Pinole City Council
March 15, 2022

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

MEETING AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL
Vincent Salimi, Mayor
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
Norma Martínez-Rubin, Council Member

TUESDAY
March 15, 2022
6:00 P.M
Please note: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT
Attend in person - PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE - Details provided below Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety guidance will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Chambers.

How to Submit Public Comments:

In Person: Attend meeting at the Pinole City Council Chambers, fill out a yellow public comment card and submit it to the City Clerk.

Via Zoom:

Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone.

From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89335000272
Webinar ID: 893 3500 0272
By phone: +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799 • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak (subject to modification by the Mayor)
• Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute. To comment with your video enabled, please let the City Clerk know you would like to turn your camera on once you are called to speak.

CORONAVIRUS ADVISORY
INFORMATION:

CLICK HERE for City Updates
CLICK HERE for County Updates
1 of 131
City Council
Agenda – March 15, 2022

Written Comments: All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website on the agenda page (Agenda Page Link) and provided to the City Council prior to the meeting. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Email comments to [email protected] Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
LIVE ON CHANNEL 26. They are retelecast the following Thursday at 6:00 p.m. The Community TV Channel 26 schedule is published on the city’s website at www.ci.pinole.ca.us.

VIDEO-STREAMED LIVE ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, www.ci.pinole.ca.us. and remain archived on the site for five (5) years.

If none of these options are available to you, or you need assistance with public comment, please contact the City Clerk, Heather Bell at (510) 724-8928 or [email protected] .

Americans With Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in a City Meeting or you need a copy of the agenda, or the agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 724-8928. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

Note: Staff reports are available for inspection on the City Website at www.ci.pinole.ca.us. You may also contact the City Clerk via e-mail at [email protected] .

Ralph M. Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
2 of 131
Pinole City Council
Agenda –March 15, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present, and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision: (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself /herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov't Code § 87105.

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.

A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54957
Title: City Clerk

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION

6. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting. PLEASE SEE THE

COVERSHEET OF THE AGENDA FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff

F. City Attorney Report
3 of 131
City Council
Agenda – March 15, 2022

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Proclamations

1. Recognition of Nowruz

2. Women’s History Month

3. American Red Cross Month
B. Presentations/Recognitions

1. Overview of Recent Housing Legislation by Assistant City Attorney Mog and Community Development Director Whalen

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine or noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any interested party or Council member(s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar.

A. Approve the Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Meeting
B. Receive the February 26, 2022 -March 11, 2022 List of Warrants in the Amount of $670,680.32 and the March 4, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $493,913.10 C. Resolution Continuing Authorized Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] D. Resolution Confirming Continued Existence of Local Emergency [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)]
E. Housing Successor Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21 [Action: Receive and File Report (Whalen)]
F. Annual Progress Report- Housing Element [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
G. Stormwater Utility Area Assessment for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Kaur)]

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parte communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.

A. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.24 Of the Municipal Code to Regulate the Use and Sale of Fireworks In The City Of Pinole [Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Approve First Reading of Ordinance (Casher)]
4 of 131
City Council
Agenda – March 15, 2022

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Provide Direction on Whether to Include, in the Voter Poll Regarding a Potential Charter City and Real Property Transfer Tax Ballot Measure, Questions on Certain Other Matters of Community Interest [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Murray)]

12. NEW BUSINESS
None

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Open only to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to Be Heard, Agenda Item 6
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes for City Council items and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Special City Council Meeting of March 22, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

I hereby certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA, on the City’s website, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda.

POSTED: March 10, 2022 at 4:00 P.M.
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
March 1, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The City Council Meeting was held via Zoom videoconference and broadcast from the Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California. Mayor Salimi called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before we begin, we would like to acknowledge the Ohlone people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. We pay our respects to the Ohlone elders, past, present and future, who call this place, Ohlone Land, the land that Pinole sits upon, their home. We are proud to continue their tradition of coming together and growing as a community. We thank the Ohlone community for their stewardship and support, and we look forward to strengthening our ties as we continue our relationship of mutual respect and understanding.

3. ROLL CALL, CITY CLERK’S REPORT & STATEMENT OF CONFLICT An official who has a conflict must, prior to consideration of the decision; (1) publicly identify in detail the financial interest that causes the conflict; (2) recuse himself/herself from discussing and voting on the matter; and (3) leave the room until after the decision has been made, Cal. Gov. Code § 87105.

A. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT
Vincent Salimi, Mayor
Devin Murphy, Mayor Pro Tem
Norma Martinez-Rubin, Council Member
Anthony Tave, Council Member
Maureen Toms, Council Member
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Alex Mog, Assistant City Attorney
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Misha Kaur, Senior Project Manager
Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. with all legally required written notices. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting.

Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda. 9A
6 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
Citizens may address the Council regarding a Closed Session item prior to the Council adjourning into the Closed Session, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Andrew Murray, City Attorney Eric Casher, Human Resources Director Stacy Shell and Gregory Ramirez (IEDA) Employee Organization: PPEA

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Deputy City Clerk Roxane Stone advised there were no comments from the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Salimi reconvened the meeting into open session and announced there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.

6. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Public Comments)
Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.

Debbie Long, Pinole, stated it had been brought to her attention the City was losing revenue because the Senior Center was not being rented out for weekends since there was no staff to set up or lock up. She requested the City Council direct staff to immediately rectify the matter as part of an upcoming Consent Calendar item to modify compensation to employees. During the pandemic the City had lost tens of thousands of dollars in rental fees and now that things were reopening the City must capture every bit of revenue possible. She also commented that during the February 15, 2022, City Council meeting, the City Council had discussed placing a lien on an individual property owner. Another item on the Consent Calendar would place liens on unpaid waste collection charges but the affected parties were confidential. She asked why there was a disparity involving the placement of liens, one of which was public knowledge discussed in open session and the others confidential. She asked staff to provide clarification.

Nancy (no last name given), Pinole, reported she had submitted e-mails to multiple people asking about the status of the allocation of COVID-19 relief funds but had received no response.

Mayor Salimi advised he would forward the e-mail he had received to the City Council and he hoped that responses would be provided by staff.
7 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

City Manager Andrew Murray was unaware of the situation about the Senior Center but reported the facility had been closed for rentals for some time due to the pandemic. He would get back to the City Council with an update.

City Clerk Heather Bell also clarified as part of past practice staff had not publicized the preliminary list of unpaid waste collections before recording liens with the County as a way to protect personal information of community members. Once the liens were recorded with the County the information would be public record.

City Attorney Eric Casher further clarified the code enforcement related lien, which had been considered by the City Council during its February 15 meeting. He stated the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) entitled the property owner to a public hearing and as part of that process, the public hearing was open allowing the property owner to make a case to the City Council, and the City Council to determine whether or not to place a lien on the property or consider an alternative remedy, which was why the property owner’s information had been disclosed in that case.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Salimi reported the City Council would resume in-person meetings on March 15, 2022. He also reported he would be providing staff with information on a link describing how the public could participate in public meetings on PG&E proposed rate increases

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, looked forward to the return of in-person City Council meetings.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy wished everyone a Happy Women’s History Month, detailed the women who had contributed to the success of the City of Pinole, and looked forward to a future proclamation. He thanked everyone who had participated in last month’s coffee chat and stated the next coffee chat would be held in-person on March 21 at 9:00 a.m. at East Bay Coffee.

Participants were asked to R.S.V.P via the Zoom link information provided on his website at www.murphyforpinole.com.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy provided an update on numerous activities and issues related to Marin Clean Energy (MCE) and congratulated Sustainable Contra Costa for its efforts and receipt of an award for youth development efforts. The MCE Technical Committee meeting had been scheduled for March 3 at 8:30 a.m. and an MCE Executive Committee meeting on March 4 at 12:15 p.m., with all meeting information available on the MCE website. 8 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also reported that Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services would be conducting a virtual forum on mental health on March 4 from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m., with more information on its website.

Council member Toms provided an update on the East Bay Hills Fire Prevention Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Subcommittee alternatives discussion with the subcommittee to hold future meetings. She also reported she and Council member Tave had met with the City Attorney as part of the Municipal Code Update Committee and had discussed the Fireworks Ordinance and ethics.

Council member Tave echoed Council member Toms report on the work of the Municipal Code Update Committee. He wished everyone a happy Women’s History Month.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had attended a meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and briefed the Council on the presentations and discussions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) plans to address how federal funds should be spent in the region for transportation improvements. She suggested inlieu of the Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee (TAPS), which had met irregularly, she would like to see some mechanism for City Council members to have input and feedback from interested residents and concurrently be aware of what staff was working on with respect to this topic.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy requested a future agenda item to explore a Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1944, Local Government open and public meetings, and he provided a brief description of the bill. Consensus given.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy requested a future agenda item for consideration of a resolution in support of United Steelworkers (USW) Local 5, Richmond’s fight for a fair contract.

In response to Council member Martinez-Rubin, City Attorney Casher explained that the City Council may place the item on a future agenda and if for whatever reason it was not permitted to be discussed as a resolution, he would advise the City Council before that discussion took place.

He was unaware of the specifics of the USW contract at this time but would certainly advise the City Council in advance if there were any concerns.

Council member Toms personally supported USW Local 5’s efforts for a fair contract but was uncertain it was under the purview of the City and she was uncertain whether staff should be spending time on this item.

Consensus given with staff to provide clarification at the time of the discussion.

Mayor Pro Tem requested a future agenda item to discuss the Parks Master Plan, next steps and upgrades to Fernandez Park field with possible action.

City Manager Murray reported the Parks Master Plan was scheduled to be completed in the next Fiscal Year with a Request for Proposal (RFP) to be issued for consultants to do the work before the end of this fiscal year. He was unaware of any planned Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) upgrades to Fernandez Park.
9 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

There were plans for renovations to the sports fields at Pinole Valley Park. The CIP would be discussed by the City Council in the next couple of months and Fernandez Park field could be discussed at that time.

Council member Martinez-Rubin requested updates on the City’s website about the status of plans and timelines expected to address park conditions to be able to better keep the public informed, to which City Manager Murray reiterated there were no current CIP projects or significant maintenance efforts planned for Fernandez Park, but staff could have a listening session with the City Council to address citizen concerns. In terms of maintenance, it would be possible to provide a little more attention to Fernandez Park as part of an operating function as opposed to the CIP. He reiterated that the CIP process with the City Council would commence in late March/April.

Council member Toms reported she had received comments from users of the Fernandez Park field that maintenance was needed such as addressing gopher holes.

City Manager Murray asked that any community concerns be forwarded to him and he would forward them to the appropriate staff, and get back to the City Council with information to address any issues and’ if not significant enough attention, a future agenda item could then be considered.

Consensus given for a staff presentation on the Parks Master Plan.

Council member Tave requested a future agenda item for the Public Works Department to provide an overall maintenance update.

City Manager Murray reported an update from the Maintenance Division had been scheduled for the April 5, 2022 City Council meeting and could be expanded to include park maintenance.

Council member Tave commented that other City Councils had listed requests for future agenda items as bullet points on agendas which allowed a discussion since it had been a noticing issue, and he asked for ways to allow more discussion without potentially violating the Brown Act. He asked staff to provide a memorandum with more information.

City Attorney Casher explained that staff could look at what other cities had done. As long as an item was noticed and placed on a meeting agenda, it could be discussed. He would work with the City Clerk on how the City Council Procedures could be updated to address that request.

Consensus given.

Council member Martinez-Rubin requested a future agenda item for a four-hour workshop with a presentation on how Pinole was positioning itself to address the state requirements for housing and how the City was working on its related transportation infrastructure needs. She expressed the willingness to design the format with staff so that it was both informational and provided for public input.

Mayor Salimi suggested such a workshop should occur prior to the Planning Commission consideration of a development application for the former Kmart property.

Council member Toms commented that meetings on the Housing Element had already been planned.
10 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

City Manager Murray advised the March 15 City Council meeting would include a prior future agenda item request for an update on Senate Bill (SB) 9 and other state housing legislation and all of those issues would be discussed as part of the Housing Element Update. Scoping would have to be considered for a special workshop but he would follow whatever direction provided by the Council.

Council member Martinez-Rubin explained that the scoping would include the identification of the City’s needs from the perspective of staff and the public, to feed into designing programs that would then be part of the larger Housing Element and whatever else would require a lengthier process and planning, and City Manager Murray reiterated the Housing Element Update would have implications on the Circulation Element and matters related to transportation, which would be a long process and which was already part of the Housing Element Update. If the City Council wanted an understanding sooner than the commencement of the Housing Element Update, those discussions could be considered.

Mayor Salimi and Council members Martinez-Rubin and Tave supported Council member Martinez-Rubin’s requested future agenda item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, requested a future agenda item for the City Council to invite District 3 BART Director Rebecca Saltzman to provide an update on BART services. He also reiterated a prior request for a future agenda item for Ken Kirkey to provide a presentation on affordable housing.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, requested a future agenda item for the City Council to adopt a proclamation or a resolution in support of the Ukrainian people both within Pinole and in support of the Ukrainian people’s fight to respond to the aggression from the Russian Federation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Andrew Murray reported the City Council had been provided information on the City’s License Plate Reader program. He also provided a preview of potential agenda items for the March 15, 2022 City Council meeting.

F. City Attorney Report
City Attorney Casher reported the Fireworks Ordinance would be on the March 15 City Council agenda for a first reading. He thanked both Council members Tave and Toms for their work on the Municipal Code Update Committee with the next meeting scheduled for March 21, 2022.

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Celebrating 125 Years – 32nd District PTA
11 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

The City Council read into the record a proclamation celebrating the 32nd District Parent Teacher Association (PTA).

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Matthew Smetak, Vice President of Communications, 32nd District PTA, thanked the City Council for the proclamation and the recognition of the PTA’s 125 years of advocacy for children.

Velma Wilson, Vice President of Membership, 32nd District, PTA, also thanked the City Council for the proclamation and the acknowledgment of the 125 years of the PTA, the oldest volunteer parent run organization in the country. She also wished everyone a happy Women’s History Month and highlighted the background of Selena Sloan Butler, the founder and first President of the National Congress of Colored Parents and Teachers Association (NCCPT), and her own commitment to the PTA due to Ms. Butler’s work. She urged continued advocacy and participation in the PTA and stated more information was available on the PTA website.

The City Council thanked the members of the 32nd District PTA for their comments and continued advocacy for children.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

2. Recognizing Former Assistant City Manager Hector De La Rosa on the Event of his Retirement
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing former Assistant City Manager Hector De La Rosa for his service to the City of Pinole.

Hector De La Rosa thanked the City Council for the recognition and stated it had been a pleasure serving Pinole for nine years. He thanked all City employees for their work and for making all projects achievable. He looked forward to his retirement.

The City Council wished Mr. De La Rosa well on his retirement, stated he would be missed, again thanked him for his years of dedication to public service, and each Council member and staff member provided their personal recollections working with Mr. De La Rosa.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, thanked Mr. De La Rosa for his hard work and service to Pinole, particularly during difficult years and he praised his unflinching honesty when providing answers to his questions. He wished him well for a well-deserved retirement.

Debbie Long, Pinole, stated she had spoken with former City staff, and as a former City Council member herself they could not have done their job without Mr. De La Rosa. While there had been disagreements about approaches, they had moved forward for the betterment of the community.

She too commended his honesty and integrity and suggested his absence would result in a great loss of institutional knowledge.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
12 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Mr. De La Rosa again thanked the City Council for the proclamation.

B. Presentations / Recognitions

1. Update from Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton District Attorney Diana Becton introduced Chief Arnold Threets, Chief of Investigations Bureau, who was also present via Zoom. She highlighted her career background and provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office Programs and Budget, which included an overview of the District Attorney’s Office, collaboration with state and federal agencies, partnerships with law enforcement agencies, justice partners, community organizations, and non-profits. She also presented the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; allocated positions as of April 13, 2021; and the District Attorney’s Office mission “To seek justice and enhance public safety for all residents. By fairly, ethically, aggressively and efficiently prosecuting those who violate the law, and by working to prevent crime.” An overview of the criminal process was highlighted and included statistics of the District Attorney’s Office performance for 2020, its Divisions and Units and associated functions, 2021- 22 Specialty Units and Programs, 2021-22 Racial Equity, Social Justice and Reducing Incarceration Programs, and available grants for each of the programs.

Responding to the Council, District Attorney Becton clarified how hate crimes would be pursued by the District Attorney’s Office, a crime against a person, group or property motivated by the victim’s real or perceived protected status as a group. A hate crime may also involve a person who was targeted based on gender, nationality, race, ethnicity or religion with cases to be evaluated on their own merits (every case not just hate crimes). She also detailed the challenges facing the District Attorney’s Office, how the community and elected officials could support justice, and with the main challenge being to ensure that all information that was disseminated to the public was based on fact.

District Attorney Becton also reported Contra Costa County was one of four counties in the state where homicides had decreased. Allocation of resources was another challenge, particularly with respect to drug addiction and homelessness, and resources needed to be allocated in such a way to avoid overburdening the court system and consider other tools to divert some cases from the judicial system. She detailed the various ways in which Pinole may partner with the District Attorney’s Office related to its youth diversion program and highlighted Proposition 172 and other funding sources that funded the District Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Debbie Long, Pinole, asked about the $950 threshold related to when felony charges may be imposed and the fact that community members had found this threshold to be too low leading to an increase in crime and recidivism. She asked whether the District Attorney would support a petition through the state raising the threshold to curb some of the crimes occurring in the community.

District Attorney Becton provided an overview of the $950 threshold; detailed when felony charges would be considered; clarified thefts of catalytic converters would be a felony charge with the Investigations Bureau looking into the rise of those thefts; the $950 threshold was not related to the bail schedule, which was a different conversation and set by the judges in the court system; 13 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

and explained that from a public safety standpoint the county could not afford to have its jails full of non-violent offenders. She added that the $950 threshold was one of the lowest thresholds in the country.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
The City Council thanked District Attorney Becton for the presentation and commended the work of the District Attorney’s Office.

