Pinole City Council
December 6, 2022

PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL 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
December 6, 2022
5:00 P.M
Please note: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT
Attend in Person: PINOLE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 2131 PEAR STREET OR
Attend VIA ZOOM TELECONFERENCE – Details provided below Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.

How to Submit Public Comments:

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

Via Zoom:

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

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

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

CORONAVIRUS ADVISORY
INFORMATION:

CLICK HERE for City Updates
CLICK HERE for County Updates
1 of 113
City Council
Agenda – December 6, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph M. Brown Act. Gov. Code § 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
2 of 113
Pinole City Council
Agenda –December 6, 2022

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

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

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

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

A. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54956.8
Property: 612 Tennent Avenue

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

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

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

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

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

F. City Attorney Report
3 of 113
City Council
Agenda – December 6, 2022

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMUNITY EVENTS
A. Proclamations

1. Pinole Valley High School Girls Softball

2. Pinole Valley High School Girls Tennis

3. Human Rights Week
B. Presentations
None

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

A. Approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2022 meeting.

B. Receive the November 12, 2022 – December 2, 2022 – List of Warrants in the Amount of $967,306.52 and the November 25, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $571,214.97.

C. Approval of Findings to Support Local Modifications to the 2022 California Building Code; Second Reading of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Update the City’s Building and Fire Code [Action:

Adopt Ordinance on Second Reading per Staff Recommendation (Casher)]

10. COUNCIL REORGANIZATION & ELECTION MATTERS
A. Accepting and Declaring the Results of Canvass of the November 8, 2022 Municipal Election [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bell)] B. Presentations to Mayor Salimi
C. Remarks from Mayor Salimi

BRIEF RECESS
D. Administer Oaths to Newly Elected Council Members [Action: Administer Oaths] E. Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem [Action: Approve Rotation Schedule by Minute Order and Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Bell)] F. Administer Oaths to Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem [Action: Administer Oaths] G. Comments by Newly Appointed Mayor
4 of 113
City Council
Agenda – December 6, 2022

FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS – RECEPTION IN CITY HALL FOYER

11. 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

12. OLD BUSINESS
NONE

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Nominate Council Members to Serve on Boards and Subcommittees [Action: Discuss and Provide Direction (Bell)]

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

15. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of December 20, 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, and on the City’s website, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting date set forth on this agenda.
________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
POSTED: December 1, 2022
5 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
November 15, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN HONOR OF THE US MILITARY TROOPS
The City Council Meeting was held in a hybrid format (in-person and 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 5:06 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
*Arrived after Roll Call
B. STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Murray, City Manager
Heather Bell, City Clerk
Eric Casher, City Attorney
Jeremy Rogers, Community Services Director
Lilly Whalen, Community Development Director
Sanjay Mishra, Public Works Director
Chris Wynkoop, Fire Chief
Bernie Zipay, City of Pinole Contract Building Official Roxane Stone, Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk Heather Bell announced the agenda had been posted on Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. with all legally required written notices. 9A
6 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

One written comment had been received in advance of the meeting, posted to the City website and distributed to the staff and the City Council.

Following an inquiry, the Council reported there were no conflicts with any items on the agenda.

4. CONVENE TO A CLOSED SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Gov. Code § 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Andrew Murray, City Manager, Stacy Shell, Human Resources Director
Represented employees: Local 1, IAFF, PPEA

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
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.

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION TO ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF CLOSED SESSION At 5:44 p.m., Mayor Salimi reconvened the meeting into open session and announced there was no reportable action from the Closed Session.

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

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

Rafael Menis, Pinole, updated the City Council on the COVID-19 case rate for the City of Pinole and encouraged everyone to wear masks indoors and outdoors, particularly in crowded spaces.

He also commented on the results of the recent election and while the results had yet to be finalized he congratulated the apparent winners and apologized to those who voted for him given his likely defeat. He apparently had not done a good enough job on persuasion, personal transparency or outreach, but would continue to participate in City Council meetings and as a member of the Planning Commission work to make the community better, build up community engagement and inform people about community events through emails he would send to the community. Interested persons may sign up at menisforpinole.org and use the contact link identified on the site. He thanked everyone who had supported him, who had volunteered and donated to his campaign and he appreciated the effort and willingness to support him and protect the future of Pinole.
7 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

[There appeared to be technical difficulties with Zoom and some people could not call into the meeting. City Clerk Bell identified the instructions to call into the meeting, as shown on the meeting agenda, and the Mayor paused the meeting to allow staff to address the technical issues.

After a brief pause, staff reported there appeared to be no issues with the broadcast connection but some callers still remained unable to call into the meeting.]

Mayor Salimi stated there would be another opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting and he again identified the call-in instructions to participate in the webinar meeting.

7. REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Mayor Report

1. Announcements
Mayor Salimi reported he had spoken with the General Consul for Ukraine to discuss Sister City opportunities. He asked for a Moment of Silence in recognition of Stanley Casher, the father of City Attorney Eric Casher at this time, offered his condolences and asked that flowers be sent to the Casher family.

Mayor Salimi also reported the City had held a wonderful Veterans Day event and he thanked the Pinole Historical Society and everyone who had participated.

B. Mayoral & Council Appointments: None
C. City Council Committee Reports & Communications
Council member Martinez-Rubin reported she had attended a WestCAT Board meeting and briefed the Council on the discussions, and reported on the increase in ridership for the month of October 2022 as compared to October 2021 due to the free ridership WestCAT had offered for the month. She also reported the Annual WestCAT Stuff a Bus event, which collected nonperishable food items and toys on December 14, 2022, would be held at the Target parking lot located at 1400 Fitzgerald Drive between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., with the public invited to participate and with the donations to benefit the Contra Costa and Solano County Food Bank.

Toys for all ages would be accepted to benefit children affiliated with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Chips for Kids Drive. She wished everyone a happy, safe and healthy Thanksgiving.

Mayor Salimi also wished City staff and the community a Happy Thanksgiving.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy reported the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Board of Directors would meet on Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. with additional information on the MCE website; and invited Council members and any other interested party to attend Elected Officials to Protect America as part of the California Climate Emergency and Energy Security Summit, to be hosted at the California Energy Commission in Sacramento on December 5 and 6, 2022, which would offer networking opportunities to engage both local and state officials to share best practices and understand ordinances and policies around renewable energy and possibly housing. As a member of the Steering Committee hosting the event, he encouraged the Council to join the event either virtually or in-person. The event was open to the public and registration free of charge.

Additional information was available at protectingamerica.net. 8 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also reported that local firefighters had recently been sworn-in and he thanked them for their service to the community.

Council member Toms reported she had signed up to participate in the California Climate Emergency and Energy Security Summit; attended a WestCAT Board meeting; Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day at Ellerhorst Elementary School; and participated in a sea level rise and ground water discussion at the East Bay Leadership Offices.

D. Council Requests for Future Agenda Items
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy requested a future agenda item to discuss what other cities had done related to discretionary budget training for individual City Council member expenditures. He asked that a staff report be prepared and that a discussion be considered as part of the mid-year budget report/adjustments. Consensus given.

E. City Manager Report / Department Staff
City Manager Andrew Murray reported this week was United Against Hate Week (UAHW), with a proclamation to be issued later on the agenda and with a number of events planned to culminate with events at Fernandez Park on the afternoon and evening of Friday, November 18, 2022, with more information on the City website. The Annual Senior Craft Fair would be held on Saturday, November 19, 2022 at the Senior Center; and the Community Services Department would be offering some Thanksgiving break camps for school children, with more information on the City website. The Annual Holiday Tree Lighting would take place on Saturday, December 3, 2022.

The next City Council meeting had been scheduled for December 6, 2022 and it was hoped the election results would be certified by that date to allow the seating of newly-elected members of the City Council.

City Manager Murray provided an overview of the scheduled agenda items for the December 6 City Council meeting. He also provided an overview of the agenda items tentatively scheduled for the Town Council meeting of December 20, 2022. There would be no City Council meeting scheduled for the first Tuesday of the month of January 2023 due to the holiday period, with the first City Council meeting in 2023 scheduled for January 17, 2023.

F. City Attorney Report
City Attorney Eric Casher thanked the City Council for the Moment of Silence in recognition of his father. He appreciated the acknowledgement and the flowers sent from the City to his family.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, requested a future agenda item for the City Council to have a presentation on the status of the Port of Oakland’s recovery after the pandemic; and consider a future agenda item to hire CPS Consulting to provide diversity, equity and inclusion. He also extended his condolences to City Attorney Casher and his family.

City Manager Murray reported the City Council had appropriated funding in the current fiscal year budget to hire a consultant firm to work on a diversity, equity and inclusion initiative. 9 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

City staff was in the process of developing the scope of work with the vendor who had not yet been procured, which would follow the City’s normal procurement policy practices.

Mayor Salimi reported a presentation on the Port of Oakland had recently been provided at the Mayors’ Conference.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked whether schools would participate in the Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony as they had in the past and was informed by City Manager Murray that local schools had been invited to participate to install and decorate trees in the Community Corner.

Community Services Director Jeremy Rogers confirmed that staff was working with several schools in Pinole and with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) related to the tree lighting as had been done in 2021. More information was available on the City website or interested parties may contact the Community Services Department. Further responding to the Mayor Pro Tem, he clarified the latest Community Services Commission meeting had been canceled due to the lack of a quorum. The next meeting had been scheduled for the third Wednesday of January 2023.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, reported the month of November was Native American Heritage Month. She asked the City Council to recognize the contributions of Native Americans during the month of November and read into the record a statement in recognition of Native American Heritage Month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Given the earlier technical difficulties, Mayor Salimi returned to the Citizens to be Heard portion of the agenda.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, commented that the Pinole Food Bank/Senior Center had lost its distribution of food boxes and she asked the City Council to consider a discussion between the City Council and the Food Bank to see how the City could help given the holidays and the fact people were suffering during these hard times. She wished everyone a happy holiday.

City Manager Murray stated, as reported during a prior meeting, the food distribution the City helped to facilitate at the Senior Center had goods provided by the Contra Costa and Solano Food Banks, which were undergoing a transition in their programs and would be transitioning to a new model. Twice-monthly there would be dry and canned goods distributed and twice monthly there would be a produce distribution although that would not be in place until January 2023. The City had been unable to engage with the Food Bank during this transition period and had no ideas for interim resources.

Community Services Director Rogers confirmed the County had terminated its normal distribution.

In January 2023, an entirely new program would be offered as described by the City Manager.

For the months of November and December, produce distribution would be offered and the City was trying to find other avenues and other food banks and would provide Pinole citizens with that information.

8. RECOGNITIONS / PRESENTATIONS / COMMNUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Proclamations
10 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

1. United Against Hate Week
The City Council read into the record a proclamation recognizing United Against Hate Week (UAHW); with the City Council united against hate; recognized the Pinole City Council was one of the most diverse Councils the City of Pinole ever had; this was the second year for UAHW activities; and City staff and supporters of UAHW were thanked for their participation. The proclamation was presented to Council member Martinez-Rubin who thanked the City Council for the proclamation and stated she was pleased this was the second year for UAHW activities and that the City was building on those efforts.

PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, supported diversity and all people and would try to participate in the scheduled UAHW activities in Pinole. He appreciated the proclamation and the need to respect one another.

Rafael Menis, Pinole, thanked the City Council for the proclamation and the fact the entire City Council backed UAHW given increased provocations nationwide. He detailed the activities the City planned as part of UAHW in Pinole on Friday, November 18, 2022 from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. at 595 Tennent Avenue. He hoped the community would join in the UAHW activities and unite for a more unified and just community for all.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
B. Presentations: None

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

A. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 B. Receive the October 29, 2022 – November 11, 2022 List of Warrants in the Amount of $524,664.82 and the November 11, 2022 Payroll in the Amount of $540,208.93 C. Resolution Continuing Authorized Remote Teleconference Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Casher)] D. Resolution Approving an Agreement with RSG for Affordable Housing Consultation Assistance Including Monitoring, Compliance and Reporting, and Appropriating Funding from the Housing Successor Fund for this Purpose [Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Whalen)]
E. Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendments to Extend Existing On-Call Service Contracts for Engineering and Environmental Services and Execute New 11 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

On-Call Service Contracts Related to Wastewater and Stormwater [Action:

Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Mishra)]
F. Receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter Financial Report [Action:

Receive Report (Guillory)]
G. Receive the Quarterly Investment Report for the First Quarter (Ending September 30, 2022) [Action: Receive Report (Guillory)]
H. Receive the Quarterly Report on Implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter [Action: Receive Report (Whalen)]
I. Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter Report on Implementation of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects [Action: Receive Report (Mishra)] J. Receive the Quarterly Report on Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter [Action: Receive Report (Murray)] K. Award a Construction Contract for Installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station (CIP Project #FA2002) [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Kaur)]
L. Approve an Amendment to Extend the Term of the Employment Agreement for the City Manager [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Shell)] M. Placement of Liens on Delinquent Unpaid Waste Collection Charges Falling Delinquent between May and August 2022. Considered at an Administrative Hearing on October 6, 2022 [Action: Adopt Resolution per Staff Recommendation (Stone)]
Mayor Salimi read into the record a statement related to Consent Item 9L. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(c)(3), this item was a recommendation to extend the City Manager’s Employment Agreement to June 30, 2025. On November 1, 2022, the City Council had met in Closed Session to present Andrew Murray with an evaluation report reviewing his past year as City Manager. Mr. Murray had received a positive evaluation from the City Council and was appreciated for the many achievements the City had made on his goals over the past year.

