3.20.070 Annual report.
The pension board shall render annually on or before the fifth day of August a report for the previous fiscal year, showing all receipts and disbursements, the names of all persons on the pension roll, the amounts paid to such persons, and the balance remaining in said fund.
3.20.080 Pension board dissolution.
In the event that the pension fund becomes inactive because there are no remaining beneficiaries of the pension fund, all moneys in the pension fund have been disbursed, there are no remaining reserves in the pension fund, and the pension fund has no further obligations, the pension board shall be dissolved and there shall be no requirement to perform any of the obligations of the pension board set forth in this chapter.
Agenda Packet Page 168 of 230
AGENDA BILL
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Date: March 18, 2025
To: El Cerrito City Council
From: Christina Leard, Management Analyst III; Amelia Timbers, Operations & Environmental Services Division Manager; Yvetteh Ortiz, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Public Works Department
Subject: Annual Parcel Assessment for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Drainage Maintenance Activities for Fiscal Year 2025-26
ACTION PROPOSED
Adopt a resolution establishing the annual parcel assessment for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and Drainage Maintenance activities at the current rate of $38.00 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) levies based on said amount for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Clean Water Program Update
Under the 1987 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), all jurisdictions in the United States are responsible for ensuring compliance with the NPDES program. The State Water Resources Control Board grants regulatory responsibilities for water quality to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards in nine regions throughout California. In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) draining into San Francisco Bay through a Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The MRP covers Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo. In Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CWP) coordinates regional compliance and collaborates on programmatic components of the MRP. The CWP is comprised of Contra Costa County, its 19 incorporated cities and towns, and the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Working with the member jurisdictions, the CWP provides services designed to protect water quality by keeping trash and other pollutants from entering drainage systems that ultimately make their way into local creeks, reservoirs, lakes, and the Bay. Additionally, the CWP coordinates many compliance activities as a region that would otherwise be challenging for member jurisdictions to implement on their own.
Municipal Regional Permit
The City’s Clean Water Program is currently governed by the Municipal Regional Permit Order No. R2-2022-0018 and Order No. R2-2023-0019, which became effective July 1, 2022, superseding the previous “MRP 2.0” (2015).
Agenda Packet Page 169 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
The current permit (“MRP 3.0”) expands upon previous permit requirements to conduct specific stormwater management actions regarding trash load reduction and pollutant monitoring and has an increased focus on reducing other Pollutants of Concern (POCs).
MRP 3.0 includes costly mandates relating to:
• Tracking encampments and addressing illegal dumping, illicit discharges, and other stormwater concerns stemming from unsheltered populations • Developing and implementing the use of new expansive asset management programs and software for stormwater assets
• Constructing rain gardens and other green infrastructure at higher levels, including in roads and transportation projects
• Reducing trash reduction credits for existing source control policies (e.g., singleuse bag ban and foodware ordinance) and creek cleanups, while maintaining the target to achieve a 100% trash load reduction, thereby making it more expensive and challenging to maintain compliance
• Implementation of an ordinance to require large privately-owned parking lots to install and maintain trash capture devices
• Including some new single-family homes as regulated development projects that require stormwater control plans and ongoing inspections • Implementing new best management practices, standard operating procedures, and reporting for discharges of water and foam used in emergency firefighting applications
• Increased water quality monitoring region-wide
• Increased reporting requirements in almost all sections of the MRP.
Annual Report and Recent Highlights
At the end of September 2024, City Staff submitted the FY 2023-24 Annual Report for the City’s Clean Water Program to the Regional Water Quality Control Board covering the second year of MRP 3.0. The report highlighted El Cerrito’s continued efforts to meet and exceed the requirements of the MRP. Notable highlights included:
Continuation of the City’s moratorium on the use of glyphosate in all City landscapes; City Staff’s successful review and monitoring of a growing number of stormwater projects built alongside new development; a calculated 94.5% trash load reduction through FY 2023-24 under the MRP 3.0 approved formula; and, a robust public outreach and education campaign. Every year, this report highlights the significant efforts undertaken by the City to meet the requirements of our permit. The City’s entire FY 2023-24 Annual Report, along with the Contra Costa County CWP Annual Report is available for viewing at www.el-cerrito.org/npdes.
The City actively complies with all existing MRP requirements, including those related to Municipal Operations and Integrated Pest Management, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, New Development and Redevelopment, Green Infrastructure, Public Outreach and Education, Construction Site Controls, Industrial and Commercial Site Controls, and managing Pollutants of Concern (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB’s).
Agenda Packet Page 170 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Specific Clean Water Program activities are coordinated and carried out primarily by the Public Works Department, with assistance from the Community Development Department. Additionally, new requirements to monitor emergency discharges from firefighting water require coordination with the Fire Department.
Current Compliance and Anticipated Changes
The City has reached the compliance targets under the previous permit, MRP 2.0, and is progressively working to meet the requirements of MRP 3.0. The MRP 3.0 requirements are costly and challenging to meet in a variety of areas. Additional funding and staffing resources have been needed to deliver the newly required programs and reports. For example, while the City has been able to maintain strong compliance in meeting the trash load reduction requirements in recent years, the new permit eliminates the credit municipalities receive for source control policies (e.g., single-use plastic bag bans) and volunteer cleanups; which will cause the City to fall below the required trash load reduction goal in the current fiscal year (losing approximately 10% of credit through offsets). This one change will require the City to install a variety of expensive new infrastructure or implement other cleanup programs with diminishing returns. Moreover, to maintain compliance, the City is required to pursue new ordinances, which include a requirement for privately-owned parking lots, or Private Land Drainage Areas (PLDAs) that generate moderate, high, or very high trash levels and that drain to storm drain inlets, to install and maintain trash capture devices. There are many changes in MRP 3.0 that require similar or greater levels of effort from the City and county-level, above and beyond what was required in the previous permit term.
Stormwater Utility Area Assessment
Currently, El Cerrito’s NPDES compliance activities are funded by a combination of countywide Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) assessment funds, the City’s Measure J Storm Drain funds, and the General Fund. The SUA is levied by the County in most CWP jurisdictions and provides funds for clean water activities in the member jurisdictions, as well as activities at the countywide level. The total annual amount generated countywide by the SUA is approximately $16.2 million (Attachment 2).
Each year the per parcel rate for the SUA must be re-established by the County Board of Supervisors, which acts as the governing body for the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and, thus, the CWP. Each local jurisdiction must first adopt a resolution determining the appropriate assessment for its jurisdiction and then forward that instructing resolution to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Flood Control and Water Conservation District has requested the resolution be adopted by the City and sent no later than March 31, 2025, so that the County has sufficient time to place the assessment on the property tax rolls for the upcoming fiscal year.
Agenda Packet Page 171 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Specific SUA assessments are calculated through determining Equivalent Runoff Units (ERUs). An ERU is a value that reflects the amount of impervious (paved) surface of a given parcel. Impervious surfaces result in stormwater runoff to the storm drain system, which potentially carries pollutants to the Bay and into the groundwater. Parcels that contain large areas of paved surfaces are assigned a greater number of ERUs.
Residential lots in El Cerrito between 5,000 to 20,000 square feet in size are assigned one (1) ERU. Industrial or commercial parcels with paved parking or other impervious surfaces are assigned two (2) or more ERUs depending on their size.
In 1993, when the County SUA was established, the City’s assessment was $14 per ERU (Attachment 4). The City’s current rate of $38 per ERU was approved by the City Council in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-05. Per the County Ordinance which adopted the SUA, $38 is the maximum rate that can be assessed in El Cerrito. All municipalities in Contra Costa County have reached their maximum rates allowed.
In FY 2025-26, the County estimates that El Cerrito’s rate of $38 will generate $421,530 for NPDES compliance (Attachment 2), based on data from the current fiscal year, FY 2024-25. Of these revenues, an estimated $89,654 (21.3%) is allocated for CWP regional compliance activities and $331,876 (78.7%) is allocated to El Cerrito to fund local compliance activities. This year’s allocation for regional efforts through the CWP is the similar to last year; last year the allocation was 21.4%. The City’s share of the CWP’s total program costs is 2.24% (Attachment 3).
The CWP uses its portion of the SUA funds to assist local jurisdictions with MRP compliance by performing work that is more cost-effective when done at the countywide level. Examples from prior years include regional public outreach campaigns, regional water quality and creeks monitoring, development of Geographical Information System tracking tools for reporting pollutant load reductions, development of the C.3 Guidebook for developers and City Staff, coordinating municipal staff training, support in development and submittal of the Annual Report. Due to MRP 3.0, these activities have increased and include applying for and administering regional grants, development of a Regional Alternative Compliance system to meet countywide green infrastructure goals, participation in regional workgroups to develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) for monitoring emergency discharges from firefighting water as well as BMPs for monitoring and reducing discharges from unsheltered populations, developing a framework for asset management and cost-reporting, and other activities that assist member agencies in complying with the MRP. The CWP also pays dues, on behalf of the local jurisdictions, to the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances and to the California Stormwater Quality Association. These groups provide training, monitoring, and research activities that are mandated under the MRP.
The City’s allocation for the CWP has remained level over the last four years but is expected to increase over the course of the current permit term. As noted above, costs of compliance are rising in the current permit term as the CWP has undertaken activities to meet the requirements that took effect July 1, 2022.
Agenda Packet Page 172 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Due to the need for additional countywide efforts to meet permit requirements, including efforts that are more cost-effective on a regional scale, the CWP has focused on using the CWP’s currently healthy reserve fund in order to maintain the amounts returned to cities as close to the past levels as possible. Moving forward, the CWP will likely have to either continue using reserves as long as possible or it may be in the best interest of the City and all Permittees to support decreasing the amount returned to local jurisdictions in future years.
STRATEGIC PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
This action supports the City’s Strategic Plan Goal(s) of:
• Infrastructure and Amenities; and
• Environmental Sustainability.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Establishing the annual amount and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to adopt SUA levies does not constitute a “project” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines, under the general rule that CEQA applies only to actions that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. In this case, the City of El Cerrito City Council is only authorizing the amount of the annual parcel assessment for the NPDES program.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 15273 of the CEQA Guidelines, the establishment of charges for the purpose of meeting operating expenses is categorically exempt. Any potential project funded by the annual assessment will be reviewed under CEQA prior to approval.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Staff is requesting adoption of the maximum rate of $38.00 per ERU for FY 2025-26, which would generate an estimated $421,530, of which $331,876 will be returned to the City and included in the FY 2025-26 budget under the NPDES Fund (202). If adopted by the City Council, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will adopt the annual property assessments for the FY 2025-26 tax rolls. The City Council appropriates expenditures of these funds as part of its annual budget process. The funds are used to perform clean water activities as described above, which include Engineering and Maintenance personnel, professional and technical services for monitoring, testing and assessments, State permitting fees, specialized maintenance services, and City administration.
City Funding Efforts
Currently, the City’s Clean Water Program activities are funded by a combination of countywide SUA levies, the City’s Measure J Storm Drain funds, and the General Fund.
Agenda Packet Page 173 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Given the escalation of MRP requirements, increasing costs to directly implement mandated programs as a City, the relatively flat SUA funding generated by the fixed ERU rate established in FY 2004-05, and potentially a reduced amount of SUA funds returned to the City, additional funding sources will need to be identified regionally or internally if the City is to stay in compliance during the current permit term. Various efforts have been made by the City, CWP, and others to increase funding for clean water activities of local governments.
In November 2022, the City opted-in to a settlement agreement regarding the City of Long Beach v. Monsanto lawsuit, a federal class action lawsuit related to damages caused by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in which the City was one of more than 2,500 plaintiff class members, and accepted $310,316 from the settlement’s “Total Maximum Daily Load” Fund. The case alleged claims against Monsanto for the costs that government entities have incurred or will incur for testing and monitoring water quality, removing PCBs from sediment areas, reducing PCB levels in stormwater, and complying with other applicable regulations. The City received the settlement payment in March 2024.