2. Presentation from Contra Costa Workforce Development Board by Patience Ofodu, Business Services Manager and Tamia Brown, Executive Director
Community Development Director Lilly Whalen introduced Contra Costa Workforce Development (CCWFD) Business Services Manager Patience Ofodu and Executive Director Tamia Brown, and explained that CCWFD was a unique public/private partnership which provided oversight for federally-funded workforce programs in Contra Costa County and which brought together private sector leaders, economic development public agencies, education, labor and community-based organizations focusing on local and regional workforce development and related community issues. She provided an overview of the background and professional experience of both Business Services Manager Ofodu and Executive Director Brown.

CCWFD Business Services Manager Patience Ofodu and Executive Director Tamia Brown provided a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the CCWFD’s efforts on economic recovery, closing the gap for workers, and entering into not only sustainable jobs but quality jobs through jobs training for job equity, with a focus on populations from public assistance, formerly incarcerated and prioritizing youth and young adults.

Responding to the Council, Ms. Brown and Ms. Ofodu explained that while employment data was used in the work of the CCWFD, it depended on their partners to provide this data. The City could reach out to the CCWFD for any data needed that could be used for potential grants. The Great Resignation/Big Quit was highlighted with the fact that it was currently an employee market, and skills and competency were changing in the workforce and were not aligned with those looking for jobs and CCWFD was working to close that gap. As an example, there was a shortage in health care workers and there was an effort to get people into short-term training programs to provide employment for certain occupations.

CCWFD survey results were also highlighted along with the fact that larger businesses were offering incentives that smaller businesses or Mom and Pop businesses could not offer and there was a need to educate employers to be more flexible.

As to how the City of Pinole could provide assistance in this effort, Ms. Ofodu reported that some cities had contacted the CCWFD and reported when employers were struggling, trying to recruit and connect them with the CCWFD. The CCWFD website also included a great deal of information on numerous resources and everyone was encouraged to take advantage of the services offered. Interested persons may also sign up for the CCWFD newsletter via a link on the CCWFD website.
14 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Ms. Brown added that CCWFD was a 100 percent federally funded program and her job was to bring in resources for the CCWFD Board. She would be willing to discuss with Council members off-line initiatives that could get youth and young adults into growing and emerging careers.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, thanked the representatives from CCWFD for the presentation. He invited the CCWFD to make a presentation to the City of Richmond.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
The City Council thanked CCWFD for the presentation, services provided and expressed the willingness to be a partner with CCWFD in its efforts.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any interested party or Council member(s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar.

A. Approve the Minutes of the February 15, 2022 Meeting.

B. Receive the February 12, 2022 – February 25, 2022 List of Warrants in the Amount of $520,875.11 and the February 22, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $481,165.67 C. Resolution Confirming Continued Existence of Local Emergency [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)]
D. Placement of Liens for Delinquent Unpaid Waste Collection Charges Falling Delinquent Between September and December 2021, Considered at an Administrative Hearing on February 3, 2022 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bell)]
E. Approve an Amendment to the Contract and Issue a Task Order for Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for Professional Engineering Services for an Amount Not to Exceed $54,910 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
F. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Revised Compensation and Benefits Plan for Management and Confidential Employees [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Shell)]
G. Declare the Listed Property as Surplus and Designate a Purchasing Officer to Dispose of the Listed Property in Accordance with the City of Pinole Financial Policies – Capital Assets Policy and Procedures [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
15 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

H. Pinole Trustee Reappointment to the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control Board [Action: Approve Reappointment per Staff Recommendation (Bell)]

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, referenced Item 9A and stated he liked the minutes as presented. As to Item 9F, he was concerned with the salary adjustments for Department Heads given there had not been a Class and Compensation Study.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced Attachment B of Item 9F, City of Pinole, Compensation and Benefits Plan for Confidential Employees and asked whether there remained a need for the Assistant City Manager classification since the City did not plan to fill that position in the future.

He also questioned the adjustment to the Public and Safety Classic Employees total California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) contribution to be closer to the Miscellaneous Employees Classic total CalPERS contribution and asked for clarification on the numbers.

PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
City Manager Murray clarified with respect to Item 9F that the City had completed a number of classification compensation studies over the course of the last year. It was the City’s practice to complete a new total compensation benchmarking study in association with every round of negotiations. The salaries were still competitive but generally under the market average for the peer jurisdictions but there were efforts for improvement to attract and retain employees. For the change in the employee pension contributions, he explained that the current numbers were not the same as the member of the public had commented, with the Miscellaneous Employee contribution for the management compensation plan in the range of 21 percent total and Public Safety in the range of 24 percent. Staff had proposed to reduce those figures to be a more attractive employer and to be more equivalent to the rates paid and on par with other successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) rates recently agreed upon.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to Approve Consent Calendar Items 9A through 9H, as shown.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Citizens wishing to speak regarding a Public Hearing item should fill out a speaker card prior to the completion of the presentation, by first providing a speaker card to the City Clerk. An official who engaged in an ex parté communication that is the subject of a Public Hearing must disclose the communication on the record prior to the start of the Public Hearing.

None

11. OLD BUSINESS
16 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

None
Mayor Salimi declared a recess at 8:48 p.m. The City Council meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. with all Council members and staff present via Zoom.

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Provide Direction on Potential Ballot Measure to Become a Charter City and Enact a Real Property Transfer Tax [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction per Staff Recommendation (Casher/Guillory)]
Assistant City Attorney Alex Mog and Finance Director Markisha Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the process for preparing a Charter City Ballot Measure and the enactment of a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) as detailed in the March 1, 2022 staff report. The City Council was asked to provide direction on the following:
• Does the Council want to proceed with considering a measure to become a Charter City and enact a real property transfer tax?
• Does the Council want the City to retain a pollster and consultant to assist in the process? • Does the Council want staff to prepare a draft charter for review at a future meeting? Responding to the Council, Assistant City Attorney Mog explained that if the City Council decided to proceed with a RPTT, the County would continue to charge the current $1.10 per thousand and keep that total amount. The County had taken the position once the City had adopted its own local RPTT that it was not obligated under state law to split its RPTT. If the City adopted a $12 RPTT there would still be a $1.10 per thousand rate from the County.

City Manager Murray clarified the $20,000 to $30,000 pollster costs, as outlined in the staff report, were comparable to what the City had paid in the summer/fall of 2019 for polling for a special parcel tax for fire services. From an operational perspective, the City did not have the representative data on what the public priorities were for this form of revenue measure or potentially others and it would be worthwhile to consider a pollster for this revenue option.

Assistant City Attorney Mog explained that the RPTT would be identified as a closing cost in the transaction and while it would add a cost onto the purchase of a home, he understood it had not been a driver for home price increases since there were other factors that increased home prices based on anecdotal information from other communities that had a RPTT.

Mayor Salimi suggested the RPTT should be considered negotiable at the time of closing costs, and while it would add to the cost of a purchase of a home, real estate values had doubled in Contra Costa County for years and for sale homes did not stay on the market long.

Assistant Attorney Mog again clarified the intent of the RPTT, which would only apply to the sale of a home. A RPTT was a tax imposed on the deed, instrument, or writing by which interests in real property are transferred. Under the California Revenue and Taxation Code, general law cities may impose a RPTT of no more than $.55 per $1,000 of value on the property transferred (the 17 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

County may also impose a RPTT equal to this rate). Pinole currently had a RPTT of the maximum allowed for general law cities of $0.55 per $1,000 of value.

Assistant Attorney Mog clarified the pollster recommendation with polling intended to gauge the community’s interest before placing a measure on the ballot and also identify the community’s priorities about service needs and revenues. He described the differences between a Charter City versus a General Law City as detailed in the staff report, and added that older cities tended to be charter cities but there was no association of charter cities, which ranged in size as reflected in the list of neighboring charter cities as shown on Page 112 of 153 of the staff report.

Assistant City Attorney Mog again highlighted the fiscal impacts of becoming a Charter City. If the City Council decided to proceed with a measure to become a Charter City, there would be a fiscal impact related to preparing a proposed charter and placing the measure on the ballot.

Retaining a pollster and/or consultant for public education efforts would incur additional costs. If an increased RPTT was approved by the voters as part of a Charter City measure, the additional revenue from the first year of the increased RPTT would greatly exceed those costs; however, it was uncertain whether voters would approve an increased RPTT.

The cost of establishing a Charter City had been built into the cost of an election between $20,000 and $40,000, the only costs associated with becoming a Charter City. If the City Council decided to proceed with a ballot measure for a Charter City and it did not pass, those costs would not be paid with any additional revenue. If the City Council were to remove the RPTT from the ballot measure and the measure was only for consideration of a Charter City that would still have to go to the voters and the main costs from the County would remain the same more or less.

City Attorney Casher commented that if the ballot measure were to pass and Pinole became a Charter City, there would be no ongoing maintenance of the charter. The only additional costs would be any changes to the charter, which would have to go back to the voters.

Assistant City Attorney Mog clarified that if the City Council decided to move forward, the RPTT tax rate could be something the City Council could decide in the future. Unless the City Council directed otherwise, the RPTT tax rate would be the permanent rate with the tax measure to be drafted to allow the City Council to lower the rate if circumstances were to change and which would not have to go back to the voters. Any increase in the tax rate would require a vote of the people.

Assistant City Attorney Mog explained that a general tax could be used for any municipal purpose and those decisions could be made as part of the annual budget cycle or the City Council may adopt a policy on how the money should be spent. If the City Council considered a special tax, it would require two/thirds voter approval and would be the only thing the money could be used on.

Polling would assist in understanding the community’s desire as to how the money could be spent and would allow the City Council to see whether or not there was community support for a Charter City and RPTT helping to inform the City Council’s decision.

If the City Council wanted to make this a special tax, which would place legal restrictions to only be spent on certain items, it would have to be decided before the measure was placed on the ballot. If a general tax and the City Council were to decide how to spend the money and identify a policy but it was not a legal requirement, over time there may be reasons to fluctuate or make adjustments, the City Council may adopt a policy beforehand on how the money would be spent. 18 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

If the City Council were to move forward with a ballot measure, the ballot question could only be 75 words, and in that text must include the description of a Charter City, the rate for the RPTT, the estimated revenue to be generated per year, and a detailed list of how the funds would be spent.

Finance Director Guillory and City Manager Murray highlighted the User Utility Tax (UUT), which had been passed by the voters absent a sunset in 2018, and which had covered about 8 percent annually of the General Fund as of this year and out over the five-year span of the Long-Term Financial forecast. The UUT was described as a stagnant tax that was not growing at the same rate of inflation and over time the UUT would cover less and less of the City’s General Fund expenditures. Staff did not consider the UUT as to whether it would be significant enough to continue to cover specific expenditures over time. It was noted that different revenue sources had been moving in different ways.

City Manager Murray added there was a planning tool that had been provided by MTC to all Bay Area cities to assess road conditions. The City of Pinole had assessed around $40 million in unfunded needs to bring its roads up to certain conditions. The City had significant deferred capital liability, the City Council decided the service level, and if the City Council wanted City facilities to be of an average level comparable to other cities Pinole did not currently have the funding to meet that goal. He went on to explain that the City would have a structurally balanced budget for the next five years, with revenues expected to meet operating expenditure needs if staff and service levels were roughly the same, but existing revenue sources were not expected to be sufficient to fund the unfunded capital needs or Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities. If the City Council and the community wanted to see improvements in capital assets or pay down the OPEB, additional revenue would be needed.

City Attorney Casher also clarified that if Pinole became a Charter City, it would not in any way jeopardize its ability to receive state or federal funding, but he detailed some of the conflicts that may occur due to federal funding requirements.

Assistant City Attorney Mog again detailed the process for becoming a Charter City as reflected in the staff report and commented there was limited time for the City Council to talk through the issues, and the intent was for the ballot measure to be kept simple. He suggested the RPTT was the simplest option. He otherwise had no information on the ineffectiveness of operating or becoming a General Law or Charter City and could not comment why so few cities had chosen to become a Charter City, although the trend was that more and more cities were becoming Charter Cities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, suggested despite the benefits of simplicity of placing this item on the ballot, the City Council should consider not just the RPTT but follow some of the items the National Civic League had placed in its Model City Charter, with information on its website, such as the benefits for allowing the public to place items on the ballot directly by initiative or referendum or repeal items the public may disapprove of as opposed to the limitation of tax measures. In terms of elections, he recommended consideration of rank choice voting if Pinole were to become a Charter City, which would encourage individuals seeking public office to build broader coalitions.

He noted the League of California Cities also had legal information on becoming a Charter City. 19 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Mr. Menis sought further civic engagement and polling that would allow for different kinds of data to be collected.

Assistant City Attorney Mog reiterated when asked by the Mayor that if the City Council decided to become a Charter City any modification to the charter must be approved by the voters.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, understood that El Cerrito had become a Charter City and had a subcommittee to review the charter which Pinole should also consider. He also supported a public engagement process to allow a discussion of the pros and cons, and suggested meetings in June and July should be considered prior to ballot consideration.

Debbie Long, questioned consideration of making Pinole a Charter City absent face-to-face input with citizens which she found to be disrespectful, and suggested that the Charter City question should be a single agenda item in-person in the Council Chambers. She understood that consideration of a Charter City was solely for the purpose of increasing taxes on homeowners when selling their homes, although the power of a Charter City would only be the beginning of additional taxes. She found it ironic the Planning Department had been allowed to remove a commercial property in the Fitzgerald shopping center to become residential apartments and reduce tax revenue sources for the City, but the City Council was now considering making Pinole a Charter City to raise taxes on property owners.

Ms. Long pointed out that Pinole was largely middle income, working class and retired individuals and in most cases the money property owners had in their homes equated to their life savings.

Now under the guise of a Charter City, the Council wanted to claim a large portion of a homeowner’s equity. Also, the Council had not engaged with one of the largest target stakeholders in the City: realtors and brokers. The cost of housing continued to rise and adding another tax burden to sellers would not only impact affordability but have an adverse impact on sellers and on the financial wellbeing of homeowners who depended on every dime in times of rising inflation.

Ms. Long opposed Pinole becoming a Charter City for many reasons beyond just raising taxes, but specifically that this discussion was taking place outside the Council Chambers. She urged the City Council to reopen the City, allow a discussion of the pros and cons, and defer any decision until meetings were fully open to engage the public. She reported the City of Hercules had estimated $130,000 versus $30,000 for a public poll.

Tony G., Pinole, commented that at the time of sale anything was negotiable. He asked who would pay for the RPTT in the real world and was informed by Assistant City Attorney Mog that it varied from county to county and the circumstances of the housing market at the time but it was typical in Contra Costa County for the RPTT to be split 50-50.

Mr. G. provided his calculations of a RPTT based on $12 per thousand, and based on the sale of a home valued at $800,000. He otherwise asked whether the Charter City would have unlimited powers and whether there were any disadvantages to becoming a Charter City.

Assistant Attorney Mog explained that the Charter City could be as broad or as narrow as the City Council decided when placed on the ballot to be approved by the voters. He also clarified when asked that the Mayor could not include a clause in the Charter City charter. 20 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Peter Murray, Pinole, stated he had spoken on this matter previously, he did not support a RPTT, suggested it was punitive and calculated, with no incentive or value on the part of the seller. He questioned whether or not Pinole must become a Charter City to expand the RPTT and asked whether it could be considered outside of Charter City status. He asked of the average legal costs to be incurred by the City if a Charter City status were legally challenged. He also asked whether the services provided by a pollster and consultant should be unbiased. He suggested the City providing a draft after the outcome of an election would be a wasted expense.

Assistant City Attorney Mog clarified the City must become a Charter City to expand the RPTT.

Expenses related to voters having the ability to challenge the Council action if the City becomes a Charter City would not change from the current process, whereby voters had the ability for a referendum to any legislative act by the City or to qualify initiatives as a General Law city.

Mayor Salimi reiterated in response to the public that in-person City Council meetings were scheduled to resume on March 15. He also reported that both he and the City Manager had a recent conversation with the Contra Costa County Association of Realtors (CCAR) Government Affairs representative regarding the consideration of a RPTT.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Assistant City Attorney Mog clarified further when asked that the ballot measure would specify who would ultimately be responsible for paying the RPTT, and in the negotiations someone could agree to pay the RPTT on behalf of someone else as part of those negotiations. The City could not control the negotiations.

City Manager Murray detailed his conversations with the CCAR Government Affairs representative, at which time there had been discussions of CCAR’s general policy opposing RPTTs since anything which added to the overall costs of the purchase and sale of new homes could impact overall homes sales.

Council member Tave stated the issue had been discussed in the past and must go before the voters who would decide whether or not to support a ballot measure. He suggested the City Council must consider expanding the RPTT because it would help to regulate the ebb and flow in the market. If a property owner was in a forever home and if the property transferred to the homeowner’s children they would not be faced with the RPTT. He disagreed this was a way to tax people and suggested the voters be allowed to ultimately decide the issue. He supported moving the item forward.

Council member Toms commented that if the City were to move forward with a pollster that did not necessarily mean the question would be placed on the ballot since that decision would not be made until there was a future public hearing.

Assistant City Attorney Mog confirmed that pursuant to state law there would be at least three more public hearings on this topic prior to the City Council deciding to place the question on the ballot, and only at the third meeting could the City Council make a decision whether or not to place the item on the ballot. He stated the public hearing dates had been outlined on Page 113 of 153 of the staff report.
21 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Council member Toms suggested the City Council move forward with the polling since she was not convinced a Charter City or increase in the RPTT was the way to go. She wanted to hear from the public and wanted to schedule a public hearing with this topic as a single item on the agenda during an in-person meeting to allow in-person feedback from the public.

Council member Martinez-Rubin emphasized the need for the public to be allowed to provide comment, particularly from those members of the public who normally did not provide comment since an increase in the RPTT may affect some residents disproportionately. She wanted information on the sale of properties in the last decade, which may or may not be the same in the future to show whether or not the City had lost tax revenue. The RPTT mechanism was one possible source of revenue and she emphasized the need for it to be made clear to the public that the City was not counting on funds in such a volume that would take care of its streets.

