Pleasant Hill City Council
June 27, 2022

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA - REVISED
JUNE 27, 2022
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 PM
Per City Council resolution under AB 361, members of the City Council, City staff/consultants, and the public will be able to participate either in-person* at
City Hall, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
or remotely via Zoom.
*Due to social distancing requirements, limited seating is available in person; if capacity is reached, you may participate remotely via Zoom.*
Watch on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting To provide comments via teleconference, click on the meeting link and enter the meeting ID and Passcode:

Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 884 6697 0900
Passcode: 829181
The meeting ID and Passcode will change each meeting. See more information on Public Participation Options below.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 June 27, 2022
City Offices, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone (925) 671-5267 MAYOR MICHAEL G. HARRIS COUNCILMEMBER KEN CARLSON

VICE MAYOR TIMOTHY FLAHERTY COUNCILMEMBER SUE NOACK

COUNCILMEMBER MATTHEW RINN
The meeting will be held via teleconference as allowed pursuant to City Council resolution. Options for observing the meeting and participating in public comment are provided below.

Public Communication. The public is welcome to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction during the general Public Comment period. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Public Participation Options
1) Watch the Meeting via Youtube Livestream
Watch the meeting live on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting. 2) Submit Written Comments Before the Meeting
Send written comments to [email protected] (comments received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council before the meeting).

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 June 27, 2022
3) If You Wish to Make a Public Comment During the Meeting When the Mayor invites the public for general comment or comments on specific agenda items, please use the "Raise hand" feature in Zoom (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) which will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be invited to speak when it is your turn. Note that there may be multiple hearing items on the same agenda. There are two ways to join the meeting and make a public comment during the meeting:
a. Go to www.Zoom.us using your computer and entering the Meeting ID and Passcode provided near the top of this page. You will be placed into the meeting as an Attendee. You will not be seen or heard until it is your turn to speak.
b. Or by calling (669) 900-6833 and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode. Dial *9 to virtually “Raise Hand” in Zoom
We ask that you state your name and city of residence for the record when you start your comments.

When you are making a Public Comment during the meeting, please:
1) Try to be in a room or space without a lot of background noise. 2) Mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak, then mute your speakers while speaking. 3) Have a strong, reliable internet connection or cell phone signal.

If, due to a disability, a reasonable accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please contact the ADA Coordinator 24 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 671-5221 or via California Relay at 711.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection by contacting the City Clerk’s office at [email protected] or calling 925-671-5221.

City Council Meeting Recordings and Broadcasts.

Recorded City Council meetings are broadcast on Comcast Channel 28, Wave Channel 1029, and AT&T UVerse Channel 99 on the Wednesday following the meeting. Video recordings are generally available within 48 hours of the meeting, and may be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/MeetingVideos and selecting “City Council” from the meeting groups.

Agendas are Available for Review on the City Hall official noticing bulletin board (100 Gregory Lane), at the Pleasant Hill Police Department (330 Civic Drive), the Pleasant Hill Senior Center (233 Gregory Lane), and on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas. Agenda packets will be available to the public on the City’s website at the same time as they are made available to the City Council.

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. ROLL CALL

3. PRESENTATIONS
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 June 27, 2022

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
(Brief updates on pending City business without discussion by the City Council.)

5. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

5.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense

5.2 Announcements from Councilmembers

6. PUBLIC COMMENT:

The public is welcome at this time to address the City Council on items on the Consent Calendar or other items not listed on the agenda but within the Council’s jurisdiction. There is an opportunity for the public to comment on other agenda items at the time they are discussed.

Comments are limited to three minutes per speaker. To provide public comments, please see the Public Participation Options above.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under “Consent Calendar” are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate Council discussion of these items unless requested by a Councilmember prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt.

7.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of June 6, 2022

7.2 Approve Checks Dated: June 3, 2022; June 10, 2022; June 17, 2022

7.3 Update on Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Transpac

7.4 Reaffirm Resolution No. 33-22 Approving Continued Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-Person Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361

7.5 Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Diversity Commission, Education Commission, and Library Commission

7.6 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Establishing the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for the Fiscal Year 2022/2023

7.7 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Updated Agreement and Side Letter Agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department and Rescinding Resolution No. 32-06

7.8 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Authorizing the City Engineer to Request to the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the Allocation of Funds on a State Grant to Develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and Resolution No. ___-22 Authorizing the City Engineer to Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Solicit Professional Engineering Services to Prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)

8. PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

8.1 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving Diablo Vista Water System 2022 Drought Management Plan
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 June 27, 2022

8.2 Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving the Engineer’s Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in Assessment District No. 20 (Commercial Landscaping and Lighting)

8.3 Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving the Engineer’s Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in Assessment District No. 22

8.4 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Authorizing and Directing the City Manager to Execute a 12- month Pilot Operating Agreement with Bird Rides, Inc. to Operate Electric Scooters within the City of Pleasant Hill
Approval of the pilot program is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA, as it will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.

9. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

9.1 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving the Changes to the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Master Fee Schedule

9.2 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Approving the FY 2022/2023 Through FY 2023/2024 Biennial Budget and Resolution No. ____-22 Amendments to FY 2021/2022

9.3 Consideration of Resolution No. ___-22 Calling for a Ballot Measure to Ask Voters Whether the Position of Pleasant Hill City Treasurer Should be Elective or Appointive

10. ADJOURNMENT
Next City Council Meeting: July 11, 2022

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2022

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENT(S):

June 6, 2022 – Tentative Minutes
Prepared by: Carol Wu, City Clerk Recorder

7.1 Packet Pg. 5

MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING – CITY COUNCIL
June 6, 2022
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 June 6, 2022
Mayor Harris called a Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:02 PM via teleconference, complete proceedings of which were electronically recorded. The meeting agenda was posted on the City Hall outdoor bulletin board at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA on June 2, 2022, by Deputy City Clerk Juanita Davalos.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Michael G. Harris Mayor Present
Timothy M. Flaherty Vice Mayor Present
Ken Carlson Councilmember Present
Sue Noack Councilmember Present
Matthew Rinn Councilmember Present

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Introduction of New Commission on Aging Commissioners Marion Gizzi and John Stoner
Vice Mayor Flaherty introduced Marion Gizzi, and John Stoner, the new Commission on Aging Commissioners

3.2 Presentation of the Activities of the Education Commission Jennifer Andersen, Education Commission Chair, provided a presentation on the Education Commission’s activities.

3.3 Award of Appreciation to Education Commissioners – Jessica Clark (2018-2022); Marni Dyer (2018-2022); and Linda Waters (2011-2022)
Mayor Harris presented awards of appreciation to outgoing Education Commissioners Jessica Clark, Marni Dyer, and Linda Waters.

3.4 Presentation on the Diversity Commission Inclusion Program Brianna Shahvar, Diversity Commission, introduced fellow Commissioner David Hendrickson, and both provided a presentation on the Diversity Commission’s new Inclusion Program, Everyone Belongs.

3.5 Proclamation Declaring June 19, 2022 as Juneteenth National Freedom Day Mayor Harris presented a proclamation to Lloyd Schine, Civic Action Commission Diversity Subcommittee Chair, declaring June 19, 2022 as Juneteenth National Freedom Day in Pleasant Hill.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: June 6, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 June 6, 2022

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:

June Catalano, City Manager, reported that:
 Election Day is June 7, 2022 and ballot boxes are located at City Hall, the County Office of Education, and the Pleasant Hill Community Center; and  the Commission on Aging, in partnership with the Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District, will offer an in person workshop on “A Safe Place to Talk: Sharing Your Concerns” on July 7, 2022 from 11 am to Noon.

5. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

5.1 Reports from Councilmembers on Meetings or Conferences Attended at City Expense
(A) Contra Costa Mayors Conference held Teleconference on June 2, 2022 Mayor Harris reported his attendance at the Contra Costa Mayors Conference. (B) Other Meetings Attended at City Expense
Mayor Harris noted the meeting was not at the City’s expense, but he attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division meeting.

5.2 Announcements from Councilmembers
Vice Mayor Flaherty thanked the Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce for a successful Art, Wine & Music Festival. Vice Mayor Flaherty announced that the Sunset by the Lake Summer Concert series began on May 29, 2022. He also encouraged the public to vote on Election Day, and to attend the Off the Grid/Golden State Warriors watch party to be held on June 8, 2022.

Concilmember Carlson thanked the Pleasant Hill Civic Action Commission for their work on the Sunset by the Lake Summer Concert series. Councilmember Carlson reported his attendance at the Memorial Day observation at the Soldier’s Memorial Monument Mayor Harris reported his attendance at the Memorial Day observation with Councilmember Carlson and Congressman Mark Desaulnier; the Art, Wine & Music Festival; and Off the Grid.

Mayor Harris reported his participation as the Emcee for the first Sunset by the Lake Summer Concert held on May 29, 2022.

Mayor Harris remarked on the significance of June 6th as D-Day. Mayor Harris announced that he will not seek re-election to the City Council and of his intention to retire at the end of his term in December 2022.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: June 6, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 June 6, 2022

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Harris opened public comment.

There was no public comment.

Mayor Harris closed public comment.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion (Noack/Rinn to Approve all consent items, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

7.1 Approve Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting of May 16, 2022

7.2 Approve Checks Dated: May 13, 2022; May 20, 2022; May 27, 2022

7.3 Reaffirm Resolution No. 33-22 Approving Continued Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-Person Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361

7.4 Approve Appointment Recommendation to the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Card District Grant Advisory Committee

7.5 Adopt Resolution No. 39-22 Regarding the Conduct of the Municipal Election to be Held November 8, 2022

7.6 Adopt Resolution No. 40-22 to Identify the FY 2022/2023 Street Resurfacing Project (Arterial/Collector Street List) for the Expenditure of Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Funds of Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

7.7 Adopt Resolution No. 41- 22 Authorizing Signatures for Withdrawal of City Funds and Rescinding Resolution No. 77-21

8. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

8.1 Adopt Resolution No. ___-22 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Updated Agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department and Rescinding Resolution No. 32-06
Danielle Habr, Principal Management Analyst, City Clerk, introduced the item to consider approval of a new service agreement between the City of Pleasant Hill and Contra Costa County (“County”) Animal Services Department (“Animal Services”) to clearly define the services that Animal Services would provide to the City, and the increase in per capita fees to achieve a balanced budget between County revenue and service expenses. Ms. Habr introduced Beth

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: June 6, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 June 6, 2022
Ward, County Animal Services Director, who provided a presentation regarding the history of County Animal Services and described the proposed agreement.

Item 8.1 was continued to the next City Council Meeting scheduled for June 27, 2022 with direction to staff to provide further clarification on Section 13.d of the agreement. No one from the public spoke on the item.

Motion (Noack/Flaherty) to Continue item 8.1, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

8.2 Consideration of Resolution No. ___-22 Calling for a Ballot Measure to Ask Voters Whether the Position of Pleasant Hill City Treasurer Should be Elective or Appointive
Danielle Habr, Principal Management Analyst, City Clerk, introduced the item and answered questions from Councilmembers.

Item 8.2 was continued to the June 27, 2022 City Council meeting with direction to staff to research and return with information on the costs to appoint versus elect a City Treasurer, and the timing of when other local cities moved to the appointment of their City Treasurer positions.

No one from the public spoke on the item.

Motion (Carlson/Noack) to Continue item 8.2, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

9. PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

9.1 Adopt Resolution No. 42-22 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a New Lease Agreement with the County of Contra Costa for Operation of the New City Library Building at 2 Monticello Avenue
Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, introduced the item to consider approval of a new lease and service agreement between the City and Contra Costa County (“County”) concerning the new City library location. Allison McKee, County Librarian, was present to answer questions.

Item 9.1 was approved; no one from the public spoke on the item.

Motion (Noack/Harris) to Approve item 9.1, carried as follows:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: June 6, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)
City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 June 6, 2022

9.2 Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No. __-22 to Deny an Appeal and Uphold the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a Reasonable Accommodation Request (PLN 21-0497) for an Accessory Structure within Setback Area and a Fence/Gate Exceeding Allowable Heights at 406 Kahrs Avenue Item is continued to the meeting of August 1, 2022

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Harris stated that the City Council had adjourned from a closed session and that there was nothing to report.

Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m. in honor of the World War II D-Day veterans.

The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, June 27, 2022, beginning at 7:00 p.m.

CAROL W. WU, CITY CLERK RECORDER

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: June 6, 2022 Tentative Minutes (Minutes)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE CHECKS DATED: JUNE 3, 2022; JUNE 10, 2022; JUNE 17, 2022

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approve the check register.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Check Register
Prepared by: Sabrina Kwan, Accounting Technician II
Approved by: Erick Cheung, Finance Manager

7.2 Packet Pg. 11

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Check Register (Check Register)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND

TRANSPAC

SYNOPSIS
Each month, TRANSPAC meets to provide direction to its staff and make recommendations to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) on significant transportation and land use issues. The attachments to this report include the CCTA Executive summary and Board meeting minutes for April 20, 2022, and the TRANSPAC Board meeting summary minutes for April 14, 2022.

DISCUSSION
Background
TRANSPAC was formed in 1986 to provide the cities of Central Contra Costa County a forum to discuss mutual planning and transportation issues. When Measure C, a countywide transportation proposition, was adopted in 1988, TRANSPAC became the official regional transportation, land use, and housing forum for Central Contra Costa County. The member agencies include Contra Costa County, Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill.

TRANSPAC meets monthly to discuss transportation-related issues. A Councilmember and a Planning Commissioner represent each jurisdiction. The Chair to the CCTA then submits the actions.

Analysis
An Executive Summary of the actions taken on April 20, 2022, at the CCTA Board meeting is included along with the meeting minutes. The actions taken at the TRANSPAC Board meeting on April 14, 2022, are also included in the attached minutes.

At the April 14th, 2022 TRANSPAC Board meeting, the City of Pleasant Hill expressed interest in applying for Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funds for the Monument Boulevard/I-680 Improvement Study. TRANSPAC has identified $24,000 of the remaining Study support budget that could be used for assisting the City of Pleasant Hill with the application. City Engineer, Ananthan Kanagasundaram expressed support for the project and

7.3 Packet Pg. 48
commented it will be great for the community and will serve both Pleasant Hill and Concord.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Accept the report.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council may want to discuss one or more of the actions taken during the last meeting.

Should the City Council require detailed information pertaining to any issues, a comprehensive report could be scheduled for a subsequent City Council meeting. Contingent on the amount of information required, staff will need adequate time to prepare a comprehensive report addressing the item or items.

ATTACHMENT(S):

CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 TRANSPAC Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 Prepared and Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.3 Packet Pg. 49

COMMISSIONERS
Chris Kelley,
Chair
Federal Glover,
Vice Chair
Newell Arnerich
Tom Butt
Teresa Gerringer
Loella Haskew
David Hudson
Karen Mitchoff
Sue Noack
Lamar Thorpe
Holland White
Timothy Haile,
Executive Director
2999 Oak Road
Suite 100
Walnut Creek
CA 94597
PHONE: 925.256.4700
FAX: 925.256.4701
www.ccta.net
https://cctauthority.sharepoint.com/sites/Common/09Correspondences/RTPC Memos/2022/April 20, 2022 RTPC Memo.doc

MEMORANDUM
To: Matt Todd, TRANSPAC
Brian Bornstein, SWAT
Robert Sarmiento, TRANSPLAN
Lisa Bobadilla, TVTC
John Nemeth, WCCTAC
Bret Swain, LPMC
From: Timothy Haile, Executive Director
Date: May 4, 2022
Re: Items of interest for circulation to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs)
At its April 20, 2022 meeting, the Authority discussed the following items, which may be of interests to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees:

A. Quarterly Project Status Reports for January ‐ March 2022 Recommendation: This was an informational item only; no staff recommendation at this time.

Action: The Authority Board received an informational report on the status of the current Measure projects.

B. Contra Costa County (County) – Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvements (Project 24023) – Request for Appropriation of Additional Measure J Funds for Environmental Clearance, Design, and Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Services Recommendation: Staff sought approval of Resolution 19‐46‐P (Rev 1), which will increase the appropriation amount by $704,000, for a new total appropriation value of $1,430,000 to the County, for preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition services.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) RTPC Memorandum
May 4, 2022

https://cctauthority.sharepoint.com/sites/Common/09Correspondences/RTPC Memos/2022/April 20, 2022 RTPC Memo.doc Action: The Authority Board approved Resolution 19‐46‐P (Rev 1), which will increase the appropriation amount by $704,000, for a new total appropriation value of $1,430,000 to the County, for preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition services.

C. Contra Costa County (County) – Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements (Project 24024): Request for Appropriation of Additional Measure J Funds for Design and Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Services Recommendation: Staff sought approval of Resolution 17‐02‐P (Rev 2), which will increase the appropriation amount by $390,000, for a new total appropriation value of $913,000 to the County, for preliminary engineering and ROW services.

Action: The Authority Board approved Resolution 17‐02‐P (Rev 2), which will increase the appropriation amount by $390,000, for a new total appropriation value of $913,000 to the County, for preliminary engineering and ROW services D. Contra Costa County (County) – Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements (Project 24024): Request for Appropriation of Measure J Funds for Construction Services
Recommendation: Staff sought approval of Resolution 22‐06‐P, which will appropriate $457,000 in Measure J funds to the County, for the construction phase of the Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements project.

Action: The Authority Board approved Resolution 22‐06‐P, which will appropriate $457,000 in Measure J funds to the County, for the construction phase of the Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements project.

E. City of Walnut Creek (City) – Traffic Operations Center Communication Upgrade (Project 24037) – Request for Appropriation of Measure J Fundsfor Construction (Conversion of Letter of No Prejudice)
Recommendation: Staff sought approval of Resolution 22‐05‐P, which will appropriate $239,000 in Measure J funds to the City, for the construction phase of the Traffic Operations Center Communication Upgrade project.

Action: The Authority Board approved Resolution 22‐05‐P, which will appropriate $239,000 in Measure J funds to the City, for the construction phase of the Traffic Operations Center Communication Upgrade project.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) RTPC Memorandum
May 4, 2022

https://cctauthority.sharepoint.com/sites/Common/09Correspondences/RTPC Memos/2022/April 20, 2022 RTPC Memo.doc F. Reaffirm the Decision for How to Conduct Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the Authority
Recommendation: Staff sought approval of the Authority Board to reaffirm its decision made on March 16, 2022, and further reaffirmed at a special meeting on April 6, 2022, to continue conducting remote meetings of all legislative bodies of the Authority through May 2022, in compliance with Assembly Bill 361 (AB361) and consistent with the Contra Costa Health Services’ Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings dated March 1, 2022, which strongly recommends online meetings and social distancing, to adhere to the 30‐day requirement of AB361.

Action: The Authority Board authorized staff to continue conducting remote meetings through May 2022 for all legislative bodies of the Authority with 30-day reconsiderations.

G. Approve Consultant Eligibility List for Strategic Communications, Community Relations, and Marketing Professional On‐Call Services – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 21‐4
Recommendation: Staff sought approval of the consultant on‐call services list for strategic communications, community relations, and marketing professional on‐call services as a result of the RFQ process, and authorization for the Chair to execute the following nine (9) agreements:
1) BlinkTag, Inc. (BlinkTag)
2) CirclePoint
3) Civic Edge Consulting Inc. (CEC)
4) Convey, Inc. (Convey)
5) DPDK Creative Digital Agency (DPDK)
6) Elevate Public Affairs (EPA)
7) Next Steps Marketing Inc. (NSM)
8) SFB Consulting (SFB)
9) The PLUM Catalyst LLC (TPC)
Each in an amount not‐to‐exceed $750,000, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the contract language.

Action: The Authority Board approved a consultant on‐call services list for strategic communications, community relations, and marketing professional on‐call services as a result of the RFQ process and provided authorization for the Chair to execute the nine agreements.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) RTPC Memorandum
May 4, 2022

https://cctauthority.sharepoint.com/sites/Common/09Correspondences/RTPC Memos/2022/April 20, 2022 RTPC Memo.doc H. Quarterly Project Status Reportfor Transportation for Livable Communities and Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities Projects for January ‐ March 2022 Recommendation: This was an informational item only; no staff recommendation at this time.

Action: The Authority Board received an informational report on the status of the current Measure projects.

I. Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements, Phase 4 (Project 6001) – Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 503 and Task Order No. 2 with WMH Corporation (WMH) for Environmental and Final Design Services Recommendation: Staff sought authorization for the Chair to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 503 and Task Order No. 2 with WMH, in the amount of $6,776,877, for a new total agreement value of $23,155,044, to provide environmental revalidation, final design, and bid support services, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the language. The term will remain through December 31, 2024.

Action: The Authority Board authorized the Chair to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 503 and Task Order No. 2 with WMH, in the amount of $6,776,877, for a new total agreement value of $23,155,044 with a term remaining through December 31, 2024, to provide environmental revalidation, final design, and bid support services, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the language.

J. Circulation of the Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2022‐23 Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Budget
Recommendation: Staff sought approval to send the preliminary draft FY 2022‐23 CMA budget to the Chair of the Public Managers’ Association for circulation and approval from each member and authorize stafftomake minorrefinementsto the budget as‐needed prior to circulation.

Action: The Authority Board authorized staff to send the preliminary draft FY 2022‐23 CMA budget to the Chair of the Public Managers’ Association for circulation and approval from each member and authorize staffto make minorrefinementsto the budget as‐needed prior to circulation.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
MEETINGDATE: Wednesday, April 20, 2022
MINUTESPREPAREDBY: Tarienne Grover
MEMBERSPRESENT: STAFFPRESENT: MEMBERSABSENT:

Chris Kelley, Chair
Newell Arnerich, Commissioner
Tom Butt, Commissioner
Teresa Gerringer, Commissioner
Loella Haskew, Commissioner
Dave Hudson, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff, Commissioner
Sue Noack, Commissioner
Mark Foley, Ex­Officio Rep.

Amy Worth, Ex­Officio Rep.

Colin Clarke
Peter Engel
Tarienne Grover
Timothy Haile
Jack Hall
John Hoang
Stephanie Hu
Brian Kelleher
Matt Kelly
Hisham Noeimi
Ivan Ramirez
Sherri Sylva
Linsey Willis
David McCray, Legal Counsel
Federal Glover, Vice Chair
Lamar Thorpe, Commissioner
Holland White, Commissioner
Maureen Powers, Ex­Officio Rep.

1. CONVENE MEETING: Chris Kelley, Chair
DISCUSSION: Chair Kelley convened the meeting at 6:00 PM. Vice Chair Glover, Commissioners Thorpe and White, and Rep. Powers were absent. Rep. Foley had not yet arrived.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. PUBLIC COMMENT: Members of the public are invited to addressthe Authority regarding any item that is not listed on the agenda. Please refer to the Teleconferencing Special Notice for Public Comment guidelines.

DISCUSSION: There were no public comments on items not on the agenda.

4. PRESENTATIONS

CONSENT CALENDAR
ACTION: Commissioner Hudson moved to approve the consent calendar, seconded by Commissioner Noack. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote of the commissioners present, unless otherwise noted.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

Noes‐None
Absent‐Vice Chair Glover, Commissioner Thorpe, Commissioner White Abstain‐None
DISCUSSION: Rep. Foley arrived at 6:04 PM.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Authority Board Minutes of March 16,2022
B. Authority Board Minutes for a Special Meeting on April 6,2022

6. Administration & Projects Committee ‐ Consent:

A. Accept Monthly Accounts Payable Invoice Report for February 2022 Recommendation: Staff seeks acceptance of the monthly accounts payable invoice report for February 2022.

B. Quarterly Project Status Reports for January ‐ March2022 Recommendation: This is an informational item only; no staff recommendation at this time.

C. Approval of Proposed Actions to Various FundingResolutions Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 12‐65‐P (Rev 1), which will extend the term of the resolution to December 31, 2025 with Contra Costa County; Resolution 16‐50‐P (Rev 2), which will extend the term of the resolution to October 18, 2025 with the City of Richmond; and Resolutions 10‐02‐P (Rev 6), 10‐04‐P (Rev 7), 10‐05‐P (Rev 6), 16‐17‐P (Rev 3), 16‐43‐P (Rev 3), 18‐60‐P (Rev 2), and 18‐61‐P (Rev 2), which will terminate the resolutions with the Bay Area Rapid Transit.

D. Accept Consultant Agreement Amendment
Recommendation: Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 517 with Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Innovate 680 – Interstate 680 Bus on Shoulder (Project 8009) to provide continued engineering and environmental services. This amendment will extend the agreement termination date from June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2023 with no increase in budget.

E. Contra Costa County (County) – Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvements(Project 24023) – Request for Appropriation of Additional Measure J Funds for Environmental Clearance, Design, and Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Services

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 19‐46‐P (Rev 1), which will increase the appropriation amount by $704,000, for a new total appropriation value of $1,430,000 to the County, for preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition services.

F. Contra Costa County (County) – Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements (Project 24024):

1. Request for Appropriation of Additional Measure J Fundsfor Design and Right‐of‐Way (ROW) Services
Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 17‐02‐P (Rev 2), which will increase the appropriation amount by $390,000, for a new total appropriation value of $913,000 to the County, for preliminary engineering and ROW services.

2. Request for Appropriation of Measure J Fundsfor Construction Services Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 22‐06‐P, which will appropriate $457,000 in Measure J funds to the County, for the construction phase of the Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements project.

G. City of Hercules (City) – Hercules Rail Station (Project 4001) – Approval to Extend the Rail Station Building/Platform Construction Deadline Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 12‐06‐P (Rev 4), which will extend the rail station building/platform construction deadline with the City from July 1, 2022 to July 1, 2027.

H. City of Walnut Creek (City) – Traffic Operations Center Communication Upgrade (Project 24037) – Request for Appropriation of Measure J Fundsfor Construction (Conversion of Letter of No Prejudice)
Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 22‐05‐P, which will appropriate $239,000 in Measure J funds to the City, for the construction phase of the Traffic Operations Center Communication Upgrade project.

I. Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements, Phase 3 (Project 6001) – Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 473 with NV5 Global, Inc. (NV5) for Construction Management (CM) Services
Recommendation: Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 473 with NV5, in the amount of $125,000 for a new total agreement value of $9,539,978, to provide additional CM services, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

language. This amendment will extend the agreement termination date from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022.

J. Legislative Update
Recommendation: Staff will provide an update on legislation, along with addressing any questions that may arise. The Authority may take action on any item presented on the attachments or any State or Federal legislation pertaining to the Authority’s legislative program.

K. NEW ITEM: Reaffirm the Decision for How to Conduct Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the Authority
Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of the Authority Board to reaffirm its decision made on March 16, 2022, and further reaffirmed at a special meeting on April 6, 2022, to continue conducting remote meetings of all legislative bodies of the Authority through May 2022, in compliance with Assembly Bill 361 (AB361) and consistent with the Contra Costa Health Services’ Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings dated March 1, 2022, which strongly recommends online meetings and social distancing, to adhere to the 30‐day requirement of AB361.

L. NEW ITEM: Approve Consultant Eligibility List for Strategic Communications, Community Relations, and Marketing Professional On‐Call Services – Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 21‐4
Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of the consultant on‐call services list for strategic communications, community relations, and marketing professional on‐call services as a result of the RFQ process, and authorization for the Chair to execute the following nine (9) agreements:
1) BlinkTag, Inc. (BlinkTag)
2) CirclePoint
3) Civic Edge Consulting Inc. (CEC)
4) Convey, Inc. (Convey)
5) DPDK Creative Digital Agency (DPDK)
6) Elevate Public Affairs (EPA)
7) Next Steps Marketing Inc. (NSM)
8) SFB Consulting (SFB)
9) The PLUM Catalyst LLC (TPC)
Each in an amount not‐to‐exceed $750,000, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the contract language.

7. Planning Committee ‐ Consent:

A. Quarterly Project Status Reportfor Transportation for Livable Communities and Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities Projects for January ‐ March 2022

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

Recommendation: This is an informational item only; no staff recommendation at this time.

B. Approval of Proposed Actions to Various FundingResolutions Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 19‐19‐G (Rev 1), which will extend the term of the resolution through May 15, 2023 with the City of Concord, Resolution 19‐02‐G (Rev 3), which will terminate the resolution with the East Bay Regional Park District, Resolution 14‐11‐G (Rev 3), which will terminate the resolution after reallocating the remaining funds in the amount of $411,382.55 with the City of San Ramon, and Resolution 12‐43‐G (Rev 7), which will extend the term of the resolution through December 31, 2023 with the Town of Moraga.

C. NEW ITEM: Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. ARV‐20‐ 008 with the California Energy Commission (CEC) to Revise the Terms and Conditions to Include Streamlined Reporting, Documentation, and Invoicing Requirements to Grant Recipients
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Authority Board authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No.

AVR‐20‐008 with CEC and transmit the signed amendment to theCEC.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

8. Administration & Projects Committee ‐ Regular:

A. Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements, Phase 4 (Project 6001) – Authorization to Execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 503 and Task Order No. 2 with WMH Corporation (WMH) for Environmental and Final Design Services Recommendation: Staff seeks authorization for the Chair to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 503 and Task Order No. 2 with WMH, in the amount of $6,776,877, for a new total agreement value of $23,155,044, to provide environmental revalidation, final design, and bid support services, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the language. The term will remain through December 31, 2024.

