634004 ‐121.717 Medallion Park Park T8561 PCL B PAR 79 Park None MEDALLIO018‐460‐065 18460065 53 Open Daily 1108 Europena Drive 0 {0A59C02E‐FBB3 1 No No No Yes No No No No 31 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.83 No Yes No No No Yes No No No No Polygon 36339.43 936.059859 37.9629439 ‐121.719 Medallion Park ‐ Park T8674 PCL D 79 Park None MARTINEZ018‐620‐078 18620078 46 Open Daily 0 {BC627349‐522F 1 No No No No No No No No 14 Yes 0 0.5 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 22324.069 607.176333 37.963185 ‐121.719 Gemini Park Park T8675 PCL D PAR 79 Park 1149 EUROPENA018‐520‐074 18520074 58 Open Daily 1149 Europena Drive 0 {4594AE6A‐B854 1 No No No Yes No No No No 36 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.78 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 33952.721 754.029085 37.9624429 ‐121.722 Amber Park Park T8470 PCL A CITY 79 Park 2357 DE MARTIN019‐050‐107 19050107 65 Open Daily 2357 DeMartini Lane 0 {5B693C85‐D4DE 1 No No No Yes No No No No 43 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.28 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 12240.521 463.107428 37.961129 ‐121.731 Portofino Park Park T8954 PCL A CITY 79 Park 2325 ATTERBURY018‐630‐033 18630033 93 Open Daily 2477 Emerald Bay Drive 0 {12E256C9‐A596 1 No No No Yes No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.3 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 62145.186 1163.15107 37.9609247 ‐121.707 Portofino Park Park T8954 PCL B CITY 79 Park 2032 HUNTINGT 018‐630‐034 18630034 93 Open Daily 2477 Emerald Bay Drive 0 {12E256C9‐A596 1 No No No Yes No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.3 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 62145.186 1163.15107 37.9609247 ‐121.707 Gann Street Poc Park T8546 PCL A 79 Park None GANN ST 018‐430‐045 18430045 2 Open Daily 2113 Gann Street 1 {E92FD2D7‐559C 1N No 24 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.2 Yes No No Polygon 8259.4229 482.305778 37.960354 ‐121.719 Wheatfield Park Park T8546 PCL B 79 Park None GANN ST 018‐440‐041 18440041 48 Open Daily 2143 Gold Poppy Court 0 {085BA2D7‐ADC 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 26 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.34 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 58376.343 957.963114 37.9588294 ‐121.717 Bella Fiore Park Park T9378 PCL C CITY 79 Park None SALICE WA019‐920‐101 19920101 0 Salice Way 0 {456EEC53‐5EC3 0 0 0 0.28 Polygon 12081.183 457.71744 37.957652 ‐121.736 Sunset Park Athl Park T8588 L12 79 Park None ELKINS WA018‐200‐021 18200021 77 Open Daily 655 Sunset Road 2 {D33C35E6‐4A93 1 Yes Yes No Yes No No No No 70 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 39.77 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Polygon 1600077.2 5552.69741 37.9576743 ‐121.685 Sunset Park Athl Park POR SEC 6 T1N R 79 Park 2300 ELKINS WA018‐200‐002 18200002 77 Open Daily 655 Sunset Road 2 {D33C35E6‐4A93 1 Yes Yes No Yes No No No No 70 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 39.77 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Polygon 1600077.2 5552.69741 37.9576743 ‐121.685 Sunset Park Athl Park POR S 1/2 SEC 6 79 Park N/A 018‐200‐005 18200005 77 Open Daily 655 Sunset Road 2 {D33C35E6‐4A93 1 Yes Yes No Yes No No No No 70 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 39.77 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Polygon 1600077.2 5552.69741 37.9576743 ‐121.685 Big Basin Park Park T9304 PCL D TO 79 Park 2034 HUNTINGT 018‐660‐028 18660028 89 Open Daily 2034 Huntington Way 0 {D5DF997C‐649A 1 Yes No No Yes No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.03 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 44523.771 855.696282 37.9568532 ‐121.7 Topaz Park Park TR 8912 PCL A 79 Park None HILDA WAY019‐050‐159 19050159 49 Open Daily 2162 Hilda Way 0 {CF946185‐832D 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 27 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.27 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 11629.333 463.711291 37.956685 ‐121.73 Dolphin Park Park T9337 PCL C CITY 79 Park None ATTERBUR018‐700‐029 18700029 0 Open Daily 2325 Atterbury Lane 0 {DC1965D6‐06EF 1 No N No Yes No No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.88 No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Polygon 81982.595 1172.77163 37.9565646 ‐121.708 Seedling Park Park T8875 PCL A CITY 79 Park None WAYNE DR018‐570‐036 18570036 16 Open Daily 2180 Wayne Drive 0 {724D9F48‐E0D3 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 10 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.41 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 61207.086 992.420961 37.9557328 ‐121.713 Iron Horse TrailhPark T8546 PCL C 79 Park None SAGE SPAR018‐450‐016 18450016 1 Open Daily Sage Sparrow Court 1 {D07E868F‐74F1 1 No No No No No No No No 25 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.67 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 29172.952 2495.67578 37.9556664 ‐121.718 Empire Avenue PPark PCL MAP 59 PG 4 79 Park None AMBER LN019‐020‐045 19020045 78 Open Daily 0 {EF3AC22D‐6CCC 0 No No No No No No No No 69 Yes 0 4 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 173988.18 1689.61864 37.9549925 ‐121.733 Homecoming Pa Park PCL MAP 45 PG 3 79 Park 2000 HOMECOM018‐190‐015 18190015 82 Open Daily 2040 Homecoming Way 0 {F6EF9577‐32BC 1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No 66 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 2 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 87091.217 1288.84716 37.9549282 ‐121.694 Bosk Pocket ParkPark T8046 PCL A 79 Park N/A 018‐180‐095 18180095 0 No Address 1 {088136F4‐AFAD 1 0 0 0.14 Polygon 6234.9932 407.201771 37.9545464 ‐121.698 Lexington Park Park T8913 PCL A 87 Park None MILDRED A019‐050‐220 19050220 0 1524 Mildred Avenue 0 {5EC3DC23‐8C46 1 0 0 0.16 Polygon 6958.4971 351.950091 37.9544683 ‐121.731 Apricot Park Park T8603 PCL E CITY 79 Park N/A 019‐790‐045 19790045 75 Open Daily 1875 Spanish Trail 0 {53D7C556‐002B 1 No No No No No No No No 72 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.25 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 10922.109 411.844874 37.9534071 ‐121.735 Giotto Pocket PaPark T8469 PCL F 79 Park None GIOTTO DR019‐720‐081 19720081 13 Open Daily Giotto Drive and La Pergola Drive 1 {8A3A0547‐D518 1 No No No Yes No No No No 13 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.11 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 4906.2734 321.045823 37.9532819 ‐121.724 Appaloosa Park Park T8601 PCL A CITY 79 Park None TAMALPAI 019‐840‐105 19840105 63 Open Daily 2413 Tamalpais Court 0 {70A905EE‐10EC 1 No No No Yes No No No No 41 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.71 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 31085.884 705.39952 37.9527039 ‐121.74 Marsh Creek VistPark T7210 PCL A REC 79 Park 48 PASCO DR 016‐020‐108 16020108 71 Open Daily 48 Pasco Drive 0 {145CD253‐5CA1 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 78 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.47 No Yes No No No No No No No No Polygon 20440.516 1507.29337 37.9523518 ‐121.697 Fruitwood Park Park T8557 PCL A CITY 79 Park 1807 MOREAU W019‐810‐029 19810029 66 Open Daily 1807 Moreau Way 0 {99D62106‐FE39 1 No No No No No No No No 74 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.42 No Yes No No No Yes No No No No Polygon 18289.875 536.392343 37.9518904 ‐121.731 Yukot Park Park T8469 PCL A 79 Park None LA FONTE 019‐720‐079 19720079 50 Open Daily 1840 La Fonte Drive 0 {93B439F5‐7DDA 1 Yes No Yes Yes No No No No 28 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.33 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 58067.24 965.239181 37.9517979 ‐121.728 Yukot Park Park T8663 PCL A 79 Park None MEDITERR 019‐860‐060 19860060 50 Open Daily 1840 La Fonte Drive 0 {93B439F5‐7DDA 1 Yes No Yes Yes No No No No 28 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.33 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 58067.24 965.239181 37.9517979 ‐121.728 Peach Park Park T8603 PCL F CITY 79 Park None INDIAN SP 019‐780‐053 19780053 76 Open Daily 2320 Indian Springs Drive 0 {F5FC683B‐E294 1 No No No Yes No No No No 71 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.77 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 33538.592 755.533112 37.9518614 ‐121.734 Daytona Park Park T9095 PCL E 79 Park 526 STRATFORD 016‐480‐086 16480086 17 Open Daily 526 Stratford Way 0 {2F7D165B‐73B5 1 No No No Yes No No No No 8 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.22 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 53211.856 923.883867 37.9516237 ‐121.69 Palomino Park Park T8601 PCL B CITY 79 Park 2293 BLACK STO019‐850‐096 19850096 62 Open Daily 2293 Black Stone Drive 0 {345A72E5‐7D1E 1 No No No No No No No No 40 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.61 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 26734.479 628.743427 37.9515374 ‐121.738 Dakota Park Park T198PM9 PCL 7 79 Park 480 RIDGEWOOD016‐190‐035 16190035 79 Open Daily 480 Ridgewood Court 2 {AD3F330E‐26F2 1 Yes Y No Yes Yes No No Yes 9 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 4.7 No Yes No No No No No No No No Polygon 530984.11 3508.77581 37.9512044 ‐121.686 Miwok Park Park T8069 PCL B 79 Park None SOMERSBY017‐010‐017 17010017 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8055 PCL B 79 Park 1700 REGAL DR 017‐010‐021 17010021 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park BRENT IRRIG FAR 79 Park N/A 017‐030‐009 17030009 