The revenues were accepted into the NPDES Fund and the expenditure appropriation was approved by the City Council as part of the Adopted Biennial Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and 2025-26 for activities associated with the case and thereby supporting NPDES compliance over the next two years. In October 2024, the City received an additional $69,440 from the Monsanto settlement after advocating for this funding because the settlement administrator made an error in their initial award. Additionally, the settlement agreement also allowed the City to apply for a portion of a $50 million “Special Needs Fund” given the City was able to show that it is affected by special circumstances and deserves a larger award. Staff submitted an application for an additional award from that fund in April 2024, and that notification is still forthcoming.
Regional Funding Efforts
The CWP has completed research on available funding options to help lead and guide the cities in the region in identifying and pursuing additional funding streams. CWP Staff and Contra Costa County City Managers are exploring viable options for additional stormwater funding. City Staff will update the City Council as resource needs and longer-term funding options become clearer.
While City Staff continue to actively monitor and, in coordination with the CWP, contest increasing State mandates that require local government compliance without a dedicated funding source, the potential cost and fines associated with non-compliance are significant. For this reason, City Staff has kept program costs at the lowest possible level while still meeting MRP requirements to date.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed action is consistent with established processes for City adoption of the annual ERU rate. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed action.
Agenda Packet Page 174 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Reviewed by:
Karen Pinkos, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Contra Costa Clean Water Program Return to Source Percentages
3. Contra Costa Clean Water Program Group Costs Methodology and Allocation
4. Stormwater Utility Area Formation County Engineer Report Agenda Packet Page 175 of 230
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 2025-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CERRITO
ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL PARCEL ASSESSMENT FOR THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PROGRAM AND DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT THE CURRENT RATE OF $38.00 PER
EQUIVALENT RUNOFF UNIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ADOPT STORMWATER UTILITY AREA LEVIES BASED ON SAID AMOUNT IN FISCAL YEAR 2025-26.
WHEREAS, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, prescribed discharges of stormwater require a permit from the appropriate California Regional Water Quality Board under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program; and WHEREAS, Order No. R2-2022-0018 and Order No. R2-2023-0019, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issuing waste discharge requirements under the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) to the Cities, Flood Control Districts and County agencies located in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun and Vallejo, includes the implementation of selected Best Management Practices to minimize or eliminate pollutants from entering storm waters; and
WHEREAS, at the request of the City of El Cerrito, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has completed the process for formation of a Stormwater Utility Area (SUA), including the adoption of the Stormwater Utility Assessment Drainage Ordinance No. 93-47; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of El Cerrito to utilize funds received from its SUA for implementation of the NPDES program and drainage maintenance activities; and WHEREAS, the SUA and Program Group Costs Payment Agreement between the City of El Cerrito and the District requires that the City of El Cerrito annually determine the rate to be assessed to a single Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) for the forthcoming fiscal year and the District has requested the approved resolutions by March 31, 2025.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of El Cerrito does determine that the rate to be assigned to a single ERU for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 shall be set at $38.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby request the District to adopt SUA levies based on said amount.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption.
Agenda Packet Page 176 of 230
I CERTIFY that at a regular meeting on March 18, 2025 the City Council of the City of El Cerrito passed this Resolution by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
IN WITNESS of this action, I sign this document and affix the corporate seal of the City of El Cerrito on .
________________________
Holly M. Charléty, City Clerk
APPROVED:
________________________
Carolyn Wysinger, Mayor
Agenda Packet Page 177 of 230
Allocation2
% RTS12 Allocation3 % RTS12 Allocation4 % RTS12 Allocation5 % RTS11 Allocation6 % RTS12 Allocation7 % RTS12 Allocation8 % RTS12 Allocation9 % RTS12 Allocation10 % RTS12 Allocation11 % RTS12 Allocation11 % RTS12 Antioch $ 1,328,747 257,816$ 78.1 307,042$ 73.9 $306,747 73.9 $344,212 72.2 $342,241 74.2 $341,395 74.3 $342,303 74.2 $348,240 73.8 $402,359 69.7 $403,382 69.6 $407,416 69.3 Brentwood 134,488$ 159,772$ $163,938 $191,930 $191,287 $197,573 $200,493 $194,714 $224,852 $226,093 $228,354 Clayton $ 130,631 $ 26,872 78.7 $ 30,466 75.9 $30,299 76.0 $34,801 72.4 $35,014 73.2 $34,397 73.7 $34,179 73.8 $32,874 74.8 $37,175 71.5 $37,268 71.5 $37,640 71.2 Concord $ 2,145,391 300,122$ 85.3 352,538$ 82.8 $344,685 83.2 $393,222 80.9 $390,281 81.8 $394,865 81.6 $392,125 81.7 $374,145 82.6 $425,474 80.2 $423,898 80.2 $428,137 80.0 Danville $ 583,302 104,012$ 81.6 116,505$ 79.4 $116,412 79.4 $135,163 76.0 $136,024 76.7 $133,123 77.2 $133,181 77.2 $131,193 77.5 $149,254 74.4 $148,495 74.5 $149,980 74.3 El Cerrito $ 421,530 $ 57,820 85.6 $ 66,258 83.5 $66,053 83.6 $75,926 81.3 $76,497 81.9 $75,709 82.0 $75,366 82.1 $77,623 81.6 $88,821 78.9 $89,654 78.7 $90,551 78.5 Hercules $ 328,199 $ 58,980 81.8 $ 67,381 79.5 $68,940 79.1 $80,122 75.7 $78,796 76.0 $77,460 76.4 $78,454 76.1 $78,957 75.9 $91,655 72.1 $90,921 72.3 $91,830 72.0 Lafayette $ 483,082 $ 59,882 86.9 $ 67,742 85.3 $67,662 85.3 $78,106 83.0 $79,105 83.6 $77,685 83.9 $76,919 84.1 $75,849 84.3 $87,148 82.0 $86,543 82.1 $87,408 81.9 Martinez $ 718,249 $ 88,997 85.8 100,719$ 83.9 $101,115 83.9 $115,986 82.3 $115,652 83.9 $112,583 84.3 $111,708 84.4 $111,692 84.4 $127,366 82.3 $127,117 82.3 $128,388 82.1 Moraga $ 297,018 $ 39,199 86.4 $ 44,882 87.4 $44,777 87.4 $51,729 82.2 $50,897 82.9 $51,416 82.7 $51,020 82.8 $51,764 82.6 $58,878 80.2 $58,551 80.3 $59,136 80.1 Oakley $ 577,736 $ 92,342 81.4 109,102$ 78.4 $110,623 78.1 $127,083 75.8 $125,474 78.3 $128,830 77.7 $130,114 77.5 $134,767 76.7 $156,824 72.9 $159,550 72.4 $161,145 72.1 Orinda $ 394,308 $ 44,308 88.4 $ 50,959 86.7 $50,842 86.7 $58,451 84.6 $58,517 85.2 $57,675 85.4 $57,870 85.3 $58,945 85.1 $67,006 83.0 $66,948 83.0 $67,617 82.9 Pinole $ 327,474 $ 45,103 85.7 $ 50,932 84.0 $50,950 84.0 $58,564 81.7 $58,586 82.1 $59,180 81.9 $58,752 82.1 $56,373 82.8 $63,587 80.6 $63,463 80.6 $64,097 80.4 Pittsburg $ 1,257,906 160,997$ 85.5 184,324$ 83.5 $187,468 83.2 $221,172 81.5 $217,966 82.7 $225,496 82.1 $225,976 82.0 $227,439 81.9 $260,737 79.3 $261,934 79.2 $264,553 79.0 Pleasant Hill $ 500,440 $ 81,327 83.5 $ 92,620 81.2 $93,057 81.1 $106,764 78.3 $105,331 79.0 $103,969 79.2 $103,536 79.3 $102,970 79.4 $116,401 76.7 $116,348 76.8 $117,512 76.5 Richmond 255,550$ 300,003$ $300,153 $337,837 $331,830 $337,442 $334,059 $346,470 $395,653 $393,276 $397,208 San Pablo $ 444,697 $ 70,776 83.2 $ 83,792 80.1 $83,380 80.2 $96,184 77.4 $95,601 78.5 $95,310 78.6 $94,157 78.8 $95,356 78.6 $109,096 75.5 $108,450 75.6 $109,535 75.4 San Ramon $ 1,255,004 187,024$ 84.2 212,987$ 82.3 $216,284 82.0 $251,605 78.4 $252,268 79.9 $252,187 79.9 $254,383 79.7 $253,658 79.8 $288,833 77.0 $287,888 77.1 $290,767 76.8 Walnut Creek $ 1,317,788 159,187$ 86.6 190,306$ 84.0 $190,571 84.0 $215,144 82.0 $210,694 84.0 $214,995 83.7 $216,327 83.6 $211,506 83.9 $241,345 81.7 $242,217 81.6 $244,639 81.4 CC County $ 3,665,938 400,713$ 88.3 465,102$ 87.0 $465,739 87.0 $525,212 84.9 $521,037 85.8 $528,710 85.6 $529,080 85.6 $535,464 85.4 $607,536 83.4 $608,006 83.4 $614,087 83.2 Total $ 16,177,440
= No SUA. Stormwater funding from other sources.
9. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2022.
10.Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2023. 11.Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2024. 12. Percentage of Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA) revenue Returned-to-Source (RTS).
3. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2016.
4. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2017.
5. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2018.
6. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2019.
7. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2020.
8. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2021.
2. Allocation of costs based on CA Department of Finance Population Figures - January 1, 2015.
FY 23/24 Budget Cap FY 24/25 Budget Cap FY 25/26 Budget Cap FY 26/27 Budget Cap $2,625,516 $3,053,432 $3,085,545 $3,499,213 $3,473,097 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
1. Total Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA) revenue based on FY 2023/24. SUA revenue may increase annually due to new development activity.
Adopted Proposed Forecast
FY 16/17 Net Budget FY 17/18 Net Budget FY 18/19 Net Budget FY 19/20 Net Budget FY 20/21 Net Budget FY 21/22 Budget Cap Contra Costa Clean Water Program
Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA) Revenue, Cost Allocations, and SUA Revenue Return-to-Source (RTS) Percentages Updated (2/5/2025)
Stormwater Utility Assessment
(SUA) Revenue1
(FY 2024/25)
FY 22/23 Budget Cap
$3,500,000
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Attachment 2
Agenda Packet Page 178 of 230
City/County/State January 1, 2023 January 1, 2024(1) Percent Prorated % of SUA Budget (3) Change Program (2) Allocation
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1,145,274 1,146,626 0.12% $ 4,000,000 ANTIOCH 115,282 115,632 0.3 10.08% $ 403,382
BRENTWOOD 64,496 64,811 0.5 5.65% $ 226,093
CLAYTON 10,687 10,683 0.0 0.93% $ 37,268
CONCORD 121,663 121,513 -0.1 10.60% $ 423,898
DANVILLE 42,736 42,567 -0.4 3.71% $ 148,495
EL CERRITO 25,409 25,700 1.1 2.24% $ 89,654
HERCULES 26,202 26,063 -0.5 2.27% $ 90,921
LAFAYETTE 24,823 24,808 -0.1 2.16% $ 86,543
MARTINEZ 36,425 36,439 0.0 3.18% $ 127,117
MORAGA 16,858 16,784 -0.4 1.46% $ 58,551
OAKLEY 44,929 45,736 1.8 3.99% $ 159,550
ORINDA 19,231 19,191 -0.2 1.67% $ 66,948
PINOLE 18,278 18,192 -0.5 1.59% $ 63,463
PITTSBURG 74,736 75,085 0.5 6.55% $ 261,934
PLEASANT HILL 33,447 33,352 -0.3 2.91% $ 116,348
RICHMOND 113,122 112,735 -0.3 9.83% $ 393,276
SAN PABLO 31,163 31,088 -0.2 2.71% $ 108,450
SAN RAMON 82,754 82,525 -0.3 7.20% $ 287,888
WALNUT CREEK 69,010 69,433 0.6 6.06% $ 242,217
UNINCORP. COUNTY 174,023 174,289 0.2 15.20% $ 608,006
100.00% $ 4,000,000
1. Population estimate based on State of California Department of Finance (E-1) City/County projections- January 1, 2025.
