City Council Meeting Agenda

9-4-2018 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONCORD CITY COUNCIL.PDF

Supporting Documents

5A - CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES.PDF5B - CONSIDERING RESPONSE TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2017-2018 GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1808.PDF5C - CONSIDERING AWARD OF PURCHASE OF TEN 2019 FORD UTILITY POLICE INTERCEPTORS.PDF5A - CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES.PDF6A - CONSIDERING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-6042.3.PDF

Annotated Minutes

ANNOTATED MINUTES.PDF

1.

Documents:

2.

Documents:

3.

Documents:

Regular Meeting of the Concord City Councilci.concord.ca.us/citygov/agendas/council/2018/09042018.asp

COUNCILMEMBERSEdi E. Birsan, MayorCarlyn S. Obringer, Vice MayorLaura M. HoffmeisterRonald E. LeoneTimothy A. McGallian

Civic Center1950 Parkside DriveConcord, CA 94519www.cityofconcord.org

Tuesday, September 4, 2018 6:30 p.m. Open Session - Council Chamber. 1950 Parkside Drive

Information for the public on participation at Council meetings can be found on the back ofthe Speaker Identification Card located near the Council Chamber entrance. Should you haveany questions after consulting the Speaker Identification Card, please contact the City Clerkprior to the Council meeting.

AGENDIZED ITEMS - The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing onthe agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will belimited to approximately three minutes.

1. OPENINGRoll CallPledge to the Flag - Boy Scout Troop 370

1/4

2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODThis is a fifteen-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’ssubject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited toapproximately three minutes. State law prohibits the City Council from acting at thismeeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period.

3. PRESENTATIONS1. Presentation - of the Daniel C. Helix Award of Excellence to Chris Llata, Senior

Maintenance Team Leader, by Director of Public Works Justin Ezell. Introductionby Mayor Birsan.

2. Presentation - to Father Marin of the St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Churchproclaiming September 14, 15, and 16, 2018, as "Greek Festival Days" in the City ofConcord. Presentation by Mayor Birsan.

3. Presentation - by Cherise Khaund and Sharon Jenkins, Mt. Diablo Unified SchoolDistrict Education Foundation, on Education Foundation Activities. Introduction byMayor Birsan.

4. Presentation - by Cindy Gershen, Mt. Diablo High School, on activities at Mt. DiabloHigh School. Introduction by Mayor Birsan.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS

5. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the ConsentCalendar before or during the City Council’s consideration of the Consent Calendar.Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council,provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of anitem from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. If a request for removal ofan item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action onthe particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in anyorder s/he deems appropriate.

1. Considering - approval of the minutes from the meetings of June 6, 12, and 19,2018. Recommended by the City Clerk.

2. Considering - response to Contra Costa County 2017-18 Grand Jury Report No.1808, Joint Power Authorities. Recommended by the Director of Finance.

3. Considering - award of purchase of ten 2019 Ford Utility Police Interceptors toFuture Ford of Concord in the amount of $325,300.80. (Annual VehicleReplacement Fund) Recommended by the Director of Public Works.

4. Considering - approval to purchase Motorola Time Division Multiple Access(TDMA) licensing and upgrades of Motorola software in an amount not to exceed$128,000 on all City of Concord Motorola radios and requesting an appropriationfrom the FY 2017-18 General Fund operating budget savings. (General Fund)Recommended by the Chief of Police.

2/4

6. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGPersons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard whenthe public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closedto public comment. After the public has commented, the item is closed to further publiccomment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further commentfrom the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No publichearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the CityCouncil.

1. Considering - adoption of Resolution No. 18-6042.3 amending Resolution No. 78-6042, Exhibit A, Section E Police Fees, modifying and establishing CodeEnforcement fees in the City of Concord (including fees related to commercialcannabis violations) and updating Municipal Code references. Report by NicholasGartner, Police Lieutenant.CEQA: Not a project/exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 CalCode Reg. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, 15061(b)(3), and/or 15300.2.

7. CORRESPONDENCECorrespondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on theAnnotated Agenda..

8. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS1. Closed Session Announcements2. City Manager or Staff Reports3. Council Reports

9. ADJOURNMENT

Next Meeting: Regular Meeting - Closed SessionDate: 9/11/2018 - 6:30 PM.

ADA NOTICE AND HEARING IMPAIRED PROVISIONS - The Council Chamber is equipped witha T-Coil Hearing Loop. This system allows "T" coil reception of the audio proceedings. Pleaseswitch your hearing aid or cochlear device to the "T", "T" Coil or telephone position. If youwould like better audio reception, a loop receiver that picks up the audio loop is available fromthe City Clerk.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy ofthe City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that isreadily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and requirea copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate

3/4

alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinatorat (925) 671-3031, at least five days in advance of the hearing. Advance notification within thisguideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

The following is a list of regular Council Committee meeting dates. Most meetings are held inthe Garden Conference Room, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord. NOTE: Meetings are subject tochange or cancellation. For latest information and committee agendas please call 671-3158.

Committee Chair/Member Meeting Time

Policy Development & Internal Operations Birsan/Obringer 2nd Wednesday at 5:30pm

Housing & Economic Development Obringer/McGallian 4th Monday at 5:30 pm

Infrastructure & Franchise Hoffmeister/Leone 2nd Monday at 6:00 pm

Recreation, Cultural Affairs & CommunityServices

McGallian/Birsan 3rd Wednesday at 5:30 pm

Youth & Education Leone/Hoffmeister 3rd Monday at 6:00 pm

4/4

1

SPECIAL MEETING OF THECONCORD CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY/PLANNING COMMISSIONCITY COUNCIL CHAMBER1950 PARKSIDE DRIVECONCORD, CALIFORNIAWEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018

The Concord City Council Sitting as the Local Reuse Authority and the Planning Commission met in a special joint meeting in the Council Chamber located at 1950 Parkside Drive at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2018, with Mayor Birsan presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Obringer. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Hoffmeister, Ron Leone, Tim McGallian, Carlyn Obringer, Edi Birsan (Councilmember Hoffmeister arrived at 6:30 p.m.)

PLANNING COMMISSIONERSPRESENT: Ray Barbour, Jason Laub, John Mercurio, Mark

Weinmann, Dominic Aliano (Commissioner Weinmann arrived at 6:25 p.m.)

STAFF PRESENT: Kathleen Trepa, Assistant City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Andrea Ouse, Director of Community and Economic Development; Guy Bjerke, Director of Community Reuse Planning; Joan Ryan, Community Reuse Area Planner; Laura Simpson, Planning and Housing Manager; Margaret Kotzubue, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Coleman Frick, Associate Planner

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICWHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Tim Carr, Concord; Oscar Delgado, Concord; Suzanne

Delbou, Concord; Ralph Oliver, Concord; Rich Hutchison, Concord; Juan Pablo Galvan, Save Mt. Diablo; Ronald Flannery, East Bay Housing Organizations; Carlos Castellanos, Mid Pen Housing

STUDY SESSION

UPDATE TO THE NORTH CONCORD BUFFER AND DISTRICT A GREEN SPACE

Community Reuse Area Planner Joan Ryan presented an overview of the 2012 Area Plan, explaining that at that time the focus was on Transit Oriented Development (TOD), with the North Concord BART Station as a focal point, and that the Area Plan included a green buffer of an unspecified width adjacent to existing residents in the area of the BART site. She stated that the buffer was intended to provide a transition to the existing, neighboring residential development and space for pedestrian/bicycle connections to the BART station.

Planner Ryan clarified that two green buffer concepts were presented at the April 2, 2018 Study Session, and that three green buffer options were explored for North Concord for this Study Session, Ms. Ryan Summarized the three options as outlined in the staff report. She noted that

5.a5.a5.a

Page 1 of 10

City Council Minutes June 6, 2018

2

the differences among the options are primarily driven by the width of the open space buffer, and as the buffer becomes wider, the buildings become taller. She stated that additional green space, parks, and plazas are provided throughout the remainder of the TOD district and the proposed open space in the project is greater than existing parkland within Concord presently without the inclusion the regional park, which will add another approximately 2,600 acres.

Ms. Ryan introduced Aaron Ashley, Hart Howerton, who presented a proposed network of different types of open space.

The Council and the Planning Commission asked clarifying questions about the North Concord BART buffer and the green space proposals.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

Tim Carr, Concord, spoke of trading land with BART, what he referred to as a land swap, to accommodate a wider buffer between existing residents and future development.

Oscar Delgado, Concord, spoke of his concerns over the proposed buffer and compliance with the California Fire Code.

Suzanne Delbou, Concord, spoke of her concern over density and the height of the buildings, and requested a 200 foot buffer.

Ralph Oliver, Concord, spoke of consideration for local residents, requested a 200 foot buffer, and supported a land swap with BART.

Rich Hutchison, Concord, spoke of his concerns over having seven story buildings next to single family homes and requested a 200 foot buffer.

Anonymous, spoke of the City not hosting a neighborhood meeting for his neighborhood, and stated that the neighborhood deserved protection from urban blight.

Juan Pablo Galvan, Save Mt. Diablo, spoke of the buffer separating existing development from other existing development and that making the buffer wider may not be the best idea.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

The Council expressed concern about a 100 foot buffer and requested exploration of up to a 200 foot buffer with enhanced amenities. They stressed the importance of treating exsiting neighbors equitably and the importance of “One Concord.” The Council requested conceptual and visual studies be completed and the exploration of a land swap with BART. They felt that eight story buildings located near one story houses was not acceptable.

The Planning Commissioners requested visual studies showing higher buildings and the created shadows. There was a preference for an increased buffer, and they supported a site visit.

Mayor Birsan called a recess at 8:27 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:45 p.m.