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8146 79 Park None SUNFLOW 017‐460‐059 17460059 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8146 79 Park None SUNFLOW 017‐460‐060 17460060 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8147 PCL A 79 Park None PANWOOD017‐460‐083 17460083 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8069 PCL C 79 Park None HALLMARK017‐480‐096 17480096 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8069 PCL D 79 Park None SUNFLOW 017‐480‐097 17480097 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8172 PCL A 79 Park None LANDOVER017‐510‐043 17510043 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8395 PCL A TO 79 Park None SCIORTINO017‐560‐047 17560047 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8395 PCL B TO 79 Park None KATHERIN 017‐560‐048 17560048 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8395 PCL C TO C 79 Park None ROSELINDA017‐560‐049 17560049 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 Miwok Park Park T8395 PCL D TO 79 Park None ROSELINDA017‐570‐020 17570020 74 Open Daily 0 {9F5F11D6‐147B 1 No No No No No No No No 75 Yes 0 7.9 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 442412.08 7335.32732 37.9490931 ‐121.72 La Pergola PockePark T8469 PCL G 79 Park None ANTICA DR019‐730‐063 19730063 14 Open Daily La Pergola Drive and Antica Dr 1 {6CBC9730‐43B4 1 No No No Yes No No No No 12 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.24 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 10599.255 412.302249 37.950971 ‐121.724 Caboose Park Park T8833 PCL C 79 Park 832 MARJORAM 016‐420‐021 16420021 5 Open Daily 832 Marjoram Drive 0 {EDC30576‐0E79 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 22 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.02 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 44285.301 981.780111 37.951127 ‐121.713 Blue Goose Park Park T8788 PCL B CITY 79 Park 1765 ADAMS LN 016‐340‐002 16340002 6 Open Daily 1765 Adams Lane 2 {6D6E9920‐EDA1 1 Yes N Yes No 21 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 4.01 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Polygon 174778.31 1722.47119 37.9497438 ‐121.708 Fiorita Pocket PaPark T8469 PCL H 79 Park None EDERA PL 019‐730‐064 19730064 15 Open Daily Fiorita 1 {368F5DBE‐439B 1 No No No Yes No No No No 11 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.1 No No N No No No No No No No Polygon 3674.0557 252.109189 37.949718 ‐121.725 Cherry Park Park T8603 PCL D CITY 79 Park 2050 ROPER CIR 019‐760‐058 19760058 11 Open Daily 2050 Roper Circle 0 {D911958F‐ABB0 1 No No No Yes No No No No 73 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.44 No Yes No No No No No No No No Polygon 19068.342 599.069675 37.9495425 ‐121.733 Sparrow Park Park T9393 PCL A TO 79 Park 60 BAIRD CIR 016‐560‐051 16560051 0 60 Baird Circle 0 {5B4ACBA3‐70F9 0 0 0 0.63 Polygon 34117.864 1088.97417 37.9492622 ‐121.699 Almond Park Park T8603 PCL B CITY 79 Park 2010 AZALEA WA019‐760‐057 19760057 73 Open Daily 2010 Azalea Way 0 {6E2FE270‐5FAB 1 Yes No Yes Yes No No No No 76 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.39 No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Polygon 60202.492 1396.72885 37.9479533 ‐121.734 Live Oak Park Park T9496 PCL B TO 79 Park 1510 CANARY CR016‐170‐041 16170041 0 No Address 0 {731E5B9C‐AE0C 0 0 0 2.38 Polygon 95997.931 1907.69982 37.9479626 ‐121.691 Hummingbird PaPark T9496 PCL C TO C 79 Park 1471 SPARROW 016‐590‐106 16590106 0 No Address 0 {1F407CB4‐A82F 0 0 0 0.63 Polygon 23217.407 594.815946 37.9473834 ‐121.693 Sycamore Park Park T9471 PCL J CITY 79 Park 192 SCOTT CREE 016‐570‐106 16570106 0 No Address 0 {F4B17C5C‐BBEC 0 0 0 1.42 MultiPolygon 58468.153 1431.46874 37.9456352 ‐121.691 Sycamore Park Park T9471 PCL H CITY 79 Park 200 BEAR CREEK 016‐570‐104 16570104 0 No Address 0 {F4B17C5C‐BBEC 0 0 0 1.42 MultiPolygon 58468.153 1431.46874 37.9456352 ‐121.691 Sycamore Park Park T9471 PCL I CITY 79 Park 196 SCOTT CREE 016‐570‐105 16570105 0 No Address 0 {F4B17C5C‐BBEC 0 0 0 1.42 MultiPolygon 58468.153 1431.46874 37.9456352 ‐121.691 King Park Park DED TO CITY PAR 79 Park 1379 BAUER WA017‐030‐011 17030011 61 Open Daily 1379 Bauer Way 2 {52A65EBF‐F705 1 Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes 39 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 3.93 No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Polygon 171531.08 1911.50067 37.9459039 ‐121.72 Dragonfly Park Park T9471 PCL G CITY 79 Park 1330 STONY CRE016‐570‐103 16570103 0 No Address 0 {9C2C9EF5‐A48D 0 0 0 0.56 Polygon 21955.265 567.596939 37.9458443 ‐121.693 Sand Creek Spor Park BRENT IRR FMS # 79 Park None SAND CREE019‐110‐032 19110032 70 Open Daily Future Park 0 {A443B1F1‐3790 0 No No No No No No No No 79 Yes 0 14.4 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 627665.27 4061.71637 37.9442942 ‐121.727 Sand Creek Spor Park BRENT IRR FMS # 79 Park None SAND CREE019‐110‐046 19110046 70 Open Daily Future Park 0 {A443B1F1‐3790 0 No No No No No No No No 79 Yes 0 14.4 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 627665.27 4061.71637 37.9442942 ‐121.727 Pelican Park Park T9096 CITY PCL P 79 Park 362 BLOOMINGT016‐510‐044 16510044 18 Future Park Und 362 Bloomington Lane 0 {BEBAC349‐0E8F 0 No No No No No No No No 7 Yes 0 1.06 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 46042.88 844.900178 37.9445385 ‐121.688 Mallard Park Park T8534 LOT C TO 79 Park 668 RAY ST 016‐310‐078 16310078 52 Open Daily 668 Ray Street 0 {6996D8E4‐F2B9 1 No No No Yes No No No No 30 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.54 No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Polygon 67271.489 1120.50255 37.9423683 ‐121.685 Sungold Park Park T8311 PCL A CITY 79 Park 566 SUNGOLD CT017‐670‐039 17670039 20 Open Daily 566 Sungold Court 0 {69095DAF‐1789 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 5 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.71 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Polygon 74121.415 1606.8676 37.9424187 ‐121.707 Curtis Park Park TRACT 3473 LOT 79 Park 105 CURTIS DR 016‐213‐005 16213005 30 Open Daily 105 Curtis Drive 0 {C0212D93‐B0F9 1 No No No Yes No No No No 57 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.13 No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 5479.4561 309.444011 37.9417067 ‐121.698 Egret Park Park T8825 LOT A 79 Park 580 EILEEN ST 016‐440‐103 16440103 7 Open Daily Linda St and Vivian St 0 {87F0E71B‐8C5E 1 No No Yes Yes No No No No 20 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.45 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Polygon 67064.869 1034.03532 37.941569 ‐121.69 Loma Vista Park Park T173PM5 PCL B 79 Park None SAN JOSE A019‐110‐042 19110042 26 Open Daily 1051 Meadowgate Way 2 {0D27150A‐2BD0 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No No 61 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 4.5 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 225605.1 2273.97959 37.9412888 ‐121.734 Kestrel Park Park T9420 PCL C TO C 79 Park None ISLAND PA017‐690‐092 17690092 0 Future Park 950 Island Palm Way 0 {44176C0E‐6EB2 0 000 Polygon 54497.14 1068.3422 37.941475 ‐121.707 Windsor Way PaPark T05390 L0004 B 79 Park 1350 WINDSOR W016‐160‐033 16160033 31 Open Daily 1350 Windsor Court 0 {4010E0F3‐249A 1 No No Yes Yes No No No No 56 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.18 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 7659.3555 365.870654 37.9412089 ‐121.691 Windsor Way PaPark T05390 L0005 B 79 Basketball Court 1350 WINDSOR W016‐160‐034 16160034 31 Open Daily 1350 Windsor Court 0 {4010E0F3‐249A 1 No No Yes Yes No No No No 56 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.18 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 7659.3555 365.870654 37.9412089 ‐121.691 Outrigger Circle Park T7287 POR PCL A 79 Park N/A 017‐320‐046 17320046 92 Open Daily Outrigger Cir and Sea Breeze Ct 1 {10F56B04‐9F4B 1 No No No Yes No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.96 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 46105.575 2603.89751 37.9410787 ‐121.718 Summerwood PaPark T7432 POR PCLS 79 Park 1159 SAN JOSE A017‐370‐033 17370033 29 Open Daily 1159 San Jose Avenue 2 {191102FD‐1EC3 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No No 58 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 4.49 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 195606.4 2127.98807 37.939072 ‐121.717 Heron Park Park T8424 PCL A TO 79 Park 950 GARIN PKWY013‐350‐048 13350048 43 Open Daily 950 Garin Parkway 0 {A3C5BC78‐9F24 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No No 45 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 10.81 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Polygon 443255.46 3271.95166 37.9393017 ‐121.687 Black Gold Park Park T7882 PCL D TO 79 Park N/A 019‐640‐044 19640044 27 Open Daily 0 {15F2A241‐7FA3 1 No No No No No No No No 60 Yes 0 6.22 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 265810.24 3663.28996 37.9377361 ‐121.746 Black Gold Park Park T7882 PCL F TO C 79 Park N/A 019‐660‐036 19660036 27 Open Daily 0 {15F2A241‐7FA3 1 No No No No No No No No 60 Yes 0 6.22 No No Yes No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 265810.24 3663.28996 37.9377361 ‐121.746 Palmilla Park Park T8729 CITY PCL A 79 Park None PACIFICA D017‐640‐053 17640053 19 Open Daily 0 {10B6C06A‐E90C 1 Yes No No Yes No No No No 6 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.6 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 77968.339 1472.86642 37.9373957 ‐121.704 