Agenda packet — Pinole City Council, January 18, 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
JANUARY 18, 2022

VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE
5:00 P.M.

Please note the early start time
DUE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY – THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCING PURSUANT TO AB 361 - CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE NO LONGER OPEN TO IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE.

How to Submit Public Comments:

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.

To Participate in Public Comment During the Meeting:

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. • 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.

CORONAVIRUS ADVISORY
INFORMATION:

CLICK HERE for City Updates
CLICK HERE for County Updates
1 of 110
City Council
Agenda – January 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

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 110
Pinole City Council
Agenda –January 18, 2022

Page 3 ends

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. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Attorney Eric Casher Unrepresented Employee: City Manager Andrew Murray

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. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Honoring the City of Pinole Police Officer of the Year

2. Honoring the City of Pinole Firefighter of the Year
B. Presentations / Recognitions

1. City of Pinole Employee Recognition

2. East Bay Economic Development Alliance

8. 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 December 21, 2021 Meeting 3 of 110
City Council
Agenda – January 18, 2022

Page 4 ends

B. Receive the December 18, 2021 – January 14, 2022 List of Warrants in the Amount of $1,250,218.49, the December 24, 2021 Payroll in the Amount of $465,747.57, and the January 7, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $610,963.29 C. Resolution Confirming Continued Existence of Local Emergency [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)]
D. Resolution Continuing Authorized Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] E. Resolution Accepting Tobacco Education Grant [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Picazo)]
SUCCESSOR AGENCY ITEM (Item 8F Only)
F. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 (ROPS 22-23) for the Successor Agency in the Amount of $6,296,775 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)]

9. 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.

None

10. OLD BUSINESS
None

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Options to Expand Electric Vehicle Charging Stations [Action:

Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff (Mishra/Whalen/Kaur)]

12. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
B. Mayoral & Council Appointments

1. TAPS Committee
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
4 of 110
City Council
Agenda – January 18, 2022

Page 5 ends

F. City Attorney Report

13. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 1, 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: January 13, 2022 at 4:00 P.M.
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5 of 110
8A

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
December 21, 2021

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 5:01 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
Alex Mog, Assistant City Attorney
Hector De La Rosa, Assistant City Manager
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Markisha Guillory, Finance Director
Misha Kaur, Senior Project Manager
Roxanne Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on December 17, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. No written comments had been received in advance of the meeting.

Following an inquiry, Mayor Salimi reported he had a Conflict of Interest related to Item 4C due to the proximity of his residence.

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION
6 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 2 ends

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
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Murray, Assistant City Manager De La Rosa, Assistant City Attorney Alex Mog, Gregory Ramirez (IEDA) Employee organization: IAFF
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(4)
Number of potential cases: 1
C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: 612 Tennent Avenue, APN 401-142-011
Agency negotiator: City Manager Murray, Assistant City Manager De La Rosa, Attorney Stephanie Downs, Community Development Director Lilly Whalen Negotiating parties: E.B. Smith
Under negotiation: Price and terms

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, was interested in learning what the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) had to offer to the City Council.

Stephanie Christmas, Keller Williams Realty, speaking to Item 4C, requested a seven-month extension for the purchase contract between the City of Pinole and Ebony Smith for property located at 612 Tennent Avenue. The contract had been ratified on June 20, 2021, and at that time the regulatory amendment regarding the affordability requirement was still being negotiated.

It was resolved on October 28, 2021. Subsequently, Ms. Smith had done her due diligence and to date had obtained estimates to renovate the single-family property into a four-unit property with one affordable unit. Ms. Smith had met with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) consultant who would manage the project and the loan process and had consulted with an architect and contractor, both of whom had informed her that the price of the property and the cost of the renovation exceeded her loan amount. Ms. Smith had requested and received an increase in the approved loan amount from her lender, and was currently awaiting the architect’s feasibility study that would take approximately four months. Since the permit process according to City of Pinole staff would take approximately three months, approximately seven months was needed to close escrow, which was the reason for the seven-month extension.

Ebony Smith explained that she was in contract to purchase the property at 612 Tennent Avenue.

She reiterated the request for an extension to close on the property for the reasons previously stated, with the property to be renovated and restored into a four-unit apartment building with one of the units to be affordable rent restricted. The property had been reviewed by an architect, contractor, home inspector and HUD consultant hired for the project. Floor plans had been prepared and she had obtained a new loan from the lender to cover the costs. She therefore requested the seven-month extension to close on escrow.

7 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 3 ends

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Salimi reconvened the meeting to open session and announced there was no reportable action from the Closed Session for Items 4A and 4B.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reported for Item 4C that staff had provided the City Council with direction and there was no further reportable action

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.

Rafael Menis, Pinole wished everyone a Happy Holiday; reported on the statistics of Pinole residents who had been fully or partially vaccinated and provided information on Governor Newsom’s latest mandate for health care workers to be fully vaccinated with a booster shot. He identified the current COVID-19 case rates in Pinole and the impacts from the Omicron variant in the country, with additional information on vaccinations available at coronoavirus.cc.health.org.

Debbie Long, Pinole, thanked the Pinole Garden Club for remaining active during the pandemic, particularly along the I-80 Corridor corner eastbound along Pinole Valley Road, which made the Christmas season merrier. She wished everyone a happy and safe holiday.

7. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations
None
B. Presentations / Recognitions
None

A. Approve the Minutes of the November 16, 2021 and December 7, 2021 Meetings. 8 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 4 ends

B. Receive the December 4, 2021 – December 17, 2021 List of Warrants in the Amount of $318,927.60 and the December 10, 2021 Payroll in the Amount of $682,078.04
C. Receive the Development Impact Fee Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Guillory)] D. Resolution Continuing Authorized Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bell)] E. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Side Letter to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Pinole and IAFF Local 1230 on the Process and Compensation of the Administrative Fire Captain and Fire Prevention Captain Assignments [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Wynkoop)]
F. Cooperative Funding Agreement with the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) to Receive $100,000 in Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) Funds for CIP Project #RO2105 – Appian Way Complete Street Project [Action: Adopt Resolution Per Staff Recommendation (Kaur)]
G. Update on 2022 Garbage Collection Rates [Action: Receive Report (Kaur)] H. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Two-Year Contract with the Pacific Coast Farmers’ Market Association to Continue Operating a Year-Round Pinole Farmers’ Market for the Period of January 1, 2022 Through December 31, 2023 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (De La Rosa)] I. Approve the 2022 Council Committee Assignment List [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bell)]
J. Approve Purchase and Appropriate Funding for Replacement of Public Works Backhoe and Aerial Bucket Truck [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bingaman)]
K. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Fifth Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of the Pinole Shores II Properties and Consenting to the Assignment of the Agreement from General Realty CE, LLC to GRP Shores, LLC [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (De La Rosa)]
L. National Opioid Settlement [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)]

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
9 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 5 ends

Rafael Menis, Pinole, spoke to Item 8L and asked whether the acceptance of the Opioid Settlement funds required the City to incur additional costs and application of the funds in the way the Settlement required.

Assistant City Attorney Alex Mog reported the Opioid Settlement Agreement would not require the City to incur additional costs besides staff time for the required reporting activities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Tave asked that Items 8G, 8J and 8K be removed from the Consent Calendar.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that Item 8H be removed from the Consent Calendar.

G. Update on 2022 Garbage Collection Rates [Action: Receive Report (Kaur)] Senior Project Manager Misha Kaur presented the staff report and recommended the City Council receive the update on the garbage collection rates that the City’s franchise garbage collection company would charge, effective January 1, 2022. She clarified the rates did not reflect any charges related to State Bill (SB) 1383 at this time.

J. Approve Purchase and Appropriate Funding for Replacement of Public Works Backhoe and Aerial Bucket Truck [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bingaman)]
City Manager Murray reported the City Council had recently approved a budget appropriation for the purchase of a backhoe and aerial bucket truck for the Public Works Department. Costs for the equipment had increased, as outlined in the staff report. The equipment was critical for City operations and City staff had determined the costs were reasonable. City staff had been in discussions about establishing a formal agreement when support had been requested from other jurisdictions in the form of labor and equipment but staff had not yet reached out to any of the jurisdictions with which there was a reciprocal arrangement. Staff recommended the City Council adopt the resolution approving the appropriation of funding and purchase of a backhoe and aerial bucket truck including a 10% contingency for each of the pieces of equipment to account for future volatility of material and manufacturing costs.

K. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Fifth Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of the Pinole Shores II Properties and Consenting to the Assignment of the Agreement from General Realty CE, LLC to GRP Shores, LLC [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (De La Rosa)]
City Manager Murray clarified that the use of the term “condominium” as it related to the Pinole Shores II Properties project and in relation to Pinole Shores I meant a shared ownership with different owners having different specified spaces and involving a commercial function. The development was commercial and the form of ownership was a condominium form of ownership.

Assistant City Manager De La Rosa added the property could be considered a brownstone and remediate all issues related to the site but it would be costly and require a large depth of soil to make it eligible for residential use.
10 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 6 ends

More soil could also be added to the top to elevate the site with the understanding that that may address the issue, but they may still have to go back to the State Water Agency which may find it insufficient. Other possibilities could be considered to address the issue, although the site was currently zoned Light Industrial.

Assistant City Attorney Mog confirmed the zoning for the site was Light Industrial, which was what the proposal was for and even if there was no issue with remediation the zoning would have to be changed if any other use was considered. He added the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would only review the environmental impacts of the proposed application that had been submitted and not the level of remediation that would be necessary to make the project safe for residential development.

Assistant City Manager De La Rosa further added the scope of the project had not changed from Phase I to Phase II, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as opposed to a full CEQA analyses was required. The developer was present via Zoom and could provide additional comments.

Assistant City Attorney Mog explained that the item before the City Council was a Fifth Amendment to the exclusive negotiating agreement for the sale and purchase of the Pinole Shores II Properties and consenting to the assignment of the agreement from General Realty CE, LLC to GRP Shores, LLC. The project would be submitted to the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council for ultimate approval of the sale of the property and entitlements, which was not before the City Council at this time. He asked that the City Council not opine on the details of the project at this time.