Council member Martinez-Rubin foresaw more discussions to complement the RPTT approach to generate more revenue when the City Council had more information from the economic development strategies currently being developed by the consultant. The Council had also not discussed that segment of the community that may be retiring and had to include that age bracket in the conversation to provide input.

Mayor Salimi reported he had reviewed real estate websites which had shown home values would increase by 12 percent in one year. He appreciated the CCAR, was pro-business, and detailed his background in construction management/real estate and as the owner of real estate in Pinole and elsewhere in the County. While no one wanted to pay taxes, they must be responsible and he emphasized roads were in need of maintenance, the City had a study that was years old and by the time the roads could be funded the City could be building something it did not need. He hoped to move forward in a way to position the City to be successful in the future and pay for needed services. Had this decision been made years ago, the City would have been millions of dollars ahead which would have helped to address the impacts from the 2008 recession. This decision would help the future of Pinole, particularly given the cost of living had been increasing as was the rate of inflation, which if it continued to rise the City would be unable to afford to pay for needed services.

Council member Tave suggested the RPTT was a sustainable revenue source that should be considered. He supported all three questions the City Council was asked to opine.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Tave/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to proceed with consideration of a measure to become a Charter City and enact a Real Property Transfer Tax.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Martinez-Rubin for the City to retain a pollster and consultant to assist in the process of becoming a Charter City and enact a Real Property Transfer Tax.
22 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Council member Tave offered a motion, seconded by Council member Martinez-Rubin to direct staff to prepare a draft charter for review at a future meeting and asked staff for a timeline.

Assistant City Attorney Mog advised a draft could be prepared relatively quickly but deferred to the Council whether it wanted to defer a draft pending the polling, which would take longer.

The Council discussed the polling option and the fact that the results of that polling could determine the questions to be posed to the public in a ballot measure of whether or not to pursue a Charter City process and enact a RPTT. It was emphasized that two public hearings would be required for the final action and the draft charter would be before the Council multiple times regardless of the path chosen for the initial consideration. It was also clarified that a City Attorney impartial analysis would be prepared and clear direction was required to allow that work to proceed.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Martinez-Rubin to direct staff to prepare a draft charter for review at a future meeting, with the draft to include the City remaining a General Law City with the only modification the power to enact a Real Property Transfer Tax.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
In response to the Mayor and given the lateness of the hour, City Manager Murray advised the remaining agenda items could be continued, although consultants were present for Item 12B and there was some preliminary engineering work which had been on hold pending City Council direction on the alternatives for Item 12B.

Council member Toms recognized there were people waiting to speak on Item 12B from both Hercules and Pinole. She recommended the City Council meeting be extended to 11:30 p.m. to allow the City Council to proceed with Item 12B in the hopes the item could be completed.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to extend the City Council meeting to 11:30 p.m.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
23 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

B. Review Two Design Alternatives for Replacement of the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Over Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (CIP Project #Ro1710) Update [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Kaur)]
Senior Project Manager Misha Kaur introduced Jason Jurrens, Quincy Engineering, who provided a PowerPoint presentation on the San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement Project as detailed in the March 1, 2022 staff report. The City Council was asked to consider the following:

1. Review two design alternatives for the replacement of the San Pablo Avenue bridge over Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (CIP Project # Ro1710, the “Project”);

2. Accept Alternative 1 as the preferred design alternative and authorize conducting additional studies to proceed with preparation of environmental documents; and

3. Authorize staff to draft a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Hercules regarding project development and construction coordination, which would need to be approved by the City Council prior to execution.

Responding to the Council, Mr. Jurrens clarified the preliminary engineering side was okay with a budget augmentation from Caltrans Highway Bridge Program anticipated when getting into the final design phase. From an overall construction standpoint, there was a lot of uncertainty in the construction market between inflation and a lack of workers with construction prices continuing to trend upwards; however, the latest stimulus bill included a bridge set aside for the State of California over the next five years, with some negotiations still to occur on what level of funds would go to local agencies and what portion would go to Caltrans. The consultants were working on finalizing the estimates to allow a request for the additional funds from Caltrans.

Mr. Jurrens clarified an 8-foot wide shoulder would be provided on each side of the bridge to be striped as a Class II Bikeway, with a 10-foot shared bicycle/pedestrian facility on the north side with a design speed of 25 miles per hour (MPH) into the north side of the City. As part of Alternative 1 and the acquisition of the right-of-way (ROW) with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, some preliminary reaching out to the railroad had been done and there were some design compliance requirements to obtain an encroachment permit from the railroad.

Mr. Jurrens explained that putting the bridge back in its current condition was the best option for the railroad and they were confident the railroad would be open to Alternative 1. For the remainder of the ROW, a portion belonged to the City of Hercules and a public utility easement was the reason for the MOU. No permanent ROW would be required from the backs of the parcels off of Skelly located in the City of Hercules, but temporary construction easements were anticipated from those parcels which were deep down the slopes.

The City Council thanked staff for the dedicated website for the project and for continuing to keep the public apprised of the project details.

Public Works Director Sanjay Mishra emphasized that staff had been working in close coordination with the City of Hercules staff on this project and would make the same presentation to the Hercules City Council. More public meetings had been planned. 24 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Mr. Jurrens again detailed the specifics of Alternative 1 and confirmed that a prior Public Works Director had meetings with the Hercules by the Bay Homeowner’s Association (HOA) when Alternative 1 had been presented during a public webinar in December 2021. Some of the questions raised by homeowners at that time included concerns around noise and potential shortterm impacts during construction. There would be greater outreach with those residents when moving forward.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Salimi to extend the City Council meeting to 12:00 a.m.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Sherry Tindal, a resident of Skelly, Hercules, reported the bridge replacement project would impact her property. She understood that outreach would be provided to Hercules residents but suggested it should have occurred previously since there had been little advance notification to the public prior to the December 2021 meeting. She asked whether the height of the replacement bridge would be taller than what currently existed since she understood the bridge would be moved 100 feet closer to the rear yards on Skelly and lateral to the properties. She also asked whether any noise abatement material would be considered to ensure that Skelly residents had privacy and no views of vehicles.

Mr. Jurrens reiterated that as part of Alternative 1, the temporary alignment would be getting closer to the back yards of the Skelly homes in Hercules but the permanent bridge would be slightly closer laterally and would be 200 feet to the closest rear yard. Also, the height of the bridge would be raised approximately 5 feet dictated by the railroad whereas the current bridge was around 5 feet lower than the railroad’s requirements. In conversations with the railroad, the vertical clearance of the tops of the railroad tracks to the bottom of the new bridge was not a standard clearance in which the railroad would allow a variance. He suggested that vehicles on the bridge would generally stay the same distance away from the backs of the homes, with the bridge deck slightly taller in the 5-foot range.

In terms of barriers, Mr. Jurrens commented there would typically be a bridge barrier and then a railroad decorative fence consistent with railroad requirements, and when moving through the design process the need for a noise barrier would be determined. A temporary noise barrier would be utilized on the temporary detour.

Bob Antaki, a resident of Skelly, Hercules, reported he had experienced traffic noise and could view vehicles in the front and rear of his home. He was concerned with raising the height of the permanent bridge and sought some sort of barrier. Also, the temporary bridge would be closest to a home on Dunham Court, closer than homes on Skelly. He suggested there should have been consideration of moving the temporary bridge to the other side of San Pablo Avenue where almost no homes would be impacted.
25 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Mr. Jurrens explained that placement of the temporary detour on the south side of San Pablo Avenue had been evaluated but the skew of the railroad to the existing road worked against them, and the slopes to residences was steep. In order to provide a temporary bridge in that location, it would have required significant earthwork outside of the City ROW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion to authorize staff to draft a MOU with the City of Hercules regarding project development and construction coordination.

Mr. Mishra asked that the City Council first consider the alternatives prior to consideration of the MOU.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy explained that he intended to offer a motion to continue the item to the next meeting of the City Council but would like to move forward with the request for a MOU. He withdrew his motion at this time.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to accept Alternative 1 as the preferred design alternative and authorize conducting additional studies to proceed with preparation of environmental documents and authorize staff to draft a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Hercules regarding project development and construction coordination, which would need to be approved by the City Council prior to execution.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
C. Receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Mid-Year Financial Report and Adopt a Resolution Approving Budget Adjustments, and Approve the Modified Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Budget and Long-Term Financial Plan Development Process [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)] Finance Director Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Mid-Year Financial Report, including budget adjustments and modified Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Budget and Long-Term Financial Plan Development Process, as detailed in the March 1, 2022 staff report. She asked the City Council to receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Mid-Year Financial Report and adopt a resolution approving related budget adjustments and approve the modified FY 2022/23 budget development process, which has been revised from the last version presented at the February 1, 2022 Council meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced Funds 105 and 106 which had shown the year to date actuals as having negative values for interest income for both funds. Also Fund 285 had shown a significant amount of anticipated revenue from the sale of property that had not yet occurred and he asked whether that sale would occur by the end of the fiscal year. 26 of 131
Pinole City Council
Minutes – March 1, 2022

Given the lateness of the hour, Mayor Salimi asked Director Guillory to provide a response to Mr.

Menis the next business day.

Tony G., Pinole, asked why it was necessary to maintain a reserve for the Sewer Fund balance, and Director Guillory was also asked to provide a response the next business day.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to Receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Mid- Year Financial Report and adopt a resolution approving related budget adjustments and approve the modified FY 2022/23 budget development process, which had been revised from the last version presented at the February 1, 2022 Council meeting.

Vote: Passed 5-0
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Martinez-Rubin, Tave, Toms
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

13. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD (Continued from Item 6) (Public Comments) Only open to members of the public who did not speak under the first Citizens to be Heard, Agenda Item 6.

Citizens may speak under any item not listed on the Agenda. The time limit is 3 minutes and is subject to modification by the Mayor. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting.

Ms. Stone reported there were no comments for this item.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 15, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 11:52 p.m., Mayor Salimi adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 15, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
27 of 131
28 of 131
29 of 131
30 of 131
31 of 131
32 of 131
33 of 131
34 of 131
35 of 131
36 of 131
37 of 131
38 of 131
39 of 131
40 of 131
41 of 131
42 of 131
43 of 131
44 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9C
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CONTINUING AUTHORIZED REMOTE
TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the continued use of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to AB 361.

BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for the anticipated broader spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”). On March 18, 2020, the City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to COVID-19 pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630 and Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 2.32. The City Council subsequently adopted a resolution affirming the emergency declaration and continues to reevaluate the need for continuing the local emergency every fourteen (14) days. Both the State and local emergency declaration remain in effect.

All meetings of the City Council and the City’s other legislative bodies, such as the Planning Commission, are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code section 54950 et seq.). Any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business. On March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means in order to slow the spread of COVID-19. As a result of Executive Order N-29- 20, staff set up virtual meetings for all City Council meetings and other City legislative bodies. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which, effective September 30, 2021, repealed the provisions of Executive Order N29-20 that allowed local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means.

On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing without 45 of 131
2 complying with certain Brown Act provisions under specified conditions and includes a requirement that the City Council make specified findings. AB 361(2021) took effect October 1, 2021. Pursuant to AB 361 (2021), legislative bodies are allowed to continue to meet remotely during a declared state of emergency. In addition, remote meetings are only allowed when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or when the legislative body finds that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On January 5, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-1-22, extending the sunset of AB 361 (2021) through March 31, 2022, in light of the surge in cases due to the novel Omicron variant not previously considered when the Legislature considered AB 361, and to protect the public health and safety.

On October 19, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pinole Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant To AB 361 upon a finding that: (i) the State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, and (ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. On November 2, 2021, the City Council requested a future agenda item to discuss the return to in-person meetings on November 16th.

In order to continue to hold remote meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency and maintain the Resolution of October 19, 2021, the City Council must reconsider whether these conditions under AB 361 exist, every thirty (30) days. Thus, the City Council has a standing opportunity to discuss a return to in-person meetings every thirty (30) days. Following a reevaluation every thirty (30) days and upon a finding that the conditions under AB 361 continue to exist, the City Council has continued to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Continued Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 every thirty (30) days thereafter, most recently on January 18, 2022.

On March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted the Resolution Confirming Continued Existence of Local Emergency. In order to continue to hold remote meetings during this proclaimed state of emergency, the City Council must find that either: (i) the State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; or (ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. This staff report discusses whether these conditions under AB 361 continue to exist in order continue the use of remote teleconference meetings pursuant to AB 361.

DISCUSSION
Since issuing Executive Order N-08-21, the highly contagious Delta and Omicron variants of COVID-19 have emerged, causing an increase in COVID-19 cases throughout the State and Contra Costa County. COVID-19 cases surged throughout the State during the winter months with an estimated 1 million new COVID cases a day. As such, Governor Newsom extended the State of Emergency declared on March 4, 2020 through March 2022. Despite a recent decline in new COVID cases and belief 46 of 131
3 that the surge of cases as a result of the Omicron variant has passed, Governor Newsom has extended the statewide indoor masking requirement until after February 15 in his order of January 7, 2022. Effective March 1, 2022, the requirement for unvaccinated persons to mask in indoor public settings and businesses is being replaced by a strong recommendation that all persons, regardless of vaccination status, continue to mask while in indoor public settings and businesses. At that time, the universal masking requirement for K-12 and Childcare settings will terminate, with a strong recommendation that individuals in these settings continue to mask in indoor settings. As such, the California Department of Health is maintaining the masking requirements in specified high-risk settings, consistent with California Department of Health recommendations including public transit, healthcare settings and congregate living. The California Department of Health continues to find that wearing a face mask in indoor public settings, regardless of vaccination status, remains a critical component for protecting those that are most vulnerable in our communities, including the unvaccinated, the immunocompromised, or those at risk for severe disease and illness.

This allows us to continue protecting our most vulnerable populations and the workforce that delivers critical services in these settings.

The City Council has also confirmed the continued existence of the local emergency, most recently on March 1, 2022. City Council is set to reevaluate the status of continued existence of the local emergency concurrent with this proposed resolution.

Health officials continue to recommend measures to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Specifically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) continues to recommend physical distancing of at least 6 feet from others outside of the household and masking in all indoor settings. On August 2, 2021, in response to the Delta variant of COVID-19, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued an order for nearly all individuals to wear masks when inside public spaces. Subsequent exceptions or exemptions to the health order have been made for persons participating in certain religious activities, performers and public speakers in venues where everyone eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is fully vaccinated, and certain organized gatherings in indoor settings that are not open to the general public. These exceptions or exemptions do not apply here. The CDC believes the Omicron variant is spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus with breakthrough infections occurring in people who are fully vaccinated. Additionally, COVID-19 continues to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, including the legislative bodies and staff, should the City’s legislative bodies hold in person meetings.

On September 20, 2021, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings but strongly recommended the use of online meetings as it presents the lowest risk of transmission of COVID-19.

Additionally, the Contra Costa County Health Officer continues to recommend the availability of remote access as an alternative to participating in person, should the City elect to offer in person meetings.

The proposed resolution re-affirms the necessary findings in order for the City Council, and all of the City’ s other legislative bodies, to continue to hold remote teleconference meetings pursuant to AB 361. Additionally, the resolution is 47 of 131
4 necessary in order to allow Staff to return to an in-person hybrid meeting format .

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact from the adoption of the resolution.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution Authorizing Continued Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361
5073964.1
48 of 131
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE AUTHORIZING CONTINUED REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361 WHEREAS, all City of Pinole (“City”) meetings are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the State prepare for an anticipated broader spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”), and Governor Newsom has continued to confirm the continued existence of the State of Emergency; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency due to COVID-19 pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630 and Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 2.32, and the City Council has continued to confirm the continued existence of the local emergency; and
WHEREAS, On March 17, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and
WHEREAS, as a result of Executive Order N-29-20, staff set up virtual meetings for all City Council meetings and meetings of all City legislative bodies, such as the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08- 21, which, effective September 30, 2021, repealed the provisions of Executive Order N29-20 that allowed local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative bodies and advisory bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions and includes a requirement that the City Council make specified findings; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-15-21, delaying the full application of AB 361 (2021) until 11:59 p.m. October 1, 2021;

ATTACHMENT A
49 of 131
2 WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-1- 22, extending the sunset of AB 361 (2021) through March 31, 2022; WHEREAS, in order for legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing pursuant to AB 361 (2021), a proclaimed State of Emergency must exist; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 (2021) further requires that State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, requires that the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, such conditions continue to exist in the City of Pinole, specifically, Governor Newsom has declared a State of Emergency due to COVID-19 and the City Council has confirmed the continued existence of the local emergency due to COVID19; and WHEREAS, since issuing Executive Order N-08-21, the highly contagious Delta and Omicron variants of COVID-19 have emerged, causing an increase in COVID-19 cases throughout the State and Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2021, in response to the Delta variant of COVID-19, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued Health Order No. COVID19-51, for nearly all individuals to wear masks when inside public spaces and such mandate remains in effect in specified high-risk settings, consistent with California Department of Health recommendations including public transit, healthcare settings and congregate living; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021, the Contra Costa County Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings recommending the use of online meetings as it presents the lowest risk of transmission of COVID-19 and such recommendation remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six (6) feet from others outside of the household and use of a face mask as a critical component for protecting those that are most vulnerable in our communities, including the unvaccinated, the immunocompromised, or those at risk for severe disease and illness; and WHEREAS, because of the rise in cases due to the Delta and Omicron variants of COVID-19, the City Council is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who intend to attend City Council meetings and meetings of the City’s other legislative bodies; and
50 of 131
3 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a way for the Council, staff, and members of the public to participate in meetings remotely, without having to attend meetings in person; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the presence of COVID-19 and the increase of cases due to the Delta and Omicron variants would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, including the legislative bodies and staff, should the City’s legislative bodies hold in person meetings; and WHEREAS, the City shall ensure that it’s meetings comply with the provisions required by AB 361 (2021) for holding teleconferenced meetings; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pinole Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant To AB 361; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 (2021) allows the City Council to continue to conduct meetings via teleconference upon a finding every thirty (30) days thereafter that a State of Emergency continues to exist which either continues to directly impact the ability of members to meet safely in person, or state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has re-affirmed the necessary findings in order for the City Council, and all of the City’s other legislative bodies, to continue to hold remote teleconference meetings pursuant to AB 361 and on that basis adopted a Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pinole Authorizing Continued Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant To AB 361 on November 16, 2021, and every thirty (30) days thereafter, most recently adopted on January 18, 2022;
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Confirming Continued Existence of Local Emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the need to conduct meetings remotely within thirty (30) days of the Resolution and finds the need continues to exist.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares as follows:

1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated into this Resolution.