LAND USE PLAN/PROGRAM UPDATES

Community Reuse Area Planner Joan Ryan presented an overview of the proposed Land Use Plan and Program Updates, reporting that the developer made modifications to the Land Use Plan and Program based on market and feasibility studies, the desire to provide a broad product mix over time that attracts buyers locally and regionally, providing support for affordable housing through proximity to transit and services, and support for transit and multi-modal goals of the project. Ms. Ryan noted that the overall unit count will remain the same sitewide and for Phase

Page 2 of 10

City Council Minutes June 6, 2018

3

One with the proposed modifications. Ms. Ryan reported a shift in land use designations and minor shifts made in the size of each of the Districts. She conveyed that adjustments were made to promote a more diverse product mix, attractive to a wide variety of buyers and income levels, and that the updated program includes 42 percent multi-family housing. Ms. Ryan summarized staff’s support for the adjustments to the plan/program to optimize land uses and bolster success for affordable housing. She introduced Sheela Jivan, Lennar FivePoint, who introduced the Lennar FivePoint team.

Sheryl McKibben, Lennar FivePoint, explained Lennar FivePoint’s vision of the project and its Principles of Place, which are broken into five thematic messages and five instructional messages. She introduced Shwetha Subramanian, Lennar FivePoint, who presented the changes to the Land Use Plan.

The Council asked questions about the shift in boundaries, the size of the campus, the timing of the connector bus routes, maintenance of the green space, if a convention center concept was being explored, the changes in density and land uses, the difference between commercial and commercial flex designations, affordable housing and ownershipand the concept of tiny homes.

The Planning Commission asked clarifying questions on affordable housing numbers, the estimated population, and the shift in land uses.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

Ronald Flannery, East Bay Housing Organizations, spoke in support of the increase in multi-family housing and including affordable housing.

Carlos Castellanos, Mid Pen Housing, stated that the changes in the plan are encouraging.

Ralph Oliver, Concord, requested that roads be built first before buildings.

Susanne Delbou, Concord, requested a change in density near existing neighborhoods and did not support the proposed plan.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

The Council shared their thoughts on utilizing more of Willow Pass for mixed use, ensuring proper transportation modes, and having less density in some areas with more single family homes. They commented on the importance of homeownership and emphasized the importance of creating jobs and not just housing around the TOD. They requested exploration of the possibility of building duets or fourplexes and adding more density in area G, including the development of a complex of tiny homes. They shared their disappointment in the plan and concerns about the proposed plan not being the vision of “World Class.”

The Planning Commission supported homeownership, affordable housing in condo or single family homeownership, creating more jobs around the TOD and being more creative with higher density housing through the concept of duets or fourplexes. They had concerns with changing from medium density to low density and preferred other options besides mixed use.

CORRESPONDENCE

a. Benched Correspondence Agenda Item No. 2ab. Benched Holbrook Heights Meeting Minutes – Agenda Item No. 2ac. Benched Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan maps – Agenda Item No. 2ad. PowerPoint Presentation – North Concord Buffer and District A Green Space

Page 3 of 10

City Council Minutes June 6, 2018

4

e. PowerPoint Presentation – Land Use Plan/Program Updatesf. PowerPoint Presentation – Lennar FivePoint – Concord Reuse Project Programg. North Concord Neighborhood Meeting Summary from Saturday, June 2, 2018

ADJOURNMENT

By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m.

____________________________EDI E. BIRSANMAYOR

____________________________JOELLE FOCKLER, MMCCITY CLERK

Page 4 of 10

1

REGULAR MEETING OF THECONCORD CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITYCITY COUNCIL CHAMBER1950 PARKSIDE DRIVECONCORD, CALIFORNIATUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2018

The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting in the Council Chamber located at 1950 Parkside Drive at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, with Mayor Birsan presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember Hoffmeister. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Hoffmeister, Ron Leone, Tim McGallian, Carlyn Obringer, Edi Birsan

STAFF PRESENT: KathleenTrepa, Assistant City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Patti Barsotti, City Treasurer; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Karan Reid, Director of Finance; Justin Ezell, Director of Public Works; Guy Bjerke, Director of Community Reuse Planning; Jeff Lewis, Director of Information Technology; Steve Voorhies, Director of Parks and Recreation; Kevin Marstall, Interim City Engineer; Michael Cass, Principal Planner; Sophia Sidhu, Housing Program Analyst; Mark Migliore, Associate Civil Engineer; Damaris Sambajon, Systems and Programming Manager; Robert Beckler; Systems and Programming Manager; Bernard Enrile, Senior Civil Engineer

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICWHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: George Fulmore, Concord; Matt Light; Rochelle Leva,

Walnut Creek; Wayne Calhoon, Concord; Kenji Yamada, Concord

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

George Fulmore, Concord, spoke of police cars left running, pot holes, and monitoring Engineering projects.

Matt Light, spoke in favor of a retail pilot project for medical marijuana.

Rochelle Leva, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of more than one retail pilot project for medical marijuana and education through legal dispensaries.

Wayne Calhoon, Concord, spoke of his concern over homelessness in Concord.

PRESENTATIONS - none

ANNOUNCEMENTS - none

TREASURER’S REPORT

Page 5 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

2

City Treasurer Patty Barsotti presented the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the period January 1 – March 31, 2018.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 2, 2018

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 2, 2018. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 18-3 – Establishing a Commercial Cannabis Overlay District and a Licensing Framework for Cannabis Manufacturing, Cannabis Testing Laboratories, and Cannabis Distribution

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Ordinance No. 18-3 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Establish a Commercial Cannabis Overlay District, Associated Development Standards, and a Licensing Framework for Cannabis Manufacturing, Cannabis Testing Laboratories, and Cannabis Distribution.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 18-4 – City Council Compensation

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Ordinance No. 18-4 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 2.10 (Officers and Employees), Article II (Compensation), Section 2.10.020 (Councilmembers) Increasing Councilmember Compensation by Four Percent, to $1,352 per Month, to be Effective after the November 2018 City Council Election.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT – Contra Costa County – Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve an agreement between Contra Costa County and the City of Concord for the Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITYWIDE ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS #4 – Project No. 2376

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to accept improvements for Citywide Accessibility Improvements #4, Project No. 2376, and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-48 – Five Easements for Five Properties for the Commerce Avenue Complete Streets Project, Project No. 2085

Motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Resolution No. 18-48 entitled, “A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept Five Pedestrian Easements for Real Property Associated with the Commerce Avenue Complete Streets Project, Project No. 2085; and Authorizing the City Manager to Accept the Easements, Execute any Documents Necessary or Desirable to Effect the Easements, Execute Any Documents Necessary or Desirable to Effect the Easement Acquisitions, Subject to Approval of the City Attorney, and Provide the Agreed Compensation to the Property Owners.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

Page 6 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

3

APPROVAL OF A PRODUCT AND SERVICE AGREEMENT - NOVATime Technology, Inc.

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve a Product and Service Agreement with NOVATime Technology, Inc. for time and attendance software in an amount not to exceed $202,000 (including a 20 percent contingency), and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-53 – Calling for and Ordering a General Municipal Election for November 6, 2018

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Resolution No. 18-53 entitled, “A Resolution Calling for and Ordering a General Municipal Election and Specifications of the Election Order.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CHANGES TO REGULATORY AGREEMENTS – Resources for Community Development for Riley Court and Camara Circle Apartments

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve changes to the Regulatory Agreements with Resources for Community Development for Riley Court and Camara Circle Apartments. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ACCEPTANCE, APPROPRIATION, AND EXPENDITURE – California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Branch (CA 9-1-1 Branch) Funds

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to accept California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Branch (CA 9-1-1 Branch) funds in the amount of $399,000 for the replacement of the City’s existing 9-1-1 call taking system, including ancillary equipment and furniture, and authorize Concord Police Department appropriation and expenditure of such funds therefore, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute associated agreements, subject to City Attorney approval. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

REJECTION OF BIDS – Custodial Services Request for Bid #2398

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar from Concord resident Kenji Yamada who asked about union wages and benefits for custodial services for the City.

A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by McGallian to reject all bids for the Custodial Services Request for Bid #2398, and direct staff to re-advertise at a later date. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVAL OF 28 MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENTS AND 14 MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS – Community and Economic Development Department

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Concord resident George Fulmore who spoke of difficulty in tracking Engineering Division projects.

A motion was made by Leone and seconded by McGallian to approve 28 Master Services Agreements for various consultant services for the Community and Economic Development Department; approve 14 Master Service agreement Amendments for extensions of time; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

Page 7 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

4

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM

2018-2019 CITY OF CONCORD INVESTMENT POLICY

City Treasurer Patti Barsotti presented the 2018-2019 City of Concord Investment Policy to the Council for its annual review explaining that she reviewed the policy and it was in compliance with the government code and reflects best practices and guidance from the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission.

Following clarifying questions from the Council, Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period. Upon receiving no public comment, Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

A motion made by McGallian and seconded by Leone to adopt the 2018-2019 City of Concord Investment Policy. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION ITEM

LETTER OF SUPPORT – Acquisition of GoMentum Station Incorporated by the American Automobile Association of Northern California

Guy Bjerke, Director of Community Reuse Planning, presented a request from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for City support of the potential acquisition of GoMentum Station Incorporated by the American Automobile Association of North California (AAA).

Mayor Birsan requested to remove the word ‘lease’ from the sixth line of the fourth paragraph.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

Kenji Yamada, Concord, asked if autonomous bus testing would be allowed and what is the benefit of the acquisition to the City.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

Motion made by Obringer and seconded by Leone to approve the amended letter of support for the acquisition of GoMentum Station Incorporated by the American Automobile Association of Northern California. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CORRESPONDENCE

a. Benched Correspondence – Agenda Item No. 6.cb. Benched Attachment 2 – Agenda Item No. 7.bc. Letter submitted by Contra Costa County NORML – Agenda item No. 6.cd. Cannabis Dispensary Pilot Proposal and Resume submitted by Roshelle Leva

COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmembers shared information on events and activities in which they had participated since the last meeting and commented on items of interest.

Page 8 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

5

ADJOURNMENT

By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

____________________________EDI E. BIRSANMAYOR

____________________________JOELLE FOCKLER, MMCCITY CLERK

Page 9 of 10

SPECIAL MEETING OF THECONCORD CITY COUNCILCITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM1950 PARKSIDE DRIVECONCORD, CALIFORNIATUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2018

The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room of Wing A at 1950 Parkside Drive with Mayor Birsan presiding. All members of the City Council were present and there was no public comment. The meeting recessed and immediately reconvened in a closed session under conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case.

