Brentwood City Council
October 8, 2024

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.5
10/08/2024

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. Continue the item with direction for staff to return with additional information.

2. Do not approve the item. Not approving this recommendation will prevent police vehicles from being properly outfitted with the necessary equipment, Police vehicles would not be able to be deployed, and this could negatively affect public safety.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Bid Tabulation

ATTACHMENT “1”
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On April 9, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-32 approving the purchase of eleven replacement vehicles (one Ford F150 truck for the Public Works Water Division and two Explorers and eight Police Interceptors for the Police Department) and one new vehicle (Ford Ranger for the Parks & Recreation Department) from Bill Brandt Ford in Brentwood, CA; and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary associated documents in a total amount not to exceed $656,030 for fiscal year 2023/24.

On June 25, 2024, by Resolution 2024-73, City Council adopted the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget.

On August 13, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-82 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents with Stommel Inc., dba LEHR Auto Electric in the amount of $300,000 over a two year term; not to exceed $150,000 FY 24/25 and not to exceed $150,000 FY 25/26 for installation services required for the outfitting of police vehicles.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE
TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WITH STOMMEL INC.,
dba LEHR AUTO ELECTRIC FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $155,984.05 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 FOR THE

PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR
THE OUTFITTING OF POLICE VEHICLES.

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2024-32 was adopted by the City Council on the 9th day of April 2024, approving the purchase of ten replacement police department vehicles that will require specialize equipment to be placed into service; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2024-82 was adopted by the City Council on the 13th day of August 2024, approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement with Stommel Inc., dba LEHR Auto Electric, as the vendor for the providing installation services to equip replacement police vehicles for fiscal years 2024/25 and 2025/26; and
WHEREAS, taking a police vehicle out of service requires specialized police vehicle equipment such as police emergency lighting as required by law, sirens, cameras, weapon mounts, prisoner cages, radios and computers; and WHEREAS, the police department sent out a request for quotes with vendors for specific product pricing and LEHR was the lowest bidder with a total product pricing of $141,984.05; an additional amount of $14,000 is necessary in the event additional parts are needed for any unforeseen damage, collisions or repairs for a total not to exceed amount of $155,984.05; and
WHEREAS, $141,984.05 of the total amount would be expended from the 2024/25 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund (VERF) Operating Budget, which includes sufficient budget for this expenditure; and the additional amount of $14,000 would be expended from the 2024/25 General Fund Operating Budget, which includes sufficient budget for this expenditure.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to execute necessary documents with Stommel Inc., dba LEHR Auto Electric for a total not to exceed amount of $155,984.05 for FY 2024/25 for the purchase of police vehicle equipment for the outfitting of police vehicles.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October, 2024 by the following vote:

RFQ 24008 BID TAB.xls
VENDOR:

REASON: Lowest Bid ADDRESS:

QUOTE DATE:

QUOTE NO.:

PHONE:

CONTACT NAME:

CONTACT EMAIL:

APPR: Efting #613D
ITEM # QTY UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
1 8 $ 199.99 $ 1,599.92 $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 8 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
3 8 $ 291.00 $ 2,328.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
4 8 $ 18.60 $ 148.80 $ - $ - $ - $ -
5 8 $ 18.60 $ 148.80 $ - $ - $ - $ -
6 8 $ 3,750.00 $ 30,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
7 8 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
8 8 $ 104.99 $ 839.92 $ - $ - $ - $ -
9 8 $ 1,099.00 $ 8,792.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
10 8 $ 81.60 $ 652.80 $ - $ - $ - $ -
11 8 $ 81.60 $ 652.80 $ - $ - $ - $ -
12 8 $ 1,079.00 $ 8,632.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
13 8 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
14 8 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
15 8 $ 217.80 $ 1,742.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
16 8 $ 171.60 $ 1,372.80 $ - $ - $ - $ -
17 16 $ 117.00 $ 1,872.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
18 18 $ 151.20 $ 2,721.60 $ - $ - $ - $ -
19 7 $ 1,075.90 $ 7,531.30 $ - $ - $ - $ -
20 7 $ 154.00 $ 1,078.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
21 7 $ 368.20 $ 2,577.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
22 7 $ 39.20 $ 274.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
23 8 $ 804.30 $ 6,434.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
24 4 $ 783.30 $ 3,133.20 $ - $ - $ - $ -
25 8 $ 713.30 $ 5,706.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
26 8 $ 447.30 $ 3,578.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
27 4 $ 867.30 $ 3,469.20 $ - $ - $ - $ -
28 8 $ 1,889.30 $ 15,114.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
DESCRIPTION: RFQ 24008- Police Vehicle Equipment
8/29/2024 No Bid No bid
925-303-9513 650-654-990 916-790-0336
49042
Mike McGee Marc Farber Kao Saephanah
Gamber-Johnson, 2020+ PIU Console Kit, Short, W Mongoose Xle 9, Cup, Arm Gamber-Johnson, Utility On-Dash Mount with 3" Extension Arm, Fits 20+ Ford Police Interceptor Gamber-Johnson, Offset Adapter Bracket
PB450L4 Aluminum Bumper ION
Setina, Replacement Seat W/Center Pull Belts
Gamber-Johnson, Low Profile Quick Release Keyboard Tray Setina, #10XL C Coated Poly Partition Tall
Whelen Core WCX 21 Push-Buttons & 4-Position Slide Control Head Whelen Vehicle-To-Vehicle Sync Module
Whelen Core WCX 16 Output Expansion Module
Whelen ION Duo Series Linear Red/Blue Blk Housing
RECOMMEND: LEHR

DESCRIPTION
Whelen Siren Speaker 100W
Whelen Speaker Bracket Universal
Whelen ION Mirror-Beam Housing- Pair Utility 20+
Whelen, Mirror-Beam ION Duo - Blue/White
Whelen Mirror-Beam ION Duo- Red/White
Whelen, Liberty II WCX Light Bar 54"
Whelen Lightbar Strap Kit 20-23 Utility
Whelen ION T-Series DUO Red/Blue
Setina #12VS Vinyl Coated Expanded Metal Rear Partition Setina 6VS SPT COATED POLY PARTITION
Setina, EZ Lift Single Drawer System Simplex, 20-24 Interceptor Utility Whelen Vertex Super-LED Omni Directional Lighthead Red

TABULATION OF BIDS
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] LEHR Priority 1 Derotic
Whelen 12 Diode Interior Light, 6" Round Surface Mount Split Red/White 661 Garcia Ave Pittsburg, CA 94565 425 Harbor Blvd #6 Belont CA 94002 3145 Gold Valley Dr Ste 200 Rancho Cordova,
CA 95742
Ford Police Interceptor Utility, 2020-2024, TRIO™, Upper Rear Housing for Eight Lamp Whelen Cencom Core WCX Remote Siren & Control Center
Whelen Vertex Super-LED Omni Directional Lighthead Blue Whelen OBDII Canport Cable Kit Ford W/O OEM Option 61B

RFQ 24008 BID TAB.xls
VENDOR:

REASON: Lowest Bid ADDRESS:

QUOTE DATE:

QUOTE NO.:

PHONE:

CONTACT NAME:

CONTACT EMAIL:

APPR: Efting #613D
ITEM # QTY UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION: RFQ 24008- Police Vehicle Equipment
8/29/2024 No Bid No bid
925-303-9513 650-654-990 916-790-0336
49042
Mike McGee Marc Farber Kao Saephanah
RECOMMEND: LEHR

DESCRIPTION

TABULATION OF BIDS
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] LEHR Priority 1 Derotic
661 Garcia Ave Pittsburg, CA 94565 425 Harbor Blvd #6 Belont CA 94002 3145 Gold Valley Dr Ste 200 Rancho Cordova,
CA 95742
29 8 $ 230.30 $ 1,842.40 $ - $ - $ - $ -
30 8 $ 748.50 $ 5,988.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
31 16 $ 33.96 $ 543.36 $ - $ - $ - $ -
32 8 $ 173.25 $ 1,386.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
33 7 $ 28.27 $ 197.89 $ - $ - $ - $ -
34 8 $ 497.85 $ 3,982.80 $ - $ - $ - $ -
35 8 $ 184.21 $ 1,473.68 $ - $ - $ - $ -
36 9 $ 229.15 $ 2,062.35 $ - $ - $ - $ -
37 10 $ 14.41 $ 144.10 $ - $ - $ - $ -
38 30 $ 18.04 $ 541.20 $ - $ - $ - $ -
39 1 $ 576.64 $ 576.64 $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ -
Subtotal $ 129,139.36 $ - $ -
Shipping $ 1,545.00 $ - $ -
Tax $ 11,299.69 $ - $ -
Total $ 141,984.05 $ - $ -
Boss Strong Box Top Loader 14"Wx37"Dx10"H Sng Lock (End Open) 25' CAT6 Snagless Cable-Blue
3/4" Thru-Hole NMO Mount W/17' RG-58/U Cable, No Connector Pro-gard, Safe Stop, Fits 2020-23 Utility
Able 2, Triple Outlet Box
Setina, Window Barriers VS Steel Horizontal 20 Utility
Patrol Power Harness Front Mt. Utility 2020+ (03-0211)
Mag Mic Magnetic Mic Kit
Panorama, Low Pro 4Xmimo Lte 4Xwifi Gnss White
LEHRPIT#1 Panorama Antenna For Motorola APX8500 W/QMA
BLTX: USB Backlit Keyboard with Center Touchpad

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.6
10/08/2024
SUBJECT: An agreement with W.M. Lyles Co. for SCADA System Upgrade Services for the Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 562-56402 and an amendment to the 2024/25 Operating Budget
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STAFF: Casey Wichert, Director of Public Works
James Wolfe, Water Operations Manager
Mark Huber, Wastewater Operations Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council 1) adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents for SCADA System Upgrade Services for the Water and Wastewater Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 562-56402 in the amount of $1,785,125, plus funding authorization for a 15% contingency of $267,769, for a total not to exceed funding authorization amount of $2,052,894 with W.M. Lyles Co.; 2) amend the 2024/25 – 2028/29 CIP to increase the Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade project sheet by $1,258,917 for a total project cost not to exceed $4,949,917; and 3) amend the 2024/25 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfers.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 562-56402 (“Project”), is included in the adopted 2024/25 – 2028/29 CIP with an approved budget of $3,691,000. After accounting for Project costs already incurred, approval of the agreement with W.M. Lyles Co. will exceed the current Project budget; therefore, staff is recommending the Project budget be amended by $1,258,917 to accommodate the remaining Project costs. This Project is funded by the Water and Wastewater Replacement Funds, with additional funding requested in the amounts of $599,244 and $659,673, from each fund respectively. Council approval would amend the 2024/25 – 2028/29 CIP and the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Operating Budget for the associated funding transfers.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.6
10/08/2024

BACKGROUND
The SCADA system is the primary tool staff uses to operate the drinking water and wastewater systems. It is a network of computers, instruments, and network infrastructure that allows the facilities to operate with a significantly reduced level of manpower, which provide considerable cost savings to the City and contributes to the lower than average utility rates experienced in Brentwood compared to surrounding areas. Staff relies on the information provided by the SCADA system to make decisions that maintain regulatory compliance and ensure the system operates efficiently and safely.

When this Project was originally approved in 2020, the Water and Wastewater systems were almost 20 years old. As is common with computers and electronic systems, technology has significantly advanced since these systems were originally installed, and the systems were antiquated, with parts and support becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain. In 2017, a system-wide assessment was performed and specifications to upgrade the systems to current technologies were approved. In 2020, Tesco Controls, the City’s SCADA system integrator, was awarded a two-year contract and began to implement the recommended changes.

In 2021, Tesco Controls was sold to a venture capital firm. In combination with impacts from COVID in 2020, Tesco’s internal infrastructure underwent rapid changes, with many of their key technical staff leaving the company, and the Project began to fall behind schedule. The contract was amended twice, each time extending the completion date by twelve months. Upon expiration of the contract in June 2024, staff concluded Tesco would not be able to adequately complete the Project.

Staff solicited RFP’s from several firms to complete the Project. W.M. Lyles Co. was the only firm to respond to the City’s request. This is likely because several of the key staff from Tesco landed at W.M. Lyles Co., which gives W.M. Lyles Co. a better understanding of the Project and the level of effort necessary to complete it. Given the Project has been four years in the making, cost escalations make it necessary to increase the funding in order to complete this Project.

If approved, this contract will allow for the Project to be completed and finish the necessary hardware and software upgrades to keep the SCADA system technologically current, and ensure the City’s system is adequately protected from cyber security threats.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.6
10/08/2024

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Do not approve this agreement with W. M. Lyles Co. and direct staff to return with additional information or attempt to reach out to additional vendors for proposals.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Agreement

4. CIP Project Sheet

ATTACHMENT “1”
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On January 24, 2017, by Resolution No. 2017-10, the City Council approved an agreement for professional consulting services for an assessment of the Water Operations and Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System in the amount of $89,240 with Tesco Controls, Inc.

On June 23, 2020, by Resolution 2020-77, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for the Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 562- 56402 in the amount of $3,203,969, plus a 10% contingency of $320,396.90 for a total amount of $3,524,365.90 with Tesco Controls, Inc.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD 1) ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND

NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE

SERVICES FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SUPERVISORY

CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM UPGRADE,
CIP PROJECT NO. 562-56402, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,785,125, PLUS FUNDING AUTHORIZATION FOR A 15% CONTINGENCY OF
$267,769, FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED FUNDING
AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $2,052,894 WITH W.M. LYLES
CO.; 2) AMENDING THE 2024/25 – 2028/29 CIP TO INCREASE

THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SCADA SYSTEM UPGRADE
PROJECT SHEET BY $1,258,917 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST
NOT TO EXCEED $4,949,917; AND 3) AMENDING THE 2024/25

OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE ASSOCIATED PROJECT FUNDING
TRANSFERS.

WHEREAS, the Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) was constructed from 2000 -2002 and, at that time, equipped with a state of the art Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (“SCADA”) system; and
WHEREAS, the SCADA system is a network of computers, instruments and network infrastructure that allows the WWTP to operate with a significantly reduced level of manpower, which provides considerable cost savings for the City; and WHEREAS, SCADA is the number one tool WWTP System Operators use to operate the WWTP or Collection/Distribution System, relying on the information provided by SCADA to make important decisions that maintain regulatory compliance; and
WHEREAS, the water distribution SCADA system was designed and installed in 2003-2004 and has since had several minor upgrades to keep the system more up to date with current technology; and
WHEREAS, technological advancements made since the installation of the WWTP and water systems have rendered the current SCADA systems near obsolete, where they are now considered inadequate, with parts and support becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain; and
WHEREAS, with beginning construction of the WWTP Expansion – Phase II CIP project, CIP No. 592-59140, the existing SCADA system needed to be updated to current technological standards that will be compatible with new systems and easily be supported going forward; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, by Resolution No. 2017-10, the City Council approved an agreement for professional consulting services for an assessment of the

Water Operations and Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System in the amount of $89,240 with Tesco Controls, Inc,; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2020, by Resolution 2020-77, the City Council approved and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for the Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 562-56402 (Project), in the amount of $3,203,969, plus a 10% contingency of $320,396.90 for a total amount of $3,524,365.90 with Tesco Controls, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, in 2021, Tesco Controls was sold to a venture capital firm and in combination with impacts from COVID in 2020, Tesco Control’s internal infrastructure underwent rapid changes, with many of their key technical staff leaving the company, and the Project began to fall behind schedule; and
WHEREAS, the contract with Tesco Controls, Inc. was amended twice, each time extending the completion date by twelve months; and

WHEREAS, Tesco Controls, Inc. did not provide adequate service to fulfill the needs of the City, thus the contract was not renewed when it expired in June 2024; and
WHEREAS, staff solicited RFP’s from several firms to complete the Project and W. M. Lyles Co. was the only firm to respond to the City’s request; and WHEREAS, several of the key staff from Tesco are currently working at W.M.

Lyles Co., which gives W.M. Lyles Co. a better understanding of the Project and the level of effort necessary to complete it; and
WHEREAS, being the Project has been four years in the making, cost escalations make it necessary to increase the funding in order to complete this Project; and
WHEREAS, if approved, this contract with W.M. Lyles Co. will allow for the Project to be completed and finish the necessary hardware and software upgrades to keep the SCADA system technologically current, and ensure the City’s system is adequately protected from cyber security threats.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby 1) adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents for SCADA System Upgrade Services for the Water and Wastewater Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 562-56402, in the amount of $1,785,125, plus funding authorization for a 15% contingency of $267,769, for a total not to exceed funding authorization amount of $2,052,894 with W.M. Lyles Co.; 2) amend the 2024/25 – 2028/29 CIP to increase the Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade project sheet by $1,258,917 for a total project cost not to exceed

$4,949,917; and 3) amend the 2024/25 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfers.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

 












!"#!$!

%&#!'("!
)*
*+,-./"0*

123456676819::




:
; <:

;=
>?
:
? @
<

;A

@

=:9B
C:DC



: 

; < : 
;:D;

:EF
FG=:

HI7IJ
D
=::D;

:C



: 

EF

BD :

FGE:C<:K:

L:
C
DDC D
= <K:
LGI

"(
+!
I

MB
 <

;

:D
C
;:C

BD :
C;C:DD

:
:
N

C




O

O
:99
O
C


J
 9= D9

PC
99B
C: 

=:
J
Q


;:C=:@DD: :?D<

O
:9

CB
= :
:
:
9 <

D
OC
BC:D
<
;B
C 

:D
:


: 

;


 9D

@ <
<
RC

D
 9
;
:
BC B
=:



;

:D :;;
<D
C:D:
:;



9


 9=@<C<:


;

:D
C
B 
;

C
;;
?

I

AI

BD :
<: <

;

:DSDD:
N

C
C:


;

9 <
C
C
?
<O
9
I

I

BD :

CB
9:
D

O:O
<
C::

; 


D
 :?D<

:=
CCB: 

=:
P

?B
=:
: D
;

9 @

S;


I

QI



O:O

BD :



 <
C?

:

; MB:D;C: 


:
N

C

;

9
OBC<
C

6I

BD :
<:B?9 :


:D

:
<::;;
9 @DD
O
:
:?D


;

9BC<@

S

< 
9:
9:


 ;

<
<O
9
I

8TH=12656UT56=
C


: 

; <
C :D:
 <9B B:DC

:
C

:
<

=
<:
:O
:;
DD
@V

I C

;H

SI

I

 :


BD :
=::



C

:C

=

;

9=:


BD :
:O




= <

CE <F
CFG <: :
C
?
<: :C<6N<? F=F@<C<

C



: ?
<
;

C=B
B:

<O
9
R 
9:
C

 

I

I

BD :
@DDC

D <9:


:
 <9:

; <@

S
?
;

9=:
?



?D;

<

;

:DMB:D
= C<
C:D:CCB
:C
:
C


: 

; <
CI

BD :

@DD=@ <
B : 

:DC
9
: 

=C

C

:




;C
C
<
CI

IWI

BD :
@DDS

;

9

:
OBD:
?: <: <
C:
?
O
;

9

:CC

:

C@ < <
MB
9
:





; <O
9
I

I>3;:DC:?D=

BD :
<:O
:  <



D 
6N<? KL


 <

C
<
I

BD :
@DD

C<:

O

:O
<



C
?
6N<? KL@ <
B



@
 

C

=:
@DD

D:C <

B:D@ <
B:D
@<
9
<::

:

:?D
?XC 

I

I  :
:

;
;

9:

CI

BD :
:CS

@DO <: 



O

<O
9
<


D

O



BD :

YC:DSDD:
N

C

:

;

9 <
CIH<D
;

9
O
<
C=

BD :
@DDN
C <
:

:?D

;

:DC:
:
SDDCB
9:
D
N
C?

B :?D99?

;

BD :

Y

;


:C C
O
<8

<

:D;

::
:I1<:CC :

C

; <
C?




D:

BD :
;

9 <
?DO: 

I

Z[\]^_`abacde[fdgZhijkbklmlniokknpZmqnrrsrnZollorZsposm

 











 


















 



!
 "


 


 !








!
 





 






 
"



 
# 


$





%




!


 &"

 
 


 


!




!





!






 







'

'
& !
 

 

"
(





'












 







 !






!








 

 













'!

!
 !


 

!
 "

)" *

"+





 ' ! 

!







! 





 

%


 

!
 



 
"

,"  !"

 



!

! !

!
-%!
 ./

' !







% 







!




!
 








!









 
0

&



!














 
1

'

!
' !  !







&'
&
 '


&
'

!


 




 

'

!

'

 
0

 





"



 
 &

 !







0

2  !




! 










!
 





 
 ! !  !"


 
'
!

' ! 

 
0












  "

 


& !






 !



$


 



! !' !

 




 

"

" 


 

"

"*!





!
 





! 

!






% 







!

!
3  !



!

 

3 


45'6'7




!
 

!  !-%!
 ."/8

!


 

!

 

% 

 





$





!


"*!


 !
!
 !!



497
 




!   !
 "

"









 





 

 

 

!




'!



 '

   

 






"

") : !
!

4)7



 


 






$ '




! 


!
$ '

 ! !
!



 '

&





 






$
!



 !  

'



 


"8








 


  


!
 

     





!
 "



 !
!
 !!






 





 




 



'



 
#





 '

!

 !