ACTION: Commissioner Arnerich moved to authorize the Chair to execute Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 503 and Task Order No. 2 with WMH Corporation, in the amount of $6,776,877, for a new total agreement value of $23,155,044, to provide environmental revalidation, final design, and bid support services, and to allow the Executive Director or designee to make any non‐substantive changes to the language with a term remaining through December 31, 2024, seconded by Commissioner Butt. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote of the commissioners present, unless otherwise noted.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

Noes‐None
Absent‐Vice Chair Glover, Commissioner Thorpe, Commissioner White Abstain‐None
DISCUSSION: Ivan Ramirez, Director, Construction, provided a brief background and discussed the overall project features, timeline of key events, and the schedule, funding, and costs for Phases 1, 2A, and 4.

B. NEW ITEM: Adoption of a Publicly Available Pay Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022‐ 23, Approval of Changes to Authorized Positions and Approval to Amend the Salaries, Benefits, and Compensation Plan for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024 Recommendation: Staff seeks approval of Resolution 21‐35‐A (Rev 1), which will amend the Authority’s Salaries, Benefits, and Compensation Plan for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024, amend the Publicly Available Pay Schedule for FY 2022‐23 with proposed salary range adjustments to reflect the Consumer Price Index adjustment of 3.5% effective July 1, 2022, reclassify 2.0 Fulltime Equivalent (FTE) positions from Senior Engineer to 1.0 Engineering Manager and 1.0 Finance Manager, add a Director, Mobility Programs classification at a salary range of $13,379.97 to $18,074.05 per month to align with the Director, Programs classification, increase the total FTE positions for FY 2022‐23 from 20 to 21 for the Director, Mobility Programs position, contingent upon Authority Board approval of the FY 2022‐23 annual budget, and adopt a Publicly Available Pay Schedule as required by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

ACTION: Commissioner Arnerich moved to approve Resolution 21‐35‐A (Rev 1), which will amend the Authority’s Salaries, Benefits, and Compensation Plan for July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024, amend the Publicly Available Pay Schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022‐23 with proposed salary range adjustments to reflect the Consumer Price Index adjustment of 3.5% effective July 1, 2022, reclassify 2.0 Fulltime Equivalent (FTE) positions from Senior Engineer to 1.0 Engineering Manager and 1.0 Finance Manager, add a Director, Mobility Programs classification at a salary range of $13,379.97 to $18,074.05 per month to align with the Director, Programs classification, increase the total FTE positions for FY 2022‐ 23 from 20 to 21 for the Director, Mobility Programs position, contingent upon Authority Board approval of the FY 2022‐23 annual budget, and adopt a Publicly Available Pay Schedule as required by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, seconded by Commissioner Haskew. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote of the commissioners present, unless otherwise noted.

Noes‐None
Absent‐Vice Chair Glover, Commissioner Thorpe, Commissioner White Abstain‐None

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

DISCUSSION: Tarienne Grover, Director, Administrative Services, provided an overview of the proposed recommendations to adjust salary ranges by 3.5% for a Cost of Living Adjustment effective July 1, 2022 contingent upon approval of the Fiscal Year 2022‐23 annual budget in June 2022, re‐assign full‐time equivalent (FTE) positions from two Senior Engineer positions to an Engineering Manager and Finance Manager to better support the Projects and Finance departments, increase the FTE positions from 20 to 21 to add a new classification and position of Director, Mobility Programs to support the Authority’s succession planning goals and ensure continuity and longevity in the Programs department.

9. Planning Committee ‐ Regular:

A. Circulation of the Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2022‐23 Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Budget
Recommendation: Staff seeks approval to send the preliminary draft FY 2022‐23 CMA budget to the Chair of the Public Managers’ Association for circulation and approval from each member and authorize staff to make minor refinementsto the budget as‐needed prior to circulation.

ACTION: Commissioner Gerringer moved to authorize staff to send the preliminary draft Fiscal Year 2022‐23 Congestion Management Agency budget to the Chair of the Public Managers’ Association for circulation and approval from each member and authorize staff to make minor refinements to the budget as‐needed prior to circulation, seconded by Commissioner Mitchoff. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote of the commissioners present, unless otherwise noted.

Noes‐None
Absent‐Vice Chair Glover, Commissioner Thorpe, Commissioner White Abstain‐None
DISCUSSION: John Hoang, Director, Planning, provided an overview of the Authority’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA) roles, the key projects and activities of the Growth Management Program and Congestion Management Program, and an overview of the funding sources, local contributions, and draft budget for Fiscal Year 2022‐23 for CMA projects and activities.

10. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letterto the Metropolitan Transportation Commission dated April 5, 2022 RE:

Response to the Proposed Transit‐Oriented Community Policy Update DISCUSSION: Chair Kelley, Commissioner Gerringer, and Rep. Worth thanked staff forthe response letter provided to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the proposed Transit‐Oriented Community (TOC) Policy Update.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

Public Comment:

Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay, provided comments on the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements that should be included in the TOC Policy Update.

11. ASSOCIATED COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Central County (TRANSPAC): Meeting Report for the regular meeting on April 14, 2022 (Meeting handout if available)
B. East County (TRANSPLAN): Meeting Report for the regular meeting on April 14, 2022 (Meeting handout if available)
C. Southwest County (SWAT): Meeting Report for the regular meeting on April 4, 2022 (Meeting handout if available)
D. West County (WCCTAC): Meeting Report for the regular meeting on March 25, 2022 (Meeting handout if available)

12. AUTHORITY BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS
A. Chair's Comments andReports
DISCUSSION: Chair Kelley thanked staff and discussed the success of the Redefining Mobility Summit on April 5, 2022.

B. Commissioners' and Ex‐Officio Representatives’ Comments and Reports on Activities and Meetings
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Hudson discussed the Authority’s letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding thresholds under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Commissioner Butt discussed the transit recovery success in the City of Richmond, the City of Richmond’s Drive Electric Event and E‐Shuttle Launch on April 20, 2022, and the grant from the California Air Resources Board to provide an on‐demand shuttle service that serves the City of Richmond.

Rep. Worth discussed the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s framework for advocacy to identify key projects for federal funding.

C. Executive Staff Comments
DISCUSSION: Timothy Haile, Executive Director, discussed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Authority’s network of projects including Innovate 680 and the Interstate 680 (I-680) Express Bus Service, and announced that staff has been working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Authority Board Meeting MINUTES
April 20, 2022

our federal advocates on a $395 million ask for the I‐680 corridor. He provided an update on the Transit‐Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy and the next review period in early May, staff’s consideration of preparing a joint letter with the East Bay County Transportation Agencies to provide feedback on the TOC Policy Update, and the collaboration efforts for the One Bay Area Grant Cycle 3 funding with MTC and jurisdiction staff for the countywide connected signal system, Vision Zero, and Complete Streets projects with active transportation components. He further discussed his speaking engagement at the Intertraffic Conference about automated driving systems and the Authority’s vision, and an invitation to speak to the Netherlands Consulate in San Francisco. He further discussed the Mokelume Trail Bike and Pedestrian Overcrossing Groundbreaking Celebration held on March 18, 2022, Countywide Transportation Plan outreach efforts with the local jurisdictions, and the success of the Redefining Mobility Summit with the student’s innovative projects and the Femineer’s program.

13. CALENDAR
A. April, May, June, and July 2022
B. Calendar of Upcoming Events

14. ADJOURNMENT to the next regular meeting proposed for May 18, 2022 at 6:00 PM.

DISCUSSION: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 PM.

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update)

7.3.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: CCTA Executive Summary and Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) TRANSPAC Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes
MEETING DATE: April 14, 2022
MEMBERS PRESENT: Loella Haskew (Chair), Peter Cloven (Vice Chair), Clayton; Sue Noack, Pleasant Hill, Tim McGallian,
Concord; Karen Mitchoff, Contra Costa County;
Mark Ross, Martinez
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Diana Vavrek, Pleasant Hill; John Mercurio, Concord; Bob Pickett, Walnut Creek
STAFF PRESENT: Saravana Suthanthira, Concord; Ananthan
Kanagasundaram, Pleasant Hill; Andy Smith,
Walnut Creek; Abhishek Parikh, Concord; John
Cunningham, Contra Costa County; Kamala Parks,
BART; Melody Reebs, County Connection; Robert
Sarmiento, Contra Costa County; Philip Ho,
Pleasant Hill; Matt Todd, TRANSPAC Managing
Director; and Tiffany Gephart, TRANSPAC Clerk
GUESTS/PRESENTERS: Matt Kelly, CCTA; Elaine Welch, Mobility Matters; Cassandra Guerrero, Walnut Creek; Debbie Toth,
Choice in Aging; Jeff Matheson, Golden Rain
Foundation/Rossmoor; Kathryn Monroy, City of
Concord; Lori Thames, Choice in Aging; Marge
Cortes, Choice in Aging; Scott Simmons; Tara
Cantu, Choice in Aging
MINUTES PREPARED BY: Tiffany Gephart, TRANSPAC Clerk

1. CONVENE REGULAR MEETING/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SELF-INTRODUCTIONS.

Chair Haskew called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM. Tiffany Gephart called the roll and confirmed a quorum.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT.

There were no comments from the public.

3. Consent agenda

7.3.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Transpac Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) On motion by Commissioner Noack seconded by Commissioner Cloven to approve the consent agenda by unanimous vote of the members present. (Haskew, Cloven, Noack, McGallian, Mitchoff, Ross).

4. REPROGRAM MEASURE J LINE 10 FUNDS TO CENTRAL COUNTY BART NEXT GENERATION FARE GATES PROJECT.

Rob Jaques noted that the Measure J funding of $3.5 million along with $2.7 million in BART/STIP funding will allow for the replacement of existing fare gates with new gates that make it more difficult for users to bypass. Fare gates will be installed at Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center, and North Concord/Martinez stations.

Matt Todd commented that the TAC expressed support overall for the project but noted that the funding is not at the exact 50/50 target split between BART and TRANSPAC but is within a reasonable margin. The TAC also supported the inclusion of TRANSPAC in Phase 1 of this project.

Commissioner Noack asked if the design is for all the stations or just TRANSPAC. Mr.

Jaques commented that the amount listed is prorated for the TRANSPAC Region.

On motion by Commissioner Noack seconded by Commissioner McGallian to approve the reprogramming of Measure J Line 10 funds for the Central County BART Next Generation Fare Gates Project by unanimous vote of the members present (Haskew, Cloven, Noack, McGallian, Mitchoff, Ross)

5. TRANSPAC WORK PLAN AND DRAFT BUDGET PROCESS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023.

The Board agreed to schedule a closed session for the Public Employee Performance Evaluation and Labor Negotiation for the Managing Director in conjunction with the May 12, 2022, TRANSPAC Board meeting at 8:30am.

6. MONUMENT BOULEVARD/I-680 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY.

Mr. Todd noted that the draft study is being compiled and will be brought to the May Board meeting. He further noted that the state has released the call for applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and noted that this project is a good candidate for ATP Funds. Mr. Todd commented that there are three schools in the area and the project supports the Equity Priority Community along Monument. Mr. Todd also summarized the public outreach that occurred throughout the study. The City of Pleasant Hill has expressed interest in applying for ATP funding and the TRANSPAC

7.3.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Transpac Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Board has identified $24k of the remaining Study support budget that could be used for assisting the City of Pleasant Hill with the application. Mr. Todd noted that the project cost is $7.5 to $8 million with a total ask of about $10 million.

Commissioner Noack asked if Ananthan Kanagasundaram wanted to add anything as the City Engineer from Pleasant Hill. Mr. Kanagasundaram commented that the project will be great for the community and will serve both Concord and Pleasant Hill and thanked the Board for their support.

Debbie Toth asked for Active Transportation to be defined and in what way does it include people with disabilities. Mr. Todd commented that the project is a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian focused improvement and is inclusive of walk and roll options. The improvement will make it easier to cross the intersections and will allow for larger sidewalks and greater separation from vehicles.

On motion by Commissioner Noack seconded by Commissioner McGallain to Direct staff to work with the City of Pleasant Hill to complete an ATP application utilizing the remaining Study support budget. (Haskew, Cloven, Noack, McGallian, Mitchoff, Ross).

7. MEASURE J LINE 20A FUNDS PROGRAM – FY 2022/2023 AND FY 2023/2024 PROGRAMMING CYCLE.

The following organizations presented on the Line 20a programs:

1. Mobility Matters, Elaine Welch

2. City of Concord, Kathryn Monroy

3. City of Walnut Creek, Cassandra Guerrero

4. Golden Rain Foundation/Rossmoor, Jeff Matheson

5. Choice in Aging, Debbie Toth
Commissioner Noack complimented the Mobility Matters pamphlet as an excellent resource.

Mr. Todd asked Jeff Matheson if the program will be returning to pre-pandemic fixed-route service or if the service is moving towards a dial-a-ride system. Mr. Matheson commented that the program will move towards a hybrid system. There is a core area within Rossmoor that prefers the fixed-route system inclusive of the Greenline service. For the remainder of the community the dial-a-bus and potential electric vehicle on-demand rides will be utilized.

8. TRANSPAC CCTA Representative Reports
Commissioner Noack commented that the APC meeting was canceled. Commissioner Noack further commented on the Transit Oriented Communities discussion lead by MTC. MTC is making housing requirements in support of transit-oriented communities. There was discussion

7.3.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Transpac Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) around the complexity of planning for transit-oriented communities on top of zoning for RHNA housing requirements. Commissioner Haskew noted that she is now the chair of the Planning Commission and complemented Supervisor Karen Mitchoff as the former chair. She noted that the Congestion Management Agency Budget was approved.

9. TAC Oral Reports by Jurisdiction
No comments.

10. Boardmember Comments
No comments.

11. Managing Director’s Report
Mr. Todd commented that there was a public outreach meeting on April 7th for the Action Plan and there was a good conversation with a community representative although overall the event was not well attended.

12. Adjourn/Next Meeting
The meeting adjourned at 10:31 a.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 12, 2022. The location will be determined pending further guidance from the Contra Costa County Department of Health.

7.3.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Transpac Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2999 Oak Road, Ste. 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925-256-4700 Fax: 925-256-4701 Website: www.ccta.net EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
April 20, 2022
Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of Orinda: March 12, 2022 The Authority hosted a pop-up event in the City of Orinda Farmer’s Market to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of Richmond: March 13, 2022 The Authority hosted a pop-up event in the City of Richmond with Rich City Rides to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

Inframation News Interview: March 14, 2022
Linsey Willis and I were interviewed about GoMentum Station and the development of the Dynamic Personal Microtransit project in East Conta Costa County by Inframation News.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of Walnut Creek: March 15, 2022 The Authority hosted a pop-up event in the City of Walnut Creek to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

Mokelumne Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Groundbreaking: March 18, 2022 The Authority hosted a groundbreaking event for the Mokelumne POC project. This project closes a gap in the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail, a 300-mile long trail system that goes from the Bay Area to Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Mokelumne POC project started as mitigation for the Highway 4 Bypass providing bicyclists and pedestrians safe access across Highway 4. The project now has the potential to be a connection point to a future transit center, as well as a key element to the City of Brentwood’s larger vision to promote job growth and attract businesses to East County.

Innovate 680 Technical Advisory Committee – Concept of Operations (TAC-ConOps) Meeting #14:

March 21, 2022
The Authority hosted the 14th meeting of the TAC-ConOps to discuss program implementation of the Innovate 680 Program ConOps and considerations for operations and maintenance in the corridor.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of El Cerrito: March 22, 2022 The Authority hosted a pop-up event in the City of El Cerrito at the Del Norte Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

7.3.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Transpac Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update) Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2999 Oak Road, Ste. 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925-256-4700 Fax: 925-256-4701 Website: www.ccta.net Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Virtual Workshop in Lamorinda: March 24, 2022 The Authority hosted a public workshop held virtually to seek input from Lamorinda residents on the update of the CTP.

GoMentum Station Tour with Congressman John Garamendi: March 25, 2022 Jack Hall, Linsey Willis, and I provided a tour of GoMentum Station for Congressman John Garamendi. We discussed the transfer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station and the future vision of GoMentum Station.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of Brentwood: March 26, 2022 The Authority hosted a pop-up event in the City of Brentwood at the Farmer’s Market to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of Richmond: March 27, 2022 The Authority hosted a second pop-up event in the City of Richmond with Rich City Rides to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Pop-Up Event in City of Pittsburg: March 29, 2022 The Authority hosted a pop-up event in the City of Pittsburg at the BART Station to engage residents and seek input on the update of the CTP.

Intertraffic Conference: March 29, 2022
I was invited to speak at the Intertraffic Conference in Amsterdam, Netherlands to discuss the Authority, our vision for the future, GoMentum Station, and implementation of the Automated Driving System (ADS) grant. The Intertraffic Conference is one of the largest intelligent transportation systems conferences in the world. I had the opportunity to meet with the Province of North Holland to discuss ADSs, regional transportation management centers, and coordinated adaptive signal systems.

East Bay Commissioners Meeting: March 31, 2022
Representative Amy Worth met with Supervisor Jim Spering (Solano County), Daryl Halls (Solano Transportation Authority (STA)), Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci (Alameda County), Supervisor Nate Miley (Alameda County), and Tess Lengyel (Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTA)) to discuss regional federal legislative priorities, the Transit Oriented Communities Policy, and Cycle 3 of the One Bay Area Grant.

Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Virtual Workshop in West Contra Costa County: March 31, 2022 The Authority hosted a public workshop held virtually to seek input from West Contra Costa County residents on the update of the CTP.

7.3.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Transpac Committee Meeting Summary Minutes for April 14, 2022 (CCTA andTranspac Update)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: REAFFIRM RESOLUTION NO. 33-22 APPROVING CONTINUED

TELECONFERENCED, HYBRID OR IN-PERSON MEETINGS OF ALL

CITY LEGISLATIVE BODIES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
AB 361

SYNOPSIS
On September 15, 2021, the Governor signed into law AB 361, an urgency measure which allows for the continuation of teleconferenced meetings without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act. The measure requires that the findings allowing for teleconferenced meetings are affirmed every 30 days. On June 6, 2022, the City Council reaffirmed Resolution No. 33-22 (adopted May 2, 2022) allowing for teleconferenced, in-person, or hybrid (a blend of remote and in-person participants) public meetings of the City’s legislative bodies. Staff recommends the City Council reaffirm the resolution for the next 30-day period.

DISCUSSION
Background
AB 361 temporarily authorizes local agencies to hold teleconferenced meetings without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Brown Act when the legislative body of the local agency holds a meeting: 1) during a declared state of emergency, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; 2) during a proclaimed state of emergency held for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and 3) during a proclaimed state of emergency when the legislative body has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The City Council has been utilizing AB 361 to hold teleconferenced meetings since October 2021 for the City Council and all subsidiary City commissions, boards, and committees.

On May 2, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 33-22 allowing for in-person, hybrid, or fully teleconferenced meetings of all legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of AB 361.

The City Council reaffirmed that resolution on May 16th and June 6th.

7.4 Packet Pg. 70
Analysis
In order to continue teleconferenced or hybrid meetings, the Council must reconsider the factors above every 30 days, and adopt specified findings that the facts relied upon still exist.

The State of California is still under an emergency declaration regarding COVID-19, and as of the publishing of the agenda packet that contains this report, both State and local health officials continue to recommend holding online meetings, or if meeting in person, social distancing1, to help stop the spread of the virus. Contra Costa Health Services updated its Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings on June 14, 2022 (attached).

The State of California emergency declaration regarding COVID-19 remains in effect, and both State and local health officials continue to encourage online public meetings as online meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of COVID-19. If meeting in-person, social distancing, to help stop the spread of COVID-19 is recommended.

The June 6th reaffirmation of Resolution No. 33-22 expires on July 6, 2022, which falls before the next July City Council meeting. Staff therefore recommends the City Council reaffirm Resolution No. 33-22 allowing for in-person, hybrid, or fully teleconferenced meetings of all City legislative bodies through July 27, 2022 pursuant to the provisions of AB 361.

The City will continue to monitor State and local recommendations and guidelines and update the findings every 30 days, in compliance with AB 361.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Reaffirm Resolution No. 33-22 allowing for in-person, hybrid, or fully teleconferenced meetings of all legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of AB 361.

1 There are still references to social distancing in state materials including: the Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) for Medi-Cal beneficiaries located at https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Pages/COVID-19-Vaccines.aspx updated February 15, 2022; the guidance on additional vaccine doses for persons who are immunocompromised located at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/ThirdVaccineDoseQandA.aspx updated May 11, 2022; and the FAQ’s to Cal-OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standards located at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/covid19faqs.html#training updated May 7, 2022.

7.4 Packet Pg. 71

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Provide further direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution No. 33-22
Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (June 14, 2022) Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.4 Packet Pg. 72
RESOLUTION NO. 33-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

ALLOWING FOR IN-PERSON, HYBRID TELECONFERENCED, OR FULLY

TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS OF ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AB 361, AND RESCINDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 19-22
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54950 et seq.) generally requires local agencies that meet via teleconference, including through other virtual or electronic means such as Zoom, to provide public access at each location in which members of the legislative body are teleconferencing; and WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), which amended Government Code section 54953 to allow local agencies to meet virtually during a proclaimed state of emergency if state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency on March 4, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that the City of Pleasant Hill, including all its commissions, committees, and other Brown Act bodies, shall have the option of holding public meetings in-person with social distancing, via hybrid teleconferencing, or via fully teleconferencing, pursuant to AB 361 and Government Code section 54953(e).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill;
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. This Resolution rescinds and replaces Resolution 19-22.

Section 3. The City Council and all other City commissions, committees, or other Brown Act Bodies shall be authorized to meet in person with social distancing, via hybrid teleconferencing or via fully teleconferencing the meeting. A hybrid approach is one in which some persons are permitted to attend in-person, as space permits, and others are permitted to attend virtually. The legislative body shall indicate which type of meeting it is holding by noting at the top of each agenda whether an in-person location is being

7.4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Resolution No. 33-22 (Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-person Meetings 6/27/22-7/27/22) made available and if it is, approximately how many members of the public may be accommodated.

Section 4. The City Council shall take action to renew this Resolution every thirty days for as long as any state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing, but the City Council may terminate the Resolution at any time.

In the event that more than thirty days pass in between regular City Council meetings for any reason, the City Council shall take action to renew this Resolution prior to taking any action or engaging in any deliberation or discussion at the beginning of the next regular meeting or a special meeting called for such purposes.

Section 5. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3), because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 6. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution regardless of the invalidity of any particular portion of this Resolution.

Section 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of May, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Carlson, Flaherty, Noack, Rinn, Harris
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.4.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Resolution No. 33-22 (Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-person Meetings 6/27/22-7/27/22) Recommendations for safely holding public meetings
Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID 19 transmission during a public meeting.

1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of June 14, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and Covid-19 wastewater surveillance are increasing at this time. In addition to this, the predominant variant of Covid-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant and it’s subvariants the impact of which on the spread of Covid-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission.

2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person.

3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine.

4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times.

5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. If unable to host outdoors, consider ways to increase ventilation and flow of the indoor space to reduce the risk of COVID-19 while indoors.

6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well.

7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting.

Revised 6-14-2022
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County

7.4.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (June 14, 2022) (Teleconferenced, Hybrid or In-person Meetings 6/27/22- 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-3323 – (925) 671-5270 www.pleasanthillca.org

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Vice Mayor Tim Flaherty, Chair
Councilmember Ken Carlson
DATE: June 27, 2022
SUBJECT: Approve Appointment Recommendations to the Diversity Commission, Education Commission, and Library Commission
The City Council is requested to approve the following recommendation for appointment:

COMMISSIONS TERM
Diversity Commission (Recommended by
Planning Commission)
Jihawna Johnson (Planning Commissioner seat) One-year term August 2022 through July 2023 Education Commission
Jenn Moore Completion of unfilled term through April 2024 Marisa Graves Four-year term through April 2026
Ashley McDonald Four-year term through April 2026
Library Commission
Katherine Bracken (Primary) (reappointment) Four-year term July 2022 through June 2026 Julia Dozer (Alternate) (reappointment) Four-year term July 2022 through June 2026

7.5 Packet Pg. 76

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 ESTABLISHING THE PROPOSITION 4 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023

SYNOPSIS
The City is required, by the State Constitution, to annually establish and adhere to a limit on the amount of its appropriations. The limit is prescribed by a State formula. For the fiscal year 2022/2023 (FY 22/23), staff has calculated that the appropriations limit is $36,041,538. Per the adopted budget, the City expects to collect, and has budgeted to appropriate, $29,589,754 of Proposition 4-covered revenue, $6,451,784 below the appropriations limit. The Budget Committee reviewed the proposed appropriations limit at their meeting of June 10, 2022 and recommended the City Council adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the appropriations limit.

DISCUSSION
Background
In November 1979, California voters approved Proposition 4, “The Gann Initiative” which is incorporated in Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution. Proposition 4 limits the amount of tax revenue that State and local government agencies can appropriate. A jurisdiction’s annual appropriations limit is calculated based upon the level of appropriations in fiscal year 1979 and subsequent changes in the local population and cost of living.

A jurisdiction may choose between two population growth factors and two cost of living factors when calculating its appropriations limit. The choice offered regarding population growth is between the growth in city or county population. The California State Department of Finance provided the 2022 population growth rates for the City of Pleasant Hill and Contra Costa County as -0.90% and -0.41%, respectively (memorandum attached). The City used the County population growth factor, which was lower. The choice offered for the annual cost of living factor is between the growth in California per capita income and the growth in non-residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the City. The City used the growth in California per capita income, which was 7.55%.

7.6 Packet Pg. 77
Analysis
Based upon the formula dictated by law, the City’s FY 22/23 Appropriations Limit from the proceeds from taxes is $36,041,538, calculated as shown in the table below. The City expects to collect, and has budgeted to appropriate, $29,589,754 in Proposition 4-covered revenue in FY 22/23, $6,451,784 below its Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit.

FY 21/22 Appropriations Limit $33,649,387
Adjustment Factors:

Population Growth x0.9959
Inflation x1.0755
Total Adjustment Factor x1.0711
FY 22/23 Appropriations Limit $36,041,538

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact that would result from adopting the proposed annual Appropriations Limit.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the proposed resolution as recommended by the Budget Committee at their meeting of June 10, 2022.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the attached resolution.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
California Department of Finance Memorandum on Price and Population Information Prepared by: Erick Cheung, Finance Manager
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.6 Packet Pg. 78
RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL ESTABLISHING THE PROPOSITION 4 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is required to establish the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for fiscal year 21/22; and
WHEREAS, the population of Contra Costa County declined 0.41% in 2022 and the State per capita personal income grew 7.55%; and
WHEREAS, the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit for fiscal year 21/22 was calculated to be $33,649,387; and
WHEREAS, the fiscal year 22/23 revenues that represent the proceeds from taxes covered by the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit are projected to be $6,451,784 below the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that, that the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit for fiscal year 22/23 is $36,041,538.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.6.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Gann Appropriations Limit) : http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

May 2022
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Subject: Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2022, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2022-23. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2022-23 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit.

Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website
Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2022.

Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

KEELY MARTIN BOSLER
Director
By:

ERIKA LI
Chief Deputy Director
Attachment

7.6.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Memorandum on Price and Population (Gann Appropriations Limit)

May 2022
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2022-23 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2022-23 7.55
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2022-23 appropriation limit.
2022-23:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 7.55 percent
Population Change = -0.30 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 7.55 + 100 = 1.0755 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.30 + 100 = 0.997
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2022-23: 1.0755 x 0.997 = 1.0723

7.6.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Memorandum on Price and Population (Gann Appropriations Limit)

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Contra Costa
Antioch -0.06 115,142 115,074 115,074
Brentwood 0.18 64,224 64,342 64,342
Clayton -0.92 10,964 10,863 10,863
Concord -0.90 124,755 123,634 123,634
Danville -0.05 43,373 43,352 43,352
El Cerrito -0.08 25,671 25,650 25,650
Hercules -1.01 26,357 26,091 26,091
Lafayette -0.61 25,217 25,064 25,064
Martinez -0.77 37,195 36,908 36,908
Moraga -0.59 17,206 17,105 17,105
Oakley 2.08 43,627 44,533 44,533
Orinda -0.09 19,496 19,478 19,478
Pinole -1.01 18,819 18,628 18,628
Pittsburg -0.83 75,788 75,156 75,156
Pleasant Hill -0.90 34,335 34,026 34,026
Richmond -0.13 114,643 114,489 114,489
San Pablo -0.89 31,793 31,510 31,510
San Ramon -0.48 84,226 83,820 83,820
Walnut Creek -0.96 70,566 69,891 69,891
Unincorporated -0.55 177,843 176,857 176,941
County Total -0.41 1,161,240 1,156,471 1,156,555
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

7.6.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Memorandum on Price and Population (Gann Appropriations Limit)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN UPDATED AGREEMENT AND SIDE

LETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 32-06

SYNOPSIS
The Contra Costa County (“County”) Animal Services Department (“Animal Services”) provides animal services on behalf of all cities in the County (except Antioch, which has its own program). At the June 6, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed Animal Services’ proposed new service agreement. The City Council directed staff to work with Animal Services to clarify the cost reconciliation language in the agreement. Staff has completed this task and has proposed a side letter agreeing to the County’s interpretation of the cost reconciliation method, and recommends that the City Council approve the proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the proposed agreement and side letter with County Animal Services and rescinding Resolution No. 32-06.