Minutes are in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

________________________________EDI E. BIRSANMAYOR

_________________________________ JOELLE FOCKLER, MMCCITY CLERK

Page 10 of 10

Staff Report

Date: August 28, 2018

To: City Council

From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager

Reviewed by: Karan Reid, Director of Finance

Prepared by: Joelle Fockler, MMC, City ClerkJoelle.fockler@cityofconcord.org(925) 671-3390

Subject: Considering response to Contra Costa County 2017-18 Grand Jury Report No. 1808, Joint Power Authorities

Report in BriefThe Contra Costa County Grand Jury has issued Grand Jury Report No. 1808, Joint Power Authorities. This report requires a City Council approved response from the City to the findings and recommendations set forth in the report.

Recommended ActionAuthorize the City Manager to submit the attached response letter to the Grand Jury on behalf of the City.

BackgroundEach year the Contra Costa County Grand Jury selects governmental issues to research and analyze on behalf of the citizens of the County. Their reports are intended to help bring exposure to important government issues, provide research and analysis, and make findings and recommendations for possible solutions. The result is a report to which identified public entities are required to respond.

The FY 2017-18 Grand Jury elected to issue the following report to the City of Concord: Joint Power Authorities. This report (copies attached) provides analysis, findings, and recommendations. The Grand Jury has requested that the City of Concord respond to the findings and recommendations within the report.

5.b5.b5.b

Page 1 of 19

City Council Agenda ReportAgenda Item No. 5.bAugust 28, 2018

AnalysisThe topic of the Grand Jury Report and the recommended response is discussed below. The Finance Department prepared the response that addresses the identified issues only as they relate to the City of Concord; the City does not have direct knowledge of the other responding organizations, and therefore does not make statements in relation to those organizations.

The format of the response to the findings and recommendations is prescribed by law. With regard to the findings, the Grand Jury requires a response of agreement, disagreement, or partial disagreement with discussion of any reason for “non-agreement.”

With regard to the recommendations, the Grand Jury requires a response to be one of the four listed below:

The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action.

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report.

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof.

The Grand Jury report to which staff has prepared a draft response letter is attached to this report, as is staff’s draft response letter.

Financial ImpactThere is no fiscal impact to the City created by responding to the Grand Jury Report.

Public ContactThe City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments1. Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report No. 18082. Grand Jury Report No. 1808, Joint Powers Authorities

Page 2 of 19

September 5, 2018

By U.S. Mail and email (ctadmin@contracosta.courts.ca.gov)

Mr. Mario Gutierrez, ForepersonContra Costa County Civil Grand JuryP. O. Box 431Martinez, CA 94553

RE: City of Concord Response to June 2018 Grand Jury Report No. 1808, “Joint Powers Authorities”

Dear Mr. Gutierrez:

This letter serves as the City of Concord’s response to the Contra Costa Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations set forth in Report No. 1808, entitled “Joint Powers Authorities.” This letter was reviewed by the Concord City Council at its August 28, 2018, City Council Meeting, and I was directed to submit the response for the City of Concord.

I. FINDINGS

Finding No. 1: “In the Direct JPA model, each member delegates to the JPA a function that each member has the legal authority to provide. This shared approach results in cost savings and better efficiency on behalf of taxpayers.”

Response: The City of Concord agrees with the Finding.

Finding No. 2: “The circular JPAs with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to avoid legal debt limits and provide limited disclosures to taxpayer.”

Response: The City of Concord disagrees with the Finding. The Public Financing Authority referenced in the Grand Jury report describes a JPA (Public Financing Authority) between the City and its former Redevelopment Agency. With the dissolution of redevelopment by the State of California, the Public Financing Authority (PFA) is no longer able to issue new debt. The PFA will continue to exist until all of the bonds issued under the PFA are fully repaid. And the City will continue to report the activities of the PFA in its annual financial statements (CAFR) fully disclosing the terms and status of the debt.

Finding No. 3: “In Contra Costa County, there are 12 Circular JPAS created by cities with RDAs that no longer exist. These JPAs may no longer be valid because each is a member of another Financial JPA which may take on new debt without the prohibition (Gov. Codes Sections 6505 3416/34170 et seq,) placed on Successor Agencies.”

Attachment 1

Page 3 of 19

City of Concord’s Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 1808September 5, 2018Page 2

Response: The City of Concord disagrees with this finding. As mentioned previously, the JPA between the City of Concord and Successor Agency for the City’s former RDA cannot issue new debt.

Finding No. 4: “Cities that have created the 12 Financial JPAs do not provide JPA-specific financial information in their budget document. As a result, the public may have difficulty evaluating JPA’s financial performance.”

Response: The City of Concord disagrees with the Finding. A complete picture of the debt service requirement for the JPA is found in the Notes Section of the City’s CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). All annual debt service requirements are budgeted as part of the biennial budget document.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation No. 1: “All cities with JPAs in the County should confirm their compliance with Gov. Codes Sections 6506 by submitting the required audit report to the County Auditor by December 31, 2018.”

Response: The recommendation will be implemented with the June 30, 2018 audit.

Recommendation No. 4: “The 11 cities that are members of a FPA associated with an RDA or their Successor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with the provisions of Abx1.26 (Gov. Codes Sections 34177 et se.) and report their findings and any corrective actions to the Auditor-Controller’s office by December 31, 2018.”

Response: The recommendation is not warranted. Through the RDA dissolution process, the California Department of Finance (DOF) annually scrutinizes all transactions through the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) process. The DOF reviews a reconciliation of cash balances and all activities flowing through the Successor Agency to ensure each transaction is in compliance with AB1x26. Starting July 1, 2018, the ROPS process will be overseen by a County-wide Oversight Board. In addition to DOF oversight, the information is publically available in the City’s CAFR.

Recommendation No. 5: “All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as special mailings to taxpayers, website postings, and announcements in local media, to communicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simple notifications by December 31, 2018.”

Response: The recommendation is not warranted. All JPA debt decisions are publically communicated at City Council meetings. Information on all debt issuances is available in the City’s CAFR.

Page 4 of 19

City of Concord’s Response Letter to Grand Jury Report No. 1808September 5, 2018Page 3

Karan Reid, Director of Finance, is available to answer any questions or provide any additional information concerning the above responses. You can reach her at (925) 671-3192 or by email at karan.reid@cityofconcord.org.

Sincerely,

Valerie J. BaroneCity Manager

Page 5 of 19

Grand Jury

June 6, 2018

City of Concord1950 Parkside Drive, MS/OlConcord, CA 94519

ContraCostaCounty

725 Court Street

p.o. Box 4a1

Martinez, CA 94553-0091

Dear City of Concord:

Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 1808, 'Uoint Powers Authorities" by the 2017-2018Contra Costa Grand Jury.

In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 et seq., we are submitting this report toyou as the officer, agency or department responsible for responding to the report. As theresponding person or person responding on behalf of an entity, you shall report one of thefollowing actions in respect to each ?:

m(2)(3)

You agree with the finding.You disagree with the finding.You partially disagree with the finding.

(Pen. Code, § 933.05(a).) In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, you shall specify the portion ofthe finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons thereof.

In addition, Section 933 .05(b) requires you to reply to each recommendatiqri by stating one ofthe following actions:

1 . Tlie recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing theimplemented action.

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented iii thefuture, with a time frame for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scopeand parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared fordiscussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publicationof the Grand Jury Report.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is notreasonable, with an explanation thereof.

Attachment 2

Page 6 of 19

After reviewing your response to ensure that it includes the above-noted mandated items, pleasesend (l ) a hard copy of the response to the Grand Jury at p.o. Box 431, Martinez, CA 94553;and (2) a copy in Word by e-mail to ctadmin@contracosta.couits.ca.gov.Your response must besubmitted to the Grand Jury, in the fornn described by the above-quoted Government Code, nolater than September 11, 2018.

Finally, please note that this report is being provided to you at least two working days before it isreleased publicly. Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or governingbody of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release.

Please immediately confirm receipt of this letter and the attached report by responding via e-mailto ctadmin(2Acoiitracosta.corirts.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

Mario Gutierrez, Foreperson2017-2018 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury

cc: Valerie Barone, City Manager

Page 7 of 19

A REPORT BY

THE 2017-2018 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY725 Court Street

Martinez, California 94553

Report 1808

Joint Powers Authorities

Transparency and Accountability

APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY

Date iz/A '/ ,S/ 2 t t 2'1. ,s... -s

YpeaspMARIO GUTIERREZ

GRAND JURY FORE'PERSI

ACCEPTED FOR FIL?NG

Date &ei :5, QDlgc

,7=.=?uDGE OF THE SUGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Page 8 of 19

/.

Page 9 of 19

Contact: Mario Gutierrez

Foreperson925-389-1556

Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1808

Joint Powers Authorities

Transparency and Accountability

TO: Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller;Local Agency Formation Commission;City Councils of the following cities: Antioch, Brentwood,Clayton, Concord, Danville, EI Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette,Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill,Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek

SUMMARY

When you review your property tax bill, have you ever questioned why there was aparticular assessment? Was this on a ballot? Was there public disclosure? The majorityof tax assessments are approved by the voters. However, assessments can also bemade without voter approval by cities that are members of Joint Powers Authorities.

Local governments have used Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) as a flexible, easy toform, cost-effective means to carry out specific functions. JPAs have been used tocover a wide range of functions, such as: fire protection, recreational programs,construction projects, and transportation.

As of December 2017, the 1 9 incorporated cities in Contra Costa County (County)reported to the Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) that they were members ofat least one of 157 JPAs established in the County. The Grand Jury could not confirmthat this was the total number of JPAs established. The Grand Jury also found that the19 cities in the County have issued bonds, with an estimated cumulative value thatexceeds $1 .5 billion. (www.standardandpoors.com, Dec 2017)

The Grand Jury investigated the use of JPAs by the cities. Due to the level of debtgenerated, the Grand Jury focused on financial type JPAs and specifically on theiroversight, transparency, and financial accountability.