Hector Vinas, General Realty, CE, LLC, the property owner, described the Light Industrial/ecommerce, two building project where entitlement approvals had been submitted to City staff. He noted the site had some contamination and the developer had worked for some time with the State Water Agency related to the contamination on the site making the property challenging for residential development. The developer had experience with residential development in other parts of the country and would be interested in working with the City of Pinole on other potential live/work development sites.

H. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Two-Year Contract with the Pacific Coast Farmers’ Market Association to Continue Operating a Year-Round Pinole Farmers’ Market for the Period of January 1, 2022 Through December 31, 2023 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (De La Rosa)] Council member Martinez-Rubin asked that the agreement between the City and the Pacific Coast Farmers’ Market Association be modified to require the consultant/vendor to bring a portable trash bin accessible on-site to market goers, or each vendor that participated in the market be encouraged to provide their own office-sized trash bin given the amount of litter that accumulated during the Farmers’ Market. She commended the City for allowing the event she described as a community space enjoyed by many in and out of the City of Pinole, which supported local farmers with access to fresh and healthy foods. She emphasized the importance of having the site accessible to people based on need who could use their Cal Fresh vouchers to purchase healthy foods. She looked forward to the continued participation between the City and the Farmers’ Market. She otherwise asked staff to provide additional information on the $1,000 annual grant program the Farmers’ Market provided to a local non-profit. 11 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 7 ends

City Manager Murray and Assistant City Manager De La Rosa confirmed that language regarding trash receptacles could be included in the agreement. They also clarified the $1,000 annual grant program was tied to a youth organization and the City had the discretion to issue to a youth organization.

Council member Tave agreed with the recommendation to amend the agreement as requested.

He also asked that the potential for expansion of the Farmers’ Market be discussed given the importance of providing local healthy food to residents.

Assistant City Manager De La Rosa reported the Pacific Coast Farmers’ Market had expressed to City staff the desire for a larger area to incorporate additional vendors, which would be visible to passing traffic. While Fernandez Park would have been an ideal site, a larger site was preferred. Once a suitable location was found, an expansion of the Farmers’ Market including food trucks could be considered. He confirmed that the potential for expansion into the corner lot of the current location could also be considered.

City Manager Murray reported that staff was having internal conversations on the potential use of the corner lot in the short term, although that would be challenging since the current surface treatment was not conducive to foot/pedestrian traffic. Staff would discuss the potential expansion of the Farmers’ Market into that area.

Council member Toms reported a member of the public had suggested the use of the Kaiser parking lot for a weekend Farmers’ Market.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to Approve Consent Calendar Items 8A through 8L, with a modification to Item 8H to add language related to litter bins to the contract between the City of Pinole and the Pacific Coast Farmers’ Market.

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

Absent: None

9. 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

10. OLD BUSINESS
None

11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review City Council Procedures [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Bell)] 12 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 8 ends

City Clerk Bell presented the staff report, outlined the recommended changes proposed by staff, and recommended the City Council review the City Council meeting procedures, discuss proposed revisions and provide direction to staff.

Responding to the Council, City Clerk Bell explained that the City Council Procedures had been left general to consider either virtual or in-person meetings with information on the cover sheet of the City Council agendas to identify the meeting procedures in response to the ever-changing conditions of the pandemic. The additions staff recommended be added to the City Council procedures could be considered for both virtual and in-person meetings. The regulations of the Brown Act had been included in the City Council procedures, but specific information related to postings of City Council meetings on the City website had not been included in the procedures but could be added if so directed by the City Council. Also, written reports submitted by the City Council from activities or attendance at assigned committees had not been required in the past as part of the City Council Procedures but could be discussed further.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
An unidentified speaker suggested placing public comment earlier in the meeting agenda was shortchanging the public and the community given the earlier meeting time when many people had not yet gotten home from work. He recommended consideration of two different public comment periods both at the beginning and the end of the City Council meeting agendas to allow people to phone in and comment on any item. He suggested that would allow the City Council to build rapport with the public and improve communications in a process that had been followed by many other local jurisdictions.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, agreed with the importance of considering a second public comment/Citizens to be Heard period later on the agenda. Responding to the staff recommended revisions, specifically to add Section 8. Decorum, which set forth standards of behavior for the City Council, Staff, and the Public at Council Meetings, he requested that the text include examples of pertinent, derogatory or slanderous remarks to avoid the naming of actual speakers.

He also spoke to the Zoom meeting format and suggested it would be worthwhile to allow video and audio presentations via Zoom to be shared increasing the community connection with the community at-large and not just the presenters. He suggested that option should be open to all commenters, was technically feasible, and had been a procedure followed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS). He further requested that members of the public be allowed to bring up items during the Requests for Future Agenda Items portion of the meeting agenda.

In response to the request for the public to request a Future Agenda Item, Assistant City Attorney Mog advised the public was allowed to provide comment on any item that was considered by the City Council or on any action taken by the City Council. During the Future Agenda Item portion of the meeting agenda, a member of the public could request a future agenda item or make said request during the Citizens to be Heard portion of the meeting agenda, but the item could only be placed on a future agenda if a motion was made by a member of the City Council with the support of the majority of the City Council.

Debbie Long, Pinole, spoke to the staff recommended revisions to the City Council Procedures, particularly the addition of Section 8. Decorum, and asked who would decide the proper decorum and how it would be enforced. She noted that criticism of the City Council was open-ended as 13 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 9 ends

long as it was not disrespectful and done in a manner without terminology that not everyone would want to hear. She sought more specificity in that section of the City Council Procedures City Clerk Bell explained that the spirit of adding Section 8. Decorum had been to set a respectful tone for the City Council meetings, and that decorum had been addressed by other jurisdictions.

The City Council may revise the proposed language as proposed by staff. She added that the Presiding Officer, the Mayor, Chair or someone acting in their place would enforce the City Council Procedures in consultation with the City Attorney.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Tave suggested the City Council had benefitted from workshops which he would like to see codified in the City Council Procedures. He also suggested that requests for Future Agenda Items include a discussion of what was attainable at a future City Council meeting, which could be reported out publicly.

City Manager Murray explained that the request for staff to report out on a future meeting agenda was an existing item of the City Council Procedures, where he was to provide a report out on a look-ahead of future City Council meetings and he would work to provide that information. A longer term forecast, such as a two-month rolling basis of upcoming projects, was another report out and staff had made great progress via long City Council meetings to get through many of those items where he did not foresee the need for more discussion to prioritize items. As to the use of workshops, he noted that term had different meanings in different communities.

Oftentimes, workshops involved a study session with no action to be taken by the City Council or a Special Meeting where a decision would be made but with a smaller agenda that had a more interactive format with the public. The City Council successfully held workshops to discuss the use of the American Reuse Plan Act (ARPA) funds and to consider items the City Council had determined were important to consider via a workshop but that format should be flushed out more and staff could consider specific definitions for consideration.

City Clerk Bell suggested the City Council Procedures be left general to allow flexibility and allow workshops to take shape in a way that was beneficial to each subject matter. Definitions could be added to the different types of meeting procedures.

Council member Martinez-Rubin offered the following suggestions and revisions to Attachment B to the staff report:
• Section 3. Posting of Meeting Agenda and Section 5. Posting Notices for Special Meetings, to reflect postings of the City Council meeting agendas on the City website; • Section 8. Decorum, revise the fourth bullet to read: Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate or addressing prior commenters by name;

• The City Council Procedures to retain the language related to the submittal of written reports from the City Council on activities or assignments attended; • The existing City Council Procedures for the consideration of Requests for Future Agenda Items had not always been followed and should be followed to the letter; and 14 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 10 ends

• Consider offering the opportunity for public comment for items not on the agenda before returning from Closed Session with an effort for Closed Sessions to end by 7:00 p.m.

Council member Toms agreed with adding language to Sections 3 and 5, as proposed, but for Section 8. Decorum, she suggested the fourth bullet be further revised to read: Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate and avoid negative comments. She otherwise commented that the meeting agendas for the City of San Ramon and the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD), as examples, allowed ten minutes for public comments at the beginning of their meetings with any additional comments delayed until the end of the meeting but that procedure may not be beneficial. She suggested 7:00 p.m. was a reasonable time for the public to log-in and make public comments, and Zoom had the capability to allow commenters to turn their cameras on and off.

City Clerk Bell offered her perspective on all the recommendations to modify the City Council Procedures. She suggested if the City Council decided to have two opportunities for public comment, the second public comment could be considered after the completion of any business items and before Reports & Communications.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy agreed the process for considering Future Agenda Items should be discussed further. He offered his perspective as a Council member and input from members of the public on the City Council Procedures. As to the recommended language for Section 8.

Decorum, he disagreed public commenters should be prohibited from publicly naming someone who spoke before them given oftentimes comments were not challenged. He recommended the City Council adhere to the current procedures and direct comments to and through the Mayor and not limit public speech. He also suggested the notion and intent behind the revisions were great.

Given some of the correspondence received from the public, the Reports & Communication portion of the agenda was central and oftentimes the City Council rushed through reports since it was placed at the end of the meeting agenda. He recommended that agenda item be moved and considered after Citizens to be Heard.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy referenced Section 11. Tape Recordings, and asked staff to send the Citywide Records Retention Policy to the City Council. He also asked that the City Council meetings be streamed live on Pinole TV, and language be added to Section 11 referencing live streaming of City Council meetings as part of Facebook Live.

Mayor Salimi summarized all the City Council recommendations. He found City Council meetings were oftentimes too long and not productive. He suggested each meeting should be dedicated for different purposes, such as one meeting for Closed Sessions, which could be held on a nonmeeting date, and separate presentations and workshops into different meetings to be held on the fourth week of each month. He also suggested a separate meeting could be considered for Recognitions and held the first Tuesday of each month. Regular meetings could be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month and during those meetings the City Council could consider New and Old Business.

City Clerk Bell clarified the City Council meetings were recorded on tape and were posted on-line.