In accordance with this, the City Council believed it appropriate to offer a contract extension to the City Manager which would continue his service with the City of Pinole through June 30, 2025.

The contract amendment would not change Mr. Murray’s compensation or benefit and his current annual salary was $258,156.74, and he received the same health and welfare benefits as the City’s Department heads, plus other miscellaneous benefits.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced the second paragraph of his comments as shown on Page 2 of the November 1, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes as part of Item 9A, and stated he had specifically endorsed Cameron Sasai and Anthony Tave for the City Council, had described their qualifications in particular and urged voters to vote for them and for himself. 12 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, spoke to Item 9J and stated he had no problem with the Quarterly Report on Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter. As to Item 9L, he had submitted comments two weeks ago and he found the City Manager had done a good job, particularly given the pandemic. He urged the City Council to approve Item 9L.

Irma Ruport, Pinole, referenced Item 9I and asked that the item be continued given the recent election since new Council members would be seated and should be given the chance to revisit unfunded projects that had been taken off the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), particularly since the CIP had not been prioritized and should be given the possibility of a recession.

Responding to the comments related to Item 9I, City Manager Murray reported the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter Report on Implementation of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects was an annual status report on the implementation of CIP projects. There would be a future item related to the CIP combined with a second quarter status report and mid-year check in, at which time staff would be making some potential recommendations for modification, which was the more appropriate time to consider the item.

Mayor Salimi requested that Item 9I be removed from the Consent Calendar.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked staff for the quarterly reports, which had shown what staff was doing to serve the community and he encouraged the public to read the reports. He suggested City staff was doing incredible work and adding new staff members and that transition was a piece of the work not included in the report. While there had been challenges, he was pleased to see all of the information.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: Motion by Council members Martinez-Rubin/Toms to approve Consent Calendar Items 9A through 9M, with the exception of item 9I.

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

Absent: None
I. Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 First Quarter Report on Implementation of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects [Action: Receive Report (Murray)] Mayor Salimi explained that he had removed the item from the Consent Calendar since a resident on Greenfield Circle had addressed the City Council during a prior meeting, mentioned he had lived in his residence since 1984, and wanted the City Council to include Greenfield Circle as a priority in the CIP. Since he would not be a member of the City Council when the CIP was next discussed at a future meeting, he asked the City Council to remember Greenfield Circle when considering the CIP and prioritizing projects.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to approve Consent Calendar Item 9I, as shown.
13 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

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

Absent: None

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

A. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2022 California Building Standards Code and Update the City’s Building and Fire Code [Action:

Introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance adopting the 2022 Building Standards Code with updates to the City’s Building and Fire Code (Casher)]
City Attorney Casher provided a PowerPoint presentation on the California Building Standards Code, also known as the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, and stated the Pinole Municipal Code (PMC) had last been updated in 2019. The 2022 Building Standards Code would go into effect on January 1, 2023, and the City must adopt an ordinance to incorporate any local amendments into the Building Code. He thanked the numerous staff members who had worked collaboratively to review the amendments to state law to ensure consistency with the PMC.

City Attorney Casher explained the ordinance would replace the 2019 codes with the updated 2022 California Building Standards; the amendment would ensure current state requirements and trends in building safety were in place to better safeguard the life and property in the community, particularly in the event of a major earthquake or other destructive event; and the proposed ordinance would include general findings of local conditions necessary to justify local amendments. The amendments had been presented to the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee which had provided feedback on the changes to be made, but due to timing it had not been brought back to the Subcommittee. He thanked the Subcommittee for its input and advised that many of its recommended changes had been incorporated into the ordinance.

City Attorney Casher highlighted the code amendment specifics and the adoption of numerous Building Code sections by reference. He recommended the City Council introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance adopting the 2022 California Building Code Standards with local amendments and updates to the City’s Building and Fire Code. The second reading of the ordinance had been scheduled for the December 6, 2022 City Council meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Cordell Hindler, Richmond, suggested the City Attorney had done a great job with the presentation. He asked the City Council to follow the staff recommendation.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
14 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked how the public could best understand what an applicant would need to know in-house when the ordinance went into effect, to which City Attorney Casher advised if the ordinance was approved it would go into effect 30-days after the second reading and then be codified into the PMC.

City Manager Murray explained that any time there were updates to state codes, there would be training opportunities from different parties and ongoing education for the Building Official and other staff members to be able to inform the public when applications were submitted.

Bernie Zipay, City of Pinole Contract Building Official, spoke to his experience helping with this update and explained how the public would be informed about the changes to the code, with most contractors familiar with code changes that occurred every three years. Information would be provided on the City website, in particular the Building Department section of the website, where that information could be provided and it could also be reflected in handouts that would be updated, as needed, in an ongoing procedure/process. The state also had information that contractors and homeowners may access and the City would rely on applicants doing their due diligence.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy referenced Exhibit A, Chapter 15.20 of the Fire Code, Page 310 of the November 15, 2022 agenda packet and asked with respect to the reopening of Fire Station 74 whether the City Council would remain as the Board of Fire Commissioners as shown in Section 202, Board of Fire Commissioners.

Fire Chief Chris Wynkoop explained that once the ordinance had been adopted, the City would adopt the same code as the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) or Con Fire, and the Board of Fire Commissioners would be through Con Fire as well.

City Attorney Casher clarified that he would have to consult with the agreement the City had in place since he was uncertain how regularly the Board of Fire Commissioners would convene, although the governing body would be Con Fire and that section of the Fire Code would likely have to be changed, which would have to be confirmed and clarified in the staff report for the second reading of the ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy was pleased the City would comply with the Green Building Code but asked whether the City could codify all electric construction or zero emissions for new buildings, and Mr. Zipay stated that the new Fire Code read that all new construction of new homes were required to be Electronic Vehicle (EV) charger ready and solar ready but the code did not yet specify that 100 percent of the home’s power would be all electric. He noted the industry was not yet ready to support all of that change at this time but it was heading in that direction and a lot of conversations still needed to occur prior to requiring a new home to be 100 percent electric.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy hoped the next edition of an update included those requirements as other cities had done. He wanted to see the City of Pinole take the next step for all zero emissions or all electric for new construction and an ordinance that focused on allowing the electric system to utilize thermal solar space and solar water heating, if possible, with the data to back it up.

Mr. Zipay reiterated that was where the City was heading for new construction; however, electrifying older buildings entered into different variables given that older electric panels could not support all new electrical appliances and that area was where there would be push back. 15 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

City Manager Murray suggested if the City Council wanted to discuss instituting Reach Codes and applying standards beyond the minimal code requirements would be a future agenda item.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy clarified he was speaking of all new construction as part of a future discussion but would also like a discussion on retrofitting areas that had already been constructed in Pinole.

Mayor Salimi understood the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) required all new homes to include all-electric appliances by 2026, but Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood that was not yet law.

Community Development Director Lilly Whalen clarified the State of California was considering electric mandates by 2026. She added that some of the recent larger housing projects in Pinole had voluntarily proposed all-electric appliances.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood the former Kmart property had not proposed all-electric appliances, which staff confirmed. He recognized when the state-imposed mandates, the City had a hard time adjusting and setting the tone for said mandates creating deadlines and goals to meet those mandates and he wanted to explore that conversation earlier.

Community Development Director Whalen stated the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan would be presented to the City Council in 2023, and she anticipated that plan would include some recommendations with respect to electrification.

Council member Martinez-Rubin was pleased there would be future discussions on some of those topics. She found that the comments from the City Council reflected a different level of the understanding of the process as well as the activities underway by staff and suggested at some point the City Council should review the process and procedures since it was not always clear to her that the requests were from the entire City Council and not just an individual request given the different levels of involvement staff must undertake.

Mayor Salimi understood as the City Manager had suggested that Reach Codes could be considered as a future agenda item, which would require full approval from the City Council which was confirmed by the City Manager.

Council member Toms explained that the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee had discussed whether it was ready to dive into the discussion about all-electric and had made the conscious decision on this round it would not, although the conversation was still out there for the future.

She suggested the City would likely be ahead of the 2026 mandate since the City had adopted a Climate Emergency Plan, and Reach Codes would be an implementation of that plan and it would also be an implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP). She reported the Fire Code had been discussed countywide by all municipalities to ensure a consistent code across the board.

Council member Tave appreciated the discussion and commented that when the state passed something the City Attorney did a lot of work with the knowledge that some things may change as a result of other plans under development. He pointed out that if the City’s codes were more restrictive than the state the City could pull back, but based on the discussion there was recognition that the State of California was heading to all-electric for new homes and commercial buildings and the City had to strike the balance and put this forward rather than defer. 16 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Council member Tave did not want to see the City Manager and City Attorney put a lot of work into meeting the bar when the bar was going to be raised at some point. He questioned what bearing this would have on the CAP and how much more work would be needed.

City Attorney Casher reiterated the Building Standards Codes were triannual updates to the state Building Standards Code, and if the City were to develop its own baseline it would have to have this discussion every three years since the baseline would change and had to be incorporated into state law by reference; however, the City did not have to wait to incorporate state law to consider ordinances and tighten standards around electrification and new building and that direction could be provided to staff from the City Council at any point. Some of that direction may be in the form of policy adoption or bringing back an ordinance to change sections of the Building Code, which conversations would be ongoing.

City Manager Murray clarified the comments from the Community Development Director that the CAP would play a role in that the recommendations from the CAP would likely address additional building electrification and a possible policy recommendation for the City to meet its goals. At that time, the City Council could provide direction to staff whether to propose changes to the PMC to exceed current state requirements. The City Council could proceed with the subject item and at some point in the future the City Council could provide additional direction to staff to look at Reach Codes.

City Attorney Casher reiterated in response to Council member Martinez-Rubin that staff would like to move the item forward to have it on the books prior to January 1, 2023, otherwise state law would supersede local rules.

ACTION: Motion by Council member Martinez-Rubin/Mayor Pro Tem Murphy to Introduce and Waive the First Reading of an Ordinance Adopting the 2022 Building Standards Code with Local Amendments and Updates to the City’s Building and Fire Code.

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

Absent: None

11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Review and Feedback on Draft 2023–2031 Housing Element Update and Authorize Submittal to State HCD. [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Whalen)]
Community Development Director Whalen presented the staff report and introduced the Housing Element Consultants Michael Baker International (MBI) to provide a PowerPoint presentation.

Dan Wery, Michael Baker International (MBI), provided the PowerPoint presentation, which included an overview of the Land Use Planning for Pinole. He introduced the MBI Team, the purpose of the Housing Element to ensure the availability and fair distribution of housing throughout the City, and plans to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) assessment.
17 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

The 2023-2031 Housing Element contained six main chapters including a review of accomplishments, needs assessment, housing resources, constraints, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and an implementation plan, which were all highlighted. The City’s obligation was to provide sufficient land zoned appropriately to accommodate the RHNA. The City was not obligated to construct housing but must demonstrate how it would meet the 500-unit RHNA assessment within the eight-year period of the Housing Element with RHNA site designations to add value and options but which would not change existing owner rights or requirements.

The City’s public outreach efforts included the City website, community surveys, stakeholder focus groups, community workshops, study sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission, banner and social media posts, Pinole Community Television (PCTV) advertisements, articles in the City’s biweekly administration report and an email list to update interested persons on future Housing Element Updates.

The Planning Commission had held a workshop on October 24, 2022 and offered the following recommendations: to adjust the sites inventory to include the recently approved redevelopment of the Kmart site for 223 units (including 27 lower income units); allow and encourage single and small unit room rentals; promote and incentivize affordable housing on religious facility sites; promote and incentivize affordable housing for teachers; and consider more protections for renters to prevent and minimize displacement and encourage additional efforts to obtain more input from Pinole’s diverse population.

Mr. Wery detailed the Housing Element Update recommendations/opportunities in response to each of the Planning Commission recommendations as outlined in the PowerPoint presentation and which included: updated site maps; an inventory and sites chapter to reflect the addition of the Kmart site; encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs promotion programs with a tenant–owner matching program; implementing recently adopted state laws such as Assembly Bill (AB) 352, Efficiency Units; allowing Single Occupancy Room (SRO) units in five zones; implementing recently adopted state laws such as AB 1851 and AB 2244 related to modifying and reducing parking requirements; and consider allowing multifamily housing on religious institution sites where not currently allowed.