DISCUSSION
Background
Animal Services presented the background on the development of the proposed new service agreement between itself and each of the cities for which it performs services at the June 6, 2022 City Council meeting and explained the details of the agreement. The Council questioned the language in Section 13.d of the proposed agreement regarding the cost reconciliation method, directed staff to work with Animal Services to clarify the language and intent of the section, and continued the item to June 27, 2022.

On June 14, 2022, Animal Services sent the City a revised agreement correcting the language regarding the reconciliation formula in Section 13.a.iii.B, from “the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services” to “the sum of the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services.”

7.7 Packet Pg. 83
Analysis
The current (2006) agreement between the City and Animal Services, which automatically renews each year, does not contain a specific description of services to be rendered, nor performance standards. The updated agreement that Animal Services is proposing primarily includes services that are mandated by the State, creates accountability by listing target response times for each activity type, defines what is covered under deceased animal services, describes what other services are not covered, and codifies performance reporting within the agreement.

As of June 23, 2022, the Cities/Towns of Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, Hercules, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek already approved the new agreement. At the June 6th meeting, the Council questioned the Annual Fee and cost reconciliation language in Section 13.d of the proposed agreement and found that the language did not clearly explain the per capita cost/fee model as the County described it in response to the question.

The table below explains the difference in interpretation (see italicized words) in the language of section 13.d between the City and County:

Section 13.d City Interpretation County Interpretation
Each year, the County will
prepare a reconciliation
report of actual costs
incurred by the County to
provide Animal Services
during the immediately
preceding year to ensure the
Annual Fee paid by the City
covers only actual costs
incurred to provide Animal
Services.

Each year, the County will
prepare a reconciliation report
of actual costs incurred by the
County to provide Animal
Services to the City during the
immediately preceding year to
ensure the Annual Fee paid by
the City covers only actual
costs incurred to provide
Animal Services to the City.

Each year, the County will
prepare a reconciliation report
of actual costs incurred by the
County to provide Animal
Services throughout the County
during the immediately
preceding year to ensure the
Annual Fee described in
Section 13.e paid by all
contracting cities covers only
actual costs incurred to provide
Animal Services throughout the
County.

The reconciliation report will
be completed and sent to the
City in the month of August
for each fiscal year.

The reconciliation report for
Animal Services provided to
the City will be completed and
sent to the City in the month
of August for each fiscal year.

The reconciliation report of
countywide costs will be
completed and sent to each city
in the month of August for each
fiscal year.

Any cost savings for that
fiscal year will be applied to
the following fiscal year.

Any cost savings for Animal
Services provided to the City
for that fiscal year will reduce
the City’s Annual Fee in the
following fiscal year.

Any cost savings to provide
Animal Services throughout the
County for that fiscal year will
reduce the Annual Fee for each
city on a per capita basis in the
following year to provide
Animal Services throughout the

7.7 Packet Pg. 84
County.

While the City’s interpretation of the language in Section 13.d is different from the County‘s interpretation, staff notes that there may be ambiguity in the language and recommends Council agree to abide by the County’s interpretation, as set forth in the proposed side letter to the agreement, in order to resolve the issue. The Animal Services Director has provided the attached letter confirming the side letter will be signed by the County upon approval of the agreement by the Council and execution of the agreement by the City Manager.

Based on information provided to staff by the Animal Services Director, the difference between Pleasant Hill’s per capita cost for countywide services and the cost for services within Pleasant Hill over the past two fiscal years is minimal. The City does not currently have trained staff to be able take on animal services effective July 1, 2022, and the cost and liability to hire and train employees, purchase equipment and vehicles, effectively respond to rabies or other animalrelated outbreaks, and secure shelter facilities and spay and neuter services would be significantly more than contracting with the County. City staff believes it to be beneficial to the City to execute the updated agreement, which has more clarity and commitment from Animal Services on service levels and contributes to the financial sustainability of Animal Service programs, and the side letter.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City currently pays Animal Services approximately $232,672 annually from the General Fund. Under the proposed agreement, it will pay Animal Services approximately $272,040 in FY 2022/23 and $310,952 in FY 2023/24. The City’s Finance Manager has included the projected costs in the proposed FY 2022/23 – FY 2023/24 Biennial Budget.

The updated agreement includes a defined fee structure for FY 2022/23 and FY 2023/24, which converts to a formula-based fee structure that will commence in FY 2024/25 as described at the June 6, 2022 meeting and in the agreement.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an updated agreement and side letter agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department and rescinding Resolution No. 32-06.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council could not adopt the proposed resolution and provide direction to staff on how to move forward with providing animal services to the public.

7.7 Packet Pg. 85
ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Exhibit 1: City-County Animal Services Agreement
Exhibit 2: City-County Animal Services Side Letter Agreement Letter from the County Regarding the Side Letter Agreement Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.7 Packet Pg. 86
RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN UPDATED AGREEMENT AND

SIDE LETTER WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 32-06
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department (“Animal Services”) currently provides animal control services in Pleasant Hill through an agreement between the City and County; and
WHEREAS, over the course of the past few years, Animal Services has been undergoing a strategic planning process to identify a new service model through which it can meet its legal requirements and achieve financial sustainability; and
WHEREAS, Animal Services is proposing a new service agreement between itself and all of the cities for which it performs services (attached as Exhibit 1); and WHEREAS, the current agreement between the City and Animal Services, which automatically renews each year, does not contain a specific description of services to be rendered, nor performance standards, and it is in the best interest of the City and Animal Services to have a more clearly defined agreement in place; and
WHEREAS, while the City’s interpretation of the language in Section 13.d of the agreement is different from the County‘s interpretation, the City agrees that there may be ambiguity in the language and is willing to abide by the County’s interpretation, as set forth in Exhibit 2 (attached), in order to resolve the issue; and WHEREAS, although the City’s costs will increase under the proposed agreement, it is beneficial to the City to execute the new agreement with greater clarity and commitment from Animal Services on service levels that contribute to the financial sustainability of Animal Services’ programs countywide; and
WHEREAS, the term of the newly proposed agreement begins on July 1, 2022 and continues for two years; and the agreement shall automatically renew for successive three-year periods until either party terminates this agreement by giving the other party 90 days advance written notice of termination;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the new service agreement and side letter agreement between the City and Animal Services attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 32-06 is hereby rescinded. [Signatures on the Following Page]

7.7.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement) ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.7.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

1 CITY-COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the City of Pleasant Hill , a municipal corporation in the County ("City"), enter into this City-County Animal Services Agreement (“Agreement”) effective as of July 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”).

1. Authority. The City has adopted by reference Division 416 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code (hereafter "Division 416") governing animals.

Division 416 establishes requirements and procedures for animal control by the County’s Animal Services Department. This Agreement is entered into to memorialize the County’s provision of Animal Services and enforcement of Division 416 within the City as provided in Section 416-4.208, and as authorized by California Government Code section 51301.

2. Enforcement Duties and Personnel. The County will enforce Division 416 within the City’s boundaries. The City hereby designates and appoints the County's Animal Services Director and his or her staff as public officers of the City for the purposes of this Agreement and enforcing and carrying out its provisions.

3. Scope of Services.
a. In addition to enforcing Division 416, the County will provide to the City the Field Services, Shelter Services, and Deceased Animal Services described in this Agreement (collectively, “Animal Services”) in the manner provided for in this Agreement. During periods of emergency (such as fire, earthquake, flooding, pandemic), it might not be possible to provide the Animal Services to the same extent and within the same time frames as during non-emergency times.
b. Calls made to the County for services that are not provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement will be referred back to the City in which the call was requested. In such a case, the City is responsible for determining the next appropriate action.
c. The County will provide Animal Services within the City’s boundaries in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the Ordinance Code.

4. Definitions.
a. “Critically Sick or Injured Animals” means those animals that have lifethreatening conditions. b. “Emergency Calls” means complaints of animal bites, potential rabies exposure, or attacks on humans or domestic animals that are in progress, or, when a bite or attack has occurred, where the animal remains an immediate threat to humans.
c. “Livestock” means a large domesticated agricultural animal, such as a Exhibit 1 7.7.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

2 cow, bull, steer, horse, sheep, or other large agricultural animal. d. “Regular Field Services hours” means between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm each day of the week, including Saturdays and Sundays.

5. Field Services. The County will provide the following services (collectively, “Field Services”) within the City upon a request from a City resident or person within the boundaries of the City.
a. Pick up and attempt to return to their owners domesticated animals that are found “at large,” to the extent possible without impoundment by relying on the animal’s identification, including dogs, trapped, injured, or sick cats, and other small, domesticated animals, including rabbits, chickens, turkey, geese, and ducks, but excluding wildlife, such as deer, mountain lions, opossums, wild turkeys, raccoons, skunks or squirrels unless a rabies exposure has occurred.
b. Investigate complaints of animal bites, rabies exposure and attacks to humans or domestic animals, including documenting the incident, interviewing witnesses, quarantining animals, preparing and transporting animals for rabies testing, and investigating any alleged violations of a quarantine order.
c. Enforce provisions governing potentially dangerous and dangerous animals, including but not limited to investigating complaints, designating animals, impounding animals, conducting hearings, and issuing permits for animals designated dangerous or potentially dangerous. d. Enforce provisions governing barking dogs and other noisy animals, including but not limited to conducting hearings.
e. Respond during regular business hours to police or fire department calls for assistance regarding animal-related issues. The County may provide after-hours warrant support to the City with advance notice, if County Animal Services personnel are available and willing to volunteer for the assignment, and provided the City pays additional fees sufficient to cover the County’s actual costs.
f. Investigate, cite, impound, and seek resolution of complaints regarding potential mistreatment of domestic animals by their owners.

6. Response Times for Field Services.
a. The County will attempt to respond to requests for Field Services during the hours and within the times specified in this section. The County shall maintain records of its response times to calls for Field Services. i. Priority 1 calls are Emergency Calls, which are calls for assistance from police or fire personnel and calls regarding rabies exposure, dangerous animals, and Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 1, 2, and 3 calls between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, seven (7) days per week, including

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

3 holidays.

2. For ninety-five percent (95%) of responses to Priority 1 calls, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within two (2) hours from the time when the call for service is received by County staff.
ii. Priority 2 calls are calls to pick up animals that were at large but have since been confined at a location within the County, and calls regarding urgent, animal-related requests for assistance not involving Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For eighty percent (80%) of responses to Priority 2 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 12 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls received outside of regular Field Services hours no later than 7:00 pm on the next day.

4. The County may respond to Priority 2 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene. iii. Priority 3 calls are all other calls, such as calls regarding animals at large, animals causing a nuisance, and dead animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For sixty-five percent (65%) of responses to Priority 3 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 24 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to calls received outside of regular Field Services hours on the next day.

4. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls only after the County has responded to all then-outstanding Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls.

5. The County may respond to Priority 3 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene.

7. Shelter Services.
a. The County will provide the following services to City residents (“Shelter Services”):
i. Impound and shelter lost or stray dogs, injured/sick, lost or endangered community cats, and other small, domesticated

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

4 animals that are brought to the shelter by County staff, residents of the County or cities that have contracts with the County for the provision of Animal Services. A community cat is considered endangered if it is in imminent risk of being killed, poisoned, or injured but not if, due to being at large, it is at risk of starvation, being attacked by another animal, or hit by an automobile. Orphaned kittens that cannot survive without human intervention are also considered endangered.
ii. Impound and quarantine biting animals.
iii. Provide rabies testing of animals suspected of infection. iv. Provide for reclamation of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals.
v. Provide onsite services to the public at the County’s Martinez shelter for the following: search for lost animals, reclaim animals, adopt animals, answer inquiries regarding animals, accept complaints regarding animals, provide vaccines and spay/neuter services for a small fee, conduct humane education programs, and license animals onsite or online.
vi. Provide care for sheltered animals based on the California Veterinary Board Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. vii. Provide services as required by the California Penal Code Section 597.1 and other laws governing shelters for animal care, treatment, holding periods, placements, and dispositions.
b. Medical Services. As part of the Shelter Services, the County will provide the following medical services (“Medical Services”):
i. The County will provide veterinarian services twenty-four (24) hours per day through partnerships with emergency vets to treat injured or sick impounded animals.
ii. If an animal’s condition requires immediate treatment outside of the County shelter’s regular business hours or when no veterinarian is on staff at the County’s shelter, then County Animal Services Department officers or Good Samaritans may take the animal to any emergency veterinarian clinic/hospital that is under contract with the County to provide emergency veterinary services (as posted on the County shelter’s doors and on the County’s Animal Services Department’s website).
iii. The County will monitor animals on a rabies virus quarantine. iv. The County will conduct a minimum of one vaccine clinic per month and maintain a spay and neuter clinic in Martinez, which for a fee paid by the animal’s owner will provide vaccine and spay/neuter services for County residents’ dogs and cats. The fee will be

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

5 approved by the County Board of Supervisors and published on the County Animal Services Department fee schedule.
v. Provide rabies control information free of charge to the public. vi. The County will provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597(f) of the California Penal Code. c. Shelter Services Hours
i. The Martinez shelter will be open to the public for a minimum of 30 hours per week, 5 days per week, 6 hours per day, including one weekend day each week except during weeks that are shortened by a County holiday.
ii. The Martinez Shelter will be closed on designated County holidays and one day per year dedicated to in-house staff training.

8. Deceased Animal Services. The County will provide the following services within the City in response to calls regarding deceased animals during regular Field Services hours:
a. Pick up deceased domestic animals, wildlife, and livestock from public property.
b. With property owners’ consent, pick up deceased domestic or wild animals from private property for a fee based on the Department’s fee schedule paid directly to the County Animal Services Department by the property owner or reporting party.
c. Identify and notify the owner of deceased animals, whenever possible. d. Dispose of the body of any deceased animal picked up by the County.

9. Excluded Services. The County will not provide the following services to the City under this Agreement:
a. Respond to requests for removal of live or deceased marine animals and disposal of deceased marine animals.
b. Pick up and transport wildlife, including baby birds. c. Pick up live animals for surrender. The County may, at its discretion, accept live animals belonging to County residents for surrender at the Martinez shelter and charge a fee to the animal owner or property owner as part of its regular operations.
d. Respond to pest control issues (i.e., infestations, perceived or real, of squirrels, rats, mice, insects, gophers, wasps, bees, spiders, or other pests).
e. Respond to calls regarding live, sick and injured racoons, opossum, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, wild turkeys, wild pigs, peacocks, or other wildlife unless a rabies exposure has occurred. The County will refer calls regarding live wildlife to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

6 10. Policies and Procedures. All policies and procedures shall be developed with the goal of ensuring animal welfare, enhancing cost efficiency and quality of services provided to the contracted cities and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. They will be developed to reflect best practices in the industry for animal control and shelter animal care using the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, National Animal Control Association (NACA) and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal control and animal sheltering.

11. Performance and Activity Reports. The County will deliver to the City within 14 days of the end of each quarter, an Animal Control and Results Report summarizing Animal Services provided by the County to the City during the previous quarter and including year-to-date data. This report will include the following information:
a. The total number of calls for service received by the County under this Agreement, identified by type of service and Priority level. b. A response time report identifying response times by Priority level. c. The outcomes for animals impounded, identified by City/County jurisdiction.
d. The number of calls for service received from City residents or persons within the City’s boundaries.
e. A listing of dogs registered to City residents identified as potentially dangerous or dangerous (PDA/DA) that have a valid County-issued PDA/DA permit.

12. Fees and Fines. Pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code Section 30652, all fees and fines collected by the County for providing Animal Services to the City shall be deposited into the County Treasury and shall be used to meet the County’s cost of providing Animal Services to the City.

13. Annual Fee.
a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the County the following amounts (“Annual Fee”):
i. For fiscal year 2022-2023, $7.97 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2022. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $398,500.
ii. For fiscal year 2023-2024, $9.11 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2023. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $455,500.
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

7 County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.
b. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County in four equal quarterly installments. Each installment shall be due on the first day of each fiscal quarter (i.e., July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1). The City shall make the payment to the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, 625 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553.
c. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County regardless of the amount of any fees and fines collected by the County pursuant to Division 416.
d. Each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services during the immediately preceding year to ensure the Annual Fee paid by the City covers only actual costs incurred to provide Animal Services. The reconciliation report will be completed and sent to the City in the month of August for each fiscal year. Any cost savings for that fiscal year will be applied to the following fiscal year.
e. For purposes of calculating the Annual Fee, the County shall rely on the population figures reported by the California State Department of Finance E1 Population Estimates report as of January of each year. f. The County shall notify the City of the amount of the Annual Fee for the next fiscal year by March 1st of each year.

14. Term; Termination.
a. The term of this Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continues for two (2) years. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive three-year periods until either party terminates this Agreement by giving the other party 90 days advance written notice of termination.
b. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if the County repeals Division 416 or if the City repeals its resolution incorporating and applying Division 416 within the City.
c. The County may terminate this Agreement if the City fails to pay the

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

8 Annual Fee by its due date by giving the City 30-days advance written notice.
d. The County agrees to meet jointly with all contracting city agencies annually during Quarter 2 of each fiscal year (i.e., October) to discuss potential revisions or updates through the Public Managers Association.

15. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior agreement between the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

16. Governing law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in Contra Costa County Superior Court.

17. Notices. Any notice to be given to either of the parties in connection with this Agreement shall be sent by U.S. mail to the following address:

If to County:

Director, Animal Services
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
If to City:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
The parties are signing this Agreement as of the Effective Date set forth above.

COUNTY CITY
By: Beth Ward By:

Title: Animal Services Director Title:

Date: Date:

7.7.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement) 1 SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND

THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
This Side Letter Agreement is made as of July 1, 2022, by and between the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and the City of Pleasant Hill, a municipal corporation of the State of California, in the County (“City”), with respect to the following:

WHEREAS, County and City have entered into that certain City-County Animal Services Agreement, effective as of July 1, 2022 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, as requested by City, County has agreed to provide clarification of Section

13.d in the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, County and City agree as follows:

1. Section 13.d of the Agreement is clarified as follows:

Section 13.d of the Agreement means that each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of budgeted cost compared to actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services throughout the County during the immediately preceding fiscal year to ensure the Annual Fee described in Section 13.a.iii covers only actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services throughout the County. The reconciliation report will be completed and sent to the City in the month of August for each fiscal year. Any cost savings for that fiscal year will reduce the County’s budgeted cost in the following year to provide Animal Services throughout the County, and thereby reduce the per capita Annual Fee, as reflected in the formula in Section

13.a.iii.

2. Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement.

3. Aside from the agreed upon terms set forth above, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in effect as provided therein. Furthermore, nothing in this Side Letter Agreement shall be construed to affect the interpretation of any other section(s) of the Agreement, except for those explicitly referenced above.

COUNTY:
_________________________________
By: Beth Ward
Title: Animal Services Director
Date:____________________________
CITY
__________________________________
By:______________________________
Title:_____________________________
Date:_____________________________
Exhibit 2 7.7.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Proposed City-County Animal Services Side Letter Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement) Animal Services Department
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
(925) 608-8400
Beth Ward Contra Animal Services Director
Costa
County
June Catalano
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
June 21, 2022
Re: Side Letter to Clarify Section 13.d of County City Animal Service Agreement Dear June Catalano,
Please accept the Side Letter Agreement between the County of Contra Costa and the City of Pleasant Hill that clarifies Section 13.d of the new County-City Animal Services Agreement that is being considered by your City Council.

If your City Council votes to accept the new service agreement, I will include this Side Letter in your agreement for Animal Services for the City of Pleasant Hill.

I hope this communication provides a better understanding for Section 13 d. I am happy to discuss any concerns, so please do not hesitate to reach out.

Sincerely,
Beth Ward
Beth Ward
Director
Contra Costa Animal Services

7.7.d
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Letter from the County Regarding the Side Letter Agreement (Contra Costa Animal Services Agreement)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 AUTHORIZING THE CITY

ENGINEER TO REQUEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS

ON A STATE GRANT TO DEVELOP A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP) AND RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 AUTHORIZING THE CITY

ENGINEER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) TO

SOLICIT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PREPARE A

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)

SYNOPSIS
The purpose of this item is to consider a Resolution of the City Council to authorize the City Engineer (or designee) to submit an application to Caltrans for the allocation of $40,000 in state grant funding, and to consider a second Resolution of the City Council to authorize the City Engineer (or designee) to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit professional engineering services to prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) intended for a contract amount not-toexceed $40,000.

DISCUSSION
Background
The City is submitting an application to the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the allocation of state grant funds to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). LRSP provides a framework for the City to systematically evaluate and address multimodal transportation safety needs citywide. An LRSP is required for the City to be eligible to apply for current and future Federal and State transportation grants. Caltrans had identified a State grant, which is available upon request for the City of Pleasant Hill.

Federal regulations require that the City prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to address roadway safety in its own jurisdiction and to support the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) mandate, a statewide approach to improve roadway safety. The SHSP addresses the “4Es” of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and supports the statewide plan. LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing citywide transportation safety

7.8 Packet Pg. 99
needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges. LRSP provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads.

In late 2019, Caltrans announced a Call-for-Projects for an LRSP from local agencies statewide.

On October 20, 2021, Caltrans published an updated list of LRSP State grants available to local agencies. The LRSP State grant maximum amount available to the City of Pleasant Hill is determined by Caltrans $40,000, based on the City’s current population and total road miles.

Caltrans will reimburse the City up to $36,000 or a maximum of 90 percent of the State grant amount. The City of is required to contribute up to $4,000 or a minimum of 10 percent of the State grant amount.

The State grant is designated for preliminary engineering only, and not for planning, environmental, right-of-way, construction, or construction management. Preliminary engineering scope of work includes the following: collects historical collision data and roadway data, identifies potential roadway hazards, develops solutions, recommends safety improvements, prioritizes implementation, outlines stakeholder outreach efforts, documents finding, and prepares a report.

The City intends to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to invite proposals from engineering firms to prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in accordance with the LRSP State grant mandates, as outlined in the Call-for-Projects, for a professional services agreement, and the contract is intended for an amount not to exceed $40,000.

Analysis
LRSP provides a framework for the City to systematically evaluate and address multimodal transportation safety citywide using historical collision data and roadway data. Recommended action plans, projects, and prioritization will be identified in the LRSP report.

The professional engineering services proposal evaluation and consultant selection process will be qualification based and competitive in accordance with the City of Pleasant Hill Purchasing Procedures, Purchasing and Contracts Code (City Municipal Code, Section 5.10), and applicable State laws and regulations.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s contribution of four thousand dollars ($4,000) is required to receive a State grant.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) is for a professional services agreement and the contract is intended for an amount not to exceed $40,000. The LRSP will be funded by the State grant.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

7.8 Packet Pg. 100

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends Council adopt the proposed resolutions.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not adopt the Resolutions.

If the City Council chooses not to adopt the proposed Resolution for a State grant, the City would need to seek other outside funding sources to implement the LRSP project, and the City would not be eligible to seek current and future Federal and State transportation grants.

If the City Council chooses not to adopt the proposed Resolution for a Request for Proposal (RFP), the City would be unable to meet LRSP delivery deadline.

ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Resolution (State Grant)
Proposed Resolution (Request for Proposal)
Prepared by: Philip Ho, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

7.8 Packet Pg. 101
RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AUTHORIZING THE CITY

ENGINEER TO REQUEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)

FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ON A STATE GRANT

TO DEVELOP A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is eligible to receive a State grant for certain transportation projects, through the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and
WHEREAS, Caltrans is the designated agency to administer State grants for transportation projects including the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) grant; and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) will allow the City to systematically evaluate and address multimodal transportation safety needs citywide; and WHEREAS, a completed and approved Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is required to be on file with Caltrans for the City of Pleasant Hill to be eligible to seek current and future Federal and State transportation grants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill desires to submit a request to Caltrans for the allocation of funds on a State grant for forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP); and
WHEREAS, Caltrans shall reimburse the City of Pleasant Hill up to thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000) based on a maximum of 90 percent of the State grant amount; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is required to allocate matching funds in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) or a minimum of 10 percent of the State grant amount in order to receive the State grant; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Pleasant Hill declares it is eligible to request an allocation of State grant funds for the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) pursuant to Sections 130303 and 130304 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), or that might impair the ability of the City of Pleasant Hill to receive the State grant or to implement the project; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the City Engineer and his designee are hereby authorized to submit a request for the allocation of funds on a State grant of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to implement the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP); and furthermore, be it

7.8.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (State Grant) (Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) State Grant Fund Request and Request for Proposal (RFP)) RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to Caltrans and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for their file.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.8.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (State Grant) (Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) State Grant Fund Request and Request for Proposal (RFP)) RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER

TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

TO SOLICIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ON A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill is issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit professional engineering services to prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP); and WHEREAS, the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be in accordance with the City of Pleasant Hill Municipal Code Section 5.10.050 and the City Purchasing Process; and WHEREAS, the consultant services augment City staff effort and allow the City of Pleasant Hill to meet grant requirements in an efficient and timely manner; and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) will allow the City to systematically evaluate and address multimodal transportation safety needs citywide; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill intends to use the LRSP State Grant to fund the professional services to prepare the LRSP report; and
WHEREAS, the professional services agreement is intended for a contract amount not-toexceed forty thousand dollars ($40,000); and WHEREAS, a completed and approved Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is required to be on file with Caltrans for the City of Pleasant Hill to be eligible to seek current and future Federal and State transportation grants; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the City Engineer and his designee are hereby authorized to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to invite proposals from engineering firms to prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) report; furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the City of Pleasant Hill from inviting proposals or selecting a consultant; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to Caltrans and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for their file.

7.8.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Request for Proposal) (Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) State Grant Fund Request and Request for Proposal ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

7.8.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Request for Proposal) (Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) State Grant Fund Request and Request for Proposal

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 APPROVING DIABLO VISTA WATER SYSTEM 2022 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN

SYNOPSIS
The Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS) provides raw and untreated canal water for irrigation purposes to 475 homes in the Poets’ Corner area. On June 21, 2022, the DVWS Board adopted a Drought Management Plan (DMP) in response to the Contra Costa Water District’s (CCWD) temporary drought surcharge that was approved on June 15, 2022.

The City Council reviews recommendations regarding the activities of the DVWS and matters relating to the affairs of the water system, therefore any proposed DMP and water rationing program requires Council approval.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Diablo Vista County Water System was formed in 1950 to provide untreated canal water for irrigation to 475 homes in the area bounded roughly by Oak Park Boulevard, Contra Costa Canal, Boyd Road and Patterson Boulevard, known locally as “Poet’s Corner.” In 1963, the Diablo Vista County Water District was merged with the newly incorporated City of Pleasant Hill and changed its name to Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS).

The Diablo Vista Water System (DVWS) receives its water, which is untreated, from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The system is funded by three main sources; Secured Property Tax, an annual Operating Fund Usage fee of $150 per customer, and an annual Capital Improvement fee (approved in 2004 to fund future improvements to the pump house and pipeline) of $135 per customer. The usage fee is a one-time yearly fee, for which the user receives unmetered irrigation water; all water costs are paid for by the DVWS from the Operating Reserve Fund. Any excess water charges are born by the Fund, not the individual user. Secured Property Tax monies collected are allocated to the Operating Fund per Municipal Code Section 13.20.030 - Diablo Vista Water System, Duties of the City.

A total of $310,350 in Operating Fund revenue and $63,450 in Capital Fund revenue is anticipated

8.1 Packet Pg. 106
to be collected in FY22/23. The annual usage and capital improvement fees have not increased since 2004, and while the Secured Property Tax contribution to the fund has increased with the increase in property values, there has also been a substantial increase (77%) in the untreated water costs since 2004. DVWS paid $2.44 per 1,000 gallons used in FY21/22, and a 5% to 7% increase is expected for FY22/23. Water costs comprised approximately 50% of the Operating Budget in FY21/22. The increased water costs have had a significant impact on the amount of Operating Reserve funds available for the remaining utility, administration and maintenance costs of the system.

On March 28, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-7-22 requiring increased efforts to use water efficiently. The Executive Order directed the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) to consider emergency regulations requiring urban water suppliers to implement Stage 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and up to a 20 percent water use reduction. The SWRCB issued emergency regulations on May 24, 2022, in response to the Executive Order.