Figures are updated in May of each year.
2. Percentages based on prorata of population.
3. SUA funds allocated for budget purposes, which by policy is set at $4M.
CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
GROUP COSTS METHODOLOGY & ALLOCATION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Attachment 3
Agenda Packet Page 179 of 230
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, CHIEF ENGINEER
DATE: June 22, 1993
SUBJECT: CHIEF ENGINEER'S REPORT ON FORMATION OF STORMWATER UTILITY AREAS AND
ADOPTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action:
1. ACCEPT Chief Engineer's report on the tabulation of the protests against the proposed Stormwater Utility Assessments;
2. FIND that the number of protests received for each Stormwater Utility Area represent less than fifty (50) percent of the area;
3. DETERMINE the formation of the Stormwater Utility Areas is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) Article 5, CEQA Guidelines. DIRECT the Community Development Director to file a notice of Exemption.
4. APPROVE the resolutions establishing the seventeen (17) Stormwater Utility Areas; and
5. ADOPT the Ordinance establishing Stormwater Utility Assessments in the seventeen (17) Stormwater Utility Areas with the stipulation that the Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) rate for the unincorporated County area shall be $16.20 for Fiscal Year 1993-94 (a ten percent reduction from the proposed rate of $18/ERU.)
Continued on Attachment:_X_ SIGNATURE'~ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITIEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON JUN 2 2 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED -Jl- OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
.. -L UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _____ ---'
AYES: NOES: ____ _
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___ _
MFK:Iv:fp:sJ
c;NPDES\22,\6
Olig, Div:
Contact:
cc:
Public Works (FC)
MiHon Kubicek. 313-2203
County Administrator
County Auditor
County Counsel
PW • Flood Control
I hereby certify that this I, • true and correct copy,. an action laken and entered on the minutes 01 the Board 01 Supem on the date Ihown.
AmSTED: 2 2 1993
PHil BATCHELOR. Clerk 01 the Board
of Supervlsore and 2=ttator
By ,. f3af,~ ~ ,Otputy
Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Attachment 4
Agenda Packet Page 180 of 230
Formation of Stormwater Utility Areas
and Adoption of Annual Assessments
June 22, 1993
Page -2-
II. Financial Impact:
The proposed Stormwater Utility Assessments will raise approximately $8,052,900 to fund the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit activities including drainage system maintenance for the following cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County areas:
Antioch
Clayton
Concord
Danville
EI Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
Pleasant Hill
San Pablo
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Contra Costa County, its incorporated cities and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District decided approximately two years ago to collectively apply for a Joint Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This is federally mandated through the Clean Water Act which was amended in 1987 to specifically address stormwater pollution. There are three parts to the Permit. The Part I Application representing reconnaissance level activities by each municipality was submitted to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards on May 18, 1992.
The Part II Application represented the development of each municipality's Stormwater Management Plan which was submitted to the Regional Boards on May 17, 1993. The Stormwater Management Plan seeks to reduce or radically eliminate pollutants from entering or reaching the storm sewer system. The third phase of the process is the actual promulgation of the Permit.
The Permit is for five years (1993 to 1998) requiring each municipality to implement their approved Stormwater Management Plan. The Regional Boards have indicated the need for a "restricted" funding source to finance implementation costs. Therefore, Contra Costa County proposed legislation providing a financing option for municipalities to use through the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The bill, AB 2768 (Campbell), was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Pete Wilson on August 30, 1992. The legislation specifically allows a municipality to request formation of a Stormwater Utility Area within their incorporated boundaries and establish an assessment to pay for implementation costs.
The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, provided public notice to all affected property owners before conSidering the establishment of the Stormwater Utility Areas and assessments. The Board of Supervisors acting on behalf of Contra Costa County has also taken specific actions establishing the Stormwater Utility Area and assessment for the unincorporated portion of the County. Should there be a fifty percent (50%) protest against the Storm water Utility Areas formations and assessments, the Board of Supervisors would have to abandon this form of financing. Due to the inability to create any new assessments for the 1993-94 Fiscal Year, the likely alternative funding source would be the General Fund.
Public n9tices were sent to approximately 238,234 parcel owners. State legislation (SB 1977 - Bergeson) requires at least 45 day notice to parcel owners before the governing board considers any new or increased assessments. This requirement was met and informed parcel owners of two public hearings which were held on June 10 and 15, 1993. Approximately 28,170 recorded protests have been received. This represents approximately 11.8% of the total number of parcel owners who received public notices. The recorded protest includes those legally acceptable and those that appear acceptable but presently are questionable.
The reason this figure is used is to provide a ''worse case" scenario to the Board of Supervisors regarding the amount of protests per stormwater utility area. A copy of all written protests ar& rel"illtld in tile office of the Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board located at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. A majority protest by the owners of more than 50% in area of the territories to be included in the stormwater utility area would cause the assessment to be abandoned for that particular area. This has not occurred. The following two charts highlight the total "assessable" and "total" area per stormwater utility area:
Agenda Packet Page 181 of 230
Formation of Stormwater Utility Areas
and Adoption of Annual Assessments
June 22, 1993
P::lge -::lTax Rate Area Area Protested
01 City of Antioch 806
02 City of Concord 1,278
03 City of EI Cerrito 150
04 City of Hercules 165
05 City of Martinez 703
06 City of Pinole 191
07 City of Pittsburg 775
09 City of Walnut Creek 785
11 City of San Pablo 194
12 City of Pleasant Hill 419
13 City of Clayton 138
14 City of Lafayette 587
15 Town of Moraga 599
16 Town of Danville 501
17 City of San Ramon 577
18 City of Orinda 361
50 Unincorporated County 5,358
Tax Rate Area Area Protested
01 City of Antioch 806
02 City of Concord 1,278
03 City of El Cerrito 150
04 City of Hercules 165
05 City of Martinez 703
06 City of Pinole 191
07 City of Pittsburg 775
09 City of Walnut Creek 785
11 City of San Pablo 194
12 City of Pleasant Hill 419
13 City of Clayton 138
14 City of Lafayette 587
15 Town of Moraga 599
16 Town of Danville 501
17 City of San Ramon 577
18 City of Orinda 361
50 Unincorporated County 5,358
Total Assessable Percentage'
Area
5,542 14.5
8,235 15.5
1,801 8.3
1,380 12.0
3,392 20.7
1,570 12.2
3,964 19.5
5,979 13.1
1,408 13.8
2,830 14.8
1,307 10.5
4,833 12.1
2,386 25.1
4,548 11.0
3,677 15.7
3,440 10.5
31,050 17.2
Total Area Percentage'
18,000 4.4
14,954 8.5
2,706 5.5
4,115 4.0
7,196 9.7
3,105 6.1
10,221 7.5
14,511 5.4
1,711 11.3
3,708 11.3
3,185 4.3
9,583 6.1
9,579 6.2
11,037 4.5
9,351 6.1
10,521 3.4
417,315 1.2
Agenda Packet Page 182 of 230
Formation of Stormwater Utility Areas
and Adoption of Annual Assessments
June 22, 1993
Page -4-
The "total assessable area" provides the worse case scenario for determining if a majority protest exists. Based on these amounts, a majority protest does not exist for any stormwater utility area.
The process used to record protests included a specific database based on the 1992 equalized tax roll indicating parcel ownership, address, notification address, acreage, land use, proposed assessment, etc. Two "hotlines" were established so the general public could have immediate access to information. During the ten weeks b.etween mailing of the public notices and the June 15th public hearing, approximately 500 telephone call were received. Two trained operators were able to handle the majority of the problems. Questions that were encountered were based primarily on the accuracy of the Land Information and the Public Works Automated Mapping Systems. These included problems dealing with parcel ownership, acreage of the parcel and the appropriate land use. Should the Board of Supervisors approve the Stormwater Utility Areas and Assessments than field inspection activities would immediately commence. All known problems will be reviewed and corrections made prior to the promulgation of the assessments for the 1993-94 Fiscal Year. Specific problems pertaining to reclamation districts, the OakleyKnightsen area and St. Mary's College will be resolved prior to this promulgation.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) Permit Application Regulations for stormwater discharges on November 16, 1990 (40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 124). Contra Costa County and the City of Concord were specifically identified in the Federal Register as needing a Municipal NPDES Permit. The legislation also permitted the State of California to make a finding if stormwater discharge was a "". significant contributor of pollutants to the waters of the United States" then these municipalities would also need to obtain a Municipal NPDES Permit. Such a finding was made requiring all municipalities within the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's jurisdiction in Contra Costa County to obtain Municipal NPDES Permits.
All affected municipalities excluding the City of Richmond have opted to utilize the financing method contained in Assembly Bill 2768 (Campbell). This means each municipality is specifically requesting the formation of a Stormwater Utility Area within their incorporated boundaries, have established an assessment for Fiscal Year 1993-94 and set a maximum rate of assessment.
Should the Board of Supervisors acting as the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District fail to proceed with this assessment, then it would create immediate financial chaos. All participating municipalities are expecting the Board of Supervisors to approve the formation of Stormwater Utility Areas and assessments if a majority protest does not materialize. If the AB 2768 financing mechanism is not implemented, then municipalities would need to resort to general revenue financing. This would further exasperate the financial dilemma all municipalities are facing with cut-backs from the State to local governments.
Agenda Packet Page 183 of 230
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT I
IMPOSING STORM WATER UTlUTY ASSESSMENTS FOR
STORMWATER UTlUTY AREAS: .
1-(Antioch). 2-(Clayton). 3-(Concord). 4-(Danville). 5-(8 Cerrito). 6-(Hercules). 7-(Lafayette). 8-(Martinez). 9-(Moraga), 1O-(Orinda). 11-(Pinole). 12-(Pittsburg). 13-(Pleasant HilQ. 14-(San Pablo), 15-(San Ramon), 16-(Walnut Creek), and 17-(Unincorporated County) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, acting as the governing board of the COntra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. ordains as follows:
ARTICLE I
Section 1. Title.
This Ordinance shall be known as the IIStormwater Utility Assessment Ordinancell of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
Section 2. Purpose.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the ClEPA,,) has, consistent with Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, promulgated the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations (the IINPDES Regulations'~ pursuant to which the EPA, through the appropriate California Regional Water Quality Control Board (the "CAWQCB'~. has required the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the "Districf? and other affected public entities to secure a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit (the "NPDES Permif? and to develop. implement and manage identified programs dealing with stqrmwater runoff. The parcels c;>f land within the respective watersheds within the District's jurisdiction for which a NPDES Permit is required will benefit from these programs. Further, the local drainage" facilities falling under the NPDES program requires routine maintenance if they are to continue to serve the developed areas for which they were installed. Collectively, these .' two activities, NPDES and general drainage maintenance, represent the city's and County's stormwater management Programs. The Board of Supervisors of the District has determined, pursuant to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and· Water Conservation Act (the "District Acf~, which is Chapter 63, Section 12.8, as amended, of the California Water Code Appendix, to form certain Stormwater Utility Areas in which the ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
1 Agenda Packet Page 184 of 230
District will annually levy assessments to pay the cost of these programs required by the NPDES Permit. The Board of Supervisors of the District, consistent with Sections 11 and
12.8 of the District Act and Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, held noticed public hearings at which time all testimony, oral and written, was considered. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Board of Supervisors of the District adopted resolutions forming the Stormwater Utility Areas. The provisions of this Ordinance confirming the formation of the Stormwater Utility Areas and providing for the annual levy of a Utility Assessment are consistent with the District Act and the reports prepared by the Chief Engineer of the District and accepted by the Board of Supervisors' of ,the District.