Also, considering the addition of teachers to funding priority policy with Extremely Low and Disabled; adding teachers to the owner-tenant matching program for seniors; allowing employee and faculty housing on school sites; adding first right of refusal/option to purchase; advancing notification and relocation assistance; considering a just cause eviction ordinance; recognizing the City had recently adopted its new Communication & Engagement Plan; and considering that the City should specifically include community-based organizations with all Housing Element program education and engagement efforts, along with goals for increased participation among diverse communities, monitoring and adjustment.

Tables depicting the RHNA allocations for the specific income categories including Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate and Above Moderate Incomes; the Draft RHNA Strategy; Draft RHNA Strategy Revisions (based on the recent approval of the redevelopment of the former Kmart site); and Draft RHNA Strategy – Net Buffer and Draft Housing Sites Inventory Revisions were also highlighted.
18 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Mr. Wery also provided an overview of the Housing Element Plan: Goals, Policies and Actions.

The Draft Housing Element Goals included housing production and adequate sites to meet the RHNA; housing to meet the needs of all income levels and special needs groups; removal of governmental constraints; conserve, preserve and improve the existing housing stock; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); and housing education and community outreach.

Housing Production Programs included a provision of adequate sites and site inventory monitoring; publicizing and promoting residential sites inventory; outreach and technical assistance to applicants and facilitating ADU production along with incentives for Mixed-Use development; development of Housing Successor’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Policy; affordable housing incentives; housing for Extremely Low Income households and persons with disabilities; senior housing incentives and home sharing and tenant matching.

Mr. Wery also highlighted and provided details at length for Programs 4: Facilitate ADU Production; Program 8: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households and Persons with Disabilities; Program 9: Senior Housing Incentives; Program 11: Zoning Amendments; Program 19: Fair Housing Resources and Services and Program 21: Housing Resources and Education.

The Constraint Removal Programs included zoning amendments, objective design standards and Senate Bill (SB) 35 streamlining, fee evaluation and publicization and permit streamlining with examples provided. Conserve, Preserve and Improve the Housing Stock included programs on rehabilitation assistance, acquisition and rehabilitation properties and Below Market rate regulations and conversions. AFFH programs included place-based improvements, fair housing resources and services and displacement prevention/housing mobility. Housing Education and Community Outreach included programs on housing resources and education, ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) and SB 9 education and promotion. Examples were provided for all of the programs detailed in the Draft Housing Element.

Mr. Wery also provided an update on the Safety Element which included new topics such as climate resiliency, evacuation, drought, dam inundation, impact of tsunami, and emergency preparedness; Vulnerability Assessment Study conducted pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 379; Evacuation Routes Study conducted pursuant to AB 747, and with the anticipated timeline for public review in February and City Council adoption in May 2023. The Health and Environmental Justice Element would address equity in the areas of access, environment, civic engagement and generations with the draft currently under internal staff review and with public review in February and City Council adoption in May 2023.

In terms of the next steps, Mr. Wery advised that comments from the public would continue to be accepted through November 17, 2022 pursuant to the 30-day public comment period. All comments would be assessed and any appropriate changes to the Draft Housing Element would be made prior to submittal to HCD, which would have 90-days to review the document. During HCD review, the consultants would continue to review, define and refine the ideas.

Mr. Wery also highlighted the project schedule with a review of any comments from HCD around February-March 2023; Planning Commission review and recommendation to the City Council for its review and adoption in April 2023; and submittal of an adopted Housing Element to HCD in May 2023. He welcomed comments and questions from the City Council and the public.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
19 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Rafael Menis, Pinole, reported as a member of the Planning Commission he had the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback, some of which had been incorporated into the Draft Housing Element, although a key issue remained that had not been resolved. He asked how likely it would be for the City to reach the Very Low Income category requirements based on prior projects. He referred to the former Kmart property, which had around 17 Low Income units and another project that was a 100 percent affordable senior project that also included Low Income units. He referred to the fact the City may project its site availability for Very Low Income households based on theoretical capacity where the practical implementation was not there unless the City modified its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to require Very Low Income housing or a split between Low and Moderate Income households. He was uncertain the number of Very Low RHNA sites was actually a valid number and asked how it would be justified to the state or how it would work in practice. If it did not work out in this Housing Element cycle, it meant that more zoning would be required to provide more sites. He was not worried the City would not be able to meet its Moderate RHNA but again he remained concerned the City would not reach the Very Low Income requirement and more clarity was needed prior to submittal to the state.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Council member Toms clarified with Mr. Wery the timeline for HCD review and the dates for City Council and Planning Commission review to adopt and certify the Housing Element. She noted it was possible HCD could provide comments on the Housing Element faster than the 90-day period but generally HCD used the entire 90-day review period.

Mr. Wery clarified the statutory deadline for submitting the Housing Element was January 31, 2023. The idea was to have the document adopted before that date to allow the City some protection. He suggested the Housing Element be adopted prior to the statutory deadline and if revisions were needed adoption could occur afterward. He added there was a 120-day grace period that would take the City to May 2023 but that would only help if the City needed to rezone.

If the Housing Element was certified in that 120-day grace period, the City would have a full three years to consider rezoning to meet the required RHNA. If not, and if the City had to rezone, the City would have only one year from the statutory deadline of January 31, 2023. While the approach was conservative, it had been documented that the City was compliant with all state housing laws and once starting the adoption process, the clock would start on the implementation of the programs which was another positive approach for HCD.

Council member Toms referenced Page 5 of the Draft Housing Element, which included housing production numbers for 2021, and asked whether any of the projects in the pipeline had building permits issued between December 2021 and the end of 2022 that could count towards the 5th Cycle Housing Element.

Mr. Wery clarified that anything that had not received a Certificate of Occupancy as of June 30, 2022 counted towards the RHNA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element even if approved years ago and had already been counted as part of the 5th Cycle Housing Element since it had been approved then with the state acknowledging that overlap period.

City Manager Murray explained that in past rounds of Housing Element Updates there had been a grace period the state had provided but staff was uncertain that grace period would be observed this round. The schedule for the Housing Element Update process had assumed the City would have that grace period.
20 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

The Planning Commission had already provided input. The Draft Housing Element would be submitted to HCD as soon as staff could incorporate input from the City Council from this meeting, which would then trigger the 90-day review period for HCD. Staff wanted to meet the statutory requirement of submitting an adopted Housing Element by January 31, 2023, and intended to do that if the City heard back from HCD in time to incorporate its comments and submit the Draft Housing Element in time for approval to meet the January 31 deadline. Staff felt strongly the Housing Element would meet HCD standards but if significant changes were requested to be made the document it could be reviewed and resubmitted to HCD.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked all staff for preparing the draft document and spoke to the community engagement process the City staff had provided thus far. He encouraged staff to reach out and obtain feedback from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized tenant associations, tenant rights groups and support services such as Pinole Grove Tenant Association, Central Legal de Raza, Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services and the Northern California Land Trust. He also asked for a broader conversation on science-based planning and mitigation strategies, particularly related to sea level rise, and asked how the current Housing Element had reflected that topic, and Mr. Wery advised that would be added to the Health and Safety Element as opposed to the Housing Element and would work together with the CAP.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked about cross departmental collaboration and whether any actions had been identified when building out the Housing Element to reach the RHNA, to which Mr. Wery explained that few constraints had been found in that the City had been doing a great job overall and he had no recommendations of interdepartmental collaborations at this time, although some cities had coordinated departments up front during the early review of the processes and provided good information up front to ensure applicants had a good and broad perspective of all things that would need to be addressed as they moved forward with a development application. He found the City’s approval process to be very efficient compared to most jurisdictions.

City Manager Murray explained that based on how the City programs were structured, many of the City staff functions that would be required to implement the Housing Element would be in the Community Development Department, but there were opportunities to work across departments with cross departmental coordination to carry out the entire Housing Element.

Community Development Director Whalen stated the implementation section of the Housing Element had identified the implementing and supporting agencies.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy asked for clarification of fair and inclusive zoning policies and the origination of single-family zoning and his understanding that much of Pinole had been zoned single family. He asked how the Housing Element would be fair and inclusive to everyone, in particular to Black, indigenous and other people of color.

Mr. Wery explained that the AFFH Chapter in the Housing Element included a variety of tables, charts and analyses to address that issue and was one of the key focuses for HCD which wanted to see the legacy patterns of racial segregation through zoning be addressed and overcome, which would be done through a distribution of sites for Low Income households that would not be concentrated in areas that had traditionally been segregated and had high concentrations of poverty or race and ethnicity. The sites had been well distributed throughout the Town. He added the City had built a lot of Low Income households in good areas that offered new opportunities. 21 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

If there were areas that were underserved or historically had not had the same benefits, amenities and services as other areas of the City, HCD wanted to see that corrected. The Housing Element had identified recent and planned improvements throughout the City, particularly in older and underserved areas of the City. Also, ADUs could go anywhere in the single-family areas which also helped since ADUs were relatively affordable based on their size and could be accessed in higher opportunity areas.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy understood that Pinole’s approach was to consider fee waivers around ADUs. He asked whether the suggestion was that the ADU program was a way to incentivize or subsidize housing for the targeted communities that had been discussed.

Mr. Wery commented that single-family zoning was relatively recent and was where growth had occurred in the 1950s and 1990s. New development with all of the amenities was more expensive, which was where the place-based improvements would come into play. The areas that were segregated or disadvantaged were getting improvements to raise the quality of life for those residents and ADUs were a choice option. There were a variety of different ways to promote and facilitate ADUs as a way to increase accessibility to other areas of the City.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy looked forward to the Health and Safety Element in terms of risk reduction to existing housing and addressing the issues of sea level rise. He also looked forward to that conversation and conducting an assessment of housing units in neighborhoods in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and how to create retrofit programs to address that as well as thinking of ways to work with public and private land owners to decrease the possibility of flooding. He asked for a follow up on research on car ownership for Moderate and Low Income households, which would be helpful around the conversations related to parking and assumptions that Low and Moderate Income households did not own cars. He sought more data and future conversations about that issue.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy also commented that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had identified a particular piece of Pinole as a disadvantaged community, which impacted around 300 households and having additional statistics on that would be helpful.

Mr. Wery also provided an overview of the Vulnerability Assessment MBI was preparing as part of the Safety Element, which contained two requirements by law and which would look at a variety of different constraints such as fire, sea level rise, earthquake, flooding, dam inundation and an Evacuation Route Capacity Analysis to identify risk factors and how to exit the City in the event of a needed evacuation. A separate presentation had been planned in the future with more detail on the various components of the risk factors and vulnerabilities.

Council member Martinez-Rubin thanked the Planning Commission for its diligent work and the consultants and staff for the comprehensive update. She asked how updates would occur to what was currently being updated in the Housing Element and was informed by Mr. Wery there had been an incredible amount of legislative updates on housing over the past few years, more was expected, some would not take effect until next summer, but there would always be laws that would require amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance or the PMC to reflect the new requirements. The Housing Element was trying to catch what was current, so it would never be perfect given the ever-changing legislation. The intent was to set the City up for success for the next eight years, but the City had the option to update the General Plan at any time if something substantial was required.
22 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin commented on the number of programs proposed in the next eight years of the Housing Element and asked whether the City Council was being asked to support those programs with staff to prepare a timeline to address those program ideas.

Mr. Wery commented that each of the 22 programs included a variety of components, as described in the Draft Housing Element, and it would be a good idea to prepare a calendar, sort them and identify priorities since some tasks would be easier to accomplish than others given the required resources. Each program included timelines with the intent to be very specific, which HCD wanted to see. He reiterated the City had a strong Housing Element, some of the programs were specific, some had an incentive program, and some were a bit more aspirational and flexible.

The Housing Element would set a menu to pursue tenant displacement programs with goals and funding, with flexibility to adopt the program after the Housing Element had been adopted.

Community Development Director Whalen added the Community Development Department would prepare its annual work plan and plan out the activities for the upcoming fiscal year and recommend budget allocations as needed.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked about the home match program and asked if that was an example where staff involvement would be minimal as compared to establishing a new program, and Mr. Wery explained that some of the programs may dovetail and build off of other programs and the City could coordinate resources within Contra Costa County.

Council member Martinez-Rubin clarified with Mr. Wery that ADUs would be counted towards the RHNA and the projections for the Housing Element had been based on a study done by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which had evaluated who had actually been living and renting ADUs, and had found that ADUs were being occupied by Very Low, Low and Moderate Income households, with some Above Moderate households. HCD acknowledged that study and accepted that distribution for the Bay Area. The City could build its own data by tracking ADUs locally. Absent that everyone was relying on the ABAG study.

Council member Martinez-Rubin spoke to the residential sites inventory and asked if that was public, or public and private properties in Pinole, and Mr. Wery stated the properties were primarily private with most of the land privately owned with the exception of rights-of-way (ROWs) and parks with under-utilized and vacant properties most likely to be developed in the future.