2. In compliance with AB 361 (2021), and in order to continue to conduct teleconference meetings without complying with the usual teleconference meeting requirements of the Brown Act, the City Council makes the following findings:
51 of 131
4 a) The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the State of Emergency; and
b) The State of Emergency, as declared by the Governor and the City, continues to exist, directly impacting the ability of the City Council and the City’s legislative bodies, as well as staff and members of the public, from meeting safely in person; and
c) The CDC continues to recommend physical distancing of at least six (6) feet due to COVID-19 and as a result of the presence of COVID-19 and the increase of cases due to the Delta and Omicron variants, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, the legislative bodies and staff.

3. The City Council and all of the City’s other legislative bodies may continue to meet remotely in compliance with AB 361 (2021), whether in whole or part, in order to better ensure the health and safety of the public.

4. The City Council will revisit the need to conduct meetings remotely within thirty (30) days of the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 15th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on the 15th day of March, 2022.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
52 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9D
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF LOCAL

EMERGENCY

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution confirming the continued existence of a local emergency.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On March 18, 2020, the City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency pursuant to California Government Code Section 8630 and Pinole Municipal Code Chapter 2.32. The emergency declaration was based on public health and safety concerns for persons and property within the City as a consequence of the global spread of novel coronavirus 2019 ("COVID-19"), including confirmed cases in Contra Costa County, as well as the Contra Costa County Department of Health’s shelter in place order dated March 16, 2020 and California Governor Newsom’s State of Emergency proclaimed on March 4, 2020.

The City Council subsequently adopted a resolution affirming the City Manager’s emergency declaration. On November 10, 2021 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-21-21 extending California’s State of Emergency previously set to expire on December 31, 2021, through March 31, 2022.

The California Emergency Services Act requires the City Council to review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days. Although the local emergency does not end until terminated by the City Council, the Pinole Municipal Code requires the City Council to periodically review the need for continuing the local emergency. Thus, the City Council has a standing opportunity to review current conditions and determine whether public health and safety concerns for persons and property within the City of Pinole continue to exist. Following ongoing review, the City Council has continuously confirmed the existence of the local emergency since the emergency was first declared, most recently on March 1, 2022.

Although the number of cases within Contra Costa County is beginning to improve as the Omicron surge is believed to be subsiding, community transmission of COVID-19 continues to occur at a high rate. There have now been over 188,630 confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the County and approximately 1,256 deaths.

The case rate within the County for fully vaccinated individuals is approximately 14 53 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022
new case per day per 100,000 people (11 if fully vaccinated and has received booster). The case rate within the County for unvaccinated individuals is approximately 38 cases per day per 100,000. There have been over 1,820 new cases in the last 2 weeks alone. In Pinole, the rate of new cases over the last 14 days is approximately 227 new cases per 100,000 people.

In Contra Costa, several health orders remain in effect, including workplace vaccine verification requirements for healthcare workers, first responders and congregate care workers. On February 16, 2022, in alignment with the health order issued by the State of California Department of Public Health, Contra Costa County lifted the universal mask requirements for vaccinated people in most indoor public settings.

State and County guidelines continue to require masking for unvaccinated individuals in all indoor public settings and requires masking for all individuals regardless of vaccination status in higher risk settings like public transit, K-12 schools and childcare, and congregate living.

After March 11, 2022, the Statewide universal masking requirement for K-12 and childcare settings will terminate. Additionally, the requirement for unvaccinated persons to mask in indoor public settings and businesses is being replaced by a strong recommendation that all persons, regardless of vaccination status, continue to mask while in indoor public settings and businesses. Masks continue to be recommended for all persons in all indoor public settings, and State and local government offices that serve the public. Workplaces must continue to follow the COVID-19 prevention standards set by CalOSHA including adherence to the latest order from the California Department of Public Health. Bay Area health officers continue to strongly recommend masks be used as an effective tool to prevent the spread of the virus especially when case rates are high, or when additional personal protection is needed.

Public health and safety concerns for persons and property within the City as a consequence of the global spread of novel coronavirus 2019 continue to exist.

If the proposed resolution is adopted, the City Council will confirm the continued existence of the local emergency. In accordance with state law and the Municipal Code, the City Council will review the emergency declaration periodically until the conditions warrant a termination of the emergency declaration.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact from the adoption of the resolution ratifying a local emergency. However, the City will consider all options available to seek reimbursement for indirect expenses and fiscal impacts through the appropriate authorities.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution Confirming Continued Existence of Local Emergency 54 of 131
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE CONFIRMING THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO COVID-19 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 8630 and Pinole Municipal Code Section

2.32.060 authorize the Director of Emergency Service to proclaim a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a city exist if the City Council is not in session and provides that the City Council shall ratify the proclamation within seven days thereafter; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 8630 and Pinole Code Section 2.32.060, the Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency caused by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), a respiratory disease first identified in China that may result in serious illness or death that is easily transmissible from person to person, on March 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2020, the City Council ratified and confirmed the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 8630 and Pinole Municipal Code Section 2.32.060, the City Council must periodically review the need for continuing the local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the conditions that prompted the original declaration of a local emergency continue to exist; and
WHEREAS, the recitals contained in Resolution No. 2020-13, adopted by the City Council on March 24, 2020, are incorporated into this Resolution as if stated herein; and WHEREAS, there have now been over 188,630 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and approximately 1,256 deaths within the County; and
WHEREAS, the case rate within the County for fully vaccinated individuals is approximately 14 new case per day per 100,000 people (11 if fully vaccinated and has received booster) and the case rate within the County for unvaccinated individuals is approximately 38 cases per day per 100,000; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain progress in containing the spread of COVID-19 and continue the reduction in transmission of COVID-19, the public must continue to practice appropriate safety measures; and
WHEREAS, the public health and safety concerns for persons and property within

ATTACHMENT A
55 of 131
2 the City as a consequence of the global spread of COVID-19 continue to exist; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and welfare of Pinole residents, businesses, visitors, and staff is of utmost importance to the City and additional future measures may be needed to protect the community; and
WHEREAS, the City may require additional assistance in the future, and a formal declaration of emergency allows the City to access resources in a timely manner in a timely fashion; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of the City related to COVID-19 pandemic continue in existence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that extraordinary measures are required to protect the public health, safety, and of persons and property within the City that are or are likely to be beyond the control or capability of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has continuously confirmed the existence of a local emergency following periodic review since it was first declared on March 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to confirm the continued existence of a local emergency within Pinole due to COVID-19.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares as follows:

1. The local emergency declared by Resolution No. 2020-13 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic continues to exist within the City of Pinole.

2. During the existence of the declared local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by State law and by ordinances and resolutions of the City of Pinole.

3. The declaration of local emergency shall remain in effect until such time that the Council determines that the emergency conditions have been abated.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 15th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:
56 of 131
3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on the 15th day of March, 2022.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
57 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9E
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Housing Successor Agency Annual Report for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2020-21 to submit to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole (“City”) is the housing successor (the “Housing Successor”) to the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole (the “Agency”), which was dissolved on February 1, 2012. State law requires that the City to prepare an annual report on Housing Successor finances and activities as set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1 (see Attachment 1).

The annual report is required to contain: (1) a summary of Housing Successor duties; (2) the balance of the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund (“Housing Asset Fund”); (3) an inventory of properties held in the Housing Asset Fund; and (4) reports on the City’s performance thus far in meeting requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1.

The report is due to HCD by April 1st each year and must be posted on the City’s website. The report for FY 2020-21 is being presented to the City Council to receive and file with HCD.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City is meeting all requirements imposed by Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1. The City’s progress on major requirements is summarized below. 58 of 131
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 15, 2022 2
Housing Asset Fund Activity and Balance
As of June 30, 2021, the Housing Asset Fund had a balance of approximately $7.8 million, of which $4,073,170 is cash and the remainder is non-cash assets. Annual revenues totaled $1,865,429, primarily from investment income, note repayment, Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“SERAF”) loan repayment, and the repayment of first-time homebuyer and residential rehabilitation loans issued by the former Agency.

There were $99,412 in Housing Asset Fund expenditures in FY 2020-21 for administrative items, such as legal and professional services, building maintenance and utilities, housing compliance monitoring, and staff costs for time related to Housing Successor administration.

Of the available cash balance in the Housing Asset Fund, $2,000,000 has been committed to Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) for an affordable housing development at 811 San Pablo Avenue, leaving a $2,073,170 available cash balance. Some of the available balance will need to be reserved for administrative expenses, which ranged from roughly $100,000 to $170,000 the last three years. Additionally, as noted below, the Housing Successor should receive another $2,541,575 from repayment of the SERAF loan on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) by June 2023. Moreover, as discussed below, offers for the Collins House at 612 Tennent Avenue are due May 1, 2022.

Assuming the sale and building permit process go smoothly, the City expects escrow to close by December 2022. All sale proceeds of 612 Tennant Avenue will be deposited into the Housing Asset Fund as required by law.

Real Property Assets and Loans Receivables
As of June 30, 2021, the City owned four Housing Successor properties with a value of $1.2 million:
• 811 San Pablo Avenue - The Housing Successor entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) with SAHA dated July 6, 2021 to develop this property with 33 units of housing affordable to extremely low income to low income households. The majority of units will be restricted for veterans by State and Federal funding sources proposed to finance the project. In November 2021, SAHA reported that the property was awarded $7,848,120 in Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program (“VHHP”) funding by HCD. As of February 2022, a Contra Costa County HOME funds application for $2,636,280 is pending County determination.

SAHA is aiming to secure complete project financing by August 2022. If that timeline is met, construction is estimated to begin in Spring 2023 and complete in Summer 2024.
59 of 131
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 15, 2022 3
• Collins House at 612 Tennent Avenue - The Housing Successor listed this property for sale in September 2020 and approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) in May 2021. The PSA was terminated in January 2022 due to milestones not being met pursuant to the terms of the PSA. The Housing Successor is relisting the property in FY 2021-22. All sales proceeds will be deposited into the Housing Asset Fund as required by law. • Two properties (Grove Vacant Land and Faria House Vacant Land) are restricted as open space and cannot be developed.

The Housing Asset Fund has approximately $2.5 million in loans receivable. The most significant is a loan that was provided from the former Agency’s affordable housing fund to the Agency general fund, then subsequently provided to the State to pay amounts due to the SERAF. The Successor Agency began repaying the $4.3 million loan with a $1.8 million payment in FY 2020-21, leaving a remaining balance of $2.5 million. Staff expects the total outstanding balance to be paid off in 2023.

Additionally, the City has approximately $301,768 in outstanding First-Time Homebuyer Loans and Housing Rehabilitation Loans. The First-Time Homebuyer and Housing Rehabilitation Loans have different maturity dates ranging from 2022 through 2099.

Expenditure Proportionality Requirements
Expenditures from the Housing Asset Fund must meet specific proportionality requirements by income level and age:
• Administrative and monitoring expenses have an annual maximum limit, which was $223,400 in FY 2020-21 ($200,000 adjusted for inflation by HCD).

Pinole spent $99,412 on administration and monitoring in FY 2020-21, which is well below the limit.
• Up to $250,000 may be spent annually on homeless prevention and rapid rehousing solutions for homelessness. No Housing Asset Funds have been spent on this category to date in order to prioritize funding for affordable housing development. Pinole had an unhoused population of 7 based on the 2020 Contra Costa County Annual Point-in-Time Count Report (the most recent count available).
• If Housing Asset Funds are spent on housing development projects or programs, specific income levels must be assisted within a five-year compliance period (see Appendix 1 of Attachment 2 for more details). FY 2020-21 marks the second year of the second five-year compliance period of January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2024. Pinole did not spend any Housing Asset Funds on housing development projects or programs in FY 2020-21.

Staff will ensure income targets are met with any future expenditures, 60 of 131
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 15, 2022 4
including any expenditures toward the development of affordable housing at 811 San Pablo Avenue.
• Housing Asset Funds may not assist senior rental housing units if more than 50% of rental housing units assisted by the City or the former Agency in the prior 10 years were restricted to seniors. In the prior ten years, the City and former Agency assisted one affordable housing development with 70 units, all of which are restricted to seniors. The property was assisted in FY 2011-12 before the Housing Successor limits were enacted into law. The City may not use Housing Asset Funds to assist additional senior rental units until FY 2021-22.

The City is meeting all Housing Asset Fund requirements and will continue to ensure compliance with future expenditures, particularly with the future development of 811 San Pablo Avenue.

Excess Surplus
Housing successors are subject to the same excess surplus requirement as former redevelopment agencies. Excess surplus is a cash balance that is higher than the greater of $1 million or the sum of all cash deposits to the Housing Asset Fund in the prior four years. Housing successors must spend or encumber any excess surplus within three fiscal years or transfer its excess surplus to HCD to spend on statewide housing programs. The intent of the law is to encourage housing successors to spend available affordable housing funds on a timely basis.

At the end of FY 2019-20, the Housing Successor had an excess surplus of $536,520 that must be spent or encumbered by June 30, 2023. The FY 2019-20 excess surplus was eliminated in FY 2020-21 through payment of administrative costs and by committing $2 million in Housing Asset Funds for the development of affordable housing at 811 San Pablo Avenue. In doing so, the Housing Successor expended the surplus before the June 30, 2023, deadline. The Housing Successor did not accrue an excess surplus in prior years.

The Housing Successor did not accrue an excess surplus in FY 2020-21 or prior to FY 2019-20.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no implications of receiving and filing this annual report on the City’s activities as the Housing Successor.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1
B. Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21 61 of 131
State of California

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Section 34176.1
34176.1. Funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund described in subdivision (d) of Section 34176 shall be subject to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000)) relating to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, except as follows:
(a)  Subdivision (d) of Section 33334.3 and subdivision (a) of Section 33334.4 shall not apply. Instead, funds received from the successor agency for items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule shall be expended to meet the enforceable obligations, and the housing successor shall expend all other funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund as follows:
(1)  For the purpose of monitoring and preserving the long-term affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions or covenants entered into by the redevelopment agency or the housing successor and for the purpose of administering the activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3), a housing successor may expend per fiscal year up to an amount equal to 5 percent of the statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor and of loans and grants receivable, including real property and loans and grants transferred to the housing successor pursuant to Section 34176 and real property purchased and loans and grants made by the housing successor. If this amount is less than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for any given fiscal year, the housing successor may expend up to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) in that fiscal year for these purposes. The Department of Housing and Community Development shall annually publish on its Internet Web site an adjustment to this amount to reflect any change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the United States Department of Labor for the preceding calendar year.

For purposes of this paragraph, “statutory value of real property” means the value of properties formerly held by the former redevelopment agency as listed on the housing asset transfer form approved by the department pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 34176, the value of the properties transferred to the housing successor pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 34181, and the purchase price of properties purchased by the housing successor.
(2)  Notwithstanding Section 33334.2, if the housing successor has fulfilled all obligations pursuant to Sections 33413 and 33418, the housing successor may expend up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) per fiscal year for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for individuals and families who are homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance, including the provision of short-term or medium-term rental assistance, contributions toward the construction of local or regional homeless shelters, housing relocation and stabilization services including