Council member Tave suggested the meeting agenda be modified to allow reports from Ad Hoc Committees under the Mayoral & Council Appointments section of the meeting agenda, and City Clerk Bell explained that such reports had routinely been provided under the City Council 15 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 11 ends

Committee Reports & Communications section of the agenda, or if the City Council directed she could do a roll call of existing committees.

City Manager Murray commented on the effort to structure the meeting agendas to be balanced.

He acknowledged while there had been long meetings and lengthy presentations, adjustments had been made to ensure the meetings were not as long. He suggested the existing meeting format struck the right balance and was appropriate for a city the size of Pinole. Additional meetings such as Special City Council meetings including workshops had been held as needed.

He expressed concern if a different meeting schedule was adopted since the meetings involved considerable staff time for the staff who participated in each Council meeting. Holding City Council meetings twice monthly for the City Council was standard operating procedure for cities the size of Pinole. He emphasized that City staff had undertaken to address a backlog of items and done a considerable amount of work over the past few years to address significant community issues and new business.

While there would be a lot of work in the next year, City Manager Murray suggested the normal meeting schedule and well-timed workshops would be able to handle the load, but staff was happy to make any changes to the City Council Procedures directed by the City Council. He agreed that identifying an end time for Closed Sessions would be a benefit and noted some communities had open sessions start at the same time. The City Council Procedures currently stated if the Closed Session was not concluded in one hour, the Closed Session could be continued to another date or at the end of the meeting, which would provide a consistent start time for the public.

Council member Toms suggested if Council members met with the City Manager to answer any questions about the Consent Calendar items prior to the meeting that could help to move things along. She suggested heavier items such as consideration of the budget and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), as examples, would benefit from a workshop.

Council member Tave asked that staff summarize the comments and bring them back to the City Council for discussion. He agreed that the budget discussions involved a greater amount of comment and pointed out the Finance Subcommittee had discussed the budget and CIP prior to City Council consideration, which had been helpful, although Finance Subcommittee meetings were held in the mid-afternoon and it would be helpful to move those meetings up to allow greater public participation.

City Manager Murray hoped to have a longer runway discussion for the budget process in 2022 and possible workshops. He found one of the lessons learned from the budget process in 2021 was to have all Council members involved in that process.

Mayor Salimi again summarized the City Council recommendations including posting the meeting agenda on-line; existing Reports & Communication to occur after Citizens to be Heard; recording on Facebook Live and streaming the City Council meetings live; considering two sets of Citizens to be Heard on the meeting agenda; revising Section 8. Decorum to address comments through the Mayor and not have negative comments to others; and the potential restructure of City Council meetings. He asked for a motion for each of the recommended items. 16 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 12 ends

City Clerk Bell added that additional recommendations had been offered to consider allowing members of the public to share their screens as part of participation in meetings; including language in the City Council Procedures for Study Sessions/City Council meeting type and revising the reporting out on Ad Hoc Subcommittee meetings.

Council member Toms suggested the terms related to sharing the screen should be sharing the video.
(Due to technical difficulties, Council member Martinez-Rubin’s votes were offered via telephone.) ACTION: Motion by Council member Toms/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to add language on posting City Council meeting agendas on-line to Sections 3 and 5 of Attachment B.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to move the existing Reports & Communication section of the City Council agenda after Citizens to be Heard.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Toms to add the term “and Live Streaming” and to add language to stream City Council meetings live on the City of Pinole’s social media to Section 11. Tape Recordings, with Council member Toms requesting the comments be turned off on social media.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy restated his motion to add the term “and Live Streaming” and add language to stream City Council meetings live on the City of Pinole’s social media, including language to reflect that comments made during public meetings must still meet the City Council Procedures.

City Clerk Bell explained that the implementation of the recommendation would take some research. She recommended general direction, with more specific information to be provided at the next meeting. She was uncertain the comments could be turned off on the social media page but would work with the information technology team.

Assistant City Attorney Mog pointed out the meeting agenda was very clear on how public comment was to be submitted.
17 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 13 ends

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to amend Section 11.

Tape Recordings, to read:

Council meetings are televised live on Pinole’s Local Community Access Channel (Channel 26). Tape recordings and livestream of Council meetings and livestream on social media pages are kept in order to assist in the preparation of minutes. After the prepared minutes have been approved, video tape recordings shall be retained pursuant to the Citywide Records Retention Policy.

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

Absent: None
ACTION: Motion by Mayor Salimi/Council member Tave to modify the City Council meeting agenda to provide for two Citizens to be Heard, the first after Item 5, Reconvene In Open Session to Announce Results of Closed Session, and the second after New Business.

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

Absent: None
After the motion was taken the City Council discussed the intent of the motion, with the two sets of public comments intended to be on different subjects.

The City Council discussed modifying Section 8. Decorum. Council member Martinez-Rubin offered language changes in the form of a motion that was not accepted. She rescinded her motion and offered another motion to modify the fourth bullet under this section to read:

Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate or addressing prior commenters negatively.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy disagreed with the revision and suggested someone had the right to correct a speaker who may have spoken incorrectly, particularly as someone who had been the target of negative comments from members of the public, while also recognizing the right to free speech. He suggested that a reminder to a member of the public to direct their comments through the Mayor and not members of the public would be appropriate.

Council member Martinez-Rubin recognized that any comments from the public were welcome, but the commenters were to address the City Council and not another individual and not use public comment as a means to address another public commenter, something that had occurred during the remote meetings when those commenters had not been muted.

City Clerk Bell suggested adding language to read: avoid personal attacks as possible consideration.
18 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 14 ends

Assistant City Clerk Mog explained that the City Council Procedures were an expression of the City’s ideals of how public comment should happen but if members of the public chose not to follow it they could be reminded of the procedures.

On the discussion, Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested the language in Section 8.

Decorum be left as is, with no additional language, with the City Council to work with each other and the Mayor to maintain civility and decorum. She again withdrew her motion.

On the recommendation of Council member Tave, Mayor Salimi asked the City Clerk to add a statement to the City Council meeting agenda that all comments are to be addressed through the Mayor.

City Clerk Bell would review the City Council Procedures to see where the statement should be added to the meeting agenda.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Tave for virtual meetings the City Council to allow the public to make their comments both with audio and video enabled.

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

Absent: None
The City Council discussed the structure of the City Council meetings at length and Mayor Salimi reiterated his recommended modifications for separate meetings for Closed Sessions, Presentations and Recognitions. Concerns were expressed by some members of the City Council for multiple City Council meetings each month given the impacts on staff time and noticing requirements. The City Council acknowledged that Closed Sessions should be considered separately from regular City Council meetings, as needed.

City Manager Murray explained that not all Closed Sessions were lengthy and additional meetings may not be needed. Also, the regular City Council meeting dates had been established in the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) not in the City Council Procedures and any changes would require an amendment to the PMC which involved a separate process.

Mayor Salimi clarified he was not recommending a change in the regular meeting dates of the City Council but that Closed Sessions, Presentations and Recognitions be removed from the meetings held on the first and third Tuesday of each month; however, City Manager Murray stated if the City Council wanted to hold a meeting the second Tuesday of each month it would be recurring and considered a regular meeting requiring an amendment to the PMC.

Assistant City Attorney Mog confirmed if the City Council determined the second Tuesday of each month should be held to consider any topic it would be considered a regular meeting and would require an amendment to the PMC. He advised that Special Meetings may be called, as needed.

At this time there was not majority support for the City Council to change the structure of the City Council meetings to consider additional meetings as the Mayor had recommended, other than to 19 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 15 ends

start the meeting time earlier to accommodate Closed Sessions and consider Special Meetings as needed.

Mayor Salimi commented on the volume of work anticipated in 2022 and expressed concern the Council may not get the through the work efficiently without changing the structure of City Council meetings.

City Manager Murray confirmed, when asked, there was collaboration between the City Manager and the Mayor when preparing City Council meeting agendas. He acknowledged while there had been some long meetings due to the need to catch up on some items the Council had gotten through a lot of the work. He suggested the City Council meeting structure did not have to be changed if business was conducted efficiently and that two City Council meetings per month would be adequate.

City Clerk Bell also asked the City Council to keep in mind that any changes to the City Council meetings needed to take into consideration public access, noticing requirements, and transparency in how any changes were approached. She also commented that Closed Sessions typically had not been considered as a Special Meeting. If staff anticipated a Closed Session would be a couple of hours long that could be managed administratively without taking Closed Sessions off of the meeting agenda entirely. A Special Meeting could also be considered.

Council member Tave offered a motion to retain the City Council meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month with Closed Sessions, with direction to the City Manager to hold Special Meetings for Closed Sessions as needed.

City Clerk Bell advised the process outlined in the motion was always an option and Council member Tave withdrew his motion.

City Clerk Bell and Assistant City Attorney Mog confirmed that there were certain items that must be approved at a regular meeting but for the most part Special Meetings could be considered, as needed.

City Manager Murray added that Special Meetings may be considered on a non-regular meeting date for most items and would not constrain Closed Sessions.

Council member Tave suggested language be provided to differentiate a study session versus workshops and City Manager Murray advised that staff could draft specific language that could be incorporated into the City Council Procedures if the Council so directed. (Council member Martinez-Rubin returned to the Zoom format) ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Toms to add language in the City Council Procedures further defining workshops versus study sessions.

Vote: Passed 4-1
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Tave, Toms
Noes: Martinez-Rubin
Abstain: None

Absent: None
20 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 16 ends

In response to the recommendation to modify the meeting agenda and include Ad Hoc Committee Reports under Reports & Communications, City Manager Murray explained that the Reports & Communications section of the agenda was intended for Council members to report out on all assigned activities and committees.

City Manager Murray also responded to the Mayor as to whether there were time constraints for consideration of Items 11B and 11C, and stated the items could be continued if the City Council so directed with no legal timeline requirements involved with either item.

It was the consensus of the City Council to continue with the remaining agenda items rather than defer them to allow the City Council the opportunity to provide comments.