"

;"   



 
"

 


!
 






'



!



 


'





 
0



'









"*!






 



 !
 

!


















! 







%'

&
0


 




'
 




 










 



!



 

 








"

 










 !
!

4)7



%'
 




 

'
 

'





'










&
0


 




'

'



 
' !








!<




 '
! !




$


&

!



 



'


'





 



&



!


"*!






 



!




 !



 


 

! !

 

 "


&





   % !!



!



 

 
'








"
=>?@ABCDEDFGH>IGJ=KLMNENOPOQLRNNQS=PTQUUVUQ=ROORU=VSRVP

 









 














!

"


#
$



 
%

%  "


$%

 
&


"
$
'  "

"
 


' 




%()
 

"
!
()" *+


 
#

 "





! 


# 



#
 



!
,
$

-
$
%.!

 
 "



! 




 
#"! 



"

!











!

 
&
 "


! 


 











"
 "



 

!








!








"


 
%/

$




$


#

 


 

" #

 "

!

 


%


 
#"


"!





! "

%

 
#"


 "




 "

! "

"
 


! $



"


 
&#

0 
!






 "




#
 
$"

%

1% 2 


 
%3


 
$





 





#  


%

4% .


!


%

 
#



!




!


 
!!


$









!

$









 

"


 
$



!

$

!



#


#  
!


! $




#





"



! 

 

!  "















"

! 

!

#



! 

""
)

) 


"


$$




$$



#! 




!
%

% .


%

 
#
" 





 


)

!




! 
$













$


!


5 






$





#




!






# 
!


! 

"


 



 
$










 "

%3


#"
" 
!








 
 

6

" 

  
!!

%3







' 




7 &8
9 
$
!

 
:;..%:

%

$
<
 %

 
#




!


$





 


"
#

90,
$


,
$



   

#  







#

%3




!


$#

  

  







 
&


!


"$ 



$


%

 
!!


$










0





 
 
! 



!
"

"


 




$



'  





 
%3


$#






  






! 




"
=$


)
 !

>

0




 











%

 
#
" 






$
)
 
$


!

<"

#
#"#
 


=



$%.!

 
" 

' 






$
'  


 
#
" 

 







$



 

'  


 
&
)
%

%%



?

<"
.


%@



"

$=
 



!

"


5 



5 




$%.!  "
 





$$
$ 
 
$

$$
$ 
 #



#

0 
$




$

$$
$ #" #
 
' 





 %

%%

"<"
%@



"

$=
 


!

"



5 




$%

%% >

0
&


 

(



&<"
%>

0
&


 


 

' 
"
!

<"



(



&<"

 
!@




!

"



5 %>

0
&


 

(



&<"



#

"
' 
!

 











& !






  
$ %

ABCDEFGHIHJKLBMKNAOPQRIRSTSUPVRRUWATXUYYZYUAVSSVYAZWVZT

 































 


!

"




# $
  


 $
%&&
'
 




 
(



'
)






*
!

'&

!

#


!
 $
$

'





  $
& 
'
&+
&

!


 

 




!




,-'! 

 $+
 
&

!

#

!

$&
$ ' 

 $
&
'
' 

!

'



 


.
'

 

*
!

'#




'!

+ $

 $+
 


- 




 
#

'
'
# $
! $

/.0



#
 

'


!
!

$

'





 $+
 


(
!

1



+*

!







 $
!

'
'

+& $

#

$ $
 

'



!



'$
 $+
 
&



!
'$

' 

!

'


$
 !  $ 
!

- 
+

'






$
2!
'

+

!











 









!

'


'

' $





!


!' $
!



! 
!

!

!

$+
 


!


*
!

'

'


 $
+$

2!
& 
 &'

 

'
'





2!

!

'

'



 


3
 



+(


'
 

 
$
'
 $+
 
& $


!

"
!

''

+#


 


!

'# $
'

& 
'
&+
&


!


 



!

'


4
!

' 






 
& 
'
&+
&


!


 

&#


-'


!

"
!

'


'


!

# $ 

5!' 




+61 

$
+

!

#




#
 
+!
!

$

'




 $+
 
$

/.0





!' 




 $
!

'
'

+
2!
!
!

$+
 


 

'$
+
$
' 
!

'

'

7 8

!

+ 

9$

'$

'


#

!

+ 



$






 :!

'
*
2!
&

!

#



 



:

#

:!


'


$ 

 $+
 
& 

 


 4
4  

 1


'
5'



!

#



'

 
''!
 
'

# $
'

'
 
'!

!

$+
 


'

#

'







!

#



#



 

!

+



!
$
!

- 
&! &
 ;

'
 

'



'




$

'! 
'
 !
!

$+
 


!

#



#
' 




#

;& &
'! 
&

'
+&
'  

 
$+
 





 $
/.0




$ 




!

$+
 


. <#

$
=
'! 


.



!' 

!'



!


 +
& 

&
!
'

'

!
!

$+
 
/ $>8

;

!' ?0 $




*
$
$+
 
 

 &


8 ;

!' 

!'



!


 +
& 


!
'

'

!
!

$
+
 
#





!
!

$ 

 

'
!
 $+
 


!

#

$ $
+$
;

/0'


 $8

;

!' 



!

"
'



.9$8

;

!' 

!



 +
& 

&


 &

+
&
#$





&





&



!



 

&# $
! !
$

 









'

 



!

@

&$
#
& $  $+
 

 

 








'

 

 $

A' 
!

!'$'
'!  
'
!&
BCDEFGHIJIKLMCNLOBPQRSJSTUTVQWSSVXBUYVZZ[ZVBWTTWZB[XW[U

 











 




 








 

!


 











"


"



#


 
$


 

"



" 


%


&



#'


 
"
 


"

























&
  


#



 



!



 (




&

#


#









#
#

"

 





!



 

"#




 


"


)

"



 

& 

*

 



 
&



!


 (

+( 


 (





  




   


" 
&

# 











'



"



 




(

( 




(



"





" 

 
$# 



"#
#









 

&  

"









"









#



#

 




&

"!



"




" 


#







, 

"

#







& 

&
 





#





(

-( .
(



 


"


#

&
 



#"














&







#

"


#






,


 





/0



 
1
   "




 




'
 & 
 



&2

3 
2 

4 
&




! 

4 
&

5+6


.
(/50-7-
3"
.
(/50-7-

2

)



#


!
3 




2 (8(9


(
 (


(
3 

56


.
(/5-0-++75

2:"3
 

 

; 


"

 







 

#

 



&
 




&

"




#
(

( 

 

<

 (

(
&



 




=






"

 
"
& 










 
>

" 

=



<

 

'
















="





#



(

 # 
"
  





'












=

 "





#



&


"
 



&  


! 



#






  "

;

"<

 
3 "(

(






 
   







#






(





&


   






 




"
 
&

'










   &



 &  

"



"
(






&


 
 












=
"


#





















#



 



"  &

#

 #

"




 







&


&  



 


 

 (




&

!

&



&

!


#
 



   


"









 



"



"
(<


"

"











   "





& 




 

  &



 &  

"



"






&



"



 

 




 !
 

 
"



"


 (

?@ABCDEFGFHIJ@KIL?MNOPGPQRQSNTPPSU?RVSWWXWS?TQQTW?XUTXR

 









 







  !"


#



$%#


%


%%

&













'#



()"
*+ !!



%% !



,


#

&



%% !
%


% !
,


#



#





,






 ! !

&



&


'#





 

,


,
%

!





% !

  !



,


&






'#





- 


.

!"


#

/#



 !"


#




,


#

 !

&
&

%

"
 !
!
,

,






!0123-



(

 

&).

!"
*+& !!

#

% !
#

%



.

!
0 
4

#

%#



 ! !.

!"


  # 




%
#
&#,5




,





#
'#










 2





.





!, 

#





 !



,


&


%




'#





!, 
'





!





 6





1
!

% !

#

7%

#



# &

&


%

!
&






 !'


%


%

,

%

'

#



 
'#
#

!






% !'




#

!
%(+,#







#




,




$


'








!'





$
 





%%
,
#

!

$

# 





% !


'
%

$ !


#

!


%

 !!#
,



%

!


!

' !'




 8
#

!
%

'



 


 !%





% !'


1
!


 




&


!

!
'!






%

9 $

#



$


'



,


#

&
! !


!

5  &


#

7


%,#
&

!
%%
%
#,

#



: !


&#




' !

(;+







 


!
!


&





 !
'


%



1
!

#

<#
%
&

#




,
 !

$


#  !
# !

'

#  


%




%

'




'







#



,
%

$
%


! 






=!

& !



> !
#
#
%


,
#

!'





$ !%

 






!




%
$


 

 !





,



 


'

 


'
4

#

 !


#

!
















&
!
!

,

%




$
'%



#

&




#
 !'


&

 !


#

!





'








&
!

!

,

%


&

%&



&


'&,

$

'%&'% &

!






'
#

&

#

'%

& !



$
'
% !'


4

,

!





% !

&


!
 !
'!




 !'


%


%

&

&
 
 

&

# %

!'









&

!



& !%#

#

% !%&



&


'&,

$

'%&'% &


'
%

; 



"
# 8
'

' !'


&

#

'
 !

'




#,
 


# ,




% !'





 %

!
!'










%
 '




5#


 !
 '




#

$

' !
%
%





#,
 

,


#

&

,


%

#



#

,#,5






# 



#

$

' !


%







 

?@A?BC& !4





 &


!'



&

%




 !




$


'

#,
 

%





#,


6!





#%






  !
,

'


% !
%


%





$

'


% !
# !

%



%
%



1%
$






#
#

!4




 & 





 
 '


 &

#
'


7
%

#

$

' !
!%

'
%
%





#,5 

#






,





'
 !
#

% !!

#

,






#

#,


$






%




%#
%(+




#

$

',


,

!
5#
 

'

#
%







 !'




DEFGHIJKLKMNOEPNQDRSTULUVWVXSYUUXZDW[X\\]\XDYVVY\D]ZY]W

 




















!
"



#
"


$
%

 & %
 &

' &


'

&


'
'



 &

 & 

'

%
&
(
"##%




'

( 
)




&


'






'
#'



 &

"

##





'#
"


'

&


'

&




&



*&

(

"##%


%
&#
"
' &

'
#'




 * (



#

"##  '


+
$ '# 


%

 &


 





" &

#

+



&

(
,
# &



%

 & %


#

%





#

+


#

## 
 # 



&
"











"
 

(

" &

#

"##

(



#

'

(






'

 (

 (



#


#

+



&

#


& (
'


#  (



- 






. ( 
##








 &
&
(
"##%%




&



 &






/ &
&
(



'

(




%

(

 (

%

%


#

" &
 &


"
 



'

"&
&"##

%




%#
" &&#

 


0




&



&
(

'






#

"##

%(
%


'
&




"##

%




&

 &(



' &




1 2

*&"

%
 &


'

%


&


#


'


(



 

' &
(

'

#

%##
""##

%(
%
"


'
& 
(



 

#
"

'

%$
%


&


#


'
(

'

&

(



 

#
"*&



%
 &


'

'

&


(
"&
&(

%

(

&

(
"##

%(
%
"


'




%


&


#


%
&
&


'


(



 

' &
(

#

%##
"

3 4


(
*&
(

 &
" &

&
"
 


(

'



(#
%
 (%

&


(






% "
&


#


&
%)
(


' *&
5 

 &

6


#


" & &






7 (


#
(
(

&
(
/ &
&
(

' 



(

%
(


(
'
"



&

8
 

"
 

%
%
&



9  &


*&

#8
 
&
(

 &

(

'





%&
#'

'

#



&



"

&
&
&
 &#
#
"

 &




#
 &



%



#

& 
(



 


' &
(


:./*,;4</=<!!<2./4>
?@ABCDEFGFHIJ@KIL?MNOPGPQRQSNTPPSU?RVSWWXWS?TQQTW?XUTXR

 
















!



!"

 

"



#$
 

 
" 




"
"%  
"#

#
!

& 
!



%


"

! #
 


#
$
 
!

#
" 

# 
!



!"

 

"








"
"%  
"

#
#
#

'#

'#"# #




%


"

!#

" !
#






"


#%

 & 

 

'

 $
 %



%


(#$
 


&"% 
'

"
%


!"#
'#"#

$ #
'

 

$

!
% 

'#"#
$ #
'

"

  %  # 

% 


)$ 
*+
"

"$
 %
,
$
-

  #
! #$
 



&"%  #

%$# #%
$ 


"

"$
 %

""


"' #.




" 

/(#

"


"

"$
 %


#$
 
'

"


% #
0"





%

"

"



12,3(2(4

56 4 #
(#
!"


556
4 ( 7
! 
"
 


(84

6 4
( 81$
!
9
$

((+(4

6 4
 
9"
!


 


:

;1+)(171;94

6 4
< #

=
:!




>%



!





":

'
$ 

&"% 



%

%
 "#




 

!
$
 
%
$


"



 
"

"#
#

'
$ '
$

%

?@ABCDEF??@ABCDGF
#

!"
 

!


!BA 
"
 

!
"-

71BA 
(
%


HIJKALMNK! #"



 

OCNI "#


% 

"


#"
 

 
"
 

%

"



 

 
'

$ #
"
PQ$

$


 #"



 


RSTUVWXYZY[\]S^\_R`abcZcdedfagccfhReifjjkjfRgddgjRkhgke

 












!

"#$%$&"'(
#"

)*+,-./010234*536)789:1:;<;=8>::=?)<@=AABA=)>;;>A)B?>B<

 












!"#$"%&'() )*+*,'-)),.+/,0010,-**-01.-1+

 












!"#$"%&'() )*+*,'-)),.+/,0010,-**-01.-1+

 












!"#$"%&'() )*+*,'-)),.+/,0010,-**-01.-1+

 












! "#$%#&'()*!*+,+-(.**-/,0-1121-.++.12/.2,

 












! "#$%#&'()*!*+,+-(.**-/,0-1121-.++.12/.2,

 












!"#$"%&'() )*+*,'-)),.+/,0010,-**-01.-1+

 












! "#$%#&'()*!*+,+-(.**-/,0-1121-.++.12/.2,

 












!"#$"%&'() )*+*,'-)),.+/,0010,-**-01.-1+

 












! "#$%#&'()*!*+,+-(.**-/,0-1121-.++.12/.2,

 












! "#$%#&'()*!*+,+-(.**-/,0-1121-.++.12/.2,

 












!"#$"%&'() )*+*,'-)),.+/,0010,-**-01.-1+

44 City of Brentwood 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program Project Title: * MULTI-YEAR * Project #:

Water and Wastewater SCADA System Upgrade 562-56402
Description/Justification:

This project will provide necessary upgrades to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) computer systems to enable the Water Distribution System, Water Treatment Plant and Wastewater Treatment Plant to operate efficiently and securely.

This project will replace the existing network infrastructure, SCADA infrastructure and software originally installed in 2002.

Project Status:

This project is in the construction phase with an estimated completion in FY 2024/25.

Supplemental Information:

Completion of this project will increase the efficiency and redundancy of the critical control systems for both the Water and Wastewater systems, and ensure the City has technologically current, cyber-secure systems. Funding for this project will be $2,357,744 from the Water Replacement Fund and $2,592,173 from the Wastewater Replacement Fund. Future Annual O & M Impact: Ongoing third party maintenance including periodic calibration, software and hardware updates and minor programming changes, as well as City staff time for administration and oversight of third party maintenance.

PROJECT EXPENDITURES Prior 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 TOTAL 90040 Planning and Design 150,000 $ 150,000
90050 Construction 2,623,082 2,026,835 $ 4,649,917
90070 Project Administration 150,000 $ 150,000
TOTAL $ 2,923,082 $ 2,026,835 $ 4,949,917
PROJECT FUNDING Prior 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 TOTAL 47 - Var Enterprise 3,691,000 1,258,917 $ 4,949,917
TOTAL $ 3,691,000 $ 1,258,917 $ 4,949,917

PROJECT FINANCING CURRENT PROPOSED
Project Category: Water Improvements
Location: 2201 and 2251 Elkins Way
Project Manager: C. Wichert
Project Priority: 1A - Mandatory
Est. Completion Date: 2024/25
Future Annual
O & M Impact: $10,000
Public Art
Requirement: Exempt
General Plan Policy: IF 1-1, IF 3-1, IF 3-2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.7
10/08/2024
SUBJECT: An Agreement with The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc. for City Facility Audiovisual System for Design and Consulting services for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 337-37259
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Information Systems
STAFF: Kerry Breen, Director of Finance and Information Systems Michael Baria, Chief Information Systems Officer

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an Agreement for City Facility Audiovisual (“AV”) System Design and Consulting Services for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 337-37259 (“Project”) in the amount of $86,700, plus funding authorization for a 5% contingency of $4,335, for a total not to exceed funding authorization amount of $91,035, with The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the agreement is $86,700, plus a funding authorization for 5% contingency of $4,335, for a not to exceed amount of $91,035. The Project is included in the 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). There is sufficient budget in the Project for this expenditure and funding for the Project is from the Information Systems Replacement Fund. The Information Systems Replacement Fund receives annual contributions from City funds in order to ensure sufficient resources are available when replacements are needed. Annual funding in the operating budget comes from the General Fund (74%), the Enterprise Funds (18%), and other funds (8%).

BACKGROUND
The age of the City’s current audiovisual infrastructure varies by location. The majority of the AV infrastructure resides in City Hall and the Community Center, and were placed into production when the Civic Center opened in 2012. Staff assess and maintain these systems regularly, performing repairs and hardware refresh/replacement as needed. Recent advancements in audiovisual technology and

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.7
10/08/2024
the use of virtual meeting technologies such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams have placed increased demands on audiovisual systems that exceed the capabilities of the City’s current audiovisual infrastructure. In response to these changes, in 2022/2023 the City redesigned the audiovisual system of the City’s Council Chamber. As a result, the City was able to provide a better experience to residents and improve staff’s efficiency and ability to conduct meetings within the Council Chamber. In order to achieve similar gains in performance and efficiency, and to bring a consistent experience across the City, it was determined that a refresh of the City’s remaining audiovisual infrastructure was needed, and CIP Project 337-37259 was included in the City’s CIP adopted in May of 2024.

On August 5, 2024, notice was published on the City’s website and in the local paper for a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for City Facility Audiovisual System Design and Consulting Services. The City received four (4) Statement of Qualifications from the Planholders listed below. A committee of four individuals from the City’s Information Systems Division reviewed the submittals in detail, and scored them based upon the criteria published in the RFQ. Based on the entire RFQ process, staff recommends The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc. as the best value for the City:

Planholders
The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc.

Alfa Tech
Shen Milson & Wilke, LLC
INA Display

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
See Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.7
10/08/2024

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation which would result in project delays and the continued use of outdated AV systems, which could negatively impact City operation and public accessibility.

2. Modify Staff’s recommendation based on legally defensible findings.

3. Continue item with direction for staff to return with additional information.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Contract

4. City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade CIP sheet

ATTACHMENT 1
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On May 28, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-56, the City Council adopted the City’s 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”), which includes the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 337-37259.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT AND

NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR CITY FACILITY AUDIOVISUAL

SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY
FACILITY AUDIOVISUAL SYSTEM UPGRADE, CIP PROJECT NO.
337-37259 (“PROJECT”) IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,700, PLUS
FUNDING AUTHORIZATION FOR A 5% CONTINGENCY OF $4,335,

FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED FUNDING AUTHORIZATION
AMOUNT OF $91,035 WITH THE SHALLECK COLLABORATIVE,
INC.

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-56, the City Council adopted the 2024/25 – 2028/29 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”), which includes the City Facility Audiovisual (“AV”) System Upgrade, CIP Project No. 337- 37259; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the AV infrastructure resides in City Hall and the Community Center which were placed into production when the Civic Center opened in 2012; and
WHEREAS, Staff assess and maintain these systems regularly, performing repairs and hardware refresh/replacement as needed; and recent advancements in audiovisual technology and the use of virtual meeting technologies such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams have placed increased demands on audiovisual systems that exceed the capabilities of the City’s current audiovisual infrastructure; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2024 notice was published for a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for City Facility Audiovisual System Design and Consulting Services and the City received four (4) Statement of Qualifications (“SOQ”); and WHEREAS, a committee of four individuals from the City’s Information Systems Division reviewed the SOQ’s in detail, and scored them based upon the criteria published in the RFQ and based on the entire RFQ process, staff recommends The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc. as the best value for the City.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents for City Facility Audiovisual System Design and Consulting Services for the City Facility Audiovisual System Upgrade, CIP Project no. 337-37259 (“Project”) in the amount of $86,700, plus funding authorization for a 5% contingency of $4,335 for a total not to exceed funding authorization amount of $91,035 with The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

AGREEMENT FOR CITY FACILITY AUDIOVISUAL SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSULTING SERVICES [ The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc. ]
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the _____ day of ___________________, 2024 by and between the City of Brentwood, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City"), and The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc., a California corporation ("Consultant") (each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).

RECITALS
A. City requires the professional services of a consultant specifically trained and experienced in audiovisual system design, which are professional services outside of services offered by City.

B. Consultant has the professional skills and experience necessary to perform the services described in this Agreement.

C. Consultant customarily engages in these services as part of its independently established trade, occupation, and/or business, separately from its work for City.