CCWD has indicated that it has sufficient supply to meet efficient customer demands this year, with the CVP contract supply, local supplies, and water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

However, in response to the continued dry conditions and the Governor’s Executive Order, as well as the possibility of the drought continuing for a fourth year into 2023, on April 20, 2022, CCWD enacted a Drought Management Program (Program) consistent with Stage 2 of the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, seeking an overall 15% reduction in water use as compared to 2020. On May 1, 2022, CCWD provided a Notice of Public Hearing for a Drought Surcharge Proposal to all its users.

At a public hearing held on June 15, 2022, CCWD’s Board of Directors adopted a temporary drought surcharge for untreated water equal to $.37 per 1,000 gallons of water used. The surcharge will be effective July 1 to encourage conservation and for CCWD to recover costs related to the impacts of an ongoing drought. This surcharge will be added to the current untreated water rate of $2.44 per 1,000 gallons, for a total of $2.81 per 1,000 gallons. All users that reduce their water consumption by 15% from their 2020 water consumption will experience little to no increase in their water bill. Users who don’t meet the 15% conservation goal will see an increase in their water bill of $2.81 per 1,000 gallons used over the mandated 15% reduction.

In response, the DVWS Advisory Committee held a public meeting on June 21, 2022 to review options for a DMP which incorporates a water rationing and monitoring program. On that same date, the Advisory Committee adopted a rationing program scheduled to begin on July 1, 2022.

In April of 2022, when the system was activated, the DVWS Advisory Board requested all users reduce their water consumption 15%, to be consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order and Stage 2 of CCWD’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In April the DVWS exceeded its 2020 allotment by 7%, however in May a 4% reduction was achieved, and current usage numbers for the month of June indicate we will meet or exceed the required 15% reduction.

DVWS has a history of mandating a DMP to meet both the SWRCB and CCWD’s water conservation requirements (2009 and 2015), and has tried several different programs, including, three days per week water rationing; 2 days per week odd/even house water rationing; and 10

8.1 Packet Pg. 107
day increments for water usage, with water shut offs during that 10 day period when the allocation has been exceeded. Past experience has shown that the most effective conservation method, both for water consumption reduction and monitoring is rationing the water in 10 day increments.

Analysis
The DVWS Advisory Committee held a public meeting via Zoom on June 21, 2022, to discuss the proposed drought management plan. There were no Poet’s Corner residents in attendance.

The following topics were discussed:
 CCWD Drought Management Ordinance: Identified the need to conserve irrigation water by 15% of FY2020 consumption levels, or pay increased water costs of $0.37 per 1,000 gallons of water used
 History of past DMP’s and what was the most effective DMP for the system and the users
 Registration/Notification Methods: Identified current notification methods including; the DVWS Web Page, “Notify Me” automated alert system, and a mass mailing as not all users opted in to Notify Me
Proposed Drought Management Program
The Advisory Board anticipates that providing increased resident education of the new CCWD Drought Management Ordinance will be sufficient to obtain the 15% reduction in water usage and avoid an increase in water costs. If approved by the City Council, beginning June 28, 2022 the Board proposes utilizing a mass mailing, Notify Me, the DVWS website and the DVWS phone recorder as tools to provide information to the users regarding the need for conservation, the targeted conservation goals and the increase in water costs if the conservation goals are not achieved. The Advisory Board will monitor the water consumption through the month of July to see if the goals have been met. If met, the Advisory Board will continue their educational conservation message to continue to meet the CCWD mandate. On the last day of any month, if the mandated 15% has not been achieved, the Advisory Board will then move to a DMP beginning the first day of the following month.

At the beginning of each following month, the DVWS Board will identify the monthly water allowance available to the DVWS in order to achieve a reduction in usage of 15% compared to 2020 monthly consumption as requested by the CCWD Drought Management Ordinance. The water allowance will be split into ten day increments per month, and once the allotment has been reached for that period, the water will be turned off until the next 10 day period begins. All customers will be notified by one of the current methods, including: “Notify Me”, DVWS web page, and DVWS phone recorder.

8.1 Packet Pg. 108
The DVWS Board is requesting that the City Council adopt the proposed DMP and water rationing and monitoring program, promoting needed water conservation, and preventing an increase in water costs for the system.

FISCAL IMPACT
If the proposed DMP is not adopted, the DVWS may experience an increase in water costs, based on the amount of water used.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt resolution.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council may consider an alternative rationing and monitoring program than the one proposed.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Ann James, Maintenance Superintendent
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.1 Packet Pg. 109
RESOLUTION NO. ___-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

APPROVING A DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DIABLO VISTA WATER SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City Council reviews recommendations regarding the activities of the Diablo Vista Water System (“DVWS”); and
WHEREAS, the DVWS serves untreated canal water for irrigation purposes to 475 homes; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Water District Board passed a Drought Management Ordinance and water rationing program requiring the DVWS to reduce water usage by 15% as of July 1, 2022 or incur penalties; and
WHEREAS, the Diablo Vista Water Board (“Board”) has formulated a Drought Management Plan which provides a water rationing and monitoring program it believes fairly serves the DVWS members; and
WHEREAS, after duly notifying each DVWS member, the Advisory Committee held a public meeting on June 21, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Diablo Vista Water Advisory Committee has now requested that the Drought Management Plan be approved.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that it approves the Drought Management Plan as recommended by the Diablo Vista Water Board as follows:

1. Approve the Drought Management Plan to implement a water rationing program that reduces the amount of water available by no more than 15% in order to meet the monthly rationing allocation goal;

2. Authorize the Board to shut down the system when the water consumption exceeds the water allowance as identified in the Drought Management Plan. [Signatures on the Following Page]

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (DVWS Drought Management Plan) 2 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the Council held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

MICHAEL G. HARRIS, O.D., Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

8.1.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (DVWS Drought Management Plan)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM

AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
(COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING)

SYNOPSIS
An Assessment District is a financial mechanism that allows for the levy an assessment on a specific geographic area or parcels of real estate, which have been identified as receiving a special “benefit” from a public service or improvement. Assessment District No. 20 (“AD 20”), Commercial Landscaping and Lighting District, enables the City to provide landscape maintenance and street lighting at an enhanced level along commercial streets. The properties within the AD 20 boundaries directly benefit from these landscaping and lighting improvements.

The annual assessments paid by property owners within AD 20 and contributions by the City fund the maintenance and services provided.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within AD 20 for the 2022/2023 fiscal year, an annual report must be prepared and the City must hold a public hearing. Staff requests the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the Resolution approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 for AD 20.

DISCUSSION
Background
AD 20 was formed in 1988 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and the California Streets and Highways Code. AD 20 was amended in 1999 by creating a new zone (Zone 6) that includes the Downtown area.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within AD 20 for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”), a report on the proposed maintenance program must be prepared and a public hearing conducted on the budget and proposed assessments. The Engineer of Work, Harris & Associates, has completed and filed the annual report (“Engineer’s Report”) for FY

8.2 Packet Pg. 112
22/23 with the City Clerk. The Engineer’s Report (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution) includes descriptions of the improvements to be maintained during the fiscal year, an estimate of costs, a map of the District and Zone boundaries, and the levy of assessments upon the benefiting properties.

Construction of phase I of the Downtown tree replacement project along Crescent Drive is proposed for FY 22/23 in Zone 6. There are no new services or substantial changes in existing services proposed for FY 22/23 in the other five zones.

There are 485 properties in AD 20 that are located within Pleasant Hill. An additional 17 properties within the AD 20 boundaries are located in Concord. Eight are located east of Contra Costa Boulevard and south of Sun Valley Boulevard. Six are contained within the Sun Valley Mall Shopping Center. The remaining three properties are located east of Contra Costa Boulevard and south of Concord Avenue at the on-ramp to Interstate Freeway 680. The City of Concord has granted the City of Pleasant Hill authority to levy assessments on these properties annually since the District was established. Concord City Council Resolution No. 22-19, adopted April 12, 2022, grants consent to levy assessments on these 17 properties for FY 22/23.

Analysis
On February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 9-22 directing the preparation and filing of the Engineer’s Report for Assessment District No. 20.

On May 16, 2022, the City Council preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report for AD 20 and adopted a Resolution of Intention (“ROI”) to levy and collect assessments. In addition, the ROI provided notice of the date, time and place for a public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the assessments within AD 20.

The collection of assessments from properties within the boundaries of AD 20, together with the funds provided by the City, will ensure the continued maintenance of the lighting and landscape improvements within the boundaries of AD 20. Maintenance staff provides for the maintenance of improvements, including weekly mowing and edging of turf; maintaining and repairing irrigation systems; pruning; removing debris and graffiti; repairing street lights; and weeding, as well as, paying for utility charges for water and electricity.

If AD 20 assessments are confirmed for FY 22/23, staff will continue to provide maintenance services for the District. The AD revenues include $423,891 in assessments collected from property owners within AD 20, a $97,946 contribution from the General Fund, and estimated interest of $14,836 for a total of $536,673.

Assessments are made upon the various properties within AD 20 in proportion to the estimated special benefits received. As part of establishing special benefit, properties within the District are divided into six zones of improvement with different assessments based on the amount of special benefit conferred. The City tracks the cost of maintaining the improvements, including incidental expenses, within each zone. Contributions from the City’s General Fund are made by the City in Zones 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to offset benefits shared with the general public. In Zone 4, in lieu of a contribution, the City pays for the cost to maintain a portion of the Canal Trail median at Gregory Lane. Assessment rates have been established in each zone based upon acreage, street

8.2 Packet Pg. 113
frontage, and benefit received. These rates are listed in the attached Engineer’s Report.

Zone 2 is currently projected to have a reserve balance this fiscal year. City staff began working with the Engineer of Work in early 2020 to identify ways to reduce expenses and increase assessments in an effort to address the growing deficit in Zone 2. Because the City Council approved a maximum rate for Zone 2 of $744.00 in FY 88/89, Zone 2 was assessed at that maximum allowable rate again beginning in FY 21/22 to eliminate the deficit within a period of approximately five years. Dues to staff efforts to identify ways to lower expense, and water conservation efforts during the drought, the deficit has been eliminated as of the end of this fiscal year. The properties will continue to be assessed at the approved rate, however, to rebuild the reserve for future improvements.

In Zone 6, the conceptual design of the Downtown tree replacement project was completed and presented to the Downtown property managers in FY 21/22. The Downtown owners committed to funding $100,000 of the project; construction of the first phased of the tree replacement project is scheduled for FY 22/23. The Assessment District contribution is budgeted at $90,000; additional funding must be identified to complete the project. The reserve fund for Zone 6 will be depleted by the end of FY 22/23. Assessments for the Zone are proposed to be increased by the allowable CPI (3.21%). Increasing the assessments, however, will not be sufficient to meet the estimated expenses over the next few years. As a result, it may be necessary to conduct a property owner assessment ballot process within Zone 6 so that assessment rates can be increased above the current allowable maximum.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pleasant Hill will contribute approximately $97,946 from the General Fund toward the landscape and lighting costs. This contribution is intended to offset the portion of the landscape and lighting improvements that provide shared benefit to both the general public and in particular, those properties that are not in the District and are in front of or lie adjacent to District improvements within the City’s right of way. Should the Assessment District not be renewed for FY 22/23, there would be a loss of $423,891 in assessment revenues to fund maintenance activities within AD 20.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. The Resolution of Intention was also published in the Contra Costa Times on June 6, 2022.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Open, conduct, and close the Public Hearing and adopt the Resolution Approving the Engineer’s Report, Confirming the Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments for FY 22/23

8.2 Packet Pg. 114

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Should the Assessment District not be renewed for FY 22/23, there would be a loss of $423,891 in assessment revenues to fund maintenance activities within AD 20. The City would need to fund these maintenance activities or services would need to be suspended or substantially reduced.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Exhibit 1 - Engineer’s Report
Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.2 Packet Pg. 115
RESOLUTION NO. _ -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20 (COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING) WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9-22 directing the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 annual report for Assessment District No. 20 (Commercial Landscape and Lighting) (AD 20); and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 35-22 entitled “A Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill to Order Improvements, Levy Assessments, and Provide for Public Hearing and Notice in Assessment District No. 20 for the 2022/2023 Fiscal Year” (the Resolution of Intention); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the Engineer’s Report on the Levy and Collection of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/2023/ (“FY 22/23”) for AD 20 prepared by Harris & Associates, was filed with the City Clerk and preliminarily approved subject to certain conditions set forth therein; and; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report contains the proposed amounts of the assessments to be levied on assessable lots and parcels of land in all areas of AD 20 for FY 2022/23; an estimate of the costs of the improvements; a diagram for the assessment district; and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements; a description of any substantial changes in the improvements; and the other matters required by Section 22565 through 22574 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the individual assessments for FY 22/23 year in Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not proposed to increase from the prior year; and
WHEREAS, the assessment rate for Zone 6 is proposed to be increased by the annual CPI of 3.21%, which is within the approved assessment range for the Zone and does not constitute an “increased assessment;” and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention directed that June 27, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill or via teleconference as noted on the posted agenda (available on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, at the Pleasant Hill Police Department, and on the City’s web page a minimum of 72 hours before the meeting) be the time and place for the City Council to hold a public hearing on the proposed assessments for FY 22/23 and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on the proposed improvements and the proposed assessments for FY 22/23 on June 27, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written protests at the public hearing; and

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) WHEREAS, the City Council may proceed, pursuant to Section 22631 of the Streets and Highways Code, to adopt a resolution confirming the levy of the assessments on the assessable parcels of property in the Assessment District, and the adoption of such a resolution shall constitute the levy of assessments on all assessable lots and parcels of property within such zones for FY 22/23; and WHEREAS, the assessments for FY 22/23, which will be levied on the assessable lots and parcels of land in AD 20 do not exceed the amounts of the assessments which were approved by the property owners;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that:

1. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.

2. The assessable lots and parcels of land benefited by the improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are shown by the Boundary Map and Assessment Diagram of AD 20 for FY 22/23 filed in the office of the City Clerk, which is made a part hereof by this reference.

3. Any protests to the proposed improvements and the estimated costs and assessments have been received, noted and are overruled.

4. The Engineer’s Report, the Assessment Diagram, and the assessment contained therein for the payment of the costs of the maintenance and servicing of the improvements in Assessment District No. 20 for FY 22/23 are confirmed and are hereby levied. The adoption and approval of the attached Engineer’s Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in the report, as herein above determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to the report, or any portion thereof.

5. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer's Report, offered and received at the hearing, this City Council expressly finds and determines that: (a) each of the several lots, parcels of land, and property will be specially benefited by the installation and maintenance of the improvements, (b) the amount of the assessment imposed on any parcel will not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel; and (c) there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid finding and determination as to special benefits.

6. Immediately, upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than August 10, 2022, following such adoption, the City Clerk, shall file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of Contra Costa. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter the assessment thereupon as shown in the Engineer’s Report. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes and all laws applying to the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection, the assessments (after deduction of any costs of collections), shall be paid to the City of Pleasant Hill.

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23)

7. Upon receipt of the money representing the collection of the assessments, the City shall deposit said collections in a special fund to be used for the costs of the improvements herein ordered.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit 1 – Engineer’s Report

8.2.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
JUNE 2022

PREPARED BY
Harris & Associates
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 500
Concord, CA 94520
www.weareharris.com

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER….……………………………………………………………..1 PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS……………………………………………………………………..3 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COSTS………………………………………………………………………………….5 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ………………………………………………………………………….14 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT……………………………………………………………….15 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL…………………………………………………………………………..24 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT DIAGRAM………….……………………………………………………………...40 APPENDIX C – DISTRICT PARCELS IN CITY OF CONCORD………….………………………………41

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
1 STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
AGENCY: CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The preparation of this Annual Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is in conformance with the obligation of the City Council for Assessment District No. 20 (“District”) of the City of Pleasant Hill, to levy an assessment for landscaping and lighting services upon each lot or parcel of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”).

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500) (“Act”), Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the State of California Constitution, and in accordance with the City of Pleasant Hill’s Resolution being adopted by the City Council for the:

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 20
(Hereinafter referred to as the “District”),
I, Anna C. Tan-Gatue, authorized representative of the District, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer submit the following Report which consists of the following four (4) parts and Appendices:

PART 1
Description of Improvements: This part provides a general description of improvements proposed to be maintained in the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file with the City and are hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

PART 2
Estimate of Cost: This part contains the cost estimate of the proposed maintenance including incidental costs and expenses for FY 22/23.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
2 PART 3
District Diagram: This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the external boundaries of the District. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report. The District Diagram is also filed under separate cover with the office of the City Clerk.

PART 4
Method of Apportionment of the Assessments: This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments as adopted by the City Council, based upon parcel classification of land within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received. The costs and expenses of the District have been assessed upon the parcels of land within the boundaries of District pursuant to the initial methodology established at the time of formation. For particulars as to the identification of parcels, reference is made to the District Diagram.

Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment Roll
Appendix B – District Diagram
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the costs and expenses of the District have been assessed to the lots and parcels within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the services provided.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2022
___________________________________________
Anna C. Tan-Gatue, P.E., Assessment Engineer
06/30/23 R.I.E. No. I4356
Engineer of Work

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
3 PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Assessment District No. 20 (Commercial Landscaping and Lighting) (“AD 20” or “District”) was formed in 1988 in order to provide and preserve a high level of landscape maintenance and street lighting on commercial streets within the District. AD 20 consists of six zones. They are managed as six separate accounts within the existing District. The locations of these zones are described in the table below, and are also shown on the Assessment Diagram included as Appendix B of this Report.

The Assessment Diagram, included herein as Appendix B, refers to the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for an exact description of the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District.

Zone General Locations
1 Consists of several areas along Contra Costa Boulevard, Chilpaningo Parkway, Golf Club Road, Ellinwood Drive, Woodsworth Lane, Cleaveland Road and Gregory Lane.

The Zone runs from the Pleasant Hill City limits to the north, to Gregory Lane to the south, and includes the Target and Sun Valley Shopping Centers. 2 Located north of Hookston Road, south of Monument Drive, east of the I-680 freeway and west of Buskirk Avenue. Zone 2 also includes an area north of Lisa Lane between the Iron Horse Regional Trail and Monument Boulevard.
3 Consists of five non-contiguous areas. One is located along Oak Park Boulevard and Putnum Boulevard, between Monte Cresta Avenue and Keats Circle; the second is located along Oak Park Boulevard, west of the I-680 freeway; the third is generally located north of Coggins Drive, south of Mayhew Way and east of the I-680 freeway; the fourth is generally bounded by Astrid Drive on the south, the I-680 freeway to the east and the EBMUD Trail to the west; the fifth is generally bounded by Monument Boulevard to the north, Mayhew Way to the south, the Pleasant Hill City limits on the east and Vincent Drive to the west.
4 Consists of three non-contiguous areas along the north and south sides of Gregory Lane, between Twinview Drive and Khars Avenue.
5 Consists of three non-contigouous areas. One is generally on the northwest corner of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, south of Paso Nogal Road; the second is on the north side of Taylor Boulevard, at Morello Avenue; and the third is along Taylor Boulevard, between Grayson Creek and the Contra Costa canal. 6 Located in the Pleasant Hill downtown area, generally bounded by Gregory Lane to the north, Boyd Road to the south, the I-680 freeway to the east and Cleaveland Road to the west.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
4 Improvements and Services Provided
The improvements and services provided in the District include the following:

1. Street Lighting Installation Maintenance and Servicing

2. Landscape Installation Maintenance and Servicing

3. Measure C Improvement Plans for Contra CostaBoulevard-Monument Boulevard - Buskirk Avenue (portions not included within Zone 6)

4. Installation Maintenance and Servicing of Appurtenant Public Facilities – Crescent Drive and Crescent Plaza
Documents for each of the above listed improvements, detailing the general nature, location, quantity and services provided are available for review in the City offices, and are incorporated herein by reference.

In Zone 6, along Crescent Drive, an irrigation and phased tree replacement study was conducted and a draft street tree inventory and sustainability guidelines book was completed, with a draft report submitted in May 2020. This study was originally budgeted in FY 18/19 but delayed until FY 19/20. Staff reviewed the draft report and shared the findings with the Downtown property manager to review a future phased tree replacement project dependent on available capital funds and reserves.

FY 2022-23 Proposed Projects
Construction of phase I of the Downtown tree replacement project along Crescent Drive is proposed for FY 22/23 in Zone 6. There are no new services or substantial changes in existing services proposed for FY 22/23 in the other five zones.

Sidewalk repairs
Minor repairs to grates and sidewalks have been made at various locations in the District to repair conditions caused by the City’s street trees. The City will continue to identify and address raised, sunken, cracked or broken sidewalk areas that could become potential tripping hazards to pedestrians throughout all six zones.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
5 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COST
The estimate of cost table includes, for each zone, the proposed costs for the coming fiscal year (FY 22/23), and a projection of costs for two additional fiscal years.

City Contributions
The total cost of the improvements in each zone has been reduced by a contribution from the City, as shown on the individual budget pages. The contributions in Zone 1, 2 and 3 are roughly equal to the estimated costs to maintain streetlights in these zones (formerly maintained with Uniform Street Lighting District No. 1 funds). The contribution to Zone 5 addresses the general benefit conferred to residential properties from landscaped median maintenance on Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road.

A $650 contribution to Zone 4 is made to offset General Benefit received from maintenance of the Canal Trail medians.

The contribution made by the City to Zone 6 offsets the estimated general benefit received by properties not within the District and the share of the City Hall maintenance not considered to be of special benefit to Zone 6 properties. The amount of this contribution is not changing from previous years, but a more in-depth look will be taken in the future.

These General Fund contributions also address any general benefits conferred to properties that may be outside the District boundary.

The table below shows an Income and Expenditure summary for all Zones.

The information shown in the table above demonstrates the downward trend of the total balances within the District.

While Interest, Assessments, General Fund Contributions and Expenses remain constant or relatively constant, the Balances continue to be depleted. This is due to additional improvements and enhancements provided by the District and City over the past several years and additional maintenance for those improvements and enhancements without an increase in assessments. Additionally, the assessment revenues in a few of the Zones are insufficient to cover annual operating expenses, including increasing utility and maintenance costs, and as a result, the balances continue to dwindle. City staff continues to monitor and evaluate the entire District and will make recommendations to reduce service levels or request increased assessments as necessary. FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 Beginning Balance - July 1 $262,307 $128,277 $62,403
Interest $14,836 $15,023 $15,314
Assessments $423,891 $429,229 $437,556
General Fund Contribution $97,946 $97,946 $97,946
Expenses $670,702 $608,073 $604,397
Zone Assessment Deficiencies ($124,449) ($69,065) ($56,514) Ending Balance - June 30 $128,315 $62,403 $8,822

INCOME AND EXPENSE SUMMARY

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
6 Total Reserve Balance
The Total Reserve Balance is the total of the Balance Forward, plus Revenues, minus Expenses. Any Reserve Fund Adjustments are contributions to the Reserve Fund to plan for future replacement needs or deductions from the Reserve Fund to keep the assessment at or below the Maximum Allowable Assessment for that Zone.

Budget sheets for the individual Zones are included on the following pages.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
7 Zone 1
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 57,293 $ 18,838 $ (26,043)
Interest $ 5,596 $ 5,596 $ 5,596
Assessments $ 159,880 $ 159,880 $ 159,880
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 21,100 $ 21,100 $ 21,100 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 186,575 $ 186,575 $ 186,575

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 2,803 $ 2,887 $ 2,973
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 73,595 $ 75,803 $ 78,077 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 7,630 $ 7,706 $ 7,783 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Street Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 42,699 $ 43,980 $ 45,299
Utilities - Water $ 89,574 $ 92,261 $ 95,029
Utilities - Other $ 2,985 $ 3,075 $ 3,167
Advertising $ 514 $ 514 $ 514
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 231 $ 231 $ 231 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 225,030 $ 231,456 $ 238,073
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 57,293 $ 18,838 $ (26,043) Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ (38,455) $ (44,881) $ (51,498) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 18,838 $ (26,043) $ (77,540) Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ - $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ - $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 18,838 $ (26,043) $ (77,540)
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (192 parcels) 138.352 138.352 138.352 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 Maximum Allowable Assessment Rate(6) $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 $ 1,155.60 Total Proposed Assessment $ 159,880 $ 159,880 $ 159,880 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 Costs to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks as needed. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment. * If expenditures continue at the projected rate, assessment balancing measures will be needed in FY 2024/25.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
8 Zone 2
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 10,753 $ 18,672 $ 25,027
Interest $ 1,366 $ 1,366 $ 1,366
Assessments $ 39,026 $ 39,026 $ 39,026
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 25,194 $ 25,194 $ 25,194 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 65,586 $ 65,586 $ 65,586

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 515 $ 530 $ 546
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 25,351 $ 26,112 $ 26,895 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 2,049 $ 2,070 $ 2,090 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Streetlight Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 3,678 $ 3,789 $ 3,902
Utilities - Water $ 21,630 $ 22,279 $ 22,947
Utilities - Other $ 141 $ 145 $ 150
Advertising $ 138 $ 138 $ 138
Supplies - Pesticides $ 103 $ 106 $ 109
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (3) $ 62 $ 62 $ 62
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 57,668 $ 59,231 $ 60,840
Reserve Balances
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 10,753 $ 18,672 $ 30,420 Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ 7,814 $ (3,076) $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 18,567 $ 15,596 $ 30,420 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 105 $ 9,432 $ (5,393) Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ - $ - $ 4,746
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 105 $ 9,432 $ (647) TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 18,672 $ 25,027 $ 29,773
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (34 parcels) (5) 35.641 35.641 35.641 Total Assessable Linear Feet 2,497.87 2,497.87 2,497.87 Proposed Assessment Rate/Acre $ 774.00 $ 774.00 $ 774.00 Total Assessment per Acre $ 27,586 $ 27,586 $ 27,586
Maximum Allowable Assessment per Acre(6) $ 774.00 $ 774.00 $ 774.00 Proposed Assessment Rate/LF $ 4.58 $ 4.58 $ 4.58
Total Assessment per/LF $ 11,440 $ 11,440 $ 11,440
Maximum Allowable Assessment per/LF $ 4.58 $ 4.58 $ 4.58 Total Proposed Assessment $ 39,026 $ 39,026 $ 39,026 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 4 Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 5 Total EDU was derived by combining acreage and linear feet to determine actual assessment amounts. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
9 Zone 3
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 35,611 $ 37,600 $ 38,901
Interest $ 785 $ 785 $ 785
Assessments $ 22,417 $ 22,417 $ 22,417
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 6,929 $ 6,929 $ 6,929 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 30,130 $ 30,130 $ 30,130

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 1,545 $ 1,591 $ 1,639
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 7,629 $ 7,858 $ 8,094 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 4,496 $ 4,541 $ 4,587 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 750 $ 750 $ 750
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 8,615 $ 8,874 $ 9,140
Utilities - Water $ 1,676 $ 1,726 $ 1,778
Utilities - Other $ 1,991 $ 2,050 $ 2,112
Advertising $ 303 $ 303 $ 303
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 171 $ 171 $ 171 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 965 $ 965 $ 965 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 28,141 $ 28,830 $ 29,538
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 14,071 $ 14,415 $ 14,769 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 14,071 $ 14,415 $ 14,769 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 21,540 $ 23,185 $ 24,132 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ 1,989 $ 1,301 $ 592
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 23,530 $ 24,486 $ 24,724 TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 37,600 $ 38,901 $ 39,493
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (186 parcels) 80.269 80.269 80.269 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 279.27 $ 279.27 $ 279.27
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 279.27 $ 279.27 $ 279.27 Total Proposed Assessment $ 22,417 $ 22,417 $ 22,417 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 3% escalator. 3 Costs to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks as needed. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
10 Zone 4
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 8,587 $ 6,183 $ 3,558
Interest $ 220 $ 220 $ 220
Assessments $ 6,285 $ 6,285 $ 6,285
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ - $ - $ - SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 6,505 $ 6,505 $ 6,505

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 214 $ 221 $ 227
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 4,753 $ 4,896 $ 5,043 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 582 $ 588 $ 594 Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 670 $ 690 $ 710
Utilities - Water $ 1,545 $ 1,591 $ 1,639
Advertising $ 40 $ 40 $ 40
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (3) $ 55 $ 55 $ 55
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 800 $ 800 $ 800 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 8,909 $ 9,131 $ 9,358
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 4,455 $ 4,565 $ 3,558 Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ - $ (1,007) $ (2,853)
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 4,455 $ 3,558 $ 705 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 4,133 $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (4) $ (2,404) $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 1,728 $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 6,183 $ 3,558 $ 705
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (25 parcels) 10.389 10.389 10.389 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 605.00 $ 605.00 $ 605.00
Maximum Allowable Assessment (5) $ 605.00 $ 605.00 $ 605.00 Total Proposed Assessment $ 6,285 $ 6,285 $ 6,285 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 4
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 5 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment. * If expenditures continue at the projected rate, assessment balancing measures will be needed in FY 2025/26.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
11 Zone 5-A
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 34,961 $ 36,806 $ 37,811
Interest $ 586 $ 586 $ 586
Assessments $ 16,756 $ 16,756 $ 16,756
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 14,807 $ 14,807 $ 14,807 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 32,149 $ 32,149 $ 32,149