B. Program Guidelines and Application for Small Business Assistance Grant Program [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Guillory)]
Finance Director Guillory provided a PowerPoint presentation which included an overview of the Program Guidelines and Application for the Small Business Assistance Grant Program. She recommended the City Council consider the proposed program guidelines, including eligibility criteria and the grant application form for the Pinole Small Business Assistance Grant Program and provide direction to staff.

Responding to the Council, City Manager Murray clarified a formal evaluation process had not been done and that Finance Director Guillory had not been involved in the first round of the program. He had been involved with the Deputy City Clerk on the program and while staff had not conducted a formal evaluation process feedback had been provided by the participants which had informed some elements of the program.

City Manager Murray again clarified the eligibility requirements and noted if the City Council approved the program staff could implement a process that supported businesses that had been good community members and contributors. He noted that code enforcement was a complex matter, which was not currently part of the program. As part of the eligibility screening, staff would check with the Code Enforcement Division and the Police Department to clarify whether or not there had been any issues where a business would not be eligible. Staff could be directed to include a reconciliation timeline, which process had been included as part of the last round of business license renewals.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, asked how the City would flag the optional questions in terms of the demographic questions as part of the application process. He wanted it made clear the responses were optional and not to be used in the decision-making process.

City Manager Murray explained that the information would not be used in any way to disadvantage a participant, with a statement to be added to the application related to the optional questions that responses were voluntary and would be used for data purposes only. Also, due to a recent State proposition, the City would not be allowed to make a determination of public benefit based on ethnicity or gender. He acknowledged that veteran status could be added to the volunteer questions.
21 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 17 ends

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms suggested consideration of a sliding scale where the grant amounts would vary depending on the size of the business and the number of employees and whether the applicant must obtain a Health Department permit, as an example. She suggested the business license process could be used as the determining factor of the grant amount. She commented that restaurant supply costs had increased due to inflation and restaurants had to pay more to retain employees, and the City needed to consider the program as a pro rata based on the number of employees and other required licenses a business must pay, with a sliding scale for the grant amounts.

Finance Director Guillory explained that during the ARPA Workshop, a number of ideas had been discussed including a $3,000 grant across the board for up to 100 businesses.

City Manager Murray added the intent was to keep the application process simple by not requesting too much documentation. In discussing the $3,000 amount with the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce, there was no desire to risk inhibiting program participation by requesting too much documentation. The intent was to provide as much assistance as possible to those who needed it. He suggested a sliding scale based on some of the economic loss on a percentage basis as the most reasonable and staff would have to look at that. The prior program included a limited review process, and a similar approach was recommended given the limited amount of money available. If the City Council decided there should be a new scheme for a sliding scale to be brought back to the Council that would not occur for a number of weeks.

Council member Toms stated she had spoken to different restaurant operators in Old Town.

Since business license fees had been based on a sliding scale, she again sought a pro rata grant amount based on the same pro rata amount charged for business licenses.

City Manager Murray reiterated if the City Council so directed staff could return with a prorated or tiered system and proceed with the program based on Council direction.

Mayor Salimi commented as a local business owner he had received a federal loan based on a sliding scale, number of employees and other criteria. There had been other opportunities for local businesses through the federal government. He was uncertain the City had the means to consider a sliding scale process given the limited funds.

Council member Martinez-Rubin recognized funds were limited and there was no attempt to remedy all economic losses. She suggested the program be kept simple and supported the program’s design as is. As to the application form itself as shown in Attachment B to the staff report, she recommended the following revisions:
• The business information portion of the application should better define “Independent Contractor;”
• The Date Established for the business needed to be clarified; • The Other Information portion of the application form should be clarified and made clear that the information to be collected was for data purposes only; 22 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 18 ends

• Whether the business was an independently owned franchise and whether the applicant had applied for other funding such as corporate assistance should be a question on the application;
• The “Have you fully reopened your business after stay-at-home orders ended,” question on the application form should be clarified given there had been many such orders since the start of the pandemic; and
• If there was a question asking whether the applicant was a minority owned business it should be clear it was not asking if the business was a State Certified Minority-Owned Business but whether at least 51 percent of the business was owned or controlled by a U.S. Citizen either Asian, Black, Hispanic or Native American.

Council member Martinez-Rubin also asked that the deadline for the application submittal be clear whether at 5:00 p.m. or at midnight of the deadline date.

Council member Tave agreed with the comments and the need for the Small Business Assistance Grant Program to get out into the community as soon as possible. While he understood there would be some staff time involved, there may be some stratification with agenda Item 11C, which addressed some of the comments offered by Council member Toms.

In response to Mayor Pro Tem Murphy, City Manager Murray suggested there could be a grace period to allow an applicant to address pending code enforcement issues and a timeline to demonstrate progress, if applicable.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave to approve the Small Business Assistance Grant Program subject to modification to the Eligibility Criteria to include a seven-day grace period to allow applicants who may have pending code enforcement issues with the Pinole Police Department Code Enforcement Division to complete their applications.

City Manager Murray suggested the grace period be left open-ended since he was uncertain seven days would be adequate.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin commented on the time involved for any pending code enforcement issue to be addressed, which could be problematic, but City Manager Murray did not foresee many cases where that would occur and suggested that the City would work with the applicant to resolve any code enforcement issues within a reasonable period of time, and if the issue remained unresolved, the applicant would not receive the $3,000 grant. He was confident a workable solution could be achieved.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Tave to approve the Small Business Assistance Grant Program subject to modification to the Eligibility Criteria to include a grace period for applicants who may have code enforcement issues pending with the Pinole Police Department Code Enforcement Division. 23 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 19 ends

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

Absent: None
As to the modifications offered by Council member Martinez-Rubin to the application form, City Manager Murray stated staff had no issues with the recommendations. The City Council may consider voting on each modification or reach a consensus.

The consensus of the City Council was to support the recommended modifications to the application form as offered by Council member Martinez-Rubin.

C. Program Design Considerations for Community Digital Gift Card Pilot Program [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
Community Development Director Lilly Whalen provided a PowerPoint presentation on the program design considerations for the Community Digital Gift Card Pilot Program. She asked that the City Council review the proposed program design and provide direction to staff on implementation.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Salimi/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to Extend the City Council Meeting to 12:00 a.m.

Vote: Passed 3-2
Ayes: Salimi, Murphy, Toms
Noes: Martinez-Rubin, Tave
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Responding to the Council, Ms. Whalen clarified that, using Kitchen at 812 as an example, such a business would be required to operate out of a physical storefront and be in a restaurant/café category to comply with the program. Staff anticipated working with the user list for participants in the affordable housing program, using the distribution list the City had on file and using flyers at the Senior Center and Tiny Tots to reach out to those who may qualify for the program. A postcard would be mailed to all residents identifying the eligibility requirements for the needsbased program and she would also recommend special communication to be sent to targeted households, with the City to reach out to its partners to identify the targeted households.

City Manager Murray again clarified the eligibility requirements and application process for the program and commented that staff could consider other mechanisms and channels to promote the program, although it would be a challenge since the City did not have enough engagement via electronic communications at this time to ensure coverage in the City. The fallback was to use paper mailers.

Ms. Whalen stated that staff would work with the Bay Front Chamber of Commerce to promote the program to any and all eligible merchants and once a good number of merchants had been enrolled the marketing strategy would start to inform the community about the program. 24 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 20 ends

The gift cards would not be specific to a specific merchant and would be a digital card able to be used at any participating merchant which may help to discourage price gouging. Whether the digital gift card could be gifted to someone else would have to be clarified with the vendor. Staff determined that $100,000 in ARPA funds would be sufficient to implement the program and once up and running with lessons learned it may be possible to add more funds and potentially modify the program.

City Manager Murray explained that the program included a maximum of five gift cards per individual to ensure that someone could not take advantage of the system. The program was part of the economic development strategy and the Shop Local campaign and had the component of adding purchasing power to low-income residents. All of the City’s investment and support would be expended to local businesses and the City would be providing $100,000 in ARPA funds.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, recognized the need for safeguards to ensure that the gift cards would be spent in the community and to ensure that the City’s ARPA funds would go back to the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy liked the protections that would be provided to the consumer and the businesses. He suggested potential partnerships should include Marin Clean Energy (MCE) which had a Community Cares Program, and the Boys and Girls Club, Contra Costa Family Justice Center, Rainbow Community Center, and Contra Costa Senior Legal Services. He also wanted to see Spanish and Tagalog as potential languages included in the needs-based communication, along with the promotion of sustainability through a green model and reaching out to the Contra Costa Green Business Program. He supported training or follow-up to understand how to use the gift cards and recommended partnering with the Pinole Police Department and Probation Department to work with incarcerated individuals who may benefit from the program.

Council member Martinez-Rubin understood the program would involve the use of a marketing professional and preferred that local resources be used.

Ms. Whalen stated the intent was to ideally work with a local graphic designer and economic consultant and if not someone from an adjoining community. The intent of the consultant for the economic development strategy was to ensure consistency with the strategies.

Council member Tave offered a motion, seconded by Council member Toms to approve the Program Design Considerations for the Community Digital Gift Card Pilot Program.

Assistant City Attorney Mog explained that the item was to provide direction to staff, and by making a motion to approve the item he interpreted it to mean in accordance with the staff report.

Mayor Salimi asked that the motion be amended to modify the grace period from 90 to 120 days. 25 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 21 ends

ACTION: Motion by Council members Tave/Toms for staff to move forward with the Program Design Considerations for Community Digital Gift Card Pilot Program, as recommended by staff, and to modify the grace period to spend the bonus amount from the digital gift card from 90 to 120 days.

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

Absent: None

12. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Salimi wished everyone a Happy Holiday and New Year. He looked forward to working with everyone in 2022. He also announced that Congressman John Garamendi had contacted him and wanted to visit the City Council and City staff on Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 4:00 p.m., reporting that the City of Pinole would now be part of District 8 due to the recent redistricting process. He also reported he would be attending upcoming meetings of the West County Mayors and Supervisors Association and the East Bay Division of the League of California Cities.