D. City desires to engage Consultant to provide these services by reason of its qualifications and experience in performing such services
E. Consultant has submitted a proposal to City and has affirmed its willingness and ability to perform such work on the terms and manner set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Scope of Work.

1.1 City retains Consultant, as an independent contractor, to perform, and Consultant agrees to render, those services (the "Services") that are described in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by this reference, pursuant to this Agreement’s terms and conditions.

1.2 Consultant will control the manner and the means of the work to be performed, and be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of the Services. Consultant will, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in the Services.

1.3. Consultant will keep City informed on a regular basis that the Services are being performed in accordance with the requirement and intentions of this Agreement.

1.4 If applicable, Consultant has designated those persons listed in Exhibit “A” to provide the Services to the City. Consultant will not change or reassign those persons described in Exhibit “A” without prior written notice to City, and will not replace those individuals with individuals to whom City has a reasonable objection.

2. Standard of Performance. Consultant acknowledges that in entering into this Agreement the City is relying on Consultant's special skills and experience to do and perform the Services. While performing the Services, Consultant will exercise the reasonable professional care and skill customarily exercised by reputable members of Consultant's profession practicing in the Northern California area. The acceptance of the Services by City does not release Consultant from these obligations.

Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the Services.

Consultant will control the manner and means of the services to be performed by its employees and subconsultants. All of Consultant's staff will be qualified by training and experience to perform their assigned tasks. Consultant will give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this

2 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
Agreement by all of its employees and subcontractors, if any, and will keep the Services under its control.

On demand of City, if any employee or subcontractor of Consultant fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, he or she will be discharged immediately from the Services.

3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, the term of this Agreement will commence upon the date first above written and will expire upon completion of the Services by Consultant.

4. Schedule. Consultant will generally adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit “A” provided, that City will grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of the Services occasioned by unusually lengthy governmental reviews of Consultant’s work product or other unavoidable delays occasioned by unforeseen circumstances; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay will not include strikes, lockouts, work stoppages, or other labor disturbances conducted by, or on behalf of, Consultant’s officers or employees.

Consultant acknowledges the importance to City of City’s project schedule and agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform the Services in a manner consistent with that schedule. City understands, however, that Consultant’s performance must be governed by sound practices. Consultant will work such overtime or engage such personnel and equipment as necessary to maintain the schedule, without additional compensation.

5. Compensation.

5.1 The total fee payable for the Services to be performed during the term of this Agreement will be a not to exceed amount of eighty-six thousand seven hundred dollars ($86,700) as may be further specified in the attached Exhibit “A.” No other compensation for the Services will be allowed except for items covered by subsequent amendments to this Agreement. The City reserves the right to withhold a ten percent (10%) retention until City has accepted the Services.

5.2 Payment will occur only after receipt by City of invoices sufficiently detailed to include hours performed, hourly rates, and related activities and costs for approval by City.

5.3 Within thirty (30) days after receipt of any applicable progress payment request, City will verify the accuracy of the request, correct the charges where appropriate, and make payment to Consultant in an amount equal to the amount of such application, as verified or corrected by City. No payment made prior to completion and acceptance of the Services will constitute acceptance of any part of the Services.

City reserves the right to withhold payment from Consultant on account of Services not performed satisfactorily, delays in Consultant's performance of Services, or other defaults hereunder.

6. Status of Consultant. Consultant will perform the Services as an independent contractor, free from the control and direction of City, in pursuit of Consultant’s independent calling, and not as an employee of City. The persons used by Consultant to provide the Services under this Agreement will not be considered employees of City for any purposes whatsoever and City will not pay any tax, workers’ compensation insurance, retirement contributions or unemployment contributions on behalf of Consultant or its employees or subcontractors. Consultant agrees to indemnify and pay City within thirty (30) days for any tax, retirement contribution, social security, overtime payment, unemployment payment or workers’ compensation payment, including, but not limited to, those based on any provision of the Federal Affordable Care Act, which City may be required to make on behalf of Consultant or any agent, employee, or contractor of Consultant for work done under this Agreement. The payment made to Consultant pursuant to the Agreement will be the full and complete compensation to which Consultant is entitled. City will not make any federal or state tax withholdings on behalf of Consultant or its agents, employees or subcontractors.

At the City’s election, City may deduct the amounts paid pursuant to this Section, from any balance owing to Consultant.

7. Subcontracting. Consultant's services are being requested by City because they are unique and personal. Except as may be specified in Exhibit “A”, Consultant will not subcontract any portion of the

3 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
Services without prior written approval of City Manager or his/her designee. If Consultant subcontracts any of the Services, Consultant will be fully responsible to City for the acts, errors and omissions of Consultant's subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Consultant is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Consultant. Nothing contained in this Agreement will create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor of Consultant and City.

Consultant will be responsible for payment of subcontractors. Consultant will bind every subcontractor and every subcontractor of a subcontractor by the terms of this Agreement applicable to Consultant's work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract and approved in writing by City.

8. Other Consultants. The City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Services.

9. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to indemnify, including the cost to defend, City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant and its agents in the performance of services under this Agreement, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, arising from the sole negligence, willful misconduct or defects in design by City or the agents, servants, or independent contractors who are directly responsible to City, or arising from the active negligence of City.

10. Insurance. Consultant will obtain and maintain, at its cost and expense, for the duration of the Agreement and any and all amendments, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise out of or in connection with performance of the Services by Consultant or Consultant’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The insurance will be obtained from an insurance carrier admitted and authorized to do business in the State of California. The insurance carrier is required to have a current Best's Key Rating of not less than "A:VII."

10.1 Coverages and Limits. Consultant will maintain the types of coverages and minimum limits indicated below, unless Risk Manager or City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney approves a lower amount. These minimum amounts of coverage will not constitute any limitations or cap on Consultant's indemnification obligations under this Agreement. City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees make no representation that the limits of the insurance specified to be carried by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are adequate to protect Consultant. The coverage will contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above-designated insureds except for Workers Compensation and errors and omissions insurance. Consultant will obtain occurrence coverage, excluding Professional Liability, which will be written as claims-made coverage. If Consultant believes that any required insurance coverage is inadequate, Consultant will obtain such additional insurance coverage, as Consultant deems adequate, at Consultant's sole expense.

10.1.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. $2,000,000 combined single-limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the submitted policies contain aggregate limits, general aggregate limits will apply separately to the work under this Agreement or the general aggregate will be twice the required per occurrence limit.

10.1.2 Automobile Liability. $1,000,000 combined single-limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

10.1.3 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability. Workers' Compensation limits as required by the California Labor Code and Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance will not be required if Consultant has no employees and provides, to City's satisfaction, a declaration stating this.

10.1.4 Professional Liability. Errors and omissions liability appropriate to Consultant’s profession with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per claim.

4 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

10.2 Endorsements. For Commercial General Liability Insurance, Consultant will ensure that the policies are endorsed to name the City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees as additional insureds. Prior to City's execution of this Agreement, Consultant will furnish, to the satisfaction of the City, certificates of insurance and endorsements.

10.3 Cancellation. Insurance will be in force during the life of the Agreement and any extensions of it and will not be canceled without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City sent pursuant to the notice provisions of this Agreement.

10.4 Failure to Maintain Coverage. If Consultant fails to maintain any of these insurance coverages, then City will have the option to declare Consultant in breach of this Agreement, or may purchase replacement insurance or pay the premiums that are due on existing policies in order to maintain the required coverages. Consultant is responsible for any payments made by City to obtain or maintain insurance and City may collect these payments from Consultant or deduct the amount paid from any sums due Consultant under this Agreement.

10.5 Submission of Insurance Policies. City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete and certified copies of any or all required insurance policies and endorsements.

10.6 Primary Coverage. For any claims related to the Services and this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance coverage will be primary insurance with respect to City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City for itself, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees, will be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and not contributory with it.

10.7 Reduction in Coverage/Material Changes. Consultant will notify City in writing pursuant to the notice provisions of this Agreement thirty (30) days prior to any reduction in any of the insurance coverage required pursuant to this Agreement or any material changes to the respective insurance policies.

10.8 Waiver of Subrogation. The policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City.

11. Business License. If required, Consultant will obtain and maintain a City of Brentwood Business License for the term of the Agreement, as it may be amended from time-to-time.

12. Maintenance of Records. Consultant will maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs incurred under this Agreement. All records will be clearly identifiable. Consultant will allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant will allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

13. Ownership of Documents.

13.1 All product produced by Consultant or its agents, employees, and subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement (the “Work Product”) is the property of City. In the event this Agreement is terminated, all Work Product produced by Consultant or its agents, employees and subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement will be delivered to City pursuant to the termination clause of this Agreement. Consultant will have the right to make one (1) copy of the Work Product for Consultant’s records.

13.2 The Work Product may be used by City and its agents, employees, representatives, and assigns, in whole or in part, or in modified form, for all purposes City may deem advisable, without further employment of or payment of any compensation to Consultant; provided, however, that if this Agreement is terminated for any reason prior to completion of the Project and if under such circumstances City uses, or engages the services of and directs another consultant to use, the Work Product, City agrees to hold Consultant harmless from any and all liability, costs, and expenses relative to claims arising out of matters and/or events which occur subsequent to the termination of this Agreement as a result of causes other than

5 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
the fault or negligence of Consultant, or anyone for whose acts it is responsible, in preparation of the Work Product. Consultant will not be responsible for deficiencies solely attributable to modifications of the Work Product performed by others, or that arise from use of the Documents in connection with a project or site other than that shown in the Work Product.

14. Copyrights. Consultant agrees that all copyrights that arise from the Services will be vested in City and Consultant relinquishes all claims to the copyrights in favor of City.

15. Confidentiality. All documents, reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of the Services pursuant to the Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant will not make any of these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before any such release.

16. Notices. Any notices relating to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given and served for all purposes when delivered personally, by facsimile or by generally recognized overnight courier service, or five (5) days after deposit in the United States mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

For City:

City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Phone No. (925) 516-5425
Facsimile No. (925) 516-5322
Attn: Mike Baria, CISO
For Consultant:

The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc.
1553 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Berkeley, CA 94709
Phone No. (415) 956-4100
Facsimile No. (415) 840-0494
Attn: Ian Hunter, Principal
Either Party may change its address for purposes of this section by giving the other Party written notice of the new address in the manner set forth above.

17. Conflicts of Interest.

17.1 City will evaluate Consultant’s duties pursuant to this Agreement to determine whether disclosure under the Political Reform Act and City’s Conflict of Interest Code is required of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, agents, or subcontractors. Should it be determined that disclosure is required, Consultant or Consultant’s affected employees, agents, or subcontractors will complete and file with the City Clerk those schedules specified by City and contained in the Statement of Economic Interests Form 700.

17.2 Consultant understands that its professional responsibility is solely to City. Consultant warrants that it presently has no interest, present or contemplated, and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest, that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement. Consultant further warrants that neither Consultant, nor Consultant’s agents, employees, subcontractors and consultants have any ancillary real property, business interests or income that will be affected by this Agreement or, alternatively, that Consultant will file with the City an affidavit disclosing this interest. Consultant will not knowingly, and will take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not, employ a person having such an interest in the performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers that it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant will promptly disclose the relationship to the City and take such action as the City may direct to remedy the conflict.

18. General Compliance with Laws. Consultant will keep fully informed of federal, state and local laws and ordinances and regulations (“Laws”) which in any manner affect those employed by Consultant, or in any way affect the performance of the Services by Consultant. Consultant will at all times observe and

6 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
comply with these laws, ordinances, and regulations and will be responsible for the compliance of the Services with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations.

19. Pandemic Health Laws. Consultant’s duty to comply with Laws includes compliance by Consultant with all local, state, or federal Laws that have been or may be enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (collectively, “Health Laws”), which include all of the County of Contra Costa Health Orders. Failure to fully comply with the Health Laws constitutes a material default, subject to all available remedies including suspension or termination.

20. Discrimination and Harassment Prohibited. Consultant will comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination and harassment.

21. Termination. In the event of the Consultant's failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the Services, City may terminate this Agreement for nonperformance by notifying Consultant in writing pursuant to the notice provisions of this Agreement. Consultant has five (5) business days to deliver any documents owned by City and all work in progress to City address contained in this Agreement. City will make a determination of fact based upon the work product delivered to City and of the percentage of work that Consultant has performed which is usable and of worth to City in having the Agreement completed. Based upon that finding City will determine the final payment of the Agreement. In the event City elects to terminate, City will have the right to immediate possession of all Work Product and work in progress prepared by Consultant, whether located at the project site, at Consultant's place of business, or at the offices of a subconsultant.

Either Party, upon tendering thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other Party, may terminate this Agreement for convenience. In this event and upon request of City, Consultant will assemble the work product without charge and put it in order for proper filing and closing and deliver it to City. Consultant will be paid for work performed to the termination date; however, the total will not exceed the lump sum fee payable under this Agreement. City will make the final determination as to the portions of tasks completed and the compensation to be made.

22. Covenants Against Contingent Fees. Consultant warrants that Consultant has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that Consultant has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon, or resulting from, the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City will have the right to terminate this Agreement for nonperformance, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fees, gift, or contingent fee.

23. Claims And Lawsuits. By signing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that any Agreement claim submitted to City must be asserted as part of the Agreement process as set forth in this Agreement and not in anticipation of litigation or in conjunction with litigation. Consultant acknowledges that if a false claim is submitted to City by Consultant, it may be considered fraud and Consultant may be subject to criminal prosecution. Consultant acknowledges that California Government Code sections 12650 et seq., the False Claims Act, applies to this Agreement and, provides for civil penalties where a person knowingly submits a false claim to a public entity. These provisions include false claims made with deliberate ignorance of the false information or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information. If City seeks to recover penalties pursuant to the False Claims Act, it is entitled to recover its litigation costs, including attorney's fees. Consultant acknowledges that the filing of a false claim may subject Consultant to an administrative debarment proceeding as the result of which Consultant may be prevented to act as a Consultant on any public work or improvement for a period of up to five (5) years. Consultant acknowledges debarment by another jurisdiction is grounds for City to terminate this Agreement.

24. Jurisdiction, Venue and Governing Law. Any action at law or in equity brought by either of the Parties for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement will be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, and the Parties waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in these proceedings to any other county. This agreement

7 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
will be governed by the laws of the State of California.

25. Testimony. Consultant will testify at City's request if litigation is brought against City in connection with Consultant's services under this agreement. Unless the action is brought by Consultant, or is based upon Consultant's actual or alleged negligence or other wrongdoing, City, upon prior written agreement with Consultant will compensate Consultant for time spent in preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at Consultant's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

26. Successors and Assigns. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement will be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors. Neither this Agreement nor any part of it nor any monies due or to become due under it may be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of City, which will not be unreasonably withheld.

27. Section Headings. Section headings as used in this Agreement are for convenience only and will not be deemed to be a part of such sections and will not be construed to change the meaning of the section.

28. Waivers. The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law will not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of same or of any other term, covenant, condition or law. The acceptance by either Party of any fee or other payment which may become due under this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or any applicable law.

29. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated by it embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter of it. The City Manager is authorized, in consultation with the City Attorney, to agree to nonmaterial amendments to this Agreement. Neither this Agreement nor any of its provisions may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except in a writing signed by both parties.

30. Authority. The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referenced in it on behalf of Consultant each represent and warrant that they have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind Consultant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

8 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522

31. Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or its application to any party or circumstances shall be held, to any extent, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of the term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

32. Signatures.

32.1 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which together will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute the same instrument.

32.2 Digital/Electronic Signatures. Using a City-approved method, this Agreement may be executed through the use of digital or electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code Section

16.5. The presence of an electronic signature on this Agreement will be construed as the Parties’ consent to do business electronically.

CONSULTANT:
* By:

Adam Shalleck, President, CFO & Secretary
CITY:

By:

Tim Y. Ogden, City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

Amanda McVey, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Katherine Wisinski, City Attorney
If required by City, proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Consultant must be attached. If a Corporation, Agreement must be signed by one corporate officer from each of the following two groups. *Group A. **Group B.

Chairman, Secretary,
President, or Assistant Secretary,
Vice-President CFO or Assistant Treasurer
Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.

9 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant will perform the following Services, at the rates indicated below.

Field of Responsibility
Consultant’s work will be in two basic areas of consultation: architectural and engineering aspects that affect AV systems, and actual design of AV systems. Typical architectural and engineering guidance includes:
 Video display sightline confirmation
 Structural, mechanical, and electrical criteria for AV systems AV Systems Documentation
Services include planning, criteria, design and oversight as described below for typical meeting/gathering AV systems in the following facilities:

Location Room Name Capacity Notes
City Hall IPARQ Conference Room 14
City Hall Vista Conference Room 14
City Hall Capitol Conference Room 4 No existing AV
City Hall Video Conference Room 16
City Hall Engineering Conference Room No existing AV
City Hall Training Room 20
City Hall Employee Lounge 30
City Hall Terrace View Conference Room 24
City Hall Tower Conference Room 14
City Hall Park View Conference Room 14
Community Center Community Hall 400 Dividable into 2 rooms with independent AV
Community Center Multipurpose Room 150 Dividable into 2 rooms with independent AV
Community Center Meeting Room 100 Dividable into 2 rooms with independent AV
Community Center Joy Conference Room 12
Senior Center Main Hall 280
Senior Center Combo Room 80 Dividable into 2 rooms with independent AV
Library Community Room 48
Municipal Service
Center
Fairview / Balfour Conference
Room
30 Dividable into 2 rooms with
independent AV
Municipal Service
Center
Walnut Conference Room 10 No existing AV
Municipal Service
Center
Lone Tree Training Room 30
Police Department Communications Conference
Room
10 Police Department Delta Room 60
Police Department Briefing Room 20
Police Department EOC / Training Room 50
Police Department Admin Conference Room 16
Waste Water
Operations
Conference Room 10
Solid Waste
Operations
Training Room 30

10 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
For purpose of these services, Consultant has provided a phasing plan based on coordination with City staff to best suit City’s needs:

Phase 1:
 Community Center (Community Hall, Multipurpose Room, Meeting Room) Phase 2:
 Community Center (Conference Room)
 City Hall (Conference Rooms, Training Room)
 Library (Community Room)
 Senior Center (Main Hall, Combo Room)
 Municipal Service Center (Conference Rooms, Training Rooms)  Police Department (Conference Rooms, Delta Room, Briefing Room, Training Rooms)  Waste Water Operations (Conference Room)
 Solid Waste Operations (Training Room)
Related Service Limits
Architectural and electrical, structural, mechanical engineering services are not included in this scope of services. Although Consultant is versed in the applicable codes and trades, and will make recommendations for their design intent, this scope assumes that the contractor and related Engineers are providing complete professional services as required by governing laws, codes and governmental agencies.

The AV equipment will be specified in Constructions Specifications Institute (“CSI”) MasterFormat Division 27 of the specifications. All related electrical design, components and services that control or fall under Division 26 shall be the responsibility of the Electrical Engineer. For low voltage systems, these services includes specification of wiring devices, point to point diagrams, infrastructure criteria, AV conduit size & wire types, but not design or documentation of the Div. 26 infrastructure such as electrical conduit size and route, power wire, back boxes, or any power systems.

This scope assumes that all building-integrated systems are designed, coordinated, documented and bid within the base building design and construction process.

Consultant will not be providing services in acoustics or noise isolation, IT, or architectural lighting in this scope.

Professional stamping and representation to building agencies is not included in this scope. In Consultant experience, professional stamping of AV systems documents is not normally required by building agencies.

Design Phase
Based upon a written authorization, Consultant will provide the following Services during design for each phase:

Design: Within Consultant field of responsibility, Consultant will assist City in developing a design for the areas for which Consultant is responsible. Consultant will work within the context of the project to determine the best use of available resources with the intent of maximizing aesthetic impact and system functionality.

Review and advice will take place in meetings as outlines below and be issued in the form of written memoranda and sketches as required.

11 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
Engineering Accommodations: Consultant will provide guidance on the required architectural and engineering accommodations. Review and advice will take place in meetings as outlined below and be issued in the form of sketches and written reports and memoranda.

AV Systems Executive Summary: Consultant will provide a narrative that outlines the approach to be taken for AV systems within Consultants field of responsibility.

AV Systems Budget Recommendations: Consultant will provide budget recommendations for the systems in the scope.

AV Systems Documentation: Consultant will provide milestone drawings and specifications as needed.

Deliverables will include contract document-level documents that shall set forth in detail the systems within our field of responsibility, sufficient to bid and construct the systems, and to be used for coordination with other consultants.

Drawings will be developed in the current release of Autodesk Revit with the exception of general advisory information, which will be developed in the current release of 2D AutoCAD. Revit information will be developed to Level of Development (“LOD”) 300 for inclusion into the project model and will include devices and equipment but not conduit.

Building background models from which Consultant can produce 2D AutoCAD compatible files and all updates and revisions thereto shall be provided by City.

Review: Where other design disciplines are involved, Consultant will provide a thorough review of one preliminary set and the final bid set of drawings to aid in the overall coordination of the documents.

Recommendations will be provided in a written report and/or marked-up drawings.