The Board of Supervisors of the District finds that the Utility Assessment to be annually levied shall be based on the proportional amount of impervious surface on each lot or Parcel within the Stormwater Utility Area. Revenues derived from the Utility Assessments shall be applied exc!usiv~1y to pay the District's administrative costs in collecting the assessments and the respective city or County stormwater management Program costs for the Stormwater Utility Area in which they are collected.
ARllCLE 11
'DEFINmONS
Unless otherwise specifically provided or required by the context, certain terms or expressions used herein have the meanings set forth below:
a. "Board of Supervisors" means the Board of Supervisors of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
b. t4Chief Engineer' means the Chief Engineer of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
c. "County" means the County of Contra Costa, State of California. d. "CRWQCS" means the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the region in which the Stormwater Utility Area has been formed. e. "District" means the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
" 1. "District Act:' means the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act, which is codified in West's California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 63, as amended from time to time.
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
2 , ~.
:
Agenda Packet Page 185 of 230
g. "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, has jurisdiction to establish the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) and promulgate regulations pursuant thereto.
h. "NPOES Permit' means the permit. issued by the CRWQCB, dealing with stormwater runoff in association with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the regulations promulgated by the EPA i. tlNPDES Regulations" means the final regulations dated November 16. 1990, and any subsequent amendments thereto promulgated by the EPA governing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). - j. "Ordinance" means this Ordinance No. 93-47 of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
k. "Parcelll means a parcel of property identified by Assessor parcel number as shown on the equalized tax rolls of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.
I. "Program" means all the activities required under or in connection with the NPDES Permit. including without .limitation drainage system maintenance and Program administration.
m. "Stormwater Utility Area" means a benefit assessment area formed pursuant to Section 12.8 of the District Act by the Board of Supervisors and identified in Article III of this Ordinance. -~
n. "Utility Assessmenf' means the annual assessment to be levied on each Parcel within a Stormwater Utility Area pursuant to Article V of this Ordinance.
ARTICLE 11/
FORMATION OF STORMWATER UTIUTY AREAS
Section 1. Formation of Stormwater Utility Areas.
Pursuant to Sections 11 and 12.8 of the District Act and Section 54954.6 of the Government Code. the Board of Supervisors noticed public hearings to consider the establishment of individual Stormwater Utility Areas for each of the 16 cities and the unincorporated County area to fund Program costs. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolutions Nos. 93/352. 93/353. 93/354, 93/355. 93/356, 93/357, 93/358.93/359,93/360,93/361,93/362,93/363,93/364,93/365,93/366, 93/367, and 93/368, which formed, respectively, Stormwater UtilITy Areas 1-(Antioch), 2- ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
3 Agenda Packet Page 186 of 230
(Clayton), 3-( Concord), 4-(Oanville), 5-(EI Cerrito), 6-(Hercules), 7 -(Lafayette), 8-(Martinez), 9-(Moraga), 1 O-(Orinda), 11-(Pinole), 12-(Pittsburg), 13-(Pleasant Hill), 14-(San Pablo), 15- (San Ramon), 16-(Walnut Creek), and 17-(Unincorporated County). The legal boundary of each Stormwater' Utility Area shall be congruent with the legal boundary of the associated city or County entity as of July 1 st of each year in which a Utility Assessment is levied.
Section 2. AddITional Stormwater Utility Areas.
The District may form additional Stormwater Utilrty Areas, if requested by resolution of the governing board of the area to be formed. To form an additional Stormwater Utility Area, the District shall comply with provisions of the District Act then governing the' formation of a Stormwater Utility Area.
ARTICLE N
REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER; HEARING THEREON;
CONFIRMATION OF UTILITY ASSESSMENT BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Section 1. Report.
The Chief Engineer shall cause to be prepared annually a written report indicating, for each Stormwater Utility Area, the Utility Assessment to be levied. as requested by the city or County governing board having jurisdiction over the area defined by the Stormwawr= Utilrty Area and shaH file the report with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Section 2. Content of the Report.
The report shall contain the District's estimate of its administrative costs and the Program costs for the respective city or County agency for each of the Stormwater Utility Areas for the ensuing fiscal year. Said estimate of costs shall be apportioned to each Parcel on the basis of proportionate impervious surface assignable to each Parcel to be assessed.
Only Parcels not otherwise exempted by this Ordinance or the NPDES Regulations shall have a Utility Assessment levied on them. The report shall identify all Parcels by Assessor parcel number on which a Utilrty Assessment is to be levied and the amount of the assessment.
Section 3. Resolution Accepting Report and Noticing Public Hearing.
Upon the report being filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors is, by resolution, to accept. if appropriate. the report and to set a date, time ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
4 Agenda Packet Page 187 of 230
and place for a hearing on said report. Notice of the hearing date shall be given as required by applicable law.
Section 4. Hearing.
The Board of Supervisors shall hear the matter on the date and at the time specified in the notice, or as continued for good cause. At the hearing, the Board of Supervisors shall hear and consider a" testimony, oral and written, presented, including all written protests. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Supervisors may revise, change, reduce or modify any Utility Assessment and shall determine an appropriate rate for each Stormwater Utility Area identified in the report. Thereafter, by resolution, it shall confirm the assessments. Such confirming resolutions shall be adopted no later than August 10 of each fiscal year in which the Utility Assessment is to be levied and collected.
Section 5. Enrollment.
The District shall provide certified copies of the confirming resolutions and the roll of confirmed Utility Assessments, in an acceptable format, to the Auditor-Controller of the County on or before August 10 of each fiscal year.
ARTICLE V
LEVY OF UTILITY ASSESSMENT
Section 1. Determination of the Amount to Be Assessed.
The District shall estimate, for the fiscal year in which the Utility Assessment is to be levied, the total number of Equivalent Runoff Uni(s and the administrative costs for each Stormwater Utility Area. The administrative costs shall be combined with the costs of implementing the city or County Program for the various Stormwater Utility Areas. This total cost is to be apportioned among the Parcels within each respective Stormwater Utility Area in direct proportion to the number of Equivalent Runoff Units assigned to each Parcel. The Utility Assessment levied and collected WIThin each Stormwater Utility Area may only be applied toward the costs incurred for Program costs for the Stormwater Utility Area. tt, at the conclusion of any fiscal year, there remains in the account for a Stormwater Utility Area unexpended funds, the remaining balance shall be applied toward the estimated costs for the next fiscal year. Utility Assessments levied and collected pursuant to this Ordinance may not be applied toward any other costs or expenses of the District or the dty or County receMng funds from the Stormwater Utility Area nor may they be applied to the costs of a Stormwater Utility Area other than the Stormwater Utility Area for which they were levied and collected.
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
5 Agenda Packet Page 188 of 230
Section 2. Determination of Equivalent Runoff Unit and Amount of Utilfty Assessment to Be Levied.
a. Equivalent Runoff Unit. The Chief Engineer has submitted a report entitled "Report on Stormwater Utility Assessmenf' and dated March 1993. The report establishes standard impervious surface amounts for various land uses and Parcel sizes and establishes Equivalent Runoff Units (ERUs) for each type of land use. The report and the standard amounts specified therein are adopted by the Board and are incorporated herein by reference. The standard against which all property is to be measured shall be a Single-family residential Parcel of 8,900 square feet in size to which a standard of 3,300 square feet of impervious surface is ascribed and shall be called a Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU). All other land uses shall be Compared to this standard and the number of Equivalent Runoff Units assigned to the Parcel shall be in direct proportion to 3,300 square feet of impervious surface (SFIS). The number of Equivalent Runoff Units per Parcel for each of the classes listed in subsection (b) below are as follows: .:
Group A 1.0 ERU/unit Group G 7 ERU/acre
Group 8 .7 ERU/unit Group H 9 ERU/acre
Group C 1.7 ERU/unit Group I 10 ERU/acre
Group 0 .2 ERU/acre Group J 12 ERU/acre
Group E 1.5 ERU/acre Group K 1 ERU/3,300 SFIS
Group F 4.5 ERU/acre Group L Exempt
b. Classification of Parcels. All Parcels shall be assigned to one of the following classifications based on land use: . ..-.-,.""
Group A: Single family residential on a Parcel having an area between 5,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet.
Group 8: Single family residential on a Parcel having an area less than 5,000 square feet and all multiple family residential Parcels.
Group C: -Single family residential on a Parcel having an area greater than 20,000 square feet. .
Group 0: Golf courses and cemeteries.
Group E: Miscellaneous improvements creating less than 25 percent impervious surfaces by Parcel area.
Group F: Miscellaneous improvements creating between 25 percent and 50 percent impervious surfaces by Parcel area.
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
6 Agenda Packet Page 189 of 230
-/
Group G: Community centers, churches, schools and cultural facilities.
Group H: Office buildings, medical-dental offices, financial buildings, research and development offices, miscellaneous industrial improvements, convalescent hospitals and rest homes, mortuaries, fraternal and service organization buildings, retirement housing complex.
Group I: Hotels, motels, and mobile home parks.
Group J: Mini warehOUSes, industrial parks, light industrial parks, heavy industry, utility properties (corporation yards), bowling alleys, theaters, restaurants, car lots, hospitals, convenience markets, supermarkets, shopping centers, drive-in restaurants, parking facilities, service stations and car washes.
Group K: Boat marinas, partially developed properties.
Group L: Vacant land, agricultural land, and govemment-owned properties used for public purposes.
c. Exempted Land Uses. All land uses expressly exempted by the NPDES Regulations will be exempted from the levy of a Utility A$sessment pursuant to this Ordinance. Those land uses exempted are:
(1) Agricultural uses, including dairies, poultry, livestock, groves, orchards, row crops, field crops, vines or dry farming. .---=-
(2) Vacant, undeveloped Parcels.
(3) Publicly-owned Parcels which are Parcels owned by a federal, state or local public entity or agency and used for public purposes.
d.. Determination of Equivalent Runoff Units Per Parcel. Once a Parcel is classified and its acreage or number of units is determined, the appropriate standard Equivalent Runoff Unit amount for the classification will be multiplied by the acreage or the number of units to determine the total Equivalent Runoff Units for the Parcel.
e. Determination of Utility Assessment to Be Levied Per Equivalent Runoff Unit. The aggregate number of Equivalent Runoff Units within a Stormwater Utility Area will be divided into the estimated Program costs for the Stormwater Utility Area to determine the amount of Utility Assessment to be levied per Equivalent Runoff Unit.
The Utility Assessment to be levied on a Parcel is determined by the number of Equivalent Runoff Units ascribed to ~he Parcel and the assessment value of each unit.