Mayor Salimi took this opportunity to thank City Clerk Bell for all her assistance over the past year.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments
None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy wished everyone a happy winter solstice; thanked everyone including the City Council and City staff for all their work over the past year; encouraged residents to get vaccinated or tested for COVID-19, and advised that more information was available on the County Health Department website.

Council member Tave wished everyone a Happy Holiday. He reported that information was available at recyclemore.com on permitted recyclable items and how to recycle hazardous waste.

Council member Toms reported she and Council member Martinez-Rubin had attended a WestCAT Board meeting and briefed the Council on the discussions; and reported that Supervisor John Gioia had at-home COVID-19 tests he was giving away to his constituents on December 22, 2021 from 9:00 a.m. to Noon or from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in his office. Any remaining tests would be given away on December 23 from 9:00 a.m.to Noon. She too wished everyone a Happy Holiday season.

Council member Martinez-Rubin reported that WestCAT had launched a lottery on December 15 for free rides for a year, with information on eligibility on the WestCAT website. She had also 26 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 22 ends

attended a meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) and briefed the Council on the discussions. She too wished everyone a Happy Holiday and encouraged everyone to stay safe, mask up, social distance and get vaccinated.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, requested a Future Agenda Item for the City Council to adopt an ordinance similar to one adopted by the Board of Supervisors to amend the 2019 California Energy Code to require certain newly constructed buildings to be all-electric.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms suggested the request should go before the Municipal Code Ad Hoc Committee for discussion with a report back to the City Council.

Assistant City Attorney Mog confirmed the City Council may direct the request to the Municipal Code Ad Hoc Committee to study first with a report back to the City Council.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Murphy/Council member Toms to forward a Request for a Future Agenda Item for consideration of amending the 2019 California Energy Code to require certain newly constructed buildings to be all-electric to the Municipal Code Ad Hoc Committee.

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

Absent: None
E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Murray reported that staff had sent memorandums to the City Council on two items:
an update on the status of the Gateway West Development and the Police Department’s non-use of drones. He also reported the January 4, 2022 City Council meeting had been canceled. The next meeting of the City Council would be held on January 18, 2022 and would include a number of agenda items. He wished everyone a happy and safe holiday.

F. City Attorney Report
None

13. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of January 18, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.

At 11:45 p.m., Mayor Salimi adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of January 18, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz.
27 of 110
Pinole City Council
Minutes – December 21, 2021

Page 23 ends

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
28 of 110
29 of 110
30 of 110
31 of 110
32 of 110
33 of 110
34 of 110
35 of 110
36 of 110
37 of 110
38 of 110
39 of 110
40 of 110
41 of 110
42 of 110
43 of 110
44 of 110
45 of 110
46 of 110
47 of 110
48 of 110
49 of 110
50 of 110
51 of 110
52 of 110
53 of 110

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 8C
DATE: JANUARY 18, 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. The City Council subsequently adopted a resolution affirming the City Manager’s emergency declaration.

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. The City Council has confirmed the continued existence of the local emergency multiple times since the emergency was first declared, most recently on December 7, 2021.

Community transmission of COVID-19 continues to occur, and the number of cases within Contra Costa County has continued to rise. There have now been over 130,931 cases of COVID-19 within the County and approximately 1,078 deaths. The case rate within the County for fully vaccinated individuals is approximately 129 new case per day per 100,000 people (71 if fully vaccinated and has received booster).

The case rate within the County for unvaccinated individuals is approximately 217 cases per day per 100,000. There have been over 13,000 new cases in the last 2 weeks alone with an average new case per date of 1,927. The rate of positive tests is increasing in the County, as well as throughout California. In Pinole, the rate of 54 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 2
new cases over the last 14 days is approximately 1,332 new cases per 100,000 people. Although Contra Costa County was briefly in the “moderate” tier in the State’s four tier blueprint for a safer economy, it was thereafter reclassified as being within the “substantial” tier due to the increasing prevalence of COVID-19. Contra Costa County is currently classified in the “high” tier. The “high” tier, also known as the red tier, is the strictest tier. This means that the State still considers COVID-19 to be a serious risk to public safety. There is a concern among medical professionals that new cases of COVID-19 may be surging in light of the Omicron variant and affect of colder weather which makes outdoor activities harder.

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 5042336.1
55 of 110

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

CONFIRMING THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OFA 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 130,931 cases of COVID-19 and approximately 1,078 deaths within the County; and
WHEREAS, the case rate within the County for fully vaccinated individuals is approximately 129 new case per day per 100,000 people (71 if fully vaccinated and has received booster) and the case rate within the County for unvaccinated individuals is approximately 217 cases per day per 100,000; and

WHEREAS, case rates have been increasing over the last two weeks; and WHEREAS, in order to maintain progress in containing the spread of COVID-19, the public must continue to practice appropriate safety measures; and 56 of 110
2 WHEREAS, the public health and safety concerns for persons and property within 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 have continued existence of a local emergency periodically 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 18th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
57 of 110
3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed, and adopted on the 18th day of January, 2022.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5042326.1
58 of 110

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 8D
DATE: JANUARY 18, 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 City Manager’s 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.
59 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022
2 On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361 (2021) which allows for local legislative bodies to continue to conduct meetings via teleconferencing without 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 adopted the Resolution Authorizing Continued Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 on November 16, 2021 and again on December 21, 2021.

On December 7, 2021, 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 have continued to surge throughout the State during the winter months with a present estimate of 1 60 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022
3 million new COVID cases a day. As such, Governor Newsom has extended the State of Emergency declared on March 4, 2020 through March 2022. The City Council has also confirmed the continued existence of the local emergency, most recently on December 7, 2021. 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.

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 and on September 14, 2021, issued an order requiring operators of specified dining establishments, entertainment venues and fitness facilities to restrict entry based on COVID-19 vaccination status or testing. 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 presently estimates the Omicron variant likely will spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus with breakthrough infections in people who are fully vaccinated likely to occur. 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. Staff is prepared to return to an inperson hybrid meeting format at the direction of the City Council.

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
5042241.1
61 of 110

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

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 N-29-20 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; WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-1-22, extending the sunset of AB 361 (2021) through March 31, 2022; 62 of 110

2 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 now 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 COVID-19; 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 on September 14, 2021, issued an order requiring operators of specified dining establishments, entertainment venues and fitness facilities to restrict entry based on COVID-19 vaccination status or testing; 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 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 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 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 63 of 110

3 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 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, on November 16, 2021, and again on December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Pinole Authorizing Continued Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant To AB 361; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, 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:
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), in order to better ensure the health and safety of the public.
64 of 110

4 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 18th day of January, 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 18th day of January, 2022.
____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
5042277.1
65 of 110

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 8E
DATE: JANUARY 18, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MARIA PICAZO, RECREATION MANAGER
SUBJECT: TOBACCO GRANT

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution to accept a grant from the California Department of Justice (DOJ) in the amount of $166,270 and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute any agreements and amendments thereto with the State of California Department of Justice.

BACKGROUND
The California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Act of 2016 (Proposition 56) provides local public agencies with funding to promote a healthier California by reducing illegal sales and marketing of cigarettes and tobacco products including ecigarettes to minors. The Office of the Attorney General makes these annual funds available to local agencies through the DOJ Tobacco Grant Program.

The City of Pinole Community Development Department applied for the first round of grant funding in August 2020 and was awarded $54,223 in December 2020. The funds were used to conduct education and code enforcement related activities for tobacco retailers. In April 2021, the City was notified of the second annual grant opportunity. The City is committed to the youth of Pinole and wishes to take a proactive role in discouraging and eliminating the use of tobacco products by underage youth. The Community Services Department submitted a grant proposal in April 2021 for $224,894 to be expended from FY 2021-22 through FY 2023-24.

On November 18, 2021, the DOJ notified the City that it would be awarded $166,270 to be expended from FY 2021-22 through FY 2023-24. Per grant requirements, the City is required to obtain a resolution from the City’s governing body (City Council) to accept the grant funds, authorize the City to enter into an agreement with the State, and to designate an agent to execute the agreement and any other required grant documents.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The City plans to implement the grant over the next three fiscal years. The Community Services Department will serve as the lead and will oversee the implementation of the grant program. The City will recruit a new recreation coordinator and three middle school aged interns from schools in Pinole to help implement this program. The recreation 66 of 110
City Council Report
Meeting Date: January 18, 2022, 2
coordinator will work nineteen (19) hours per week and the interns will work thirty (30) hours per month on this project. The City will focus the program on the middle school age youth as they are emerging into high school where peer pressure is exerted and they are more susceptible to smoking or vaping.

The Community Services Department plans to use the grant funds to implement the following:

1. Implement the Take Down Tobacco program, a comprehensive youth advocacy training program. This program offers free training to youth and prepares them to train their peers. Take Down Tobacco is designed to educate youth on the dangers of smoking and vaping, equip youth with the skills to create change in their communities, and to inspire youth to use their voice to advocate for the first tobacco-free generation.

2. Implement a mass health communication campaign that includes anti-tobacco posters to be displayed at local middle schools, as well as messaging on the City's social media platforms and website.

3. Organize and host two events per year of funding to educate on the importance of being tobacco free. The events would be split between peer anti-tobacco presentations at the local middle schools and current community events hosted by the City to include an informational booth about the tobacco grant program.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City was awarded a grant in the amount of $166, 270 to implement the tobacco grant program. All costs associated with the program will be covered by the grant funds. The City will not allocate any additional funds for the implementation of this program.