Monarch Park Park T9420 PCL A TO 79 Park None GRIFFITH L017‐680‐077 17680077 0 Future Park 760 Bella Drive 0 {D772BB98‐8595 0 0 0 2.61 Polygon 124402.65 1997.06306 37.937349 ‐121.707 Sawyer Pocket P Park T8424 PCL B TO 79 Park 911 SAWYER WA013‐360‐118 13360118 8 Open Daily Sawyer Way 1 {7F455E99‐B529 1 No No No Yes No No No No 19 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.22 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 9799.9736 498.000454 37.9371833 ‐121.686 Marsh Creek Sta Park TRACT 4306 LOT 79 Park None N ESTATES017‐210‐029 17210029 83 Open Daily Central Boulevard 2 {78C4A1D2‐8F8C 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 65 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.29 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 55204.043 1739.27436 37.935691 ‐121.709 Crocket Pocket PPark T8424 PCL D TO 79 Park None BOONE DR013‐360‐120 13360120 47 Open Daily Crockett Drive 1 {8ECDDACD‐B32 1 No No No No No No No No 18 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.13 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 6576.3457 328.845728 37.9355854 ‐121.687 City Park Park TOWN OF BRENT 79 Park, City Hall 790 2ND ST 013‐041‐012 13041012 80 Open Daily 710 Second Street 2 {8ABBCA9F‐DE62 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No No 68 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Polygon 127751.61 1438.54282 37.9341024 ‐121.694 Berkshire Park Park T8210 PCL A 79 Park 2389 BERKSHIRE019‐600‐091 19600091 32 Open Daily 2389 Berkshire Lane 0 {E978D32B‐F39A 1 No No No Yes No No No No 55 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.4 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 17661.238 539.951332 37.9341845 ‐121.739 Stonehaven ParkPark T8661 PCL C PAR 79 Park None STONEHAV017‐600‐046 17600046 21 Open Daily 1320 Stonehaven Drive 0 {0AD47938‐F815 1 No No No Yes No No No No 4 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.15 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 6308.8311 317.501307 37.9332621 ‐121.72 Rice Pocket Park Park T8424 PCL I TO C 79 Park None CHESTNUT013‐370‐093 13370093 9 Open Daily Rice St and Chestnut St 1 {AABA9135‐B1D 1 No No No Yes No No No No 17 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.25 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 11829.601 479.170008 37.933093 ‐121.685 Rolling Hills ParkPark T8322 PCL B CITY 79 Park 773 WATERVILLE019‐500‐075 19500075 33 Open Daily 773 Waterville Drive 0 {1D78D974‐A6BE 1 No No No Yes No No No No 54 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 2.05 No Yes No No No No No No No No Polygon 56020.631 1105.0805 37.9315038 ‐121.754 Rolling Hills ParkPark T8322 PCL A CITY 79 Park 773 WATERVILLE019‐500‐074 19500074 84 Open Daily 0 {066E1F9C‐9913 1 No No No No No No No No 64 Yes 0 0.8 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 33207.446 738.60387 37.9320782 ‐121.754 Almanor Park Park T8426 PCL B PAR 79 Park None ALMANOR013‐390‐097 13390097 10 Open Daily 555 Almanor Street 0 {926DE8E9‐6E77 1 No No No No No No No No 16 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.11 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 4736.6133 296.975239 37.9317473 ‐121.688 Cortona Park Park T8953 PCL A 79 Park None CORTONA 019‐890‐091 19890091 22 Open Daily 366 Cortona Way 0 {29F96ABC‐54C8 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 3 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.48 No No No No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 24335.871 1291.25734 37.9292191 ‐121.737 Cortona Park Park PCL MAP 192 PG 79 Park None CORTONA 019‐150‐085 19150085 22 Open Daily 366 Cortona Way 0 {29F96ABC‐54C8 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 3 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.48 No No No No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 24335.871 1291.25734 37.9292191 ‐121.737 Cortona Park Park TR 7816 POR PCL 79 Park None CORTONA 019‐150‐088 19150088 22 Open Daily 366 Cortona Way 0 {29F96ABC‐54C8 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 3 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.48 No No No No No No No No No No MultiPolygon 24335.871 1291.25734 37.9292191 ‐121.737 Apple Hill Park Park T7816 PCL AA FO 79 Park 1866 CENTRAL B019‐150‐039 19150039 35 Open Daily 1866 Central Boulevard 2 {7A15DFD5‐C056 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 52 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 4.85 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Polygon 211013.12 2006.37789 37.9289124 ‐121.731 Garin Park Park T8221 PCL A & P 79 Park 231 LAWRENCE 013‐182‐039 13182039 59 Open Daily 231 Lawrence Lane 2 {40463889‐23AF 1 No No No Yes No No No No 37 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 6.36 No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Polygon 277055.69 2926.23947 37.9298044 ‐121.688 McClarren Park Park BRENT IRRIG FAR 79 Park 700 MCCLARREN012‐142‐015 12142015 81 Open Daily 700 McClarren Road 0 {97C5F468‐D70B 1 Yes No Yes Yes No No No No 67 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 3.18 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 138551.32 1910.86307 37.9285356 ‐121.698 Sage Glen Park Park T8854 PCL A 79 Park None ROSSANO 012‐360‐031 12360031 87 Open Daily 60 Rosano Street 0 {6EA9906B‐510C 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No No 1 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 2 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 87094.647 1671.23681 37.9278576 ‐121.721 Golden Poppy PaPark T9173 PCL A 79 Park 121 FRENCH DR 012‐370‐097 12370097 0 Future Park 121 French Drive 0 {3A2233E1‐E603 0 000 Polygon 34551.159 734.306177 37.9271674 ‐121.702 Balfour‐Guthrie Park T8323 L2 79 Park 1701 BALFOUR R019‐120‐036 19120036 45 Open Daily 1701 Balfour Road 2 {5465DA01‐D91A 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 44 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 6.43 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Polygon 280160.57 2408.88796 37.9270566 ‐121.755 Sweetgrass PockPark T6677 PCL E PUB 79 Park 100 SWEET GRAS012‐330‐114 12330114 94 Open Daily Sweetgrass Drive 1 {B296E0EC‐EAD1 1 No No No No No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.25 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 12890.349 557.901891 37.9268393 ‐121.711 Brentwood FamiPark BRENTWOOD IR 79 Park 195 GRIFFITH LN012‐130‐005 12130005 67 Open Daily 195 Griffith Lane 2 {B6F5A5DA‐DD3 1 No No No Yes No No No No 83 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 7 Yes Yes N No Yes Yes No No No Yes Polygon 257182.95 2185.43874 37.9263545 ‐121.706 Brentwood SkatePark BRENTWOOD IR 79 Park 195 GRIFFITH LN012‐130‐005 12130005 68 Open Daily 195 Griffith Lane 2 {80562938‐6384 1 No No No Yes No No No No 82 No 0 0.5 Yes Yes N No No Yes Yes No No No Polygon 37163.074 865.933754 37.9271785 ‐121.707 Veterans Park Park BRENTWOOD IR 79 Park 195 GRIFFITH LN012‐130‐005 12130005 69 Open Daily 3841 Balfour Road 2 {B35FC3A9‐FD86 1 Yes No No Yes Yes No No No 81 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 10.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Polygon 445266.95 3115.42971 37.9265287 ‐121.707 Lake Park Park T8323 L14 79 Park 401 LAKEVIEW D019‐120‐048 19120048 34 Open Daily 401 Lakeview Drive 0 {BA41BB03‐638B 1 No No No No Yes No No No 53 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.5 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 65359.046 1092.73443 37.9261669 ‐121.743 Walnut Park Park T8411 PCL I CITY 79 Park 4655 CARNEGIE 010‐700‐060 10700060 38 Open Daily 4655 Carnegie Lane 0 {9A069153‐550C 1 No No Yes Yes Yes No No No 49 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 5.05 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 219789.53 2174.76567 37.9222315 ‐121.693 Creekside Park Park T7399 PCL B 79 Park 1010 CLAREMON010‐030‐023 10030023 40 Open Daily 1010 Claremont Drive 2 {45C8A4E8‐0DBD 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 48 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 6.16 No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Polygon 443066.3 4181.37537 37.9209827 ‐121.715 Creekside Park Park T7399 PCL C 79 Park N/A 010‐030‐024 10030024 40 Open Daily 1010 Claremont Drive 2 {45C8A4E8‐0DBD 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 48 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 6.16 No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Polygon 443066.3 4181.37537 37.9209827 ‐121.715 Glory Park Park T7802 PCL A FUT 79 Park 4680 NUNN ST 010‐360‐112 10360112 37 Open Daily 4680 Nunn Street 0 {70291755‐2B03 1 No No Yes Yes No No No No 50 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 1.1 No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 47888.763 861.525693 37.920304 ‐121.69 Spirit Park Park TR 7736 PCL D C 79 Park 4600 FORD ST 010‐330‐086 10330086 36 Open Daily 4600 Ford Street 0 {7E94566B‐E15C 1 No No No Yes No No No No 51 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.51 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 22011.959 578.781084 37.919991 ‐121.694 Oak Meadow Pa Park T7690 LTS 4 & 6 79 Park 180 CRAWFORD 007‐100‐028 7100028 41 Open Daily 180 Crawford Drive 2 {0A8A639B‐79D4 1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No 47 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 9.68 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Polygon 421880.87 2898.35068 37.9195457 ‐121.74 Creekside Trail HPark T8066 L64 79 Park 351 SAN MARINO010‐490‐015 10490015 72 Open Daily 349 San Marino Lane 2 {5D1A88A1‐142F 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 