Meetings: Meetings and related travel during each Design phase of the project within this proposal are limited to:
 Two partial days of meetings in Brentwood, CA per phase  Virtual meetings as needed
Agency Review/Bidding
Based upon a written authorization, Consultant will provide the following services during design for each agency review/bidding period:

Agency Review: Consultant will be available by telephone to answer questions from City or Building Agency within Consultant’s field of responsibility. Agency meetings or exhaustive code analysis will be considered an additional service.

Bidding: Consultant will answer bid questions, review bids and advise the City as to their completeness relative to the bid documents.

Pre-Bid Meeting: Meetings and related travel during each Bidding phase of the project within this proposal are limited to:
 One pre-bid meeting in Brentwood, CA per phase
Redesign: Should it be necessary to invoke substantial redesign of the systems for which Consultant is responsible due to the receipt of bids over the City’s approved budget and contingency for those systems, Consultant will provide revised documents at no additional cost. Any redesign efforts due to overages outside of our systems responsibility, or revisions in their criteria or scope based on other consultants work will be considered an additional service.

12 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
Construction Administration Phase
Based upon the successful award of the contract for construction and authorization to proceed, Consultant will provide construction administration services as outlined herein within Consultant’s field of responsibility, for each phase:

RFI’s, bulletins and change orders: Consultant will respond to issues that arise within our field of responsibility.

Shop Drawings: Within 10 business days after receipt, Consultant will review and stamp up to two submissions of shop drawings for each specification section Consultant authors. Consultant will review shop drawings of systems directly related or adjacent to system function such as structural and sprinkler layouts in AV spaces, mechanical and related electrical. For areas outside of Consultant field, Consultant will provide a letter of comments and/or mark-ups, but Consultant will not stamp them.

Intermediate Site Visits: Consultant will visit the site during construction at times appropriate to observe the work in progress in conformance with the design intent of the bid documents and to discuss and assist in coordinating solutions. Consultant will provide a written report after each visit. Intermediate site visits and related travel within this scope will be limited to:
 Two partial personnel-day visits per phase 1
 Three partial personnel-day visits per phase 2
Final Checkouts: Based upon written notice from the contractor that the work within our field is complete, Consultant will provide a preliminary and a final checkout of systems in this scope. A written punchlist will be provided. Further backcheck of systems will be considered an additional service. Consultant will include in the specifications a clause stating that if Consultant are requested to review systems that are incomplete, the contractor will be backcharged for each repeat checkout. The checkout time will be limited to:
 Two personnel-days of checkout sessions per phase 1
 Six personnel-days of checkout sessions per phase 2
Project Schedule
This scope assumes the following schedule (per phase):
 Design Phase 2-6 months
 Agency Review/Bid 1-2 months
 Construction Admin 2-6 months
All phases are assumed to be completed by the end of 2026. Should this schedule extended due to causes other than by Consultant, fees will be equitably adjusted.

Fees
Compensation for the Services will be billed on a fixed fee basis. Fees will be as follows. Expenses are included in these fees.

Phase Ph 1 Ph 2
 Design $21,750 $39,525
 Agency Review/Bid $1,500 $3,725
 Construction Admin $7,750 $12,450
 Total Fee $31,000 $55,700

13 PSA_City Attorney Approved Version 071522
Total fee, all phases: $86,700
Phases may be accepted separately.

Consultant’s hourly rates for 2024 are as follows:

Employee Rate
 Principal $235-$325
 Project Manager and Systems Designer $195
 Draftsperson $150
These rates may be adjusted annually as of January 1st of each year. Invoices will be issued monthly and are due within 30 days.

Reimbursable Expenses
Reimbursable expenses are included in the fee limits quoted above, but any expenses beyond the number of printings or meetings/site visits as outlines above shall be authorized in advance and billed as an additional service at cost.

Additional Services
Services outside of those within this scope will be considered additional and will not be provided unless authorized in writing by the City. These services will be provided on a time and materials basis and billed at the rates listed above.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
10/08/2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Fifth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority and East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program 2024 Update Report
DEPARTMENT: Engineering Department
STAFF: Allen Baquilar, Director of Engineering/City Engineer Debra Galey, Senior Analyst, Engineering

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (1) approving and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Fifth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (“JEPA”) for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”) and (2) approving and adopting the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program 2024 Update Report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no changes proposed to the ECCRFFA fees in the fifth amendment and the fees listed below will continue to be collected by the cities of Brentwood, Antioch, Oakley, and Pittsburg and unincorporated east Contra Costa County and forwarded to ECCRFFA. The City collects and retains an additional 1% of the fees to cover administrative costs per the ECCRFFA JEPA.

ECCRFFA RTDIM FEE January
2024
ECCRFFA Fee
Rebate
New Fee less
Rebate
Single Family Residential $28,313 15% $24,066
Multi-Family Residential $17,380 15% $14,773
Commercial $2.35 - $2.35
Office $2.04 - $2.04
Industrial $2.04 - $2.04
Other $28,313 - $28,313

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
10/08/2024

BACKGROUND
The purpose of ECCRFFA is to identify and prioritize regional transportation projects and establish a uniform regional development fee for project funding. In addition, ECCRFFA sets funding goals and project implementation schedules. To date, ECCRFFA has been successful in funding construction of State Route 4 through Oakley and Brentwood from SR160 to Vasco Road, including the Mokelumne Trail overpass.

The Fourth JEPA amendment, approved in 2021, added Sand Creek Road from SR4 in Brentwood to Deer Valley Road in Antioch, to the list of ECCRFFA fee funded transportation projects and is currently under construction.

ECCRFFA last updated its regional fees and list of transportation projects in 2021.

With a number of these projects complete or nearing completion, ECCRFFA member agencies have recently approved the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program 2024 Update Report, which includes the list of transportation projects. This 2024 update 1) adds 18 new projects, included with this staff report as Attachment #2, and 2) prioritizes West Leland Road and Pittsburg-Antioch Highway in lieu of the James Donlon Extension in the City of Pittsburg. Fees are not proposed to change and the City will continue to collect from new development and forward, regional transportation fees to ECCRFFA.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 1: Public Works. 1. Transportation: Proactively engage and collaborate with regional transportation agencies and stakeholders to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Notice was published in the Brentwood Press 30 days in advance of the public hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation. Approval is required by all five ECCRFFA member agencies for the JEPA Amendment to take effect.

2. Continue the item with direction for staff to return with additional information.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
10/08/2024

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. ECCRFFA Transportation Project List - August 2024

3. ECCRFFA Fee 2024 Program Update Report

4. Fifth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for ECCRFFA

5. Resolution

ATTACHMENT 1 – PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

In 1994, Contra Costa County and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood and Pittsburg entered into an agreement for the formation of the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”) as a joint powers agency. Subsequently, various amendments have added the City of Oakley as an ECCRFFA member and amended the fee and list of transportation projects.

On July 12, 2005, by Resolution No. 2005-180, the City Council approved and adopted the 2005 East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update.

On August 27, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-119, the City Council approved the Third Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority.

On January 12, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-05, the City Council approved the Fourth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority and adopted the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Program Update.

Number Project Description/ Project Limits Jurisdiction Initial Cost ($ million)
Estimated Cost,
$ million
(Cost at
completion for
completed
projects; cost in
current dollars
for projects yet
to be
completed)
Status
Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road,
widen to 8 lanes CCTA $101.0 $101.0 Completed
Loveridge interchange CCTA $157.8 $157.8 Completed
Loveridge to Bypass (8 lanes to Hillcrest,
6 lanes to Bypass) CCTA $374.7 $374.7 Completed
Hillcrest interchange expansion CCTA $10.0 $10.0 Completed Phase 1, 6 lanes to Laurel, interchanges
at Laurel Rd and Lone Tree Bypass Authority $113.7 $113.7 Completed Phase 2, SR 160 interchange Bypass Authority $50.1 $50.1 Completed Laurel interchange, phase 2 Bypass Authority $1.0 $1.0 Completed Phase 1, 2 lanes Bypass Authority $33.3 $33.3 Completed Phase 2, 4 lanes, Sand Creek Road to
Balfour Road Bypass Authority $16.0 $16.0 Completed
Widen to 6 lanes, Laurel Road to Sand
Creek Road Bypass Authority $29.0 $39.9
Sand Creek interchange and 4 lanes,
Laurel to Sand Creek Bypass Authority $43.8 $43.8 Completed ECCRFFA Project List - August 2024
Projects in Existing ECCRFFA Program
Freeway Improvements
1 SR 4 Freeway widening
2 SR 4 Bypass Segment 1
3 SR 4 Bypass Segment 2

Balfour to Marsh Creek (2 lanes) plus
Marsh Creek east-west connector Bypass Authority $77.8 $77.8 Completed Marsh Creek to Vasco, 2 lanes Bypass Authority $12.6 $12.6 Completed Segment 3, widen to 4 lanes Bypass Authority $58.9 $81.1 Balfour interchange Bypass Authority $58.0 $58.0 Completed Marsh Creek interchange Bypass Authority $37.2 $51.2
Vasco interchange Bypass Authority $31.0 $42.7
5 Laurel Road extension SR4 Bypass to Empire, 6 lanes Bypass Authority $22.6 $22.6 Completed 6 SR239: Vasco Road – Byron Highway
Connector
New 2-lane roadway between Vasco
Road and Byron Highway and
associated local improvements
CCTA $161.0 $161.0 Environmental Phase
7 SR 239
Pre-construction activities for complete
corridor (Contra Costa segment):

Includes environmental review, design,
and right-of-way protection. No
construction costs. Excludes elements
covered under Project #6.

CCTA $101.0 $101.0 Environmental Phase
8 SR 4 (Main St or Brentwood Blvd)
widening
Close gaps and create consistent fourlane arterial between Fifth Street and Delta Road in Oakley, and between
Chestnut Street and Balfour Road in
south Brentwood
Oakley, Brentwood $24.5 $24.5 Partially complete
9 Balfour Road Deer Valley to Brentwood city limits,
widen to 4 lanes County $13.0 $14.2
10 Marsh Creek Road/Deer Valley Road
Safety Enhancements
Marsh Creek: Walnut Boulevard to
Clayton City Limits; Deer Valley: Balfour
Road to Marsh Creek Road
County $26.8 $29.3
11 Route 84/Vasco Road Widen to 4 lanes to County line County $290.0 $317.0 4 SR 4 Bypass Segment 3
Arterial Improvements

12 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway Widen to 4 lanes, Auto Center Drive to Loveridge. Antioch, Pittsburg $17.0 $55.9
13 Ninth and Tenth Streets Couplet improvements, A St to L St Antioch $7.0 $9.6 14 California Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Railroad to Loveridge. Pittsburg $6.6 $6.6 Partially complete 15 Willow Pass Road Widen to 4 lanes, Range to Loftus and Bailey to City Limits Pittsburg, County $10.7 $14.7
James Donlon Blvd Extension New 2- to 4-lane arterial, Somersville to Kirker Pass Road Pittsburg $105.8 $115.6 Design in Progress or Buchanan Road Improvements
Improve traffic flow between Railroad
Avenue and Somersville Road; improve
intersections at Harbor, Loveridge, and
Ventura with additional turn lanes; add
bike lanes; widen sidewalks to achieve
current design standards; install signal
interconnect and adaptive signals.
17 West Tregallas/Fitzuren Widen to 4 lanes, Lone Tree to Buchanan Antioch $38.7 $53.3
West Leland Road Extend as a 4-lane arterial, Santa Teresa Drive to Avila Road Pittsburg $29.6 $33.4
or Evora Road Willow Pass Rd (Bay Point) to Willow
Pass Rd (Concord), widen to 4 lanes County
19 Wilbur Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Minaker Drive to SR
160
Antioch, County $31.0 $42.7
20 Neroly Road Widen to 4 lanes, Oakley Rd to Laurel Rd Oakley $7.7 $10.6 21 Deer Valley Road Widen to 4 lanes, Sand Creek Road to Balfour Road County, Antioch $28.5 $31.2
22 Walnut Boulevard Widen to 4 lanes, Brentwood city limits to SR 4 Bypass
County $27.0 $29.5
23 John Muir Parkway New Roadway between Balfour Road
and Fairview Avenue Brentwood $17.7 $17.7 ECCRFFA commitment completed 24A Byron Highway Safety Improvements between SR 4 and
Delta Road County $42.6 $20.0
16 18

27 Sand Creek Road Extension of 4-lane roadway between SR 4 and Deer Valley Road Antioch $34.9 $38.2
25 East County Express Bus
Planning and design of regional rapid
bus program Tri-Delta Transit $8.3 $9.1
26 Commuter Rail eBART extension to Antioch CCTA $513.0 $513.0 Completed $2,770.9 $2,935.3
24B Byron Highway Extension Extend road between Delta Road and Rock Slough Bridge Oakley $24.3 $26.6
28 Empire Avenue Widening and Rail
Crossing
Construct four-lane arterial and railroad
overcrossing, between Wicklow Way
and Neroly Road
Oakley $41.6 $45.5
29 Laurel Road Extension
Extend Laurel Road as a four-lane
arterial from Teton Road to Sellers
Avenue
Oakley $38.4 $42.0
30 Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lane Construct a southbound truck climbing lane along Kirker Pass Road County $35.3 $38.6
31 Camino Diablo Safety Improvements Safety improvements between Vasco Road and Byron Highway County, CCTA $6.8 $7.4
32 Slatten Ranch Road Extension, South
Segment
New 4-lane roadway from Wicklow
Street to Wild Horse Road Antioch $25.6 $28.0
33 Slatten Ranch Road Extension, North
Segment
New 4-lane roadway from Wild Horse
Road to existing terminus at the Antioch
BART station
Antioch $15.8 $17.3
34 Viera Avenue Extension New 2-lane roadway from Oakley Road to Slatten Ranch Road Antioch $10.0 $10.9
35 Standard Oil Avenue New 2-lane road from Delta Fair
Boulevard to James Donlon Boulevard Pittsburg $15.2 $16.6 Regional Transit Projects
Projects - Updated ECCRFFA Program
Total for Existing Projects

36 Loveridge Road Improvements
Widened sidewalks and improved
bicycle facilites between SR 4 and
Pittsburg-Antioch Highway
Pittsburg $2.7 $3.0
37 Bailey Road Improvements
Between Southern City Limits and W
Leland Road, add turn lanes, sidewalks,
and intersection upgrades.

Pittsburg $56.8 $62.1
38 Lone Tree Way Rail Crossing Union Pacific undercrossing widened from Fairview Avenue to Gann Street Brentwood $30.0 $32.8 39 SR-4 Operational Improvement
Project
Improve operations along SR 4 between

0.3 miles west of the SR 4/SR 242
interchange to the Bailey Road
interchange
CCTA $177.0 $177.0 Environmental Phase
40 SR-4 Integrated Corridor
Management
East County share (i.e., one-half the total
cost) of Countywide SR-4 ICM
development
CCTA $10.0 $10.0 Concept of Operations
41 High Capacity Transit from Antioch
BART to Brentwood
Express bus along SR 4 between Antioch
and Brentwood CCTA $12.9 $14.1
42 Brentwood Intermodal
Park and ride lot south of the Lone Tree
Way/SR-4 interchange, adjacent to a
future BART station
Brentwood $10.6 $11.6
43 Sellers Avenue Safety Improvements
Upgrade Sellers Avenue to current
design standards between Delta Road
and Chestnut Road, and between Main
Canal and Marsh Creek Road.

County $24.9 $27.2
44 East Cypress Road Improvements Construct 4-lane arterial between Jersey Island Road and Bethel Island Road Oakley $20.0 $20.0
Total for Proposed Projects $557.9 $590.7

Final Report
East Contra Costa
Regional Fee
Program Update
Prepared for:

East Contra Costa Regional Fee &
Financing Authority
June 2024
1001-1655.03

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Process ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Program Information and Project List.................................................................................. 4

3. Growth Projections ................................................................................................................. 9 Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors .........................................................................................................................................10 Projected Growth in East County .........................................................................................................................................11

4. Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations................................................................................... 13 Existing Deficiencies ..................................................................................................................................................................13 Proportional Cost Allocation .................................................................................................................................................13 Projects in Existing Program ..........................................................................................................................................13 Proposed New Projects ...................................................................................................................................................14 Fee Calculations and Application ........................................................................................................................................19

5. Summary of Required Program Elements .......................................................................... 21 Fundamental Nexus Requirements .....................................................................................................................................21 Additional Elements ..................................................................................................................................................................22

Appendix A: 2024 Program Assessment…………………………………………………………………25

List of Figures
Figure 1: ECCRFFA Area and Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables
Table 1: Current ECCRFFA Fees (as of January 2024) ............................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: ECCRFFA Project List, Existing and Proposed ......................................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Projected Land Use in East County ............................................................................................................................. 9 Table 4: East County Growth Projections Summary ........................................................................................................... 10 Table 5: DUE Conversion Factors ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Forecasted Growth in East Contra Costa County (2023 to 2040) ................................................................ 12 Table 7: Projects and Fee Contribution Amounts................................................................................................................ 15 Table 8: New Maximum Fee Calculations ............................................................................................................................... 20

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
1 1. Introduction
Background
The East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA or the Authority) is a regional planning agency charged with funding regional transportation improvement projects in eastern Contra Costa County with revenue from the Authority’s regional transportation demand impact mitigation (RTDIM) fees. The Authority's jurisdiction includes the eastern portion of the County, including unincorporated areas and the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. The Authority’s boundaries are shown in Figure 1.

The Authority first implemented a transportation development impact fee program in 1994. The fee was calculated to reflect new development’s proportional share of the cost of various regional transportation improvements, such as the State Route (SR) 4 Bypass and the widening of SR 4 through Pittsburg and Antioch. The Authority conducted an update of the fee program in 2001 to help fund an expanded list of regional transportation improvements. In the summer of 2005, the Authority completed a comprehensive update of its RTDIM fee program. In June 2005, the ECCRFFA Board approved the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Final Report (the “2005 Report”) prepared by Fehr & Peers, and each of the five member jurisdictions adopted an updated set of fees pursuant to that report.

Since that time, the fees have been adjusted annually to reflect changes in construction costs. Beginning in 2008-2009, a fee rebate program was established in response to the economic downturn. The fee rebate has been reduced over time, but the Authority has continued to implement a 15% fee rebate since January 1, 2017. Periodic program assessments have been completed and documented over the past several years to evaluate the progress of the program in funding and delivering projects on the project list. In 2020, the program was updated to include a project that would involve the extension of Sand Creek Road westward to a new intersection with Deer Valley Road in Antioch (documented in a report called East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Final Report dated October 2020 and referred to here as the ”2020 Report”).

Purpose
Since the current project list was defined in the 2005 nexus study and updated in 2020, the member agencies have conducted planning work and defined investment priorities to accommodate the ongoing population and employment growth that continues to occur in East County. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the addition of 18 projects to the ECCRFFA program that have been provided by the member agencies as being recommended through recent East County planning processes, and to determine new development’s proportional share of the cost of these additional projects.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
2 Study Area
As shown on Figure 1, ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction area includes certain unincorporated areas of eastern Contra Costa County, as well as the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg.

Study Process
This study was developed under the direction of ECCRFFA staff and with input from staff from each of the member agencies. This study follows the same technical methods and procedures as were used in the 2005 and 2020 Reports. The intent is to maintain the existing structure of the ECCRFFA program; therefore, those prior reports remain the best source of detailed information about the nexus analysis for the existing program. The focus of this current analysis is to determine new development’s proportional share of the cost of the proposed additional 18 projects, as well as to incorporate updated cost information regarding all the projects on the current ECCRFFA project list.

Organization of the Report
After this introductory section, the report contains four additional sections:
• Section 2 – Program Information and Project List describes the background of the fee program, the current fee amounts, and the list of projects proposed to be included in the program. • Section 3 – Growth Projections documents the amount of growth anticipated in East County through the planning horizon that would be subject to the fee. • Section 4 – Nexus Analysis and Fee Calculations describes the results of the nexus analysis for the new projects and calculates the fee amounts using the updated information presented in the report.
• Section 5 – Summary of Required Program Elements describes how the information in this report satisfies the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600).

Black Diamond
Mines RPr
Morgan
Territory
RPr
EBMUD
Lower Sherman
Island
Wildlife Area
Los Vaqueros
Watershed
Las Trampas
Reg.

Wilderness
Briones RP
Grizzly Island
Wildlife
Area
Franks
Tract SRA
Mount
Diablo SP
·185
·160
·242
·13
·24
·4
&%580
&%780
&%680
&%205
"!5
Pittsburg
Oakley
Antioch
Brentwood
East 18th St
California Ave
Pi�sburg-An�och Hwy
A St
W Eight Mile Rd
San Marco Blvd
Clayton Rd
Kirker Pass Rd
Marsh Creek Rd
W Leland Rd
Byron Road
Balfour Rd Brentwood Blvd
Sand Creek Rd
Laurel Rd
Main St
E Cypress Rd
Byron-Bethany Rd
Walnut Blvd
Wilbur Ave
Byron Hwy
Marsh Creek Rd
Balfour Rd
Lone Tree Way
Avila Rd
Deer Valley R d
Willow
Pass Rd
8 14
23 22
5 13
9 15
21 27
20 17
18 8
2 16
16 3
6 12 19
4 24
1 26
7 11
10 28
29 24B
30 31
34 33
32 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 46
Figure 1
1001-1655.03_1_ECCRFFAprojects
Other Projects Not Mapped (Location Not Dened)
East County Express Bus (Jurisdiction: Tri-Delta Transit) Brentwood Intermodal: Co-sponsored, supported, and/or
partially funded by CCTA. (Jurisdiction: Brentwood)
Project Type Project Type
Freeway Improvements Completed Project
Arterial Improvements
Regional Transit Improvements
East Contra Costa County
Fee Boundary
Planned Project
Proposed Project
25 42

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
4 2. Program Information and
Project List
The existing ECCRFFA program authorizes ECCRFFA’s member agencies to charge RTDIM fees on new development within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction. The current schedule of ECCRFFA fees is shown in Table 1.