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 236 $ 243 $ 250
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 13,905 $ 14,322 $ 14,752 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 1,176 $ 1,188 $ 1,199 Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 2,398 $ 2,470 $ 2,544
Utilities - Water $ 10,300 $ 10,609 $ 10,927
Utilities - Other $ 766 $ 789 $ 812
Advertising $ 77 $ 77 $ 77
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 47 $ 47 $ 47
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 30,304 $ 31,144 $ 32,009
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 15,152 $ 15,572 $ 16,005 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 15,152 $ 15,572 $ 16,005 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 19,809 $ 21,234 $ 21,806 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ 1,845 $ 1,005 $ 140
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 21,653 $ 22,238 $ 21,946 TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 36,806 $ 37,811 $ 37,951
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (16 parcels) 20.390 20.390 20.390 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 821.76 $ 821.76 $ 821.76
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 821.76 $ 821.76 $ 821.76 Total Proposed Assessment $ 16,756 $ 16,756 $ 16,756 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 Costs to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks as needed. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
12 Zone 5-B
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 15,331 $ 10,179 $ 4,318
Interest $ 325 $ 325 $ 325
Assessments $ 9,284 $ 9,284 $ 9,284
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 12,278 $ 12,278 $ 12,278 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 21,887 $ 21,887 $ 21,887

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 196 $ 202 $ 208
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 12,317 $ 12,687 $ 13,067 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 975 $ 985 $ 995 Contractual Services $ - $ - $ -
Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance (3) $ 500 $ 500 $ 500
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 1,989 $ 2,035 $ 2,096
Utilities - Water $ 8,662 $ 8,922 $ 9,190
Utilities - Other $ 635 $ 654 $ 674
Advertising $ 64 $ 64 $ 64
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 1,650 $ 1,650 $ 1,650 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 27,038 $ 27,748 $ 28,493
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 13,519 $ 10,179 $ 4,318 Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ (3,340) $ (5,862) $ (6,606) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 10,179 $ 4,318 $ (2,289) Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ - $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (5) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ - $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ 10,179 $ 4,318 $ (2,289)
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (27 parcels) 17.926 17.926 17.926 Proposed Assessment Rate $ 517.88 $ 517.88 $ 517.88
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 517.88 $ 517.88 $ 517.88 Total Proposed Assessment $ 9,284 $ 9,284 $ 9,284 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 3 One-time cost to identify and repair large cracks & lifts in curbs and sidewalks. 4 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5
Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. 6 Max. Assessment rate was estabished at the time of formation. There is no allowable inflationary adjustment. * If expenditures continue at the projected rate, assessment balancing measures will be needed in FY 2025/26.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
13 Zone 6
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 99,771 $ (0) $ (24,169)
Interest $ 5,959 $ 6,145 $ 6,437
Assessments (1) $ 170,244 $ 175,582 $ 183,909
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 17,638 $ 17,638 $ 17,638 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 193,840 $ 199,365 $ 207,984

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (2) $ 618 $ 637 $ 656
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (2) $ 4,998 $ 5,148 $ 5,302 District Engineering and Annual Report (3) $ 2,257 $ 2,280 $ 2,302 Contractual Services/Construction (4) $ 165,614 $ 170,000 $ 170,000 Tree Replacement Project (5) $ 90,000 $ - $ -
Assessment Increase Project (6) $ - $ 15,000 $ -
Curb and Sidewalk Maintenance $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 18,224 $ 18,224 $ 18,224
Utilities - Water $ 11,114 $ 11,448 $ 11,791
Utilities - Other $ 388 $ 400 $ 412
Advertising $ 148 $ 148 $ 148
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (7) $ 50 $ 50 $ 50
Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 293,611 $ 223,533 $ 209,085
Reserve Balance
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 99,771 $ (0) $ (24,169) Reserve Fund Adjustments (8) $ (99,771) $ (24,168) $ (1,101) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ (0) $ (24,169) $ (25,270) Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ - $ - $ - Reserve Fund Adjustments (8) $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 (8) $ - $ - $ - TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE: $ (0) $ (24,169) $ (25,270)
Total Assessable Acreage/EDU (22 parcels) 40.294 40.294 40.294 Total Assessable Linear Feet 1,128 1,128 1,128
Proposed Assessment Rate (9) Varies Varies Varies
Maximum Allowable Assessment (10) Varies Varies Varies 1 Assessments for 2022-23 have increased by the allowable CPI. Refer to page 22 of this Report for details. 2 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 3 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years include a 1% escalator. 4 Downtown Property Management Maintenance Contract. 5 Downtown tree replacement capital project. 6 Proposed Proposition 218 assessment increase project as expenses are exceeding revenues. 7 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 8 Contributions to or Deductions from the Reserve Fund(s) to keep assessments below Max. or add to the funds. and discuss with the Downtown Property Manager, and perform the work when sufficient capital reserve funds are available. 9 Proposed Assessment Rates were established at the time of formation, and vary for each Zone in the District. 10 Maximum Assessment Ranges are detailed in this Engineer's Report.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

Other Areas: $1,155.60 plus $4.57/LF to $1,733.40 plus $6.86/LF of parcel frontage.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
14 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of each Zone within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District has been submitted to the office of the City Clerk of the City of Pleasant Hill, and is hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

A copy of the Assessment Diagram is also included in Appendix B of the Report.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
15 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
General
Street and Highways Code Section 22573 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
— Streets and Highways Code Section 22573
The 1972 Act permits the designation of areas of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements." (Sec. 22574). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax."
In November 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 218, which has been codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 imposed a number of substantive and procedural requirements on taxes, assessments, and property-related fees imposed by local governments in California.

The method of apportionment described in this Report, and confirmed by the City Council, utilizes commonly accepted engineering practices which have been established pursuant to the 1972 Act and the California Constitution for the allocation of special benefit assessments. The calculation of assessments is based upon the parcel type and the services and improvements provided to equitably apportion the costs based on the special benefit received by each lot or parcel.

The special benefit received by each lot or parcel is over and above any general benefit conferred upon said lots or parcels or to the public at large.

Special Benefit
The improvements and associated costs have been allocated to the assessable properties within the District based upon the special benefit received by those properties. The improvements for which the properties are assessed have been identified as necessary, were installed and are being maintained as part of the development plans. As such, the costs to maintain and service the improvements are strictly the obligation of the properties within the District.

General Benefit
Although the improvements may be visible to passersby or to the public at large, the improvements were installed as a requirement of the development of the tract and are for the sole benefit of properties within the District. It has been determined however, due to limited access or use by properties or individuals outside the District, the City will contribute an amount to account for the incidental general benefits conferred to those outside properties or individuals.

The City contribution is shown on the Cost Estimate pages in Part 2 of this Report.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
16 Definition of Special Benefit
The method of apportionment described in this Report is based on the premise that each assessable parcel or unit receives distinct and special benefits from the improvements and services provided, including the visual desirability provided by well-maintained landscaping. In accordance with Article XIII D, Section 4 of the California Constitution:
“Special benefit means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or the public at large” The special benefits associated with local landscaping improvements are specifically:
 Enhanced desirability of properties due to proximity and accessibility of the improvements.  Improved aesthetic appeal provided by a positive representation of the development, neighborhood and the community.
 Improved ingress and egress to property resulting in enhanced traffic flow, reduced traffic accidents and consequent reduction of possible property damage.
 Improved traffic visibility and circulation.
 Improved accessibility for emergency vehicles.
 Reduced vandalism and other criminal activity.

ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
To impose a new assessment or increased assessment in excess of the Maximum Assessment Rate for the current fiscal year, the City must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution, Article XIII D, Section 4c that requires a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Property owners must approve the proposed new or increased assessment via a property owner protest balloting process before any such new or increased assessment can be imposed. A protest occurs when, at the public hearing, the returned assessment ballots opposed to the new or increased assessment outweigh the returned ballots in favor of the new or increased assessment, weighted by the financial obligation of each parcel.

The definition of new or increased assessments includes any assessment which, 1) did not previously exist or, 2) exceeds a previously approved assessment amount or assessment range formula. Any assessment range formula must have been previously adopted by the agency and approved by the property owners.

Assessment Methodology
It is generally recognized that most budgetary items will be impacted by inflation in future years. In accordance with the California Constitution, Section 53739 (b)(1), assessments “may be adjusted for inflation pursuant to a clearly defined formula…” A formula for an inflationary adjustment is therefore included as part of the maximum assessment for this District and was approved by the property owner(s) at the time of formation. The formula, as described below, allows for annual adjustments to the budget and the assessments.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
17 The benefit formula used to determine the financial obligation for each parcel is based on the benefit received from improvements and services provided by each assessed parcel. One of the more common approaches to fairly distributing District costs to the benefitting parcels in maintenance districts such as this utilizes a methodology referred to as the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) method of apportionment. This method utilizes various property characteristics such as development status, type of development (land-use) and size (units or acreage) to compare the proportional benefit of each property compared to other properties benefitting from the improvements.

Each Zone in the District assesses developed property on the basis of acreage for the maintenance and operation of the District improvements. District costs include all incidentals and appurtenances related to the maintaining, operating or servicing the improvements described herein.

There are also certain parcels within Zone 2 that are assessed an additional amount based on linear foot (“LF”) of parcel frontage. The parcels affected in Zone 2, are assessed $4.58/LF and are shown on the Assessment Roll. The additional assessment for frontage funds the Measure J improvements installed along Monument Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue.

In November 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J. The measure provided for the continuation of the County's half-cent transportation sales tax measure for 25 more years. As with Measure C (the original 1988 transportation sales tax measure); Measure J revenues are used to fund a voter-approved Expenditure Plan of transportation programs and projects.

The total estimated cost of the improvements has been divided among the several parcels of land within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits received by the parcels benefiting from the improvements.

Zones 1 – 5
The method used by the engineer to apportion the costs among the benefitting properties follows:

1. Separate zones of service have been identified on the assessment diagram.

2. The estimated fiscal year operating cost within each Zone has been calculated, with incidental expenses and contingencies added to the operating costs in each Zone on a pro rata basis.

3. The benefits received from the landscaping and lighting improvements relate to land area and to land use in equal proportion. Assessed area units were, therefore, assigned to each parcel within the District as follows:
a) Improved parcels were assigned an EDU based on the improved acreage as determined by the County Assessor.
b) Vacant (unimproved) lots were assigned an EDU based on one-half the parcel acreage,reflecting the absence of user benefit.

4. The basic assessment for each parcel (exclusive of Measures C and J improvements) was calculated by multiplying the assigned EDU times the assessment rate.

5. At the time of formation (1998), the City Council modified the Engineer’s Report prior to finalizing the formation of the District. The modifications included the following:

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
18 a) In Zone 5, parcel numbers 152-240-021 (currently 152-240-027); 153-040-047 and 153-050-054 were to be excluded from the assessment. These parcels are churches or civic organizations and at the time, these property types were typically not assessed due to the services they provided to the community in general. Parcel numbers 153-050-057 and 153-050-058 were also excluded since they are also a church (with a parking lot). b) In Zone 2, parcel number 148-042-005 (currently 148-042-009) had its assessment/EDU reduced by half to reflect the fact that it is and was a vacant parcel and serves as an open space area.

6. The Sun Valley Mall, in Zone 1, was assigned an EDU for a depth of 150 feet along its entire frontage for the special benefit received from the landscaping and lighting on Contra Costa Boulevard. This reduction reflects the fact that the Mall provides public landscaping and lighting on Willow Pass Road in Concord.

7. Parcels in Zone 1, APN’s 127-270-001 through 005, were assessed by the formation engineer according to the pro-rata share of the acreage of the parking area (parcel 005). The engineer applied the assessment rate to the area of parcel 005 and then spread the assessment back to the other four parcels based on the acreage percentage of those remaining parcels.

8. Parcel No. 127-032-042, in Zone 1, is a corner lot and fronts on Willow Pass Road. This parcel was assigned an EDU based one-half the parcel acreage, reflecting corner relief.

9. The combined total EDU for parcels 153-300-001, 002, 003 and 004 (formerly K Mart/Safeway), in Zone 1, were reduced by 4.17 acres reflecting a credit for the flowage easement over the property. In FY 19/20, there was a parcel merger and reconfiguration resulting in new parcel numbers 153-300-005, 008, 009 and 010.

10. In FY 22/23, Zone 1 had additional parcel changes resulting in 1 more parcel and 2.48 in additional acreage. This increased the total Zone 1 EDU from 136.213 to 138.352. APN’s 153-300-004 and 153- 300-010 became, 153-300-012; 153-300-013 and 153-300-014.

11. The total estimated costs in Zones 1 and 2 including incidental expense were reduced by a contribution from the General Fund. The amount of this contribution is based upon revenues collected pursuant to the former Pleasant Hill Unified Street Lighting District No. 1, respectively in each Zone.

12. Assessments in Zone 5 were calculated utilizing the amended methodology approved by the City Council on February 24, 1992, Resolution Number 12-92. Assessments in Zone 5 were reduced by a contribution from the City intended to offset the approximate cost to maintain the "pork chop" traffic islands at the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. The rate of Zone 5 parcels on Taylor Boulevard, Civic Drive and Norse Drive was reduced by a factor of 0.63, reflecting the reduced maintenance costs for that area. The rate for APN’s 153-050-014, 153-050-052 (the Pleasant Hill Executive Park) and 153-050-059 (the former American States Insurance parcel) were not reduced, reflecting increased user benefit for these parcels due to additional floor space, as these parcels contain 2-story buildings. Beginning in FY 20/21, the budget for Zone 5 was split into two separate budgets (5A and 5B), to reflect the differing assessment rates described above. The total expenditures for Zone 5 are divided between 5A and 5B on a pro-rata basis, by the total EDU in each area.

Parcel areas used in this report to determine relative benefit are based upon information available with the County Assessor. All assessments have been rounded to the nearest even cent.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
19 The table below indicates the basic assessment per improved acre for each Zone. Assessments for the previous two years and the assessment per lineal foot for Measure J improvements in Zone 2 are also indicated.

Assessment Rates – Zones 1 through 5
Zone Location FY 20/21
Rate
FY 21/22
Rate
Proposed
FY 22/23
Rate
1 C.C. Blvd, Chilpancingo Pkwy, Golf Club Rd, Ellinwood Dr, Woodsworth Ln, Cleaveland Rd & Gregory Ln $1,155.60 $1,155.60 $1,155.60 2* Monument Blvd, Buskirk Ave & Lisa Ln $349.89 $774.00 $774.00 Measure J (Linear Foot) $4.58 $4.58 $4.58
3 Hookston Rd, Estland Way, Vincent Rd, Oak Park Blvd,
Buskirk Ave, Coggins Dr & N. Main St $279.27 $279.27 $279.27 4 Pleasant Hill Rd & Gregory Ln $605.00 $605.00 $605.00 5A & 5B Pleasant Hill Rd, Taylor Blvd, Morello Ave, Civic Dr, Norse Dr, Apollo Way & Devon Ave.
$821.76
$517.88
$821.76
$517.88
$821.76
$517.88
Assessment Range Formula for Zones 1 through 5
At the time of formation, the assessment levied per EDU for Zones 1 through 5 were established as shown above. There is no provision to increase the established assessment rate for these Zones. If the assessment rate in any year is proposed to exceed the established rate, the City must comply with Article XIII D, Section 4c of the California Constitution.
*During a routine parcel audit performed by Harris & Associates, the Formation Engineer’s Report for AD 20 was reviewed as a reference source. The initial assessment rate for Zone 2 was established at $774.00 when the District was formed (FY 88/89). This rate was approved by the property owner(s) at that time and was authorized by the City Council. California Government Code Section 53753 (2), (B) states that a previously approved tax, fee, assessment or charge, so long as it is not increased beyond the previously approved rate, is not considered an “increased” assessment.

Because the City Council initially authorized an assessment rate for Zone 2 of $774.00, Zone 2 was assessed at that rate again beginning in FY 21/22. The additional assessment revenue resulting from assessing the authorized rate for Zone 2 was anticipated to eliminate the Zone deficit within a period of approximately four years however, due to cost reductions in FY 21/22 in combination with the $774.00 assessment, the fund is currently balanced.

Zone 6
All of the improvements to be serviced and maintained within Zone 6 of the assessment district have been constructed for the benefit of the properties within the Zone and are of special benefit to those properties. The maintenance and servicing of the improvements enhances the quality of life on a day to day basis by providing an attractive, clean, safe and secure environment in which to live and work.

Benefit Assumptions

1. Certain parcels formerly within Zone 1, and not also within Subdivision 8240 “Downtown Pleasant Hill” (Tract 8240), are specially benefitted by the landscaping and lighting improvements on Contra Costa Boulevard, Monument Boulevard, Boyd Road, North Main Street and Cleveland Road. These parcels are identified as: 1) the Terraces; 2) the Courtyard Hotel and Courtyard Shopping Center; 3) the Cal Fed

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
20 Bank Building (now Citi Bank); 4) the Wells Fargo Building; 5) the Hotel site south of Boyd Road at N.

Main Street (Hyatt House). These properties primarily benefit from the former Zone 1 benefit derived by these properties, and continues to be proportionate to those improvements (i.e. with or without the Measure C supplement). As such, these properties are assessed at the Zone 1 rate, with applicable linear footage also assessed.

2. The benefit received by parcels assessed within Tract 8240 is proportionate to the area of the parcel as it relates to the total area within Tract 8240. These lots appear on the recorded final map of Tract 8240, lots A, B, C, D, E, H, I, J and K. Parcel area, as it relates to parcel use, is an effective measurement of the special benefit received by each parcel respectively from the improvements. Parcels F and G are residential properties not included in the District.

3. The City Hall property benefits from the maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements, particularly the maintenance of the frontage improvements on Gregory Lane, Cleaveland Road and Trelany Road. These benefits constitute special benefit and are assessable. The City however pays for the maintenance costs in lieu of paying the assessment.

4. Additionally, maintenance of the landscaping and lighting improvements at City Hall is of special benefit to the properties adjoining Tract 8240.

5. The following parcels receive no special benefit from the improvements:
a. 150-300-041 (Park at City Hall)
b. 149-110-056 (Soldiers Memorial Monument)
c. 148-020-012 (Contra Costa Boulevard)
(a and b are sources rather than recipients of benefit; c is a road right of way)

6. General Benefits are those benefits derived by property or persons outside the District. The properties on the west side of Cleaveland Road that are not in the District, benefit from the improvements on Cleaveland Road. These benefits are not assessable to parcels in Zone 6.

General Benefit

1. The City Hall frontage benefit is estimated at Zone 1 rates as shown in the table below. As previously stated, the City performs the maintenance of these improvements and is therefore not assessed.

APN Zone 1 Rate Area Amount
150-181-050 $1,155.60 3.560 $4,113.94

2. General benefit for the parcels along the west side of Cleaveland Road are estimated based upon parcel area and Zone 1 rates to be:

APN(s) Zone 1 Rate Area Amount
150-170-073 $1,155.60 0.97 $1,120.93
Bk 150 Pg 23 (Tr. 5647) $1,155.60 1.40 $1,617.84
Bk 150 Pg 25 (Tr. 235771) $1,155.60 0.83 $959.15
$3,697.92

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
21 3. The City contribution for benefits received by Parcels F and G of Tract 8240 (residential parcels) and #70 Cleaveleand Road is estimated as 50% of the Zone 6 assessment that would otherwise apply ($6,634.00 in FY 99/00 and $9,288.00 maximum).

4. The contribution from former Zone 1 General Fund is considered to offset any general benefit not linked to property on Contra Costa Boulevard and Monument Boulevard ($6,930.00).

5. The City benefits received by properties in Zone 6, other than City Hall, from the maintenance of the grounds at City Hall was estimated in the initial report (August 1999) to be equal to $42,851 - $35,039 or $7,812.00. The general benefit contribution is reduced by this amount.

A summary of the Zone 6 general benefit contribution is shown on the table below:

Summary of Zone 6 General Benefit Contribution
City Hall Frontage (Zone 1 Transfer) $4,113.94
West side of Cleaveland Road $3,697.92
Parcels F & G $6,634.00
Zone 1 General Fund $6,930.00
Less Zone 6 benefit from City Hall ($7,812.00)
Total Zone General Benefit $13,563.86
Calculation of Zone 6 Assessments:

The net cost of the improvements within Zone 6 has been divided among the several parcels of land within the Zone in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by the parcels benefiting from the improvements.

The method used to calculate the assessment for each parcel follows:

1. The assessment rates per acre for the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are assigned at the F Y 98/99 Zone 1 rates ($1,155.60). The assessment for these parcels also includes a rate of $4.57 per linear foot of street frontage. The assessment calculation for these parcels is shown on the Assessment Roll in Appendix A.

APN Description
148-020-010 Terraces
127-110-026 Courtyard Hotel
127-110-027 Courtyard Center
150-300-015
150-210-059
Citi Bank (formerly Wells Fargo)

2. Incidental expenses include the cost of the Engineer’s Report, legal costs, advertising costs and City staff time in coordinating the annual levy process for the District.

3. The net amount to be assessed is calculated as the total Zone 6 maintenance plus incidental expenses, less the City Contributions as shown.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
22 The maximum assessment to the Tract 8240 lots in any future year subject to adjustment by the CPI will be calculated according to the method described for the FY 99/00 fiscal year substituting the amounts indicated in Part 2C of the initial report under the column entitled “Maximum Zone 6”. The maximum assessments for the Terraces and other parcels not within Tract 8240 assume a 50% increase in the maintenance effort and cost on Contra Costa and Monument Boulevards within Zone 6.

Assessment Range Formula – Zone 6
Each year, the Maximum Assessment rate shall be increased for inflation by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), during the preceding calendar year, for All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward areas, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should the stated index be discontinued, a reasonably equivalent index should be utilized annually. The actual annual assessment rate levied in any fiscal year for Zone 6 may not exceed the established maximum allowed (adjusted by CPI) annual assessment rate for that year without receiving property owner approval for the increase. The actual assessment rate shall be as approved by the City Council, not to exceed the maximum allowed annual assessment rate for such fiscal year.

For FY 22/23, the Maximum Assessment Rate for Tract 8240 is proposed to be increased by the annual CPI of 3.21%.

This results in an assessment rate per acre of $7,145.33. The following tablestrack the Maximum Assessment (adjusted annually) as well as the Actual Assessment applied during that fiscal year.

Tract 8240 CPI History
Other Zone 6 Parcels CPI History (Acreage)
Other Zone 6 Parcels CPI History (Linear Foot)
Fiscal Annual CPI Adjusted Max. Actual
Year CPI % Calculation Assessment/Acre Assessment/Acre
2019/2020 N/A N/A $6,614.00 $6,614.00
2020/2021 2.9% 1.029000001 $6,805.81 $6,805.81
2021/2022 1.72% 1.017220105 $6,923.00 $6,923.00
2022/2023 3.21% 1.032114341 $7,145.33 $7,145.33
Fiscal Annual CPI CPI Change to Min. Assessment Max. Assessment Actual Year CPI % Calculation Rate/Acre Range/Acre Range/Acre Rate Applied 2019/2020 N/A N/A $1,155.60 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,155.60 2020/2021 2.9% 1.029000001 $1,189.11 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,155.60 2021/2022 1.72% 1.017220105 $1,209.59 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,155.60 2022/2023 3.21% 1.032114341 $1,248.43 $1,155.60 $1,733.40 $1,248.43 Fiscal Annual CPI CPI Change to Min. Assessment Max. Assessment Actual Year CPI % Calculation Rate/Acre Range/Acre Range/Acre Rate Applied 2019/2020 N/A N/A $4.57 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86
2020/2021 2.9% 1.029000001 $4.70 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86
2021/2022 1.72% 1.017220105 $4.78 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86
2022/2023 3.21% 1.032114341 $4.94 $4.57 $6.86 $6.86

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 20
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
23 The proposed CPI increase for Tract 8240 this year, as well as the increases up to the maximum amounts for acreage and linear foot for the other Zone 6 parcels, is necessary because expenses are exceeding revenues for the Zone. If this trend continues, a Proposition 218 property owner ballot measure will be required in order to increase assessments beyond the current maximums
Operating Reserve
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by collection of assessments shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments or to fund costs which are greater than revenue from the assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. The estimated beginning and ending Operating Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Section 22569 (a) of the 1972 Act allows the District assessments to “…include a reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing to December 10 of the fiscal year, or whenever the city expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the county, whichever is later.” Capital Reserve
In addition to the Operating Reserve as detailed above, an agency may create a capital reserve to fund items that will require replacement at some point, due to limited useful life. These items may include but are not limited to the asphalt path in each subdivision, sidewalks, street trees, streetlights, etc. The estimated beginning and ending Capital Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Any additional surplus funds, in excess of the 50% Operating Reserve or identified Capital Reserve costs, must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
24 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel Identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be based on available parcel maps and other property data from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s office as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and adopted by the City Council.

A listing of parcels assessed within the District for FY 22/23, along with the corresponding assessment amounts, is included on the following pages. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report.

Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.

Non-assessable lots or parcels include areas of public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and rights-of-way, including public greenbelts and parkways; utility rights-of-way; common areas; landlocked parcels; small parcels vacated by the County, bifurcated lots, and any other property that cannot be developed or has specific development restrictions. These types of parcels are considered to receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore, exempted from assessment.