77 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.4 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 17105.57 529.020005 37.9192259 ‐121.713 Creekside Trail HPark T8066 L65 & POR 79 Park 349 SAN MARINO010‐490‐031 10490031 72 Open Daily 349 San Marino Lane 2 {5D1A88A1‐142F 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 77 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.4 No No No No No No No No No No Polygon 17105.57 529.020005 37.9192259 ‐121.713 Mission Grove PaPark T9371 PCL F CITY 79 Park 450 ARMSTRONG010‐171‐022 10171022 0 Open Daily 450 Armstrong Road 0 {3CB06F95‐B2CE 1 No N No No No No No No 0 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 2.16 No No Yes No No No No No No No Polygon 94208.852 1440.38447 37.9192633 ‐121.687 Orchard Park Park T8199 PCL A CITY 79 Park N/A 010‐650‐042 10650042 51 Open Daily 40 Griffith Lane 0 {78A99B48‐73D5 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 29 Yes 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 5.19 No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Polygon 226189.99 1870.42306 37.9190556 ‐121.704 Tulare Park Park T9421 PCL A TO 79 Park None TINTORI CT010‐910‐097 10910097 0 537 Amari Court 0 {49AA52AD‐5D9 0 0 0 1.44 Polygon 62232.957 1933.52963 37.9184273 ‐121.681 Summerset ComPark T7940 PCL QQ C 79 Park 1511 REGENT DR010‐510‐025 10510025 4 Open Daily 1511 Regent Drive 2 {2D2AF675‐D917 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 80 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 13.05 No No No No No Yes No No No No Polygon 437298.31 3990.20863 37.9133217 ‐121.723 Marsh Creek Tra Park T8089 PCL W MA 79 Park None CREEK RD 010‐800‐060 10800060 42 Open Daily 1941 Concord Avenue 2 {4AB81EE4‐8108 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No 46 No 0 Sunrise‐Sunset 0.8 No Yes No No No No No No No No Polygon 26280.424 648.203125 37.9039824 ‐121.717 Monte Rosa ParkPark T8796 CITY PARK 79 Park 2045 SOLERA ST 007‐380‐024 7380024 0 Future Park 1455 Vineyards Parkway 0 {85F0BCB5‐DA63 0 0 0 1.76 Polygon 76660.59 1806.94429 37.9034846 ‐121.73 Alta Park Park T8907 D3 TO CIT 79 Park 1970 ANDALUCIA007‐730‐068 7730068 0 Future Park 1970 Andalucia Lane 0 {181DA610‐2E23 0 000 Polygon 100406.26 1644.41958 37.9003335 ‐121.732 Aspen Park Park T8796 CITY PARK 79 Park None VINEYARD 007‐590‐002 7590002 0 Future Park 2024 Old Vine Place 0 {087028BA‐1455 0 000 Polygon 54831.53 1402.89075 37.8954043 ‐121.726 Pioneer Park Park T8796 POR PCL S 79 Park None MIWOK AV007‐580‐014 7580014 0 Future Park Miwok Avenue and Pioneer Square 2 {A28932F1‐4DA4 0 0 0 2.79 Polygon 121590.9 1381.33088 37.8950417 ‐121.721 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Baldwin 010‐520‐112 10520112 Baldwin 37.9171138 ‐121.726 BALDWIN DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Baldwin 010‐520‐105 10520105 Baldwin 37.9148633 ‐121.726 BALDWIN DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 Golf Courses Balfour 019‐150‐074 19150074 Balfour 37.930242 ‐121.734 BALFOUR RD BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 Golf Courses Balfour 019‐150‐075 19150075 Balfour 37.9275709 ‐121.731 BALFOUR RD BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐21 38 Golf Courses Balfour 010‐020‐030 10020030 Balfour 37.9189787 ‐121.729 BALFOUR RD BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Concord 007‐110‐011 7110011 Concord 37.9112488 ‐121.725 CONCORD AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Desert Gold 010‐460‐045 10460045 Desert Gold 37.9157801 ‐121.73 DESERT GOLD TER BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐011 10510011 Fairview 37.9071129 ‐121.723 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐005 10510005 Fairview 37.912397 ‐121.721 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐007 10510007 Fairview 37.9084616 ‐121.721 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐015 10510015 Fairview 37.9133152 ‐121.729 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐016 10510016 Fairview 37.9134849 ‐121.727 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐018 10510018 Fairview 37.9100318 ‐121.724 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Fairview 010‐510‐037 10510037 Fairview 37.9065187 ‐121.721 FAIRVIEW AVE BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Franklin 010‐540‐056 10540056 Franklin 37.9151523 ‐121.73 FRANKLIN DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Kent 010‐420‐071 10420071 Kent 37.9179203 ‐121.724 KENT PL BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 019‐130‐067 19130067 37.9347486 ‐121.736 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 019‐130‐059 19130059 37.9346175 ‐121.735 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 019‐130‐062 19130062 37.9343858 ‐121.734 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 019‐150‐049 19150049 37.9274878 ‐121.726 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 019‐150‐058 19150058 37.931574 ‐121.733 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐15 38 019‐150‐059 19150059 37.9306177 ‐121.734 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 010‐430‐056 10430056 37.9179777 ‐121.726 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 010‐510‐033 10510033 37.9192201 ‐121.719 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 010‐510‐034 10510034 37.9169092 ‐121.718 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Regent 010‐510‐030 10510030 Regent 37.9103781 ‐121.726 REGENT DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Road 9 010‐040‐021 10040021 Road 9 37.9076015 ‐121.723 ROAD 9 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Road 9 010‐040‐020 10040020 Road 9 37.9045467 ‐121.721 ROAD 9 BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐21 38 Golf Courses Summerset 010‐020‐016 10020016 Summerset 37.9221117 ‐121.726 SUMMERSET DR 100 BRTWD 94513 6426 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐21 38 Golf Courses Summerset 010‐020‐017 10020017 Summerset 37.9182413 ‐121.729 SUMMERSET DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐21 38 Golf Courses Summerset 010‐020‐018 10020018 Summerset 37.9191271 ‐121.728 SUMMERSET DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Summerset 010‐020‐020 10020020 Summerset 37.9165768 ‐121.728 SUMMERSET DR BRTWD 94513 Brentwood Golf Golf SPF PD‐27 38 Golf Courses Suntan 010‐800‐061 10800061 Suntan 37.9096756 ‐121.718 SUNTAN LN BRTWD 94513 Shadow Lakes Golf SPF PD‐18 38 Golf Courses Country Club 019‐120‐040 19120040 37.9310238 ‐121.748 COUNTRY CLUB DR BRTWD 94513 Shadow Lakes Golf SPF PD‐18 38 Golf Courses Country Club 019‐120‐043 19120043 37.9337709 ‐121.744 COUNTRY CLUB DR BRTWD 94513 Shadow Lakes Golf SPF PD‐18 38 Golf Courses Country Club 019‐120‐047 19120047 37.9284365 ‐121.743 COUNTRY CLUB DR BRTWD 94513 Shadow Lakes Golf SPF PD‐18 38 Golf Courses W Country Club 019‐120‐038 19120038 37.9282288 ‐121.749 W COUNTRY CLUDR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Camel Back 007‐450‐057 7450057 Camel Back 37.9113861 ‐121.741 CAMEL BACK RD BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Cinnabar Hills 007‐470‐043 7470043 37.9106008 ‐121.746 CINNABAR HILLSCT BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Foothill 007‐100‐078 7100078 Foothill 37.9234423 ‐121.746 FOOTHILL DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Foothill 007‐100‐129 7100129 Foothill 37.9204782 ‐121.742 FOOTHILL DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Foothill 007‐100‐130 7100130 Foothill 37.9157692 ‐121.74 FOOTHILL DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Foothill 007‐100‐131 7100131 Foothill 37.9143529 ‐121.739 FOOTHILL DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Mountain View 007‐270‐042 7270042 37.9173659 ‐121.749 MOUNTAIN VIEWDR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses San Juan Oaks 007‐460‐143 7460143 37.9142623 ‐121.747 SAN JUAN OAKS RD BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Spanish Bay 007‐100‐123 7100123 Spanish Bay 37.9128583 ‐121.742 SPANISH BAY DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Spyglass 007‐100‐085 7100085 Spyglass 37.911872 ‐121.747 SPYGLASS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Spyglass 007‐100‐127 7100127 Spyglass 37.9094388 ‐121.745 SPYGLASS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses Spyglass 007‐450‐056 7450056 Spyglass 37.9106318 ‐121.745 SPYGLASS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses St Andrews 007‐100‐077 7100077 St Andrews 37.9193443 ‐121.748 ST ANDREWS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses St Andrews 007‐100‐082 7100082 St Andrews 37.9183905 ‐121.744 ST ANDREWS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐20 38 Golf Courses St Andrews 007‐100‐083 7100083 St Andrews 37.9160824 ‐121.745 ST ANDREWS DR BRTWD 94513 Mountain View
San Juan Oaks
Golf Courses
Golf Courses
Golf Courses
Golf Courses
Golf Courses
Golf Courses
Country Club
NO ADDRESS
Country Club
Country Club
W Country Club
Cinnabar Hills
NO ADDRESS
NO ADDRESS
NO ADDRESS
NO ADDRESS
NO ADDRESS
Golf Courses NO ADDRESS
Golf Courses NO ADDRESS
Golf Courses NO ADDRESS
E.2.a
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐2
0 38 Golf Courses St Andrews 007‐460‐141 7460141 St Andrews 37.9162843 ‐121.749 ST ANDREWS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf SPF PD‐2
0 38 Golf Courses St Andrews 007‐460‐142 7460142 St Andrews 37.9148645 ‐121.749 ST ANDREWS DR BRTWD 94513 Deer Ridge Golf R‐LD PD‐2
0 38 Golf Courses Foothill 007‐100‐097 7110097 Foothill FOOTHILL DR BRTWD 94513 E.2.a
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative)