The existing ECCRFFA program generates RTDIM fee revenue that can be used to fund new development’s proportional share of any of the 27 transportation improvement projects listed in the 2020 Report. Those projects include freeway and regional transit improvements as well as projects along major arterial roadways that connect different parts of the East County region. See Figure 1 for a map of the project locations, and Table 2 contains a description of each project along with its current status and estimated cost.

For those projects that have been completed, the cost shown on Table 2 reflects the actual cost of that project at completion. For projects yet to be completed, the cost shown on Table 2 reflects the estimated cost to complete the project. In many cases, these estimates were drawn from the 2020 Report and indexed to current dollars by applying an annual construction cost index, consistent with the process used to index the ECCRFFA fee amounts each year. In a few cases, the project sponsors were able to provide a more recent cost estimate, which was incorporated into Table 2.

Table 1: Current ECCRFFA Fees (as of January 2024)
Land Use Category Unit Fee per Unit ECCRFFA Fee
Rebate
Fee Less ECCRFFA Fee
Rebate
Single-Family DU $28,313 15% $24,066
Multi-Family DU $17,380 15% $14,773
Commercial Sq. Ft. $2.35 $2.35
Office Sq. Ft. $2.04 $2.04
Industrial Sq. Ft. $2.04 $2.04
Other Peak Hour Trip $28,313 $28,313
Notes: DU = Dwelling Unit. For projects that do not fit in one of the general land use categories above, the fee is assessed on the basis of the number of peak hour vehicle trips estimated to be generated by that project.

Source: Contra Costa County.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
5 Table 2: ECCRFFA Project List, Existing and Proposed
# Project Description/Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million) Status
Existing Program, Freeway Improvements
1 SR 4 Freeway widening Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road, widen to 8 lanes CCTA $ 101.0 Completed
Loveridge interchange CCTA $ 157.8 Completed
Loveridge to Bypass (8 lanes to
Hillcrest, 6 lanes to Bypass) CCTA $ 374.7 Completed
Hillcrest interchange expansion CCTA $ 10.0 Completed
2 SR 4 Bypass Segment 1
Phase 1, 6 lanes to Laurel,
interchanges at Laurel Rd and Lone
Tree
Bypass Authority $ 113.7 Completed
Phase 2, SR 160 interchange Bypass Authority $ 50.1 Completed Laurel interchange, phase 2 Bypass Authority $ 1.0 Completed 3 SR 4 Bypass Segment 2 Phase 1, 2 lanes Bypass Authority $ 33.3 Completed Phase 2, 4 lanes, Sand Creek Road to
Balfour Road Bypass Authority $ 16.0 Completed
Widen to 6 lanes, Laurel Road to
Sand Creek Road Bypass Authority $ 39.9
Sand Creek interchange and 4 lanes,
Laurel to Sand Creek Bypass Authority $ 43.8 Completed
4 SR 4 Bypass Segment 3 Balfour to Marsh Creek (2 lanes) plus Marsh Creek east-west connector Bypass Authority $ 77.8 Completed Marsh Creek to Vasco, 2 lanes Bypass Authority $ 12.6 Completed Segment 3, widen to 4 lanes, and
Balfour interchange Phase 2 Bypass Authority $ 81.1
Balfour interchange Phase 1 Bypass Authority $ 58.0 Completed Marsh Creek interchange Bypass Authority $ 51.2
Vasco interchange Bypass Authority $ 42.7
Existing Program, Arterial Improvements
5 Laurel Road extension SR4 Bypass to Empire, 6 lanes Bypass Authority $ 22.6 Completed 6 SR 239/84 Connector Vasco Road – Byron Highway
Connector1 CCTA $ 161.0
Environmental
Phase in
Progress
7 SR 239 Corridor study and preliminary
design (no construction costs) CCTA $ 101.0
Environmental
Phase in
Progress

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
6 Table 2: ECCRFFA Project List, Existing and Proposed
# Project Description/Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million) Status
8 SR 4 (Main St or
Brentwood Blvd)
widening
Close gaps and create consistent
four-lane arterial between Fifth
Street and Delta Road in Oakley, and
between Chestnut Street and Balfour
Road in south Brentwood
Oakley,
Brentwood $ 24.5 Partially
Completed
9 Balfour Road widening Deer Valley to Brentwood city limits, widen to 4 lanes County $ 14.2
10 Marsh Creek
Road/Deer Valley Road
Safety Enhancements
Marsh Creek: Walnut Boulevard to
Clayton City Limits; Deer Valley:

Balfour Road to Marsh Creek Road
County $ 29.3
11 Route 84/Vasco Road Widen to 4 lanes to County line County $ 317.0 12 Pittsburg-Antioch
Highway
Widen to 4 lanes, Auto Center Drive
to Loveridge
Antioch,
Pittsburg $ 55.9
13 Ninth and Tenth Streets Couplet improvements, A St to L St Antioch $ 9.6 14 California Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Railroad to
Loveridge Pittsburg $ 6.6 Partially Completed
15 Willow Pass Road Widen to 4 lanes, Range to Loftus
and Bailey to city limits
Pittsburg,
County $ 14.7
16 James Donlon Blvd
Extension (formerly
Buchanan Bypass)
or Buchanan Road
Improvements
New 2- to 4-lane arterial, Somersville
to Kirker Pass Road
Improve traffic flow between
Railroad Avenue and Somersville
Road
Pittsburg $ 115.6
Design in
Progress (for
James Donlon
Blvd Extension)
17 West Tregallas/Fitzuren Widen to 4 lanes, Lone Tree to Buchanan Antioch $ 53.3
18 West Leland Road
or Evora Road
Extend as a 4-lane arterial, Santa
Teresa Drive to Avila Road2 Pittsburg
$ 33.4
Willow Pass Rd (BP) to Willow Pass
Rd (Concord), widen to 4 lanes County
19 Wilbur Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Minaker Drive to
SR 160 Antioch, County $ 42.7
20 Neroly Road Widen to 4 lanes, Oakley Rd to Laurel
Rd Oakley $ 10.6
21 Deer Valley Road Widen to 4 lanes, Sand Creek Road
to Balfour Road Antioch, County $ 31.2
22 Walnut Boulevard Widen to 4 lanes, Brentwood city
limits to SR 4 Bypass County $ 29.5

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
7 Table 2: ECCRFFA Project List, Existing and Proposed
# Project Description/Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million) Status
23 John Muir Parkway New Roadway between Balfour Road
and Fairview Avenue Brentwood $ 17.7

ECCRFFA
commitment
completed
24 Byron Highway Safety Improvements between Delta
Road and SR 4 County $ 20.0
27 Sand Creek Road Extension of 4-lane roadway between
SR 4 and Deer Valley Road Antioch $ 38.2
Existing Program, Regional Transit Projects
25 East County Express
Bus
Planning and design of regional
rapid bus program
Tri-Delta Transit $ 9.1
26 Commuter Rail eBART extension to Antioch CCTA $ 513.0 Completed Proposed Projects for Updated Program
24B Byron Highway
Extension
Extend road between Delta Road and
Rock Slough Bridge Oakley $ 26.6
28 Empire Avenue
Widening and Rail
Crossing
Construct four-lane arterial and
railroad overcrossing, between
Wicklow Way and Neroly Road
Oakley $ 45.5
29 Laurel Road Extension
Extend Laurel Road as a four-lane
arterial from Teton Road to Sellers
Avenue
Oakley $ 42.0
30 Kirker Pass Road Truck
Climbing Lane
Construct a southbound truck
climbing lane along Kirker Pass Road County $ 38.6
31 Camino Diablo Safety
Improvements
Safety improvements between Vasco
Road and Byron Highway County, CCTA $ 7.4
32 Slatten Ranch Road
Extension, South
Segment
New 4-lane roadway from Wicklow
Street to Wild Horse Road Antioch $ 28.0
33 Slatten Ranch Road
Extension, North
Segment
New 4-lane roadway from Wild
Horse Road to existing terminus at
the Antioch BART station
Antioch $ 17.3
34 Viera Avenue Extension New 2-lane roadway from Oakley Road to Slatten Ranch Road Antioch $ 10.9
35 Standard Oil Avenue
New 2-lane road from Delta Fair
Boulevard to James Donlon
Boulevard
Pittsburg $ 16.6
36 Loveridge Road
Improvements
Widened sidewalks and improved
bicycle facilities between SR 4 and
Pittsburg-Antioch Highway
Pittsburg $ 3.0

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
8 Table 2: ECCRFFA Project List, Existing and Proposed
# Project Description/Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million) Status
37 Bailey Road
Improvements
Between Southern City Limits and
West Leland Road, add turn lanes,
sidewalks, and intersection upgrades
Pittsburg $ 62.1
38 Lone Tree Way Rail
Crossing
Union Pacific undercrossing widened
from Fairview Avenue to Gann Street Brentwood $ 32.8
39 SR-4 Operational
Improvement Project
Improve operations along SR 4
between 0.3 miles west of the SR
4/SR 242 interchange to the Bailey
Road interchange.

CCTA $ 177.0
Environmental
Phase in
Progress
40 SR-4 Integrated
Corridor Management
East County share (i.e., one-half the
total cost) of Countywide SR-4 ICM
development.

CCTA $ 10.0
Concept of
Operations in
Progress
41 High-Capacity Transit
from Antioch BART to
Brentwood
Express bus along SR 4 between
Antioch and Brentwood CCTA $ 14.1
42 Brentwood Intermodal
Park and ride lot south of the Lone
Tree Way/SR-4 interchange, adjacent
to a future BART station
Brentwood $ 11.6
43 Sellers Avenue Safety
Improvements
Upgrade Sellers Avenue to current
design standards between Delta
Road and Chestnut Road, and
between Main Canal and Marsh
Creek Road
County $ 27.2
44 East Cypress Rd
Improvement
Construction of East Cypress Road as
a 4-lane arterial on a new alignment
between Jersey Island Rd and Bethel
Island Rd, with the existing East
Cypress Rd alignment preserved for
local access
Oakley $20.0
SUM $ 3,526.0
Notes:

1. In the 2005 Report, the description of project #6 was “Armstrong Road Extension, 2 lanes (formerly Byron Airport Road).

Since the 2005 Report was completed, further environmental and preliminary design work has been conducted on this project and the SR 239/84 Connector has now been named the “Vasco Road – Byron Highway Connector”, so for clarity and to reflect current conditions that is the terminology that is now being used for Project #6.

2. In the 2005 Report, the description of project #18 was to “Extend West Leland Road from San Marco to Avila Road”. Since the 2005 Report was completed, a portion of the West Leland Road extension has been constructed and West Leland now terminates at Santa Teresa Drive. Therefore, for clarity and to reflect current conditions, the description of project #18 is now shown as Extend West Leland from Santa Teresa Drive to Avila Road.

Source: ECCRFFA, CCTA, Contra Costa County, Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
9 3. Growth Projections
An important element of every fee calculation is the estimate of future growth in the fee area. As part of this update, the current land use files available from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) travel demand model were reviewed. These files contain projections of the amount of residential and employment growth that is anticipated to occur in East County. CCTA completed an update of the travel model and developed a new set of land use files that reflect the totals from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2017 publication, which is the most current set of regional growth projections available for the CCTA travel model.

The first step in the process was to identify which of the model’s traffic analysis zones (TAZs) are within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction. The ECCRFFA jurisdictional boundary was available as a GIS file and was overlaid with the CCTA TAZ structure to identify the TAZs that are located within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction. For those TAZs that are only partially within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction, the TAZ was included in the calculation only if more than 50% of the TAZ land area was within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction.

The next step was to tabulate the total amount of households and employment in the ECCRFFA TAZs, as shown in Table 3. The year 2023 is used as the baseline and the year 2040 is the horizon year. The employment categories shown are those that have historically been used in prior nexus studies for the ECCRFFA program and are used here for consistency with the existing fee program. Table 4 shows a summary of these growth projections for East County.

Table 3: Projected Land Use in East County
Jurisdiction
Year 20231 Year 2040
Employment Residential Units Employment Residential Units Service Retail Other Single
Family
Multifamily Service Retail Other Single
Family
Multifamily
Antioch 6,285 8,135 8,431 28,534 7,791 7,587 9,923 10,280 31,808 10,425 Brentwood 2,271 2,949 3,239 16,236 1,981 2,901 3,321 3,833 20,037 2,555 Oakley 1,244 1,416 2,004 10,861 2,277 1,944 1,762 2,494 13,411 3,836 Pittsburg 4,490 4,650 7,563 15,230 7,717 5,952 5,660 8,129 18,953 11,557 Unincorporated
East County 1,548 3,140 5,409 16,252 3,640 2,798 3,643 4,815 18,657 4,685 Total East
County 15,838 20,290 26,646 87,113 23,406 21,182 24,309 29,551 102,866 33,058 1 2023 land use was derived by a linear interpolation between the 2020 and 2040 land use data provided by CCTA in March 2019.

Note: Relationship between land use categories in the model and the fee program were assumed to be: Retail=Commercial; Service=Office; and Other=Industrial, Manufacturing, Agriculture and other land use categories included in the CCTA model.

Source: ECCRFFA, CCTA, Fehr & Peers.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
10 Table 4: East County Growth Projections Summary
Land Use Type 2023 Base Year 2040 Projection Growth Percentage Growth Population 358,182 421,603 63,421 18%
Residential Units 110,519 135,924 25,405 23%
Employment 62,774 75,042 12,268 20%
Service Population1 420,956 496,645 75,689 18%
1: Service population is defined as the sum of residents and employees.

Source: ECCRFFA, CCTA, Fehr & Peers
Dwelling Unit Equivalent Factors
It is common in many fee programs to convert the projected growth into a standard unit of measurement called the dwelling unit equivalent (DUE), in order to account for the fact that different types of development have different travel characteristics. The factors used to convert the future land use numbers into DUEs are shown in Table 5. These factors have been developed following the same structure established in the 2005 and 2020 Reports; the values in each column have been updated to reflect the most current data available. These DUE conversion factors involve the following elements: land usespecific PM peak hour trip rates from ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition; estimates of the percent new trips from SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (2002); and average trip lengths from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey for census tracts within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
11 Table 5: DUE Conversion Factors
Land Use
Category Unit PM Peak Trip Rate1 % New Trips2
Average Trip
Length
(miles)3
PM Peak VMT
per Unit4 DUE per Unit5
Housing
Single Family a Dwelling Unit 0.94 100 7.8 7.3 1.00
Multi-Family b Dwelling Unit 0.51 100 7.8 4.0 0.54
Employment
Commercial c 1,000 square
feet 3.40 45 6.0 9.1 1.25
Office d 1,000 square
feet 1.44 75 13.8 14.9 2.03
Industrial e 1,000 square
feet 0.65 80 13.8 7.2 0.98

1. The average PM peak hour (between 4 and 6 PM) trip rate was taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, for the following land use codes:
a. Single Family Detached - Code 210
b. Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) - Code 220
c. Shopping Center - Code 820
d. General Office - Code 710
e. General Light Industrial - Code 110

2. Taken from the SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002.

3. Average trip lengths for the East County area as derived from 2012 California Household Travel Survey Data. For single family and multifamily housing, used travel survey data for all home-based trip purposes. For commercial uses, used data for home-based shopping purpose. For office and industrial uses, used data for all work-related trips.

4. Calculated as: PM Peak Trip Rate * % New Trips * Average Trip Length.

5. DUE per Unit is calculated by normalizing the PM Peak VMT for each category such that the single-family residential category is assigned a DUE of 1.00. This is accomplished by dividing the PM Peak VMT for each category by the PM Peak VMT of the single-family residential category. So, for example, the DUE per Unit for the Multi-family category is calculated as 4.0 / 7.3 = 0.54.

Source: ECCRFFA, Fehr & Peers.

Projected Growth in East County
Forecasted growth in East Contra Costa County is shown in Table 6 in absolute numbers of new jobs and residential units, and then those numbers are converted to DUEs. The total number of new DUEs projected in the 17 years from 2023 to 2040 is 27,935. As a point of comparison, in the 2005 Report the amount of growth projected over the 20-year period from 2005 to 2025 was approximately 42,000 DUEs.

This result is an indication that the East County area is moving closer to a build-out condition, as the amount of future growth begins to moderate.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
12 Table 6: Forecasted Growth in East Contra Costa County (2023 to 2040) Jurisdiction
Estimated Growth (2023 to 2040) Estimated Growth in DUEs (2023 to 2040) Total
DUEs
Employment Residential Units Employment DUEs Residential DUEs Retail Service Other Single
Family
Multifamily4 Office1 Commercial2 Industrial3 Single
Family
Multifamily4
Antioch 1,302 1,788 1,849 3,274 2,634 811 999 724 3,274 1,429 7,237 Brentwood 630 372 594 3,801 574 393 208 232 3,801 311 4,945 Oakley 700 346 490 2,550 1,559 436 193 192 2,550 846 4,217 Pittsburg 1,462 1,010 566 3,723 3,840 911 564 221 3,723 2,083 7,503 Unincorporated
East County 1,250 503 0 2,405 1,045 779 281 0 2,405 567 4,032 Total East
County 5,344 4,019 3,499 15,753 9,652 3,330 2,246 1,369 15,753 5,237 27,935 Relationship between land use categories in the model and the fee program were assumed to be: Retail=Commercial; Service=Office; and Other=Industrial, Manufacturing, Agriculture and other land use categories included in the CCTA model.

1. Office DUE conversion assumes 275 square feet per employee and a DUE per thousand square feet of 2.03. DUE = EMP *

0.275 * 2.03

2. Commercial DUE conversion assumes 500 square feet per employee and a DUE per thousand square feet of 1.25. DUE = EMP * 0.500 * 1.25

3. Industrial DUE conversion assumes 400 square feet per employee and a DUE per thousand square feet of 0.98. DUE = EMP * 0.400 * 0.98

4. The multifamily units were multiplied by a DUE of 0.54.

Source: ECCRFFA, Fehr & Peers.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
13 4. Nexus Analysis and
Fee Calculations
Existing Deficiencies
One of the key functions of a fee program is to charge fees to new development in order to fund new development’s proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve the demand and impacts generated by that new development. The purpose of an impact fee is not to correct existing deficiencies, which should be funded through other revenue sources. Therefore, in order to add the 18 proposed projects to the program, it is necessary to determine whether there are existing deficiencies in the roadway network that may be related to or affected by those proposed projects.

The East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance report (the most recent version was prepared in 2023 and is available at https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Draft-East-CountyAction-Plan_03-13-23.pdf) has been used to identify potential deficiencies across the facilities affected by the proposed new projects. This report designates routes of regional significance throughout East Contra Costa County and sets performance measures, or Regional Transportation Objectives (RTOs), for each one.

Of the 18 proposed additional projects, 13 are located on a roadway identified as a Route of Regional Significance. Based on the RTO values presented for each facility in the report, only one of these facilities, State Route 4 (SR-4), does not currently meet its RTO. More specifically, for the RTO called Buffer Index, which measures the variability in travel time, the target was set at 0.5 and the observed value for SR-4 in the eastbound direction during the PM peak was measured at 0.75, thus exceeding the target. Proposed projects #39 and #40 are located along SR-4, and an existing deficiency reduction of 50% was applied to these projects’ cost before including them in the fee calculations.

Proportional Cost Allocation
As described previously, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the incorporation of the proposed 18 new projects into the ECCRFFA fee program. As such, the focus here is on defining the proportion of the costs of these projects that could be included in the program. No changes are being made to the cost proportions included in the program for any of the projects that are already part of the existing ECCRFFA fee program. Table 7 includes the total cost of each project, as well as the portion of that cost that is considered eligible for inclusion in the fee program, sometimes referred to as the “nexus percentage”.

Projects in Existing Program
For all of the projects currently in the existing ECCRFFA program, the nexus percentages have been taken directly from the 2005 and 2020 Reports. For most projects, the nexus percentage is 100% based on the conclusions from the 2005 Report. There are a few exceptions, as follows:

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
14 • Projects that address existing deficiencies (Project #16 Buchanan Bypass/James Donlon Blvd Extension): The cost share attributed to new traffic is included in the fee program. In the case of Project #16, that percentage was determined to be 68% in the 2005 Report. • Projects that involve transit or safety enhancements (Project #10 Marsh Creek/Deer Valley Rd safety enhancements, #24 Byron Highway safety enhancements, #25 East County Express Bus):

The cost share proportional to new development’s share of total future population is included in the fee program. At the time of the 2005 Report, that value was 33%. • Projects that are designed to serve both local access to adjacent development areas and regional travel demand (Project #27 Sand Creek Road extension): The Sand Creek Road extension would be a four-lane road that will serve as local access for the planned development areas in southern Antioch located on either side of Sand Creek Road, and would also fill a gap in east-west connectivity for regional travel needs between Antioch, Brentwood, and surrounding communities. The cost of constructing the project elements needed to serve local access are excluded from the fee program, and the remaining project costs that are regional in nature are included. In the case of Project #27, the regional project elements included the center median and one lane of travel in either direction, while the local portion included all other cost elements (one lane in either direction, retaining walls, landscaping, most grading and utilities); the regional percentage was determined to be 31% in the 2020 Report.