Council member Martinez-Rubin asked about the communication between City staff and the property owners on the possibility of building future housing, to which Mr. Wery explained that the sites inventory being recommended had been mapped, included the address, Assessor’s Parcel Map number, and had been included in all drafts and was public information. Staff had not contacted any of the property owners who were not obligated to develop. If a property owner did not want to develop that was the reason for the buffer so that the City maintained enough adequate sites to meet the RHNA for the eight-year period of the Housing Element. If some sites underperformed, the buffer provided a backup. He emphasized the City was in a good position, was ahead of the curve and was in good shape. He suggested the residential sites inventory was healthy with the buffer and more sites could be added, if needed.

Council member Tave commented that the City of Pinole had low numbers in terms of homelessness as compared to the County and he asked whether that had been considered in the calculations for Very Low Income units in terms of how the RHNA had been assessed. 23 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Mr. Wery explained that there was an entire report on how the RHNA had been developed, which report offered great detail, was formulaic and looked at transit, employment and land. Most jurisdictions’ RHNA had increased with the intent for the housing to be placed where it would be affordable in terms of employment, services and transit.

Council member Tave asked that the report referenced be provided to the City Council to better explain how the RHNA had been calculated and offer a better understanding of the distribution of the different income categories for the different jurisdictions, and Mr. Wery clarified that the entire region used the same formula so that everyone had a fair and rational basis for the RHNA.

Mayor Salimi commented that as new development was being built in the community, the City would be using infrastructure that was years old such as the water supply. When adding new units, he asked whether there would be sufficient resources to provide to new citizens.

Mr. Wery reported that staff had discussed whether there were real known constraints when identifying the potential sites, and while the infrastructure may be old, it was available, and if there was a deficiency it would fall under the City’s infrastructure planning such as the CIP, which would be reviewed by City Departments independent of the Housing Element. He explained that the perspective of the state in terms of the Housing Element was if the City identified a water supply issue, as an example, that was not a valid reason not to meet the RHNA but for the City to invest in its water supply. Staff had not identified an eminent restriction in the Housing Element related to the water supply. He reiterated if there was a limitation, the obligation would be on the City to provide that adequate supply and it was a requirement of state law for the City to have a commitment from the water service providers to provide priority to affordable housing projects.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy clarified with Mr. Wery that some of the Planning Commission recommendations had been incorporated into the Draft Housing Element and some had not. As indicated in the PowerPoint presentation, those Planning Commission recommendations that had been shown as “considered” should be discussed by the City Council with direction provided. The recommendations could be incorporated into the Draft Housing Element or staff could defer until comments had been received from HCD to see if the recommendations were actually needed.

Mr. Wery again walked through the Planning Commission recommendations, as earlier described.

For those items where staff had identified the recommendations as “consider” he clarified as an example, allowing multifamily housing on religious institution sites was allowed with multifamily and religious institutions permitted in the same zones, with the exception of two zones where they were not allowed in the same area, which included the OP-Mixed-Use and OI-Mixed Use Zones and which the City Council could work on independently of this effort.

The recommendations to consider incentivizing housing for teachers and adding teachers to funding priority policy for Extremely Low and Disabled; adding teachers to the owner-tenant matching program for seniors; allowing employee, faculty housing on school sites; could easily be worked into the existing programs by adding in teachers to the list of priority targets.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy suggested the Planning Commission recommendations would benefit the community and advance housing overall. He asked why the City would not include those recommendations, and Mr. Wery deferred to staff and stated they were doable and useful programs to consider. A lot of cities were considering similar programs and those programs could be incorporated into the Draft Housing Element if recommended by the City Council. 24 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Community Development Director Whalen noted the Planning Commission recommendations were general recommendations. MBI had considered ways the City Council could consider fulfilling some of them and while some of the recommendations could be incorporated into the Housing Element, as appropriate, others could be deferred to allow staff the opportunity to determine how they could be incorporated into the City’s overall strategy.

City Manager Murray suggested the Planning Commission recommendations were high-level concepts that had not received the same level of vetting as other program elements of the Draft Housing Element and it made sense for staff to vet them and make recommendations. He agreed that the programs identified to incentivize housing for teachers would be easy to implement whereas he was uncertain whether teachers were on the same tier as other communities that had struggled to obtain fair housing. He recommended MBI and staff be allowed to return with the pros and cons for the Planning Commission recommendations, which could come back to the City Council when considering the adoption of the Housing Element in January.

Community Development Director Whalen agreed and suggested the recommendations could also be vetted with the Planning Commission in December when the Draft Housing Element returned to the Commission to recommend approval to the City Council in January.

In response to Council member Toms, City Manager Murray explained that if the Planning Commission recommendations were included in the Draft Housing Element, the City could not easily walk back the recommendations. A better strategy would be to pursue what staff had determined to be a compelling and thorough Housing Element, and if upon further analysis more items were added HCD could not object since it would only strengthen the program.

In terms of how a commitment was considered by HCD, City Manager Murray clarified the Housing Element was essentially an agreement between the City and HCD about things the City would do to advance housing opportunities, and if the programs under discussion were included at this time, the expectation was the City would provide those programs. If there were any reservations as to any of the programs, they should not be included in the Draft Housing Element at this time. Rather, staff should be allowed the opportunity to have more time to vet the Planning Commission recommendations as staff had suggested.

ACTION: Motion by Council members Toms/Martinez-Rubin to authorize Staff to Submit the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for the initial 90-day review.

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

Absent: None
Mayor Salimi referenced a recent article he had read about average teacher salaries and the average housing prices in the San Francisco Bay Area that included statistics from the 1950s as compared to the present, and where the purchasing power of a teacher had decreased significantly within that 50-year period.
25 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

12. NEW BUSINESS
A. Receive Information Regarding Potential Sister City Arrangements and Provide Direction [Action: Receive Report and Provide Direction (Rogers)] Community Services Director Rogers provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City Council request for a future agenda item to discuss the development of a Sister City Program, with the City Council having been approached about partnering with a city in Ukraine and a city in France.

He provided an introduction and overview of a Sister City arrangement in which two cities usually located in different countries established a formalized relationship to exchange ideas, collaborate for mutual culture, possible economic advancement and to promote peace through people-topeople relationships. He also provided an overview of the initiation of Sister City International and highlighted the Sister City Program; how Sister City relationships may develop and with Sister Cities built around cultural exchanges, youth and education, community development and business and trade. Sister City service opportunities were also highlighted.

Community Services Director Rogers asked the City Council to provide feedback and guidance on potential Sister City arrangements.

Mayor Salimi reported he had recently met with government officials from Kiev, Ukraine who wanted to thank the City of Pinole for its recent proclamation and the City had also received correspondence from the General Consul of Ukraine in San Francisco. He had also been in contact with the General Consul of France in San Francisco who was working on potential Sister City partnerships. He suggested a Sister City relationship would be a great opportunity for the City of Pinole.

Council member Tave was open to exploring a Sister City relationship and wanted more information on what a Sister City expected from the City of Pinole.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested given Ukraine was in flux it should be allowed to settle a bit and then the City Council could hear from Ukraine about its expectations. She also clarified with the Mayor that the Mayor and the City Manager had met with the General Consul of Ukraine in San Francisco, the Governor of Kiev, and the Mayor of the City of Borodianka, Ukraine.

Council member Martinez-Rubin highlighted her experience as the Assistant Director of a California-Mexico Health Initiative that had been under the auspices of the Office of the President of the University of California system, at which time she had learned as an administrator there were expectations from people from other counties that were not at the same level of authority or power. She detailed some of the challenges faced and while not minimizing or under-appreciating the City of Pinole, recognized the City had limitations on what it could provide. Before anything was done, she wanted to know what was expected from the City.

Mayor Salimi understood that Borodianka, Ukraine was of a similar size to the City of Pinole and the expectation from the community would be different during wartime than after the country had been liberated and which would involve building relationships. He reported that certain items had been identified as needed and he recognized the City of Pinole could not provide those items.

The list of needed items had been forwarded to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and he had also contacted Supervisor John Gioia.
26 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin pointed out that if food items were being sought, as an example, the Contra Costa and Solano Food Bank was already challenged to provide adequate amounts to feed people in Contra Costa County, and it had to be considered what Pinole could realistically offer to Ukraine. In the interest of creating friendship and offering that support, the City of Borodianka had to understand what was expected of Pinole and whether it could continue to provide that support. She recognized the General Consul of Ukraine was pleased with Pinole’s level of involvement and the Mayor’s interest in providing assistance, and she had personally expressed an interest in creating that kind of friendship as a form of moral support. But when it came to formalizing that support, the City Council’s limitations needed to be explored to determine how that support would actually occur.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy thanked staff for the presentation and the Mayor for driving the conversation. He found it was a great idea but had not yet been flushed out, with community engagement needed. He was intrigued with how a Sister City could be selected and wanted to know how the City could develop a community planning process to support the establishment of a Sister City relationship and adopt policies to support the initiative. He was uncertain whether a Sister City was in the General Plan and if not whether it should be incorporated. He was also interested in how to support cities in Ukraine given the urgency of the matter and a community planning process could prioritize which Sister City could be engaged.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy suggested as part of land acknowledgement, it was important to build that relationship locally with a Native American tribe or one across the globe, and he looked forward to elevating that conversation as well. He added the Balancing Act Tool, which had been used to engage the public on the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, could be considered to allow the public to have the opportunity to select a city or cities or consider a public survey where the public could vote on a potential Sister City. In addition, he recommended this item should be considered by the Community Services Commission as a way to develop timelines, a planning process, and a policy for the initiative and it would be a great opportunity to discuss the cultural diversity of the City and what community service meant globally.

Mayor Salimi advised the consular services for each country had suggested to the City of Pinole which city to consider based on size and requirements but he was uncertain of the tool used to make that selection. He understood the City needed to take time but he wanted to help people in need during wartime.

Council member Toms suggested a cultural relationship as a Sister City was a nice idea for Pinole, but she questioned who would be responsible for cultivating that relationship and keeping it alive.

In 1993 when Pinole had a Sister City relationship with the Hoopa Tribe, the Mayor at that time had been responsible and while that Sister City relationship had been strong for a few years it had declined. Since that Sister City had previously been established, perhaps the City could see if that relationship could be revived. She also wanted to recognize the work the Mayor had done in contacting people in Ukraine and liked the idea of forwarding the recommendation to the Community Services Commission to get feedback on what a Sister City relationship meant. She suggested that fundraising efforts for Ukraine during wartime was a possibility for some local organizations but may be limited and she was uncertain what kind of assistance the City could provide at this time. She also suggested the purview for the program needed to be clarified whether under the Mayor’s Office or the Community Services Commission. 27 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested working with an existing body, such as the Community Services Commission, would be fitting but to what level of interest could be pursued remained to be determined. The West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) had an active group of parents who hosted international students and that could be an option to enhance what was already in Pinole, with the added element of reaching out internationally.

Mayor Salimi reported he had reached out to the Superintendent of the WCCUSD and hoped to discuss the Sister City Program.

Council member Tave wanted to know what cities had successful Sister City relationships and what steps had been taken to carry on the program. He liked the idea and while the City had a Sister City arrangement in the past, if proceeding community involvement would be important and more research would be needed.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy offered a motion, seconded by Council member Tave that staff through the consultation of, and with the recommendations from, the Community Services Commission develop a community-wide planning process to support the establishment of a Sister City Relationship Policy and adopt policies or actions to support that initiative and prioritize the relationship.

On the motion, Council member Toms commented the City Council was assuming the Community Services Commission wanted to move forward although it had yet to be provided input.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy recognized the Community Services Commission may not support this initiative but regardless he wanted feedback from that Commission.

Mayor Salimi hoped the process could start with the Ukrainian city of Borodianka now given the wartime conditions prior to it going to the Community Services Commission and given that time was of the essence.

Council member Toms suggested the motion be amended to reflect a Sister City had already been selected for Ukraine.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy recognized that Ukraine was in the middle of a war but many countries had been at war for decades and he did not want to lose the opportunity to educate the community around the Sister City initiatives, relationships or buy-in from the public.

Council member Toms commented that a lot of the work had already been done by the Mayor.

After his term ended, another City leader would have to pick up and do that work and it should not be left up to staff to do that work. She was uncertain whether the next Mayor would take on that responsibility with another foreign government when that work had already been done by the current Mayor.

PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Rafael Menis, Pinole, referenced the November 15, 2022 staff report which detailed the items the City of Borodianka, Ukraine could use including temporary shelters and personal protection equipment. He suggested not all options to provide direct aid were out of range for the City of Pinole given its resources as a city.
28 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Mr. Menis suggested that setting aside all potential sources of humanitarian aid was not out of the budgetary range to start the discussion and he suggested the City should be able to calibrate an appropriate level of expenditure and work from there. It was also worthwhile to recognize the work the Mayor had done to speak to his Ukrainian counterparts and other high level officials in Ukraine, to identify cities that were relatively speaking a match for the City of Pinole. He stated it would be beneficial to have a broader policy to identify what the City was looking for in a Sister City relationship, stated the community had indicated its support for Ukraine with the recent proclamation, and Ukraine was willing to work with Pinole to select a city and to pursue the necessary ties and communication links to establish a relationship.