Based on our findings, the Grand Jury recommends the County Auditor post on theirwebsite all documents received from all JPAs associated with Redevelopment Agencies

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Juiy Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

ffi

Page 1Page 10 of 19

(RDA) and their Successor Agencies. All cities should confirm their compliance withGov. Codes 6500, and 33400 et seq. To demonstrate full transparency, cities shouldconsider reporting all JPA financial information separate from their city budgets. Thecities should also consider submitting periodic financial reports directly to the CountyAuditor, and increasing their efforts to provide the public an opportunity to understandand comment on planned debt actions pertaining to JPAs.

METHODOLOGY

In the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury:

* Interviewed Contra Costa Auditor-Controller senior staff

* Interviewed Contra Costa Tax Collector senior staff

@

@

@

*

Interviewed Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) senior staff

Interviewed Finance Directors of three representative cities within the County

Submitted two Requests for Information to the 19 cities in the County

Researched financial data published by Standard and Poor's

BACKGROUND

The California State Legislature passed the Joint Powers Authority Act in 1921 .California Government Code (Gov. Code) statues for JPA laws are set forth in Sections6500 - 6599. A JPA is formed when two or more public agencies agree on creating afunction/service that benefits all JPA members. JPAs are not formed by voter initiativeor voted on by the electorate, but by the action of the agencies' governing bodies.

To form a JPA, the organization members post a formal notice, hold a public meeting,and solicit comments from the public and stakeholders. The members formalize theagreement and appoint a Board of Directors. The JPA can then enter into contracts andincur debt to finance projects.

The intent of a JPA is to provide services efficiently, resulting in financial benefit to thetaxpayers. By sharing resources and combining services, the member agencies savetime, create efficiencies, and reduce overlapping functions and costs. JPAs allowgovernments to conduct selected public projects without voter approval of financialcommitments or key operational decisions. JPAs can be formed for many reasons:acquisition of land, construction and maintenance projects, financing, insurance pooling,and operations of facilities.

When multiple jurisdictions decide a new project is needed, they can form a JPA.Otherwise they would have to take the lengthy approach to get a measure on the ballot,secure majority-voter approval, and sell revenue bonds to private investors to raisecapital to fund the project.

lI

ll

ll

l

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Page 2

Page 11 of 19

Gov. Code, Section 8547 allows JPAs to issue revenue bonds without voter approvalprovided each of the member agencies adopts a separate local ordinance to issue suchbonds. Voters have a 30-day period to call for a referendum election on the localordinances, but this rarely occurs.

JPAs and Special Districts

JPAs are sometimes confused with Special Districts, which are another legal entityestablished to provide specific functions. The difference is that a Special District is anindependent entity with its own governing body that delivers services to a dedicatedcommunity. Special Districts rely on different State laws for their legal authority and aregoverned by elected boards.

While counties and cities must provide basic services in accordance with federal andstate law, Special Districts provide specific services and must be approved by the LocalAgency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the voters. Some examples include firedistricts, water districts, and pest abatement. LAFCOs are responsible for "...overseeingthe establishment, expansion and organization of cities and special districts and theirmunicipal services in meeting current and future community needs" Gov. Code Section56000 et seq.

In 2017, SB 1266 created a formal reporting process connecting JPAs and LAFCOs.

Types of Joint Powers Authorities

JPAs can be categorized into five broad groups based on the type of services theyprovide ("Governments Working Together: A Citizens Guide to Joint PowersAgreements," Cypher & Grinnell, 2007):

*

*

@

@

*

Financial services: financing construction of public works such as city halls,bridges, and flood control projects

Public services: transportation, police and fire protection

Insurance pooling and purchasing discounts: pooling for lower insurance rates

Planning Services: addressing and planning for topics of regional importance thatgo beyond city and county Iimits

Regulatory enforcement: ensuring that member agencies adhere to state andfederal laws and procedures by conducting educational seminars, formulatingenforcement procedures, and maintaining an oversight role

D?SCUSSION

The Grand Jury requested a Iist of all JPAs in Contra Costa County from the CountyAuditor-Controller and the State Controller's offices. Neither the County nor the Statecould provide a consolidated list of all the JPAs operating in the County. The State

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Page 3Page 12 of 19

Controller publishes an annual report on its website combining all relevant financial JPAinformation with Special Districts. The Grand Jury's attempts to identify JPA-specificdata was not possible because the data was mixed in with Special Districts' data.

To secure JPA-specific data, the Grand Jury submitted a Request for Information toeach of the 19 incorporated cities in the County to which all responded.

A total of 157 JPAs were reported. Because multiple cities participate in the same JPA(e.g., State Route 4 Bypass Authority), the number of individual JPAs is 66.

JPAs in Contra Costa County

i

'Q!

?7

Source: RFI responses from 19 cities

The Grand Jury determined that due to the number of JPAs in the County and theamount of bonds issued, the investigation would focus on Financial JPAs (see chartabove). The investigation addressed three areas of transparency and accountability:organization, reporting, and oversight.

Organization

RDAs were originally formed by California cities to fund their urban renewal programs.The California Community Redevelopment Law and Redevelopment Agencies weredissolved by Assembly Bill (ABx1 .26) effective October 1, 2011 . This was done tosupport the state's budget deficit and address issues with RDAs. After losing an appeal,California RDAs were officially dissolved on February 1 , 2012. Their assets andliabilities transferred to Successor Agencies and Successor Housing Agencies. TheGovernment Codes addressing RDAs and their Successor Agencies as a result ofABx1 .26 are set forth in Gov. Codes Sections 33500, 33600, 34161 , and 34170 et seq.

Numerous Successor Agencies now operate under a JPA. The Grand Jury identified 23financial JPAs: nine with multiple cities, two without RDA, and 12 formed between a cityand its RDA, creating the RDA's Successor Agency. Three JPAs that have been labeled

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

m

Page 4

114

Antioch 8 0akley -" 5Brentwood 10 0rinda 5

Clayton 10 Pinole 8Concord 9 Pittsburg 9Danville 10 PleasantHill 10

EI Cerrito 7 Richmond 11

Hercules 9 San Pablo 5

Lafayette 4 San Ramon 18Martinez 4 WalnutCreek 8

Moraga 7

TOTAL 157

04

Public 35

j 23

lnsurance 4

Regulatory MPlanning Mr

l66

Page 13 of 19

"Defunct" by the respective cities have ongoing financial obligations (such as repaymentof bonds). The 12 Financial JPAs with RDA are:

* Antioch Public Finance Authority between the City of Antioch and its RDA* Antioch Public Facilities Financing between the City of Antioch and its RDA* Brentwood Infrastructure Finance Authority between the City of Brentwood and

its RDA

* Concord Financing Authority between the City of Concord and its RDA* EI Cerrito Public Financing Authority between the City of EI Cerrito and its RDA* Hercules Public Financing Authority between the City of Hercules and its RDA* Lafayette Public Facilities Financing Authority between the City of Lafayette and

its Successor Agency to the RDA (Defunct)

* Pinole Financing Authority between the City of Pinole and its RDA* Pleasant Hill Financing Authority between the City of Pleasant Hill and its RDA

(Defunct)

* Richmond Financing Authority between the City of Richmond and its RDA* San Pablo Financing Authority between the City of San Pablo and its Successor

Agency to the RDA

* San Ramon Public Financing between the City of San Ramon and its SuccessorAgency to the RDA (Defunct)

The Gov. Codes Sections 34161 , and 34170 et seq. required the closing of RDAs andthe formation of Successor Agencies. The Successor Agencies were prohibited fromtaking on new redevelopment or debt and were required to dissolve and pay off theirexisting debt under a conservator's guidance and State oversight. The SuccessorAgency was to terminate once the debt is fully paid off.

Numerous city councils elected themselves to be the Successor Agency conductingtheir own oversight. Eleven cities, listed above, formed JPAs consisting of the citycouncil and the Successor Agency. These new JPAs may be invalid if they take on newdebt (Gov. Codes Sections 34161 , and 34170 et seq.).

The Grand Jury determined that, based on their characteristics, JPAs can be dividedinto two distinct organizational models: Direct and Circular.

Direct Organizational Model

The Direct model supports shared services: insurance pools, transportation,communications systems, worker's compensation and flood protection. The JPAmembers are composed of similar entities that share a mutual challenge or opportunity.

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Page sPage 14 of 19

Each member delegates a function of their authority to a JPA to either improve theservice that is provided or to reduce the cost through a joint effort. If the JPA does notprovide positive results or improvements, any member can withdraw from the JPA. Thisstructure has checks and balances and allows for self-correction and accountability. Inaddition to each member providing inputs, the public has access to the JPA at the CityCouncil member and JPA's Board levels. The majority of JPAs maintain thisorganizational structure and comply with the intent of the statute (Gov. Codes, Sections6505, 8547 et seq.). The following is a simplified model of one JPA, The State Route 4Bypass Authority.

l Antirirh 1

l

l oakleV fi Brentwood ll

rY State Route 4 Bypass?L Authoritv

1

j8

t

Circular Organizational Model

The Circular model is not made up of independent entities like the Direct model but isone entity using internal staff or departments. The members of this JPA are controlledby a single authority, such as the city council. Because JPAs can issue revenue bondswithout voter approval, there is no public access or independent party to review financialaccountability.

The 12 Financial JPAs with RDA use this Circular model. The city council now hasauthority over the city, its RDA, and the financing JPA. The reporting structure is circularas shown in the diagram below. The Grand Jury reviewed several Financial JPAs'charters and noted that the City Manager and City Clerk were signatories for both thecity and the RDA. In one case, the same individual signed for both the city and its RDA.Since all its members are from a single entity, the Circular model does not have thesame checks and balances and accountability as the Direct JPAs.

The circular model presents a potential risk to the public due to the absence of checksand balances resulting in a loss of transparency and accountability to its citizens.

In the event that a JPA falls short of its ability to repay debt, a member could utilize itsGeneral Fund or other internal sources to avoid the risk of defaulting on the bond. JPAprotocols allow such actions by the city council without voters' approval. If the debt

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Page 6

Board of Directors

Administrative Authoritv

Page 15 of 19

increase is unchecked, a negative outcome can be damaging to the reputation of thecity and its credit rating, and may result in higher costs to taxpayers.