Proposed New Projects
For the proposed new projects, the nexus percentages have been determined based on similar considerations as were applied to the existing projects. • Projects that address existing deficiencies (Project #39 SR-4 Operational Improvement Project, and #40 SR-4 Integrated Corridor Management): As described above, these projects have been identified as being located on a facility with an existing deficiency and have been assigned a percentage of 50%.
• Projects that involve transit or safety enhancements (Project #31 Camino Diablo safety improvements, #36 Loveridge Road improvements, #41 High-capacity Transit from Antioch to Brentwood, #42 Brentwood Intermodal, and #43 Sellers Avenue safety improvements): The cost share proportional to new development’s share of total future population is included in the fee program. Because these projects are being newly added to the program, the share of total future population must be calculated based on current data about existing population and projections of future growth. Per the 2023-2040 growth projections shown in Table 4, that value is 18%. • Projects that are designed to serve both local access to adjacent development areas and regional travel demand (Project #24B Byron Highway extension, #28 Empire Avenue widening and rail crossing, #29 Laurel Road extension, #32 Slatten Ranch Road extension (South segment), #33 Slatten Ranch Road extension (North segment), and #34 Viera Avenue extension): The projects listed here are similar to Project #27, Sand Creek Road extension, in that these projects propose to construct a four-lane roadway that will provide local access to adjacent planned development areas and would also serve regional travel between East County communities. The cost of

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
15 constructing the project elements needed to serve local access needs should be excluded from the fee program, and the remaining project costs that are regional in nature should be included.

These projects do not have sufficiently detailed cost estimates to identify the precise costs of each element and separate them between local and regional components; however, the basic elements of these projects are anticipated to be very similar to the elements of Project #27, Sand Creek Road extension, in that the project elements that serve regional needs will include a center median and one lane of travel in either direction, while the project elements that serve local needs will be one travel lane in either direction, retaining walls, landscaping, most grading and utilities.

Therefore, the regional nexus percentage of 31% determined in the 2020 Report for Project #27, Sand Creek Road extension, has been applied here.
• All other new projects (Project #30 Kirker Pass and South Hess Road, #35 Standard Oil Avenue, #37 Bailey Road, #38 Lone Tree Way, #44 East Cypress Road): The nexus percentage for these projects was determined by applying the CCTA travel demand model for the year 2040 and using a “select link” procedure to track the usage of each facility by travelers making regional trips in East County. A “regional” trip is defined as a trip that begins and/or ends within East County and that crosses at least one jurisdictional boundary. For instance, a trip between Oakley and Pittsburg, or a trip between Antioch and Walnut Creek, or a trip between Brentwood and Livermore, are all examples of “regional” trips. The percentage of regional trips is different for each of these five project locations but is always greater than 80%, which indicates that these facilities are primarily used for regional travel.

Table 7: Projects and Fee Contribution Amounts
# Project Description/ Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million)
% Eligible for
Future Fee
Contribution
Future
Potential Fee
Contribution
($ million)
Existing Program, Freeway Improvements
1 SR 4 Freeway
widening
Railroad Avenue to Loveridge
Road, widen to 8 lanes CCTA $ 101.0
Loveridge interchange CCTA $ 157.8
Loveridge to Bypass (8 lanes
to Hillcrest, 6 lanes to Bypass) CCTA $ 374.7
Hillcrest interchange
expansion CCTA $ 10.0
2 SR 4 Bypass Segment
1 Phase 1, 6 lanes to Laurel,
interchanges at Laurel Rd and
Lone Tree
Bypass
Authority $ 113.7
Phase 2, SR 160 interchange Bypass
Authority $ 50.1
Laurel interchange, phase 2 Bypass
Authority $ 1.0
3 SR 4 Bypass Segment
2 Phase 1, 2 lanes Bypass Authority $ 33.3

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
16 # Project Description/ Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million)
% Eligible for
Future Fee
Contribution
Future
Potential Fee
Contribution
($ million)
Phase 2, 4 lanes, Sand Creek
Road to Balfour Road
Bypass
Authority $ 16.0
Widen to 6 lanes, Laurel Road
to Sand Creek Road
Bypass
Authority $ 39.9 100% $ 39.9
Sand Creek interchange and 4
lanes, Laurel to Sand Creek
Bypass
Authority $ 43.8
4 SR 4 Bypass Segment
3 Balfour to Marsh Creek (2
lanes) plus Marsh Creek eastwest connector
Bypass
Authority $ 77.8
Marsh Creek to Vasco, 2 lanes Bypass
Authority $ 12.6
Segment 3, widen to 4 lanes,
and Balfour interchange
Phase 2
Bypass
Authority $ 81.1 100% $ 81.1
Balfour interchange Phase 1 Bypass
Authority $ 58.0
Marsh Creek interchange Bypass
Authority $ 51.2 100% $ 51.2
Vasco interchange Bypass
Authority $ 42.7 100% $ 42.7
Existing Program, Arterial Improvements
5 Laurel Road
extension SR4 Bypass to Empire, 6 lanes Bypass Authority $ 22.6 6 SR 239/84 Connector Vasco Road – Byron Highway
Connector CCTA $ 161.0 100% $ 161.0
7 SR 239
Corridor study and
preliminary design (no
construction costs)
CCTA $ 101.0 100% $ 101.0
8 SR 4 (Main St or
Brentwood Blvd)
widening
Close gaps and create
consistent four-lane arterial
between Fifth Street and
Delta Road in Oakley, and
between Chestnut Street and
Balfour Road in south
Brentwood
Oakley,
Brentwood $ 24.5 100% $ 24.5
9 Balfour Road
widening
Deer Valley to Brentwood city
limits, widen to 4 lanes County $ 14.2 100% $ 14.2
10 Marsh Creek
Road/Deer Valley
Road Safety
Enhancements
Marsh Creek: Walnut
Boulevard to Clayton City
Limits; Deer Valley: Balfour
Road to Marsh Creek Road
County $ 29.3 33% $ 9.7

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
17 # Project Description/ Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million)
% Eligible for
Future Fee
Contribution
Future
Potential Fee
Contribution
($ million)
11 Route 84/Vasco Road Widen to 4 lanes to County
line County $ 317.0 100% $ 317.0
12 Pittsburg-Antioch
Highway
Widen to 4 lanes, Auto
Center Drive to Loveridge
Antioch,
Pittsburg $ 55.9 100% $ 55.9
13 Ninth and Tenth
Streets
Couplet improvements, A St
to L St Antioch $ 9.6 100% $ 9.6
14 California Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Railroad to
Loveridge Pittsburg $ 6.6 100% $ 6.6
15 Willow Pass Road Widen to 4 lanes, Range to
Loftus and Bailey to city limits
Pittsburg,
County $ 14.7 100% $ 14.7
16 James Donlon Blvd
Extension (formerly
Buchanan Bypass)
or Buchanan Road
Improvements
New 2- to 4-lane arterial,
Somersville to Kirker Pass
Road
Improve traffic flow between
Railroad Avenue and
Somersville Road
Pittsburg $ 115.6 68% $ 78.6
17 West
Tregallas/Fitzuren
Widen to 4 lanes, Lone Tree
to Buchanan Antioch $ 53.3 100% $ 53.3
18 West Leland Road
or Evora Road
Extend as a 4-lane arterial,
Santa Teresa Drive to Avila
Road
Pittsburg
$ 33.4 100% $ 33.4
Willow Pass Rd (BP) to Willow
Pass Rd (Concord), widen to
4 lanes
County
19 Wilbur Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Minaker
Drive to SR 160
Antioch,
County $ 42.7 100% $ 42.7
20 Neroly Road Widen to 4 lanes, Oakley Rd
to Laurel Rd Oakley $ 10.6 100% $ 10.6
21 Deer Valley Road Widen to 4 lanes, Sand Creek
Road to Balfour Road
Antioch,
County $ 31.2 100% $ 31.2
22 Walnut Boulevard Widen to 4 lanes, Brentwood
city limits to SR 4 Bypass County $ 29.5 100% $ 29.5
23 John Muir Parkway
New Roadway between
Balfour Road and Fairview
Avenue
Brentwood $ 17.7
24 Byron Highway Safety Improvements
between Delta Road and SR 4 County $ 20.0 33% $ 6.7
27 Sand Creek Road
Extension of 4-lane roadway
between SR 4 and Deer
Valley Road
Antioch $ 38.1 31% $ 11.8

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
18 # Project Description/ Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million)
% Eligible for
Future Fee
Contribution
Future
Potential Fee
Contribution
($ million)
Existing Program, Regional Transit Projects
25 East County Express
Bus
Planning and design of
regional rapid bus program
Tri-Delta
Transit $ 9.1 33% $ 3.0
26 Commuter Rail eBART extension to Antioch CCTA $ 513.0 Proposed Projects for Updated Program
24B Byron Highway
Extension
Extend road between Delta
Road and Rock Slough Bridge Oakley $ 26.6 31% $ 8.3
28 Empire Avenue
Widening and Rail
Crossing
Construct four-lane arterial
and railroad overcrossing,
between Wicklow Way and
Neroly Road
Oakley $ 45.5 31% $ 14.1
29 Laurel Road
Extension
Extend Laurel Road as a fourlane arterial from Teton Road to Sellers Avenue
Oakley $ 42.0 31% $ 13.0
30 Kirker Pass Road
Truck Climbing Lane
Construct a southbound
truck climbing lane along
Kirker Pass Road
County $ 38.6 96% $ 37.1
31 Camino Diablo Safety
Improvements
Safety improvements
between Vasco Road and
Byron Highway
County,
CCTA $ 7.4 18% $ 1.3
32 Slatten Ranch Road
Extension, South
Segment
New 4-lane roadway from
Wicklow Street to Wild Horse
Road
Antioch $ 28.0 31% $ 8.7
33 Slatten Ranch Road
Extension, North
Segment
New 4-lane roadway from
Wild Horse Road to existing
terminus at the Antioch BART
station
Antioch $ 17.3 31% $ 5.4
34 Viera Avenue
Extension
New 2-lane roadway from
Oakley Road to Slatten Ranch
Road
Antioch $ 10.9 31% $ 3.4
35 Standard Oil Avenue
New 2-lane road from Delta
Fair Boulevard to James
Donlon Boulevard
Pittsburg $ 16.6 100% $ 16.6
36 Loveridge Road
Improvements
Widened sidewalks and
improved bicycle facilities
between SR 4 and PittsburgAntioch Highway
Pittsburg $ 3.0 18% $ 0.5
37 Bailey Road
Improvements
Between Southern City Limits
and West Leland Road, add
turn lanes, sidewalks, and
intersection upgrades
Pittsburg $ 62.1 97% $ 60.2

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
19 # Project Description/ Project Limits Sponsor Total Cost ($ Million)
% Eligible for
Future Fee
Contribution
Future
Potential Fee
Contribution
($ million)
38 Lone Tree Way Rail
Crossing
Union Pacific undercrossing
widened from Fairview
Avenue to Gann Street
Brentwood $ 32.8 82% $ 26.9
39 SR-4 Operational
Improvement Project
Improve operations along SR
4 between 0.3 miles west of
the SR 4/SR 242 interchange
to the Bailey Road
interchange.

CCTA $ 177.0 50% $ 88.5
40 SR-4 Integrated
Corridor
Management
East County share (i.e., onehalf the total cost) of
Countywide SR-4 ICM
development.

CCTA $ 10.0 50% $ 5.0
41 High-Capacity Transit
from Antioch BART
to Brentwood
Express bus along SR 4
between Antioch and
Brentwood
CCTA $ 14.1 18% $ 2.5
42 Brentwood
Intermodal
Park and ride lot south of the
Lone Tree Way/SR-4
interchange, adjacent to a
future BART station
Brentwood $ 11.6 18% $ 2.1
43 Sellers Avenue Safety
Improvements
Upgrade Sellers Avenue to
current design standards
between Delta Road and
Chestnut Road, and between
Main Canal and Marsh Creek
Road
County $ 27.2 18% $ 4.9
44 East Cypress Rd
Improvement
Construction of East Cypress
Road as a 4-lane arterial
along a new alignment
between Jersey Island Rd and
Bethel Island Rd, with the
existing East Cypress Rd
alignment preserved for local
access
Oakley $20.0 96% $ 19.3
SUM $ 3,526.0 $ 1,547,8
Notes: Projects shown in italics have been completed, so no future fee contributions are anticipated.

Source: ECCRFFA.

Fee Calculations and Application
Table 8 displays the calculated maximum impact fees based on this nexus analysis. These fees have been calculated based on the complete list of projects as shown in Table 7. The total potential future fee contribution toward all the projects shown in Table 7 ($1,547,8 million) has been divided by the total

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
20 number of future Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUEs) expected in East County as shown in Table 6 (27,935 DUEs), to calculate the resulting maximum fee per DUE of $55,406. These calculations represent new development’s proportional share of the cost of both the existing ECCRFFA projects that are yet to be completed and the proposed new projects, as determined by this study.

The new maximum fees shown here are substantially higher than the current ECCRFFA fees as were shown in Table 1. This outcome is similar to prior ECCRFFA nexus studies, in that the ECCRFFA Board has typically chosen to impose fees at a level lower than the maximum fees calculated through a nexus analysis. The ECCRFFA program has not generally been intended to serve as the sole source of funding for the projects within the program, but rather as one of several funding sources that can be combined to deliver projects.

The ECCRFFA Board periodically prepares and adopts a strategic transportation improvement plan that defines the priorities for expenditure of ECCRFFA funds over the upcoming five-year period. This strategic plan takes into account other sources of funds that may become available for each project. One potential source of funds for some projects is the local transportation impact fee established by the local agency; in some cases, elements of a project listed in Table 2 may also appear in a local agency’s fee program. If such a project becomes a priority for ECCRFFA funds as reflected in the ECCRFFA strategic transportation improvement plan, then there is coordination between ECCRFFA and the local agency to ensure that the two programs are being applied in a complementary fashion, which may necessitate adjustments to the local fee program.

Table 8: New Maximum Fee Calculations
Land Use Category New Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential (dwelling unit) $55,406
Multi-Family Residential (dwelling unit) $30,061
Commercial (square foot) $69.1
Office (square foot) $112.6
Industrial (square foot) $54.2
Other (per peak hour trip) $55,406
Source: Fehr & Peers.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
21 5. Summary of Required
Program Elements
This report has provided a detailed discussion of the elements of the East Contra Costa Regional Transportation Impact Fee program and explained the analytical techniques used to develop this nexus study. The report addresses the following fee program elements required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq), as summarized below.

Fundamental Nexus Requirements
Section 66001 contains several fundamental requirements that an agency must document when establishing or imposing an impact fee.

1. Identifying the purpose of the fee
The ECCRFFA program is established for the purpose of supporting regional public infrastructure improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the traffic-related impacts of new development in eastern Contra Costa County.

2. Identifying how the fee will be used and the facilities to be funded through the fee The fee is used to help fund capital improvement projects that will accommodate future transportation needs throughout the ECCRFFA area. Table 2 identifies the projects eligible to be funded through the fee.

3. Determining a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
As described in this report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics.

The calculations presented in Table 5 account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types. These considerations account for the differential impacts on the transportation system generated by different development types.

4. Determining a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed
The need for the facilities listed in Table 2 has been established through local and regional planning processes prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the ECCRFFA member agencies.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
22 5. Determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility (or portion of facility) attributable to new development Section 4 of this report describes the calculations applied to determine the cost of the public facility that is attributable to new development in the ECCRFFA area, accounting for the effects of existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable effort has been made to quantitatively establish the relationship between the fees charged in the ECCRFFA program and the costs of public improvements attributable to new development within eastern Contra Costa County.

Additional Elements
Due to recent changes in state legislation, Section 66016.5 now defines several additional elements beyond the fundamental nexus requirements that have historically been part of the Mitigation Fee Act.

These additional elements include the following:
• If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.

As expected, the proposal to add 18 new projects to the program does result in an increased maximum fee calculated through this nexus analysis process. However, the intent is not to impose an increased fee, but rather to modify and update the list of capital improvement projects that would be considered eligible to receive ECCRFFA funds. As described in Section 1 of this report, the ECCRFFA program has been in place for many years and has been updated several times, most recently in 2020. All of the updates have maintained the same program structure as was initially established, and assumptions about future growth and future capital improvements have been updated each time using the most current data available. Further, ECCRFFA periodically conducts a “program assessment” to review the fee program’s assumptions and evaluate its progress. The most recent program assessment was just recently completed and is attached as an appendix to this report. The assessment concluded that the program structure has remained stable, the estimated costs of the projects in the program have remained in line with expectations, and the growth projections used in the fee calculations continue to be reasonable. The total amount of fees collected through the ECCRFFA program from inception are approximately $491 million.
• Calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development, or explain why that would not be an appropriate metric for calculating fees.

The ECCRFFA fees on housing developments have always been calculated based on the type of unit, with one fee level for single-family units and a different (lower) fee level for multi-family units. This has been a common practice for most fee programs around the state for many years.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
23 In the case of ECCRFFA, this practice aligns with the methods used by the member agencies in calculating their own local transportation impact fees, which are also imposed based on the type of unit. (All of the ECCRFFA member agencies except the City of Antioch have local fee programs to fund local transportation improvements, which are charged in addition to the ECCRFFA fees.) In addition, this practice aligns with the data that is readily available about the transportation impacts of housing developments; industry-standard reference documents about the trip generation rates, trip lengths, and pass-by/diverted trip characteristics of new development projects present that data either for all types of housing units combined or for a few different types of housing units, and do not typically present that data based on the unit size. Examples of data sources routinely used to support fee calculations include the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, the SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, and the California Household Travel Survey.

The Mitigation Fee Act requires that there be a demonstrated relationship between the fee being charged to a new development and the level of demand that development places on public facilities and services. As described previously, the calculations presented in Table 5 account for these characteristics by calculating the travel-related characteristics of different land use types.

These considerations account for the differential impacts on the transportation system generated by different development types. There is no available reference document that directly links trip generation rates to the square footage of a housing unit. Given the lack of readily available reference data about how the size of a housing unit might be related to the demand that unit would place on the transportation system, some agencies in California have undertaken statistical analyses to attempt to better understand that relationship.

Several of these recent statistical analyses have found limited information available from which to derive conclusions. The analyses cite some sources of information that link trip generation rates to the number of people living in a housing unit, although those sources often present values that are averaged over large geographic areas and the results can differ substantially; for example, some analyses cite the 2017 National Household Travel Survey which indicates that a 4-person household in California generates 12.6 daily trips, while others cite a 2012 national report on Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques that indicates a 4-person household generates 16.1 daily trips. These analyses then estimate the relationship between the number of people living in a house and the square footage of the house using US Census data, and then combine those factors to estimate trip generation rates by house size.

An alternative approach has been taken in Western Riverside County, where an analysis was done based on actual trip generation rates and house size data collected from residential neighborhoods throughout that region. This locally-specific analysis found that single-family house size explained approximately one-half of the variation in trip generation rates, while the other half of the variation was related to other economic and demographic factors such as household income, number of residents with jobs, number of school-age children in the household, number of vehicles owned by the residents, and other factors. In addition, the

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
24 relationship between single-family house size and trip generation rates was found to hold only for houses up to 2,500 square feet; for larger houses, the statistical relationship was much less strong.

No statistically significant relationship was found for multi-family developments.

In light of the lack of consistent and available sources of data to support conclusions about how housing units of varying sizes affect the transportation system, ECCRFFA has determined that square footage is not currently an appropriate metric to use in calculating fees on residential developments, nor is there substantial evidence that the current method of calculating fees is disproportionate to a residential development’s effects on the transportation system.

Finally, the ECCRFFA Board has adopted a policy related to setting fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which are relatively small units located on a parcel already occupied by a primary dwelling unit. Per the policy (https://www.eccrffa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ECCRFFAPolicy-for-Accessory-Dwelling-Units-ADUs.pdf), ADUs are either exempt from ECCRFFA fees or are charged a reduced fee, depending on the size of the unit. Notwithstanding the lack of data on the relationship between housing unit size and effects on the transportation system, discussed above, this ECCRFFA policy is consistent with state ADU law. This ECCRFFA policy supports smaller developments and, in conjunction with a fee structure that is not disproportionate to a residential development’s effect on the transportation system, ensures smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
• In large jurisdictions, adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

For this purpose, a large jurisdiction is defined as a county with a population of at least 250,000 and all the cities within that county, so the ECCRFFA area would meet the definition of a large jurisdiction.

ECCRFFA does not function as a direct project sponsor, but instead provides funds to the agencies that deliver capital improvement projects in eastern Contra Costa County. ECCRFFA regularly prepares and updates a strategic transportation improvement plan that describes the planned expenditure of ECCRFFA funds on specific projects over the coming five-year period (the current ECCRFFA strategic transportation improvement plan can be found at https://www.eccrffa.org/documents/). In addition, all of the ECCRFFA member agencies and project sponsors regularly prepare their own capital improvement plans to guide the expenditure of funds on capital improvements within their jurisdictions. For a particular project to receive ECCRFFA funds, that project must be reflected in the ECCRFFA strategic transportation improvement plan and must also be included in the project sponsor’s capital improvement plan.