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
7 Agenda Packet Page 190 of 230
f. Maximum Utility Assessment to Be Levied Per Equivalent Runoff Unit. The Board hereby adopts the following maximum amounts of annual Utility Assessment per Equivalent Runoff Unit that can be levied without further individual Parcel owner notmcation for each of the following Stormwater Utility Areas:
1-(Antioch) $25.00 10-(Orinda) $35.00
2-(Clayton) $29.00 11-(Pinole) $35.00
3-(Concord) $35.00 12-(Pittsburg) $30.00
4-(Oanville) $30.00 13-(Pleasant Hill) $30.00
5-(EI Cerrito) $38.00 14-(San Pablo) $45.00
6-(Hercules) $35.00 15-(San Ramon) $35.00
7 -(Lafayette) $35.00 16-(Walnut Creek) $35.00
8-(Martinez) $30.00 17 -(Unincorporated
9-(Moraga) $35.00 County) $30.00
g. Utility Assessment to Be Levied for Fjscal Year 1993-94. The Utility Assessment to be levied per Parcel in Fiscal Year 1993-94 in the various Stormwater Utility Areas shall be based on the assigned dollar amount for a single Equivalent Runoff Unit as indicated below:
1-(Antioch) $20.00 10-(Orinda) $23.00
2-(Clayton) $23.00 11-(Pinole) $29.40
3-(Concord) $26.00 12-{Pittsburg) $24.00
4-(Oanville) $22.00 13-(Pleasant Hill) $25.00
5-(EI Cerrito) $14.00 14-(San Pablo) $33.00
6-(Hercules) $26.00 15-(San Ramon) $23.00 .~-
7 -(Lafayette) $15.00 16-(Walnut Creek) $27.50
8-(Martinez) $20.00 17 -(Unincorporated
9-(Moraga) $25.00 County) $16.20
ARllCLE VI
COLLECTION OF UTILITY ASSESSMENT
Section 1. Collection by Treasurerrrax Collector.
The confirmed Utility Assessment for each Parcel shall appear as a separate item on the tax bill issued by the Treasurer!Tax Collector of the County. The Utility Assessment shall .' be levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as the general ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedures for sale in case of delinquency. tt, for the first year the Utility Assessment is levied, the property on which the Utility Assessment is levied has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
8 Agenda Packet Page 191 of 230
value has been created and attached thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of ad valorem property taxes would become delinquent, the Utility Assessment shall not result in a lien against the real property but shall be transferred to the unsecured roll.
Section 2. Applicable Law.
All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to Utility Assessments, except as otherwise provided herein.
Section 3. - Validity of Utility Assessment Not Affected by Time Umits.
Failure to meet the time limits set forth in this Ordinance for whatever reason shall not invalidate any Utility Assessment levied hereunder.
ARTICLE VII
CORRECTION OR CHANGE TO THE TAX ROLL
Section 1. Initiation of the Correction or Change.
A correction or change to the tax roll with respect to a Utility Assessment may be made by the Chief Engineer, either on his/her own initiative, or on application by a property . owner (the "Assessee'1. .~
Section 2. Initiation by Flood Control Engineer.
The Chief Engineer may initiate a correction or change to the tax roll at any time within -two (2) years of the date of the resolution or ordinance of the Board of Supervisors confirming Utility Assessments placed upon the tax roll.
Section 3. Initiation by the Assessee.
The Assessee may initiate a correction or change to the tax roll by filing a written application with the Chief Engineer within sixty (60) days following his/her receipt of the tax bill reflecting the Utility Assessment. The application shall contain or include the following information, together with such additional information deemed relevant by the Assessee or requested by the Chief Engineer:
a. Assessor parcel number. •
b. Gross acreage. //i (e·.·
c. Use of property as of the preceding MarcFr'"1.
d. Copy of the tax bill containing the benefit assessment.
ORDINANCE NO. 93--47
Agenda Packet Page 192 of 230
9 e. Basis for requested correction or change.
Section 4. Categories of Corrections or Changes.
Upon approval of the Chief Engineer, corrections or changes shall be made with respect to:
a. Ownership of a Parcel;
b. Address of an owner of a Parcel;
c. Subdivision of an existing Parcel;
d. Land use category of all or part of a Parcel;
e. Computation of the area of a Parcel;
f. Erroneous computation of the Utility Assessment.
Corrections to the tax roll shall not be valid unless and until approved by the Board of Supervisors. All corrections or changes must be reported by the Chief Engineer to the Auditor-Controller of the County, who shall (1) refund the amount of the assessment overcharge by check without amendment of the bill if the amount of overcharge is less than one hundred dollars, or (2) prepare an amended billing to correct the overcharge, as the case may be. The Chief Engineer shall gtve written notice to the Assessee of the action taken on the application.
tf the Assessee disagrees with the Chief Engineer's determination, he/she may file an appeal with the Stormwater Utility Assessment Appeal Board within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice. The appeal shall be initiated by a written letter submitted to' the Stormwater Utility Assessment Appeal Board, c/o the Chief Engineer for refund oMill~ or part of the Stormwater Utility Assessment. The Stormwater Utility Assessment Appeal Board shall contain at least three members and shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
If the Assessee disagrees with the Stormwater Utility Assessment Appeal Board's determination, he/she may file an appeal with the Board of Supervisors within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice. The appeal shall be initiated by a written application filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for refund of all or part of the Utility Assessment. The application shall include payment of a one hundred dollar appeal fee which shall be returned if the Assessee's appeal is upheld by the Board. The decision of the Board of Supervisors shall be final and shall complete the administrative process. Any further action by the Assessee for recovery of any part of the Utility Assessment shall be by complaint for refund filed in the Superior Court.
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
10 Agenda Packet Page 193 of 230
-: " ~
ARTICLE VIII
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after passage. and within fifteen (15) days of passage, shall be published once with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa limes, a newspaper of general circulation published in this County.
PASSED and ADOPTED on June 22, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, MCPeak and Torlakson None
None
None
Attest: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
MFK:tv:drg
a: npdes\ord inance
(June 22, 1993)
Board Chair
ORDINANCE NO. 93-47
11 Agenda Packet Page 194 of 230
CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530
Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4379 http://www.el-cerrito.org
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA MATERIALS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 18, 2025
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING (6:00 PM)
Public Comments (Not on the Agenda and Consent Calendar) Agenda Item No. 7.C. – Annual Progress Report for the General Plan & Housing Element
Revised report
Agenda Item No. 9.B. – Annual Parcel Assessment for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Drainage Maintenance Activities for Fiscal Year 2025-26
Presentation
Supplemental Materials Page 1 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 195 of 230
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comments
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 2:07:35 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello Mayor Wysinger, Council Members and Staff,
I AM Submitting the Following comments into the record:
1. for a future Agenda, the Council Should invite the Rep from John Muir to Present on Mental Health
2. Also to invite Kristi McKenney to Present on the Port Sincerely
Cordell
General Public Comments
Supplemental Materials Page 2 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 196 of 230
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Ali Scott
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comments – not on the agenda
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 9:29:08 AM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
Hello!
My name is Ali and El Cerrito has been my home since 2017.
I love everything about my neighborhood, except one thing: the intersection of Richmond and Lincoln Streets.
This intersection has a two-way stop sign along Lincoln, giving the right of way to the drivers on Richmond and in my time living near here, I've witnessed countless near-accidents, I've heard tire squeals and honks almost daily, and unfortunately I have also witnessed both car accidents and a pedestrian hit just last week.
Lincoln is a major street for El Cerrito High School morning and afternoon traffic, as well as morning BART commuters and folks biking/driving to El Cerrito Plaza.This causes quite a backup with impatient drivers most school mornings, and I am concerned about pedestrian foot traffic along that intersection.
I propose a 4-way stop sign for this intersection.
Thank you for reading!
Supplemental Materials Page 3 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 197 of 230
Richmond Street Neighbors Association
El Cerrito, CA 94530
March 18, 2025
El Cerrito City Council and City Clerk
10890 San Pablo Avenue
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Subject: Public Comments - not on the agenda.
Reconsidering the Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project Our Background
The Richmond Street Neighbors Association is a community organization of neighbors, volunteers and friends, dedicated to encouraging democracy and integrity in local planning and decision making to ensure our representatives act in the best interests of our communities as a whole. We believe in livability for everyone in our community, no matter who you are, where you live or what form of transportation you choose. Our association includes bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, young families, older and disabled residents, professionals and retirees, and we all oppose the plans for our street.
We believe that our community is not just a place where we live, but it is something we actively create.
Community residents are the experts on their own neighborhoods and know best what needs to happen to achieve greater safety and wellbeing. Residents are also the engines that make things work.
Neighborhood changes and innovations need to be grounded in community-led information gathering to ensure that those most affected have a chance to define what quality of life means and how to best achieve it.
Introduction
The Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project, as currently proposed, is deeply flawed and demands immediate reconsideration. While the project claims to enhance safety and accessibility, a deeper look reveals significant negative consequences for all El Cerrito residents. The plan not only disregards the needs of the entire community but also fails to deliver on its stated goals, raising concerns about equity, safety, environmental impact, property values, financial responsibility, and research integrity.
Community Voices Were Ignored
The City asserts that extensive community engagement was conducted; however, Richmond Street residents—the people most directly affected—were not adequately consulted. A survey conducted by the Richmond Street Neighbors Association revealed that 90% of the 205 households surveyed on Richmond Street oppose the project, with only 6.5% in favor. These numbers indicate a severe disconnect between the City’s outreach and the actual concerns of residents. The Council’s primary duty is to serve its community faithfully. Why, then, is this project still being pursued despite overwhelming opposition?
Supplemental Materials Page 4 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 198 of 230
Discrimina�on Against the Elderly and Disabled
The project violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to account for residents with mobility challenges. Eliminating street parking in favor of bike lanes disproportionately harms those who rely on close access to their homes, such as seniors, disabled individuals, caregivers, and emergency responders. Without proper accommodations, these individuals face increased isolation and reduced independence. ADA compliance is not optional—the City must prioritize accessibility or risk costly legal challenges. Additionally, this issue extends beyond Richmond Street—if the City proceeds with this approach here, it sets a dangerous precedent that could impact all neighborhoods in El Cerrito.
A False Promise of Safety
The project’s proposed changes will not improve safety but instead create new hazards for all El Cerrito residents using Richmond Street. Removing parking forces individuals to cross multiple lanes of traffic, increasing the likelihood of jaywalking and pedestrian injuries. The introduction of bike lanes will not bring about a reduction in accidents, as the 10 intersections and over 70 driveways on the one mile stretch between Moeser Lane and Hill Street remain high-risk areas for collisions. Moreover, traffic calming measures like chicanes hinder emergency response times and evacuation efforts, putting lives at risk throughout the city. True safety solutions should be evidence-based and address all road users fairly.
Not an Environmentally Sound Plan
While reducing carbon emissions is a commendable goal, this project will have the opposite effect.
Increased congestion, double-parking, and drivers circling to find parking will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. The assumption that bike lanes will significantly reduce car use is unfounded. If environmental sustainability is the objective, the City should explore more effective measures that do not come at the expense of El Cerrito residents’ daily lives.
Harming Property Values and Livability
Property values are directly tied to accessibility and convenience. The removal of 60% of Richmond Street’s street parking will devalue homes, deterring potential buyers who require adequate parking.
Historical data indicates that insufficient parking can reduce home values by 10% or more, impacting homeowners' equity and the City’s tax revenue. Additionally, for families with multiple vehicles or visitors, the lack of parking creates a daily burden, making neighborhoods less desirable places to live.
If this project moves forward, it could encourage similar actions elsewhere in El Cerrito, affecting the entire city’s housing market.
Financial Irresponsibility
The City is pursuing this project despite significant financial concerns. The cost of implementation and future maintenance far outweighs the projected benefits. Some cities in California, such as San Mateo, have reversed similar bike lane projects due to overwhelming community pushback and unforeseen expenses—at great cost. Furthermore, this project relies on grant funding, which, while beneficial, does not justify imposing a plan that negatively impacts the majority of tax-paying residents. At a time when Supplemental Materials Page 5 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 199 of 230
city resources should be allocated toward pressing infrastructure needs, this project represents financial irresponsibility that will burden El Cerrito residents for years to come.