ATTACHMENT
Attachment A – Award and Intent Letter
Attachment B – Resolution
67 of 110

ATTACHMENT A
68 of 110
69 of 110

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE
ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD IN AMOUNT $166, 270 FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOBACCO LAW ENFORCEMENT

GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL

GRANT DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Act of 2016 (Proposition 56) provides local public agencies with funding to promote a healthier California by reducing illegal sales and marketing of cigarettes and tobacco products including e-cigarettes to minors, and
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole is committed to the youth of the Pinole and wishes to take a proactive role in discouraging and eliminating the use of tobacco products by underage youth between the ages of 10-14, by creating a youth advocacy training program through the Community Services Department, and WHEREAS, in April 2021, the City of Pinole submitted a proposal to the State of California Department of Justice, and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2021, the California Department of Justice notified the City that it would be awarded $166,270 to be expended from FY 2021-22 through FY 2023-24, and
WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Justice requires a resolution from the governing body to authorize the City to enter into an agreement with the State and to designate an agent to execute the agreement and any other required grant documents, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby accept the tobacco grant in amount $166,270 from the State of California Department of Justice and authorize the City Manager to the execute all grant documents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 18th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 18th day of January 2022.
______________
Heather Bell,CMC
City Clerk
70 of 110

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REPORT 8F
DATE: JANUARY 18, 2022
TO: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

THE CITY OF PINOLE
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOGNIZED
OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR JULY 1, 2022 – JUNE 30, 2023 (ROPS 22-23) FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,296,775

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council, acting as the governing board of the Successor Agency to the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency, adopt a resolution approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 (ROPS 22-23) for the Successor Agency in the amount of $6,296,775.

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole became the Successor Agency to the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency (Agency) following the dissolution of redevelopment in California on February 1, 2012 through ABX1 26. The Successor Agency is responsible for winding down and paying off the debts of the former Agency. The Pinole City Council serves as the Successor Agency’s governing board.

The Successor Agency is required to prepare a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for each twelve-month fiscal period in order to request property tax increment funds to pay down approved enforceable obligations and administrative costs of the Successor Agency. The ROPS must be approved by the Countywide Oversight Board of Contra Costa County and submitted to the California Department of Finance in order for the Successor Agency to receive funds.

The Successor Agency requests the City Council’s adoption of the attached resolution approving the ROPS for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The Countywide Oversight Board will consider the ROPS at its meeting on January 24, 2022.
71 of 110
City Council/Successor Agency Report
January 18, 2022 2

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
The enclosed ROPS document is a listing of the minimum amounts that are required (scheduled) to be paid by the Successor Agency during the twelve-month period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 and includes the identification of a proposed funding source for payment of the existing enforceable obligations. This schedule must be reviewed and approved by the County Oversight Board prior to submission to the State Department of Finance (DOF) for final confirmation.

The DOF requires that residual/surplus funding that the Successor Agency received in prior ROPS be applied as an offset for additional distributions from the County Auditor-Controller. The Successor Agency does not have any residual/surplus funding from the most recent prior ROPS for which accounting has been completed, ROPS 19-20, and therefore has no funding to apply to the ROPS 22-23 (refer to “Report of Cash Balances”). As a result, staff is requesting the full amount of $6,296,775 for the ROPS 22-23 funding period.

Ongoing activities required to wind down the Successor Agency and the various remaining enforceable obligations are listed in the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 22-23) - ROPS Detail (attached). As of June 30, 2022, the Successor Agency will have remaining obligations of approximately $10,770,177 that need to be paid off, from property tax increment funds. These obligations are expected to be fully paid off by the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates there will be sufficient funding available in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Account held by the Contra Costa County AuditorController to fully fund all Enforceable Obligations totaling $6,296,775, identified for the ROPS 22-23 authorization period.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
B – Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 (ROPS 22-23), Successor Agency
72 of 110

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, APPROVING

THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE (ROPS)
FOR JULY 1, 2022 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill x1 26 (“ABx1 26”) was passed by the California State Legislature, signed by the Governor, and has been codified as part 1.8 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 34161; and WHEREAS, AB 26 requires successor agencies to continue to make all scheduled payments for enforceable obligations of their predecessor redevelopment agencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to HSC section 34179.7(o)(1), commencing with the ROPS covering the period from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 and thereafter, agencies shall submit an Oversight Board approved annual ROPS to the State Department of Finance and the County AuditorController by February 1, 2016 and each February 1 thereafter; and WHEREAS, the annual ROPS listing of obligations must include information for each obligation including:

A. The payee,
B. Project description and scope of work, product, or service for which payment is to be made,
C. Total outstanding debt or obligation,
D. Payment amount obligated to be made for the next 12-month accounting period, E. The funding source for payment of listed enforceable obligation; and

WHEREAS, the City Finance Director has prepared the required ROPS, for review by the Pinole Successor Agency prior to submitting to the County Oversight Board.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole does hereby resolve that the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, herein provided as Attachment B, is hereby approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Governing Board of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole held on the 18th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: BOARDMEMBERS:

NOES: BOARDMEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS:
____________________________
Heather Bell
Secretary to the Governing Board
73 of 110
74 of 110
75 of 110
76 of 110
77 of 110
78 of 110

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 11A
DATE: JANUARY 18, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MISHA KAUR, SR. PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS TO EXPAND ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING STATIONS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive information on options to expand electric vehicle charging stations throughout City of Pinole and provide direction to City staff.

BACKGROUND
Numerous studies show that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have grown consistently over recent years in the U.S. An EV is an automotive-type vehicle for on-road use such as passenger automobiles, buses, trucks, vans, neighborhood electric vehicles, and electric motorcycles, primarily powered by an electric motor that draws current from a rechargeable storage battery, fuel cell, photovoltaic array, or other source of electric current. EVs provide substantial benefits to the consumer and society. EVs are less expensive to operate than conventional gas vehicles, have lower maintenance costs, and have the convenience of fueling (charging) at home or work. EVs likewise reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. It is imperative that the EV charging infrastructure keeps pace with sales of EVs to enhance overall EV growth, and to ensure that lack of access to EV charging (at home or at public or private stations) is minimized as a critical barrier to EV adoption.

There are a number of new terms to become familiar with when it comes to EVs:
• Zero-Emission vehicles (ZEVs): Vehicles with no harmful tailpipe emissions and include plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) • Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV): subset of electric vehicles that includes allelectric, or battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs).

A PEV can operate on battery power and recharges from the electrical grid. • EV Charger is charging equipment not internal to the PEV and used to charge an EV.
79 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 2
• An EV Charging Space (EV Space) is a space intended for future installation of EV charging equipment and charging of electric vehicles. • An EV Charging Station (EVCS) is one or more electric vehicle charging spaces in private and public spaces served by electric vehicle charger(s) or other charging equipment allowing charging of electric vehicles. Electric vehicle charging stations are not considered parking spaces.
• EV Supply Equipment (EVSE) are the conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded, and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.

On September 23, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20, setting the following targets for ZEVs (including PEVs):
• By 2035, 100 percent ZEV sales for new passenger vehicles and 100 percent ZEV operations for drayage trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment. • By 2045, 100 percent ZEV operations for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, where feasible.

With the transportation sector accounting for about 40 percent of California’s GHG emissions, over 80 percent of smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution, and 95 percent of toxic diesel particulate matter, the full transition to ZEVs is an important step toward carbon neutrality by 2045.

On November 16, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution 2021-105 to support the goal of reaching 100 percent ZEV new vehicle sales in California by 2030. Continued growth in the PEV market will depend on driver confidence in charging infrastructure.

Widespread, accessible, and convenient charging infrastructure reduces range anxiety and provides consumers confidence that PEVs are as convenient to fuel as conventional vehicles. It is widely known that availability of EV charging infrastructure is critical to transportation electrification and California’s ability to address climate change and air pollution

DISCUSSION

1. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The City of Pinole is required to expand EV charging due to three sets of regulations, the City’s General Plan, State legislation, and the current California Building Code, all described in further detail below.
80 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 3
Pinole General Plan
A General Plan is a community’s blueprint for governing land use to meet the community’s long-term vision. There are three action programs located in the Pinole General Plan’s Circulation and Sustainability Elements that aim to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage alternative modes of transportation, including promoting the use of EV and development of EV charging infrastructure. These programs have been provided below, along with staff assessment of the action item’s extent to which it requires the City take action to install City-owned EV charging stations:
• Action CE.1.3.2 Include facilities that support alternative modes of transportation (pedestrian, bicycles, public transit, electric vehicles, etc.) where feasible. (Circulation Element)
Staff Assessment: This is an ongoing action item that supports a General Plan policy to encourage development that is sensitive to both local and regional transit measures and that promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation. This action item would be related to both public and private development, and require the City to include facilities that support EV charging “where feasible”.
• Action SE.8.6.5 Require that new and fully renovated commercial and retail development provide preferential parking for electric vehicles and vehicles using alternative fuels. (Sustainability Element)
Staff Assessment: This action item is related to requiring private development to dedicate parking for EV and alternative fuel vehicles through the development review process and does not contain a regulations regarding City facilities.
• Action SE.8.10.1 Develop the necessary infrastructure to encourage the use of zero emission vehicles and clean alternative fuels, such as development of electric vehicles charging facilities and alternative fueling stations. (Sustainability Element)
Staff Assessment: This action item is directly related to developing necessary City infrastructure to support and encourage use of ZEVs at both City owned facilities and private facilities.

California EV Legislation
There are two important State of California pieces of legislation that address prioritizing and streamlining EV charging projects.
81 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 4
• Assembly Bill 1236, adopted in 2015, required all local jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance with an expedited, streamlined process for permits for EV charging stations. In 2017, in compliance with the law, the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) was updated to promote and encourage the use EVs by creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for EV charging stations. Chapter

15.58 describes the expedited, streamlined permitting process for EV charging stations in Pinole, which are allowed through the issuance of a nondiscretionary building permit subject to a limited review by the building official and addressed more fully in the EV submittal checklist published on the City’s website1. • Assembly Bill 970, adopted in 2021, requires cities to determine completeness of applications for EV charging stations within 5 or 10 days of application submittal, depending on the number of proposed chargers. Furthermore, the law limits the local jurisdiction to approving a complete application within 20-40 days of completeness determination, again depending on the number of charging stations proposed. The bill’s provisions take effect for Pinole on January 1, 2023.
2019 California Building Code
The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”, Title 24, Part 11) requires that new construction and major alterations include adding EV Capable parking spaces which have electrical panel capacity, a dedicated branch circuit, and a raceway to the EV parking spot to support future installation of charging stations. A branch circuit is part of the electrical system that originates at the main service panel and feeds electricity throughout the structure. There are 120-volt branch circuits that supply power to standard outlets and fixtures, along with 240-volt circuits that power major appliances. A raceway is an enclosed channel that forms a physical pathway for electrical wiring. Raceways protect the inner workings (wires and cables) from heat, corrosion, humidity, water, and other kinds of threats.