Final Report
East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update
June 2024
25 Appendix A: 2024 Program Assessment

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: May 8, 2024
To: Dale Dennis, Program Manager, East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Financing Authority From: Julie Morgan and Bruno Lertora, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Assessment of the East Contra Costa Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program 1001-1655.03
Background
The East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) oversees a regional development impact fee program that generates funds to support the construction of capital improvements to the regional transportation system in eastern Contra Costa County. In the summer of 2005, the ECCRFFA Board approved a comprehensive nexus study called the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Final Report, referred to here as the ”2005 Report”.

All ECCRFFA member jurisdictions adopted an updated set of fees pursuant to that report.

Since that time, the fees have been adjusted annually to reflect changes in construction costs.

Beginning in 2008-2009, a fee rebate program was established in response to the economic downturn. The fee rebate has been reduced over time, but the Authority has continued to implement a 15% fee rebate since January 1, 2017. The latest update of the project list was approved in October 2020, and was documented in a report called East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Final Report referred to here as the ”2020 Report”.

Periodic program assessments have been conducted and documented over the years, the most recent being completed in 2017, to evaluate the progress of the program in funding and delivering projects on the project list. This memorandum is a new program assessment, building upon the most recent assessment from 2017 and incorporating current information to the extent available.

Capital Projects and Delivery Status
The current ECCRFFA program includes a list of 27 capital projects that are eligible for funding through fee revenues. Table 1 presents the list of capital projects, the estimated cost of each project, and its current status. For those projects that are completed or under construction, the

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

total project cost shown in the table is the actual cost for that project. For those projects yet to be constructed, the total cost shown is based on the cost estimate presented in the 2020 Report, plus a cost escalation factor of 0.375 to bring the 2020 cost estimates up to year 2023 dollars.

Assessment:
• Significant progress has been made in delivering the capital projects on the list. Several major projects have been completed and others are in various stages of being designed, constructed, or closed out.
• Per the information provided, ECCRFFA is still committed to delivering the program of projects identified in the 2020 Report.
• The actual costs of the capital projects on the list have generally remained relatively consistent with the cost estimates presented in the 2005 Report. At the time of the 2005 Report, the total aggregate cost of the full list of capital projects was $1.69 billion. The construction cost escalation factor between 2005 and 2023 is 1.004; applying that factor to the total cost from 2005 equates to $3.39 billion in 2023 dollars. The current estimate of project costs shown in Table 1 (excluding project #27, which was not part of the 2005 Report) is $2.9 billion; it is logical that this value would be lower than the fully escalated cost, because some of the projects were completed years ago and the costs of those projects shown in Table 1 have been fixed at their actual values and have not been escalated to current dollars.

Development Patterns and Fee Expectations
Both the 2005 Report and the 2020 Report addressed a 21-year planning period, from 2005 to 2025 and from 2020 to 2040, respectively. These reports included projections of future population and employment growth throughout the East County area for that planning period, which were used in calculating an appropriate fee per unit of new development. Table 2 shows a comparison between these projections. As seen on this table, the 2020-2040 projected employment growth in East County is around 30 percent of what was projected in 2005, while the projected residential growth is very similar in both cases. Table 2 also presents an updated growth projection between 2023 and 2040 that results from interpolating the 2020 Report projections to the current year.

Table 3 shows the fee amounts that are currently levied on new development in East County.

Applying the current fee amounts to the updated growth projections, and accounting for the ongoing 15% fee discount that is being applied, results in an estimate of total fee revenue over the 2023-2040 time period of about $533 million (in current year dollars). For reference, Table 3 also shows the total fee revenues that have been collected from the inception of the program through 2023, at about $491 million.

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

Assessment:
• The 2005 Report estimated fee revenue of $406.5 million (in 2005 dollars) over the 21- year planning horizon of that study, or an average of approximately $19 million per year.

The updated projections from 2023 to 2040 indicate revenues of approximately $29 million (in current dollars) annually going forward.

Program Funding Status
The fee revenues generated by the ECCRFFA program are one of several funding sources that are used to support regional transportation improvements. The 2005 Report included a discussion of the broader funding picture for the full ECCRFFA program; this included known and anticipated revenues from the fee program, the countywide sales tax program (at that time, Measure C and Measure J), regional fund sources such as RM2, state sources such as the STIP, and other funding programs. The conclusion of the 2005 Report was that the majority of the project funding had been identified, but there remained a shortfall of approximately $390 million (in 2005 dollars).

The 2017 program assessment concluded that the program’s shortfall was approximately $552 million (in 2017 dollars).

Table 4 provides an updated picture of the funding status of the projects included in the ECCRFFA program. The table includes an accounting of fee revenues already collected and those anticipated, known funding that has already been used to support or is committed to specific projects, and funds that are available for programming through the Measure J Strategic Plan Update. Taken together, the program is now anticipated to have a shortfall of approximately $601 million (in current dollars). Converting that number to 2005 dollars would result in a shortfall estimate of $300 million, indicating that the overall program shortfall has decreased in real terms compared to the original calculation of $390 million in 2005.

Assessment:
• Fee revenue collections have been strong during periods of relatively high economic activity, and the region has successfully attracted funding from other sources. In constant dollars, the program shortfall has declined compared with what was predicted in the 2005 Report.

Conclusions
This memo has presented a basic assessment of the status of the ECCRFFA program. Based on the information presented here, the program has been tracking well compared to the expectations from the 2005 and 2020 Reports. Substantial progress has been made on project delivery and the region remains committed to the list of capital projects. The region has successfully attracted funds from other sources for many of its projects.

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

Table 1: ECCRFFA Project List
Number Project Description/Project
Limits
Jurisdiction Total
Cost ($
million)
Potential or
Actual Fee
Contribution
($ million)
Status
1 SR 4 Freeway
widening
Railroad Avenue to
Loveridge Road, widen to
8 lanes
CCTA $101.0 $2.0 Completed
Loveridge interchange CCTA $157.8 Completed

Loveridge to Bypass (8
lanes to Hillcrest, 6 lanes
to Bypass)
CCTA $374.7 Completed
Hillcrest interchange
expansion CCTA $10.0 Completed
2 SR 4 Bypass
Segment 1
Phase 1, 6 lanes to Laurel,
interchanges at Laurel Rd
and Lone Tree
Bypass Authority $113.7 $88.7 Completed
Phase 2, SR 160
interchange Bypass Authority $50.1 $0.2 Completed
Laurel interchange, phase
2 Bypass Authority $1.0 $1.0 Completed
3 SR 4 Bypass
Segment 2 Phase 1, 2 lanes Bypass Authority $33.3 $33.3 Completed

Phase 2, 4 lanes, Sand
Creek Road to Balfour
Road
Bypass Authority $16.0 Completed
Widen to 6 lanes, Laurel
Road to Sand Creek Road Bypass Authority $39.9 $39.9

Sand Creek interchange
and 4 lanes, Laurel to
Sand Creek
Bypass Authority $43.8 $5.8 Completed
4 SR 4 Bypass
Segment 3
Balfour to Marsh Creek (2
lanes) plus Marsh Creek
east-west connector
Bypass Authority $77.8 $77.8 Completed
Marsh Creek to Vasco, 2
lanes Bypass Authority $12.6 $12.6 Completed

Segment 3, widen to 4
lanes, and Balfour
interchange Phase 2
Bypass Authority $81.1 $81.1
Balfour interchange Phase
1 Bypass Authority $58.0 $28.0 Completed
Marsh Creek interchange Bypass Authority $51.2 $51.2
Vasco interchange Bypass Authority $42.7 $42.7

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

5 Laurel Road
extension
SR4 Bypass to Empire, 6
lanes Bypass Authority $22.6 $22.6 Completed
6 SR 239/84
Connector
Armstrong Road
extension, 2 lanes
(formerly Byron Airport
Road)
County $161.0 $161.0
Environmental
Phase in
Progress
7 SR 239
Corridor study and
preliminary design (no
construction costs)
County $101.0 $101.0
Environmental
Phase in
Progress
8 SR 4 (Main St or
Brentwood Blvd)
widening
Vintage Pkwy in Oakley to
Marsh Creek bridge in
Brentwood and from
Chestnut Street to Balfour
Road in south Brentwood,
4 lanes
Oakley,
Brentwood $24.5 $24.5 Partially
Completed
9 Balfour Road
widening
Deer Valley to Brentwood
city limits, widen to 4
lanes
County $14.2 $14.2
10 Marsh Creek
Road/Deer Valley
Road Safety
Enhancements
Marsh Creek: Walnut
Boulevard to Clayton;
Deer Valley: Balfour Road
to Marsh Creek Road
County $29.3 $9.7
11 Route 84/Vasco
Road
Widen to 4 lanes to
County line County $317.0 $317.0
Northern Parallel Arterials
12 Pittsburg-Antioch
Highway
Widen to 4 lanes,
Somersville to Loveridge
Antioch,
Pittsburg $55.9 $55.9
13 Ninth and Tenth
Streets
Couplet improvements, A
St to L St Antioch $9.6 $9.6
14 California Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Railroad
to Loveridge Pittsburg $6.6 $6.6 Partially Completed
15 Willow Pass Road
Widen to 4 lanes, Range
to Loftus and Bailey to
city limits
Pittsburg,
County $14.7 $14.7
Southern Parallel Arterials
16 James Donlon Blvd
Extension (formerly
Buchanan Bypass)
New 4-lane arterial
(perhaps 2 lanes,
depending on study
results)
Pittsburg
$115.6 $78.6
Design in
Progress (for
James Donlon
Blvd Extension)
or Buchanan Road Widen to 4 lanes, Railroad
to Somersville Pittsburg
17 West
Tregallas/Fitzuren
Widen to 4 lanes, Lone
Tree to Buchanan Antioch $53.3 $53.3

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

18 West Leland Road Extend, San Marco to
Avila Road (Concord) Pittsburg
$33.4 $33.4
or Evora Road
Widen to 4 lanes, Willow
Pass (BP) to Willow Pass
(Concord)
County
Regional Arterial Projects
19 Wilbur Avenue Widen to 4 lanes, Minaker
Drive to SR 160 Antioch, County $42.7 $42.7
20 Neroly Road Widen to 4 lanes, Oakley
Rd to Laurel Rd Oakley $10.6 $10.6
21 Deer Valley Road Widen to 4 lanes, Antioch
city limits to Balfour Road County $31.2 $31.2
22 Walnut Boulevard
Widen to 4 lanes,
Brentwood city limits to
SR 4 Bypass
County $29.5 $29.5
23 John Muir Parkway
New Roadway between
Balfour Road and Fairview
Avenue
Brentwood $17.7 $3.6

ECCRFFA
commitment
completed
24 Byron Highway
Safety Improvements
between Delta Road and
SR 4
County $20.0 $6.7
27 Sand Creek Road
Extension of 4-lane
roadway between SR 4
and Deer Valley Road
Antioch $38.1 $11.8
Regional Transit Projects
25 East County Express
Bus Tri-Delta Transit $9.1 $3.0
26 Commuter Rail CCTA $513.0 $38.0 Completed
TOTAL $2,935.3 $1,543.5
Table 2: East County Growth Projections
Growth Projections
from 2005-2025
(from 2005 Report)
Growth Projections
from 2020-2040
(from 2020 Report)
Updated Projections from
2023-2040
New Households 29,293 29,889 25,406
New Jobs 50,971 15,132 12,862

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

Table 3: ECCRFFA Fee Revenues
ECCRFFA Fee Schedule (2024)
Single-Family Residential (per DU, accounting for 15% fee rebate)
$24,066
Multi-Family Residential (per DU, accounting for 15% fee rebate)
$14,773
Commercial (per SF) $2.35
Office (per SF) $2.04
Industrial (per SF) $2.04
Anticipated Fee Revenues ($ million)
Total Estimated ECCRFFA Revenue at Full Fees, 2023-2040 $624.7 Fee Revenues Foregone Due to 15% Discount, 2023-2040 $92.1 Total Future Fee Revenues Anticipated, 2023-2040 $532.6 ECCRFFA Fees Collected, Inception – 2023 $491.0
Total Fee Revenues, Inception through 2040 $1,023.6

Dale Dennis
May 8, 2024

Table 4: ECCRFFA Program Funding Considerations
Program Funding Sources ($ million)
Total Program Cost $2,935.3
Total Future Fee Revenues Anticipated, 2023-2040 $532.6 Fees Already Collected, Inception through 2023 $491.0
Measure J Funds - 2022 Strategic Plan Update
(James Donlon Extension - $7.3M)
$7.3
Other Known Funds (see below) $1,303.6
Total Funding $2,334.5
Total Surplus/Deficit ($600.8)
Other Known Funds for Specific Projects ($ million)
Railroad Avenue Interchange $101.0
Loveridge Road Interchange $157.8
SR 4, Somersville to SR4 Bypass $374.7
eBART Extension to Hillcrest Avenue $475.0
SR160/SR4 Connectors $49.9
SR 4 Bypass Segments 1 and 3 $25.0
Sand Creek Interchange and Widening from Laurel to Sand Creek Road $49.2
Balfour Road Interchange and Widening from Sand Creek to Balfour $46.0
Future RM3 funds: Byron Airport Connector ($10M) and Vasco Road Improvements ($15M) $25.0
TOTAL $1,303.6

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD (1) APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO

JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR EAST CONTRA
COSTA REGIONAL FEE AND FINANCING AUTHORITY AND (2)

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE EAST CONTRA COSTA
REGIONAL FEE PROGRAM 2024 UPDATE REPORT.

WHEREAS, the Fifth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority and the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program 2024 Update Report have been revised to add eighteen new projects to the list of projects that will be funded with regional transportation development impact mitigation (“RTDIM”) fees. These fees are collected by all member agencies of the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”), which is a joint exercise of powers agency that funds regional transportation improvements. This resolution does not modify any of the RTDIM fees in Resolution No. 2020-05, and it also does not modify the area within which RTDIM fees are imposed; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is enacted pursuant to the applicable requirements of Government Code sections 66001 through 66018 and 66484, and Chapter 16.130 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS,
a. The “East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement,” as amended, (the “Agreement”) among ECCRFFA’s member agencies – the County and the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg, and Oakley – established ECCRFFA to fund regional transportation improvements in east Contra Costa County using RTDIM fees collected by member agencies. Since the original Agreement was approved, ECCRFFA has amended the Agreement, including to prioritize projects to be funded with RTDIM fee revenues.
b. ECCRFFA’s RTDIM fees were last increased in 2005. In 2005, ECCRFFA member agencies adopted ECCRFFA RTDIM fees to fund transportation projects on a project list, as more particularly described in the Fehr & Peers “East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update,” dated June 2005 (“2005 Report”). On July 12, 2005, the City Council of the City of Brentwood approved Resolution No. 2005-180 to approve the RTDIM fees, and to allow the City to impose the fees on new development within the City of Brentwood city limit areas of ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction, to fund the projects identified in the 2005 Report. Many of the projects identified in the 2005 Report have been

completed, including the State Route 4 (SR 4) Bypass, and the widening of SR 4 through Antioch and Pittsburg.
c. In 2020, ECCRFFA identified an additional regional transportation project that was eligible for funding from RTDIM fees – the Sand Creek Road Extension from SR4 to Deer Valley Road project (“Sand Creek Extension Project”). The Sand Creek Extension Project is more particularly detailed the Fehr & Peers “East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Fee Program Updated,” dated May 2020 (the “2020 Report”).
d. On October 8, 2020, the ECCRFFA Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2020/01 to: make required findings; approve the 2020 Report; approve a fourth amendment to the Agreement to add the Sand Creek Extension Project to the ECCRFFA project list; and recommend that ECCRFFA member agencies consider approving the fourth amendment to the Agreement and amending their fee ordinances and resolutions to add the Sand Creek Extension Project, with no change to the RTDIM fees last approved in 2005. e. On January 12, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-05, the City Council of the City of Brentwood approved a fourth amendment to the Agreement to add the Sand Creek Extension Project to the ECCRFFA project list, and approved the 2020 Report, with no change to the RTDIM fees last approved in 2005. f. In 2023, ECCRFFA began the process of preparing a comprehensive update to its fee program. ECCRFFA staff and its consultant, Fehr & Peers, worked with ECCRFFA member agencies’ staff to identify projects that could be added to the ECCRFFA project list to mitigate the regional transportation impacts of new development within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction. Eighteen new projects were evaluated for inclusion in the ECCRFFA fee program. These projects are more particularly detailed in the Fehr & Peers “East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority Fee Program Update,” dated May 2024 (“2024 Report”).

On June 13, 2024, following a noticed public hearing held in accordance with Government Code section 66016.5, the ECCRFFA Board of Directors adopted the 2024 Report and recommended that each Member Agency adopt the 2024 Report and amend its fee ordinance or resolution to incorporate the projects included in the 2024 Report.
g. The 2024 Report was prepared to determine the amount of the RTDIM fees necessary to fund new development’s share of the estimated costs of the projects in the ECCRFFA fee program, including new development’s share of the estimated cost of these 18 new projects. The projects are consistent with the goals and policies of the circulation elements in the general plans of ECCRFFA’s member agencies.
h. The 2024 Report proposes a fair and equitable method for allocating a portion of each project’s cost to new development within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction, as more particularly described in the 2024 Report. The cost of each project is reasonable. The total amount of revenue expected to be generated from

RTDIM fees will not exceed the estimated cost of the projects attributable to new development within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction. ECCRFFA and its member agencies will rely on sources other than RTDIM fee revenue to pay project costs not allocated to new development. The projects are necessary and desirable within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction.
i. Because the projects are in addition to, or a reconstruction or expansion of, existing thoroughfares and bridge facilities, RTDIM fees may be imposed on new development projects within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction to fund new development’s propositional share of each project’s costs j. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., a local agency is authorized to charge a fee to development applicants in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of public facilities related to the development project. Under the ECCRFFA fee program, each Member Agency adopts and imposes ECCRFFA RTDIM fees within that member agency’s jurisdiction. The fee revenue is then transmitted to ECCRFFFA. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 66001, the City Council of the City of Brentwood further finds as follows:

1. As determined and described in the 2024 Report, the purpose of ECCRFFA RTDIM fees is to fund new development’s share of the estimated costs of regional transportation projects identified in the 2024 Report, which is expressed as a percentage of each project’s cost, as more particularly described in the 2024 Report.

2. As determined and described in the 2024 Report, ECCRFFA RTDIM fee revenues will be used to fund new development’s proportional share of the cost of each transportation project identified in the 2024 Report.

3. As determined and described in the 2024 Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of revenue generated by the RTDIM fees and the type of new development projects on which those fees shall be imposed.

4. As determined and described in the 2024 Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for each of the transportation projects listed in the 2024 Report and the types of new development within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction on which RTDIM fees shall be imposed.

5. As determined and described in the 2024 Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the RTDIM fees imposed on each type of new development within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction, and the cost of each of the transportation projects to be funded from RTDIM fee revenue. k. The 2024 Report continues to recommend fees for single-family and multifamily housing development projects based on the number of dwelling units included in each development project. For the reasons more particularly

described in the 2024 Report, pursuant to Government Code section 66016.5 the City Council of the City of Brentwood finds as follows:

1. Square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate RTDIM fees imposed on single-family or multi-family residential projects within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction.

2. The alternative basis of calculating RTDIM fees based on the number of dwelling units in single-family and multi-family residential development projects bears a reasonable relationship between the amount of the RTDIM fee charged per dwelling unit and the burden (i.e., transportation impacts) posed by or attributable to each dwelling unit within a single-family or multi-family residential development project.

3. Other policies adopted by ECCRFFA, including ECCRFFA’s accessory dwelling unit policy, support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

Additionally, the 2024 Program Update explains the basis for each of the fees and establishes that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees because the RTDIM fees for single-family and multifamily residential units are proportional to the regional transportation impacts of each type of unit.
l. Pursuant to Government Code section 66016.5(a)(4), because the 2024 Report would support the increase of RTDIM fees, the City Council has reviewed the assumptions of the 2005 and 2020 Reports supporting the current RTDIM fees and has evaluated the amount of fees collected, as more particularly described in Appendix A of the 2024 Report. However, although the 2024 Report would support a fee increase, an increase is not being approved.
m. The City Council of the City of Brentwood further finds as follows:

1. Pursuant to Government Code sections 54986, 65091, 66016.5(a)(7), 66017, 66018, 66474.2(b), 66484, and 66484.7, notice of a public hearing on this resolution was given and published, and the public hearing was held.

The 2024 Report and related materials were made available to the public at least ten (30) days before the hearing. Additionally, because a nexus study – the 2024 Report – is being adopted, notice of the hearing was published in the Brentwood Press, posted, and provided to persons requesting notices relating to impact studies at least 30 days in advance of the hearing date.

2. If, within the time when protests may be filed under the provisions of City of Brentwood Municipal Code section 16.130.060, there are written protests, filed with the Clerk of the City of Brentwood, by owners of more than one-half of the area of the property within the City of Brentwood in ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction, and sufficient protests are not withdrawn so as to

reduce that area to less than one-half of the area of the property within the City of Brentwood area of ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction, these proceedings shall be abandoned and this resolution shall not be adopted. However, the City Council has considered any written protests, and all written and oral testimony offered at the hearing, and it finds that no majority protest exists.