Flawed Research
The City is basing its decisions on faulty data and misleading conclusions. Despite claims of heavy bicycle traffic on Richmond Street, actual usage data does not support this assertion. The surveys and studies used to justify this project have selectively interpreted data to fit a predetermined narrative, ignoring real-world conditions. Furthermore, the lack of transparency and genuine resident input raises concerns about research integrity. If the City does not reevaluate its methodology, it risks implementing a policy that does not address actual transportation needs but rather serves as a misguided attempt at urban redesign.
Conclusion
The City did NOT sufficiently educate itself and Richmond Street Residents about the true and measurable trade-offs associated with this project. The claimed safety benefits for bicyclists (0.3% of traffic) are speculative at best and grossly overstated, and supported by the personal agenda of the mostly non-local bike lobby, not by the vast majority of the city’s tax payers. The negative impacts of lost street parking have NOT been adequately addressed.
The initial approval of the plan was a vote by the whole city without allowing any of El Cerrito’s residents enough knowledge of the proposed plan to make an informed decision. For example, had the people in the hills understood that the plan could impact evacuation times in case of emergencies, or the folks in the flats realized they might lose parking on their blocks or fire trucks cutting through their streets to avoid Richmond, they might well have voted against the plan from the start.
Also, the Council failed to provide good opportunities for Richmond Street residents to air their views and discuss their concerns. The Council’s reliance on surveys that manipulate and skew results, and 3- minute comments at council meetings (from which many residents were barred) is a poor substitute for democracy. This situation questions the quality of Council decision-making. It weakens our community’s confidence in its city leadership.
It is a key Council responsibility to represent its tax payers. Since when does a City overrule 90% of its residents in favor of a small minority of 0.3%? This is an overreach of government. Imposing undue and unnecessary burdens on residents hinders their ability to thrive. It raises questions about democratic accountability and it erodes the democratic foundations upon which governance is built.
It has been many years since the plan was adopted, so it makes sense to review its relevance. We now know that most of the plan’s designs are highly controversial, both within the Richmond Street community and in current trends. The project when finished reduces safety for motorists, pedestrians and residents, especially those with disabilities. In the hope of improving -but not achieving- safety for a very small group of bicyclists, increasing risk to all the others seems to be a high price to pay.
Supplemental Materials Page 6 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 200 of 230
Seasoned and expert bicyclists are speaking out against bike lanes as the cure for all, both because of the negative environmental impact of construction and the fact that they don’t make bicycling inherently safer. They are proponents of education and bike boulevards on quiet streets, which unlike Richmond Street, display minimal traffic volumes, less frequent intersections with roads and driveways, and far less complexity.
“Complete Streets” describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that is supposed to accommodate safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including people walking, people bicycling, persons with disabilities, people driving motor vehicles, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency responders, seniors, youth, and families and residents who live along the street, and not favor those designs insisted on by a small minority of at the cost of all others.
In addition to failing to achieve its stated goal of safe streets, the City runs a risk of legal liability, if it continues to ignore the obvious adverse consequences of the proposed project when implemented.
Upholding ethical standards and promoting transparency in governmental actions are essential for maintaining public confidence that the City’s authority is exercised responsibly and in the best interests of our community as a whole.
“Complete Streets” should serve all users equitably, not favor one group at the expense of others. This project, as designed, disregards residents' needs and imposes unnecessary hardships. Instead of forcing a flawed plan onto the community, we ask the City to pause, reassess, and engage in genuine dialogue with those directly impacted.
The Richmond Street Complete Streets Improvement Project, in its current form, is not the right solution.
We urge the Council to listen to the people it serves, uphold democratic principles, and implement a plan that truly enhances safety, accessibility, and sustainability for all El Cerrito residents. It is time to rethink and restart this process—with the community’s voice at the center.
For additional information and articles, please visit our website www.richmondstreetforall.com.
Very truly yours,
Richmond Street Neighbors Associa�on
Supplemental Materials Page 7 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 201 of 230
Allow sender | Block sender
From: Susan Hampton
To: City Clerk
Subject: public comments
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:47:14 AM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.
I would like to voice my opposition to the Richmond Street Project as it proposes to install bike lanes on North Richmond Street. I am puzzled as to why the Ohlone Greenway seems to be down played as the most viable and well-used route for bicyclists. There are no cars traveling next to someone on a bike or scooter. It already plays a major role in bicycle travel.
Richmond Street is a busy thoroughfare; adding bike lanes does not bring about more safety for them or pedestrians.
Slowing traffic is a good idea with "gentle" speed bumps.
Installing measures for pedestrian safety in crossing Richmond Street is also necessary.
Thank you,
Susan Hampton
Supplemental Materials Page 8 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 202 of 230
1 Date: March 18, 2024
To: El Cerrito City Council
From: Sean Moss, Planning Manager
Diego Romero, Associate Planner
Aissia Ashoori, Housing-Economic Development Manager
Subject: Updated Housing Element Annual Report
The attached Housing Element Annual Report has been modified to assign affordability levels to newly created Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The City’s Housing Element acknowledges that many ADUs are likely to be rented at below market rents, due to their smaller sizes and other factors. Page 4-7 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes discussion of the affordability assumptions related to ADUs. These assumptions are based on the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) technical guidance “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA.” ABAG conducted an analysis of ADU affordability and concluded that in most jurisdictions, the following assumptions are generally applicable to ADUs:
30% very low income; 30% low income; 30% moderate income; and 10% above moderate income. This methodology has been accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for years 2023 and 2024.
Due to the format of the Housing Element tables that have been provided by HCD, the only way to assign the total number of units at each affordability level on Table B is to assign affordability levels to specific units on Table A2. Therefore, in order to implement the aforementioned ABAG guidance, the first 30% of ADUs on Table A2 have been assigned as very low income units, the second 30% have been assigned as low income units, the third 30% have been assigned as moderate income units, and the last 10% have been assigned as above moderate income units.
Attachments:
1. Updated 2024 Housing Element Report
Agenda Item No. 7.C.
Supplemental Materials Page 9 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 203 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
Application
Status
Project Type Notes
2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total PROPOSED
Units by Project
Total
APPROVED
Units by project
Total
DISAPPROVED
Units by Project
Please select state
streamlining
provision/s the
application was
submitted pursuant
to.
Did the housing
development
application seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government Code
section 65915?
Were incentives
or concessions
requested
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915 approved?
Please indicate
the status of the
application.
Is the project
considered a
ministerial
project or
discretionary
project?
Notes
+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 505032018 1745
ARLINGTON
BLVD
PL24-0019
ADU R
2/29/2024
1 1 1 NONE No N/A Approved Ministerial
503272013 7201 WALDO
AVE PL24-0062 ADU R7/25/2024
1 1 NONE No N/A Approved Ministerial
504182031 321
CORONADO
ST
PL24-0072
ADU R
8/15/2024
1 1 NONE No N/A Approved Ministerial
502370022 1421
RICHMOND ST PL24-0077
ADU R
8/29/2024
1 1 NONE No N/A Approved Ministerial
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bonus Law Applications
10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
Supplemental Materials Page 10 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 204 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Table A2
2 3 5 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Entitlement
Date Approved # of Units issued
Entitlements
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 73 0 15 0 221 309 44 7 24 7 0 7 7 505032018 1745 ARLINGTON
BLVD PL24-0062 ADU R 1
2/29/2024 1
503272013 7201 WALDO AVE PL24-0062 ADU R 1
7/25/2024 1
1 504182031 321 CORONADO
ST PL24-0072 ADU R 1
8/15/2024 1
502370022 1421 RICHMOND
ST PL24-0077 ADU R 1
8/29/2024 1
503321028 7630 TERRACE
DR BD20-0017 ADU R
0 1
504231037 216 ASHBURY
AVE BD22-0447 ADU R
0 1
500272009 2500 EDWARDS
AVE BD22-0747 ADU R
0 1
502062028 11690 SAN PABLO
AVE BD22-1436 5+ R
0 44 24 1
504011031 546 KEARNEY ST BD22-1480 ADU R
0 1
501201009 2210 HUMBOLDT
AVE BD23-0314 ADU R
0 1
509080005 6250 CYPRESS
AVE BD23-0757 ADU R
0 1
503384003 647 ELM ST BD23-0891 ADU R
0 1
500302008 5337 ROSALIND
AVE BD23-0973 ADU R
0 1
503330004
751 BALRA DR
BD23-1065 ADU R
0 1
505190005 8320
BUCKINGHAM DR BD23-1147 ADU R
0 1
500460020 2545 ARLINGTON
BLVD BD23-1258 ADU R
0 1
573111008 948 LENEVE PL BD23-1395 SFD O 0 1
502360021 1420 RICHMOND
ST BD24-0002 ADU R
0 1
504242020 320 POMONA AVE BD24-0039 ADU R
0 1
505282009 715 GELSTON PL BD24-0077 ADU R
0 1
505273019 845 BATES AVE BD24-0089 ADU R
0 1
502270012 1511 ELM ST BD24-0094 ADU R
0 1
503255033 837 NORVELL ST BD24-0112 ADU R
0 1
503256011 819 EVERETT ST BD24-0169 ADU R
0 1
500271009 2546 EDWARDS
AVE BD24-0561 ADU R
0 1
503236001 6322 WALDO AVE BD24-0661 ADU R
0 1
500260005 2529 MIRA VISTA
DR BD24-0708 ADU R 0
1 504061027 518 EVERETT ST BD24-0721 ADU R 0 1
503110010 1205 NAVELLIER
ST BD24-0857 ADU R 0
1 500380020 2437 EDWARDS
AVE BD24-0886 ADU R 0
1 503311027 7517 TERRACE
DR BD24-0994 ADU R 0
1 505221041 7750 MOESER
LANE BD19-0729 SFD O 0
504271006 102 RAMONA AVE
UNIT A BD20-0710 ADU R 0
503256015 6831 STOCKTON
AVE UNIT A BD21-0570 ADU R 0
503255024 832 EVERETT ST
UNIT B BD21-0828 ADU R 0
500210002 6332 BARRETT
AVE BD21-0961 ADU R 0
505181017 1319 BREWSTER
CT UNIT A BD21-1154 ADU R 0
504111023 428 EVERETT ST
UNIT A BD21-1162 ADU R 0
500291011 2507 YUBA ST BD22-0042 ADU R 0
505130025 1531 REGENCY
CT BD22-0161 ADU R 0
505061041 7409 POTRERO
AVE UNIT A BD22-0505 ADU R 0
504192005 317 BEHRENS ST BD22-0871 SFD R 0
504192005 317 BEHRENS ST BD22-0871 ADU R 0
503040026 6615 SCHMIDT LN BD22-1155 ADU R 0
503392023 743 KEARNEY ST
UNIT A BD22-1225 ADU R 0
503256013 813 EVERETT ST
UNIT A BD22-1311 ADU R 0
502260025 6516 POTRERO
AVE UNIT A BD22-1360 ADU R 0
502202005 1601 NORVELL ST BD22-1473 ADU R 0
505230029 804 SEA VIEW DR
UNIT A BD23-0172 ADU R 0
503311013 851 GALVIN DR BD23-0429 ADU R 0
503253023 930 RICHMOND
ST BD23-0848 ADU R 0
513371005
1711-1755
EASTSHORE
BLVD
PL22-0015 5+ R 73 15 217 2/7/2024
305
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 4 7
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Supplemental Materials Page 11 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 205 of 230
Streamlining Infill
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions) Date
Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
How many of the
units were
Extremely Low
Income?