9-'-"fCity Council

M

lI

Successor Agency to theRedevelooment Asyencv

ll h'J

i

]"%k

JPA 7Public Financing Authority7

Rei 4F111%

I@Tll141ll'lr----a

State Law SB 282 requires the State Controller to annually publish financial informationof Special Districts, JPAs and public benefit corporations, excluding school districts. TheGrand Jury was not able to accurately document JPA finances because the StateController's report did not separate JPA data from Special District data. The Grand Juryalso requested JPA information from the County Auditor-Controller's Office. Theyprovided information only on JPAs with which the County was directly involved.

Health and Safety Code Sections 34182-34188.8 requires the Auditor-Controller toreview JPAs' compliance with ABxl .26 (dissolution of redevelopment agencies and thedesignation of Successor Agencies) to determine any violation.

In 2017, SB1266 was amended to require JPAs to send a copy of their agreement toLAFCO. LAFCO was designated only to be a repository of filings with no authority overJPAs, they focus on municipal ground services and not JPAs formed for the purpose offinancing.

Without a consolidated and useful way to track JPA financial reporting, there is a loss oftransparency and accountability to the public.

Oversight

No State or County agency directly oversees the use and operation of JPAs in ContraCosta County. The Secretary of State, State Controller, the California Debt andInvestment Commission and LAFCO serve only as a repository of JPA reports.

Contra Costa County 201 7-2018 Grarid Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Page 7

Redevelopment Agency

Page 16 of 19

JPAs that fail to report their financial information to the State or county violate Gov.Codes Section 6505(a), which requires that "...an annual audit of the accounts andrecords of every agency or entity." Gov. Codes Section 6505(c) requires that when anaudit is made, "...a report thereof shall be filed as public record with each of thecontracting parties to the agreement and also with the county auditor of the countywhere the home office of the joint powers is located."

Because JPAs are easy to create, they facilitate the sharing of services and financing. Ifthey are mismanaged, JPAs may present a burden for taxpayers. The estimated $1 .5billion bonds issued by cities in the County may provide needed services and financialbenefit to the taxpayers. However, the latitude allowed by State statutes creates thepotential for JPAs to acquire debt that exceeds the ceiling imposed on governmententities.

JPA's provide a legal process that gives cities the ability to remain compliant withCalifornia Constitution Article XVI, Section 18 "Debt." Article XVI prohibits cities,counties and school districts form borrowing an amount that exceeds the income andrevenue for each year, unless approval is obtained from at least two-thirds of the voters.Since JPAs are separate legal entities formed by two members, such as the CityCouncil and a Successor JPA, they are not bound by this prohibition on city, county andschool debt. Gov. Codes Sections 6547 et seq, does not require voter approval on aJPA ordinance to issue revenue bonds, unless voters initiate a referendum to contestthe action during the 30-day referendum period. If there is no referendum, the JPA canthen issue revenue bonds that can exceed a cities' annual debt limit imposed by ArticleXVI, Section 18.

ll

JPAs have no direct State or County oversight and minimal reporting requirements. Asa result, Some JPAs, such as those defined as circular, are a mechanism wherebycities may take on debt that is not independently monitored.

FINDINGS l

F1 . In the Direct JPA model, each member delegates to the JPA a function that eachmember has the legal authority to provide. This shared approach results in costsavings and better efficiency on behalf of taxpayers.

F2. The Circular JPAs with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have thepotential to avoid legal debt limits and provide limited disclosures to taxpayer.

F3. In Contra Costa County, there are 12 Circular JPAs created by cities with RDAsthat no Ionger exist. These JPAs may no longer be valid because each is amember of another Financial JPA which may take on new debt without theprohibition (Gov. Codes Sections 6505 341 6/34170 et seq,) placed on SuccessorAgencies.

l

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Page 8

Page 17 of 19

F4. Cities that have created the 12 Financial JPAs do not provide JPA-specificfinancial information in their budget document. As a result, the public may havedifficulty evaluating JPA's financial performance.

F5. The Contra Costa Auditor-Controller's office maintains information only on JPAs ofwhich the County is a member. The County Auditor could not verify that all JPAs inthe County have filed an audit in accordance with Gov. Codes Sections 6505 etseq.

F6. LAFCO has no JPA oversight and acts as a repository only for municipal servicesJPAs that choose to voluntarily file. This limits LAFCO's ability to review FinancialJPAs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1 . All cities with JPAs in the County should confirm their compliance with Gov. CodesSections 6505 by submitting the required audit report to the County Auditor byDecember 31 , 2018.

R2. The Auditor-Controller under Health and Safety Code Sections 34182-34188.8,should consider a review of JPAs under ABxl.26 (dissolution of redevelopmentagencies and the designation of Successor Agencies) by June 30, 2019 todetermine any violation of the prohibition on taking on new redevelopment or debt.

R3. The Auditor-Controller should consider posting on its website all financial andorganizational data received from JPAs associated with an RDA or their SuccessorAgency in a manner readily available to the public by September 30, 2018.

R4. The 11 cities that are members of a JPA associated with an RDA or theirSuccessor Agencies should consider confirming their compliance with theprovisions of Abx1 .26 (Gov. Codes Sections 341 77 et seq.) and report theirfindings and any corrective actions to the Auditor-Controller's office by December31, 2018.

R5. All cities with JPAs should consider making special efforts, such as specialmailings to taxpayers, website postings and announcements in local media, tocommunicate JPA debt decisions and audit reports to the public beyond simplenotifications by December 31 , 2018.

R6. Contra Costa County LAFCO should consider seeking funds to expand their focusto include County Financial JPAs by September 1 , 2019.

Contra Costa County 2017-2018 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.orq/grandjury

Page 9Page 18 of 19

REQUIRED RESPONSES

FCities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton,lConcord, Town of Danville, EI Cerrito,iHercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Town ofiMoraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg,iPleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, SanRamon, Walnut Creek

l Findings

F1

Recommendations

R1,R5

Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller

iCities of Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, EliCerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Pinole, PleasantiHill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon

W, and rsJF2, F3, and F4

R2 and R3

R4

l

Wormation commission (LAF-co)l F6 f R6 l

These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the coverletter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form ofa Word document should be sent by e-mail to ctadmin@contracosta.courts.ca.gov anda hard (paper) copy should be sent to:

Civil Grand Jury - Foreperson725 Court StreetP.0. Box 431

Maitinez, CA 94553-0091

Contra Costa County 201 7-201 8 Grand Jury Report 1808Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury

Pagel0Page 19 of 19

Staff Report

Date: September 4, 2018

To: City Council

From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager

Reviewed by: Justin Ezell, Director of Public Works

Prepared by: Jeff Roubal, Limited Services Professional Jeff.roubal@cityofconcord.org(925) 671-3147

Subject: Considering award of purchase of ten 2019 Ford Utility Police Interceptors to Future Ford of Concord in the amount of $325,300.80 (Annual Vehicle Replacement Fund)

Report in BriefOn July 31, 2018, the City issued a request for bids to purchase ten Utility Police Interceptors. Future Ford of Concord submitted the lowest responsive bid of $325,300.80. Future Ford has provided vehicles and equipment to the City in the past and has satisfactory references.

Recommended ActionAward the purchase of ten Utility Police Interceptors to Future Ford of Concord in the amount of $325,300.80.

BackgroundReplacement of worn-out vehicles and equipment is an on-going effort to sustain fleet reliability and maintainability. Replacing vehicles and equipment at the end of their useful life saves the City money, reduces out-of-commission time, and helps ensure safety.

City vehicles and equipment are scheduled to be replaced after 6-10 years of use depending on type and use. The City has a total of 271 vehicles, of which 30 are assumed to be replaced this Fiscal Year. The vehicles and equipment being replaced are within the 6-10 year replacement window and are no longer economically maintainable.

5.c5.c

Page 1 of 3

City Council Agenda ReportAgenda Item. No. 5.cSeptember 4, 2018

Procurement Process On July 31, 2018, the City issued Request for Bid (RFB) notice in accordance with the City of Concord Procurement Policy. The notice was published on the City’s website via Public Purchase System, which includes hundreds of registered vendors, posted in the glass box outside of the Finance building, and sent to the Concord Chamber of Commerce. In addition, sixteen vendors that showed interest in the past were solicited directly. On Thursday, August 23, 2018, bids were opened by the City Clerk’s office. Three (3) submittals were received ranging from $325,250 to $330,240, as shown on Bid Tabulation Sheet (Attachment 1).

The submittal from Future Ford is complete. In the submittal, Future Ford claimed the local vendor preference allowed under Policy and Procedure No. 142. The local vendor preference contained in Policy and Procedure No. 142 provides a bid adjustment of 5% for Concord vendors, when prices are compared in the bidding process. The local vendor preference is only applied to a maximum of $100,000 per bid. Therefore, Future Ford’s grand total bid of $325,300.80 was reduced by $5,000 for the purpose of comparing bids, and has an evaluated grand total of $320,300.80.

All three bids were complete. Staff recommends awarding the purchase to Future Ford, as the company submitted the lowest responsive bid after applying the local vendor preference.

Financial ImpactFunding to purchase these vehicles is included in the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Annual Vehicle Replacement Fund.

Public ContactThe City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment1. Bid tabulation sheet

Page 2 of 3

Attachment 1

City of ConcordBid Sheet

PROJECT RFB #2411 Bid Opening:

2019 Ford Utility PD Interceptor Thursday,August 23, 2018

10:30 a.m.

City Manager's Conference Room

Company Total Bid Local Vendor Preference(5% for first $100,000)

Towne Ford1601 El Camino RealRedwood City, CA 94063

$325,250.00 N/A

Future Ford of Concord2285 Diamond Blvd.Concord, CA 94520

$325,300.80 $320,300.80

Napa Ford Lincoln570 Soscol Ave.Napa, CA 94559

$330,240.00 N/A

Contact: Jose Gallardo x3147

Page 3 of 3

1

SPECIAL MEETING OF THECONCORD CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY/PLANNING COMMISSIONCITY COUNCIL CHAMBER1950 PARKSIDE DRIVECONCORD, CALIFORNIAWEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018

The Concord City Council Sitting as the Local Reuse Authority and the Planning Commission met in a special joint meeting in the Council Chamber located at 1950 Parkside Drive at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2018, with Mayor Birsan presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Obringer. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Hoffmeister, Ron Leone, Tim McGallian, Carlyn Obringer, Edi Birsan (Councilmember Hoffmeister arrived at 6:30 p.m.)