3. At the public hearing on this resolution, the estimated costs of the projects in the 2024 Report and a fair method of allocation of those costs to new development projects within ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction were established.

There are no changes to the boundaries of ECCRFFA’s jurisdiction since they were last established.
n. The City Council has received and considered all verbal and written comments and testimony made before the close of the public hearing, all presentations by City and ECCRFFA staff and consultants, and all materials before the Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby:

1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Fifth Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority.

2. Approve and adopt the 2024 East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update.

AND DOES FURTHER RESOLVE THAT:

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines this resolution is invalid or unenforceable, Resolution No. 2005-180 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

2. This resolution shall become effective 60 days after passage.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
10/08/2024
SUBJECT: Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving a Zoning Text Amendment (RZ 24-007) to the Brentwood Municipal Code to update Section 17.800.009(A)(2) to increase the notification radius for public hearing items from 300 feet to 1,000 feet
DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager
Jennifer Hagen, Senior Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving an amendment (RZ 24- 007) to the Brentwood Municipal Code, amending Section 17.800.009(A)(2) to increase the notification radius for public hearing items from 300 feet to 1,000 feet.

These text amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15378 as it is not a project under CEQA, and further if it was considered a project, it is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the ordinance may result in a minimal fiscal impact to the City related to City initiated public hearing items only. Cost associated with additional notices for non-City initiated projects would be passed to project applicants as part of the application and review process, which includes the collection of fees in accordance with the City’s Cost Allocation Plan.

The increase in the number of notifications will also lead to an increase in overall cost of notifications. Since the Community Development Department operates on a deposit account basis where time and materials are charged to the applicant against the established account as the project is processed, the additional fee would be passed along to the applicants who would be responsible for paying postage.

Currently it costs approximately $1 per notice mailed to each address, which includes the postage and supplies. In the event the City was the applicant on a project

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
10/08/2024
requiring such a public notice to be mailed, such costs would be paid from the General Fund.

BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2024, Planning Commission Vice Chairperson Sparling requested a future agenda item to discuss possible changes to the 300-foot notification requirement for public hearing items. At the June 4, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, Vice Chairperson Sparling explained the request in more detail. After taking public comment, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted unanimously to move forward requesting that the City Council direct staff to update Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.800.009(A)(2) to increase the notification radius from 300 feet to 1,000 feet.

On July 23, 2024, the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s request and directed staff to move forward with the requested change as soon as possible.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing at its regular meeting of September 17, 2024, and was supportive of the requested text amendments. The Planning Commission agreed that the amendments would help to provide greater public awareness while processing applications and communicating potential project impacts to a larger number of residents. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 24-040, recommending that the City Council approve the amendments (RZ 24-007), amending Section 17.800.009(A)(2) of the Brentwood Municipal Code to increase the notification radius for public hearing items from 300 feet to 1,000 feet.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
The Brentwood Municipal Code contains provisions that specify how public notice must be given when a public hearing is required. Public hearings are held before the Planning Commission and/or City Council on certain discretionary land use applications including, but not limited to, subdivision maps, conditional use permits and modifications thereto, variances, rezones and zoning text amendments, and general plan amendments. Among other things, these provisions mandate that a public hearing notice be mailed to “the owners of all property within three hundred feet of the subject site as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls.” (Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.800.009(A)(2).) This matches the notice

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
10/08/2024
radius required by State law. In this regard, Government Code Section 65091(a)(4) provides, in pertinent part:
“Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing.”
In the event that more than 1,000 owners would receive the notice, the same Government Code provision allows publication of the public hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation instead. Nothing in the Government Code prevents a City from providing more notice than what is minimally required.

Because of the differing scope and context of individual projects, a 300 foot noticing requirement may not always capture property owners that could be potentially impacted. As a result, expanding the noticing radius would allow those property owners who may be impacted by a project to have direct knowledge of an opportunity to participate in the process.

Expanding the notification radius will significantly increase the number of property owners receiving notification, and thereby potentially increase the overall citizen involvement in the decision-making process, which can lead to more informed decisions by the Planning Commission and/or City Council and projects that are more mindful of and/or harmonious with the surrounding area.

The noticing distance requirement of 300 to 1,000 feet is shown below and is found in Chapter 17.800.009(A)(2):

A. Through mailing of a public hearing notice to the following:

1. The applicant and/or property owner/s or their duly
authorized agent,

2. The owners of all property within three hundred one thousand feet of the subject site as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls,

3. Any person who has filed a written request with either the city clerk or the city council

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
10/08/2024

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
The City of Brentwood published a public hearing notice in the Brentwood Press on September 27, 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because there is no potential that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities. Further, even if it was considered a project, it is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. None of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Draft Ordinance

ATTACHMENT 1
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On September 16, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 408, establishing Chapter

17.800 (Administrative Procedures and Permits) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

On May 8, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 665, modifying Chapter

17.800.009 (Public Hearing Notice) in order to add requirements related to erecting on site signage for related to proposed projections requiring a public hearing.

On July 23, 2024, the City Council considered a request from the Planning Commission to increase the notification radius for public hearings and directed staff to move forward with the requested changes as soon as possible.

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE
BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE (RZ 24-007), WHICH WOULD
AMEND SECTION 17.800.009(A)(2) TO INCREASE THE
NOTIFICATION RADIUS FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FROM 300
FEET TO 1,000 FEET
WHEREAS, City staff prepared a zoning text amendment (“the Ordinance”) that would amend Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.800.009(A)(2) to increase the notification radius for public hearing items from 300-feet to 1,000-feet; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance would amend Title 17 (Zoning) of the Brentwood Municipal Code, and the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing amendments to said title prior to their consideration by the City Council; and WHEREAS, state law and the City’s Zoning Ordinance require that notice of public hearings before the Planning Commission or City Council on certain discretionary land use applications including, but not limited to, conditional use permits and modifications thereto, variances, rezones and zoning text amendments, and general plan amendments be mailed to all property owners located within 300 feet of the project parcel; and
WHEREAS, because of the wide-ranging potential impacts of some projects, a 300-foot radius does not always capture property owners that may be potentially impacted by a proposed project; and
WHEREAS, both the Planning Commission and City Council have heard an increase in concerns expressed by residents regarding the extent of public notice provided on projects subject to Planning Commission and/or City Council review; and WHEREAS, expanding the noticing radius will allow those property owners most likely to be impacted by a project to have an opportunity to participate in the process; and
WHEREAS, citizen involvement in the public hearing process can lead to better decisions by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, as well as projects that are more harmonious with the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2024, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in the Brentwood Press, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a dulynoticed public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendation by staff, and public testimony concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the

Attachment 2

Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance by a vote of 5-0; and
WHEREAS, the City published a notice of public hearing in the Brentwood Press on September 27, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed therein, and (3) the consideration by the City’s Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, this amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because there is no potential that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities, and even if it was a project, it would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 are present; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated into this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. CEQA. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, is not a project because there is no potential that the ordinance will result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities, and even if it was a project, it would be exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 are present.

SECTION 3. Rezoning. Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.870.008 provides:

No rezoning of property or text amendment shall occur which is inconsistent with the city’s community development plan. In making a decision, the planning commission and council shall consider the

Attachment 2

consistency of the proposed action to the community development plan and other applicable city plans, and shall consider whether the proposed action is inappropriate or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

General Plan Policy CSF 5-12 provides, “Encourage citizen participation at City government meetings, hearings, and workshops.” In addition, General Plan Policy CSF 5-14 provides, “Solicit feedback from residents and citizens regarding City-initiated projects, programs, and outreach efforts.” The zoning text amendment is consistent with these General Plan policies, insomuch as it provides notification of upcoming meetings of the City government to a broader range of residents. The amendment would also assist in soliciting feedback from residents and citizens regarding potential development projects in the City.

SECTION 4. Amendment. The Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby amended (added text underlined, deleted text stricken)as follows:

Chapter 17.800.009(A)(2)
A. Through mailing of a public hearing notice to the following:

1. The applicant and/or property owner/s or their duly authorized agent,

2. The owners of all property within three hundred one thousand feet of the subject site as shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls,

3. Any person who has filed a written request with either the city clerk or the city council,

4. Each local agency expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the property which is the subject of the application, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly affected;
SECTION 5. Effective Date; Publication Date. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. The City Clerk is directed to cause the Municipal Code text to be entered in the Brentwood Municipal Code of the City of Brentwood to be modified accordingly.

Attachment 2

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brentwood on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED
Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:

Amanda McVey
Interim City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
10/08/2024
SUBJECT: Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving a modification to the Brentwood Municipal Code to allow PadMounted Transformers within Development Projects.

DEPARTMENT: Engineering
STAFF: Allen Baquilar, Director of Engineering/City Engineer Vatsal Patel, Engineering Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance approving a modification to the Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120, allowing Permittees to install padmounted transformers within development projects in certain circumstances, while the City monitors the nationwide supply chain issues related to underground transformers.

The proposed permanent ordinance is not an action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the action has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment. (14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15358.) Further, adoption of the permanent ordinance is exempt under CEQA because it will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the ordinances. (14 Cal.

Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).)

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated direct fiscal impact as a result of the adoption of a permanent ordinance amending BMC Section 16.120.120, to allow residential and commercial development projects that include land subdivision to receive building permits.

Should the City Council not adopt the permanent ordinance, the previously adopted interim urgency ordinance allowing Permittees to install pad-mounted transformers within development projects is set to expire on February 10, 2025.

Should the City Council not adopt the permanent ordinance there would be a fiscal impact relating to developers pausing projects resulting in a loss of fees and revenues.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
10/08/2024

BACKGROUND
The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) is a California state law that authorizes local governments, such as city councils, to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions of land. To carry out this power, each local government, including the City of Brentwood, passes its own subdivision ordinance, which sets out the requirements imposed on developers in exchange for the privilege of subdividing their land.

One of these requirements is found in Brentwood Municipal Code (“BMC”) Section

16.120.120(A)(1), which states:

Utility distribution facilities, including, but not limited to, electric, communication, street lighting and advanced technology systems installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any development, shall be required to be placed underground. "Advanced technology systems" shall be defined as all necessary appurtenances, equipment and facilities required for the provision of Internet, computer, fiber optic, cable television, telephone, and other communication services within the public right-of-way and upon private property. The design, installation, inspection and testing requirements for city acceptance of such system shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the city of Brentwood standard plans and specifications as approved by the city engineer. The developer shall also dedicate to the city that portion of the system within the public right-of-way and shall dedicate to the property owner the portion of the system within the private property.

As written, this includes all Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) electric transformers, which must be placed underground.

Electric distribution transformers serve an important role in converting or stepping down currents from power lines rated at 300,000 to 750,000 volts to lower voltages for consumer use, typically just 110 to 250 volts, with higher voltages for commercial and industrial use. Without transformers, residents and businesses will not be able to receive electricity.

PG&E estimates January 2028 as the earliest availability of subsurface transformers, whereas surface (pad-mounted) transformers are available within 6-9 months after PG&E approval of plans.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
10/08/2024
On March 26, 2024, the City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance authorizing the City Engineer to allow pad-mounted transformers for projects applicable to BMC Chapter 16.120.120 with additional screening requirements for residential applications and discussed the adoption of a permanent ordinance to allow for this process.

On May 8, 2024, the City Council adopted an extension of the interim urgency ordinance by ten months and fifteen days (thus expiring on February 10, 2025) and directed staff to include restrictions to the size of pad-mounted transformers within residential developments as part of the permanent ordinance.

The design of electrical distribution systems, which includes electric transformers for residential developments, must comply with general safety, accessibility, and environmental standards as outlined by State regulations such as the California Electrical Code, Fire Code, and Building Code. PG&E is responsible for planning, designing, and engineering its service facilities using company standards for design, materials, and construction. These standards focus on safety, accessibility, voltage limits, and installation requirements rather than specific size restrictions for transformers in residential or commercial settings.

Staff has researched various other City requirements throughout the Bay Area and Southern California and was not able to find an example of another City with a size restriction on transformers.

Staff has verified the pad-mounted residential transformer dimensions found in neighboring cities have dimensions roughly 34-inches x 37-inches x 25-inches (length x width x height) which is consistent with what would be expected for residential development in Brentwood and are rated to provide between 15 kiloVolt-Amps (kVA) to 50 kVA of electricity to homes which is typical for residential development.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
10/08/2024
Figure 1: Examples of Pad-Mounted Transformer Installations Based on the City Council’s direction, staff is including a restriction to on padmounted transformers to not exceed a height of 26-inches when placed on or between residential lots.

NEXT STEPS
This action would introduce and waive the first reading of a permanent ordinance to modify BMC 16.120.120 as set forth in the attached ordinance. The permanent ordinance differs from the urgency ordinance in that it sets forth more explicit instructions for compliance with screening requirements and a height limit on transformers in residential settings.

Staff will continue to monitor the availability of subsurface transformers and its supply chain issues and return to City Council with an update should supply chain issues resolve prior to February 10, 2025.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
10/08/2024

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The permanent ordinance is not an action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the action has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment. (14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15358.) Further, adoption of the permanent ordinance is exempt under CEQA because they will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the ordinance. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).)

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options to the Staff Recommendation:

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation. The interim urgency ordinance will continue to be in effect until February 10, 2025. Thereafter or unless otherwise extended, developers will not be able to receive full timely approval of their joint trench plans until underground transformers are available, halting all development until supply issues are resolved, or until separate Planning Commission and City Council consideration is completed (which may not be feasible in all cases).

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Permanent Ordinance Amending BMC Section 16.120.120

Attachment 1

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On March 26, 2024, by Ordinance No. 1072, the City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance authorizing the City Engineer to allow pad-mounted transformers for projects subject to BMC Chapter 16.120.120 with additional screening requirements for residential applications.

On May 8, 2024, by Ordinance No. 1074, the City Council adopted an extension of interim urgency ordinance authorizing the City Engineer to allow pad-mounted transformers for projects subject to BMC Chapter 16.120.120, with additional screening requirements for residential applications.

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD AMENDING BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 16.120.120 TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO

WAIVE LIMITED UNDERGROUND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS,

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA, AND TERMINATING
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. .

WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood (“City”) presently requires development projects that include a land subdivision to install utility distribution facilities, including, but not limited to, electric, communication, street lighting and advanced technology systems installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any development, to be placed underground as governed by Chapter 16.120.120 of the Brentwood Municipal Code (“BMC”); and
WHEREAS, according to multiple media sources, as well as developer testimonials, the construction industry is currently experiencing a severe shortage of subsurface electric distribution transformers; and
WHEREAS, the causes for this shortage are complex, and include increases in demand for such facilities due to growth in EV charger installation and the use of renewable energy sources, federal investment, storms and political events that have disrupted the global supply chain, the imposition of tariffs on foreign transformers, and the impacts of the COVID pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the lead time for the receipt of subsurface electric distribution transformers may delay the completion of construction projects by years if this requirement continues to be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood is authorized, pursuant to Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution, to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2024, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1072, amending Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120 to authorize the City Engineer to waive limited underground utility requirements and find the act exempt from CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1074, extending Urgency Ordinance No. 1072 for a period of an additional 10 months and 15 days; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enact this ordinance in order to establish enduring requirements with respect to the placement of utilities underground or above ground.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brentwood does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Deleted language is struckthrough; additional language is underlined.

SECTION 2. This ordinance will be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 by either posting or publishing the ordinance in accordance with that law.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is requested to cause the amended language of Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120 as quoted in Exhibit A, to be entered in the City of Brentwood Municipal Code.

SECTION 4. If any exhibit, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other provision.

SECTION 5. The proposed Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption - in that the proposed ordinance would only establish and clarify administrative processes and would not facilitate new construction or other groundbreaking activities. There is no potential to result in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

SECTION 6. This ordinance will take effect and be in force 30 days following its adoption, at which time Urgency Ordinance No. 1074 shall no longer be in effect.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 8th day of October 2024 by the following vote:

EXHIBIT ‘A’

BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
TITLE 16 (‘Subdivisions and Land Development’)
§ 16.120.120 Undergrounding—Electric, communication, street lighting and advanced technology systems.

A. General Provisions.

1. Utility distribution facilities, including, but not limited to, electric, communication, street lighting and advanced technology systems installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any development, shall be required to be placed underground. "Advanced technology systems" shall be defined as all necessary appurtenances, equipment and facilities required for the provision of Internet, computer, fiber optic, cable television, telephone, and other communication services within the public right-of-way and upon private property. The design, installation, inspection and testing requirements for city acceptance of such system shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the city of Brentwood standard plans and specifications as approved by the city engineer. The developer shall also dedicate to the city that portion of the system within the public right-of-way and shall dedicate to the property owner the portion of the system within the private property.

2. All existing facilities except transmission facilities either along abutting streets or within a development shall also be underground at the time of development. "Along abutting streets" means on the same side of the abutting street as the property being developed, not the other side of the street.

3. The developer is responsible for complying with all requirements of this subsection, and shall make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such facilities.

4. The city council, following the consideration by the planning commission, may waive undergrounding requirements if unusual topographical, soil or any other unusual problems (such as prolonged supply chain delays) make such underground installations unreasonable or impractical in accordance with the following:
a. If the requirement to underground utilities is waived, the city council may require the recordation of an improvement agreement, requiring the property owner and any subsequent owner of the subject property to join an underground utility assessment district, reimbursement district or similar improvement district, when such a district is formed, and to guarantee participation in such district by posting an improvement bond and recording a lien on subject property.

b. The affected developer or any utility company may submit information supporting a request for such waivers.
c. No waiver shall be granted in any undergrounding district previously established.
d. In the event such a waiver is granted as to a residential development, the developer shall be responsible for installing screening consisting of dense landscaping and/or wall(s) with a concrete apron meeting all PG&E requirements on at least three sides of the surface-mounted equipment and any such equipment proposed on residential lots shall not exceed 26-inches in height.

5. The City Engineer may waive undergrounding requirements as to equipment appurtenant to underground facilities (such as surface-mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts) if unusual topographical, soil, or any other unusual problems (such as prolonged supply chain delays) make such underground installations unreasonable or impractical in accordance with the following:
a. The affected developer or any utility company may submit information supporting a request for such waiver.
b. In the event such a waiver is granted as to a residential development, the developer shall be responsible for installing screening consisting of dense landscaping and/or wall(s) with a concrete apron meeting all PG&E requirements on at least three sides of the surface-mounted equipment and any such equipment proposed on residential lots shall not exceed 26-inches in height.
c. The City Engineer’s authority to waive such requirement shall sunset on December 31, 2028, unless otherwise amended by the city council.

B. Electric, Communication, Street Lighting and Advanced Technology Systems. All costs of placing existing or new facilities, required to be undergrounded by the developer, shall be paid for by the developer subject to the current California Public Utility Commission rules and regulations.

C. Advanced Technology Systems.

1. The developer shall design, install, test and dedicate to the city two advanced technology system conduits, size to be determined, within the public right-ofway. The developer shall install, in one of the conduits, a fiber optic system designed to serve the subject development for use by the city of Brentwood or one of its licensed franchisee. The fiber optic system shall be installed in accordance with the citywide advance technology master plan and approved by the city engineer. The second conduit shall remain empty and shall be reserved to serve the subject development for the use of a city licensed

franchisee not wishing to utilize the city's fiber optic system. Both conduits shall be installed to each lot line. The developer shall bear all design, construction, inspection, and testing costs associated with these underground requirements. Furthermore, the developer shall design, install, test and dedicate to the city all necessary components of the advanced technology system as depicted on the citywide advanced technology master plan.

2. The developer shall design, install, test and dedicate to the property owner two advanced technology system conduits, size to be determined, to connect the public advanced technology system to the individual home or building. The developer shall install, in one of the conduits, a fiber optic system designed to serve the subject property. The fiber optic system shall be installed in accordance with the citywide advance technology master plan and approved by the city engineer. The second conduit shall remain empty and shall be reserved to serve the subject property for the use of a city licensed franchisee not wishing to utilize the city's fiber optic system. The developer shall bear all design, construction, inspection and testing costs associated with these underground requirements.

3. The cable television or advanced technology company franchisee that elects to install facilities in the city's vacant conduit shall provide plans and specifications to the developer and the city of Brentwood. The licensed franchisee shall also inspect the facilities and certify to the city prior to final approval of the development that the cable television facilities or advanced technology systems are properly installed and serviceable. The design and installation shall meet the minimum criteria as outlined in the city of Brentwood standard plans and specifications.
(Ord. 471 § 3, 1990; Ord. 609, 1999)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. J.1
10/08/2024
SUBJECT: A request from Council Member Mendoza requesting staff hold a townhall related to permitting and business license processes DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
STAFF: Tim Ogden, City Manager
Amanda McVey, Interim City Clerk

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Mendoza requesting staff hold a town hall inviting business to provide feedback on potential improvements to the permitting and business license process.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated this agenda item.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. J.1
10/08/2024
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

ATTACHMENT “1”
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On August 13, 2024, Council Member Mendoza requested a future agenda item to requesting staff hold a town hall inviting business to provide feedback on potential improvements to the permitting and business license process.