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
25 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
125-050-0131 0.357 0.357 $1,155.60 $412.54
125-050-0251 1.23 1.23 $1,155.60 $1,421.38
125-050-0271 0.03 0.03 $1,155.60 $34.66
125-050-0281 3.822 3.32199 $1,155.60 $3,838.90
125-250-0041 0.855 0.855 $1,155.60 $988.04
125-250-0081 0.67 0.67 $1,155.60 $774.26
125-250-0111 0.306 0.306 $1,155.60 $353.62
125-250-0121 0.627 0.627 $1,155.60 $724.56
125-250-0141 0.467 0.467 $1,155.60 $539.66
125-250-0171 0.627 0.627 $1,155.60 $724.56
125-250-0181 0.0030 $1,155.60 $0.00
125-250-0211 0.77 0.77 $1,155.60 $889.82
125-250-0231 0.67 0.67 $1,155.60 $774.26
125-250-0241 0.025 0.025 $1,155.60 $28.90
125-250-0251 0.87 0.87 $1,155.60 $1,005.38
127-032-0351 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
127-032-0381 0.81 0.81 $1,155.60 $936.04
127-032-0391 0.93 0.93 $1,155.60 $1,074.70
127-032-0421 0.86 0.43001 $1,155.60 $496.92
127-032-0431 0.48 0.48 $1,155.60 $554.68
127-032-0441 0.377 0.377 $1,155.60 $435.66
127-032-0451 0.55 0.55 $1,155.60 $635.58
127-032-0461 0.36 0.36 $1,155.60 $416.02
127-040-0141 0.090 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-040-0191 0.74 0.74 $1,155.60 $855.14
127-040-0201 0.967 0.967 $1,155.60 $1,117.46
127-050-0401 0.180 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-050-0521 0.589 0.589 $1,155.60 $680.64
127-050-0531 0.118 0.118 $1,155.60 $136.36
127-050-0541 0.159 0.159 $1,155.60 $183.74
127-050-0571 0.0374 0.0374 $1,155.60 $43.22
127-050-0581 0.13 0.13 $1,155.60 $150.22
127-050-0641 0.56 0.56 $1,155.60 $647.14
127-050-0651 0.29 0.29 $1,155.60 $335.12
127-050-0671 0.42 0.42 $1,155.60 $485.36
127-050-0681 0.61 0.61 $1,155.60 $704.92
127-050-0691 3.40 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-050-0701 1.343 0.4477 $1,155.60 $517.36
127-061-0261 1.49 1.49 $1,155.60 $1,721.84
127-061-0301 0.975 0.975 $1,155.60 $1,126.72
127-081-0031 0.24 0.12 $1,155.60 $138.68

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
26 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
127-081-0041 0.760 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-081-0431 0.52 0.52 $1,155.60 $600.92
127-081-0471 1.44 1.44 $1,155.60 $1,664.06
127-081-0481 1.03 1.03 $1,155.60 $1,190.26
127-081-0511 0.71 0.71 $1,155.60 $820.48
127-180-0551 2.54 2.54 $1,155.60 $2,935.22
127-180-0561 1.347 0.674 $1,155.60 $778.88
127-180-0581 1.453 1.453 $1,155.60 $1,679.08
127-210-0131 2.18 2.18 $1,155.60 $2,519.20
127-210-0141 3.880 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0221 0.250 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0271 5.090 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0311 2.43 2.43 $1,155.60 $2,808.10
127-210-0361 1.410 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0371 9.490 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-210-0381 0.70 $1,155.60 $0.00
127-270-0011 0.228 0.711 $1,155.60 $821.64
127-270-0021 0.232 0.711 $1,155.60 $821.64
127-270-0031 0.794 2.56 $1,155.60 $2,958.34
127-270-0041 0.977 3.129 $1,155.60 $3,615.88
127-270-0051 7.1110 $1,155.60 $0.00
150-052-0091 3.616 3.616 $1,155.60 $4,178.64
150-101-0121 0.21 0.21 $1,155.60 $242.68
150-102-0121 0.2 0.2 $1,155.60 $231.12
150-102-0131 0.23 0.23 $1,155.60 $265.78
150-102-0141 0.260 $1,155.60 $0.00
150-103-0081 0.48 0.48 $1,155.60 $554.68
150-103-0131 0.16 0.16 $1,155.60 $184.90
150-103-0161 0.48 0.48 $1,155.60 $554.68
150-121-0021 0.24 0.24 $1,155.60 $277.34
150-123-0231 0.95 0.95 $1,155.60 $1,097.82
150-123-0241 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
150-123-0251 0.346 0.346 $1,155.60 $399.84
150-123-0271 0.33 0.33 $1,155.60 $381.34
150-123-0281 1.02 1.02 $1,155.60 $1,178.72
150-125-0111 0.168 0.168 $1,155.60 $194.14
150-150-0121 0.34 0.34 $1,155.60 $392.90
150-150-0191 0.28 0.28 $1,155.60 $323.56
150-150-0401 0.66 0.66 $1,155.60 $762.70
150-150-0551 0.2 0.2 $1,155.60 $231.12
150-150-0581 0.62 0.62 $1,155.60 $716.48

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
27 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
150-150-0661 0.428 0.428 $1,155.60 $494.60
150-150-0791 1.06 1.06 $1,155.60 $1,224.94
150-150-0801 1.431 1.431 $1,155.60 $1,653.66
150-170-0741 1.511 1.511 $1,155.60 $1,746.12
150-220-0561 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0571 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0581 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0591 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0601 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0611 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0621 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0631 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0641 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0651 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0661 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0671 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0681 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0691 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0701 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0711 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0721 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0731 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0741 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0751 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0761 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0771 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0781 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0791 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0801 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0811 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0821 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0831 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-220-0841 0.058 0.058 $1,155.60 $67.02
150-240-0461 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0471 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0481 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0491 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0501 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0511 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0521 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0531 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
28 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
150-240-0541 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0551 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0561 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0571 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0581 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0591 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0601 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0611 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0621 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0631 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0641 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0651 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0661 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0671 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-240-0681 0.051 0.051 $1,155.60 $58.94
150-290-0011 0.096 0.096002077 $1,155.60 $110.94
150-290-0021 0.097 0.097005884 $1,155.60 $112.10
150-290-0031 0.170 0.170006923 $1,155.60 $196.46
150-290-0041 0.205 0.205001731 $1,155.60 $236.90
150-290-0051 0.5680 $1,155.60 $0.00
153-030-0771 1.486 1.486 $1,155.60 $1,717.22
153-030-0891 0.995 0.995 $1,155.60 $1,149.82
153-030-0901 0.74 0.74 $1,155.60 $855.14
153-030-0951 2.474 2.474 $1,155.60 $2,858.96
153-030-1061 18.396 18.396 $1,155.60 $21,258.42
153-030-1071 0.771 0.771 $1,155.60 $890.96
153-081-0121 0.36 0.36 $1,155.60 $416.02
153-081-0141 0.24 0.24 $1,155.60 $277.34
153-081-0151 1.67 1.67 $1,155.60 $1,929.86
153-121-0381 2.68 2.68 $1,155.60 $3,097.00
153-134-0251 0.307 0.307 $1,155.60 $354.76
153-134-0261 0.941 0.941 $1,155.60 $1,087.42
153-222-0011 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
153-222-0021 0.2 0.2 $1,155.60 $231.12
153-223-0121 0.180 $1,155.60 $0.00
153-223-0161 0.18 0.18 $1,155.60 $208.00
153-223-0191 0.36 0.36 $1,155.60 $416.02
153-230-0031 0.19 0.18599862 $1,155.60 $214.94
153-230-0041 0.09 0.09300796 $1,155.60 $107.48
153-230-0051 0.93 0.92900658 $1,155.60 $1,073.56
153-230-0071 1.00 0.99899619 $1,155.60 $1,154.44

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
29 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
153-230-021 1 0.30 0.3 $1,155.60 $346.68
153-230-022 1 5.59 5.59200415 $1,155.60 $6,462.12
153-230-023 1 0.30 0.3 $1,155.60 $346.68
153-230-024 1 0.60 0.59899619 $1,155.60 $692.20
153-230-025 1 2.30 2.29700588 $1,155.60 $2,654.42
153-250-003 1 0.582 0.582 $1,155.60 $672.56
153-250-004 1 0.554 0.554 $1,155.60 $640.20
153-250-005 1 0.649 0.649 $1,155.60 $749.98
153-250-006 1 0.303 0.303 $1,155.60 $350.14
153-250-007 1 4.678 4.678 $1,155.60 $5,405.90
153-250-008 1 0.72 0.72 $1,155.60 $832.04
153-250-009 1 0.37 0.37 $1,155.60 $427.58
153-270-001 1 0.37 0.37 $1,155.60 $427.58
153-270-002 1 0.57 0.57 $1,155.60 $658.70
153-270-003 1 0.69 0.69 $1,155.60 $797.36
153-270-004 1 1.01 1.01 $1,155.60 $1,167.16
153-270-006 1 0.83 0.83 $1,155.60 $959.14
153-270-007 1 0.4 0.4 $1,155.60 $462.24
153-270-010 1 0.625 0.625 $1,155.60 $722.26
153-270-011 1 1.56 1.56 $1,155.60 $1,802.74
153-270-013 1 0.72 0.72 $1,155.60 $832.04
153-270-014 1 2.13 2.13 $1,155.60 $2,461.42
153-270-015 1 0.29 0.29 $1,155.60 $335.12
153-300-004 1 0.58 0.58 $1,155.60 $670.24
153-300-005 1 1.62 0.00 $1,155.60 $0.00
153-300-008 1 9.95 7.76 $1,155.60 $8,967.46
153-300-009 1 2.32 2 $1,155.60 $2,080.08
153-300-010 1 5.77 4.50 $1,155.60 $5,200.20
172.92 136.213 $157,407.84

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
30 APN Zone Acres EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/Acre
FY 22/23
Assessment
/Acre LF Rate L.F.

FY 22/23 LF
Assessment
FY 22/23
Total
Assessment
147-050-033 2 0.099 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
147-050-043 2 0.897 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
147-050-044 2 0.803 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
147-050-050 2 0.883 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-012 2 0.57 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-013 2 0.31 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-019 2 0.278 0.139 $774.00 $107.60 $107.60
148-010-020 2 0.137 0.137 $774.00 $106.04 $106.04
148-010-021 2 0.139 0.139 $774.00 $107.58 $107.58
148-010-022 2 0.34 0.34 $774.00 $263.16 $263.16
148-010-023 2 1.59 1.59 $774.00 $1,230.66 $1,230.66
148-010-024 2 0.36 0.36 $774.00 $278.64 $278.64
148-010-026 2 0.314 0.314 $774.00 $243.04 $243.04
148-010-027 2 2.68 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-028 2 0.55 0.55 $774.00 $425.70 $425.70
148-010-029 2 1 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-010-030 2 0.47 0.47 $774.00 $363.78 $363.78
148-031-008 2 2.167 2.167 $774.00 $1,677.26 $4.58 300.58 $1,376.66 $3,053.92 148-031-010 2 5.447 5.447 $774.00 $4,215.98 $4.58 402.93 $1,845.42 $6,061.40 148-031-011 2 0.547 0.547 $774.00 $423.38 $4.58 104.78 $479.89 $903.28 148-041-028 2 1.23 1.23 $774.00 $952.02 $4.58 95.94 $439.41 $1,391.44 148-041-029 2 1.971 1.971 $774.00 $1,525.55 $4.58 96.04 $439.86 $1,965.42 148-041-030 2 0.631 0.631 $774.00 $488.39 $4.58 138.28 $633.32 $1,121.72 148-041-035 2 0.706 0.706 $774.00 $546.44 $4.58 29.32 $134.29 $680.74 148-041-036 2 5.482 5.482 $774.00 $4,243.07 $4.58 607 $2,780.06 $7,023.14 148-041-037 2 0.254 0.254 $774.00 $196.60 $4.58 276 $1,264.08 $1,460.68 148-042-009 2 1.88 0.94 $774.00 $727.56 $4.58 447 $2,047.26 $2,774.82 148-053-013 2 0.015 0 $774.00 $0.00 2497.87 $11,440.24 $0.00 148-066-009 2 0.015 0 $774.00 $0.00 $0.00
148-090-032 2 0.42 0.42 $774.00 $325.08 $325.08
148-090-033 2 0.58 0.58 $774.00 $448.92 $448.92
148-090-034 2 6.78 6.78 $774.00 $5,247.72 $5,247.72
148-090-035 2 1.78 1.78 $774.00 $1,377.72 $1,377.72
148-090-039 2 2.667 2.667 $774.00 $2,064.26 $2,064.26

41.31 35.64102 $27,586.15 $11,440.24 $39,026.46

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
31 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-070-0023 0.3 0.3 $279.27 $83.78
148-070-0033 0.31 0.31 $279.27 $86.58
148-070-0043 3.290 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0213 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0223 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0233 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0243 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0253 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0263 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0273 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0283 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0293 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0303 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0313 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0323 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0333 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0343 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0353 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0363 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0373 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0383 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0393 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0403 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0413 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0423 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0433 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0443 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0453 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0463 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0473 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0483 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0493 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0503 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0513 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0523 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0533 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0543 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0553 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
32 148-070-0563 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0573 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0583 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-070-0593 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0603 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0613 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0623 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0633 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0643 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-070-0653 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0663 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0673 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0683 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0693 0.120 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0073 0.40 $279.27 $0.00
148-070-0153 0.236 0.236 $279.27 $65.90
148-070-0173 0.52 0.52 $279.27 $145.22
148-070-0203 1.387 1.387 $279.27 $387.34
148-090-0083 0.105 0.105 $279.27 $29.32
148-090-0283 0.89 0.89 $279.27 $248.56
148-100-0243 0.33 0.33 $279.27 $92.16
148-100-0393 1.170 $279.27 $0.00
148-100-0453 2.47 2.47 $279.27 $689.80
148-100-0563 0.0050 $279.27 $0.00
148-100-0583 3.108 3.108 $279.27 $867.98
148-100-0593 4.371 4.371 $279.27 $1,220.68
148-100-0633 0.248 0.248 $279.27 $69.26
148-100-0643 1.825 1.825 $279.27 $509.66
148-360-0083 1.12 1.12 $279.27 $312.78
148-360-0103 6.072 6.072 $279.27 $1,695.72
148-360-0243 0.750 $279.27 $0.00
148-360-0273 4.9560 $279.27 $0.00
148-360-0283 1.615 1.615 $279.27 $451.02
148-360-0303 4.013 4.013 $279.27 $1,120.72
148-360-0313 2.5470 $279.27 $0.00
148-372-0073 0.94 0.94 $279.27 $262.52
148-372-0083 14.883 14.883 $279.27 $4,156.38
148-372-0103 0.67 0.67 $279.27 $187.12
148-372-0123 1.02 1.02 $279.27 $284.86
148-372-0133 0.66 0.66 $279.27 $184.32
148-372-0143 1.04 1.04 $279.27 $290.44

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
33 148-371-0103 0.29 0.29 $279.27 $80.98
148-371-0113 0.755 0.755 $279.27 $210.84
148-371-012311 $279.27 $279.28
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-371-013311 $279.27 $279.28
148-371-0143 0.651 0.651 $279.27 $181.80
148-371-0153 1.748 1.748 $279.27 $488.16
148-490-0013 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0023 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0033 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0043 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0053 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0063 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0073 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0083 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0093 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0103 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0113 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0123 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0133 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0143 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0153 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0163 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0173 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0183 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0193 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0203 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0213 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0223 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0233 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0243 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0253 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-026300 $279.27 $0.00
148-490-0283 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0293 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0303 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0313 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0323 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0333 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0343 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0353 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0363 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
34 148-490-0373 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0383 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0393 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
148-490-0403 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0413 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0423 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0433 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0443 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0453 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0463 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0473 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-0483 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
148-490-049300 $279.27 $0.00
149-110-0873 0.140 $279.27 $0.00
149-122-0013 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
149-122-0023 0.039 0.039 $279.27 $10.90
149-122-0173 0.360 $279.27 $0.00
149-122-0213 0.514 0.514 $279.27 $143.54
149-122-0233 0.039 0.039 $279.27 $10.90
149-122-0243 0.5170 $279.27 $0.00
149-122-0263 1.858 1.858 $279.27 $518.88
149-122-0273 0.073 0.073 $279.27 $20.38
149-122-0283 0.293 0.293 $279.27 $81.82
149-241-0103 0.262 0.262 $279.27 $73.16
149-253-0133 0.32 0.32 $279.27 $89.36
149-253-0163 0.228 0.228 $279.27 $63.68
149-253-0283 0.22 0.22 $279.27 $61.44
149-253-0293 0.294 0.294 $279.27 $82.10
149-270-0063 0.41 0.41 $279.27 $114.50
149-270-0083 0.43 0.43 $279.27 $120.08
149-270-0363 1.50 $279.27 $0.00
149-270-0373 1.41 1.41 $279.27 $393.78
149-270-0383 0.12 0.12 $279.27 $33.52
149-270-0393 1.26 1.26 $279.27 $351.88
149-284-0053 0.21 0.21 $279.27 $58.64
149-284-0063 2.626 2.626 $279.27 $733.36
149-284-0073 0.159 0.159 $279.27 $44.40
149-284-0083 0.145 0.145 $279.27 $40.50
149-284-0123 0.277 0.277 $279.27 $77.36
170-040-0433 0.11 0.11 $279.27 $30.72
170-040-0443 0.33 0.33 $279.27 $92.16

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
35 170-040-058 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-050-001 3 0.31 0.31 $279.27 $86.58
170-050-003 3 0.24 0.24 $279.27 $67.02
APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
170-050-026 3 0.59 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-050-028 3 0.39 0.39 $279.27 $108.92
170-050-029 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-050-031 3 0.32 0.32 $279.27 $89.36
170-050-032 3 0.74 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-061-022 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-061-024 3 0.321 0.321 $279.27 $89.64
170-091-006 3 0.207 0.207 $279.27 $57.80
170-091-007 3 0.207 0.207 $279.27 $57.80
170-091-008 3 0.2 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-091-015 3 0.81 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-091-017 3 0.15 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-091-018 3 0.2 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-092-032 3 0.21 0.21 $279.27 $58.64
170-092-039 3 0.22 0.22 $279.27 $61.44
170-092-040 3 0.19 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-092-041 3 0.11 0.11 $279.27 $30.72
170-092-050 3 0.23 0.23 $279.27 $64.24
170-092-054 3 0.43 0.43 $279.27 $120.08
170-092-055 3 0.26 0.26 $279.27 $72.62
170-092-057 3 1.04 0 $279.27 $0.00
170-092-058 3 0.41 0 $279.27 $0.00
100.834 80.269 $22,417.42

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
36 APN Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
149-010-089 4 0.23 0.23 $605.00 $139.16
149-010-090 4 0.4 0.4 $605.00 $242.00
149-380-001 4 0.181 0.181 $605.00 $109.50
149-380-002 4 0.071 0.071 $605.00 $42.96
149-380-003 4 0.071 0.071 $605.00 $42.96
149-380-004 4 0.071 0.071 $605.00 $42.96
149-380-005 4 0.123 0.123 $605.00 $74.42
149-380-006 4 0.123 0.123 $605.00 $74.42
149-380-007 4 0.645 0 $605.00 $0.00
152-132-046 4 1.23 1.23 $605.00 $744.16
152-132-047 4 1.07 1.07 $605.00 $647.36
152-132-049 4 1.9 1.9 $605.00 $1,149.50
152-181-030 4 2.28 2.28 $605.00 $1,379.40
152-181-048 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-049 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-050 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-051 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-052 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-053 4 0.14 0.14 $605.00 $84.70
152-181-054 4 0.82 0 $605.00 $0.00
164-131-027 4 0.44 0.44 $605.00 $266.20
166-060-048 4 0.249 0.249 $605.00 $150.64
166-081-031 4 0.41 0.41 $605.00 $248.06
166-081-051 4 0.35 0.35 $605.00 $211.76
166-081-052 4 0.35 0.35 $605.00 $211.76

11.854 10.389 $6,285.42

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
37 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
152-023-024 5A 0.62 0.62 $821.76 $509.50
152-030-050 5A 0.33 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
152-030-051 5A 1.4 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
152-030-052 5A 2.34 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
152-040-015 5A 0.56 0.56 $821.76 $460.18
152-040-026 5A 1.84 1.84 $821.76 $1,512.04
152-040-029 5A 0.424 0.424 $821.76 $348.42
152-040-030 5A 0.438 0.438 $821.76 $359.94
152-040-031 5A 0.55 0.00 $821.76 $0.00
153-050-014 5A 3.44 3.44 $821.76 $2,826.86
153-050-052 5A 2.911 2.911 $821.76 $2,392.14
153-050-059 5A 4.505 4.505 $821.76 $3,702.02
164-242-010 5A 0.36 0.36 $821.76 $295.84
164-242-012 5A 1.92 1.92 $821.76 $1,577.78
164-242-013 5A 0.65 0.65 $821.76 $534.14
164-242-014 5A 0.502 0.502 $821.76 $412.52
164-242-015 5A 2.22 2.22 $821.76 $1,824.30

25.01 20.390 $16,755.68

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
38 APN Zone Acreage EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
152-240-005 5B 0.498 0.498 $517.88 $257.90
152-240-007 5B 1.15 1.15 $517.88 $595.56
152-240-014 5B 1.27 1.27 $517.88 $657.70
152-240-016 5B 0.49 0.49 $517.88 $253.76
152-240-019 5B 0.5 0.50 $517.88 $258.94
152-240-020 5B 0.49 0.49 $517.88 $253.76
152-240-024 5B 1.891 1.891 $517.88 $979.32
152-240-025 5B 2.089 2.089 $517.88 $1,081.86
152-240-026 5B 0.555 0.555 $517.88 $287.42
152-240-027 5B 2.79 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-021 5B 1.04 1.04 $821.76 $538.60
153-050-031 5B 0.5 0.50 $517.88 $258.94
153-050-036 5B 1.17 1.17 $517.88 $605.92
153-050-037 5B 0.88 0.88 $517.88 $455.74
153-050-040 5B 0.99 0.99 $517.88 $512.70
153-050-046 5B 1.42 1.42 $517.88 $735.38
153-050-048 5B 0.8 0.80 $517.88 $414.30
153-050-050 5B 1.27 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-053 5B 4.06 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-057 5B 3.632 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-058 5B 1.18 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-063 5B 1.68 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-064 5B 2.25 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-065 5B 4.17 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-066 5B 3.215 0.00 $517.88 $0.00
153-050-067 5B 2.193 2.193 $517.88 $1,135.72

42.173 17.926 $9,283.52

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
39 APN Zone Acres EDU
FY 22/23
Assessment
Rate/Acre
FY 22/23
Assessment
/Acre LF Rate L.F.

FY 22/23
LF Assessment
FY 22/23
Total
Assessment
127-110-026 6 1.992 4.149 $1,192.71 $2,375.88 $6.86 546 $3,745.56 $6,121.44 127-110-027 6 6.769 9.069 $1,192.71 $8,073.45 $6.86 582 $3,992.52 $12,065.98 148-020-010 6 2.673 2.673 $1,192.71 $3,188.12 $6.86 1252 $8,591.26 $11,779.38 148-020-012 6 0.139 0 $1,192.71 $0.00 $0.00
149-110-056 6 0.25 0 $1,192.71 $0.00 $0.00
149-110-085 6 2.024 2.024 $1,192.71 $2,414.05 $2,414.04 149-110-086 6 0.868 0.868 $1,192.71 $1,035.27 $1,035.28 150-181-050 6 3.56 0 $1,192.71 $0.00 $0.00
150-210-059 6 2.33 2.33 $1,192.71 $2,779.01 $2,779.02
150-300-001 6 2.83 2.83 $7,145.33 $20,221.28 $0.00 $20,221.28 150-300-002 6 1.2 1.2 $7,145.33 $8,574.40 $0.00 $8,574.40 150-300-003 6 0.825 0.825 $7,145.33 $5,894.90 $0.00 $5,894.90 150-300-004 6 1.279 1.279 $7,145.33 $9,138.88 $0.00 $9,138.88 150-300-005 6 1.619 1.619 $7,145.33 $11,568.29 $0.00 $11,568.28 150-300-006 6 1.036 1.036 $7,145.33 $7,402.56 $0.00 $7,402.56 150-300-007 6 5.188 5.188 $7,145.33 $37,069.97 $0.00 $37,069.98 150-300-010 6 1.264 1.264 $7,145.33 $9,031.70 $0.00 $9,031.70 150-300-011 6 1.496 1.496 $7,145.33 $10,689.41 $0.00 $10,689.42 150-300-012 6 1.939 1.939 $7,145.33 $13,854.79 $0.00 $13,854.80 150-300-013 6 1.323 0 $7,145.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
150-300-014 6 0.179 0 $7,145.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
150-300-015 6 0.505 0.505 $1,192.71 $602.32 $0.00 $602.32

41.288 40.294 $153,914.28 $170,243.66

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
40 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022-23
41 APPENDIX C – CITY OF CONCORD PARCELS

8.2.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 20 Assessments FY 22-23)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM

AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22

SYNOPSIS
An Assessment District is a financial mechanism that allows for the levy of an assessment on a specific geographic area or parcels of real estate, which have been identified as receiving a direct special “benefit” from a public service or improvement. Assessment District No. 22 (“AD 22”) enables the City to provide levels of landscape maintenance and street lighting at an enhanced level within the scenic easements in the Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk Subdivisions. The properties within the AD 22 boundaries directly benefit from these landscape and lighting improvements. The annual assessments paid by property owners within AD 22 and contributions by the City fund the maintenance and services provided.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within AD 22 for the 2022/2023 fiscal year, an annual report must be prepared and the City must hold a public hearing. Staff request that the City Council hold the Public Hearing and adopt the Resolution approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 for AD 22.

DISCUSSION
Background
AD 22 (Grayson Woods) was formed in 1997 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and the California Streets and Highways Code. AD 22 was amended in 2002 to include Subdivision 8304, Gallery Walk.

In order for the City to continue to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”), a report on the proposed maintenance program must be prepared and a public hearing conducted on the budget and proposed assessments. The Engineer of Work, Harris & Associates, has completed and filed the FY 22/23 Annual Report (“Engineer’s Report”) with the City Clerk. The Engineer’s Report (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution) includes

8.3 Packet Pg. 162
descriptions of the improvements to be maintained during the fiscal year, an estimate of costs, a map of Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk, and the levy of assessments upon the benefiting properties.

Analysis
On February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-22, a Resolution directing the preparation and filing of the 2022/2023 Engineer’s Report for maintenance of AD 22.

On May 16, 2022, the City Council preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report for AD 22 and adopted a Resolution of Intention (“ROI”) to levy and collect assessments. In addition, the ROI provided notice of the date, time, and place for a public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the assessments within AD 22.

The collection of assessments from properties within the boundaries of AD 22, together with the funds provided by the City, will ensure continued maintenance of the lighting and landscaping improvements within the boundaries of AD 22. Maintenance staff provides for the maintenance of improvements, including weekly mowing and edging of turf; maintaining and repairing irrigation systems; pruning; removing debris and graffiti; repairing street lights; and weeding, as well as, paying for utility charges for water and electricity.

If AD 22 assessments are confirmed for FY 22/23, staff will continue to provide maintenance services for Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk. The AD revenues include $59,641 in assessments collected from property owners within AD 22, an $8,246 contribution from the General Fund, and estimated interest of $763, for a total of $68,650 in projected revenue.

The assessment rate remains at $187.50 for Gallery Walk and no new services or substantial changes in existing services are proposed.

As described in the May 2022 staff report accompanying the ROI, a potential Reliez Valley slope stabilization project has been budgeted at $25,000 for FY 22/23 in the Grayson Woods subdivision. If approved, the assessment rate in Grayson Woods will increase 3.21% above the FY 21/22 rate to maintain a healthy capital set-aside in the fund. This increase is $9.94 -- $309.90 per parcel to $319.84 per parcel. The new rate is approximately $40 below the Maximum (approved) Assessment Rate of $359 for Grayson Woods. Staff sent letters to all of the affected property owners and as of the submission of this staff report for the agenda packet, has not received any correspondence or calls from the noticed property owners.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pleasant Hill will contribute approximately $8,246 ($2,366 for Grayson Woods and $5,880 for Gallery Walk) from the General Fund toward the landscape and lighting costs. This contribution is intended to offset the portion of the landscape and lighting improvements that provide benefit to the general public in areas located adjacent to public roadways within the City’s right of way. Should AD 22 not be renewed for FY 22/23, there would be a loss of $59,641 in assessment revenues to fund maintenance activities within AD 22.

8.3 Packet Pg. 163

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. The Resolution of Intention was also published in the Contra Costa Times on June 6, 2022.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Open, conduct, and close the Public Hearing and adopt the Resolution Approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering levy of assessment for FY 2022/2023.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Should the Assessment District not be renewed for FY 22/23, the City would need to fund these maintenance activities or services would need to be suspended or substantially reduced.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Exhibit 1 - Engineer’s Report
Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer
Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.3 Packet Pg. 164
RESOLUTION NO. _ -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND

ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-22 directing the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 annual report for Assessment District No. 22 (AD 22); and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 36-22 entitled “A Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill to Order Improvements, Levy Assessments, and Provide for Public Hearing and Notice in Assessment District No. 22 for the 2022/2023 Fiscal Year” (the Resolution of Intention); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the Engineer’s Report on the Levy and Collection of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/2023/ (“FY 22/23”) for AD 22 prepared by Harris & Associates, was filed with the City Clerk and preliminarily approved subject to certain conditions set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report contains the proposed amounts of the assessments to be levied on assessable lots and parcels of land in all areas of AD 22 for FY 2022/23; an estimate of the costs of the improvements; a diagram for the assessment district; and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements; a description of any substantial changes in the improvements; and the other matters required by Section 22565 through 22574 of the Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, the individual assessments for FY 22/23 year in Gallery Walk are not proposed to increase from the prior year; and
WHEREAS, the assessment rate for Grayson Woods is proposed to be increased by the annual CPI of 3.21%, which is within the approved assessment range for the Zone and does not constitute an “increased assessment;” and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention directed that June 27, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill or via teleconference as noted on the posted agenda (available on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, at the Pleasant Hill Police Department, and on the City’s web page a minimum of 72 hours before the meeting) be the time and place for the City Council to hold a public hearing on the proposed assessments for FY 22/23 and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on the proposed improvements and the proposed assessments for FY 22/23 on June 27, 2022; and

8.3.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) WHEREAS, the City Council considered all oral and written protests at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may proceed, pursuant to Section 22631 of the Streets and Highways Code, to adopt a resolution confirming the levy of the assessments on the assessable parcels of property in the Assessment District, and the adoption of such a resolution shall constitute the levy of assessments on all assessable lots and parcels of property within said District for FY 22/23; and
WHEREAS, the assessments contained in the Engineer’s Report and which will be levied on assessable lots and parcels of land in AD 22 do not exceed the amounts of the assessments which were approved by the property owners by assessment ballots in proceedings for the formation of AD 22.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that:

1. The public interest, convenience and necessity require that the levy be made.

2. The assessable lots and parcels of land benefited by the improvements and to be assessed, and the exterior boundaries thereof, are as shown by the Boundary Map and Assessment Diagram of AD 22 (FY 22/23) filed in the office of the City Clerk, which is made a part hereof by this reference.

3. Any protests to the proposed improvements and the estimated costs and assessments have been received, noted and are overruled.

4. The Engineer’s Report, the Assessment Diagram, and the assessment contained therein for the payment of the costs of the maintenance and servicing of the improvements in AD 22 for FY 22/23 are confirmed and hereby levied. The adoption and approval of the attached Engineer’s Report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of costs and expenses, the diagram and the assessment, as contained in the report, as herein above determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to the report, or any portion thereof.

5. Based upon oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer’s Report, offered and received at the hearing, this City Council expressly finds and determines that: (a) each of the several lots, parcels of land, and property will be specially benefited by the maintenance and servicing of the improvements; (b) the amount of the assessment imposed on any parcel will not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel; and (c) there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid finding and determination as to special benefits.

6. Immediately, upon the adoption of this resolution, but in no event later than August 10, 2022, following such adoption, the City Clerk, shall file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment and a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of the County of

8.3.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Contra Costa. Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on the County property tax roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the Engineer’s Report. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes and all laws applying to the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any costs of collections, shall be paid to the City of Pleasant Hill.