Please select the
state streamlining
provision the project
was APPROVED
pursuant to. (may
select multiple)
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance Programs
for Each Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how the
locality determined the units
were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability or
Deed Restriction (years)
(if affordable in perpetuity
enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destroyed
Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/De
stroyed Units
Owner or
Renter
96 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 15 0
0 0 NONE Y
8/8/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
0 0 NONE Y
0 0 NONE Y
8/21/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
6/25/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
5/16/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
6/7/2024 69 0 15 NONE Y
AHSC, IIG, LHTF,
CDLAC, Other, LIHTC Other
affordable units were provided as a
public benefit as part of a larger
devlopment
55 1/22/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
7/31/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
2/6/2024 1 0 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
3/4/2024 1 1 12/13/2024 1 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
1/24/2024 1 1 11/21/2024 1 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
1/25/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
6/11/2024 1 1 11/21/2024 1 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
7/23/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
5/14/2024 1 0 NONE Y
4/3/2024 1 1 11/21/2024 1 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
4/18/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
4/3/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
4/29/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
8/9/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
10/7/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
6/3/2024 1 1 12/2/2024 1 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
11/21/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
9/18/2024 1 0 NONE Y
ADU affordability was assigned
using ABAG Technical Memo
(https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/fil
es/documents/2022-06/ADUsProjections-Memo_final.pdf): 30% Very Low, 30% Low, 30%
Moderate, and 10% above
Moderate.
11/25/2024 1 0 NONE Y
10/14/2024 1 0 NONE Y
10/21/2024 1 0 NONE Y
10/24/2024 1 0 NONE Y
12/17/2024 1 0 NONE Y
0 1 4/23/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 1/10/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 4/23/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 4/19/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 2/22/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 11/21/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 11/21/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 8/13/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 5/2/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 1/11/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 2/15/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 2/15/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 10/11/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 1/3/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 4/5/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 11/21/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 9/3/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 6/8/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 5/6/2024 1 NONE Y
0 1 3/4/2024 1 NONE Y
0 0 NONE Y Other DB
Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Demolished/Destroyed Units
Supplemental Materials Page 12 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 206 of 230
Notes
21 22 23 24 25
Total Density Bonus Applied to
the Project (Percentage
Increase in Total Allowable
Units or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential Gross
Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions, Waivers,
or Other Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive a
reduction or waiver of
parking standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
40.0%
8 Development
Standards
Modification, On-Site
Improvements
No
Density Bonus
Supplemental Materials Page 13 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 207 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
1 Projection Period 3 4
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level
Projection Period -
06/30/2022-
01/30/2023
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Total Units to
Date (all years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - 44 - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 7 - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - 24 - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 7 - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - 7 - - - - - - -
Above Moderate 624 13 50 7 - - - - - - - 70 554
1,391
13 50 96 - - - - - - - 159 1,232
5 6 7
Extremely low-Income
Need 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Total Units to
Date
Total Units
Remaining
167 - 15 - - - - - - -
15 152
161
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.
Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Extremely Low-Income Units*
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). *Extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten.
Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).
Please Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data.
Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
234
51 This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
7 Moderate
334
192
241
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 31 2
Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
283
Supplemental Materials Page 14 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 208 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above ModerateIncome Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning Minimum Density Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed
Realistic
Capacity
Vacant/Nonvacant
Description of Existing
Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
Supplemental Materials Page 15 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 209 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation H-1.A Maintain Sites Inventory Ongoing
The City developed a tracking spreadsheet that is to be used by all planners processing entitlements to compare actual unit count by income level to assumptions in the inventory.
H-1.B
Promote Mixed-use Development and
Amenities in San Pablo Avenue
Specific Plan Area (no discrete actions)
Ongoing
In 2024, the City approved the Master Plan for the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD). This project includes a total of 6 buildings that will provide 743 new housing units. 47% of the total units will be rented at below-market rents. The project includes a total of 22,000 square feet of new public open space, including a new community plaza along Fairmount Avenue that will be approximately 0.5 acre in size. The City also continued efforts on the "BART to Bay Trail" project to create an east-west bicycle corridor along Central Avenue that would connect El Cerrito Plaza BART station and the I-80 / Central Avenue undercrossing, where any envisioned bikeway would connect with a new Caltrans bicycle facility beneath I-80 which is fully funded and scheduled to start construction in 2025.
In 2024, the City also approved a Tier II Design Review application for a proposed 305 residential unit building at 1711-1755 Eastshore Blvd. and also received two design review applications and one SB 35 preliminary application for a total of three proposed new multifamily residential buildings pursuant to the City's streamlined review process in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan.
In addition, the City submitted a grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission pursuant to the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program. The tasks in this grant application include increasing the minimum and maximum residential densities of certain properties within a half mile of the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and the Del Norte BART Station.
H-1.C Accessory Dwelling Unit Tools and
Resources
Annual
The City created an ADU webpage (http://www.el-cerrito.org/ADU) that details the ADU application process, summarizes ADU regulations, describes applicable fees, provides responses to Frequently Asked Questions, and includes links to a variety of ADU resources.
In December 2024, the City held a community workshop that presented information and resources on a number of housing related topics including information on ADU regulations, financing, and general resources.
In 2024, the City issued 26 building permits for ADUs.
H-1.D Objective Design Standards 2024
In 2024, the City submitted a grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission pursuant to the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program. One of the tasks in this grant application is the creation of Objective Design Standards. The City was awarded the grant and expect to commence the development of Objective Design Standards in 2025.
H-1.E Zoning to Expand Housing Choice in
Single-family Neighborhoods 2025-2028
In 2024, the City along with a consultant began work on updating the City's General Plan Safety Element. As part of this effort, the City intends to explore conducting fire risk evaluation and development mitigation program to allow more devlopment in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone of the City.
In 2024, the City submitted a grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission pursuant to the Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) program. The scope of work for this grant application includes increasing the minimum and maximum allowable density of undeveloped residentially zoned properties within a half mile of the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station and of the del Norte BART Station.
H-1.F
Facilitate Development of Pipeline
Projects
Ongoing
In 2024, the City approved the Master Plan for the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD). This project includes a total of 6 buildings that will provide 743 new housing units. The City also approved a Tier II Design Review application for a proposed 305 residential unit building at 1711-1755 Eastshore Blvd. The City issued a building permit for Mayfair Phase II (Affordable) at 11690 San Pablo Avenue. The City also approved a Final Subdivision Map These sites are in the City's Housing Element Planned and Approved sites list.
In 2024, the City received design review applications for proposed new developments at 921 Kearney Street and 10135 San Pablo Avenue. These sites are on the City's Housing Element Vacant and Underutilized Sites list.
H-1.G SB 35 Ministerial Approval Procedure 2024 In 2024, the City began developing a SB 35 submittal checklist.
H-1.H Monitor Land Use Controls Ongoing The City has developed an internal tracking spreadsheet to track specific land use controls that developers are seeking exceptions from.
H-2.A Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance 2024
In 2024, the City released a request for proposals to hire an economic consultant to update the City's Inclusionary Financial Feasibility Analysis. Work on the project began in January 2025.
H-2.B
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Priorities
2024
In 2024, the City released a request for proposals to hire an consultant to update the City's Affordable Housing Implementation Strategy. This effort will include affordable housing funding priorties. Work on the project began in January 2025.
H-2.C New Local Sources of Affordable
Housing Funding Ongoing
In 2024, City commited $620,000 in funding received through the Prohousing Incentive Pilot Program to support the predevelopment of a 70-unit TOD affordable housing building adjacent to the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station.
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.
Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 Supplemental Materials Page 16 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 210 of 230
H-2.D Assist in Affordable Housing
Development
Ongoing
In 2024, City staff partnered with Related California in a successful grant application to the State's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. This $39.1 million grant award will help finance a 70-unit affordable housing building adjacent to the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station along with essential infrastructure and transportation enhancements that will benefit the entire community. This project also recevied $2.4 million grant award from the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, Regional Early Action Plan 2.0 Priority Sites Program in 2024 to support predevelopment. And, in 2024, Contra Costa County awarded $1.8 million grant award through the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program.
H-2.E Develop Mixed Income Housing and
Amenities on BART Lands
Ongoing
The City has established a main point of contact with BART, and the City meets regularly with BART Staff regarding the devlopment of housing at the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station. See Program H-1.B for updates on the El Cerrito Plaza BART TOD project.
City staff met with BART staff to initiate discussions on development of the goals and objectives for development of the El Cerrito del Norte BART Station.
H-2.F Coordinate Transportation Projects
with Affordable Housing Ongoing
In 2024, City staff partnered with Related California in a successful grant application to the State's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. This $39.1 million grant award will help finance a 70-unit affordable housing building adjacent to the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station that includes more than $13 million for active transportation infrastructure. The El Cerrito Plaza Station TOD also recevied $2.5 million grant award in 2024 from HUD's PRO Housing Program to improve connections between the Ohlone Greenway and the project. Additionally, the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission awarded the project $1M in 2024 to support active transportation improvements. Visit www.el-cerrito.org/TOD for details.
The City also partnered with Community Housing Works to apply for a $20 million Environmental & Climate Just Community Change Grant Program through the EPA in 2024. The grant request for this 154-unit affordable housing project at 11965 San Pablo Avenue includes $17.5M for housing and $2.5M for active transporation improvements.
H-2.G Shelter and Housing Solutions for
Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Ongoing
In 2024, the City authorized a contract with Contra Costa Health, Housing and Homeless Services to launch the Coordinated Outreach Referral Engagement (CORE) Program. CORE works on the frontline providing homeless outreach services to the El Cerrito community. In addition, the City funded the Housing Security Fund which aims to cover gaps in services for persons who are currently experiencing or at imminent risk of homelessness for the purpose of rapidly housing or diverting persons from homelessness and the emergency shelter system. The agenda packet is available at
https://elcerritoca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/557/files/report/1447.
H-2.H
Zoning Amendments for Special Needs
Housing
2024 In 2024, City staff contacted consultants and received a proposal to accomplish these zoning amendments. The City intends to begin this work in early 2025.
H-2.I State Density Bonus 2024 In 2024, City staff contacted consultants and received a proposal to accomplish this zoning amendment. The City intends to begin this work in early 2025.
H-2.J
Affordable Housing and Places of
Assessmbly 2026 In 2024, City staff contacted consultants and received a proposal to accomplish this zoning amendment. The City intends to begin this work in early 2025.
H-2.K
Infrastructure Priority for Affordable
Housing
2023
The City has sent a copy of the Housing Element with a cover memo, explaining the requirements of Government Code Section 65589.7, to East Bay Municipal Utility District and to Stege Sanitary District.
H-3.A Residential Rental Inspection Program Ongoing The Residential Rental Inspection Program (RRIP) continued in 2024. 36 initial RRIP inspections and 50 reinspections were conducted in 2024.
H-3.B
Continue to encourage the
rehabilitation of existing housing units Ongoing Ongoing H-3.C Tenant Protections 2024, 2028
On May 21, 2019, the City Council adopted the Just Cause for Eviction and Prohibition on Harassment of Tenants Ordinance, El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 10.300 (Ordinance No. 2019-04), which was to become effective June 20, 2019. On June 10, 2019, a referendum petition was filed with the City Clerk related to Just Cause for Eviction and Prohibition on Harassment of Tenants Ordinance. This process, allowed by California Elections Code, suspended implementation of the ordinance. On June 27, 2019, the Contra Costa County Elections Office determined that petition contained the required valid voter signatures. At a Special Meeting on July 31, 2019, the City Council passed a motion to repeal the Just Cause for Eviction and Prohibition on Harassment of Tenants Ordinance and also passed a motion to amended the duties and responsibilities of the Tenant Protections Task Force to include the Just Cause for Eviction policy. In August 2019, the City Council appointed an adhoc Tenant Protections Task Force made up equally of tenants and landlords to make policy recommendations for the Council. The Task Force convened five times and completed their workplan in Dec. 2020 which included a final report to the City Council on March 2, 2021.