Currently, there are three different types of EV Charging Spaces in California: EV Capable, EV Ready, and EV Installed. Each of these vary in completion of an EV Charging Station:
• EV Capable: Requires just the infrastructure (conduit, breaker space, junction box, etc.) for the future installation of an EV Charging Station. These types of spaces do not require any charging equipment to be installed at the time of permit. In EV Capable Spaces, the electrical panel has ample capacity to serve future load and a dedicated branch circuit and a continuous raceway from the panel to the future EV Space is provided. An electrician would be required to complete the circuit before charging is possible. The 1 https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10946972/File/City%20Government/Building/ Residential%20Permits/EV%20Charging%20Station%20Submittal%20Requirements.pdf 82 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 5
benefit of EV Capable is that it allows for the simple installation of a charging station in the future if needed.
• EV Ready: Requires both the infrastructure and a wired outlet. While the charging unit is still absent, an EV Ready space allows for the electric car driver to simply plug-in their portable charger into the outlet. Parking space is provided with all power supply and associated outlet, such that a charging station can be plugged in and a vehicle can charge. An EV Ready space does not allow for a networked charger that can control payment, hours of operation, or user access.
• EV Charging Installed: Requires all EV Supply Equipment (EVSE) plus the charger to be installed at an EV Charging Station, such that an EV can charge without additional equipment on the day the building permit is signed off.

Additionally, there are three categories of EV charging capacity and speed:
• Level 1: A Level 1 (L1) charge cable comes with each EV, and is sometimes referred to by EV drivers as an “emergency charger” or “trickle charger” as it will not keep up with long commutes. It is universally compatible and plugs into any standard grounded 120-V outlet. 7 to 24 hours for a full charge. • Level 2: A Level 2 (L2) charger runs at higher input voltage, 240-V, and is usually permanently wired to a dedicated 240-V circuit in a garage or driveway. Portable models plug into standard 240-V dryer or welder receptacles, but not all homes have these. 4 to 6 hours for a full charge. • Level 3: A Level 3 (L3) charger is the fastest EV charger available currently.

They run on 480-V and are not typically found at home, but at highway rest stops and shopping centers, where the vehicle can be rechanged in less than an hour. This is the type of charge used for Tesla Superchargers and DC Fast Chargers at some supermarkets. 80% charge in 20 to 40 minutes and 60 minutes for a full charge.

The requirements vary depending on the type of structure proposed or altered:
• Residential. Single-Family, Townhomes, and Duplexes: All new construction must be EV Capable. Each dwelling unit must have a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. Accessory dwelling units without additional parking do not need to comply with EV charging requirements for new construction. Multifamily: Ten percent of total parking spaces must be EV Capable, if guest parking is available, at least one EV Capable space must be for guest parking. There are also additional optional Tiers for enhanced EV Capable spaces.
• Hotels and Motels. EV Capable spaces are required based on the total number of parking spaces at all types of parking facilities (e.g., garages, flat lots, valet).
83 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 6
• Mixed Use. The code provides a formula to calculate the required number of EV Capable parking spaces based on residential and nonresidential units. • Nonresidential. Based on a sliding scale, depending on the total number of parking spaces. There are also additional optional Tiers for enhanced EV Capable spaces.

Total Number of
Parking Spaces
Required Number
of Parking Spaces
to be EV Capable
0-9 0
10-25 1
26-50 2
51-75 4
76-100 5
101-150 7
151-200 10
201+ 6% of total

2. CONSTRAINTS
One of the first steps to removing barriers to EV access and encouraging EV adoption is to understand some of the common obstacles to EV charging. • Installation Cost. The cost of EV charging installation varies considerably based on specific site requirements, and can be a barrier to installation in both residential and commercial applications. Some typical cost drivers include upgrades to electrical service panels, trenching, and drilling through walls for electrical conduit runs.
▪ Trenching. Trenching for laying electrical conduit to an EV charging station typically costs around $100 per foot and can quickly add to the cost of installation.
▪ Electrical service upgrades. The addition of EV charging can add significant electrical load to the site and may require upgrades to the electrical service panel.

The following table depicts typical cost ranges for installation of Level 2 chargers, based on common equipment and installation costs in 20192:

EV Charger Support Technical Components Average Total Cost (Installation + Charger)
EV Capable
(mandatory)
Raceway, Circuit $800
2 Information from the City of Sacramento: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/- /media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Building/Sacramento-Streamline/EV-Infrastructure-Reqs-in-CALGreenBuilding-Code_April-2020.pdf?la=en 84 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 7
EV-Ready Outlet Raceway, Circuit, Wiring,
Outlet
$1,100
EV-Installed Raceway, Circuit, Wiring,
Level 2 EV Charger
$6,000
• Residential Unit Type. There are unique constraints associated with existing multi-unit dwellings (condominiums and apartment buildings) where parking garages and surface parking lots are rarely equipped with charging infrastructure, and installing such infrastructure may be cost prohibitive for building managers. If EV is installed on a unit-by-unit basis recovering the cost of electricity for tenants’ individual use of EV charging may also be challenging. As of 2021, Pinole’s total housing stock totaled 7,169 units. Of those units, attached and detached single family units totaled the majority of the housing types, at 5,672 units and 79% of the total housing stock. Multi-family, at 962 units or 13% of the total housing stock, was the next most popular housing type, followed by two to four unit products (499 or 7% of the total) and mobile homes (36 units, or 1% of the total) which made up the remainder of the housing stock3. Although the multi-family housing stock in Pinole is a relatively small percentage of overall housing stock, it is important to note the unique barriers to access that multi-family tenants face in locating EV charging for their vehicles.
• Time to Charge. Using a gas station, filling up and driving away takes a handful of minutes. On the other hand, the fastest EV charging stations take up to 20 minutes to charge enough to power the vehicle to a 60- to 80-mile range. This can be a significant pain point and a challenging deterrent for potential EV users.

3. OPPORTUNITIES
There are several opportunities to explore related to incentivizing, requiring and installing EV charging in Pinole, as detailed below.

Enhanced Regulations for New Construction
The City may consider the adoption of regulations that require the installation of EV charging infrastructure beyond that required in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Other communities have taken this approach through Reach Codes, which are local building energy codes that “reach” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, in addition to other targeted Municipal Code updates. Opportunities to consider might be mandating all residential new construction or substantial remodels to be EV Ready or EV Installed, and commercial sites to be EV Installed.
3 Information from the California Department of Finance:
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ 85 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 8
Publicly Accessible EV Charging
Section 4, below, provides a discussion regarding existing Capital Improvement Program Projects aimed at installing publicly accessible EV charging. In addition, curbside charging, where public EV charging stations are located on the public street at the curb, are being piloted in a number of jurisdictions, such as Sacramento (commercial neighborhoods) and Berkeley (residential neighborhoods, focused on private installation in the right-of-way). Curbside charging may be desired to explore in targeted residential, commercial and mixed-use areas in order to provide access to EV charging for underserved residents without a garage or dedicated off-street parking. In addition, highly visible curbside chargers can provide charging in downtown areas where surface parking lots are limited and charging options are scarce. There are several factors for the City to consider regarding curbside charging, including accessibility requirements, equity concerns, ownership and maintenance of the charging stations, public safety, loss of street parking, installation of conduit in the right-of-way, enforcement policies, and other uses of the curb such as loading zones.

Grants and Financing
There are a number of Federal, State and Local programs that provide grants or financing mechanisms to incentivize the installation of EV charging. See Section 4 below for a discussion.

4. GRANTS AND FINANCING
There are several cost reduction and financing opportunities available to public agencies to incentivize the installation of EV charging infrastructure, including the following:

Marin Clean Energy:

Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Electric Vehicle Program offers charging rebates to MCE customers for workplace and multifamily properties to save on hardware and installation costs. The technical assistance component is offered on first 40 projects, which includes the support of an EV charging expert to expand charging infrastructure. Currently, the program offers $3,000 per Level 2 charging port for 2-20 ports and $750 per Level 1 charging ports for 4-40 ports. These rebates can be combined with other rebates. Eligibility for this program requires the workplace to offer charging to employees and/or fleet, or multifamily property of 4 or more units to offer charging to tenants, or commuter parking lots such as park & ride lots.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD):

The Charge! Program provides grant funding to offset up to 85% of the cost of purchasing and installing EV chargers for light-duty EV’s at workplaces, destinations, transit parking locations, along transportation corridors, and at multi-unit dwelling facilities. Funding is available on a competitive basis to businesses, non-profits, and public agencies in the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction.

Awards are based on the anticipated electricity that a station can deliver to PEVs. 86 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 9
Government sponsored projects, as well as projects exclusively at multi-unit dwellings must qualify for a minimum of $10,000 in funding, while all other entities must qualify for a minimum of $1,000,000 in funds.

From time to time, other entities like California Energy Commission may offer grant funds for projects that will increase electric vehicle charging access for an enable greater PEV adoption.

Additionally, there are a variety of grant, incentives and financing opportunities available to residents to incentivize the installation of EV charging, which could be publicized to residents through the City’s normal communication channels and include the following:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD):

The Clean Cars for All Program provides incentives and financing to lowerincome drivers to scrap older, high-polluting cars and replace with a ZEV or nearzero emission vehicle. Additionally, up to $2,000 of funding is available for a Level 2 charger equipment and installation.

PACE Financing
The Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program provides financing that authorizes residential property owners to borrow funds to pay for energy improvements, including purchasing and installing EV charging infrastructure.

The borrower repays the financing over a defined period of time through a special assessment on the property.

Community Housing Development Corporation
The Drive Clean Assistance Program (DCAP) provides low-income families/individuals financial education and down payment assistance program for clean energy vehicles - a grant of up to $5,000 and financing of up to $20,000. Additional grant funds are available for an at-home or public charge card up to $2,000 if an applicant purchases a vehicle with a DCAP grant.