Mr. Menis suggested the motion on the floor should be amended to adopt the Sister City of Borodianka, Ukraine before the Community Services Commission started the process and identify the level of resources the City of Pinole could feasibly contribute towards humanitarian aid, if any.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Pro Tem Murphy retracted his motion.

Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested less formal direction and recommended the Community Services Commission consider an item on its next meeting agenda to discuss Potential Sister City Arrangements and come back to the City Council with feedback.

Mayor Salimi again had hoped the City Council would make a motion to enter into a Sister City agreement with Borodianka, Ukraine, and requested that staff return to the City Council on the next step. Once the next step was known the City could determine who would do what. He offered a motion to that effect.

Council member Toms asked for clarification whether the motion was to direct staff to enter into an agreement with Borodianka, Ukraine or move forward to explore the possibility, and Mayor Salimi explained he would like to authorize staff to move forward and explore what it would take to enter into a Sister City agreement and return to the City Council with that information.

With that clarification, Council member Toms seconded the motion.

Council member Martinez-Rubin requested a report back to the City Council about what staff had discovered. She did not want staff to spend a tremendous amount of time on something that required more dedicated time and she did not want staff time taken away from current projects.

City Manager Murray commented that a Sister City arrangement could take on many dimensions, it could be quite complex or simple and he sought direction from the City Council on the scope of the Sister City relationship. Based on the motion made, it could be done but how he approached the motion would be to approach the Ukrainian counterparts and ask what they thought it would look like and staff would return with options. He pointed out staff would not be able to get far before needing specific direction from the City Council. He interpreted the motion as direction to staff to explore specifics of a Sister City arrangement with Borodianka, Ukraine.

Council member Toms suggested the exploration would be for cultural purposes not for financial purposes, which could narrow the scope and City Manager Murray confirmed that would narrow the scope and staff could find out the interest and variety of a cultural exchange. 29 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Mayor Salimi recommended instead that the Ukrainian counterparts simply be asked what they wanted and the City of Pinole could narrow down what it could do. He restated his motion for the City Council to direct staff to explore a Sister City agreement with Borodianka, Ukraine and direct staff to return with a list of items required and how the City of Pinole could move forward.

Council member Toms had seconded the initial motion but suggested it should be narrowed to cultural and not financial interests given the big ticket items identified in the staff report, although Mayor Salimi stated those items were not expected to be provided by the City of Pinole and the Board of Supervisors or other entities could be contacted to request assistance.

Mayor Pro Tem Murphy read into the record specific sections of the PMC and the duties of the Community Services Commission. He wanted the Community Services Commission to be part of this initiative and emphasized the number of unanswered questions around a great idea. In terms of energy storage, he suggested there could be opportunities with MCE and building a global program. As much as he liked the idea and understood the sense of urgency, without a plan there were challenges. As the incoming Mayor, he would be more than happy to continue the partnership the Mayor had started and again suggested this was a forum for the Community Services Commission, which could be part of other future opportunities.

City Manager Murray suggested it was within the City Council’s authority to send an item or task to a relevant City Commission, and in this case to task the Community Services Commission to flesh out the idea and obtain community input.

Mayor Salimi suggested it could go to the Community Services Commission once there was a better understanding of what the Ukrainian counterparts wanted. He again restated his motion to provide staff direction to reach out to the Ukrainian government to find out what was required to enter into a Sister City agreement with Borodianka, Ukraine and return to the City Council. Once the City Council had direction, it could direct the Community Services Commission to move forward or do something else.

Council member Tave asked whether City staff could work with the Ukrainian government and reach out to the Community Services Commission and come back to the City Council with more content. He did not want to place unrealistic expectations and he asked that to be part of the motion.

Mayor Salimi further restated his motion to provide staff direction to reach out to the Ukrainian government to find out what was required to enter into a Sister City agreement with Borodianka, Ukraine and get back to both the City Council and the Community Services Commission.

City Manager Murray understood the Community Services Commission aspect was to engage the Community Services Commission in the development of a policy regarding Sister City arrangements that had a substantial community engagement component.

Council member Tave seconded the motion.

On the motion, Council member Martinez-Rubin suggested the City get a pulse as to the extent of the involvement of the Community Services Commission and interest in doing something the City Council had given them as a task to consider and how they would dedicate their time to that new task. A subcommittee of that Commission may be necessary but was currently unknown. 30 of 113
Pinole City Council
Minutes – November 15, 2022

Council member Martinez-Rubin added that the discussions and interactions between government officials could stir expectations and she did not want Ukrainian officials to offer a list of things that the City of Pinole could not provide.

ACTION: Motion by Mayor Salimi/Council member Tave to provide staff direction to reach out to the Ukrainian government to find out what was required to enter into a Sister City agreement with Borodianka, Ukraine, and return to the City Council and to the Community Services Commission at the same time.

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

Absent: None

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

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

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

Deputy City Clerk, Stone reported there were no comments from the public.

14. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting of December 6, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz and Stanley Casher.

At 10:22 p.m., Mayor Salimi adjourned the meeting to the Regular City Council Meeting of December 6, 2022 in Remembrance of Amber Swartz and Stanley Casher.

Submitted by:
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by City Council:
31 of 113
32 of 113
33 of 113
34 of 113
35 of 113
36 of 113
37 of 113
38 of 113
39 of 113
40 of 113
41 of 113
42 of 113
43 of 113
44 of 113
45 of 113
46 of 113

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 9C
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: SHANDYN H. PIERCE, ASSOCIATE
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS TO SUPPORT LOCAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING
STANDARDS CODE AND UPDATE THE CITY’S BUILDING AND FIRE
CODE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve findings supporting local modifications to the 2022 California Building Code and conduct a second reading of an Ordinance adopting the 2022 Building Standards Code in the form of updates to the City’s Building and Fire Code.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Every three years the California Building Standards Commission (the “Commission”) reviews and updates the California Building, Fire, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and Residential Codes that apply in California. The newly updated 2022 California Building Standards Codes (“CBSC”), which include updates to the State Fire Code, becomes effective in California cities on January 1, 2023. The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies to adopt the building standards contained in the uniform statewide codes but allows cities to modify the codes to reflect local conditions. Pinole previously adopted its current codes in 2019, incorporating and modifying the City’s Municipal Code to comply with the 2019 CBSC updates.

On November 11, 2022, the City Council conducted a first reading of the updated Building and Fire Code Ordinance and approved the version of the ordinance presented by staff. During the discussion received a question regarding a reference to the Board of Fire Commissioners, and whether reference to the Board of Fire Commissioners needed to remain in the ordinance. Staff recommends the term Board of Fire Commissioners remain in the ordinance because it is a defined term in the State Fire Code that is incorporated by reference into the City’s Municipal Code.

Staff also confirmed that for the purpose of the State Fire Code, the Board of Fire 47 of 113
City Council Report
December 06, 2022 2
Commissioners, as defined, will be the City Council of the City of Pinole, even after the consolidation with ConFire.

The City is required to adopt findings justifying all local amendments to the CBSC.

The necessary findings for local amendments to the Building and Fire Code are included in the resolutions which accompany this report.

Environmental Review
Adoption of the attached Ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3) that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the attached and Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of adopting the 2022 CBSC. City’s costs related to implementation of the 2022 CBSC are recovered through building permit fees.

ATTACHMENTS
A. November 15, 2022 Staff Report and Ordinance considered at first reading; B. Resolution adopting local amendments to Building and Fire Code. 48 of 113

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
10A
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ERIC CASHER, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: SHANDYN H. PIERCE, ASSOCIATE
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND
UPDATE THE CITY’S BUILDING AND FIRE CODE

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance adopting the 2022 Building Standards Code with updates to the City’s Building and Fire Code.

BACKGROUND
The California Building Standards Commission (the “Commission”) is a State agency responsible for producing sensible and usable state building standards, and the administrative regulations that implement and enforce those standards. Every three years the Commission reviews and updates the California Building, Fire, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and Residential Codes that apply in California. The newly updated 2022 California Building Standards Codes (“CBSC”), which include updates to the State Fire Code, becomes effective in California cities on January 1, 2023.

The California Health and Safety Code requires local agencies to adopt the building standards contained in the uniform statewide codes but allows cities to modify the codes to reflect local conditions. Pinole previously adopted its current codes in 2019, incorporating and modifying the City’s Municipal Code to comply with the 2019 CBSC updates.

The 2022 CBSC, Title 24, Parts 1- 6 and 9 - 12 are as follows:

Part 1: California Administrative Code (CAC).

Part 2: California Building Code (CBC).

Part 2.5: California Residential Code (CRC).

Part 3: California Electrical Code (CEC).

Part 4: California Mechanical Code (CMC).

Part 5: California Plumbing Code (CPC).

Part 6: California Energy Code (CEnC).

ATTACHMENT A
49 of 113
City Council Report
November 15, 2022 2
Part 9: California Fire Code (CFC).

Part 10: California Existing Building Code (CEBC).

Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Part 12: California Reference Standards Code
2021 International Property Maintenance Code
The Ordinance updating the City’s Municipal Code includes references to those sections of the CBSC that are most relevant to Pinole, as well as, proposed amendments recommended by City staff. The proposed amendments use a numbering system consistent with the updated CBSC. A link to the full text of the updated CBSC is available here: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/2022-Title24-California-Code-Changes.

The 2022 CBSC updates go into effect on January 1, 2023, regardless of whether or not the City takes any action. Adoption of the proposed Ordinance prior to January 1, 2023 is necessary in order for the local amendments proposed by staff to also go in to effect consistent with the CBSC update.

Staff discussed the Building and Fire Code updates with the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee, and received direction regarding areas of focus for the updates.

While the Municipal Code Update Subcommittee’s feedback was incorporated in to the draft Ordinance, due to the time sensitivity of the needed approval, the Subcommittee was not able to review and approve the proposed draft Ordinance prior to City Council review.

DISCUSSION
Under State law, a City may establish more restrictive building and construction standards in their local building codes than are required under the CBSC. The City is required to adopt findings justifying all local amendments to the CBSC. The necessary findings will be included in a separate resolution that will be presented to the City Council for adoption at the second reading of the proposed ordinance. The local modifications, or staff initiated modifications, are included in the draft Ordinance. In addition, Section 15.04.080 of the City’s Fire Code includes more stringent requirements requiring automatic sprinkler systems which conform to the requirements of the California Fire Code. This requirement is added to the City’s Fire Code in response to the high threat of fire confronting the City. The presence of an approved fire extinguishing system in high occupancy structures could save lives in the event of a fire.

Other conditions considered include Pinole’s proximity to the Hayward Fault Line, creating higher structural stresses and risk of building failure during an earthquake.

Pinole’s steep hillside topography is considered as well because it can make firefighting difficult and can allow Pinole Creek to be inundated during severe winter storms, causing flooding in certain portions of the City. 50 of 113
City Council Report
November 15, 2022 3
The draft Ordinance represents a continuation of existing City practices regarding local modifications. The proposed changes from the state-adopted 2022 California Building Standards Codes would replace the 2019 California Building Standards Codes previously codified in Title 15 of the City of Pinole Municipal Code. The Ordinance as written revalidates and readopts many of the City’s current local amendments.

There are considerable non-substantive changes in the Ordinance to address numbering issues in the new California Codes, and the Ordinance reflects these new reference numbers to ensure that the Municipal Code is consistent with the 2022 CBSC. A strike-out version of the ordinance is not provided because the proposed ordinance repeals and replaces the previous Title 15 Chapters that will be superseded by the 2022 CBSC on January 1, 2023.

Additionally, the 2022 CBSC includes the latest California Green Building Standards, or “CALGreen”, which applies to all new construction. CALGreen’s intent is to continue to improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices.

Environmental Review
Adoption of the attached Ordinance is exempt from CEQA based on the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3) that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the attached and Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of adopting the 2022 CBSC. City’s costs related to implementation of the 2022 CBSC are recovered through building permit fees.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance adopting 2022 CBSC and related local amendments to the City’s Building and Fire Code
Exhibit A: Chapter 15.20 (Fire Code)
Exhibit B: Changes to chapters in Title 15
51 of 113
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE APPROVING

FINDINGS TO SUPPORT LOCAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, ENACTED AS PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04
WHEREAS, Section 17922 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies adopt the building standards contained in the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, the California Plumbing Code, the California Mechanical Code, and the California Electrical Code, as such codes are approved by the State Building Standards Commission (collectively, the “California Building Standards Code”); and WHEREAS, Section 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code allows local agencies to enact modifications to those building standards provided that such modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code further provides that a local agency which enacts modifications to those building standards must adopt findings which tie those modifications to such local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Pinole City Council has considered whether certain modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code are necessary in Pinole due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby adopt the following findings in conformance with its obligations under Section 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code:

I. The City of Pinole is subject to the following climatic, geological and topographical conditions:

A. Climatic

1. Precipitation and Relative Humidity
(a) Conditions
Precipitation ranges from 15 to 24 inches per year with an average of approximately 20 inches per year. 96% of precipitation falls during the months of October through April and four percent from May through September. This is a dry period of at least five months each year. Additionally, the area is subject to occasional drought.