PLANNING COMMISSIONERSPRESENT: Ray Barbour, Jason Laub, John Mercurio, Mark

Weinmann, Dominic Aliano (Commissioner Weinmann arrived at 6:25 p.m.)

STAFF PRESENT: Kathleen Trepa, Assistant City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Andrea Ouse, Director of Community and Economic Development; Guy Bjerke, Director of Community Reuse Planning; Joan Ryan, Community Reuse Area Planner; Laura Simpson, Planning and Housing Manager; Margaret Kotzubue, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Coleman Frick, Associate Planner

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICWHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Tim Carr, Concord; Oscar Delgado, Concord; Suzanne

Delbou, Concord; Ralph Oliver, Concord; Rich Hutchison, Concord; Juan Pablo Galvan, Save Mt. Diablo; Ronald Flannery, East Bay Housing Organizations; Carlos Castellanos, Mid Pen Housing

STUDY SESSION

UPDATE TO THE NORTH CONCORD BUFFER AND DISTRICT A GREEN SPACE

Community Reuse Area Planner Joan Ryan presented an overview of the 2012 Area Plan, explaining that at that time the focus was on Transit Oriented Development (TOD), with the North Concord BART Station as a focal point, and that the Area Plan included a green buffer of an unspecified width adjacent to existing residents in the area of the BART site. She stated that the buffer was intended to provide a transition to the existing, neighboring residential development and space for pedestrian/bicycle connections to the BART station.

Planner Ryan clarified that two green buffer concepts were presented at the April 2, 2018 Study Session, and that three green buffer options were explored for North Concord for this Study Session, Ms. Ryan Summarized the three options as outlined in the staff report. She noted that

5.a5.a5.a

Page 1 of 10

City Council Minutes June 6, 2018

2

the differences among the options are primarily driven by the width of the open space buffer, and as the buffer becomes wider, the buildings become taller. She stated that additional green space, parks, and plazas are provided throughout the remainder of the TOD district and the proposed open space in the project is greater than existing parkland within Concord presently without the inclusion the regional park, which will add another approximately 2,600 acres.

Ms. Ryan introduced Aaron Ashley, Hart Howerton, who presented a proposed network of different types of open space.

The Council and the Planning Commission asked clarifying questions about the North Concord BART buffer and the green space proposals.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

Tim Carr, Concord, spoke of trading land with BART, what he referred to as a land swap, to accommodate a wider buffer between existing residents and future development.

Oscar Delgado, Concord, spoke of his concerns over the proposed buffer and compliance with the California Fire Code.

Suzanne Delbou, Concord, spoke of her concern over density and the height of the buildings, and requested a 200 foot buffer.

Ralph Oliver, Concord, spoke of consideration for local residents, requested a 200 foot buffer, and supported a land swap with BART.

Rich Hutchison, Concord, spoke of his concerns over having seven story buildings next to single family homes and requested a 200 foot buffer.

Anonymous, spoke of the City not hosting a neighborhood meeting for his neighborhood, and stated that the neighborhood deserved protection from urban blight.

Juan Pablo Galvan, Save Mt. Diablo, spoke of the buffer separating existing development from other existing development and that making the buffer wider may not be the best idea.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

The Council expressed concern about a 100 foot buffer and requested exploration of up to a 200 foot buffer with enhanced amenities. They stressed the importance of treating exsiting neighbors equitably and the importance of “One Concord.” The Council requested conceptual and visual studies be completed and the exploration of a land swap with BART. They felt that eight story buildings located near one story houses was not acceptable.

The Planning Commissioners requested visual studies showing higher buildings and the created shadows. There was a preference for an increased buffer, and they supported a site visit.

Mayor Birsan called a recess at 8:27 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:45 p.m.

LAND USE PLAN/PROGRAM UPDATES

Community Reuse Area Planner Joan Ryan presented an overview of the proposed Land Use Plan and Program Updates, reporting that the developer made modifications to the Land Use Plan and Program based on market and feasibility studies, the desire to provide a broad product mix over time that attracts buyers locally and regionally, providing support for affordable housing through proximity to transit and services, and support for transit and multi-modal goals of the project. Ms. Ryan noted that the overall unit count will remain the same sitewide and for Phase

Page 2 of 10

City Council Minutes June 6, 2018

3

One with the proposed modifications. Ms. Ryan reported a shift in land use designations and minor shifts made in the size of each of the Districts. She conveyed that adjustments were made to promote a more diverse product mix, attractive to a wide variety of buyers and income levels, and that the updated program includes 42 percent multi-family housing. Ms. Ryan summarized staff’s support for the adjustments to the plan/program to optimize land uses and bolster success for affordable housing. She introduced Sheela Jivan, Lennar FivePoint, who introduced the Lennar FivePoint team.

Sheryl McKibben, Lennar FivePoint, explained Lennar FivePoint’s vision of the project and its Principles of Place, which are broken into five thematic messages and five instructional messages. She introduced Shwetha Subramanian, Lennar FivePoint, who presented the changes to the Land Use Plan.

The Council asked questions about the shift in boundaries, the size of the campus, the timing of the connector bus routes, maintenance of the green space, if a convention center concept was being explored, the changes in density and land uses, the difference between commercial and commercial flex designations, affordable housing and ownershipand the concept of tiny homes.

The Planning Commission asked clarifying questions on affordable housing numbers, the estimated population, and the shift in land uses.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

Ronald Flannery, East Bay Housing Organizations, spoke in support of the increase in multi-family housing and including affordable housing.

Carlos Castellanos, Mid Pen Housing, stated that the changes in the plan are encouraging.

Ralph Oliver, Concord, requested that roads be built first before buildings.

Susanne Delbou, Concord, requested a change in density near existing neighborhoods and did not support the proposed plan.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

The Council shared their thoughts on utilizing more of Willow Pass for mixed use, ensuring proper transportation modes, and having less density in some areas with more single family homes. They commented on the importance of homeownership and emphasized the importance of creating jobs and not just housing around the TOD. They requested exploration of the possibility of building duets or fourplexes and adding more density in area G, including the development of a complex of tiny homes. They shared their disappointment in the plan and concerns about the proposed plan not being the vision of “World Class.”

The Planning Commission supported homeownership, affordable housing in condo or single family homeownership, creating more jobs around the TOD and being more creative with higher density housing through the concept of duets or fourplexes. They had concerns with changing from medium density to low density and preferred other options besides mixed use.

CORRESPONDENCE

a. Benched Correspondence Agenda Item No. 2ab. Benched Holbrook Heights Meeting Minutes – Agenda Item No. 2ac. Benched Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan maps – Agenda Item No. 2ad. PowerPoint Presentation – North Concord Buffer and District A Green Space

Page 3 of 10

City Council Minutes June 6, 2018

4

e. PowerPoint Presentation – Land Use Plan/Program Updatesf. PowerPoint Presentation – Lennar FivePoint – Concord Reuse Project Programg. North Concord Neighborhood Meeting Summary from Saturday, June 2, 2018

ADJOURNMENT

By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m.

____________________________EDI E. BIRSANMAYOR

____________________________JOELLE FOCKLER, MMCCITY CLERK

Page 4 of 10

1

REGULAR MEETING OF THECONCORD CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITYCITY COUNCIL CHAMBER1950 PARKSIDE DRIVECONCORD, CALIFORNIATUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2018

The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting in the Council Chamber located at 1950 Parkside Drive at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, with Mayor Birsan presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember Hoffmeister. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Hoffmeister, Ron Leone, Tim McGallian, Carlyn Obringer, Edi Birsan

STAFF PRESENT: KathleenTrepa, Assistant City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Patti Barsotti, City Treasurer; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Karan Reid, Director of Finance; Justin Ezell, Director of Public Works; Guy Bjerke, Director of Community Reuse Planning; Jeff Lewis, Director of Information Technology; Steve Voorhies, Director of Parks and Recreation; Kevin Marstall, Interim City Engineer; Michael Cass, Principal Planner; Sophia Sidhu, Housing Program Analyst; Mark Migliore, Associate Civil Engineer; Damaris Sambajon, Systems and Programming Manager; Robert Beckler; Systems and Programming Manager; Bernard Enrile, Senior Civil Engineer

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICWHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: George Fulmore, Concord; Matt Light; Rochelle Leva,

Walnut Creek; Wayne Calhoon, Concord; Kenji Yamada, Concord

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

George Fulmore, Concord, spoke of police cars left running, pot holes, and monitoring Engineering projects.

Matt Light, spoke in favor of a retail pilot project for medical marijuana.

Rochelle Leva, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of more than one retail pilot project for medical marijuana and education through legal dispensaries.

Wayne Calhoon, Concord, spoke of his concern over homelessness in Concord.

PRESENTATIONS - none

ANNOUNCEMENTS - none

TREASURER’S REPORT

Page 5 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

2

City Treasurer Patty Barsotti presented the Quarterly Treasurer’s Report for the period January 1 – March 31, 2018.