Beneficial State Foundation and the California Air Resources Board The California Clean Vehicle Assistance Program provides grants and affordable financing to help income-qualified Californians purchase a new or used EV. In addition, EV charging grants of up to $2,000 are available if an applicant purchases a vehicle with a Clean Vehicle Assistance grant.

US Federal Tax Credit
The Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit provides a tax credit for the cost of installing EV charging infrastructure. Also available for commercial.

Finally, there are a variety of grant, incentives and financing opportunities available to businesses to incentivize the installation of EV charging, which could be publicized to residents through the City’s normal communication channels and include the following:
87 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 10
California State Pollution Control Financing Authority
The California Capital Access Program (CalCAP) Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Financing Program helps small businesses acquire capital for installing EV infrastructure by providing incentives to finance EVSE equipment and installation.

Pacific Gas & Electric
PG&E’s EV Fast Charge Program for Commercial Customers program covers the costs and manages construction of electrical infrastructure necessary to install DC fast chargers. The program also offers a rebate of up to $25,000 per charger for those sites located in disadvantaged communities.

US Federal Tax Credit
The Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit provides a tax credit for the cost of installing EV charging infrastructure. Also available for residential.

5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS
City staff evaluates the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects to identify opportunities to install publicly accessible EV charging stations. There are two projects in the current adopted CIP which will include installation of publicly accessible EV charging stations:
• Project FA2002 – EV Charging Stations, involves installation of EV charging infrastructure. City staff reserved a charging rebate through Marin Clean Energy’s (MCE) Electric Vehicle Program which offers a rebate to install charging infrastructure and provides technical assistance. The technical assistance covers a site assessment which includes a review of ADA and options for charging station placement, a load study to understand the proposed site’s electrical capacity, and an EV charger planning report. City staff worked with a technical assistance provider to identify a publicly accessible site where installation of charging infrastructure was feasible.

A load study was conducted at the public parking lot serving the Public Safety Building. The results indicated that the site could support charging infrastructure.

A proposed layout of the public parking has been prepared which will change the parking arrangement on the south side of the parking lot to meet siting requirements. City staff is planning to release a Request for Proposals to select a vendor that will be responsible for installing publicly available Level 2 charging stations at the parking lot serving the Public Safety Building. • CIP Project FA1901 – Senior Center Auxiliary Parking Lot. Involves installation of EV charging infrastructure. This project will be a multi-benefit project which will offer additional parking serving the Senior Center and Old Town Pinole. The project includes striping, lighting, drought tolerant landscaping, stormwater capture and retention, bicycle parking, and EV charging stations. 88 of 110
City Council Report
January 18, 2022 11

6. OPTIONS
• Improve Communications
o Periodically update the City’s existing EV Charging Station webpage to offer information about available funding sources to support charging infrastructure for both commercial and residential.
o Create flyers and handouts to share easy to read resources about available funding sources to install EV charging in commercial and residential.
o Consider either a city-wide survey disturbed online or a community workshop open to residents and business owners to identify Pinolespecific barriers to EV charging (both installation and use). o Explore reaching out to major shopping center property owners to learn about (1) their plans and timing for parking lot improvements (in order to encourage EV charging installation during those construction periods) and (2) barriers for installation.
• Secure Funding
o Continue to participate in MCEv rebate program to individually select city facilities to perform load studies and pursue rebate funds for installation of publicly accessible EV charging stations.
o Continue to explore other financial incentives and grant opportunities • Future Planning
o Direct staff to prepare a feasibility report to evaluate opportunities for installation of EV charging stations at City owned facilities. The feasibility report will assess electrical capacity, electrical demand, financial constraints, and parking utilization. The feasibility report will inform capital planning and allow staff to explore sustainable business models and partnership opportunities with third-party electric vehicle supply equipment providers who will install, operate, maintain, and own publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure at low or no cost to the city. o Consider Reach Codes, or other Municipal Code amendments, to require the installation of EV charging infrastructure beyond that required in the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to receiving the information. The planning level estimate for the preparation of a feasibility report for all city owned facilities is $100,000. The costs for funding EV charging infrastructure will be identified in the feasibility report. 89 of 110

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 12B-1
DATE: JANUARY 18, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
FROM: HEATHER BELL, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: TAPS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
Consider Interview Subcommittee recommendation and approval of four (4) appointments to the Pinole TAPS Committee.

BACKGROUND
The Pinole Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee is a five-member panel of Pinole residents who recommend or review action on traffic safety, traffic control and planning, speed limits, parking and other traffic related matters. The committee is advisory and makes recommendations to the City Council.

There are five (5) current vacancies of the TAPS Committee including the incumbent member seats whose terms have expired (Collins, Dunham-Sims, and Moriarty).

In early 2021, an announcement was made to the public that a recruitment period was open and applications would be accepted by the office of the City Clerk. The recruitment period was subsequently extended twice and the final closing date for the recruitment period was January 5, 2022. Four (4) applications were received from Oliver Collins, Ben Doyle, Faith Dunham-Sims and Kent Moriarty. They are included as attachment B.

The Interview Subcommittee interviewed all four (4) candidates, on January 10, 2021. The recommendation of the subcommittee is to appoint all four applicants to the TAPS Committee.

Oliver Collins
Ben Doyle
Faith Dunham-Sims
Kent Moriarty
90 of 110
City Council Report, 12B1
January 18, 2022 2

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Roster
B. Applications
91 of 110
2020-21 ROSTER

TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COMMITTEE

1. Term Expired 11/30/2018

5. Oliver Collins
Pinole CA 94564

Term Expires 02/20/2020

2. Faith Dunham-Sims
Pinole, CA 94564
Term Expires 11/30/2020

MEETS THIRD WEDNESDAY

EVERY OTHER MONTH
7:00 P.M. CITY HALL
1/17/2012 – Council action to reduce
Committee to 5 members

3. Kent Moriarty
Pinole CA 94564

Term Expires 11/13/2020
STAFF
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
(W) 724-9010

4. Term Expires 11/30/2019
Ana Aviles Avila
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
(W) 724-9837
[email protected]

ATTACHMENT A
92 of 110
93 of 110
94 of 110
95 of 110
96 of 110
97 of 110
98 of 110
1 December 9, 2021
Oliver Collins
Re: Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee Application, Supplemental Questionnaire Dear Sir/Mam,
Below is my response to the supplemental questions relating to the City of Pinole Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee application.

What do you view as the role of the Traffic & Safety Committee? • My belief is that the traffic and pedestrian safety committee is an advisory committee to the City Council members. The purview of the committee is, on part, to conduct research on traffic related matters within the City of Pinole, at the direction of the City Council, and create recommendations for the City Council based on community feedback and best practices.

Why did you apply/or why are you reapplying?
• I am interested in increasing the safety of the Pinole community. One of the most efficient ways to increase public safety is through traffic safety as most of the ongoing or day to day complaints of the Pinole residents and visitors, are the traffic problems, especially during commute times when I-80 gets backed up. Also, the traffic safety around the Pinole schools it of great importance to the safety of our youth and of those who drive around the schools. I regularly bicycle, walk, and run through Pinole and the surrounding areas so I have a firsthand experience of what navigating the City is like for a bicyclist or as a pedestrian.

How much time are you willing to commit to your activities to the Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee?
• I am flexible and commit as much time as necessary to ensure my role is both productive and collaborative. My goal if selected as a member of the committee, is to embrace neutrality and be goal oriented to be successful.

What do you think is the most pressing traffic issue facing the City of Pinole? 99 of 110
2 • I believe the traffic safety problems currently facing the City of Pinole involve pedestrian and bicycle safety and the interactions those groups have with the motoring public. The ability of the City to promote multi-modal, mutually beneficial accommodations between pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and motor vehicles is of great importance. Also, as mentioned in my previous response, the traffic congestion around the Pinole schools continues to impact the effective drop off/pick up times around the schools. While there may be no single corrective action that will solve all the challenges, perhaps several smaller changes may result in great improvements on the traffic safety front around our schools. I regularly communicate with many different residents in the City. I gain insight into community member’s opinions on traffic and pedestrian safety which I can share with the TAPS committee.

Please give one example of a personal experience that demonstrates your past experience working in a group decision making environment.
• I was a board of director’s member for the City of Pinole TAPS committee and had many occasions working collaboratively in a group. Previously I was also on the City of Novato, Novato Youth Center board of directors for about 4 years. While a part of the Novato Youth Center BoD, I was part of the strategic planning committee for the Youth Center where we were tasked with coming up with the next three-year strategic plan for the Youth Center. We were given a timeline of 6 months to come up with a proposal for the entire BoD to review and vote on. Over that time, each committee member was given a set list of responsibilities so we could divide up the workload of this large project. I participated in administering a community and employee survey of gaps, while other committee members were tasked with creating a mission and vision statement, others with identifying other community partners and identifying new donors. We all worked collectively and met regularly to come up with a proposal for the entire BoD. The presentation went well and we received both positive and constructive feedback. We implemented the feedback and completed the task. This was a success not only for the smaller committee but also for the Youth Center. While I had somewhat of a small role, my contribution help achieve success on this project.

As a member of the committee, you would become an extension of the “City” and would be charged with protecting the best interests of the entire City. How would you handle a situation where your personal opinions or beliefs are in conflict with this responsibility or is in conflict with direction from the City Council?
• My role on the committee would be to remain neutral and ensure that any implicit biases I may/could have do not impact my ability to use objective reasoning to make a recommendation. I would ensure that any personal opinions I could have do not influence my judgement and that all my input would be strictly for the benefit for the City of Pinole. The direction of the City Council would be paramount in any role I had in any research or recommendations I made to the Council members. 100 of 110
3 For incumbents, cite your attendance record.
• I attended every TAPS committee meeting held during my time as a board member. 101 of 110
102 of 110
103 of 110
104 of 110
105 of 110
106 of 110
107 of 110
108 of 110
109 of 110
110 of 110

Pinole City CouncilJanuary 18, 2022

Pinole City Council
January 18, 2022