MARTINEZ OPEN SPACE AND PARK PROTECTION INITIATIVE
The People of the City of Martinez do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this initiative is to increase protections for open space, park and outdoor recreation land in the City by requiring approval by Martinez voters for any General Plan amendment to change allowable uses or land use designations for such land. The protections provided by this Initiative will help ensure that these lands and their valued uses are not changed to uses associated with more intensive development without approval by Martinez voters.

SECTION 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF MEASURE
This Initiative amends the Martinez General Plan to require approval by Martinez voters in order to change land uses or designations of open space, park and outdoor recreation land beyond those allowed by this Initiative.

The Initiative amends the Martinez General Plan to identify “Protected Open Space and Parks” as an overlay land use designation. It places in that designation all land that, as of January 1, 2017, was within the Martinez City Limits and had been designated in the General Plan for open space, park and outdoor recreation use as defined under Government Code Section 66530(b).

SECTION 3. FINDINGS
The People of the City of Martinez do find and declare:
a. Approval by Martinez Voters
Martinez open space, park and recreation lands are critical to the health and wellbeing of the residents of Martinez. Their continued protection is of great importance to the community. This Initiative requires approval by Martinez voters to change land uses or designations of open space, park and outdoor recreation land beyond those allowed by this Initiative. b. Pressure from Increasing Population
As our population continues to grow, there will be increasing pressure to convert existing open space, park, and recreation land to other more intensive development uses, both residential and commercial. Increases in population in and around the City are also placing increased demands on existing park and recreation land.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) c. Current City Council Powers
At present, the City Council can convert existing open space, park, and outdoor recreation land to other uses. The City Council has voted repeatedly to convert land from open space to development.
d. Importance of Voter Approval
Decisions removing lands from open space, park and outdoor recreation use and changing them to more intensively developed uses are too important to be left solely to the discretion of the five people on the City Council. e. Benefits Open Space and Parks give to Martinez Residents that Make Their Increased Protection Important
These lands provide sites for native plants and animals (including rare and endangered ones); keep wildlife areas connected; protect creeks and wetlands; provide scenic views and beautiful settings; help protect and preserve water and air quality; help people learn about their environment; reduce damage from landslides and earthquakes in steep and unstable hillside areas; and help absorb greenhouse gasses – a major cause of damaging climate change.