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

ATTACHMENT A
62 of 131
housing search, mediation, or outreach to property owners, credit repair, security or utility deposits, utility payments, rental assistance for a final month at a location, moving cost assistance, and case management, or other appropriate activities for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become homeless. (3)  (A)  The housing successor shall expend all funds remaining in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund after the expenditures allowed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income, with at least 30 percent of these remaining funds expended for the development of rental housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income and no more than 20 percent of these remaining funds expended for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income. A housing successor shall demonstrate in the annual report described in subdivision (f), for 2019, and every five years thereafter, that the housing successor’s expenditures from January 1, 2014, through the end of the latest fiscal year covered in the report comply with the requirements of this subparagraph.
(B)  If the housing successor fails to comply with the extremely low income requirement in any five-year report, then the housing successor shall ensure that at least 50 percent of these remaining funds expended in each fiscal year following the latest fiscal year following the report are expended for the development of rental housing affordable to, and occupied by, households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income until the housing successor demonstrates compliance with the extremely low income requirement in an annual report described in subdivision (f). (C)  If the housing successor exceeds the expenditure limit for households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income in any five-year report, the housing successor shall not expend any of the remaining funds for households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income until the housing successor demonstrates compliance with this limit in an annual report described in subdivision (f).
(D)  For purposes of this subdivision, “development” means new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, substantial rehabilitation as defined in Section 33413, the acquisition of long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units as described in Section 33413, or the preservation of an assisted housing development that is eligible for prepayment or termination or for which within the expiration of rental restrictions is scheduled to occur within five years as those terms are defined in Section 65863.10 of the Government Code. Units described in this subparagraph may be counted towards any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413, provided that the units meet the requirements of that section and are counted as provided in that section.
(b)  Subdivision (b) of Section 33334.4 shall not apply. Instead, if the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years exceeds 50 percent of the 63 of 131
aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period, then the housing successor shall not expend these funds to assist additional senior housing units until the housing successor or its host jurisdiction assists, and construction has commenced, a number of units available to all persons, regardless of age, that is equal to 50 percent of the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the time period described above.
(c)  (1)  Program income a housing successor receives shall not be associated with a project area and, notwithstanding subdivision (g) of Section 33334.2, may be expended anywhere within the jurisdiction of the housing successor or transferred pursuant to paragraph (2) without a finding of benefit to a project area. For purposes of this paragraph, “program income” means the sources described in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) of Section 34176 and interest earned on deposits in the account.
(2)  Two or more housing successors within a county, within a single metropolitan statistical area, within 15 miles of each other, or that are in contiguous jurisdictions may enter into an agreement to transfer funds among their respective Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds for the sole purpose of developing transit priority projects as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, permanent supportive housing as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 50675.14, housing for agricultural employees as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 50517.5, or special needs housing as defined in federal or state law or regulation, or for a regional homeless shelter, if all of the following conditions are met:
(A)  Each participating housing successor has made a finding based on substantial evidence, after a public hearing, that the agreement to transfer funds will not cause or exacerbate racial, ethnic, or economic segregation.
(B)  The development to be funded shall not be located in a census tract where more than 50 percent of its population is very low income, unless the development is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (C)  The completed development shall not result in a reduction in the number of housing units or a reduction in the affordability of housing units on the site where the development is to be built.
(D)  A transferring housing successor shall not have any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413.
(E)  No housing successor may transfer more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per fiscal year.
(F)  The jurisdictions of the transferring and receiving housing successors each have an adopted housing element that the Department of Housing and Community Development has found pursuant to Section 65585 of the Government Code to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with 64 of 131
Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code and have submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development the annual progress report required by Section 65400 of the Government Code within the preceding 12 months.
(G)  Transferred funds shall only assist rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households earning 60 percent or less of the area median income. (H)  Transferred funds not encumbered within two years shall be transferred to the Department of Housing and Community Development for expenditure pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
(d)  Sections 33334.10 and 33334.12 shall not apply. Instead, if a housing successor has an excess surplus, the housing successor shall encumber the excess surplus for the purposes described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) or transfer the funds pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) within three fiscal years. If the housing successor fails to comply with this subdivision, the housing successor, within 90 days of the end of the third fiscal year, shall transfer any excess surplus to the Department of Housing and Community Development for expenditure pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. For purposes of this subdivision, “excess surplus” shall mean an unencumbered amount in the account that exceeds the greater of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or the aggregate amount deposited into the account during the housing successor’s preceding four fiscal years, whichever is greater.
(e)  Section 33334.16 shall not apply to interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012. With respect to interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency before February 1, 2012, the time periods described in Section 33334.16 shall be deemed to have commenced on the date that the department approved the property as a housing asset.
(f)  Section 33080.1 of this code and Section 12463.3 of the Government Code shall not apply. Instead, the housing successor shall conduct, and shall provide to its governing body, an independent financial audit of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund within six months after the end of each fiscal year, which may be included in the independent financial audit of the host jurisdiction. If the housing successor is a city or county, it shall also include in its report pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code and post on its Internet Web site all of the following information for the previous fiscal year. If the housing successor is not a city or county, it shall also provide to its governing body and post on its Internet Web site all of the following information for the previous fiscal year:
(1)  The amount the city, county, or city and county received pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4. (2)  The amount deposited to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund, distinguishing between amounts deposited pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4, amounts deposited for other items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, and other amounts deposited.
65 of 131
(3)  A statement of the balance in the fund as of the close of the fiscal year, distinguishing any amounts held for items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule from other amounts.
(4)  A description of expenditures from the fund by category, including, but not limited to, expenditures (A) for monitoring and preserving the long-term affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions or covenants entered into by the redevelopment agency or the housing successor and administering the activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a), (B) for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for the development of housing described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), and (C) for the development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
(5)  As described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor, the value of loans and grants receivable, and the sum of these two amounts.
(6)  A description of any transfers made pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) in the previous fiscal year and, if still unencumbered, in earlier fiscal years and a description of and status update on any project for which transferred funds have been or will be expended if that project has not yet been placed in service. (7)  A description of any project that the housing successor receives or holds property tax revenue pursuant to the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and the status of that project.
(8)  For interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency before February 1, 2012, a status update on compliance with Section 33334.16. For interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on the project.
(9)  A description of any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413 that remained to transfer to the housing successor on February 1, 2012, of the housing successor’s progress in meeting those obligations, and of the housing successor’s plans to meet unmet obligations. In addition, the housing successor shall include in the report posted on its Internet Web site the implementation plans of the former redevelopment agency.
(10)  The information required by subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
(11)  The percentage of units of deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years in relation to the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period.
(12)  The amount of any excess surplus, the amount of time that the successor agency has had excess surplus, and the housing successor’s plan for eliminating the excess surplus.
(13)  An inventory of homeownership units assisted by the former redevelopment agency or the housing successor that are subject to covenants or restrictions or to an 66 of 131
adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3. This inventory shall include all of the following information:
(A)  The number of those units.
(B)  In the first report pursuant to this subdivision, the number of units lost to the portfolio after February 1, 2012, and the reason or reasons for those losses. For all subsequent reports, the number of the units lost to the portfolio in the last fiscal year and the reason for those losses.
(C)  Any funds returned to the housing successor as part of an adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
(D)  Whether the housing successor has contracted with any outside entity for the management of the units and, if so, the identity of the entity. (Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 35, Sec. 1. (AB 346) Effective January 1, 2018.) 67 of 131

HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT
City of Pinole
Fiscal Year 2020-21

ATTACHMENT B
68 of 131

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 CITY OF PINOLE AS HOUSING SUCCESSOR .................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF THIS HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT ........................................................... 1 ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO THE HOUSING SUCCESSOR .............................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 2 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO HOUSING SUCCESSORS ............................................... 2 PERMITTED USES OF HOUSING ASSET FUNDS ............................................................................. 3 LIMITS ON THE ACCUMULATION OF HOUSING FUNDS (EXCESS SURPLUS) ................................. 5 HOUSING ASSET FUND ACTIVITY ................................................................................................... 5 DEPOSITS AND FUND BALANCE ..................................................................................................... 6 EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................................................... 6 ENDING CASH AND FUND BALANCE ............................................................................................... 6 HOUSING SUCCESSOR PORTFOLIO ............................................................................................... 7 COMPLIANCE WITH EXPENDITURE & PRODUCTION LIMITS ........................................................ 10 PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 10 SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING LIMIT COMPLIANCE ........................................................................... 11 EXCESS SURPLUS ......................................................................................................................... 12 OTHER INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 14 HOMEOWNERSHIP UNIT INVENTORY ........................................................................................... 14 TRANSFERS TO OTHER HOUSING SUCCESSORS ........................................................................ 14 APPENDIX 1 – HOUSING ASSET TRANSFER FORM ...................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 2 - HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS ................................. 24 APPENDIX 3 – HOUSING ASSET FUND EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 25 APPENDIX 4 – FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER & RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION LOAN INVENTORY . 27 APPENDIX 5 – PINOLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY ....................................................... 28

69 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 1

INTRODUCTION
This Housing Successor Agency Annual Report (“Annual Report”) presents information on Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2020-21 expenditures and activities as required by Health and Safety Code (“HSC”) Section 34176.1(f), including but not limited to a housing successor’s compliance with certain expenditure activities over the year as well as a five-year planning period. This Annual Report is required of any housing successor to a former redevelopment agency.

CITY OF PINOLE AS HOUSING SUCCESSOR
The City of Pinole (“City”) is the housing successor (the “Housing Successor”) to the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole (the “Agency”), which was dissolved statewide in 2012. At the time of dissolution, a housing successor was to be selected to transfer and be responsible for the remaining assets and liabilities of a former redevelopment agency.

This Annual Report is an addendum to the City’s Housing Element Annual Progress Report. Both are due to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) by April 1 annually.

The Housing Successor’s FY 2020-21 audited financial statements have been posted on the City website and are incorporated herein by reference.

SCOPE OF THIS HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT
This Annual Report is limited to the City’s activities as it relates to its role as a housing successor. This may include, but is not limited to, financial activities, property disposition, loan administration, monitoring of covenants, and affordable housing development. This Annual Report describes compliance with various annual, five-year, and ten-year housing expenditure and production requirements. FY 2020-21 is the second year of the current five-year compliance period for income proportionality, which begins July 1, 2019 and ends June 30, 2024.

ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO THE HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Upon the statewide dissolution of redevelopment in 2012, all rights, powers, committed assets, liabilities, duties, and obligations associated with the affordable housing activities of the former Agency were transferred to the Housing Successor. As one of its first duties as a housing successor, the Housing Successor prepared and submitted to the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) an inventory of 70 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 2
housing assets to be transferred from the former Agency. The inventory was enumerated on a Housing Asset Transfer Form (“HAT”) which included:

1. Real properties;

2. Personal property;

3. Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund encumbrances;

4. Loans/Grants Receivable;

5. Rents/Operations; and

6. Deferrals.

All items on the HAT were reviewed and ultimately approved by DOF on February 15, 2013. A copy of the HAT is provided as Appendix 1 in Attachment 2. The City, acting as Housing Successor, transferred these assets to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (“Housing Asset Fund”, Fund 285).

Approval of the HAT set in motion a series of obligations by the City as a housing successor, as described in the following section.

BACKGROUND
This Section summarizes the legal requirements for use of housing successor assets that are addressed in this Annual Report.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO HOUSING SUCCESSORS
A year after dissolution of redevelopment began, the California State Legislature recognized the need to regulate and provide transparency on the use of the housing activities transferred from a former redevelopment agency. Senate Bill 341 (DeSaulnier, 2013) and subsequent legislation enacted several requirements for housing successor agencies contained in HSC Sections 34176-34176.1.

In general, housing successors must comply with three major requirements pursuant to HSC Section 34176.1:

1. Housing Successor expenditures and housing production are subject to income and age targets.

2. Housing successors may not accumulate an “excess surplus,” or a high balance based on certain thresholds.
71 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 3

3. Properties must be developed with affordable housing or sold within five to ten years of being approved for transfer from the former redevelopment agency to the housing successor.

Appendix 2 in Attachment 2 provides a detailed summary of the reporting requirements that are addressed in this Annual Report.

PERMITTED USES OF HOUSING ASSET FUNDS
Pursuant to HSC Section 34176.1, Housing Asset Funds may be spent on:
 Administrative costs for operation of the housing successor agency. The law allows a housing successor to spend the greater of:
o $200,000 per year adjusted for inflation ($223,400 for FY 2020-21), or o 5% of the statutory value of real property owned by that housing successor and the value of loans and grants receivable from the HAT (“Portfolio”).

Pinole’s administrative cost limit for FY 2020-21 is $223,400, which is the $200,000 limit adjusted for inflation by HCD.
 Homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services up to $250,000 per year if the former redevelopment agency did not have any outstanding inclusionary housing or replacement housing production requirements as of 2012. Pinole is eligible for this expense because the former Agency did not have any outstanding inclusionary or replacement housing requirements upon dissolution.  Affordable housing development assisting households earning up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income (“AMI”), subject to specific income and age targets over a five-year period.

Five-Year Income Proportionality on Development Expenditures: Housing Asset Funds may be spent on development of housing projects affordable to low, very low, and extremely low income households. “Development” is defined as “new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, substantial rehabilitation as defined in HSC Section 33413, the acquisition of long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units as described in HSC Section 33413, or the preservation of an assisted housing development that is eligible for prepayment or termination or for which within the expiration of rental restrictions is scheduled to occur within five years.”
72 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 4
Over each five-year compliance period, at least 30 percent of such development expenditures must assist extremely low income households (30% AMI), while no more than 20 percent may assist low income households (between 60-80%). The balance of the funds may be used on households earning between 30% and 60% of AMI.

The first five-year compliance period was January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019. The Housing Successor was compliant with Housing Asset Fund income proportionality expenditure requirements during the first five-year compliance period. The second, and current, five-year compliance period is July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2024.

Note that housing successors must report expenditures by category each year, but compliance with income proportionality limits is measured every five years. For example, a housing successor could spend all its funds in a single year on households earning between 60-80% AMI, as long as it was 20 percent or less of the total expenditures during the five-year compliance period.

Should a housing successor not spend at least 30% of its development expenditures assisting extremely low income households, or exceed the amount spent on low income households, future expenditures are subject to greater restriction until these proportionality targets are met. Specifically, if a housing successor is unable to spend at least 30% of its development expenditures on extremely low units, it is required to increase this spending to 50% until compliant with the 30% threshold; a housing successor that spends more than 20% of its development expenditures on low income units cannot spend any further funds on low income developments until it is at or below the 20% threshold.

As such, tracking these expenditures and their progress over the corresponding five-year period is an important function of this Annual Report.

Ten-Year Age Proportionality on Units Assisted: If more than 50% of the total aggregate number of rental units produced by the city, housing successor, or former redevelopment agency during the past 10 years are restricted to seniors, the housing successor may not spend more Housing Asset Funds on senior rental housing. The Housing Successor is currently over the 50% limit and may not spend Housing Asset Funds on senior housing until after FY 2021-22 or when 70 non-senior rental units are assisted, whichever comes first (see Table 3).
73 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 5
Appendix 3 in Attachment 2 describes Housing Asset Fund Expenditure requirements in more detail including the types of costs eligible in each category.

LIMITS ON THE ACCUMULATION OF HOUSING FUNDS (EXCESS

SURPLUS)
State law limits how much cash a housing successor may retain and, if it fails to commit and spend these dollars in a reasonable timeframe, ultimately penalizes the housing successor by requiring unspent funds to be transferred to HCD for use on State housing programs.

HSC Section 34176.1(d) establishes a limit, known as an “excess surplus” on the amount of unencumbered Housing Asset Funds based on the greater of the following:
 $1,000,000, or
 The total amount of deposits made into the Housing Asset Fund over the preceding four years.

Only amounts in excess of this threshold are considered an excess surplus. Once an excess surplus is determined, a housing successor must account for these funds separately and encumber said monies within three years. If after the third year the excess surplus has not been fully encumbered, the remaining balance of the excess surplus is to be transferred to HCD within 90 days. HCD is permitted to use these transferred excess surplus funds anywhere in the State under its Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program.

The concept of excess surpluses carries over from the era prior to dissolution of redevelopment, when redevelopment agencies often were receiving substantial amounts of deposits from the mandatory housing set-aside of 20% of tax increment revenues.

As part of the Annual Report, a housing successor must disclose any excess surplus and describe the housing successor’s plan for eliminating this excess surplus.

HOUSING ASSET FUND ACTIVITY
The following section describes the Housing Asset Fund activities in FY 2020-21. 74 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 6

DEPOSITS AND FUND BALANCE
The Housing Successor deposited $1,865,429 into the Housing Asset Fund in FY 2020-21, as shown in Figure 1. Revenue sources consist of investment earnings from interest allocations, a note repayment by Bridge Housing, loan repayments on a Supplemental Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“SERAF”) loan, and repayment on first-time homebuyer and residential rehabilitation loans issued by the former Agency.

EXPENDITURES
The Housing Successor expended a total of $99,412 during FY 2020-21. All of these expenditures were for Housing Successor administration including professional services and utilities. The total administrative costs of $99,412 are within the FY 2020-21 limit of $223,400. The Successor Agency will continue to keep its administrative costs within the limit pursuant to HSC Section 34176.1.

ENDING CASH AND FUND BALANCE
The Housing Asset Fund balance as of June 30, 2021 was $7,837,526, as summarized in Table 1. Of this amount, $4,073,170 was cash.
$7,374
$1,750,000
$13,249
$94,806
Figure 1.

FY 2020-21 Net Deposits ($1,865,429)
Investment Earnings
SERAF Loan Repayment
Bridge Housing Note
Repayment
Homeowner Loan Repayments
75 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 7

HOUSING SUCCESSOR PORTFOLIO
The Housing Successor Portfolio includes real properties and notes and loans receivable transferred from the former Agency. The Portfolio had a value of $3,763,645 as of FY 2020-21, as detailed in Table

2. Balance Type Gross Balance
Cash 4,073,170
Miscellaneous Receivable 710
Notes Receivable 3,893,340
Allowance for Uncollectable Notes (3,893,340)
Loans Receivable 301,768
Allowance for Uncollectable Loans (301,768)
Land Held for Resale 1,222,070
Due from RDA Successor Agency 2,541,575
Ending Balance $ 7,837,526
Source: City of Pinole
Housing Asset Fund Ending Balance FY 2020-21
Table 1
76 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 8

REAL PROPERTIES AND DISPOSITION STATUS
The former Agency transferred five properties to the Housing Successor as approved on the HAT:
 Grove Vacant Land (Samuel Street) – Pursuant to a Development and Disposition Agreement (“DDA”), this property is required to remain vacant as open space for an adjacent property. The property has a steep slope and cannot be developed, therefore there are no plans for its disposition.
 Faria House Vacant Land (2100 San Pablo Avenue) – This 2.3-acre parcel of vacant land is park land in which the Faria House resides. There are no plans for the property’s disposition due to its park land restrictions.

Asset Amount
Land Held for Resale
Grove Land (Samuel Street) 62
Faria House Land (2100 San Pablo Ave) 355,000
Collins Housing (612 Tennent Ave) 625,000
Vacant Land (811 San Pablo Ave) 242,008
Subtotal $1,222,070
Notes Receivable
Bridge Housing Note 1,024,514
Alvarez Court Note 1,772,978
East Bluff Note 1,095,849
Allowance for uncollectable notes (3,893,340)
Subtotal $0
Loans Receivable
First-Time Homebuyer Loans 268,095
Housing Rehab Loans 33,673
SERAF Loan 2,541,575
Allowance for uncollectable loans (301,768)
Subtotal $2,541,575
Total Portfolio Value $3,763,645
Source: City of Pinole
Note: Allowance for uncollectable notes to account for residual receipt loans that are only payable if there is enough net cash flow after paying other expenses and debts for each property.

Portfolio Value of Real Properties and Loans Receivable Table 2
77 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 9
 Collins House (612 Tennent Avenue) – The Housing Successor listed this property for sale in September 2020 and approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) in May 2021; the PSA was terminated in January 2022 due to milestones not being met pursuant to the terms of the PSA. The Housing Successor is relisting the property in FY 2021-22. All sales proceeds will be deposited into the Housing Asset Fund as required by law.  Vacant Land (811 San Pablo Avenue) – The Housing Successor entered into a DDA with Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) dated July 6, 2021 to develop this property with 33 units of housing affordable to extremely low income to low income households. The majority of units will be restricted for veterans by State and Federal funding sources proposed to finance the project. In November 2021, SAHA reported that the property was awarded $7,848,120 in Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program (“VHHP”) funding by HCD. As of February 2022, SAHA is awaiting a determination on a Contra Costa County HOME fund application for $2,636,280. SAHA is attempting to secure complete project financing by August 2022. If that timeline is met, construction is estimated to begin in Spring 2023 and completed in Summer 2024.