The City evalautes the Rent Registry data annually which is posted at www.elcerrito.org/RentRegistry.
H-3.D Continue to maintain a database of
assisted housing units
Annual The City continues to make this database available on the City website at www.el-cerrito.org/625/Affordable-Housing-in-El-Cerrito.
H-3.E
Direct City investments in ways that
serve to maintain older residential
neighborhoods and transform low and
moderate resource areas into areas of
opportunity
Annual
In 2024, the City hired a contractor and began work on the del Norte TOD Complete Streets Improvement Project. The project consists of improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users and motorists to support transitoriented development in the Uptown area of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The project area is in a low resource area. Key elements of the project include:
- New and enhanced protected crosswalks
- Context-sensitive bikeways
- Bus boarding islands
- Vehicle circulation improvements
- Various streetscape enhancements around and leading to the Del Norte BART Station
Supplemental Materials Page 17 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 211 of 230
H-3.F Seismic Retrofit Program Ongoing
In 2021, City staff issued a Request for Qualifications for seeking qualified engineers/consultants to complete an inventory and analysis of wood-frame target story residential buildings in El Cerrito and develop program recommendations. In 2022, the City completed the wood-frame target story inventory for multi-unit buildings with three or more units through a Planning Grant from Cal OES. This grant funded an analysis of potential at-risk residential buildings and provided the City with data to inform future policy direction in consideration with the needs of the residents and property owners.
This program aims to reduce risks to human life, structures and infrastructure in the event of a powerful earthquake. The program was completed in 2023. The City will continue to monitor the availability of funding through State/Federal programs to develop/implement further risk reduction policies. The City also publicizes the State Brace and Bolt grant program.
H-4.A
Continue to distribute information
about fair housing services offered by
the Contra Costa Housing Services
Collaborative, including tenantlandlord counseling, fair housing services, and legal advice and
representation for residents.
Annual The City continues to distribute this information via email newsletters, City website, and flyers at www.el-cerrito.org/AffordableHousing.
H-4.B
Review and update Reasonable
Accommodation Ordinance 2026 In 2024, City staff contacted consultants and received a proposal to accomplish this zoning amendment. The City intends to begin this work in early 2025.
H-4.C Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Program
2024
In December 2024, the City held a community workshop that presented information and resources on a number of housing related topics and included a presentation from Housing Authority staff regarding the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Visit www.el-cerrito.org/CommDevEvents for workshop materials.
H-4.D Community Opportunity to Purchase
Act
2025/2026 The City expects to start this effort in 2025.
H-4.E Home Match Contra Costa 2027
The City met with Home Match staff in 2024 to discuss their programs and expanded partnership opportunities. The City also posts Home Match housing opportunites at www.el-cerrito.org/AffordableHousing.
H-4.F Community Engagement and Capacity
Building
2025 This effort will begin in 2025.
H-5.A
Partnerships for Energy and Water
Efficiency Ongoing
The City adhers to the the CA Green, Energy and Plumning Codes. The City participates in and promotes MCE's Deep Green plan which provides customers with 100% renewable energy.
H-5.B
Marketing strategy to encourage
resident participation in energy and
water efficiency programs
Ongoing
The City encourages the use of efficient and all electric appliances instead of natural gas, on City handouts where it is relevant. The City participates in and promotes MCE's Deep Green plan which provides customers with 100% renewable energy.
H-5.C Develop and/or Pursue Funding for
Energy Efficiency Programs Annual
The City developed a rebate program for energy efficiency and water conservation imporvements as part of the adoption of the City's real property transfer tax. The City continues to pursue funding for energy effiency proframs, when available.
H-5.D
Encourage homeowners to undertake
energy and water conservation
projects that save energy, lower costs
and protect the environment
Ongoing The City's transfer tax rebate program provides financial incentives for property owners to make energy efficiency and water conservation improvements.
Supplemental Materials Page 18 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 212 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Annual Progress Report
Supplemental Materials Page 19 of 36
January 2020
Agenda Packet Page 213 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
The description should adequately document how
each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government
Code Section 65583.1
+
.
For detailed reporting requirements, see the chcklist
here:
Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+Extremely LowIncome+Very LowIncome+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/docs/adequate-sites-checklist.pdf Rehabilitation Activity
Preservation of Units At-Risk
Acquisition of Units
Mobilehome Park Preservation
Total Units by Income
Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.
Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD at [email protected] and we will unlock the form which enable you to populate these fields.
Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report
Supplemental Materials Page 20 of 36
January 2020
Agenda Packet Page 214 of 230
Planning Period El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates
an optional field
Reporting Period 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Notes
2 3 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(2 to 4,5+)
Tenure
R=Renter
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate- Income
Deed Restricted
ModerateIncome Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Moderate Income Units
Converted from Above
Moderate
Date Converted Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table F2
Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types
1 4
Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Moderate Income RHNA
Supplemental Materials Page 21 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 215 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito
Reporting Period 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
2 3 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic Capacity
Identified in the
Housing Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting year.
Supplemental Materials Page 22 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 216 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2024
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Designation Size Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of
Units
Surplus
Designation
Parcel Size (in
acres) Notes
NOTE: This table must contain an invenory of ALL
surplus/excess lands the reporting jurisdiction owns
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
For Contra Costa County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows:999-999-999-9 Supplemental Materials Page 23 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 217 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
Project Type Date
Units (Beds/Student
Capacity) Granted
Density Bonus
Notes
2 3 5 6
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SH - Student Housing) Date Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Non
Deed Restricted
Moderate- Income
Deed Restricted
Moderate- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Additional Beds
Created Due to Density
Bonus
Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Table J
Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65915 Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4
NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS ONLY. This
table only needs to be completed if there were student housing projects WITH a density bonus approved pursuant to Government Code65915(b)(1)(F)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Supplemental Materials Page 24 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 218 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 6th Cycle 01/31/2023 - 01/31/2031
No Does the Jurisdiction have a local tenant preference policy? If the jurisdiction has a local tenant preference policy, provide a link to the jurisdiction's webpage containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials.
Notes
Table K
Tenent Preference Policy
Local governments are required to inform HCD about any local tenant preference ordinance the local government maintains when the jurisdiction submits their annual progress report on housing approvals and production, per Government Code 7061 (SB 649, 2022, Cortese).
Effective January 1, 2023, local governments adopting a tenant preference are required to create a webpage on their internet website containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials, no more than 90 days after the ordinance becomes operational.
Supplemental Materials Page 25 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 219 of 230
Jurisdiction El Cerrito
Reporting Year 2024 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount
Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.
Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement
Requested
Other
Funding
Notes
HE 2023-2031: Project Admin. $ 20,249.00 $ 20,249.00 Other Winter 2021 - Fall 2023 HE 2023-2031: Community
Engagement $ 12,253.00 $ 12,253.00 Other Spring 2022 - Summer 2023 HE 2023-2031:Draft HE
Preparation $ 65,426.00 $ 65,426.00 Other Spring 2022 - Summer 2023 HE 2023-2031: HCD Review $ 27,680.00 $ 27,680.00 Other Fall 2022 - Summer 2023 HE 2023-2031: Environmental Compliance $ 11,520.00 $ 11,520.00 Other Spring 2022 - Summer 2023 HE 2023-2031: Final Documents & Adoption $ 3,606.00 $ 3,606.00 Other Summer 2023 Technology Upgrade $ 9,266.00 $ 9,266.00 Other Summer 2021 Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 73
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 15
Non-Deed Restricted 0
221
309
Current Year
Deed Restricted 44
Non-Deed Restricted 7
Deed Restricted 24
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Completed
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable.
$ 150,000.00
Task Status
Completed
Completed
Supplemental Materials Page 26 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 220 of 230
Non-Deed Restricted 7
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 7
7 96
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
25 25
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Low
Total Units
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Supplemental Materials Page 27 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 221 of 230
Annual Parcel Assessment for the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program and Drainage Maintenance
Activities for Fiscal Year 2025-26
March 18, 2025
Christina Leard, Management Analyst
Operations & Environmental Services Division, Public Works Agenda Item No. 9.B.
Supplemental Materials Page 28 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 222 of 230
Proposed Action
Adopt a resolution establishing the annual parcel
assessment for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program and Drainage
Maintenance activities at the current rate of $38.00
per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) and authorizing the
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District to adopt Stormwater Utility Area
(SUA) levies based on said amount for Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26.
Supplemental Materials Page 29 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 223 of 230
Background
•1987 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) •San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) regulates the Municipal Regional Permit
(MRP)
•MRP covers Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San
Mateo counties, as well as the cities of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo
•The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CWP) coordinates regional activities
CWP is comprised of Contra Costa County, its 19
incorporated cities and towns, and the County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District
Supplemental Materials Page 30 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 224 of 230
Funding Stormwater Compliance
•El Cerrito’s NPDES compliance activities are funded by a combination of:
o Countywide Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) assessment funds o Measure J Storm Drain funds
o General Fund
• Additional funding sources being explored by the Clean Water Program • SUA levied by the County funds clean water activities in the member jurisdictions, as well as activities at the countywide level
• SUA assessments are calculated through determining Equivalent Runoff Units (ERUs) An ERU reflects the amount of impervious (paved) surface of a given parcel Supplemental Materials Page 31 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 225 of 230
Stormwater Utility Area Assessment (SUA)
•County SUA established in 1993 and the City’s assessment was $14 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU)
•City’s current rate of $38 per ERU was approved by the City Council in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-05
o $38 is the maximum rate that can be assessed in El Cerrito o All municipalities have reached their maximum rates allowed •In FY 2025-26, the County estimates that El Cerrito’s rate of $38 will generate $421,530 for NPDES compliance
o ~$89,654 (21.3%) is allocated for Clean Water Program regional compliance activities o ~$331,876 (78.7%) is allocated to El Cerrito to fund local compliance activities Supplemental Materials Page 32 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 226 of 230
City Implementation of Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)
• The City’s Clean Water Program currently governed by “MRP 3.0” o Effective July 1, 2022 and ends June 30, 2027
• MRP 3.0 includes costly mandates relating to:
• Construction Site Controls and Green Infrastructure
• Public Outreach & Education
• Municipal Operations
o Tracking encampments and addressing illegal dumping and illicit discharges o Requirement for large privately-owned parking lots to install and maintain trash capture devices
o Developing asset management programs and using software for stormwater assets o Maintaining the target to achieve a 100% trash load reduction o Implementing new practices, operating procedures, and reporting for discharges of water and foam used in emergency firefighting applications Supplemental Materials Page 33 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 227 of 230
Current Compliance and
Anticipated Changes
•The City is progressively working to meet the requirements of Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) 3.0
•City has been able to meet the trash load reduction
requirements in previous years
New permit eliminates the credit for source control
policies (e.g., single-use plastic bag bans) and volunteer cleanups
This causes the City to fall below the required trash load reduction goal
•New ordinance required for privately-owned parking lots, or Private Land Drainage Areas (PLDAs) to install and maintain trash capture devices
•City will need to investigate & procure software for asset management
Supplemental Materials Page 34 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 228 of 230
Proposed Action
Adopt a resolution establishing the annual parcel
assessment for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program and Drainage
Maintenance activities at the current rate of $38.00
per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) and authorizing the
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District to adopt Stormwater Utility Area
(SUA) levies based on said amount for Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26.
Supplemental Materials Page 35 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 229 of 230
Questions &
Comments
Supplemental Materials Page 36 of 36
Agenda Packet Page 230 of 230