Open space, park and recreation lands increase property values, improve our health and sense of well-being, provide us with enjoyment and tranquility, reduce the stress and strain of modern life, and connect us with the natural world. f. Historic 1973 General Plan Provisions Readopted
This Initiative does not change the amount of housing that is allowed on open space. The 1973 General Plan explicitly allows a certain amount of residential development on certain privately owned open space. This Initiative readopts those provisions in order to maintain continuity and provide fairness to those private property owners. The Initiative also readopts requirements in the 1973 General Plan limiting environmental impacts of any such residential use in the Franklin Hills sub-area.
g. Marina and Harbor Area State Regulations
Because a high level of protection is already mandated by State law, and because the City must have flexibility to prepare and submit a trust lands use plan to the State Lands Commission no later than January 1, 2020, it is appropriate that this Initiative not apply to the areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront (see attached Exhibit B for location). This land, as land subject to the public trust, was deeded to the City as trustee by Senate Bill 1424 of the 2014 California legislative session.

The law requires that the lands be held “…for the benefit of all the people of the state for purposes consistent with the public trust doctrine, including the protection of maritime or water-dependent commerce, navigation, and fisheries, E.2.a
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) the preservation of the lands in their natural state for scientific study, open space, wildlife habitat, and water-oriented recreation.”
Because the Initiative does not apply to the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront, it does not limit proposals for placing restaurants in these areas. The limits set by public trust doctrine remain as they currently are. h. Burden of Proof
This Initiative is designed to protect agricultural use as defined in Government Code Section 51201(b), and open space land as defined in Government Code Section 65560(b), for purposes of California Evidence Code Section 669.5(c)(3). i. Federal and State Law
This Initiative is subject to Federal and State law. Because that law is not always clear and changes, this Initiative provides explicitly that it does not apply, notwithstanding its literal terms, when its application would be inconsistent with Federal or State law. This inapplicability is designed to prevent the Initiative from being in conflict with law or subjecting the City to any liability.

SECTION 4. TITLE
This Initiative is entitled the Martinez Open Space and Park Protection Initiative. It is referred to in the text interchangeably as the “Initiative,” “measure,” or “ordinance.” SECTION 5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Preamble: This General Plan Amendment shall, upon adoption, become a part of the Martinez General Plan. Additions to the General Plan are indicated by italics; deletions are indicated by strike-out marks. Headings are included to assist in reading the amendment, but in case of any ambiguity, the actual text shall govern. All General Plan provisions adopted or readopted through this Initiative shall be distinctively identified in the General Plan as having been adopted by initiative.
a. Approval by Martinez Voters
Approval by Martinez voters is required to change land use designations or allowable uses of Protected Open Space and Parks to uses or designations not permitted under Protected Open Space and Parks, except as otherwise provided for in this Initiative. “Protected Open Space and Parks” is defined in subsection (b) below. b. “Protected Open Space and Parks” Overlay Established A new land use overlay designation of “Protected Open Space and Parks” is established within the General Plan’s Land Use Element. All lands within the Martinez City Limits designated for open space, park, and outdoor recreation use as of January 1, 2017 are hereby also designated as “Protected Open Space and Parks,” with the exception of the areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront governed by Senate Bill 1424 (Statutes 2014, Chapter. 628) and further described in Section 5.i. In addition, any land later designated in the General Plan for open space, park, and outdoor recreation use shall also automatically be included in the Protected Open Space and Parks overlay designation. “Protected Open Space and Parks” specifically includes, but is not limited to, those lands designated in the 1973 General Plan as Public Permanent Open Space, Parks and Recreation, Open E.2.a
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Space/Conservation Use Land, Environmentally Sensitive Land and Open Space.

The lands covered on January 1, 2017, by this overlay designation are shown in the attached map provided by the City and titled “EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP Updated with September 2013 Map Amendments and December 2012 City Boundary Change.” The map is marked as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by this reference. It has been modified, for ease of identification, by enlarging written land use designations shown on the map for those areas included within the overlay designation. However, in all cases the land use designations, as shown by map coloration, shall govern inclusion in the overlay designation, except for the areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront, which are explicitly excluded under subsection 5.i.
c. Open Space, Park and Outdoor Recreation Uses
Allowable uses on land designated as Protected Open Space and Parks are as follows:
i. for open space lands, permitted uses are: nature conservation or study; ecosystem, habitat, and watershed preservation; hiking trails and outdoor open space recreation; agricultural use; forestry use; grazing lands; and other similar uses consistent with the purpose and intent of this Initiative; ii. for park and recreation lands, permitted uses are: park use; outdoor recreation and sports uses – including but not limited to playing fields, outdoor swimming facilities, golf course, outdoor courts for sport use (e.g., tennis, basketball, bocce ball, pickleball, volleyball, etc.); historic site preservation; stables and riding facilities; picnic areas; playgrounds; dog parks; recreation trails; and other similar uses consistent with the intent of this Initiative.