HSC Section 34176.1(e) requires all real properties acquired by a redevelopment agency prior to February 1, 2012 and transferred to the housing successor to initiate development of affordable housing or sell the properties within five to ten years of DOF’s approval of the HAT, or February 15, 2023. The City extended the deadline from February 15, 2018 to February 15, 2023, by action of the City Council on November 21, 2017 as permitted by law. The City expects to comply with this disposition timeline for 612 Tennent Avenue and 811 San Pablo Avenue. The Grove Vacant Land and Faria House vacant land are exempt from this requirement due to their contractual land use restrictions.

LOANS RECEIVABLE
The Housing Asset Fund has approximately $2.5 million in loans receivable as described below.  SERAF Loan in the amount of $2,541,575: Prior to redevelopment dissolution, the former Agency deferred $4,291,575 in Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund set-aside deposits in order to make State-mandated payments into SERAF, a State education fund. The Successor Agency is now responsible for making SERAF loan repayments from Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds (“RPTTF”). The Successor Agency began repaying the loan with a $1.75 million payment in FY 2020-21, leaving an outstanding balance of $2,541,575. Staff estimates the total outstanding balance will be paid off in 2023.
78 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 10
 Outstanding First-Time Homebuyer Loans and Housing Rehabilitation Loans in the amount of $301,768: These loans have different maturity dates ranging from 2022 through 2099. Appendix 4 in Attachment 2 provides an inventory of outstanding loans.

COMPLIANCE WITH EXPENDITURE & PRODUCTION LIMITS
During FY 2020-21, the City was in compliance with all annual and five- to ten-year planning period requirements as described in this section.

PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS
As summarized in Figure 2, the Housing Successor fully complied with all Housing Asset Fund spending restrictions in FY 2020-21:
 The Housing Successor expended $99,412 on administrative expenses which is under the maximum annual limit of $223,400 for FY 2020-21.
 The Housing Successor did not use any Housing Asset Funds for homeless prevention or rapid rehousing expenses, and was therefore in compliance with the $250,000 spending limit.  The Housing Successor did not spend any Housing Asset Funds for affordable housing development-related expenditures in FY 2020-21, which is the second year of the current fiveyear compliance period for income proportionality. The Housing Successor will ensure future development-related expenditures comply with income proportionality requirements. 79 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 11

SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING LIMIT COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to HSC Section 34176 (b), Housing Asset Funds may not assist senior rental housing if more than 50% of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted by the former Agency, Housing Successor, or City in the previous 10 years are restricted to seniors. In the prior ten years, the Housing Successor, former Agency, and City assisted 70 deed-restricted rental units, all located in the 800 John Street development. All 70 units are restricted to seniors. The former Agency assisted the project in FY 2011- 12 before the 50% limit was enacted. The Housing Successor may not assist any more deed-restricted senior rental units until FY 2021-22. The Housing Successor will ensure that it complies with this requirement moving forward. The 33 units proposed at 811 San Pablo Avenue will not be age restricted. $99,412 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Homeless
Prevention/ Rapid
Rehousing
30% AMI (30%
minimum)
31-59% AMI
(no limit)
60-80% AMI
(20% maximum)
Figure 2.

Limitation Compliance
Limit Expenditure
spent out of N/A, $0 Development Expenses
$250,000
maximum
spent
is within
$223,400
maximum
Annual Limits Five-Year Compliance Period
Property Date
Assisted Senior Units % Non-Senior
Units % Total Units
800 John Street 9/30/11 70 100% 0 0% 70
Total 70 0 70
Total Deed-Restricted Senior Units: 100%
Source: City of Pinole
Table 3
Deed-Restricted Senior Rental Units Assisted Prior Ten Years 80 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 12
Table 3 is limited to deed-restricted rental units assisted in the prior ten years (FY 2011-12 to FY 2020- 21). Appendix 5 in Attachment 2 presents a complete inventory of affordable housing in Pinole that is monitored by the City. Most projects were funded by the former Agency over ten years ago or developed to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

EXCESS SURPLUS
The Housing Asset Fund may not accumulate an “excess surplus,” or an unencumbered amount that exceeds the greater of $1 million or the sum of deposits in the prior four fiscal years. This requirement ensures that housing successors are actively spending available Housing Asset Funds on affordable housing. Excess surplus must be expended or encumbered within three fiscal years of each year that excess surplus was accrued. If a housing successor fails to comply, it must transfer any excess surplus to HCD within 90 days of the end of the third fiscal year.

At the end of FY 2019-20 the Housing Successor had an excess surplus of $536,520, as shown in Table

4. The Housing Successor eliminated this excess surplus in FY 2020-21 through payment of administrative costs and by committing $2 million in Housing Asset Funds for the development of affordable housing at 811 San Pablo Avenue. In doing so, the Housing Successor encumbered the Fiscal Year 2019-20
Excess Surplus (Beginning of FY 20-21) $ 536,520
Elimination of FY 19-20 Excess Surplus
Expenditures
FY 20-21 Administrative Costs $ 99,412
Encumbrances
811 San Pablo Avenue 1
$ 2,000,000
Remaining 19-20 Excess Surplus $ - Source: City of Pinole 1The Housing Successor executed a DDA with SAHA on July 6, 2021 committing $2 million in Housing Asset Funds for the development of affordable housing at 811 San Pablo Avenue.

Table 4
FY 19-20 Excess Surplus Elimination
81 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 13
surplus before the June 30, 2023, deadline. The Housing Successor did not accrue an excess surplus in prior years.

As shown in Table 5, the Housing Successor did not have an excess surplus in FY 2020-21. The unencumbered beginning cash balance ($305,697) was less than the total deposits made in the prior four fiscal years ($1,605,647).

Step 1: Determine Unencumbered Cash Balance From Financials FY 20-21 Beginning Cash Balance $ 2,305,697
Less: Encumbered Funds1
$ (2,000,000)
Unencumbered Amount $ 305,697
Step 2: Determine Greater of $1M or Last 4 Deposits
$1 Million, or $ 1,000,000
Last 4 years' deposits $ 1,605,647
2019-20 $ 107,933
2018-19 $ 162,440
2017-18 $ 1,098,878
2016-17 $ 236,396
Result: Larger Number $ 1,605,647
Step 3: Excess Surplus is Amount Step 1 Exceeds Step 2, if Any (1) Unencumbered Amount $ 305,697
(2) Less: Larger Number From Step 2 $ 1,605,647
Excess Surplus None
Source: City of Pinole
1The Housing Successor executed a DDA with SAHA on July 6, 2021 committing $2 million in Housing Asset Funds for the development of affordable housing at 811 San Pablo Avenue.

Table 5
Excess Surplus
82 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 14

OTHER INFORMATION

HOMEOWNERSHIP UNIT INVENTORY
Table 6 presents an inventory of homeownership units assisted by the Housing Successor that require restrictions, covenants, or an adopted program that protects Housing Asset Fund monies.

TRANSFERS TO OTHER HOUSING SUCCESSORS
There were no transfers to another housing successor entity for a joint project pursuant to HSC 34176.1(c)(2).

Project Name / Address
Unit
No. Covenant Expiration
620 Maiden Lane 1 10/30/54
609 Maiden Lane 1 9/22/54
2051 Buena Vista Drive 1 9/23/56
2061 Buena Vista Drive 1 8/31/56
2071 Buena Vista Drive 1 11/7/56
Source: City of Pinole
Maiden Lane
Heritage Park
Homeownership Unit Inventory
Table 6
83 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 15
APPENDIX 1 – HOUSING ASSET TRANSFER FORM
84 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 16
85 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 17
86 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 18
87 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 19
88 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 20
89 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 21
90 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 22
91 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 23
92 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 24
APPENDIX 2 - HOUSING SUCCESSOR ANNUAL REPORT

REQUIREMENTS
Housing Successor Reporting Requirements
Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1(f)
Housing Asset Fund
Revenues & Expenditures
Other Assets and Active
Projects Obligations & Proportionality
Total amount deposited in the
Housing Asset Fund for the fiscal
year
Amount of deposits funded by a
Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule (“ROPS”)
Description of any project(s)
funded through the ROPS
Description of any outstanding
production obligations of the
former Agency that were
inherited by the Housing
Successor
Statement of balance at the close
of the fiscal year
Update on property disposition
efforts (note that housing
successors may only hold
property for up to five years,
unless it is already developed
with affordable housing)
Compliance with proportionality
requirements (income group
targets), which must be upheld
on a five-year cycle
Description of Expenditures for
the fiscal year, broken out as
follows:
 Homeless prevention and
rapid rehousing
 Administrative and
monitoring
 Housing development
expenses by income level
assisted
Other “portfolio” balances,
including:
 Statutory value of any
real property either
transferred from the
former Agency or
purchased by the
Housing Asset Fund
 Value of loans and
grants receivable
Percentage of deed-restricted
rental housing restricted to
seniors and assisted by the
former Agency, the Housing
Successor, or the City within the
past ten years compared to the
total number of units assisted by
any of those three agencies
Description of any transfers to
another housing successor for a
joint project
Inventory of homeownership
units assisted by the former
Agency or the housing
successor that are subject to
covenants or restrictions or to
an adopted program that
protects the former Agency’s
investment of monies from the
Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund
Amount of any excess surplus,
and, if any, the plan for
eliminating it
93 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 25
APPENDIX 3 – HOUSING ASSET FUND EXPENDITURE

REQUIREMENTS
Housing Asset Fund Expenditure Requirements
Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1
Expense
Category Limits Allowable Uses
Administration
and
Compliance
Monitoring
$223,400
maximum for
FY 2020-21
(limit varies
each year)
Administrative activities such as:
 Professional services (consultant fees, auditor fees, etc.)  Staff salaries, benefits, and overhead for time spent on Housing Successor administration
 Compliance monitoring to ensure compliance with affordable housing and loan agreements
 Property maintenance at Housing Successor-owned
properties
Capped at $200,000 adjusted annually for inflation or 5% of the statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor and the value of loans and grants receivable from the HAT (“Portfolio”), whichever is greater.

Homeless
Prevention
and
Rapid
Rehousing
Solutions
$250,000
maximum per
fiscal year
Services for individuals and families who are homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance, including:
 Contributions toward the construction of local or regional homeless shelters
 Housing relocation and stabilization services including housing search, mediation, or outreach to property owners  Short-term or medium-term rental assistance
 Security or utility deposits
 Utility payments
 Moving cost assistance
 Credit repair
 Case management
 Other appropriate activities for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become homeless.

Affordable
Housing
Development
No spending
limit, but must
comply with
income and
age targets
“Development” includes:
 New construction
 Acquisition and rehabilitation
 Substantial rehabilitation
 Acquisition of long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units
 Preservation of at-risk units whose affordable rent restrictions would otherwise expire over the next five years
94 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 26
Housing Asset Fund Expenditure Requirements
Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1
Expense
Category Limits Allowable Uses
Income
Targets
Every five years (currently FYE 2020-2024), Housing Asset Funds must meet income targets:
 At least 30% on extremely low income rental households (up to 30% AMI or “Area Median Income”)
 No more than 20% on low income households (60-80% AMI) Moderate and above moderate income households may not be assisted (above 80% AMI).

Failure to comply with the extremely low income requirement in any five-year compliance period will result in having to ensure that 50 percent of remaining funds be spent on extremely low income rental units until in compliance.

Exceeding the expenditure limit for low households earning between 60-80% AMI in any five-year reporting period will result in not being able to expend any funds on these income categories until in compliance.

Age Targets For the prior ten years (resets every year), a maximum of 50% of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted by the Housing Successor or its host jurisdiction may be restricted to seniors.

If a housing successor fails to comply, Housing Asset Funds may not be spent on deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors until in compliance.
95 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 27
APPENDIX 4 – FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER AND RESIDENTIAL

REHABILITATION LOAN INVENTORY

PROJECT NAME LOAN TYPE ORIGINAL

BALANCE

ORIGINAL
TERM
(MOS.)

INTEREST

RATE MATURITY PRINCIPAL BALANCE DUE

LOAN NOTE
DATE
FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) DEF LOAN $ 20,000.00 0 0% 12/31/99 $ 20,000.00 10/9/96 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) DEF LOAN $ 20,000.00 0 0% 12/31/99 $ 20,000.00 11/16/95 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) DEF LOAN $ 20,000.00 0 0% 12/31/99 $ 20,000.00 9/27/96 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) DEF LOAN $ 20,000.00 0 0% 12/31/99 $ 20,000.00 8/26/99 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) PRIN ONLY $ 30,000.00 420 0% 3/1/45 $ 3/1/10 - FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) PRIN ONLY $ 54,575.00 480 0% 7/31/50 $ 52,755.80 7/31/10 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) PRIN ONLY $ 30,000.00 420 0% 3/24/45 $ 24,750.21 3/24/10 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) PRIN ONLY $ 40,000.00 420 0% 9/17/44 $ 30,588.54 9/17/09 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) DEF LOAN $ 30,000.00 0 0% 12/31/99 $ 30,000.00 9/11/01 FIRST TIME HOME BUYER (11610) DEF LOAN $ 50,000.00 0 0% 12/31/99 $ 50,000.00 7/28/03 Subtotal 204,575.00 $ Total $ 268,094.55
RESIDENTIAL REHAB (11630) PRIN & INT $ 65,000.00 183 2% 10/1/22 $ 3,744.36 7/29/07 RESIDENTIAL REHAB (11630) DEF LOAN $ 10,429.00 0 2% 12/31/99 $ 10,429.00 6/9/10 RESIDENTIAL REHAB (11630) DEF LOAN $ 69,500.00 0 2% 12/31/99 $ 4/13/06 - RESIDENTIAL REHAB (11630) DEF LOAN $ 87,500.00 0 2% 12/31/99 $ 19,500.00 6/21/00 Subtotal 232,429.00 $ Total $ 33,673.36
Total Original Balance $ 437,004.00 Total Outstanding Balance 6/30/21 $ 301,767.91 Source: City of Pinole
Appendix 4
Outstanding First-Time Homebuyer and Housing Rehabilitation Loans 96 of 131
Pinole Housing Successor Annual Report 2020-21 28
APPENDIX 5 – PINOLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
Project Address
Total #
Affordable
Units
Type Senior? Owner/Operator
2401 San Pablo Avenue 2401 San Pablo Avenue
Pinole, CA 94564
16 Rental No Eclipse Property
Management Inc.
647 Tennent Avenue 647 Tennent Ave
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
Alvarez Court Apartments 760 Alvarez Avenue
Pinole, CA 94564
19 Rental No The John Stewart
Company
Bayside Apartments 530 Sunnyview Drive
Pinole, CA 94564
93 Rental No FPI Management, Inc.

East Bluff Apartments 1813 Marlesta Road
Pinole, CA 94564
144 Rental No Eden Housing
Pinole Assisted Living
Community
2850 Estates Avenue
Pinole, CA 94564
65 Rental Yes Westmont Living
Pinole Grove Senior Housing 800 John Street
Pinole, CA 94564
69 Rental Yes BRIDGE Housing
DeNova Homes - 312 Felice
Circle
312 Felice Circle
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
DeNova Homes - 336 Felice
Circle
336 Felice Circle
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
DeNova Homes - 360 Felice
Circle
360 Felice Circle
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
DeNova Homes - 424 Felice
Circle
424 Felice Circle
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
DeNova Homes - 448 Felice
Circle
448 Felice Circle
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
DeNova Homes - 460 Felice
Circle
460 Felice Circle
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Rental No Private Homeowner
609 Maiden Lane 609 Maiden Lane
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Ownership No Private Homeowner
620 Maiden Lane 620 Maiden Lane
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Ownership No Private Homeowner
TOTAL # AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS 415
Appendix 5
Represents affordable housing units monitored by the City of Pinole. Includes units assisted by the former Agency and units created to comply with the City's inclusionary housing ordinance.

Pinole Affordable Housing Inventory
97 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAVID HANHAM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE THE 2021 ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN HOUSING

ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the 2021 Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report as required by the State of California.

SUMMARY
Section 65400 of the State of California Government Code requires cities to provide an annual report to their legislative body (city council), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of their General Plan Housing Element and progress in its implementation. The General Plan Housing Element Annual Report includes information about a City’s progress in meeting identified housing needs and efforts to encourage the maintenance, improvement, and development of new housing opportunities. Staff will forward this 2021 Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report to HCD prior to the April 1st deadline in accordance with State law.

BACKGROUND
Every eight years each jurisdiction in California is required to update their Housing Element. The Housing Element is a required component of the General Plan and identifies policies, programs, and actions to create opportunities for the development of new housing and to preserve existing housing stock. State law does not require that jurisdictions develop housing, but rather requires them to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of their community.

State Housing Element law focuses on both the production and geographic distribution of new housing units and requires that each municipality strive to meet their “fair share” of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing. To create a Housing Element showing it can meet the local housing needs, a jurisdiction must first know how much housing it must plan for and estimate how 9F
98 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 2
much will be needed at a variety of affordability levels in order to match the needs of the people who will live there. This process begins with the State determining the total number of new homes needed in the nine-county Bay Area and how affordable those homes need to be based on Area Median Income, which is established on an annual basis. For reference, in 2021 the Area Median Income for Contra Costa County was $125,600 for a 4-person household.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then develops a methodology to distribute a share of the region’s housing need to each city/town and county in the region. This need allocation is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Each local government must then update its Housing Element to show the locations where housing can be built and the policies and strategies necessary to meet the community’s housing needs, including identifying sites that are zoned with enough capacity to meet the RHNA allocation. The process is complete once the State reviews and certifies local Housing Elements.

The City’s current Housing Element1 was adopted on May 19, 2015 and subsequently certified by HCD later the same month. The Housing Element covers the years 2015 through 2023, and includes information about how the city has planned for a RHNA of 297 units during the eight-year period. The Element focuses on the City’s ability to provide quality, safe, and affordable housing, as well as aims to achieve a balance between maintaining the existing character of Pinole and providing housing for all economic segments of the community and those with special needs.