Relative humidity remains in the middle range most of the time. It

ATTACHMENT B
52 of 113
ranges from 45-65% during spring, summer, fall, and from 60-90% in the winter. It occasionally falls as low as 15%.
(b) Impact
Locally experienced dry periods cause extreme dryness of untreated wood shakes and shingles on buildings and non-irrigated grass, brush, and weeds, which are often near buildings with wood roofs and sidings. Such dryness causes these materials to ignite very readily and burn rapidly and intensely.

Because of dryness, a rapidly burning grass fire or exterior building fire can quickly transfer to other buildings by means of radiation or flying brands, sparks, and embers. A small fire can rapidly grow to a magnitude beyond the control capabilities of the City Fire Department and County Fire District resulting in an excessive fire loss.

2. Temperature
(a) Conditions
Temperatures have been recorded as high as 114° F. Average summer highs are in the 90° range, with average maximums of 105° F.
(b) Impact
High temperatures cause rapid fatigue and heat exhaustion of firefighters, thereby reducing their effectiveness and ability to control large building and wildland fires.

Another impact from high temperatures is that combustible building material and non-irrigated weeds, grass, and brush are preheated, thus causing these materials to ignite more readily and burn more rapidly and intensely. Additionally, the resultant higher temperature of the atmosphere surrounding the materials reduces the effectiveness of the water being applied to the burning materials.

This requires that more water be applied, which in turn requires more Fire Service resources in order to control a fire on a hot day. High temperatures directly contribute to the rapid growth of fires to an intensity and magnitude beyond the control capabilities of the City of Pinole Fire Department and County Fire District.

3. Winds
(a) Conditions
Prevailing winds in the area are from the south or southwest in the mornings and from the north or northwest in the afternoons.

However, winds are experienced from virtually every direction at one time or another. Velocities are generally in the 14 mph to 23 mph 53 of 113
ranges, gusting to 25 to 35 mph. 40 mph winds are experienced occasionally and winds up to 55 mph have been registered locally.

During the winter half of the year, strong, dry, gusty winds from the north move through the area for several days creating extremely dry conditions.
(b) Impact
Winds such as those experienced locally can and do cause fires, both interior and exterior, to burn and spread rapidly. Fires involving non-irrigated weeds, grass, and brush can grow to a magnitude and be fanned to intensity beyond the control capabilities of the Fire Department very quickly even by relatively moderate winds. During wood shake and shingle roof fires, or exposure fires, winds can carry sparks and burning brands to other structures, thus spreading the fire and causing conflagrations. When such fires are not controlled, they can extend to nearby buildings, particularly those with untreated wood shakes or shingles. In building fires, winds can literally force fires back into the building and can create a blow torch effect, in addition to preventing “natural” ventilation and cross-ventilation efforts.

Winds of the type experienced locally also reduce the effectiveness of exterior water streams used by the Pinole Fire and the Fire District on fires involving large interior areas of buildings, fires which have vented through windows and roofs due to inadequate built-in fire protection and fires involving wood shake and shingle building exteriors. Local winds will continue to be a definite factor towards causing major fire losses to buildings not provided with fire resistive roof and siding materials and buildings with inadequately separated interior areas or lacking automatic fire protection systems. National statistics frequently cite wind conditions, such as those experienced locally, as a major factor where conflagrations have occurred.

B. Geological and Topographic

1. Seismicity
(a) Conditions
The City of Pinole is within Contra Costa County and located in Seismic Risk Zone 4, which is the worst earthquake area in the United States. Buildings and other structures in Zone 4 can experience major seismic damage. Contra Costa County is in close proximity to the San Andreas Fault and contains all or portions of the Hayward, Calaveras, Concord, Antioch, Mt. Diablo, and other lesser faults. A 4.1 earthquake with its epicenter in Concord occurred in 1958, and a 5.4 earthquake with its epicenter also in Concord occurred in 1955. The Concord and Antioch faults have a potential 54 of 113
for a Richter 6 earthquake and the Hayward and Calaveras faults have the potential for a Richter 7 earthquake. Minor tremblers from seismic activity are not uncommon in the area.

The fire environment of a community is primarily a combination of two factors: the area’s physical geologic characteristics and a historic pattern of urban-suburban development. These two factors, alone and combined, create a mixture of environments which ultimately determines the area’s fire protection needs. Contra Costa County has 3 distinct areas. They are: the West, which includes the City of San Pablo and the communities of North Richmond, El Sobrante, and East Richmond Heights: the Central, which includes the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and the communities of Clyde, Pacheco, Alhambra Valley, and Alamo; and the East, which includes the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg and the community of Bay Point. The City of Pinole falls within these risk areas.

Because of the size of Contra Costa County (304 square miles), the characteristics of the fire environment changes from one location to the next. Therefore the County has not one, but a number of fire environments, each of which has its individual fire protection needs from two major oil refineries, to heavy industrial facilities, freeways, rail lines, waterways, port facilities, wildland areas, urban and suburban town settings, and major downtown areas.

Interstates 80 and 680, State Highways 4, 24, and 242, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and major thoroughfares travel throughout the County. There are 2 major rail lines which run through the County. An overpass or underpass crossing collapse would alter the response route and time for responding emergency equipment. This is due to the limited crossings of the major highways and rail lines.

Earthquakes of the magnitude experienced locally can cause major damage to electrical transmission facilities, which, in turn, cause power failures while at the same time starting fires throughout the County. The occurrence of multiple fires will quickly deplete existing fire district resources; thereby reducing and/or delaying their response to any given fire. Additionally, without electrical power, elevators, smoke management systems, lighting systems, alarm systems, and other electrical equipment urgently needed for building evacuation and fire control in large buildings without emergency generator systems would be inoperative, thereby resulting in loss of life and/or major fire losses in such buildings.
(b) Impact
55 of 113
A major earthquake could severely restrict the response of the City of Pinole Fire Department and under mutual aid the Fire District and its capability to control fires involving buildings of wood frame construction, with ordinary wood shake and shingle exteriors, or with large interior areas not provided with automatic smoke and fire control systems.

2. Soils
(a) Conditions
The area is replete with various soils, which are unstable, clay loam and alluvial fans being predominant. These soil conditions are moderately to severely prone to swelling and shrinking, are plastic, and tend to liquefy.

Throughout the City and County, the topography and development growth has created a network of older, narrow roads. These roads vary from gravel to asphalt surface and vary in percent of slope, many exceeding twenty (20) percent. Several of these roads extend up through the winding passageways in the hills providing access to remote, affluent housing subdivisions. Many of these roads are private with no established maintenance program. During inclement weather, these roads are subject to rock and mudslides, as well as down trees, obstructing all vehicle traffic. It is anticipated that during an earthquake, several of these roads would be practically impassable.

3. Topographic
(a) Conditions
(i) Vegetation
The service area of the Pinole Fire Department and of
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District which
surrounds Pinole has a varied topography and vegetative cover. A conglomeration of flat lands, hills, and ridges make up the terrain. Development has occurred on the flat lands in the County and in the past 15 years development has
spread into the hills, valleys, and ridge lands of the City and County.

Highly combustible dry grass, weeds, and brush are common in the hilly and open space areas adjacent to built-up locations six to eight months of each year. Many of these areas
frequently experience wildland fires, which threaten nearby buildings, particularly those with wood roofs, or sidings. This condition can be found throughout the County, especially in 56 of 113
those fully developed areas and those areas marked for future development.
(ii) Surface Features
The arrangement and location of natural and manmade
surface features, including hills, creeks, canals, freeways, housing tracts, commercial development, fire stations, streets, and roads, combine to limit efficient response routes for City and County Fire resources into and through many areas.
(iii) Buildings, Landscaping and Terrain
Many of the “newer” large buildings and building complexes have access and landscaping features or designs which
preclude, or greatly limit, efficient approach or operational access to them by Fire Services vehicles. In addition, the presence of security gates, roads of inadequate width and grades which are too steep for Fire Service vehicles create an adverse impact on fire suppression efforts.

When Fire Service vehicles cannot gain access to buildings involved with fire, the potential for complete loss is realized.

Difficulty reaching a fire site often requires additional fire personnel and resources to successfully and safely mitigate the event. Access problems often result in severely delaying, misdirecting, or making fire and smoke control efforts
unsuccessful.
(b) Impact
The above local geological and topographical conditions increase the magnitude, exposure, accessibility problems, and fire hazards presented to the City of Pinole Fire Department. Fire following an earthquake has the potential of causing greater loss of life and damage than the earthquake itself. Hazardous materials, particularly toxic gases, could pose the greatest threat to the largest number, should a significant seismic event occur. Public Safety resources would have to be prioritized to mitigate the greatest threat, and may likely be unavailable for smaller single dwelling or structure fires.

Other variables may intensify the situation:

1. The extent of damage to the water system.

2. The extents of isolation due to bridge and/or freeway overpass collapse.

3. The extent of roadway damage and/or amount of debris blocking the roadways.

4. Climatic conditions (hot, dry weather with high winds). 57 of 113

5. Time of day will influence the amount of traffic on roadways and could intensify the risk to life during normal business hours.

6. The availability of timely mutual aid or military assistance.

7. The large portion of dwellings with wood shake or shingles coverings could result in conflagrations.

C. Conclusion
Because of the conditions described above, the City of Pinole, City Council requires the increased fire protection requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 2022-04.

The ordinance amends Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration) of the statewide Fire Code by requiring a permit for certain activities and operations that pose fire hazards. The ordinance amends Chapter 2 (Definitions) to provide clarity on wildland firefighting and preparedness terminology. The ordinance amends Chapter 4 of the statewide Fire Code (Emergency Planning and Preparedness) to require standby EMS personnel for large events as well as standby fire personnel to account for the fact that the fire district is both the local fire and EMS provider. The ordinance amends the statewide Fire Code by reducing the square footage thresholds found in Chapter 9 (Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems) for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in most commercial buildings and in private and charter schools. The definition of Substantial Addition and Alteration is also changed to align with the other fire districts for consistency on the interpretation. The ordinance amends Chapter 5 (Fire Service Features) and Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) of the statewide Fire Code to establish requirements for fire apparatus access roads. The ordinance amends Chapter 33 (Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition) to define the additional site security requirements that could be required if deemed necessary by the building official and fire official from arson fires or hazards occurring within the jurisdiction. The ordinance also amends Chapter 50 (Hazardous Materials) and Chapter 57 (Flammable and Combustible Liquids) provides the ability to the fire official to require a risk assessment stamped by a fire protection engineer, if the facility manager is unable to provide accurate risk assessment of the facility to include all hazardous materials stored onsite.

II. Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the State of California Health and Safety Code, the City Council of the City of Pinole makes the finding that changes, modifications, and amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Codes are needed and are reasonably necessary because of certain local climatic, geologic and topographic features and conditions as described in Section I above, and that those features and conditions, under certain circumstances, affect delivery of emergency services. The amendments to the California Building Standards Codes are enacted to mitigate the impact of those local features and conditions by (i) preventing the chance of accident or injury by requiring standards more stringent than required by the current codes; and (ii) requiring additional built-in automatic fire protection systems which will provide for early detection and initial fire control. 58 of 113
III The following changes and/or modifications to the 2022 California Building Standards Code are found to be necessary to mitigate the impacts caused by the local climatic, geologic, and topographic conditions. The City of Pinole has adopted substantive changes and modifications to the California Building Standards Code as follows:

Pinole Municipal Code
Section
California Code Section Findings

15.02 CA Building Code, CCR Title 24, Part 2,
Volume 1, Sections: 1.8.4.2, 1.8.8,

1.8.9, 101, 105.2, A. 1., B. 14., C., D.,
E. 105.8, 105.8.1, 105.8.2, 105.8.3, F
107.2.1, G. 107.6.1, H. 110.1, I.
110.6.1, J. 105.5.1, 105.6, L. Add: Fire
Hazard (def), M. Add Pool (def), N.
amend 501.2, Chapter 5, 1., 1a, 1b, 2.,

3., 4., O. 2111.15, 1., 2. 3., P. amend
2304.12.1.6
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.04 CA Building Code, CCR Title 24, Part 2,
Volume 1, Sections: 105.2, 105.2.14,
105.3.2, 105.5, 105.8, 105.8.1, 105.8.2,
105.8.3, 107.2.1, 107.6.1.8.8
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.06 CA Residential Code, CCR Title 24,
Part 2.5, Sections: 202 Definitions: Add
Pool, amend 506.1, Add subsection
902.1.5, ACI 322
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.08 CA Green Building Standards Code,
CCR Title 24, Part 11, Section: Add
101.3.2
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.10 CA Electrical Code, CCR Title 24, Part
3, Adoption by reference, no changes.
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.12 CA Plumbing Code, CCR Title 24,
Part 5, Section: Add 604.14,
Amend/Add 710.1
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.14 CA Mechanical Code, CCR Title 24,
Part 4, Adoption by reference, no
changes.
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.16 CA Housing and Property Maintenance
Code, IPMC amended 102.3, IPMC
amended 304.14, IPMC amended
307.3.1, amend 308.3.1, IPMC amend
602.4 with exceptions 1,2.
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.18 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings as adopted by
1A, 1B, and 1C
59 of 113
the International Conference of Building
Officials, amend Section: 801.2, amend
912

15.22 CA Administrative Code, CCR Title 24,
Part 1, Add: Copying and imaging fees
as reflected by the City’s Master Fee
Schedule.
1A, 1B, and 1C

15.24 CA Building Codes, section 114 and
2021 IPMC amend section 109.3,
amend 109.4, A.1.2.3.4., B, C, amend
114.4
1A, 1B, and 1C
The aforementioned amendments have been incorporated in detail into an Ordinance 2022-XX
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be filed with the California Building Standards Commission in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17958.7
I certify that at a regular meeting on December 6, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pinole passed this Resolution by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
60 of 113

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10A
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HEATHER BELL, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: ACCEPTING AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE CANVASS OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 MUNICIPAL ELECTION

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the results of the November 8, 2022 regular municipal election, conducted by Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s office and providing for the appointments to the offices of this City that were to be elected on November 8, 2022.

BACKGROUND
Consolidation of election services with Contra Costa County was ordered by the Council under Resolution 2022- on June 16, 2022, pursuant to State Elections Code 10400.

By State statute, the County must complete the certification of the election results no later than 28 days following the election. Following certification of the election results, the City Council is required to adopt a resolution accepting the election results pursuant to California Election Code section 10263. The Certificate of the Results of the Canvass and the pages containing Pinole’s results are provided as Exhibit A to the Attachment A. Attachment A is the resolution formally accepting the certified election results.

FISCAL IMPACT
The invoice from the County to the City for election services has not been received to date. The County provided an estimate of $1.75 per registered voter. Pinole’s current registered voter population, per the Contra Costa County’s Official Election Results report is 12,172. Based on the count, the estimated cost would be $21,705, plus other publication and printing costs borne directly by the City of Pinole.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
Exhibit A - 2022 Certified Election Results (To be added once received from County Elections Department)
61 of 113
B. Unofficial Final Election Results, 12.01.22
62 of 113

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PINOLE IN THE MATTER OF THE CANVASS OF

THE RETURNS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF
NOVEMBER 8, 2022 AND DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS
WHEREAS, elections were held and conducted in the City of Pinole on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 as required by the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, said elections were consolidated with the statewide General Election under the provisions of the Pinole Municipal Code Section 1.05.010; and WHEREAS, the notice of said election was duly and legally given and the County Clerk Certification of Election results of the three Council Member seats are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and submitted to the City Council for acceptance at the meeting of December 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, said election was held and conducted, votes cast thereat received and canvassed, and the returns thereof made and declared in time, form, and manner required by the Elections Code of the State of California governing elections by cities of General Law Class; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Pinole met during a meeting held virtually and broadcast from the Pinole Council Chamber, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, California, on Tuesday, December 6, 2022 to declare the official results of said election as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cameron Sasai, Anthony Tave and Norma Martinez-Rubin were elected to serve as Council Members of the Pinole City Council for a four-year term, as determined by the following votes:

Cameron Sasai 3,216 votes /19.38%
Anthony Tave 3,157 votes /19.02%
Norma Martinez-Rubin 2,607 votes /15.71%
Total Votes Cast For Council Race: 16,594
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached is a true and correct canvass of said General Municipal Election held on the 8
th day of November 2022 and the official
results thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6
th day of December 2022 by the following vote:
63 of 113

ATTACHMENT A
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
64 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
GAVIN NEWSOM DEM 493 248,857 16,021 265,371 68.31%
BRIAN DAHLE REP 508 104,237 18,387 123,132 31.69%
Total Votes 1,001 353,094 34,408 388,503
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
GOVERNOR (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ELENI KOUNALAKIS DEM 484 247,298 15,738 263,520 68.85%
ANGELA E. UNDERWOOD
JACOBS REP 502 100,645 18,078 119,225 31.15%
Total Votes 986 347,943 33,816 382,745
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SHIRLEY N. WEBER DEM 492 246,689 15,939 263,120 68.75%
ROB BERNOSKY REP 493 101,172 17,933 119,598 31.25%
Total Votes 985 347,861 33,872 382,718
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
SECRETARY OF STATE (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
Voters Cast: 394,153 of 701,969 (56.15%)
Cards Cast: 1,575,651

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

GENERAL ELECTION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8 2022
Unofficial Results - Final
Elector Group Counting Group Cards Cast Voters Cast Registered Voters Turnout Total Early In-Person 4,032 1,008 0.14%
Vote By Mail 1,432,362 358,318 51.04%
Election Day 139,257 34,827 4.96%
Total 1,575,651 394,153 701,969 56.15%
Page: 1 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
65 of 113

ATTACHMENT B
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
MALIA M. COHEN DEM 463 227,548 14,853 242,864 63.58%
LANHEE J. CHEN REP 526 119,637 18,937 139,100 36.42%
Total Votes 989 347,185 33,790 381,964
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
CONTROLLER (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total FIONA MA DEM 482 241,681 15,390 257,553 67.49%
JACK M. GUERRERO REP 507 105,170 18,377 124,054 32.51%
Total Votes 989 346,851 33,767 381,607
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
TREASURER (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ROB BONTA DEM 483 242,838 15,635 258,956 67.63%
NATHAN HOCHMAN REP 510 105,276 18,183 123,969 32.37%
Total Votes 993 348,114 33,818 382,925
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ATTORNEY GENERAL (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total RICARDO LARA DEM 489 242,047 15,682 258,218 68.41%
ROBERT HOWELL REP 504 100,966 17,796 119,266 31.59%
Total Votes 993 343,013 33,478 377,484
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER (Vote for 1)
Page: 2 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
66 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
SALLY J. LIEBER DEM 491 237,811 15,506 253,808 67.91%
PETER COE VERBICA REP 501 101,701 17,740 119,942 32.09% Total Votes 992 339,512 33,246 373,750
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, DISTRICT 2 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ALEX PADILLA DEM 494 250,610 16,227 267,331 69.72%
MARK P. MEUSER REP 502 97,890 17,730 116,122 30.28%
Total Votes 996 348,500 33,957 383,453
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
UNITED STATES SENATOR (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ALEX PADILLA DEM 488 247,297 15,963 263,748 69.48%
MARK P. MEUSER REP 499 97,814 17,540 115,853 30.52%
Total Votes 987 345,111 33,503 379,601
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
UNITED STATES SENATOR - SHORT TERM (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total JOHN GARAMENDI DEM 174 80,791 6,033 86,998 80.48%
RUDY RECILE REP 108 17,639 3,351 21,098 19.52%
Total Votes 282 98,430 9,384 108,096
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 285 102,087 9,823 112,195 / 233,947 47.96%
Precincts Reported: 393 of 393 (100.00%)
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 8 (Vote for 1)
Page: 3 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
67 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
TOM PATTI REP 14 3,200 646 3,860 58.06%
JOSH HARDER DEM 6 2,654 128 2,788 41.94%
Total Votes 20 5,854 774 6,648
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 20 6,035 804 6,859 / 11,684 58.70%
Precincts Reported: 27 of 27 (100.00%)
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 9 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MARK DESAULNIER DEM 386 177,859 11,923 190,168 79.00%
MICHAEL ERNEST KERR GRN 208 42,857 7,497 50,562 21.00%
Total Votes 594 220,716 19,420 240,730
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 703 250,196 24,200 275,099 / 456,338 60.28%
Precincts Reported: 845 of 845 (100.00%)
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 10 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total LORI D WILSON DEM 10 8,926 629 9,565 51.20%
JENNY LEILANI CALLISON NPP 36 7,406 1,676 9,118 48.80%
Total Votes 46 16,332 2,305 18,683
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 48 17,971 2,605 20,624 / 41,020 50.28%
Precincts Reported: 130 of 130 (100.00%)
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 11 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total BUFFY WICKS DEM 102 57,303 4,099 61,504 83.60%
RICHARD KINNEY REP 31 10,405 1,632 12,068 16.40%
Total Votes 133 67,708 5,731 73,572
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 134 70,258 5,992 76,384 / 147,502 51.79%
Precincts Reported: 242 of 242 (100.00%)
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 14 (Vote for 1)
Page: 4 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
68 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
TIM GRAYSON DEM 239 93,916 6,557 100,712 67.31%
JANELL ELIZABETH PROCTOR REP 281 40,400 8,230 48,911 32.69% Total Votes 520 134,316 14,787 149,623
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 531 139,599 15,344 155,474 / 298,091 52.16%
Precincts Reported: 574 of 574 (100.00%)
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 15 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total REBECCA BAUER-KAHAN DEM 137 85,833 4,594 90,564 66.85%
JOSEPH A. RUBAY REP 153 38,870 5,882 44,905 33.15%
Total Votes 290 124,703 10,476 135,469
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 295 130,490 10,886 141,671 / 215,356 65.78%
Precincts Reported: 319 of 319 (100.00%)
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 16 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 521 234,668 16,887 252,076 78.78%
No 340 56,389 11,184 67,913 21.22%
Total Votes 861 291,057 28,071 319,989
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,318 34,827 394,153 / 701,969 56.15%