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 2, 2018

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve the minutes from the meeting of April 2, 2018. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 18-3 – Establishing a Commercial Cannabis Overlay District and a Licensing Framework for Cannabis Manufacturing, Cannabis Testing Laboratories, and Cannabis Distribution

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Ordinance No. 18-3 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Establish a Commercial Cannabis Overlay District, Associated Development Standards, and a Licensing Framework for Cannabis Manufacturing, Cannabis Testing Laboratories, and Cannabis Distribution.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 18-4 – City Council Compensation

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Ordinance No. 18-4 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code Chapter 2.10 (Officers and Employees), Article II (Compensation), Section 2.10.020 (Councilmembers) Increasing Councilmember Compensation by Four Percent, to $1,352 per Month, to be Effective after the November 2018 City Council Election.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT – Contra Costa County – Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve an agreement between Contra Costa County and the City of Concord for the Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITYWIDE ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS #4 – Project No. 2376

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to accept improvements for Citywide Accessibility Improvements #4, Project No. 2376, and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-48 – Five Easements for Five Properties for the Commerce Avenue Complete Streets Project, Project No. 2085

Motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Resolution No. 18-48 entitled, “A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept Five Pedestrian Easements for Real Property Associated with the Commerce Avenue Complete Streets Project, Project No. 2085; and Authorizing the City Manager to Accept the Easements, Execute any Documents Necessary or Desirable to Effect the Easements, Execute Any Documents Necessary or Desirable to Effect the Easement Acquisitions, Subject to Approval of the City Attorney, and Provide the Agreed Compensation to the Property Owners.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

Page 6 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

3

APPROVAL OF A PRODUCT AND SERVICE AGREEMENT - NOVATime Technology, Inc.

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve a Product and Service Agreement with NOVATime Technology, Inc. for time and attendance software in an amount not to exceed $202,000 (including a 20 percent contingency), and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 18-53 – Calling for and Ordering a General Municipal Election for November 6, 2018

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to adopt Resolution No. 18-53 entitled, “A Resolution Calling for and Ordering a General Municipal Election and Specifications of the Election Order.” Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CHANGES TO REGULATORY AGREEMENTS – Resources for Community Development for Riley Court and Camara Circle Apartments

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to approve changes to the Regulatory Agreements with Resources for Community Development for Riley Court and Camara Circle Apartments. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ACCEPTANCE, APPROPRIATION, AND EXPENDITURE – California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Branch (CA 9-1-1 Branch) Funds

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Obringer to accept California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Branch (CA 9-1-1 Branch) funds in the amount of $399,000 for the replacement of the City’s existing 9-1-1 call taking system, including ancillary equipment and furniture, and authorize Concord Police Department appropriation and expenditure of such funds therefore, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute associated agreements, subject to City Attorney approval. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

REJECTION OF BIDS – Custodial Services Request for Bid #2398

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar from Concord resident Kenji Yamada who asked about union wages and benefits for custodial services for the City.

A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by McGallian to reject all bids for the Custodial Services Request for Bid #2398, and direct staff to re-advertise at a later date. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVAL OF 28 MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENTS AND 14 MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS – Community and Economic Development Department

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Concord resident George Fulmore who spoke of difficulty in tracking Engineering Division projects.

A motion was made by Leone and seconded by McGallian to approve 28 Master Services Agreements for various consultant services for the Community and Economic Development Department; approve 14 Master Service agreement Amendments for extensions of time; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

Page 7 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

4

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM

2018-2019 CITY OF CONCORD INVESTMENT POLICY

City Treasurer Patti Barsotti presented the 2018-2019 City of Concord Investment Policy to the Council for its annual review explaining that she reviewed the policy and it was in compliance with the government code and reflects best practices and guidance from the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission.

Following clarifying questions from the Council, Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period. Upon receiving no public comment, Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

A motion made by McGallian and seconded by Leone to adopt the 2018-2019 City of Concord Investment Policy. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION ITEM

LETTER OF SUPPORT – Acquisition of GoMentum Station Incorporated by the American Automobile Association of Northern California

Guy Bjerke, Director of Community Reuse Planning, presented a request from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for City support of the potential acquisition of GoMentum Station Incorporated by the American Automobile Association of North California (AAA).

Mayor Birsan requested to remove the word ‘lease’ from the sixth line of the fourth paragraph.

Mayor Birsan opened a public comment period.

Kenji Yamada, Concord, asked if autonomous bus testing would be allowed and what is the benefit of the acquisition to the City.

Mayor Birsan closed the public comment period.

Motion made by Obringer and seconded by Leone to approve the amended letter of support for the acquisition of GoMentum Station Incorporated by the American Automobile Association of Northern California. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CORRESPONDENCE

a. Benched Correspondence – Agenda Item No. 6.cb. Benched Attachment 2 – Agenda Item No. 7.bc. Letter submitted by Contra Costa County NORML – Agenda item No. 6.cd. Cannabis Dispensary Pilot Proposal and Resume submitted by Roshelle Leva

COUNCIL REPORTS

Councilmembers shared information on events and activities in which they had participated since the last meeting and commented on items of interest.

Page 8 of 10

City Council Minutes June 12, 2018

5

ADJOURNMENT

By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

____________________________EDI E. BIRSANMAYOR

____________________________JOELLE FOCKLER, MMCCITY CLERK

Page 9 of 10

SPECIAL MEETING OF THECONCORD CITY COUNCILCITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM1950 PARKSIDE DRIVECONCORD, CALIFORNIATUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2018

The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 19, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room of Wing A at 1950 Parkside Drive with Mayor Birsan presiding. All members of the City Council were present and there was no public comment. The meeting recessed and immediately reconvened in a closed session under conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case.

Minutes are in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

________________________________EDI E. BIRSANMAYOR

_________________________________ JOELLE FOCKLER, MMCCITY CLERK

Page 10 of 10

Staff Report

Date: September 4, 2018

To: City Council

From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager

Reviewed by: Guy Swanger, Chief of Police

Prepared by: Nicholas Gartner, Police LieutenantNicholas.gartner@cityofconcord.org(925) 671-5095

Subject: Considering adoption of Resolution No. 18-6042.3 amending Resolution No. 78-6042, Exhibit A, Section E Police Fees, modifying and establishing Code Enforcement fees in the City of Concord (including fees related to Commercial Cannabis violations) and updating Municipal Code references

CEQA: Not a project/exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, 15061(b)(3), and/or 15300.2.

Report in BriefOn October 9, 1978, Council adopted Resolution No. 78-6042 establishing a Master Resolution in which various municipal fees and charges would be located. This report outlines the adoption of Resolution No. 18-6042.3 amending Resolution No. 78-6042 as it relates to Table E Police Fees and Section 5 Code Enforcement. The adoption of Resolution No. 18-6042.3 is necessary to modify existing Code Enforcement fees, update Municipal Code references and establish Code Enforcement fees related to Commercial Cannabis violations.

Recommended ActionAdopt Resolution No. 18-6042.3 amending Resolution No. 78-6042, Exhibit A, Section E Police Fees, modifying and establishing Code Enforcement fees (including fees related to Commercial Cannabis violations) and updating Municipal Code References.

6.a6.a6.a

Page 1 of 8

City Council Agenda ReportAgenda Item No. 6.aSeptember 4, 2018

BackgroundOn June 12, 2018, the City Council approved development standards and a licensing framework for Commercial Cannabis manufacturing, testing laboratories, and distribution as outlined within Ordinance No.18-3. The new regulations went into effect on July 12, 2018.

In order to recover the costs associated with the administrative processing of new and renewed Cannabis licensing requirements and properly maintain a consistent regulatory practice to ensure compliance, the Police Fees listed in Exhibit A have been amended, consistent with state regulatory laws pertaining to the fees assigned to Misdemeanor violations.

AnalysisThe majority of the changes on amended Fee Schedule are to include reference to existing fees for easy reference by the public and staff. The recommended fee changes are detailed below.

MisdemeanorsWith the adoption of this Resolution, the amended fee structure for all Police Misdemeanor code violations (Section 5.6.2), not Cannabis related, will be consistent with the current fee structure for Building Division Safety Code violations as set forth in Resolution 78-6042 Section T.5. The Misdemeanor fees under Section 5.6.2 would be amended as follows:

Current Fee Proposed FeeFirst Issuance in 12 months $100 No changeSecond Issuance in 12 months $200 Increase to $500Third Issuance in 12 months $500 Increase to $1,000

InfractionsInfraction fees would remain at the existing $100, $200, $500 levels.

Commercial Cannabis ViolationsCommercial Cannabis related offenses are Misdemeanor offenses as outlined within the City of Concord Municipal Code. The new fee assigned to Concord Commercial Cannabis related violations, per violation, is the maximum fee ($1,000) allowed for Misdemeanor offenses as outlined within California Penal Code Section 19.

Establishing a higher Misdemeanor fee to Commercial Cannabis violations, set at the maximum allowed by State law, will assist with maintaining local compliance and deter illicit Cannabis operations from taking hold in the community. The potential for costly fines is intended to encourage the Cannabis industry to comply with local regulations and deter illegal operations from establishing under the cover of new allowable uses.

Page 2 of 8

City Council Agenda ReportAgenda Item No. 6.aSeptember 4, 2018

Financial ImpactAdoption of this Resolution has no cost to the City. The amount of revenue received from the new fines will depend on the amount of violations that are cited.

Environmental DeterminationPursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the revision to the City’s Master Fees and Charges Schedule does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the revision does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” None of the exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are present. No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Public ContactThe City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment1. Resolution No. 18-6042.3

Page 3 of 8

Attachment 1

Res. No. 18-6042.3 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORDCOUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

A Resolution Amending amending Resolution No. 78-6042, Exhibit A, Section E Police Fees, modifying and establishing Code Enforcement fees (including fees related to Commercial Cannabis violations) and updating Municipal Code References

Resolution No. 18-6042.3 /

WHEREAS, the City of Concord provides a variety of municipal services; and

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 78-6042 on October 9, 1978,

establishing a master resolution within which various municipal fees and charges would be located;

and

WHEREAS, amendments to Table E Police Fees, Section 5 Code Enforcement in Exhibit A

to Resolution No. 78-6042 are necessary to modify existing code enforcement fees, establish code

enforcement fees for cannabis related violations, and update Municipal Code references, and;

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance, the Chief of Police, and the Director of Community &

Economic Development recommend such modifications to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources

Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of

the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the revision to the City’s Master Fees and

Charges Schedule does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code

Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378 because it has no

potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably

foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the revision is categorically

exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemptions” of the CEQA Guidelines because

there is no possibility that the update to the City’s Master Fees and Charges Schedule may have a

significant effect on the environment, and no further environmental review is required. Moreover,

even if the revision does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense”

CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it

Page 4 of 8

Attachment 1

Res. No. 18-6042.3 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a

significant effect on the environment.” None of the exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines

Section 15300.2 are present. No unusual circumstances are present.