The City is currently undertaking an update to the Housing Element (in addition to the Health and Safety Element as well as the creation of a new Environmental Justice Element). The update to the Housing Element is statutorily required to be completed by Spring of 2023.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The City of Pinole Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report for 2021 is included as Attachment 1. The report includes statistics about annual building activity for affordable housing projects, annual building activity for rehabilitated housing units, updated information about the City’s RHNA progress, and implementation status of the programs included in the adopted Housing Element.

New Housing Units in 2021. With residential land values within Pinole in 2021 continuing to rise and job growth in the region increasing, inquires and applications for residential development have increased. During 2021, the City provided planning (entitlement) approval for 213 new dwelling units (212 multifamily units and one 1 Available online:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government/Plan ning/General%20Plan/2015-2023%20Housing%20Element.pdf
99 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 3
Accessory Dwelling Unit - ADU), issued building permits for four new dwelling units (three ADUs and one single family home), and finaled building permits (issued certificates of occupancy) for two single family homes. Table 1 provides a summary of these projects. The City anticipates further new housing development progress towards the 8-year RHNA in 2022 (see Table 3).

Table 1 – Summary of New Housing in 2021
Location Housing Type Number
of New
Units
Current Status in 2021
Planning
Permit
Approved
Building
Permit
Issued
Construction
Completed,
Occupancy
Granted
980 2nd Ave Single Family
Dwelling
1 ●
1409 Nob Hill Ave Single Family
Dwelling
1 ●
1431 Nob Hill Ave Single Family
Dwelling
1 ●
2466 Faria Ave ADU 1 ●
2987 Higuera Ave ADU 1 ●
3213 Estates Ave ADU 1 ●
831A Betty Ave ADU 1 ●
811 San Pablo Multi-family
Residential
33 ●
600 Roble Ave. Multi-Family
Residential
179 ●
TOTAL 219
Housing Rehabilitation. City staff continues to assist homeowners and provide information at City Hall on rehabilitation assistance resources. In 2021, the City issued and conducted final building inspections for 656 permits to rehabilitate housing units. Improvements include roofing projects, water heater replacement projects, furnace replacement projects, solar projects, window/patio door replacement projects, and home remodel/addition projects.

These privately initiated residential improvement projects helped to improve the quality and efficiency of the existing housing stock and implement the Housing Element Goals H.2 and H.5 and Policies H.2.4 and H.5.1, noted below.

Goal H.5 Energy-Efficiency, Conservation, and Sustainable Residential Development. Support energy-efficient design and building practices in order to reduce housing utility expenses, minimize adverse environmental impacts, 100 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 4
and provide for sustainability.

Policy H.5.1: 1. Reduce Energy Consumption. Reduce energy and water consumption in residential buildings by balancing energy-efficient design and water conservation features with cost-effective construction.

Goal H.2 Protect Existing Character and Heritage. Protect and enhance the integrity and distinctive character and heritage of Pinole encouraging the development of high-quality, well-designed housing and conserving existing housing.

Policy H.2.4 Maintain Existing Housing and Neighborhood Amenities.

Maintain Pinole’s lifestyle characteristics by encouraging the maintenance of existing housing stock, and in particular housing with historic value, and preserving the amenities of existing neighborhoods.

Progress towards 5th Cycle RHNA. New units count towards the City’s RHNA when building permits for new housing construction have been issued by the local government during the reporting calendar year. Table 2 below shows the City’s 5th Cycle RHNA covering the years 2015-2023 and the total number of new units to date in the cycle that have been issued building permits. The table lists the total number of units per income level required, completed, and units remaining in the Cycle. In the calendar year 2021 the City produced four new units that counted towards the City’s RHNA and to date, the City has produced 27 new units during the 5th Cycle RHNA, with 270 units remaining. Units remaining at the end of the 5th Cycle RHNA do not carry over into the 6th Cycle RHNA.

Table 2 – Progress as of 2021 Toward Achieving RHNA Units for the 5th Cycle 2015-2023
Income Level Required RHNA
Units
Units Completed Units Remaining
Very Low 80 0 80
Low 48 0 48
Moderate 43 1 42
Above Moderate 126 26 100
TOTAL 297 27 270
Pipeline Projects. There are presently five large development projects in various stages of review and permitting, which are expected to produce an approximate 618 additional units over the next several years (see Table 3). There is an affordability component to each of these “pipeline” projects, either due to the nature of the project as a 100% affordable development, or the project’s compliance with the City’s inclusionary housing requirement. If all of these projects are approved and developed at the density and affordability currently proposed the City will be in a very good position to meet and exceed the current 5th Cycle RHNA, and make 101 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 5
significant progress on the 6th Cycle RHNA. It should be noted that this is true with the notable exception of the very-low income affordability category, which is expected to have a deficit of 30 units in the 5th Cycle.

Table 3 – Major Development Projects in “Pipeline”
Pipeline Projects Stage Affordability Total
Very
Low
Low Moderate Above
Mod.

Total
811 San Pablo
(SAHA Veteran’s
Apartments)
Entitled Fall
2021
28 5 0 0 33
600 Roble (Vista
Woods Senior
Apartments)
Entitled Fall
2021
Building Permit
Issued Winter
2022
7 135 37 0 179
2151 Appian (Appian
Village
Condominiums)*
Anticipated
entitlement
hearing Spring
2022
0 0 31 123 154
2801 Pinole Valley
(Apartments)
Anticipated
entitlement
hearing Spring
2022
2 5 0 22 29
1500 Fitzgerald
(Apartments)
Anticipated
entitlement
hearing Spring
2022
13 32 0 188 223
TOTAL Estimate Pipeline Units 50 177 68 333 628

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from receiving the annual report. Individual programs and projects designed to implement the Housing Element goals and objectives are funded through individual program and project accounts in the City’s budget and Capital Improvement Plan.

ATTACHMENT
A. Annual General Plan Housing Element Progress Report for 2021 102 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 3 4 6 7 8 9
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
Was APPLICATION

SUBMITTED
Pursuant to GC
65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Was a Density
Bonus requested
for this housing
development?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 33 0 142 0 68 0 127 370 216 0 402-166-030 402-166-030 811 San Pablo Ave SAHA Project PL21-0013 5+ R 6/28/2021 26 7 33 33 No Yes 401-240-017 401-240-017 2151 Appian Way Appian Village PL21-0016 5+ O 4/2/2021 31 123 154 No No 402-023-007, 402-023-
003, 405-023-002
402-023-007, 402-
023-003, 405-023-
002
600 Roble Ave Vista Woods PL21-0030
5+ R 7/18/2021 7 135 37 179 179 No Yes
360-551-002 360-551-002 2466 Faria Ave 2466A Faria Ave BP21-0148 ADU R 9/13/2021 1 1 1 No No 360-025-003 360-025-003 2987 Higuera Ave 2987A Higuera Ave BP21-0276 ADU R 12/14/2021 1 1 1 No No 360-055-002 360-055-002 3213 Estates Ave 3213 Estates Ave BP20-0142 ADU R 2/17/2021 1 1 1 No No 402-164-009 402-164-009 831 Betty Ave 831A Betty Ave BP21-0068 ADU R 10/26/2021 1 1 1 No No 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Table A
Housing Development Applications Submitted
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes (CCR Title 25 §6202)
Density Bonus Applications
10 ATTACHMENT A
103 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Table A2
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 2 3
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
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 33 0 142 0 37
402-050-021 402-050-021 980 Second Ave New SFD BP19-0433 SFD O 402-090-011 402-090-011 1409 Nob Hill Ave New SFD BP18-0130 SFD O 402-090-010 402-090-010 1431 Nob Hill Ave New SFD BP18-0131 SFD O 360-551-002 360-551-002 2466 Faria Ave 2466A Faria Ave BP21-0148 ADU R 360-025-003 360-025-003 2987 Higuera Ave 2987A Higuera Ave BP21-0276 ADU R 360-055-002 360-055-002 3213 Estates Ave 3213 Estates Ave BP20-0142 ADU R 402-164-009 402-164-009 831 Betty Ave 831A Betty Ave BP21-0068 ADU R 402-166-030 402-166-030 811 San Pablo Ave SAHA Project PL21-0013 5+ R 26 7 402-023-007, 402-
023-003, 405-023-
002
402-023-007, 402-
023-003, 405-023-
002
600 Roble Ave Vista Woods PL21-0030 5+ R 7 135 37
Project Identifier
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlemen 4 104 of 131

S REPORT
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
mits and Completed Units
5 6 8 9
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
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
0 4 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
0 1 1/14/2021 1
0 0
0 0
1 9/13/2021 1 1 10/5/2021 1
1 12/14/2021 1 0
1 2/17/2021 1 1 2/13/2021 1
1 10/26/2021 1 1 11/8/2021 1
6/28/2021
33 0
9/27/2021
179
0 Note: "+" indicates an optional field
es - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 7 105 of 131
Streamlining Infill
11 12 13 14 15
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?+
Was Project
APPROVED using
GC 65913.4(b)?
(SB 35 Streamlining)
Y/N
Infill Units?
Y/N
+
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
0 N Y
1 9/23/2021 1 N Y
1 9/1/2021 1 N Y
0 N Y
0 N Y
0 N Y
0 N Y
0 N Y
0 N Y
Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 106 of 131
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
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/Dest
royed Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/Des
troyed Units
Owner or Renter
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)
0 0
VHHP DB 55 73.7% 3
DB 55 77.2% 6
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Demolished/Destroyed Units Density Bonus 107 of 131
Notes
23 24 25
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+
On-Site
Improvements,
Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
On-Site
Improvements,
Development
Standards
Modification
Yes
Density Bonus
108 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) 1 3 4
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to
Date (all years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by Income
Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - -
Non-Deed Restricted - 1 - - - - - - -
Above Moderate 126 - 2 2 2 7 9 4 - - 26 100
297
- 3 2 2 7 9 4 - - 27 270
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals and must be reported as very low-income units. 48 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 include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period.

Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very Low
Low
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]. 42 -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
1 Moderate
80 48
43 Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here -
2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
80 109 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
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
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
110 of 131
1 2 3 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Conduct An Annual
Housing Element Review
(H.1.1)
Annual Review of Housing Element per
Government Code Section 65583(3). Annually Complete for 2021. This report fulfills the requirement for 2021. The City will continue to conduct annual reviews of the Housing Element in subsequent years.

Explore Housing
Development Partnerships
(H.1.2)
Seek opportunities to work with public
agencies and developers. Ongoing
The City has been working with developers on plans to redevelop and include affordable housing units at Pinole Vista Plaza's vacant K-Mart site, the vacant Doctor's Hospital site, and 2801 Pinole Valley Rd. The City has worked with a developer for construction of a 33 unit affordable veteran's housing on a former redevelopment agency property. The City has worked with developers on entitlement a 100% affordable 179 unit senior complex.

Periodically Review
Residential Development
Requirements (H.1.3)
Monitor effectiveness of established
regulations needed to streamline
housing development.

Ongoing (as necessary) Regular ongoing discussions on permitting, process, and code update improvements.

Apply Design Review
Guidelines (H.2.1)
Apply to new residential development
and residential additions to ensure
compatibility with surrounding areas.

Ongoing The City continues to implement the Residential Design Guidelines for residential projects. The City received thirteen residential design review applications in 2021.

Adequate Sites to Meet
Regional Fair Share of
Housing Growth (H.2.2)
Ensure adequate sites are available to
developers and provide an inventory of
available sites to developers.

Ongoing
Complete. Three Corridors Specific Plan for San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way includes adequate sites available to developers to meet Regional Fair Share of Housing Growth. A detailed inventory of potential residential development sites is included within Table 6.43 and 6.44 of the adopted Housing Element.

Rehabilitation Assistance
(H.2.3)
Continue to share information and
explore funding sources for
rehabilitation of existing housing
Ongoing (annually)
City staff continues to assist homeowners and provide information at City Hall on rehabilitation assistance resources. In 2021, the City issued 656 permits to rehabilitate housing units, including roofing, water heater replacement, furnace, solar, window/patio door replacement, and home remodel/addition projects.

Acquisition/Rehabilitation
of Blighted or Distressed
Properties (H.2.4)
Pursue opportunities to partner with
nonprofit housing developers to acquire
and rehabilitate blighted or distress
properties
Ongoing
The City worked with the developer on the construction of an affordable veteran's housing project on a former redevelopment property. The City has worked with the developer to entitle a 100% affordable senior housing complex on an underutilized site.

Fee Structure Evaluation
(H.3.1)
Review current fees to ensure new
development contributes its share of
costs
Ongoing A review of building permit fees has been initiated to evaluate current fee structures.

General Plan Land Uses
(H.4.1)
Evaluate land use designations and
programs to ensure consistency with
overall goals
Annually The City's GP land use designations are applied to provide direction and flexibility to help meet evolving overall land use goals and policy objectives.

Housing Construction
(H.4.2)
Encourage housing construction
through a variety of incentives and
programs
Ongoing
City staff meets regularly with property owners and developers to encourage additional housing construction at all affordablility levels on available housing opportunity sites.

Parcel Consolidation
(H.4.4.3)
Facilitate lot consolidation as it relates
to housing opportunity sites Ongoing City staff meets with property owners and developers to encourage parcel consolidation for housing development.

Second Unit Ordinance
(H.4.4.4)
Provide information to the public and
review the ordinance to encourage
second unit development
Ongoing Staff regular receives and responds to questions from the public regarding ADU standards and the permit process.

Homebuyer Programs
(H.4.4.5)
Share information about homebuyer
programs from County and State Annually
Inadequate financial resoures available in 2021 to directly assist first-time homebuyers and re-establish the City's homebuyer program. The City refers interested individuals to available County and State programs.

Below Market Rate (BMR)
Regulations (H.4.4.6)
Implement and monitor rental and
resale affordability controls for units
assisted by form RDA
Ongoing The City continues to use a third-party contractor to monitor affordability control compliance for former City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) assisted housing units.

Technical Assistance to
Housing Developers
(H.4.4.7)
Exchange information to encourage
provision of affordable housing Ongoing City staff continued to meet with prospective housing developers in 2021.

Accessible Units for the
Physically Disabled
(H.4.4.8)
Facilitate programs and projects to meet
Federal, State, and local requirements
to provide accessible housing for the
physically disabled
5% of units built or
approved between 2014
and 2023
The City is committed to assisting in the development of new projects that provide accessible housing for the disabled or issuing building permits for projects that improve the accessibiilty of existing housing. In 2021, the City did not receive any new development requests for housing for the physically disabled or accessibility modifications to existing residential units.

Housing for the Homeless
(H.4.4.9)
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide
emergency shelters and supportive and
transitional housing
By May 2016 Text amendments were approved in 2016.

Employee Housing
(H.4.4.10)
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to identify
employee housing as a residential use By May 2016 Text amendments were approved in 2016.

Prevention of Housing
Discrimination (H.4.4.11)
Exchange information to prevent
Housing Discrimination Ongoing No housing discrimination disputes were brought to the City's attention in 2021.

Conservation of
Affordable Housing Units
(H.4.4.12)
Work to help preserve existing
affordable housing supply Through 2017
Former RDA assets, and revenues generated from those assets, are maintained in a Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund that continues to be used to administer and monitor compliance with affordable housing and loan agreements and provide for affordable housing development.

Explore Options for Senior
Assistance Programs
(H.4.4.13)
Explore program revisions/new
programs to provide assistance to help
seniors live independently
2015-2016 Insufficient financial resources were available to establish a City program.

Energy and Water
Conservation (H.5.1.1)
Support and publicize energy and water
conservation programs; promote
awareness in conjunction with
rehabilitation programs; implement
water efficient landscape requirements
Ongoing
The City continued to provide information on available energy and water conservation programs. The City adopted updates to the water efficient landscaping ordinance in the municipal code to reflect the current State ordinance.

Water and Sewer Service
Priority Allocation for
Affordable Housing
(H.5.1.2)
Adopt a policy for water and sewer
services to provide priority allocation to
affordable housing in event a rationing
system is implemented
By May 2016 Completed in 2016.

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 111 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Reporting Period 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
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 January 2020
112 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+Extremely LowIncome+Very LowIncome+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ 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 to receive the password that will enable you to populate these fields. The description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government
Code Section 65583.1
+
Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report January 2020
113 of 131
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
402-166-030 811 San Pablo Ave SAHA PL21-0013 9
Satellite Affordable Housing
Associates Affordable Housing
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
114 of 131
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
401-142-011 612 Tennent Ave Other 2 Excess 0.11 Former residential, units estimated
401-162-001 2301 San Pablo Ave Vacant Excess 0.18 Park/plaza Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier
Housing Element Implementation
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
115 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole
Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
4 4
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA 0 0 0
SFD 0 1 2
2 to 4 0 0 0
5+ 212 0 0
ADU 4 3 0
MH 0 0 0
Total 216 4 2
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
116 of 131
Jurisdiction Pinole
Reporting Year 2021 (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
Existing and new housing site
inventory; Prepare Housing
Element Update; Prepare CEQA
Document; Activities to facilitate
housing
$65,000.00 $0.00 REAP
Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 33
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 142
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 37
Non-Deed Restricted 0
4 216
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
4 4
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
2 2
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
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
Total Units
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
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.
$ 65,000.00
Task Status
In Progress
117 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9G
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MISHA KAUR, SR. PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: STORMWATER UTILITY AREA ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the rate of $35.00 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 and authorizing the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) to adopt the FY 2022-2023 Stormwater Utility Area Fee for the City of Pinole.

BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), and its implementing regulations, requires that certain industrial facilities, construction sites, and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) obtain coverage for their stormwater discharges under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In California, the federal NPDES stormwater permit program is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board through the nine (9) Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards).