Except as provided for in this Initiative, residential or commercial uses are not allowed on Protected Open Space and Parks.
d. Ancillary Uses
In addition to the uses allowable under subsection (c) of this section, other ancillary uses may be allowed on Protected Open Space and Parks land, so long as the ancillary use is subsidiary and is customarily associated with a use allowed on the open space, park, and outdoor recreation land.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) e. Development-Intensive Uses Allowed if Approved by Martinez Voters Uses on any one or more categories of open space, park and recreation land may be changed to allow more development-oriented uses and land use designations than those above, including commercial and residential uses, but this Initiative requires that any such change of uses be approved by Martinez voters. f. Existing Legal Uses Are Permitted
If uses are currently legal and already existing or are vested on Protected Open Space and Parks land, but are not permitted under this Initiative on Protected Open Space and Parks land when this Initiative takes effect, they may continue unaffected by the Initiative’s restrictions; but such uses may not be expanded except as allowed under the Initiative.
g. City Council Can Increase Restrictions
The City Council may further restrict, through zoning or other legal means, permitted uses on any category of Protected Open Space and Parks. h. Readoption of Historic 1973 General Plan Provisions
This Initiative does not change the amount of housing that is allowed on open space.

The 1973 General Plan explicitly allows a certain amount of residential development on privately owned open space. To maintain continuity and provide fairness to those private property owners, those allowances are readopted in this Initiative. Existing requirements in the 1973 General Plan (as part of the Central Martinez Specific Area Plan, as incorporated into the General Plan) limiting environmental impacts of any such residential use in the Franklin Hills sub-area are also readopted by the Initiative.

Accordingly, this Initiative readopts certain provisions contained in the 1973 General Plan as attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. Provisions not indicated in Exhibit C remain unchanged, but are not being readopted as part of this Initiative.
i. Marina and Harbor Area Public Trusts Lands Excluded
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Initiative, because a high level of protection is already mandated by State law, and because the City must have flexibility to prepare and submit a trust lands use plan to the State Lands Commission no later than January 1, 2020, this Initiative does not apply to the areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront governed by the Public Trust. These areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront are governed by Senate Bill 1424 (Statutes 2014, Chapter. 628) and are shown as the shaded areas marked as, “2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D” in the attached map, Exhibit B.
j. Residential Use Required by State Housing Law
Development on Protected Open Space and Parks for residential use shall be allowed to the extent it is specifically necessary to satisfy a residential development requirement under State law and on the condition that the requirements cannot otherwise be satisfied; provided, however, that such development shall only be allowed to the extent specifically required, and that the area involved in such development shall be the minimum so required.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) k. Protection of Constitutional Rights
If a court of competent jurisdiction rules that the application of this Initiative to a specific proposed use or project would deprive a person of Constitutional rights or privileges, or otherwise would be contrary to Federal or State law, the Initiative shall not apply to the extent required to allow that use or project. This explicit limitation on applicability is to make certain that the provisions do not infringe any person’s legal rights or privileges, violate the law in any respect, or subject the City to legal liability.

SECTION 6. – IMPLEMENTATION
a. This Initiative’s provisions become effective upon approval, and the General Plan Amendment included as Section 5 of the Initiative shall be inserted into the General Plan as soon as is legally allowed.
b. If the provisions of this General Plan Amendment would conflict or be inconsistent with any other existing or proposed future provision of the Martinez General Plan, or with any existing or proposed future map, diagram, or chart within the Martinez General Plan, or any zoning provision, specific plan, or other City law or regulation, those conflicting provisions, maps, diagrams, charts, laws or regulations are, to the extent they are in conflict with or inconsistent with the provisions of this Initiative, hereby declared void and unenforceable.
c. Other than as provided herein, upon the effective date of this General Plan Amendment, the City and its departments, boards, commissions, officers and employees shall not grant, or by inaction allow to be approved by operation of law, any General Plan amendment, rezoning, specific plan, subdivision map, conditional use permit, building permit or any other ministerial or discretionary entitlement, which is inconsistent with the purposes of this Initiative or its included General Plan Amendment. d. This measure shall be interpreted liberally to further its purposes. It is the intent of the voters that the provisions of this measure shall be interpreted by the City and others in a manner that protects open space, park, and recreation lands as set forth herein. e. Any resident of the City of Martinez, any organization with members living in the City of Martinez, and any other party with standing may enforce the provisions of this measure by judicial proceedings. If, as result of that proceeding, the court issues a judgment finding that a violation has or was about to occur and providing appropriate relief for that violation, such legal proceedings shall be considered to have protected important public rights and benefited the public.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this measure is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this measure. The voters hereby declare that this measure, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed, even if one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional. If any provision of this Initiative is declared invalid as applied to any E.2.a
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) person or circumstance, such invalidity shall not affect any application of this measure that can be given effect without the invalid application.

SECTION 8. CONFLICTING MEASURES
If another measure appears on the same ballot in the election where this Initiative is approved by the voters, this Initiative shall be fully effective unless that other competing measure received more votes and one of the following applies: a) the other measure constitutes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the areas and subjects covered by this Initiative, or b) there are actual, definite and irreconcilable conflicts between the other measure and this Initiative, in which case the conflicting provisions of this Initiative shall be deemed ineffective. Any provision of a competing measure purporting to nullify the effect of this Initiative or to declare that the two measures are in irreconcilable conflict are, in and of themselves, ineffective.

SECTION 9. AMENDMENT
This Initiative may be amended or repealed only by Martinez voters. The City Council may make technical, non-substantive modifications to the provisions of this measure; however any such modification or amendment must be fully consistent with the intent and purposes of the measure. The City Council may also amend this measure to strengthen the environmental protections it contains; however any such amendment must be fully consistent with the purposes and intent of the measure.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Exhibit A – Areas included in the Protected Open Space and Parks Overlay Designation.

The attached map, modified from a map provided by the City and titled “EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP Updated with September 2013 Map Amendments and December 2012 City Boundary Change,” shows the areas within the Martinez City Limits, as of January 1, 2017, that are included in the Protected Open Space and Parks overlay designation being created by this Initiative. For ease in identification, written land use designations shown on the map have been enlarged for those areas included in the overlay designation. However, in all cases the land use designations, as shown by map coloration, shall govern inclusion in the overlay designation, except for the areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront, which are explicitly excluded under Section

5.i of this Initiative.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) E.2.a
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Exhibit B – Excluded areas of the Martinez marina and harbor waterfront.

Parcels 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D, shown below as shaded areas, are excluded from the provisions of this Initiative, because they are subject to the public trust protections and requirements as set forth more fully in Section 5.i of the Measure.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Exhibit C – Provisions of the 1973 General Plan Readopted by this Initiative.

This Initiative readopts the following provisions of the 1973 General Plan as described in Section 5.h of the Measure. Section numbering from the 1973 General Plan is included for reference, but are not integral to the provisions being readopted.

21.22 (…) Appropriate private open space uses include agricultural, grazing, open space recreational uses such as camp facilities, or residential uses where such uses and related facilities such as roads and parking areas constitute less than two percent of the entire land area where the balance of the land is retained in a natural state or agricultural state.

F 21.2 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DENSITIES AS RELATED TO

DWELLING UNIT SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS
Dwelling Units per Gross Acre Required Site Area per Dwelling Unit
Open Space/Conservation Use or Environmentally Sensitive Lands:
0 to 1 units Within the Alhambra Creek
Watershed
40,000 square feet per unit or
greater with larger site area
requirements typical of the
zone, unless otherwise
specified in a Specific Plan.
0 to 2 units Outside the Alhambra Creek
Watershed
20,000 square feet per unit or
greater.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) 30 CENTRAL MARTINEZ SPECIFIC AREA PLAN

30.621 The Franklin Hills sub-area, extending from the Carquinez Straits to California State Highway Route 4 between urban Martinez and the western edge of the study area, are designated
Environmentally Sensitive Lands or Public Permanent Open Space

30.621.1 In this area limited residential development on an individual site basis may be appropriate if certain environmental impacts can be mitigated. Each application for residential development shall be accompanied by the following items:

A. Applications for rezoning and development plan approval shall be processed concurrently. Each application shall contain
documentation by the appropriate professionals hired by the applicant that each and every significant environmental impact (including cumulative impacts) identified in the Franklin Hills Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been thoroughly
investigated for the site in question and can be mitigated to an insignificant level. Site-specific and cumulative mitigation measures shall be designed in sufficient detail to allow preliminary cost estimates to be also included in the application.