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 28, 2018, at which time

members of the public were afforded an opportunity to address the City Council regarding this matter;

and

WHEREAS, upon close of the public hearing the City Council deliberated upon the oral

report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated September 4, 2018, together with oral

and written testimony and other relevant information received during the course of the public hearing

(“Fee Information”) and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Table E Police Fees, Section 5 Code

Enforcement in Exhibit A to Resolution No. 78-6042 shall be amended as indicated in Exhibit A of

this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES

RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The above recitals (which are hereby incorporated by reference) are accurate and

constitute findings in this matter and, together with the Fee Information, serve as an adequate and

appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution and further makes

the following findings:

Section 2. CEQA: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public

Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14,

Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the revision to the City’s

Master Fees and Charges Schedule does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public

Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), or 15378

because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a

reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the revision

does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set

Page 5 of 8

Attachment 1

Res. No. 18-6042.3 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with

certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the

environment.” None of the exceptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are present.

No unusual circumstances are present. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment

and analysis.

Section 3. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Fee

Information prior to acting upon the fee revision.

Section 4. Table E Police Fees, Section 5 Code Enforcement in Exhibit A to Resolution No.

78-6042 is amended as recommended and set forth in Exhibit A hereto.

Section 5. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon

which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from the City of

Concord City Clerk, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA 94519.

Section 6. The City Council does hereby amend the City of Concord Master Fee Schedule to

adopt revisions to the fee schedule as shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein,

effective September 4, 2018.

Section 7. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on September 4, 2018,

by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -

NOES: Councilmembers -

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -

ABSENT: Councilmembers -

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 18-6042.3 was duly and regularly

adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on September 4, 2018.

Joelle Fockler, MMCCity Clerk

Page 6 of 8

Attachment 1

Res. No. 18-6042.3 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown City Attorney

Attachment - Exhibit “A”: Schedule E for Master Fees and Charges, Section E “Police Fees”, No. 2.2 (and subsections) “Commercial Cannabis License Fees”

Page 7 of 8

Exhibit A to Resolution No. 18-6042.3

Num Description Current Fee DepositFuture

Changes 2018

Date lastupdated

E. Police Fees5 Code Enforcement5.1. Reinspection Fee 197.00 212.00 7/1/20175.2. Extension Fee 149.00 160.00 7/1/2017

5.3. Building and Safety Code Violations (Per Government Code Sections 53069.4, 25132(c) and 36900 (c))

5.3.1. First issuance in 12 months 100.00 7/1/20075.3.2. Second issuance in 12 months 500.00 7/1/20075.3.3. Third and subsequent issuance in 12 months 1,000.00 7/1/20075.3.4 Plus Reinspection Fee See 5.1 8/28/20185.3.5 Plus Extension Fee See 5.2 8/28/20185.4. Confiscated Sign violations (CMC 122-102918.180)5.4.1. First Violation 30.00 7/1/20075.4.2. Second violation 40.00 7/1/20075.4.3. Third violation 40.00 7/1/20075.4.3.1. Plus Citation See 5.f 8/28/20185.4.3.12. Plus Reinspection Fee See 5.a1 8/28/20185.4.3.2. Plus Extension Fee See 5.2 8/28/20185.5. Abatement and Summary Abatement, including graffiti At Cost 7/1/20165.5.1. Plus Administrative fee (percent of cost) 30% 6/1/1994

5.6. Public Nuisance Administrative Fines (Per Government Code Sections 53069.4, 25132(b), and 36900(b), 3901, and Penal Code Section 19)

8/28/2018

5.6.1 Infractions 8/28/20185.6.1.1 First issuance in 12 months 100.00 7/1/20065.6.1.2. Second issuance in 12 months 200.00 7/1/20065.6.1.3. Third and subsequent issuance in 12 months 500.00 7/1/20065.6.1.4 Plus Reinspection Fee See 5.1 8/28/20185.6.1..5 Plus Extension Fee See 5.2 8/28/20185.6.2 Misdemeanors 8/28/20185.6.2.1 First issuance in 12 months 100.00 8/28/20185.6.2.2 Second issuance in 12 months 500.00 8/28/20185.6.2.3 Third and subsequent issuance in 12 months 1,000.00 8/28/2018

Plus Reinspection Fee See 5.1 8/28/2018Plus Extension Fee See 5.2 8/28/2018

5.6.3 Cannabis related violations 8/28/2018Per issuance 1,000.00 8/28/2018Plus Reinspection Fee See 5.1 8/28/2018Plus Extension Fee See 5.2 8/28/2018

5.7. Request for Exemption for Small Collection Facilities for Nonprofit Organizations (CMC 82-11318.200.170) 250.00

Page 8 of 8

1

COUNCILMEMBERS Edi E. Birsan, Mayor Carlyn S. Obringer, Vice Mayor Laura M. Hoffmeister Ronald E. Leone Timothy A. McGallian

Civic Center 1950 Parkside Drive Concord, CA 94519

www.cityofconcord.org

ANNOTATED AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Concord City Council

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

6:30 p.m. - Open Session Council Chamber 1950 Parkside Drive

Information for the public on participation at Council meetings can be found on the back of the Speaker Identification Card located near the Council Chamber entrance. Should you have any questions after consulting the Speaker Identification Card, please contact the City Clerk prior to the Council meeting.

AGENDIZED ITEMS – The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. 1. OPENING Roll Call – Councilmember Hoffmeister absent Pledge to the Flag – Boy Scout Troop 370 2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

This is a fifteen-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period. No public comment.

3. PRESENTATIONS

a. Presentation – of the Daniel C. Helix Award of Excellence to Chris Llata, Senior Maintenance Team Leader, by Director of Public Works Justin Ezell. Introduction by Mayor Birsan. ACTION: Presentation held.

2

b. Presentation – to Father Marin of the St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church

proclaiming September 14, 15, and 16, 2018, as "Greek Festival Days" in the City of Concord. Presentation by Mayor Birsan. ACTION: Presentation held.

c. Presentation – by Cherise Khaund and Sharon Jenkins, Mt. Diablo Unified

School District Education Foundation, on Education Foundation Activities. Introduction by Mayor Birsan. ACTION: Presentation held.

d. Presentation – by Cindy Gershen, Mt. Diablo High School, on activities at Mt.

Diablo High School. Introduction by Mayor Birsan. ACTION: Presentation held.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS – none 5. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the Consent Calendar before or during the City Council’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate.

a. Considering – approval of the minutes from the meetings of June 6, 12, and

19, 2018. Recommended by the City Clerk. ACTION: Minutes from the meetings of June 6, 12, and 19, 2018, approved. Motion passed by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Leone, McGallian, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

b. Considering – response to Contra Costa County 2017-18 Grand Jury Report

No. 1808, Joint Power Authorities. Recommended by the Director of Finance. ACTIOIN: City Manager authorized to submit response letter to the Grand Jury on behalf of the City. Motion passed by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Leone, McGallian, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

3

c. Considering – award of purchase of ten 2019 Ford Utility Police Interceptors to Future Ford of Concord in the amount of $325,300.80. (Annual Vehicle Replacement Fund) Recommended by the Director of Public Works. ACTION: Purchase of ten 2019 Ford Utility Police Interceptors to Future Ford of Concord in the amount of $325,300.80 approved. Motion passed by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Leone, McGallian, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

d. Considering – approval to purchase Motorola Time Division Multiple Access

(TDMA) licensing and upgrades of Motorola software in an amount not to exceed $128,000 on all City of Concord Motorola radios; and requesting an appropriation from the FY 2017-18 General Fund operating budget savings. (General Fund) Recommended by the Chief of Police. ACTION: Purchase of Motorola Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) licensing and upgrades of Motorola software in an amount not to exceed $128,000 on all City of Concord Motorola radios and appropriation from the FY 2017-18 General Fund operating budget savings approved. Motion passed by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Leone, McGallian, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

6. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING

Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment. After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No public hearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the City Council.

a. Considering – adoption of Resolution No. 18-6042.3 amending Resolution No. 78-6042, Exhibit A, Section E Police Fees, modifying and establishing Code Enforcement fees in the City of Concord (including fees related to commercial cannabis violations) and updating Municipal Code references. Report by Nicholas Gartner, Police Lieutenant. CEQA: Not a project/exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15378, 15061(b)(3), and/or 15300.2. ACTION: Report heard; public testimony given; Resolution No. 18-6042.3 adopted. Motion passed by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Leone, McGallian, Obringer, Birsan NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffmeister

4

7. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda.

a. MDUSD Education Foundation PowerPoint Presentation b. MDUSD Informational Packet c. Farm-to-Taste PowerPoint Presentation

8. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

a. Closed Session Announcements – none

b. City Manager or Staff Reports – none

c. Council Reports Councilmembers shared information on events and activities in which they had participated since the last meeting and commented on items of interest.

9. ADJOURNMENT – at 7:35 p.m. Next Meeting: Regular Meeting – Closed Session Date: 9/11/2018 - 6:30 PM ADA NOTICE AND HEARING IMPAIRED PROVISIONS - The Council Chamber is equipped with a T-Coil Hearing Loop. This system allows “T” coil reception of the audio proceedings. Please switch your hearing aid or cochlear device to the “T”, “T” Coil or telephone position. If you would like better audio reception, a loop receiver that picks up the audio loop is available from the City Clerk.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator at (925) 671-3031, at least five days in advance of the hearing. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

The following is a list of regular Council Committee meeting dates. Most meetings are held in the Garden Conference Room, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord. NOTE: Meetings are subject to change or cancellation. For latest information and committee agendas please call 671-3158.

Committee Chair/Member Meeting Time

Policy Development & Internal Operations Birsan/Obringer 2nd Wednesday at 5:30 p.m.

Housing & Economic Development Obringer/McGallian 4th Monday at 5:30 p.m.

Infrastructure & Franchise Hoffmeister/Leone 2nd Monday at 6:00 p.m.

Recreation, Cultural Affairs & Comm. Svc.

McGallian/Birsan 3rd Wednesday at 5:30 p.m.

Youth & Education Leone/Hoffmeister 3rd Monday at 6:00 p.m.