The Water Board for the San Francisco Bay Region (hereinafter San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, SFRWQCB) is charged with making critical water quality decisions, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits, determining compliance and enforcing requirements for nine counties.1 The NPDES permits are issued approximately every five years and include applicable provisions of the state Porter-Cologne Act, which is the principal legislation for controlling stormwater pollutants in California.
1 The nine counties include: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Santa Clara (north of Morgan Hill), San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano.
118 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 2
On November 15, 2015, the SFRWQCB reissued its Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP) to 76 municipalities to regulate discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems draining into the San Francisco Bay. The reissued MRP, referred to as MRP 2.0, took effect on January 1, 2016, and expired on December 31, 2020. MRP 2.0 has been administratively extended until the issuance of the next permit, MRP 3.0, targeted for July 2022.

The City of Pinole, eighteen other cities/towns, the unincorporated Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) joined together as member agencies to form the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) and work collectively as “Contra Costa permitees” under the MRP 2.0 issued by the SFRWQCB. The CCCWP assists its member agencies with implementation of stormwater quality activities and completion of MRP mandates for new development guidelines, monitoring, program training, and public education. The CCCWP Program Manager directs staff and acts under the direction of the Management Committee which is made up of one representative from each member agency.

The permit mandates included in the MRP are costly for Pinole and other co-permittees.

To implement these regulations in an economical manner, municipalities share resources and implement some activities regionally. The Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) is a consortium of nine San Francisco Bay Area municipal stormwater programs, including CCCWP, focused on regional challenges and opportunities to improve the quality of stormwater thru the development of programs that would be more cost-effective done regionally than locally. Regional activities include development of new programs, studies and water quality monitoring for pollutants or concern, public education, and reporting required by the MRP.

At the local level, staff focuses on local development design and plan checking, inspection of construction sites, as well as commercial and industrial facilities, street sweeping, maintenance of trash capture devices, and other forms of maintenance activities to reduce stormwater pollution and meet MRP mandates. A comprehensive review of the City’s activities and annual accomplishments related to MRP compliance are detailed in a report prepared annually and submitted to the SFRWQCB.

In 1992, AB 2768 was passed which allowed a municipality to request formation of a Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) and an assessment to pay for MRP implementation costs.

The CCCWP Management Committee recommended the formation of stormwater utilities as the most cost-effective method for meeting the permit mandates. Sixteen city councils, including the Pinole City Council, and the County Board of Supervisors adopted resolutions requesting that the District form a SUA for their city territory. 119 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 3
The Board of Supervisors, acting as governing board of the District, provided public notice to all affected property owners before the establishment of the SUA’s on June 22, 1993, creating 17 Stormwater Utility Areas. This 1993 Board action also set the first-year assessment rates for each Stormwater Utility Area, as well as maximum rates.

Assessments were collected for Fiscal Year 1993–1994 through 2000–2001. On May 9, 2000, the District separated the City of Oakley from Stormwater Utility Area 17. The City of Oakley was established as Stormwater Utility Area 18, at that time, and assessments were collected for Fiscal Year 2000–2001. The District does not collect this assessment for the cities of Richmond and Brentwood. Richmond and Brentwood collect their NPDES levy as a sewer fee.

The District has legal authority to form Stormwater Utility Areas (SUA’S) along the City of Pinole’s boundaries and levy stormwater utility assessments to fund NPDES Program activities for and on behalf of the City of Pinole. The District estimates the number of ERUs in Pinole’s SUA, the number of parcels to be assessed, and the estimated remaining revenue for the current fiscal year. Annually, the City shall determine the cost to be assigned to a single ERU for the forthcoming fiscal year and shall by resolution request the District to adopt SUA levies based on said amount. The District has requested the City of Pinole to submit three certified resolutions by April 1, 2022, setting the annual ERU rate for FY 2022-2023.

The District is charged with preparation of necessary reports, resolutions, ordinances, and public notices to complete the public hearing process for adoption of the proposed assessments for the next fiscal year.

Within each jurisdiction the amount of assessment each property receives is based upon the amount of drainage it produces. The benchmark unit, or Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU), is a single-family parcel between 5,000 sf to 20,000 sf in size. Approximately 2/3 of all Pinole parcels fall into this category. Multi-family units, and single-family residential parcels less than 5000 sf in size will have a smaller assessment; commercial properties and residential properties greater than 20,000 sf in size will have a larger assessment.

Since FY 2001-2002, the assessment in the City of Pinole has been $35.00 per year per ERU. Under the current County Ordinance, the highest assessment that can be imposed in the City of Pinole is $35.00 per ERU.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
120 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 4
Staff recommends maintaining assessments at their current level of $35.00 per ERU.

Maintaining the current level of funding is vital to maintain current activities and meet MRP compliance.

It is expected that the new requirements of MRP 3.0 will cause the City to expend additional funds locally to meet permit mandates. The mandates in the proposed MRP

3.0 require local government compliance without a dedicated funding source. However, the potential cost and fines associated with non-compliance are significant.

FISCAL IMPACT
The District maintains a separate fund for each SUA. All administrative costs incurred by District in operating the SUA, including maintenance of the assessment database, preparation of reports and documents, adjusting assessment and reviewing data on disbursements to Pinole and expenditure by Pinole, is borne by the fund.

The District maintains accounting records for “Program Activities” expenditures which are MRP related activities delineated in the CCCWP Agreement, funded by member agencies and governed by the CCCWP Management Committee. The District charges Pinole for Program Activity costs and calculates the proration of Program Activity costs. The District debits Pinole’s SUA Fund for Pinole’s share of said costs incurred.

Annually, but not later than January 31, May 31, and September 10, the District instructs the County Auditor-Controller to disburse to the City revenue from the fund. The amount to be disbursed each time shall be the fund balance less the following deduction: $3,000 or two percent (2%) of the estimated total assessment, whichever is greater.

The SUA assessment will generate approximately $324,107 based on $35 per year per ERU for FY 2022-2023. Approximately $6,482 (2% of estimated SUA) will be held by the District. The City’s estimated share of participation in the CCCWP for FY 2022-2023 is $58,752. The auditor’s cost for collecting the SUA with the property tax bill is approximately $5,600.

Therefore, the SUA assessment will generate an estimated $253,272 to fund local MRP compliance activities that otherwise would have been funded by the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
121 of 131
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE,

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RATE OF $35.00 PER EQUIVALENT RUNOFF UNIT (ERU) FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022- 2023 AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (DISTRICT) TO ADOPT THE FY 2022-2023

STORMWATER UTILITY AREA FEE FOR THE CITY OF PINOLE
WHEREAS, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) requires that stormwater discharges in urbanized areas be regulated by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; and
WHEREAS, in California, the federal NPDES stormwater permit program is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board through the nine (9) Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards); and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) is charged with making critical water quality decisions, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits, determining compliance and enforcing requirements for nine counties including Contra Costa.

WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) is comprised of nineteen (19) cities , including the City of Pinole, along with the unincorporated Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and work collectively as “Contra Costa permitees” under a joint Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) issued by the SFRWQCB on November 19, 2015; and WHEREAS, in 1993, the City of Pinole authorized the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Waste Conservation District (District) to establish a Stormwater Pollution Management Utility District to fund NPDES permit activities; and WHEREAS, the District established Stormwater Utility Areas under Contra Costa County’s Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA) Drainage Ordinance No. 93-47; and WHEREAS, the Stormwater Utility Area agreement between the City of Pinole and the District requires the City to determine the annual SUA rate in its Stormwater Utility Area; and
WHEREAS, the SUA rate is based on the Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU); and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Pinole to utilize funds received from its Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) for complying with NPDES permit conditions (MRP 2.0 and MRP 3.0), preventing stormwater pollution and performing drainage system maintenance activities.

ATTACHMENT A
122 of 131
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby approves the rate of $35.00 per equivalent runoff unit (ERU) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 and authorizes the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) to adopt the FY 2022-2023 stormwater utility area fee for the City of Pinole.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 15th day of March by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 15th day of March 2022.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
123 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE

TO REGULATE THE USE AND SALE OF FIREWORKS IN THE CITY OF PINOLE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council conduct a first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9.24 of the Pinole Municipal Code regulating the use and sale of fireworks in the City of Pinole consistent with Contra Costa County’s fireworks ordinance.

BACKGROUND
The City currently regulates the use and sale of fireworks under Chapter 9.24 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 9.24 prohibits the use and sale of fireworks within the City’s jurisdiction with the exception of City Council approved fireworks displays by a qualified vendor. Chapter 9.24 permits code enforcement to issue citations for violation of the ordinance. The City’s current fireworks ordinance has not been updated for several years.

In June 2021, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2021-19 amending Chapter 44-2 of the County’s fireworks ordinance to enhance and modernize regulations on the possession, manufacture, sale, use, and discharge of fireworks in the unincorporated areas of the County. The County’s updated ordinance includes provisions allowing for citation and enforcement of the ordinance against private property owners where fireworks are sold or discharged.

At the direction of the City Council, staff reviewed the City’s current fireworks ordinance in order to propose updates, and align the City’s ordinance with the County’s newly adopted fireworks ordinance. On February 28, 2022, the City Attorney presented a draft ordinance to the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee for review and consideration. A few minor changes were made to the proposed ordinance based on recommendations from the Subcommittee. Attachment A is a copy of the revised ordinance that was approved by the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee, and is now before the City Council for consideration.
10A
124 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 2

DISCUSSION
The City’s fireworks ordinance as set forth in Chapter 9.24 of the Municipal Code is due for an update. Currently, Chapter 9.24 prohibits the use and sale of fireworks in the City of Pinole, with the limited exception of City Council approved fireworks displays by qualified vendors. The City’s current fireworks ordinance does not define what is considered a firework, or provide direction on the citation of property owners for violations of the ordinance. In updating the City’s fireworks ordinance to align with the County’s ordinance, the following objectives will be achieved:
• The updated ordinance creates consistency between the City and County ordinance allowing our code enforcement staff to have one uniform set of regulations to inform code enforcement activities;
• The updated ordinance clarifies and expands the definition of fireworks and explicitly references the applicable California Health and Safety Code sections creating a consistent definition of the term “firework” for code enforcement purposes;
• The updated ordinance creates liability for private property owners where individuals possess, manufacture, sell, offer to sell, use, or discharge fireworks on their property. City staff, including the Police Department, Building Division, and Code Enforcement, would be authorized to issue an administrative citation to private property owners for violations of the ordinance; and • The updated ordinance maintains the City’s ability to approve fireworks displays by qualified vendors.

As mentioned, the attached draft ordinance was reviewed and approved by the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee with two recommended changes. Chapter

9.24.030 creates an exception for City approved fireworks displays conducted by qualified vendors. Chapter 9.24.030 also adds a requirement that qualified vendors conducting fireworks displays be duly licensed and permitted.

In order to approve, the City Council will need to conduct a first reading of the ordinance in a noticed public hearing, followed by a second reading of the ordinance at the April 5, 2022 City Council Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adopting the proposed ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Ordinance (including text amendments to Municipal Code) 125 of 131

ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE 2022-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PINOLE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.24 OF THE PINOLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO

REGULATE THE USE AND SALE OF FIREWORKS
WHEREAS, Chapter 9.24 of the City of Pinole Municipal Code provides that the discharge, firing, or use of fireworks or substances designed or intended for pyrotechnic display within the city is prohibited; and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 9.24 of the City of Pinole Municipal Code provides that the sale of fireworks within the city is prohibited; and,
WHEREAS, the use of fireworks within the City presents a danger to public safety and is difficult to police; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to better protect against the danger to public safety posed by use of fireworks in the city; and,
WHEREAS, the City ordinance has not been updated in several years and is now inconsistent with a fireworks ordinance approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in June 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to update the City’s existing fireworks ordinance and create consistency with the County’s fireworks ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Municipal Code Update Subcommittee has reviewed and approved the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code on March 15, 2022, at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by city staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed Municipal Code amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the proposed changes to the Municipal Code.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals
The above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 126 of 131
Section 2. Municipal Code Amendment – Chapter 9.24
Chapter 9.24 is hereby amended to remove the following paragraph below reflected in strikethrough text, and replace the strikethrough text with the new Chapter 9.24 as set forth below.

The discharge, firing or use of all firecrackers, rockets, torpedoes, roman candles, or other fireworks or substances designed and intended for pyrotechnic display, within the city of Pinole is prohibited; provided, however, that the Council may at any time order or permit the public display of fireworks by properly qualified individuals under the direct supervision of experts in the handling of fireworks; provided also, that such display or displays shall be of such a character and so located, discharged or fired as, in the opinion of the fire marshal, shall not be hazardous to the surrounding property or endanger any person or persons. The sale of fireworks within the city of Pinole is prohibited. (Prior code § 98).

Section 3. Municipal Code Amendment 9.24
Chapter 9.24 et seq. is hereby added to the Municipal Code to read as follows:

Chapter 9.24 USE OF FIREWORKS – SALE.

Fireworks

9.24.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
“Fireworks” has the meaning set forth in the Health and Safety Code section 12511.

The term “fireworks” includes the following:
“Dangerous fireworks,” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 12505. “Safe and sane fireworks,” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 12529.

The term “fireworks” excludes the following:
“Exempt fireworks,” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 12508. “Party poppers” and “snap caps,” as each is defined in California Code of regulations, title 19, section 980.
“Responsible party” means any of the following:

A person that owns, rents, leases, or otherwise has possession of, or is in immediate control of, a residence or other private property or a vessel.

A person that organizes, supervises, sponsors, conducts, allows, controls. or controls access to, the possession, manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use or discharge of fireworks at a residence or other private property or on a vessel. 127 of 131
If a residence or other private property is rented or leased for a period of more than 30 consecutive days, the landlord or lessor is not a responsible party unless the landlord or lessor:
has possession of, or is in immediate control of, the residence or other private property; or has knowledge of the possession, manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use, or discharge of fireworks at the residence or other private property.
“Vessel” has the meaning set forth in Harbors and Navigation Code section 651.

9.24.020 Prohibition. No person shall possess, manufacture, sell, offer to sell, use, or discharge, any fireworks.

9.24.030 Exceptions. This chapter does not prohibit the proper use of flares by railroad personnel, peace officers, fire officials, or motorists. The City Council may at any time order or permit the public display of fireworks by properly qualified and duly licensed and permitted individuals or vendors under the direct supervision of experts in the handling of fireworks; provided also, that such display or displays shall be of such a character and so located, discharged or fired as, in the opinion of the fire marshal, shall not be hazardous to the surrounding property or endanger any person or persons.

9.24.040 Responsible Party Liability. A responsible party shall maintain, manage, and supervise the residence or other private property, or vessel, for which they are responsible to prevent violations of this chapter. A responsible party violates this chapter if any person possesses, manufactures, sells, offers to sell, uses, or discharges, any fireworks at the residence or other private property, or other private property, or on the vessel, for which the responsible party is responsible, regardless of whether the responsible party is present when the violation occurs.

9.24.050 Enforcement. The City may seek compliance with this chapter by any remedy allowed under this code and any other remedy allowed by law.

Section 4. Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Pinole hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable.

Section 4. Effective Date
In accordance with California Government Code Section 36937, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirty-first day after adoption.

Section 5. Publication
Within fifteen days after the passage of this Ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published or to be posted in at least three public places in the City of Pinole in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 36933. 128 of 131
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 15th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
Vincent Salimi, Mayor, 2021-2022
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Eric S. Casher, City Attorney
129 of 131

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
11A
DATE MARCH 15, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROVIDE DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO INCLUDE, IN THE VOTER

POLL REGARDING A POTENTIAL CHARTER CITY AND REAL

PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX BALLOT MEASURE, QUESTIONS ON

CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on whether to include, in the voter poll regarding a potential charter city and real property transfer tax ballot measure, questions on certain other matters of community interest.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting on March 1, 2022, the City Council discussed whether to pursue a ballot measure to become a charter city and enact a real property transfer tax. The staff report for that agenda item noted that most local jurisdictions that have become charter cities recently have conducted voter polling to gauge community interest in the matter before placing a measure on the ballot.

At the March 1, 2022 meeting, the Council directed staff to retain a polling firm and consultant to conduct research and communication related to a potential November 2022 ballot measure and to prepare a draft charter for review at a future Council meeting.

City staff is in the process of selecting a firm to conduct the poll regarding the potential ballot measure. The City has conducted similar polls in the past, most recently in 2019, in relation to a potential special parcel tax to generate additional revenue for expanded fire protection services.

Voter polls regarding potential city ballot measures normally include questions addressing the following topics:
• Whether the city is on the right or wrong track;
• Satisfaction with the city’s delivery of services and management of finances; • Satisfaction with overall community quality of life and most important issues facing the city;
• Voter’s attitude about taxes in the city;
130 of 131
City Council Report
March 15, 2022 2
• Voter’s support for potential ballot measure language prior to and after hearing specific statements of support and opposition; and
• Screening for likely voters and demographic questions.

Conducting a poll to gather statistically valid, representative responses requires significant work and expense. The organization conducting the poll needs to acquire a list of the population of interest; draw a sample of the population to survey; create the survey instrument, likely in multiple modes (e.g., phone and internet); then contact the sampled individuals, often multiple times, to complete the survey. City staff estimates that hiring a consulting firm to complete a poll that results in statistically valid, representative responses regarding a potential ballot measure will cost $30,000 - $40,000. The cost of a poll is primarily driven by the number of responses desired and the number of questions.

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
As noted above, the City will hire a consulting firm to gather statistically valid, representative responses regarding the potential ballot measure. The City is currently considering several other policy and operational issues, separate from the potential ballot measure, that would benefit from representative community input. For example, the City has recently discussed potentially seeking representative community input on the use of the Faria House and Community Corner and an ordinance banning single-use food ware.

There would be relatively little additional cost to the City if it were to include in the poll questions on other matters of community interest.

City staff seeks Council direction on whether to include questions on matters other than the ballot measure in the voter poll.

Note that there are some natural limits to the length of voter polls, after which respondents abandon the poll. There can also be drawbacks to including dissimilar topics in a single poll. The City will ultimately need to rely on the expertise of the consulting firm conducting the poll to decide whether questions on matters that the Council identifies other than the ballot measure can be incorporated into the ballot measure poll without compromising the focus on the ballot measure.

FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no notable fiscal impact from including a small number of questions on other specific matters of community interest in the voter poll regarding a potential ballot measure.

ATTACHMENTS
None
131 of 131