7. Upon receipt of the money representing the collection of the assessments, the City shall deposit said collections in a special fund to be used for the costs within the assessment district for the installing or constructing of improvements, servicing, and maintenance, herein ordered.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit 1 – Engineer’s Report

8.3.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23)

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
JUNE 2022

PREPARED BY
Harris & Associates
1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 500
Concord, CA 94520
www.weareharris.com

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER….……………………………………………………………..i PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS……………………………………………………………………..1 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COSTS………………………………………………………………………………….3 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM…………………………………………………………………………….6 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT………………………………………………………………...7 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL…………………………………………………………………………..13 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT DIAGRAM………….……………………………………………………………...21

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
i

STATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
AGENCY: CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023
The preparation of this Annual Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is in conformance with the obligation of the City Council for Assessment District No. 22 (“District”) of the City of Pleasant Hill, to provide landscaping and lighting services upon each lot or parcel of land in the District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel of land for Fiscal Year 2022/2023 (“FY 22/23”).

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500) (“Act”), Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the State of California Constitution, and in accordance with the City of Pleasant Hill’s Resolution being adopted by the City Council for the:

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 22
(Hereinafter referred to as the “District”),
I, Anna C. Tan-Gatue, authorized representative of the District, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer submit the following Report which consists of the following four (4) parts and Appendices:

PART 1
Description of Improvements: This part provides a general description of improvements proposed to be maintained in the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file with the City and are hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

PART 2
Estimate of Cost: This part contains the cost estimate of the proposed maintenance including incidental costs and expenses for FY 22/23.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
ii
PART 3
District Diagram: This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the external boundaries of the District and any Zones. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report. The District Diagram is also filed under separate cover with the office of the City Clerk.

PART 4
Method of Apportionment of the Assessments: This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon parcel classification of land within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

The costs and expenses of the District have been assessed upon the parcels of land within the boundaries of District pursuant to the initial methodology established at the time of formation.

Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment Roll
Appendix B – District Diagram
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the costs and expenses of the District have been assessed to the lots and parcels within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the services provided.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2022
06/30/23 ___________________________________________
Anna C. Tan-Gatue, P.E., Assessment Engineer
R.I.E. No. I4356
Engineer of Work

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
1 PART 1 – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The boundaries of Assessment District No. 22 correspond to the boundaries of the tracts of land identified on the Assessment Diagram located in Appendix B of this Report. The tracts include the Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk subdivisions within the City of Pleasant Hill.

A copy of the Assessment Diagram is on file with the City Clerk. The Assessment Diagram refers to the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for an exact description of the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. Each parcel on the Assessment Diagram is keyed to the assessment, which appears in the Assessment Roll, by its Assessor’s Parcel Number.

The Assessment District consists of two subdivisions containing 237 assessable single-family residential lots and an assessable golf course and clubhouse parcel. There are also several non-assessable parcels including open space, scenic easements, public streets and rights of ways. In total there are 248 assessor’s parcels within the District Boundaries.

Improvements and Services Provided
The following are the specific improvements maintained and serviced within the District:

Grayson Woods
The subdivision contains 104 residential lots and a golf course and clubhouse. The improvements consist of the maintenance, servicing of landscaping and street lighting on public streets, easements, and right of ways immediately adjacent to and within the Grayson Woods subdivision. The improvements being maintained consist of public street lighting systems and public landscaping including, but not limited to, trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, and asphalt pathways. The services provided include, but are not limited to, litter and debris removal, irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs, pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration, weed and rodent control, erosion control, trimming of vegetation, and removal of debris in creek areas.

There are approximately 69,000 square feet of landscaped area within the Grayson Woods development. There is approximately 1,000 square feet of turf area and several hundred square feet of raised annual color beds included in the in the landscaping, which are changed two to three times annually.

The small creek along the west side of Reliez Valley Road empties into a 48 inch pipe with a trash rack on the east side of Reliez Valley Road, which needs to be cleared from landscaping debris as necessary. Vegetation in a creek running through the landscaped easement must be pruned and cleaned, and periodic slope stabilization is provided as necessary to ensure proper drainage. Maintenance of public open space parcels F, H and I is also provided by the District.

In addition to the landscaping improvements, there are 30 total streetlights to be serviced and maintained: six on Reliez Valley Road, five on Grayson Road, eight on Iron Hill Street and eleven on Golf Links Street and adjoining cul-de-sacs.

The County services and maintains the streetlights on Reliez Valley Road, and this cost has been excluded from the District. Plans and specifications for the service and maintenance of streetlights are published by PG&E and are incorporated into this Report by reference.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
2 Other services, which the District provides include the repair or resurfacing of the asphalt path along Reliez Valley Road.

Maintenance of the public open space within the development may also be provided under the District but has been budgeted on an as-needed basis.

There are no substantial changes or additions to the improvements or services proposed for FY 22/23, but the budget has included $25,000 for a potential slope stabilization project located along Reliez Valley Road. There was a slide there in 2021, which may need to be repaired. This amount is being funded from the Zone Reserves.

Gallery Walk
The subdivision contains 133 residential lots. These parcels of land were annexed into the existing assessment district in 2002 and are shown on the diagramfound in Appendix B. There is also a separate budget for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements for the Gallery Walk development.

Areas beingmaintained lie within the public right of way, generally located along West Hookston Road, Cleaveland Road, Astrid Drive and within the East Bay Municipal Utility District (“EBMUD”) right of way. The improvements consist of the maintenance and servicing of the existing landscaping, including, but not limited to trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt pathways; and street lighting on public streets, easements, and right of ways immediately adjacent to the subdivision. The landscaping services provided include, but are not limited to litter and debris removal; irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs; pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration; weed control; erosion control; and trimming of vegetation.

The services in the public right of way adjacent to West Hookston Road, Cleaveland Road, and Astrid Drive are limited to street lighting. The maintenance of ground cover, turf, irrigation, and litter and debris removal in these areas is not the responsibility of the District but is provided by the individual property owner or the Homeowner’s Association.

There will be an occasional need to repair or replace the concrete sidewalks along the exterior of the tract. Reserve funds will be used for that purpose when required and may also be used to resurface the asphalt path along the EBMUD trail in the future, as well as other repairs or replacements as needed.

There are no substantial changes or additions to the improvements or services proposed for FY 22/23.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
3 PART 2 – ESTIMATE OF COST
The estimated budget for the annual maintenance and servicing of the improvements and the proportionate share of administration costs for the District has been prepared based on the estimated and historical costs to provide said maintenance and services. Individual budgets for Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk are shown on the following pages.

The proposed costs represent the estimated costs required to maintain the improvements at the level expected by property owners and the City, and includes contributions from the City to account for the general benefit conferred to parcels outside the District.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
4 GRAYSON WOODS
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 39,098 $ 11,311 $ 8,450
Interest $ 313 $ 90 $ 68
Assessments $ 34,703 $ 35,744 $ 36,816
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 2,366 $ 2,437 $ 2,510 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 37,381 $ 38,271 $ 39,394

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 1,359 $ 1,399 $ 1,441
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 14,479 $ 14,913 $ 15,360 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 5,490 $ 5,545 $ 5,600 C/S Professional (3) $ - $ - $ -
C/S Construction (3) $ 25,000 $ - $ -
Sidewalk/Pathways Maintenance $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ 3,726 $ 3,837 $ 3,952
Utilities - Water $ 9,351 $ 9,632 $ 9,921
Utilities - Other $ 1,390 $ 1,432 $ 1,475
Advertising $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (4) $ 214 $ 214 $ 214 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 2,410 $ 2,410 $ 2,410 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 65,168 $ 41,132 $ 42,124

RESERVE BALANCE
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 32,584 $ 11,311 $ 8,450 Operating Reserve Fund Adjustments $ (27,787) $ (2,861) $ (2,731) Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 4,797 $ 8,450 $ 5,719 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 6,514 $ - $ - Capital Reserve Fund Adjustments $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 6,514 $ - $ - Total Reserve Balance: $ 11,311 $ 8,450 $ 5,719
Assessable EDU's - Single Family Parcels 104.00 104.00 104.00 Assessable EDU's - Golf Course Clubhouse & Remainder 4.50 4.50 4.50 Total EDU 108.50 108.50 108.50
Actual/Proposed Assessment (5) $ 319.84 $ 329.44 $ 339.32 Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 359.00 $ 359.00 $ 359.00 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years assumes a 1% escalator. 34 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 5 Actual Assessment are proposed to increase as shown to replenish Reserves. 6 Maximum Assessment was established in an amount not to exceed $359.00.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

Consulting Services related to professional service and construction contract costs.

The $25,000 shown is specifically related to a landslide repair project along Reliez Valley Road.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
5 GALLERY WALK
Proposed
Budget
FY 22/23
Projected
Budget
FY 23/24
Projected
Budget
FY 24/25

DISTRICT REVENUES
Balance Forward $ 56,202 $ 58,533 $ 62,506
$ - $ -
Interest $ 450 $ 468 $ 500
Assessments $ 24,938 $ 24,938 $ 24,938
General Benefit Contribution from General Fund $ 5,880 $ 6,056 $ 6,238 SUBTOTAL REVENUES $ 31,267 $ 31,462 $ 31,675

DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
District General Expenses (1) $ 1,359 $ 1,399 $ 1,441
Maintenance Division Salaries & Benefits (1) $ 14,666 $ 15,106 $ 15,559 District Engineering and Annual Report (2) $ 6,730 $ 6,797 $ 6,865 C/S Professional (3) $ - $ - $ -
C/S Construction (3) $ - $ - $ -
Sidewalk/Pathways Maintenance $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Utilities - Gas & Electric $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Water (4) $ - $ - $ -
Utilities - Other $ 193 $ 198 $ 204
Advertising $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
Contra Costa County Collection Fee (5) $ 238 $ 238 $ 238 Supplies - Landscaping Material and Equipment $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 SUBTOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 28,935 $ 27,489 $ 28,058

RESERVE BALANCES
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 14,468 $ 13,745 $ 14,029 Operating Reserve Fund Adjustments $ - $ - $ -
Estimated Operating Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 14,468 $ 13,745 $ 14,029 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Beginning Balance 7/1 $ 41,734 $ 44,789 $ 48,477 Capital Reserve Fund Adjustments $ 2,332 $ 3,973 $ 3,617 Estimated Capital Reserve Fund Ending Balance 6/30 $ 44,065 $ 48,761 $ 52,094 Total Reserve Balance: $ 58,533 $ 62,506 $ 66,123
Assessable EDU's - Single Family Parcels 133.00 133.00 133.00 Total EDU 133.00 133.00 133.00
Actual/Proposed Assessment $ 187.50 $ 187.50 $ 187.50
Maximum Allowable Assessment (6) $ 234.36 $ 234.36 $ 234.36 1 City Engineering and Public Works maintenance staff time devoted to the District. 2 Dist Eng & Annual Rpt costs for future years assumes a 1% escalator. 3 Consulting Services related to professional service and construction contract costs. 4 Water supplied by development. 5 County fee to place assessments onto the tax roll. 6 Maximum Assessment was established in an amount not to exceed $234.36.

Future Year Projected Budgets assume a 2% or 3% increase to expenditures.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
6 PART 3 – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of each Zone and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District has been submitted to the office of the City Clerk of the City of Pleasant Hill, and is hereby made a part of this Report by reference.

A copy of the Assessment Diagram is included as Appendix B of this Report.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
7 PART 4 – METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
General
Street and Highways Code Section 22573 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section states:
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
— Streets and Highways Code Section 22573
The 1972 Act permits the designation of areas of benefit within any individual assessment district if "by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will received different degrees of benefit from the improvements." (Sec. 22574). Thus, the 1972 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax."
In November 1996, the voters of California adopted Proposition 218, which has been codified as Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 imposed a number of substantive and procedural requirements on taxes, assessments, and property-related fees imposed by local governments in California.

The method of apportionment described in this Report, and confirmed by the City Council, utilizes commonly accepted engineering practices established pursuant to the 1972 Act and the California Constitution for the allocation of special benefit assessments. The calculation of assessments is based upon the parcel type and the services and improvements provided to equitably apportion the costs based on the special benefit received by each lot or parcel. The special benefit received by each lot or parcel is over and above any general benefit conferred upon said lots or parcels or to the public at large.

Special Benefit
The improvements and associated costs have been allocated to the assessable properties within the District based upon the special benefit received by those properties. The improvements for which the properties are assessed have been identified as necessary, were installed and are being maintained as part of the development plans. As such, the improvements and continuing maintenance and servicing of those improvements are the obligation of the properties within the District.

General Benefit
The landscaping and hardscape improvements that are unique to each neighborhood in the District (Grayson Woods and Gallery Walk), with regards to the specific plant materials, style and intensity of landscaping and hardscape within the community, provide a special benefit to property owners within those neighborhoods by providing visual interest, a sense of identity and community and definition that is unique to each neighborhood. Landscaping is also used to provide neighborhood traffic calming and provide informal gathering places.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
8 As a result, the landscaping helps to define the character of each neighborhood, setting it apart from other areas within the City. The landscaping improvements provide particular aesthetics and community identity to the neighborhoods.

Those landscaping improvements were installed and are maintained as a condition of development and would not have been installed otherwise.

Assessments may only be levied upon parcels in proportion to the proportional special benefit received by a parcel per Article XIII D of the State Constitution (“Proposition 218”). Special benefit means a particular and district benefit that is over and above any general benefit conferred on parcels located in the district or to the public at large. Further, no assessment may exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional benefit conferred upon a parcel. Based upon this, it is necessary to calculate the cost related to any general benefit, and that amount must be subtracted from the assessment to be levied upon the parcels in the District. The improvements maintained by the assessment, which are described in the plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer, confer special benefits that affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from their effects on other parcels not within the District, and which real property in general and the public at large do not share since the improvements were provided for the sole benefit of the parcels within the district and were required as a condition of development.

However, even though the improvements were installed for the sole benefit of the parcels within each area, it has been determined that there is an incidental General Benefit from the maintenance of trees, landscaping improvements, hardscaping, ornamental structures, and appurtenant facilities located near the parcels within each neighborhood. This benefit is considered incidental and provides negligible benefit to motorists traveling to or from the neighborhood, or to properties outside the District. As a result, the City has quantified this General Benefit as described below in order to subtract it from the special benefit and will make an annual contribution for the incidental general benefits conferred to those outside properties or individuals.

For Grayson Woods, the landscaping along the east side of Reliez Valley Road and the north side of Grayson Road may confer some limited benefit to passersby or parcels outside the District.

Maintenance costs have been calculated at $0.153 per square foot. This is based on the square footage of landscaping being maintained divided by the annual labor costs to maintain that landscaping (Using 2020-21 Labor Costs (Salaries and Benefits shown on the budget page) of $10,543 / 69,000 SF maintained = $0.153/SF). For areas in the City with no landscaping improvements to be maintained, the City provides limited weed control and debris removal as necessary.

The average cost per square foot for those services is approximately $0.025. The percentage difference between $0.153 and $0.025 is equal to 16.34%. The City therefore, will make a contribution equal to 16.34% of the annual labor costs of the Grayson Woods area to offset any General Benefit.

For Gallery Walk, the landscaping along the EBMUD easement, as well as the south side of Hookston Road and the east side of Cleveland Road confers some level of benefit to individuals outside the District.

The costs per square foot to maintain the landscaping improvements within Gallery Walk is also $0.153/SF (Using 2020- 21 Labor Costs of $7,406 / 48,500 SF maintained = $0.153/SF). Due to the nature and location of the landscaping in Gallery Walk, and the fact that approximately 40% of the total area being maintained is located within the EBMUD easement, which is readily accessible to the general public, it has been determined that 80% of the landscaping within the EBMUD easement should be considered general benefit. The remaining 20% of the landscaping provides direct and special benefit to the parcels in Gallery Walk. That 20% includes the landscaping along the west side of the development, as well as the asphalt pathway, which provides direct access to the EBMUD easement. Taking into account the areas defined as general benefit vs. special benefit and spreading the costs proportionally, the City will make a contribution equal to 40.09% of the annual labor costs of the Grayson Woods area to offset any General Benefit.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
9 Definition of Special Benefit
The method of apportionment described in this Report is based on the premise that each assessable parcel or unit receives distinct and special benefits from the improvements and services provided, including the visual desirability provided by well-maintained landscaping and lighting. In accordance with Article XIII D, Section 4 of the California Constitution:
“Special benefit means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or the public at large” The special benefits associated with local landscaping and lighting improvements are specifically:
 Enhanced desirability of properties due to proximity and accessibility of the improvements.  Improved aesthetic appeal provided by a positive representation of the development, neighborhood and the community.
 Improved ingress and egress to property resulting in enhanced traffic flow, reduced traffic accidents and consequent reduction of possible property damage.
 Improved traffic visibility and circulation.
 Improved accessibility for emergency vehicles.
 Reduced vandalism and other criminal activity.

ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
To impose a new assessment or increased assessment in excess of the Maximum Assessment Rate for the current fiscal year, the City must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution, Article XIII D, Section 4c that requires a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Property owners must approve the proposed new or increased assessment via a property owner protest balloting process before any such new or increased assessment can be imposed. A protest occurs when, at the public hearing, the returned assessment ballots opposed to the new or increased assessment outweigh the returned ballots in favor of the new or increased assessment, weighting those assessment ballots by the financial obligation of each parcel.

The definition of new or increased assessments includes any assessment which, 1) did not previously exist or, 2) exceeds a previously approved assessment amount or assessment range formula. Any assessment range formula must have been previously adopted by the agency and approved by the property owners.

Assessment Methodology
It is generally recognized that most budgetary items will be impacted by inflation in future years. In accordance with the California Constitution, Section 53739 (b)(1), assessments “may be adjusted for inflation pursuant to a clearly defined formula…” A formula for an inflationary adjustment is therefore included as part of the maximum assessment for this District and was approved by the property owner(s) at the time of formation. The formula, as described below, allows for annual adjustments to the budget and the assessments.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
10 The benefit formula used to determine the financial obligation for each parcel is based on the improvements benefitting the parcels, as well as the use, or type, of each parcel that benefits from said improvements. One of the more common approaches to fairly distributing District costs to the benefitting parcels in maintenance districts such as this utilizes a methodology referred to as the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (“EDU”) method of apportionment. This method utilizes various property characteristics such as development status, type of development (land-use) and size (units or acreage) to compare the proportional benefit of each property compared to other properties benefitting from the improvements. The parcel types and corresponding benefit within the District follow:

Grayson Woods
Residential parcels
The maintenance of landscaping along Reliez Valley Road and Grayson Road is of special benefit to all residential properties within the Grayson Woods development in that it enhances the appearance of the development and improves the quality of life within the development on a day to day basis. The cleaning and removal of debris from drainage ditches assures that drainage from upstream properties may pass freely through the development. All properties must access the property via Reliez Valley Road or Grayson Road and the benefit to each single-family residential parcel is presumed to be the same, regardless of location within the development. As a result, each singlefamily residential parcel is assigned an EDU of 1.00.

Golf Course Clubhouse/Restaurant and Parking
The benefit received by the golf course clubhouse/restaurant and parking area from street lighting may be evaluated in terms of the benefit received by a single-family residence. The clubhouse benefits the same from vehicle and pedestrian safety as well as from enhanced property appearance and security. The clubhouse parking lot frontage is roughly equivalent to that for four average residential lots and its street lighting benefit is accordingly assigned 4.00 EDU.

Remainder of Golf Course
The remainder of the golf course parcel receives limited special benefit from street lighting. That portion of the fairway which fronts on a lighted street benefits from the safety and security provided to pedestrians and motorists.

Assuming a typical lot has a frontage of 50 feet, an equivalent number of units of street lighting benefit for the golf course fairway may be calculated by dividing that portion of the parcel by 50, resulting in an additional 0.50 EDU.

Open Space and Scenic Easements
These parcels do not have lighted frontage, do not benefit from street lighting, and therefore are not assessed As described above, equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) have been assigned to each assessor’s parcel number (APN) by land use. They are listed in following table:

Grayson Woods
EDUs by Land Use
Parcel Type
Parcel
Count
EDU per Parcel
Type Total EDU’s
Single Family Residential 104 1.00 104.00
Golf Course & Clubhouse 2 4.50 4.50
Open Space (Lots F, H & I) 4 0.00 0.00
Totals: 110 108.50

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
11 At the time of formation, the assessment levied per EDU was established to fall within a range of $289.00 to $359.00, with the exact amount to be levied in any given year to be determined by the budget for that year. The actual assessment each year may be increased the following year by the percentage of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward Area (CPI), so long as the resulting increase does not exceed $359.00, as established. If the assessment in any year is proposed to exceed $359.00, the City must comply with Article XIII D, Section 4c of the California Constitution, as previously stated. The annual percentage change for 2021 (January 2022), was 3.21%. The assessments for FY 22/23 are proposed to remain the same as the current year as shown on the budget page. The Zone has sufficient Reserves to fund a future capital project while maintaining the current assessment (i.e. no CPI increase) and remaining fiscally healthy.

Gallery Walk
The Gallery Walk area consists of single-family residential parcels only.

The net total amount to be assessed has been distributed among the various parcels of land within the Gallery Walk Annexation in accordance with the estimated special benefits to be received by each parcel from the improvements.

Each residential lot is assigned an equal dwelling unit, “EDU.” The assessment per EDU is calculated as the total estimated cost less the general benefit contribution by the City is shown in the Cost Estimate table, divided by the total EDUs in Gallery Walk.

Gallery Walk
EDUs by Land Use
Parcel Type Parcel Count
EDU per Parcel
Type Total EDUs
Single Family Residential 133 1.00 133.00
Totals: 133 133.00
At the time of annexation, the assessment levied per EDU was established to fall within a range of $187.49 to $234.36, with the exact amount to be levied in any given year to be determined by the budget for that year. The actual assessment each year may be increased the following year by the percentage of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward Area (CPI), so long as the resulting increase does not exceed $234.36, as established. If the assessment in any year is proposed to exceed $234.36, the City must comply with Article XIII D, Section 4c of the California Constitution, as previously stated. The annual percentage change for 2021 (January 2022), was 3.21%. The assessments for FY 22/23 are not proposed to increase from the previous year.

Operating Reserve
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set-up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Assessment funds shall be used only for the purposes stated herein. A contribution to the District by the City may be made to reduce assessments or to fund costs which are greater than revenue from the assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. The estimated beginning and ending Operating Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
12 Section 22569 (a) of the 1972 Act allows the District assessments to “…include a reserve which shall not exceed the estimated costs of maintenance and servicing to December 10 of the fiscal year, or whenever the city expects to receive its apportionment of special assessments and tax collections from the county, whichever is later.” Capital Reserve
In addition to the 50% Operating Reserve detailed above, an agency may create an additional reserve (“Capital” or “Replacement” Reserve) to fund the replacement of improvement items that useful life exceeding five years. These items may include but are not limited to the asphalt path in each subdivision, sidewalks, streetlights, irrigation systems, etc. The estimated beginning and ending Capital Reserve fund balances for FY 22/23 are shown in the Cost Estimate table.

Any additionalsurplus funds, in excess of the 50% Operating Reserve or identified Capital Reserve, must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
13 APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel Identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be based on available parcel maps and other property data from the Contra Costa County Assessor’s office as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and adopted by the City Council.

A listing of parcels assessed within the District for FY 22/23, along with the corresponding assessment amounts, is included on the following pages. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report.

Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.

Non-assessable lots or parcels include areas of public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and rights-of-way, including public greenbelts and parkways; utility rights-of-way; common areas; landlocked parcels; small parcels vacated by the County, bifurcated lots and any other property that cannot be developed or has specific development restrictions. These types of parcels receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore, exempted from assessment.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
14 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
164-040-037 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-040-039 Grayson Woods $1,439.28
164-550-001 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-002 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-003 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-004 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-005 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-006 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-007 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-008 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-009 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-010 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-011 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-012 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-013 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-014 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-015 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-016 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-017 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-018 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-019 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-020 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-021 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-022 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-023 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-024 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-025 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-026 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-027 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-028 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-029 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-030 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-031 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-032 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-033 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-034 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-035 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-036 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-037 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-038 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-039 Grayson Woods $319.84

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
15 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
164-550-040 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-041 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-043 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-044 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-045 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-046 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-047 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-048 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-049 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-050 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-051 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-052 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-053 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-054 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-055 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-056 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-057 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-058 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-059 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-550-063 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-550-064 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-550-066 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-001 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-002 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-003 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-004 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-005 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-006 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-007 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-008 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-009 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-010 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-014 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-015 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-016 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-017 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-018 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-019 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-020 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-021 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-022 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-023 Grayson Woods $319.84

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
16 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
164-560-024 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-025 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-026 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-027 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-028 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-029 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-030 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-031 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-032 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-033 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-034 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-035 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-036 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-037 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-038 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-039 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-040 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-041 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-042 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-046 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-047 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-048 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-049 Grayson Woods $0.00
164-560-051 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-052 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-053 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-055 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-056 Grayson Woods $319.84
164-560-057 Grayson Woods $319.84
$34,702.64

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
17 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-043 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-044 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-045 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-046 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-047 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-048 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-049 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-050 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-051 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-052 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-053 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-054 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-055 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-056 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-057 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-058 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-059 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-060 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-061 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-062 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-063 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-064 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-065 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-066 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-067 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-068 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-069 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-070 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-071 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-072 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-073 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-074 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-075 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-076 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-077 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-078 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-079 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-080 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-081 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-082 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-083 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-084 Gallery Walk $187.50

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
18 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-085 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-086 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-087 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-088 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-089 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-090 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-091 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-092 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-093 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-094 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-095 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-096 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-097 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-098 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-099 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-100 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-101 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-102 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-103 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-104 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-105 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-106 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-107 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-108 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-109 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-110 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-111 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-112 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-113 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-114 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-115 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-116 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-117 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-118 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-119 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-120 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-121 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-122 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-123 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-124 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-125 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-126 Gallery Walk $187.50

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
19 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-127 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-128 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-129 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-130 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-131 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-132 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-133 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-134 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-135 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-136 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-137 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-138 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-139 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-140 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-141 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-142 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-143 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-144 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-145 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-146 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-147 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-148 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-149 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-150 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-151 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-152 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-153 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-154 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-155 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-156 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-157 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-158 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-159 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-160 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-161 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-162 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-163 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-164 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-165 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-166 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-167 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-168 Gallery Walk $187.50

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
20 APN Zone
Proposed
FY 22/23
Levy
149-121-169 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-170 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-171 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-172 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-173 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-174 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-175 Gallery Walk $187.50
149-121-176 Gallery Walk $0.00
149-121-177 Gallery Walk $0.00
149-121-178 Gallery Walk $0.00 $24,937.50

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
21 APPENDIX B – DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The following pages show the Assessment Diagram or boundary map for each Zone. The lines and dimensions shown on maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor, for the current year, are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

8.3.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
22 8.3.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23) Engineer’s Report
Assessment District No. 22
City of Pleasant Hill
Fiscal Year 2022/2023
23 8.3.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Engineer's Report (Public Hearing for AD 22 Assessments FY 22-23)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A 12-MONTH PILOT
OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH BIRD RIDES, INC. TO OPERATE

ELECTRIC SCOOTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

SYNOPSIS
In early February, Mike Butler, a representative from nationwide micromobility provider Bird Rides, Inc. (“Bird”), contacted staff about the City’s interest in a pilot program to deploy electric scooters in Pleasant Hill. He made a subsequent presentation to the City Council at its regular meeting on March 7, 2022, at the conclusion of which the Council indicated an interest in pursuing the program. Since then City staff has met both internally and with Mr. Butler to discuss terms of a draft pilot agreement, has conducted outreach to stakeholders in the community, and has researched pilot programs in other jurisdictions. Having completed its due diligence, City staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed agreement with Bird to conduct a one-year pilot, subject to the terms and conditions therein.

DISCUSSION
Background
What is “micromobility”? Micromobility is a catch-all term for transportation using lightweight vehicles (e.g., bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones) that may be borrowed as part of a selfservice rental program through which companies like Bird, Lime, and Spin, among others, loan vehicles for short-term use, typically through an app on a smart device. Micromobility is a valuable, eco-friendly transportation tool that addresses first-mile/last-mile connections to public transit (e.g., BART), reduces roadway congestion, and curtails greenhouse gas emissions.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1286. In 2020, the state legislature approved and Governor Newsom signed into law AB 1286 to help local agencies regulate micromobility providers. AB 1286 requires that shared micromobility operators enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the proposed service area. The law also requires providers to satisfy certain insurance requirements before operating. The proposed pilot agreement satisfies AB 1286.

Who is Bird? Bird is a micromobility company based in Santa Monica, CA, that operates worldwide in nearly 400 communities both large and small. Bird operates statewide in California

8.4 Packet Pg. 195
from Eureka to Hollister to Indio, and many cities in between. According to Mr. Butler, Bird is currently operating in San Francisco, San Jose, and South San Francisco, and is pursuing expansion opportunities in 15 other Bay Area communities, including Pleasant Hill. Bird has also negotiated with the cities of San Ramon and Redwood City to operate scooters, and the company recently won an RFP with Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) as part of CCTA’s regional mobility program.