B. Prior to acceptance of the application as complete, all portions of this application shall be reviewed for completeness and accuracy by City staff and appropriate City consultants. The cost of this review shall be paid by the applicant.

C. No application shall be accepted for a proposal which exceeds a density of one unit per half-acre of land under 30% slope and under 350 ft. elevation, and one unit per ten acres over 350 feet elevation. A slope density map meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements shall be submitted with each application.

D. No application shall be accepted for a site which does not have, or provide as part of the development proposal, access to a fullyimproved public street meeting all City requirements including those relating to length and number of lots served by a cul-de-sac.

E.2.a
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: A. Citizen Drafted Initiative Documents (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) Attachment B
General Plan Definition for all General Plan Designations under the title of “Public, SemiPublic, and Conservation Land Use Designations” Public Facility (PF) - The PF designation applies to land areas reserved for government offices and facilities, public agency offices and facilities, and public utility facilities.

Semi-Public Facility (SPF) - The SPF designation applies to land areas reserved for privately owned uses that serve the community. These uses include religious assembly facilities, golf courses and other privately owned recreation facilities, private schools, and day care centers.

Park (P) – The P designation includes existing and future park and recreation facilities of varying size, function, and location to serve the entire community. Standards for park sites are described in greater detail in the Community Services and Facilities Element. The Land Use Map does not reflect all potential future park sites. Parks are an allowed land use in all residential, commercial, business park, mixed-use, and public and semi-public facility designations.

School (SCH) – The SCH designation identifies the locations of existing and planned public schools, as well as administrative offices and other facilities that are owned and operated by the respective school district. The Land Use Map does not reflect all potential future school sites.

Community College (CC) – The CC designation identifies the location of a future community college.

Permanent Open Space (P-OS) – The P-OS designation identifies lands that are permanently protected from future urban development through the application of conservation easements or other formal mechanisms to ensure that open space uses are continued in perpetuity.

Appropriate and typical uses include grazing land, regional and State parks, wildlife preserves, and habitat areas.

Agricultural Conservation (AC) – The AC designation encompasses lands with continuing commercial agricultural potential. The intent of this designation is to retain primary agricultural use to the greatest extent possible. This is done by focusing public and private efforts to protect such land from the impacts and pressures of the nearby urban area as well as to enhance the income potential from agricultural use. In order to protect the Urban Limit Line, no annexations or urban-type development will be allowed in this area. Examples of allowed uses include orchards, row crops, nurseries, grazing lands, open space, packing and shipping facilities, wineries, bed and breakfast inns, u-pick stands, farm equipment repair and services, and parks.

Urban Reserve (UR) – The UR designation serves as a placeholder for future urban development. The land designated as Urban Reserve is located beyond the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) and outside the Urban Limit Line. Lands designated Urban Reserve shall not be extensively subdivided or developed until it is appropriate to develop the lands with urban levels of residential, commercial, parks and recreation, and public/semi-public uses. It is expected that more specific planning and feasibility studies will be required prior to the development of these areas. Development of these areas will require separate environmental review, General Plan amendments, Sphere of Influence amendments, annexations, and other entitlements. In order to avoid "leapfrog" style development, provide for the logical extension of City services, and allow for appropriate planning of Brentwood, the Urban Reserve areas could only develop when:

E.2.b
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: B. General Plan Definitions (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative)

1. Urban development is occurring immediately adjacent to the Urban Reserve parcel which intends to develop;

2. Urban services (i.e., water, wastewater, storm drainage, utilities, and roads) have been extended or are planned to be extended to the majority of adjacent lands designated for urban uses; and

3. The new development improves the jobs/housing balance or maintains an approximately 1.5:1 jobs/housing balance, or there is substantial justification why this ratio cannot be met. The City may determine that the above findings are not required if the development offers substantial amenities or benefits to the community that are beyond current levels. Prior to the submittal of an application for any entitlements within the Urban Reserve area, a market feasibility study shall be prepared by an independent consultant contracted by the City and paid for by the developer. The results of this study shall be used by the City Council to determine if it is appropriate for the property to develop.

E.2.b
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: B. General Plan Definitions (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) C i t y o f A n t i o c h C i t y o f A n t i o c h
C i t y o f O a k l e y
C i t y o f O a k l e y
Brentwood Blvd
UV4
Sand Creek Rd
Central B lvd
Bre
ntw
o
o
d
Blv
d
Briones
Valley Rd
Deer Valley Rd
Dee
r
Valley
Rd
UV4
Concord Ave
Empire Ave
Sellers Ave
Neroly Rd
Balfour Rd Balfour Rd
Chestnut St
Sunset Rd
Dainty Ave
Lone Tree Way
Delta Rd
Marsh Creek Rd
Fairview Ave
Ohara Ave
Walnut Blvd
SPA 1
SPA 2
Brentwood General Plan Land Use Map
Sand Creek
Marsh Creek
Aqueduct
Deer Creek
Dry Creek
Planning Areas
Brentwood City Limits
Brentwood Sphere of Influence
Brentwood Planning Area
Brentwood Blvd. Specific Plan Area
Downtown Specific Plan Area
PA-1 Specific Plan Area
³
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
1:15,000
Adopted July 22, 2014 Land Use Designations
DSP - Downtown Specific Plan
BBSP - Brentwood Blvd Specific Plan
CC - Community College
I - Industrial
UR - Urban Reserve
AGCON - Agricultural Conservation
P - Park
P-OS - Permanent Open Space
GC - General Commercial
RC - Regional Commercial
BP - Business Park
PO - Professional Office
PD - Planned Development
PF - Public Facility
SPF - Semi-Public Facility
RE - Ranchette Estate
R-VLD - Residential-Very Low Density
R-LD - Residential-Low Density
R-MD - Residential-Medium Density
R-HD - Residential-High Density
R-VHD - Residential-Very High Density
SCH - School
SPA - Special Planning Area
PA-1 SP - PA-1 Specific Plan
Date Printed: 4/21/2022
Amendments
March 8, 2016
Date Resolution #
2016 - 26
September 13, 2016 2016 - 125
March 14, 2017 2017 - 33
August 28, 2018 2018 - 114
November 13, 2018 2018 - 158
June 8, 2021 2021 - 68
E.2.c
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: C. General Plan Large Format (2675 : proposed land use ballot initiative) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 1
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Subject/Title: Future agenda item request from Council Member Mendoza for City Council discussion of, and possible direction to staff, related to a policy and procedures for requests from Council Members or organizations they are involved with for grants, partnerships, and requests for anything of value from the City.

Prepared by: Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
Submitted by: Tim Ogden, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Mendoza, related to a policy and procedures for requests from Council Members or organizations they are involved with for grants, partnerships, and requests for anything of value from the City.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
At the City Council meeting of April 12, 2022, Council Member Mendoza requested a future agenda item related to the creation of a policy and procedures for requests from Council Members or organizations they are involved with for grants, partnerships, and requests for anything of value from the City.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Council Policy 110-1 Rule 4.4 (b)(2), this item has been placed on the agenda so that Council may discuss it and provide further direction to staff. Pursuant to Section 4.4, Council discussion is limited to whether staff time and City resources should be spent on the item and the time period for scheduling.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

F.2.1
Packet Pg. 649
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Subject/Title: Future agenda item request from Council Member Meyer for City Council discussion of, and possible direction to staff, related to clarified procedures for proclamations, including their placement on the agenda when a recipient is not present to accept them.

Prepared by: Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
Submitted by: Tim Ogden, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Meyer related to clarified procedures for proclamations, including their placement on the agenda when a recipient is not present to accept them.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
At the City Council meeting of April 12, 2022, Council Member Meyer requested a future agenda item related to clarified procedures for proclamations, including their placement on the agenda when a recipient is not present to accept them.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

F.2.2
Packet Pg. 650

Brentwood City CouncilApril 26, 2022

Brentwood City Council
April 26, 2022