City Council Presentation. Mr. Butler presented to City Council on March 7, 2022, regarding Bird’s interest in establishing a pilot in Pleasant Hill. The Council’s feedback was generally positive and supportive of exploring the pilot program. The Council inquired about safety compliance, such as the use of helmets and riding on sidewalks, and the “clutter” of scooters parked on public streets/sidewalks. Mr. Butler outlined the measures Bird takes to address these commonly voiced concerns in other communities, including deployment of a locally owned fleet management company that ensures the orderly maintenance and timely repositioning of improperly parked scooters. At the conclusion of the presentation, City Council directed staff to work with Bird on a draft pilot agreement for future consideration.

Analysis
Overview of the Pilot Agreement
The draft pilot agreement addresses operating regulations (including safety measures), parking rules, maintenance obligations, data sharing terms, and insurance requirements. The agreement allows Bird to operate a maximum of 150 scooters in Pleasant Hill daily (Bird may deploy fewer units initially) and establishes scooter availability between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. seven days a week. A revenue sharing provision allocates to the City $0.15 per ride for rides that originate, pass-through, or terminate in the City. Lastly, there are provisions that allow Bird to request renewal of the agreement and the City to terminate it upon written notice.

Duration and Administration.

The initial pilot agreement is valid for 12 months. If Bird desires to renew the agreement, the company must inform the City three months prior to expiration. Any subsequent consideration of renewal is subject to City Council review and approval, at which time the Council may consider data, staff input, and community feedback in evaluating the program. In the event that the City wishes to terminate the pilot agreement for any reason, Section 2 of the agreement requires that the City provide Bird with a 30-day written notice.

The pilot agreement explicitly states the operation and maintenance of the scooter program is the sole responsibility of Bird and its affiliates in accordance with the terms of the pilot. Bird is required to provide easily visible contact information, including toll-free phone number and/or email address on each scooter so members of the public can make relocation, removal, or maintenance requests or report other issues with, or nuisances created by scooters and their users.

Operations
Data Sharing. Bird has agreed to provide the City access to anonymized fleet and ride activity data for all trips starting or ending within the City of Pleasant Hill. Bird uses the data visualization software Tableau, and will provide City staff with credentials to access the data at any point in time. Staff will review data and ridership trends, such as peak ride distance and time

8.4 Packet Pg. 196
(duration), average ride distance and time (duration), top-ten pick-up and termination sites, among other data points, to evaluate the pilot and inform policy recommendations in the future.

Fleet management. In March, City Council asked Bird about the potential “clutter” effect of scooters parked haphazardly in public places. City staff and the Police Department voiced similar concerns about responding to community members’ requests to remove scooters and the potential impacts to public safety of poorly parked scooters. In response, the agreement contains several clauses clarifying where users may and may not park scooters, including a requirement that users take a photo wherever they park at the end of a ride. Further, Bird intends to hire a locally owned fleet management company to redistribute scooters and to respond to calls from the public about improperly parked scooters. In the event Bird fails to act in a timely manner and City staff is required to respond, remove, and/or store the scooter(s), terms of the pilot agreement allow the City to assess a cost recovery fee of $75 per incident, plus a storage charge of $100, as applicable.

Geo-fencing. Geo-fencing is a GPS-enabled tool that allows Bird to provide, restrict, or modify access to various areas of the City through its app. Geo-fencing enhances safety and ensures compliance with desired scooter restrictions, as established collaboratively by Bird and City staff.

Because each Bird scooter is GPS-equipped, Bird can establish boundaries to prohibit access to certain areas (e.g., Iron Horse Trail) or reduce scooter speeds within others (e.g., Pleasant Hill Park). Encroaching upon a restricted area will prompt an alert to the user, cause the scooter to power down, and will require the user to remove it manually from the restricted area. Entering a reduced-speed zone will again prompt the user and reduce scooter speed to a speed deemed appropriate for that zone.

Parking. Bird anticipates establishing 15 to 25 strategically placed “nests” with three to five scooters at each location. These “nests” could be located on private property (subject to owner’s consent) or on public land within “furniture zones” – areas within the City right-of-way, such as sidewalks or on-street parking stalls designated for scooter parking. Section 6 of the agreement notes, “Furniture zones must maintain a minimum clearance of 48 inches at all times to accommodate pedestrian movement and satisfy ADA accessibility requirements.” Further, riders may not park scooters in a way that blocks access to emergency facilities, bus benches/shelters, utility boxes, commercial driveways/aisles, etc. Bird’s fleet manager is responsible for ensuring compliance with these parking requirements.

Safety
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) regulates electric scooters, which it codifies as “motorized scooters.” In accordance with state law, the agreement addresses the following safety aspects:

Helmets. As noted in Section 7.e.iii., state law requires users under the age of 18 to wear a helmet. While helmets are not required for users 18 years of age and older, Bird strongly recommends their use and provides safety tutorials to all users prior to beginning a ride. Bird uses an incentive-driven approach to encourage safety, such as giving away helmets upon request and awarding free credits for future rides to those who follow safety protocols.

8.4 Packet Pg. 197
Paths of Travel. State law and provisions of the agreement restrict the use of Bird scooters to roadways, bike lanes and bike paths. Riding scooters on sidewalks, curbs, or marked on-street parking stalls is prohibited. Further, as previously noted, geo-fencing allows for other limitations on vehicle speeds within, and access to various zones, areas, facilities, etc. within the City.

Rental Restrictions. Pursuant to state law, only patrons who possess a valid California driver’s license may rent an electric scooter. Further, the pilot agreement stipulates in Section 5h. that “Users…shall be 18 or older,” and, “The Company shall be responsible for verifying user age and restricting use through cloud service and mobile app solutions to those users under the age of 18 without parent or guardian permission.”
Speed Limits. As required by the CVC, a scooter may travel no faster than 15mph, though speeds can be reduced (or scooters completely disabled) depending on location. Using a combination of GPS and geo-fencing technologies deployed through its smart device app – possession of which is a pre-requisite to renting a scooter – Bird empowers jurisdictions to place limits on the speed and/or operation of its scooters within specific zones, venues, facilities, or locations, as desired.

Revenue
City staff negotiated a revenue sharing provision in the pilot agreement of $0.15 per ride. Based on projected demand for scooters and the number of scooters deployed, Bird estimates the program may generate $4,500 to $6,000 in City revenue annually. The revenue collected may supplement the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Pleasant Hill and defray the costs of administering the program. Lastly, the agreement includes cost recovery language if/when City staff is required to respond to a community complaint(s) about scooters.

Outreach
Stakeholders. Since March 7, staff has reached out to various community stakeholders to gauge interest and receptivity to the program, including: the Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce; Downtown Pleasant Hill (Vestar); Stay Pleasant Hill; Diablo Valley College; Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District. Generally, the feedback has been positive, as stakeholders were receptive to the pilot with some requesting no parking, limited access, or reduced speeds in certain locations or facilities around the city.

Agreements in Other Jurisdictions. City staff conducted research on Bird’s expansion into other cities in the state. In northern California over the past year, the cities of Hollister and Tracy have approved the deployment of scooters through similar pilot agreements, though the City of Modesto recently denied Bird’s request to bring 100 scooters to its jurisdiction. Citing concerns about keeping riders off sidewalks and ensuring the proper parking/placement of scooters, Modesto councilmembers believed enforcement would fall disproportionately upon the Modesto Police Department.

Staff contacted the City of Hollister, which is similar to Pleasant Hill in size and population and had approved a similar 12-month scooter pilot in August 2021. Hollister staff relayed that Bird’s fleet management company had been very responsive to calls from the community. Further, after the first month or two, complaints dissipated as the community acclimated to the scooters’

8.4 Packet Pg. 198
presence. On a related note, Hollister’s police department did not report an increased enforcement burden attributable to scooters.

FISCAL IMPACT
Based upon Bird’s projected demand for the scooters in Pleasant Hill, at a rate of $0.15 per ride, Bird estimates revenues to the City may range from $4,500 to $6,000 per year, though the pilot itself will validate projections. The revenue collected may fund bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and can help to defray the cost of administering the program. Further, in the event that Bird does not respond in a timely manner to community complaints to remove or replace scooters, the agreement allows the City to recover the costs associated with staff time required to reposition and/or store the scooters.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department.

The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.

CEQA
Approval of this one-year pilot program is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA, because it is an organizational and administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)). If, however, approval of the pilot were deemed a project for CEQA purposes, it would be exempt from CEQA review, as it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs §15061(b)(3)). Bird may only deploy a maximum of 150 scooters within the City, and each scooter will be electric and battery-powered, creating zero emissions. Use of these scooters will make certain journeys possible without use of an automobile, which will in fact have the potential effect of reducing overall Citywide emissions and reducing traffic congestion. Finally, the state legislature has determined (CVC §21220) motorized scooters that produce no emissions do not contribute to air pollution or traffic congestion, issues of “paramount importance” in the CEQA setting.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
City staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed resolution to authorize and direct the City Manager to execute a 12-month pilot agreement with Bird Rides, Inc. to allow the company to operate electric scooters, pursuant to the provisions of the agreement.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council may choose to decline to authorize the execution of the pilot agreement, or may provide further direction to staff regarding the proposal prior to any future consideration.

8.4 Packet Pg. 199
ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a 12-month pilot agreement Exhibit 1 – Pilot Operating Agreement
Prepared by: Ethan Bindernagel, Director of Community Development / Assistant City Manager Reviewed by: Janet Coleson, City Attorney
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

8.4 Packet Pg. 200
RESOLUTION NO. -22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A 12-MONTH PILOT OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH BIRD RIDES, INC. (“COMPANY”), A NATIONAL

MICROMOBILITY PROVIDER, TO OPERATE ELECTRIC SCOOTERS WTHIN THE CITY

OF PLEASANT HILL
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, a Bird Rides representative made a presentation to City Council during a regular meeting thereof regarding the company’s interest in establishing a pilot and deploying a maximum of 150 scooters in Pleasant Hill; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill has adopted and/or implemented several goals, policies, and programs or infrastructure projects dedicated to providing its residents and community members with access to a variety of modes of transportation for commuting, recreating, and/or general mobility, including micromobility options, such as bicycles, scooters, and other lightweight vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill recognizes micromobility as a valuable, environmentally friendly transportation tool that addresses first-mile/last-mile connections to public transit (e.g., BART), reduces roadway congestion, and curtails greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the City of Pleasant Hill staff conducted outreach to community stakeholders, including the Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce, Pleasant Hill Downtown (Vestar), Stay Pleasant Hill, Diablo Valley College, and the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District; and, WHEREAS, City staff has prepared a 12-month Pilot Operating Agreement (“Agreement”) consistent with applicable state laws that includes provisions and regulations that address the City Council’s and community’s concerns regarding safety measures, operational standards, parking regulations, and maintenance of scooters in Pleasant Hill; and WHEREAS, the Company may request a renewal of the Agreement for one additional successive twelve-month (12) period by providing written notice to the City of its intent to renew at least ninety (90) days before the end of the current term, which renewal shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to terminate the Agreement at any time by providing the Company a thirty-day (30) written notice.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill that,
SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein by reference.

8.4.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) SECTION 2. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a 12-month Pilot Operating Agreement with Bird Rides, Inc., attached as Exhibit A, for the deployment and operation of up to 150 scooters in the City.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

8.4.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement)

PILOT ELECTRIC SCOOTER OPERATING AGREEMENT
This Pilot Electric Scooter Operating Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”) is entered into by and between Bird Rides, Inc., located at 406 Broadway #369, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (hereinafter referred to as “Company”), and the City of Pleasant Hill (hereinafter referred to as “City”) located at 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (the “City ”) as of [ ] __, 2022.

1. Statement and Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish interim rules and regulations governing the pilot operation of a Stand-up Electric Scooter sharing system within the City while this Agreement is in effect (the “Pilot”), and to ensure that the Pilot is consistent with the safety and well-being of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other users of the public rights-of-way.

2. Scope
This Agreement and its terms apply to any proposed deployment of Stand-up Electric Scooter sharing systems within City’s jurisdictional boundaries. No person shall deploy a Stand-up Electric Scooter sharing system in the City in violation of this Agreement. This Agreement and the Pilot shall remain in effect for a period of twelve (12) months, which shall expire on . The Company may request a renewal of this Agreement and Pilot for one additional successive twelve-month period by providing written notice to the City of its intent to renew at least ninety (90) days before the end of the then-current term. The City will provide the Company with a response within thirty (30) days of written Notice, indicating whether it intends to approve renewal of the Agreement and Pilot for an additional twelve-month period. The City reserves the right to terminate the Agreement at any time by providing the Company a thirty-day (30) written notice.

3. Procedures
Within seven (7) days of execution of this Agreement, Company shall provide an affidavit of compliance with the terms of this Agreement and provide appropriate indemnification to the City.

4. Definitions
For purposes of this agreement:
a. The term “emergency” shall mean the City’s response to a fire, flood, traffic accident, or any other public calamity requiring immediate action in the area where a scooter has been parked; and

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) b. The term “public safety or access issue” shall mean a scenario in which the City determines it is necessary to remove a scooter in order to guarantee free pedestrian or vehicular movement in areas designated for that purpose, or when a scooter is impeding access to a public utility or other safety access point; c. The term “incorrectly parked” shall mean a scooter that is parked in a location not designated by the City as an appropriate permitted parking area, as more fully set forth in section 5.

5. Operating Regulations
a. Company, and/or its service providers, agents or assigns, shall be responsible for operating and maintaining a Stand-up Electric Scooter program in the City with the below requirements.
b. “Stand-up Electric Scooter” shall mean a device weighing less than 150 pounds, that (i) has handlebars and an electric motor, (ii) is solely powered by the electric motor and/or human power, and (iii) has a maximum speed of no more than 15 mph on a paved level surface when powered solely by the electric motor.
c. The Company shall deploy no more than 150 electric scooters at any time. The City reserves the right to modify the maximum number of electric scooters deployed by sending a thirty-day (30) notice to the Company.
d. The Company shall provide the City with electronic access to data about trips that originate, pass-through, or terminate in the City. This includes weekday and weekend data, peak ride distance and time (duration), average ride distance and time (duration), the highest ten (10) pick-up and termination sites, including any origins and destinations outside the City, as well as any complaints or suggestions received from the public. The data will be used to help provide policy recommendations regarding long-term contracts for single or similar use contracts.
e. Except as otherwise provided herein, City shall not regulate or oversee the daily operation of Stand-up Electric Scooters. It is the sole responsibility of the Company to regulate in accordance with applicable state law.
f. Stand-up Electric Scooters are to be ridden on streets, driveways, pedestrian plazas, and off-street parking lots, and where available, in bike lanes and bike paths. Stand-up Electric Scooters are to stay to the right of street lanes and to offer the right-of-way to bicycles in bike lanes and on bike paths.
g. Stand-up Electric Scooters may not be ridden on sidewalks, curbs, or marked on-street parking stalls pursuant to state law.
h. Users of Stand-up Electric Scooters shall be 18 or older. The Company shall be responsible for verifying user age and restricting use through cloud service and mobile app solutions to those users under the age of 18 without parent or guardian permission. i. Users of Stand-Up Electric Scooter shall comply with California Vehicle Code Section 21235(d). The Company shall be responsible for verifying that users possess a valid California driver’s license or a learner’s permit.

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) j. Users of Stand-up Electric Scooters who violate these provisions may be fined by the City per City policy or consistent with fines for bicyclists. k. Company shall provide easily visible contact information, including toll-free phone number and/or e-mail address on each Stand-up Electric Scooter for members of the public and City elected officials and staff to make relocation, removal, or maintenance requests or to report other issues with or nuisances created by scooters and their users.

The Company toll-free phone number shall be manually staffed by customer service representatives. No answering machines. No answering service. No virtual receptionist.

The Company name and phone number shall be clearly marked on each scooter. l. Hours of operation when Company’s Stand-up Electric Scooters will be made available to rent in City are 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (local time) seven days a week.

6. Parking
a. Users of Stand-up Electric Scooters shall park devices upright in the furniture zone of the sidewalk, beside a bicycle rack or in another area specifically designated for bicycle parking, or on the street next to an unmarked curb. Furniture zones are areas in the City right-of-way including certain areas of the sidewalk or on-street parking stalls designated for e-scooter parking. Furniture zones must maintain a minimum clearance of 48 inches at all times to accommodate pedestrian movement and satisfy ADA accessibility requirements. All furniture zones are City defined and determined by the City Engineer or Traffic Engineer.
b. Users shall not park or otherwise abandon Stand-up Electric Scooters in such a manner as to block the pedestrian clear zone area of the sidewalk or provide less than 48 inches of minimum clearance required; any fire hydrant, call box, or other emergency facility; bus bench, bus loading and unloading zone; utility pole, utility box, vault, manhole, or catch basin.
c. The Company is solely responsible for retrieving scooters. Should the Company fail to do so in a timely manner as determined by the City, and the City is called upon to remove scooters in an emergency or to address a public safety or access issue, the City shall fine the Company $75 per incident except such incidents as may occur after hours, on weekends, or on City-recognized holidays for which the City may impose an additional charge of $250 per incident. An incident may involve one or more scooters at a single location.
d. The Company shall respond to reports of incorrectly parked Scooters, Scooters continuously parked in one location (a location not previously sanctioned by the City) for more than 48 hours, or unsafe/inoperable Scooters, by relocating, re-parking, or removing the Scooters, as appropriate, within 4 hours of receiving notice from a User, representative of the City, or any other person/entity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Company agrees to respond to any requests received after 8:00 p.m. no later than 11:00 a.m. the next calendar day.
e. In the event a Scooter is not relocated, re-parked, or removed within the timeframe specified herein, or any Scooter is parked in one location for more than forty-eight (48)

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) hours without moving, or any Scooter is blocking pedestrian travel or creating a public safety or access issue, such Scooters may be removed by City personnel and taken to a City facility for storage at the expense of the Company, not to exceed $100 per Scooter per three (3) business days of storage, additional days will be charged at a proportional rate.
f. The Company is solely responsible for retrieving scooters from the City Maintenance Yard. The City may at its sole discretion dispose of any or all scooters in its possession with or without notice to the Company. The Company is solely responsible and liable for all scooters and their conditions, whether they are in the City’s possession or not. The Company shall not be entitled to any claims against the City for losses resulting from the removal, handling, storage, misplacement, damages, loss or disposal of any scooters. g. All fines shall be invoiced monthly and shall be paid in full in arrears, within 30 days from the end of the preceding month.
h. Users shall not park or otherwise abandon Stand-Up Electric Scooters adjacent to and/or within a crosswalk, curb ramp, median pedestrian pathway, median (raised or striped), gutter pan, ditch, rolling curb, parking station kiosk, disabled parking zone, bicycle racks, and pedestrian push button.
i. Users shall not park or otherwise abandon Stand-Up Electric Scooters in such a manner as to impede or interfere with the use, storage, access, service, or truck pick-up operation of garbage bins, recycle bins, green waste bins, and recycled food bins in the City rightof-way. j. Users shall not park or otherwise abandon Stand-up Electric Scooters in such a manner as to impede or interfere with the reasonable use of any commercial window display or access to or from any building.
k. Users shall not park or otherwise abandon Stand-up Electric Scooters in such a manner as to impede or interfere with the reasonable use of any kiosk, telephone booth, bicycle rack, news rack, or mailboxes.
l. Users shall not park or otherwise abandon Stand-up Electric Scooters in any of the following areas:
i. On-street parking stalls
ii. Transit zones, including bus stops, shelters, passenger waiting areas and bus layover and staging zones, except at existing bicycle racks; iii. Loading zones;
iv. Disabled parking zone;
v. Street furniture that requires pedestrian access (e.g., benches, parking pay stations, bus shelters, transit information signs, etc.); vi. Curb ramps;
vii. Entryways; and
viii. Driveways.
m. Users may not park or otherwise abandon Electric Scooters on streets and driveways, paved or unpaved, in the City right-of-way.
n. Users of Stand-up Electric Scooters who violate these provisions may be fined per City policies or consistent with fines for cyclists.

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) o. Company may stage its Stand-up Electric Scooters in permitted parking areas as described in this section. To the extent the Company desires to stage Stand-up Electric Scooters in areas other than the City right-of-way, the Company must first obtain the right to do so from the appropriate City department, property owner, or public agency.

7. Operations
a. Company shall maintain 24-hour customer service for customers to report safety concerns, complaints, or to ask questions. Company shall maintain a multilingual website, call center, and/or mobile app customer interface that is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The aforementioned shall be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b. The Company shall provide City staff with direct contact information for an account representative from Bird or its affiliate.
c. In the event a safety or maintenance issue is reported for a specific device, that Stand-up Electric Scooter shall be made unavailable to users and shall be removed within the timeframes provided herein. Any inoperable or unsafe device shall be repaired before it is put back into service.
d. Under this Agreement, Company shall pay the City a revenue-share of $0.15 per ride for all rides that originate, pass-through, or terminate within the City limits to help fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City, as well as to help defray the costs of the following activities, including but not limited to, City staff time in administration, monitoring, and evaluation of scooter-related activities. The Company shall pay the revenue-share to the City monthly, in arrears, within 30 days from the end of the preceding month.
e. Company shall provide notice, including tutorials at cloud-service or mobile app ride initiation, to all users that:
i. Stand-up Electric Scooters are to be ridden on streets, and where available, in bike lanes and bike paths;
ii. Stand-up Electric Scooters are to stay to the right of street lanes and to offer the right of way to bicycles on bike lanes and bike paths;
iii. Users under the age of 18 are required to wear a helmet pursuant to state law (California Vehicle Code Section 21235(c)); all others are encouraged to wear a helmet. The Company is responsible for verifying that all users under 18 years of age are in compliance.
iv. Parking must be done in the designated areas; and
v. Riding responsibly is encouraged.
f. Stand-up Electric Scooter riders are required to take a photo whenever they park their scooter at the end of a ride.
g. Company shall provide education to Stand-up Electric Scooter riders on safe and courteous riding, and proper parking.

8. Data Sharing

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) City may require Company to provide access to anonymized fleet and ride activity data for all trips starting or ending within the jurisdiction of City on any vehicle of Company or of any person or company controlled by, controlling, or under common control with Company, provided that, to ensure individual privacy:
a. such data is provided via an application programming interface, subject to Company’s license agreement for such interface, in compliance with a national data format specification such as the Mobility Data Specification;
b. any such data provided shall be treated as trade secret and proprietary business information, shall not be shared to third parties without Company’s consent, and shall not be treated as owned by, retained, or in possession of the City; and c. such data shall be considered personally identifiable information, and shall under no circumstances be disclosed pursuant to public records requests received by the local authority without prior aggregation or obfuscation to protect individual privacy.

9. Indemnification
Company agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless City (and City’s employees, agents, officers, volunteers, consultants, vendors, contractors, and affiliates) from and against all actions, damages or claims brought against City arising out of Company’s negligence or willful misconduct, except that Company’s indemnification obligation shall not extend to claims of City’s (or City’s employees’, agents’, officers’, volunteers’, consultants’, vendors’ contractors’, or affiliates’) sole negligence or willful misconduct. City expressly acknowledges that in no event shall Company be liable for any special, indirect, consequential, or punitive damages.

Company’s indemnification obligations shall survive for a period of one (1) year after expiration of this Agreement. Company shall be released from its indemnification obligations under this section if the loss or damage was caused exclusively by the City’s negligent construction or maintenance of public infrastructure. City’s right to indemnification shall be contingent on the following: City notifying Company promptly following receipt or notice of any claim; Company shall have sole control of any defense; and City shall not consent to the entry of a judgment or enter into any settlement without the prior written consent of Company.

10. Insurance
Company shall provide City with proof of insurance coverage exclusively for the operation of Stand-up Electric Scooters including: (a) Commercial General Liability insurance coverage with a limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 each occurrence and $5,000,000.00 aggregate; (b) Automobile Insurance coverage with a limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 each occurrence and $1,000,000.00 aggregate; (c) Umbrella or Excess Liability coverage with a limit of no less than $5,000,000.00 each occurrence/aggregate; and (d) where Company employs persons within the City, Workers’ Compensation coverage of no less than the statutory requirement.

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement)

11. Miscellaneous
a. All notices and communications to the City from Company shall be made in writing (includes electronic communications) and sent to the address below.

City: Company:

City of Pleasant Hill
Attn: Community Development Director
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
b. In carrying out their responsibilities, the parties shall remain independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be interpreted or intended to create a partnership, joint venture, employment, agency, franchise, or another form of agreement or relationship. c. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

City of Pleasant Hill, CA Bird Rides, Inc.

Signed By:

Signature:___________________ Signature:___________________ Print Name: _________________ Print Name: _________________ Title: _______________________ Title: _______________________ Date: _______________________ Date: _______________________

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement) Exhibit A: Furniture Zones

8.4.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Pilot Operating Agreement (Bird Scooter Pilot Agreement)

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ___-22 APPROVING THE CHANGES TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

SYNOPSIS
Staff is seeking Council’s approval of proposed changes to the fiscal year (“FY”) 2022/23 Master Fee Schedule (“MFS”), which would become effective September 1, 2022 as approved by the Budget Committee at its meeting of June 10, 2022.

DISCUSSION
Background
A user fee, or service fee, is a payment made by an individual for a service that primarily benefits that individual. By law, user fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of the service for which they are collected. The intent of user fees is to cover 100% of the costs of providing the service associated with the fee. Included in the costs of the service are three components:
 Direct Labor. Employee hours spent directly on the fee-related service. This rate includes the employee’s salary and fringe benefits.
 Departmental Indirect Labor. Departmental employees not directly working on the feerelated service, but responsible for supervision and administrative activities. This cost layer includes administrative support staff and a portion of the department head’s time.  Central Overhead. This component includes cost for those departments that provide support to other City departments (e.g. City Attorney, City Manager, Finance and Human Resources).

On June 16, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-03 approving the FY 2003/04 MFS. This resolution provided that certain fees may be adjusted annually on July 1 beginning in 2004 by the annual percentage change, as of March 1, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area. The March 1 date was selected because this information would be the most current available prior to July 1 of each year. The City Council identified some fees that were not intended to be increased annually by the cost of living, identified

9.1 Packet Pg. 211
on the MFS with an asterisk (*), some of which are limited by State law. The year-over-year change in the CPI is 5.2% as of March 1, 2022.

Analysis
The MFS update for FY 2022/23 includes the following substantive change:
 Annual CPI Adjustment - A 5.2% increase in permissible fees, which represents the change (increase) in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index (CPIU) as of March 1, 2022 over prior year for the same period. (For ease of administration, fees will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar whenever possible.)

FISCAL IMPACT
The impact on General Fund revenue will depend on activity and is designed to recoup reasonable cost increases for providing services.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. A notice (attached) was also published twice in the local newspaper, on June 7, 2022 and June 14, 2022. In addition, notices were emailed to interested parties who had filed a written request with the City to be informed when the annual update of the MFS was to occur.

RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the resolution authorizing the changes to the Master Fee Schedule, as recommended by the Budget Committee.

ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide staff with direction regarding revisions to the Master Fee Schedule.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Proposed Resolution
Exhibit 1 – Proposed Changes to the Master Fee Schedule Effective September 1, 2022 Proposed Changes to the Master Fee Schedule Effective September 1, 2022 – Redline Version Notice of Public Hearing
Prepared by: Ross Yangwas, Accountant
Erick Cheung, Finance Manager
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager

9.1 Packet Pg. 212
RESOLUTION NO. - 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANT HILL

UPDATING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City reviews the Master Fee Schedule annually in order to consider updates to user fees and/or service charges, including cost of living adjustments (COLA) to certain existing fees; and
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule is included for context, but only the changes are being adopted by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to provide public notice of the intent to modify user fees and/or service charges; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the meeting at which modifications would be considered was published in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation, on June 7, 2022 and June 14, 2022, in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and WHEREAS, this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15273 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council held a public meeting in compliance with Government Code Sections 66016(a) and 66018 where all interested parties were able to provide testimony.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill approves the adoption of the proposed changes to the City of Pleasant Hill Master Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit 1 to this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the changes to the Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on September 1, 2022, at least 60 days after its adoption, pursuant to Government Code section 66017.
[Signatures on Following Page]

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Master Fee Schedule) ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasant Hill at a regular meeting of the Council held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
MICHAEL G. HARRIS, OD, Mayor
ATTEST:

DANIELLE K. HABR, City Clerk

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Proposed Resolution (Master Fee Schedule) City of Pleasant Hill
Master Fee Schedule
Adopted by Resolution No. ___
Effective September 01, 2022
Exhibit 1

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Master Fee Schedule (Master Fee Schedule)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Department Page
Citywide Fees 1
Planning Division 2
Code Enforcement 7
Building Division 8
Engineering Division 15
Police Services 19
City Clerk/City Manager 21
Finance 22

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Master Fee Schedule (Master Fee Schedule) * Not subject to annual CPI adjustment