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(GUERRERO) (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 531 215,176 15,164 230,871 76.52%
No 330 58,931 11,578 70,839 23.48%
Total Votes 861 274,107 26,742 301,710
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT(LIU) (Vote for 1) Page: 5 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
69 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Yes 501 209,110 14,913 224,524 76.19%
No 348 58,659 11,156 70,163 23.81%
Total Votes 849 267,769 26,069 294,687
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT(JENKINS) (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 482 202,465 13,974 216,921 74.61%
No 357 61,820 11,631 73,808 25.39%
Total Votes 839 264,285 25,605 290,729
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT(GROBAN) (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 480 201,772 14,222 216,474 75.63%
No 346 58,138 11,262 69,746 24.37%
Total Votes 826 259,910 25,484 286,220
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 2 (STEWART) (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 493 202,188 14,197 216,878 75.80%
No 336 57,647 11,259 69,242 24.20%
Total Votes 829 259,835 25,456 286,120
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% PRESIDING JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 3 (TUCHER) (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
Page: 6 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
70 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Yes 476 198,195 14,145 212,816 74.92%
No 346 59,701 11,201 71,248 25.08%
Total Votes 822 257,896 25,346 284,064
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 3 (RODRIGUEZ) (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 473 195,825 13,582 209,880 74.47%
No 337 60,251 11,373 71,961 25.53%
Total Votes 810 256,076 24,955 281,841
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 3 (PETROU) (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 477 199,074 13,810 213,361 75.42%
No 341 57,967 11,239 69,547 24.58%
Total Votes 818 257,041 25,049 282,908
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 3 (FUJISAKI) (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 486 203,432 14,516 218,434 77.05%
No 329 54,121 10,628 65,078 22.95%
Total Votes 815 257,553 25,144 283,512
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 4(BROWN) (Vote for 1)
Page: 7 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
71 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Yes 458 192,089 13,251 205,798 73.33%
No 356 62,859 11,636 74,851 26.67%
Total Votes 814 254,948 24,887 280,649
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 4 (GOLDMAN) (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 483 200,006 13,990 214,479 75.76%
No 339 57,224 11,069 68,632 24.24%
Total Votes 822 257,230 25,059 283,111
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% PRESIDING JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 5 (JACKSON) (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 479 194,782 13,729 208,990 74.42%
No 333 60,333 11,165 71,831 25.58%
Total Votes 812 255,115 24,894 280,821
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 1, DIVISION 5 (BURNS) (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total TONY K. THURMOND 469 216,989 14,298 231,756 69.77%
LANCE RAY CHRISTENSEN 384 86,633 13,406 100,423 30.23%
Total Votes 853 303,622 27,704 332,179
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 357,501 34,811 393,320 / 701,969 56.03% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (Vote for 1) Page: 8 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
72 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
SARAH G. BUTLER 58 36,840 1,758 38,656 48.76%
LISA L. DISBROW 62 19,982 2,370 22,414 28.27%
RUPY KRISHNAN 55 16,452 1,704 18,211 22.97%
Total Votes 175 73,274 5,832 79,281
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 201 88,022 7,262 95,485 / 147,488 64.74%
Precincts Reported: 219 of 219 (100.00%)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 2 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MIKE MAXWELL 55 27,683 2,357 30,095 40.43%
CHERI CALCAGNO 40 21,039 2,472 23,551 31.64%
ANAITÉ LETONA 45 19,210 1,543 20,798 27.94%
Total Votes 140 67,932 6,372 74,444
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 169 83,966 8,327 92,462 / 149,970 61.65%
Precincts Reported: 231 of 231 (100.00%)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 4 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ANNETTE LEWIS 54 22,820 1,904 24,778 41.28%
JUSTIN BROWN 89 19,678 3,255 23,022 38.36%
DEREK CARSON II 27 10,720 1,473 12,220 20.36%
Total Votes 170 53,218 6,632 60,020
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 210 62,650 8,064 70,924 / 146,380 48.45%
Precincts Reported: 345 of 345 (100.00%)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 5 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MARY ROCHA 7 1,915 216 2,138 56.58%
DOMINIQUE KING 5 1,455 181 1,641 43.42%
Total Votes 12 3,370 397 3,779
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 13 3,678 461 4,152 / 11,157 37.21%
Precincts Reported: 24 of 24 (100.00%)
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 5 (Vote for 1)
Page: 9 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
73 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
DEBORAH ANNE BRANDON 7 2,340 232 2,579 42.08%
TERRI BURK 7 1,732 222 1,961 32.00%
JERROLD "JERRY" PARSONS 7 1,424 158 1,589 25.93%
Total Votes 21 5,496 612 6,129
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 16 4,245 540 4,801 / 9,394 51.11%
Precincts Reported: 13 of 13 (100.00%)
JOHN SWETT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 2) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total YAZMIN LLAMAS 13 1,141 79 1,233 58.80%
MARCY LEBOEUF 18 756 90 864 41.20%
Total Votes 31 1,897 169 2,097
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 33 2,225 199 2,457 / 4,182 58.75%
Precincts Reported: 12 of 12 (100.00%)
MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 3 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DEBRA MASON 11 4,796 397 5,204 49.11%
A.J. FARDELLA 8 2,902 470 3,380 31.90%
JEANETTE GREEN 4 1,781 227 2,012 18.99%
Total Votes 23 9,479 1,094 10,596
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 30 11,122 1,360 12,512 / 28,012 44.67%
Precincts Reported: 44 of 44 (100.00%)
MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 1 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total CHERISE MARIE KHAUND 9 13,389 806 14,204 68.26%
HERBERT LEE 13 5,713 878 6,604 31.74%
Total Votes 22 19,102 1,684 20,808
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 31 23,522 2,237 25,790 / 38,844 66.39%
Precincts Reported: 64 of 64 (100.00%)
MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 4 (Vote for 1)
Page: 10 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
74 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
HELIODORO "HELIO"
MORENO 17 5,179 452 5,648 21.10%
DE'SHAWN WOOLRIDGE 22 5,046 464 5,532 20.66%
DESTINY BRISCOE 18 4,777 458 5,253 19.62%
YESENIA I. ROMAN 12 3,391 408 3,811 14.23%
DUANE SMITH 16 3,224 355 3,595 13.43%
MARIA BAGLEY 16 2,584 333 2,933 10.95%
Total Votes 101 24,203 2,470 26,774
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 48 11,178 1,288 12,514 / 31,832 39.31%
Precincts Reported: 39 of 39 (100.00%)
PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total JESSE VANZEE 26 5,210 794 6,030 42.18%

MICHELLE SINNOTT
PETERSEN 15 5,391 388 5,794 40.53%
JEROME PANDELL 6 2,325 141 2,472 17.29%
Total Votes 47 12,926 1,323 14,296
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 55 14,805 1,487 16,347 / 23,598 69.27%
Precincts Reported: 35 of 35 (100.00%)

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 1 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DEMETRIO GONZALEZ-HOY 5 8,363 530 8,898 70.99%
OLIVIA LIOU 6 3,273 358 3,637 29.01%
Total Votes 11 11,636 888 12,535
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 12 13,552 1,104 14,668 / 28,541 51.39%
Precincts Reported: 58 of 58 (100.00%)

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 4 (Vote for 1)
Page: 11 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
75 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
LESLIE RECKLER 22 11,965 687 12,674 61.22%
PATRICIO DUJAN 11 7,413 604 8,028 38.78%
Total Votes 33 19,378 1,291 20,702
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 38 23,590 1,704 25,332 / 36,482 69.44%
Precincts Reported: 39 of 39 (100.00%)

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 5 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total STEVEN DROUIN 0 43 3 46 18.18%
CRAIG BUENO 0 40 0 40 15.81%
EMILY PRUSSO 0 39 1 40 15.81%
ANNE E. WHITE 0 28 0 28 11.07%
JOHN M. KUPSKI 0 28 0 28 11.07%
ALEXANDRIA IZARRARAZ 0 25 1 26 10.28%
DEENA KAPLANIS 0 25 1 26 10.28%
KRISTINA MAZAIKA 0 11 1 12 4.74%
HAYDEN SIDUN 0 6 1 7 2.77%
Total Votes 0 245 8 253
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 0 131 5 136 / 180 75.56%
Precincts Reported: 7 of 7 (100.00%)

LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total JENNIFER CHEN 60 34,463 1,851 36,374 27.23%
CHRISTOPHER SEVERSON 53 30,203 1,382 31,638 23.68%
NANCY KENDZIERSKI 45 29,834 1,390 31,269 23.40%
MARK WOOLWAY 50 9,769 1,216 11,035 8.26%
RENEE NOWAC 49 9,168 1,173 10,390 7.78%
GABE LEDEEN 43 8,584 1,025 9,652 7.22%
CLAYTON GARDNER 11 2,841 390 3,242 2.43%
Total Votes 311 124,862 8,427 133,600
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 127 55,650 4,075 59,852 / 85,239 70.22%
Precincts Reported: 117 of 117 (100.00%)
ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3) Page: 12 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
76 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
SUSAN WALLACE 26 3,323 454 3,803 57.02%
KRISTEN ROMANO 10 1,421 303 1,734 26.00%
DANTE ROSS 5 1,024 104 1,133 16.99%
Total Votes 41 5,768 861 6,670
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 44 7,067 1,086 8,197 / 15,725 52.13%
Precincts Reported: 45 of 45 (100.00%)
LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 3 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SANDY MCCASLIN 9 4,201 538 4,748 68.50%
DARLENE B. WEAVER 6 1,845 332 2,183 31.50%
Total Votes 15 6,046 870 6,931
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 24 8,080 1,200 9,304 / 16,926 54.97%
Precincts Reported: 51 of 51 (100.00%)
LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER, AREA 4 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SEQUOIA ALBA 0 96 4 100 30.40%
ADAM RABINOVITZ 0 85 1 86 26.14%
LAURA ESPERANZA SURLS 0 69 5 74 22.49%
KENNETH HOGARTY 0 68 1 69 20.97%
Total Votes 0 318 11 329
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 0 137 5 142 / 178 79.78%
Precincts Reported: 3 of 3 (100.00%)
CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3) Page: 13 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
77 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
ROB STURM 12 9,431 554 9,997 26.18%
DAVE SMITH 15 9,126 523 9,664 25.31%
KATY FOREMAN 11 8,924 567 9,502 24.88%
SARAH LIND 9 2,873 423 3,305 8.65%
ROBB MCSORLEY 5 2,580 394 2,979 7.80%
NIELS LARSEN 10 2,348 385 2,743 7.18%
Total Votes 62 35,282 2,846 38,190
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 26 14,165 1,247 15,438 / 21,354 72.30%
Precincts Reported: 27 of 27 (100.00%)
LAFAYETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total LARRY JACOBS 3 5,074 287 5,364 32.66%
MARTHA A. WHITE 4 4,327 283 4,614 28.09%
KRISTIN KRAETSCH 2 3,424 225 3,651 22.23%
HEN KING 2 2,608 184 2,794 17.01%
Total Votes 11 15,433 979 16,423
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 5 7,571 550 8,126 / 11,626 69.90%
Precincts Reported: 15 of 15 (100.00%)
MORAGA SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total EDDA COLLINS COLEMAN 3 5,104 253 5,360 22.96%
EVE M. PHILLIPS 9 4,729 308 5,046 21.62%
KATIE SHOGAN 5 4,681 315 5,001 21.42%
MICHELLE CHANG 5 4,312 263 4,580 19.62%
LINDA DELEHUNT 4 3,154 198 3,356 14.38%
Total Votes 26 21,980 1,337 23,343
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 9 10,093 685 10,787 / 15,057 71.64%
Precincts Reported: 31 of 31 (100.00%)
ORINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3) Page: 14 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
78 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
AIMEE MOSS 48 12,879 542 13,469 25.44%
NITHIN IYENGAR 38 12,539 519 13,096 24.74%
HEIDI HERNANDEZ GATTY 39 12,288 498 12,825 24.22%
GAIL CONTRERAS 36 6,224 650 6,910 13.05%
MICHAELA STRAZNICKA 35 6,010 600 6,645 12.55%
Total Votes 196 49,940 2,809 52,945
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 87 23,684 1,588 25,359 / 37,024 68.49%
Precincts Reported: 49 of 49 (100.00%)
WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD MEMBER (Vote for 3) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total KEN CARLSON 60 39,814 2,956 42,830 53.93%
DEBORA ALLEN 98 32,417 4,068 36,583 46.07%
Total Votes 158 72,231 7,024 79,413
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 183 83,742 8,297 92,222 / 151,451 60.89%
Precincts Reported: 230 of 230 (100.00%)
SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total KRISTIN BRAUN CONNELLY 377 157,770 11,475 169,622 53.47% VICKI GORDON 447 131,506 15,649 147,602 46.53%
Total Votes 824 289,276 27,124 317,224
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,270 34,816 394,094 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
CLERK-RECORDER (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total TAMISHA TORRES-WALKER 2 1,306 159 1,467 34.36%
JOY MOTTS 3 1,277 184 1,464 34.29%
DIANE GIBSON-GRAY 2 1,162 175 1,339 31.36%
Total Votes 7 3,745 518 4,270
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 8 4,039 574 4,621 / 12,437 37.16%
Precincts Reported: 24 of 24 (100.00%)
CITY OF ANTIOCH, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 1 (Vote for 1) Page: 15 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
79 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
MONICA E WILSON 4 2,386 229 2,619 36.60%
LORI OGORCHOCK 4 1,804 187 1,995 27.88%
SHAWN PICKETT 3 1,179 142 1,324 18.50%
SANDRA G. WHITE 1 1,074 143 1,218 17.02%
Total Votes 12 6,443 701 7,156
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 14 6,946 760 7,720 / 17,032 45.33%
Precincts Reported: 38 of 38 (100.00%)
CITY OF ANTIOCH, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total PATANISHA DAVIS PIERSON 4 1,408 114 1,526 37.07%
SINZIANA TODOR 3 1,052 99 1,154 28.03%
MARK DUKE 3 739 165 907 22.03%
BRAYDEN HAENA 5 455 70 530 12.87%
Total Votes 15 3,654 448 4,117
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 17 4,070 527 4,614 / 9,443 48.86%
Precincts Reported: 15 of 15 (100.00%)
CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 2 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total TONY OERLEMANS 16 1,859 315 2,190 51.98%
HOLLEY BISHOP-LOPEZ 9 998 163 1,170 27.77%
JACOB SINGH 5 787 61 853 20.25%
Total Votes 30 3,644 539 4,213
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 31 4,126 640 4,797 / 9,359 51.26%
Precincts Reported: 16 of 16 (100.00%)
CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1) Page: 16 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
80 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
JEFF WAN 0 2,545 316 2,861 30.57%
KIM TRUPIANO 0 2,046 285 2,331 24.90%
BRIDGET BILLETER 0 1,941 158 2,099 22.43%
ED MILLER 1 1,870 198 2,069 22.10%
Total Votes 1 8,402 957 9,360
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1 5,209 606 5,816 / 8,477 68.61%
Precincts Reported: 10 of 10 (100.00%)
CITY OF CLAYTON, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 2)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total LAURA HOFFMEISTER 4 3,231 309 3,544 43.25%
ROBERT RING 2 2,383 417 2,802 34.20%
QUINNE ANDERSON 0 1,698 150 1,848 22.55%
Total Votes 6 7,312 876 8,194
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 6 8,293 1,002 9,301 / 16,108 57.74%
Precincts Reported: 20 of 20 (100.00%)
CITY OF CONCORD, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 1 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DOMINIC ALIANO 11 1,903 239 2,153 99.95%
Total Votes 11 1,903 240 2,154
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 14 2,583 336 2,933 / 8,177 35.87%
Precincts Reported: 9 of 9 (100.00%)
CITY OF CONCORD, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 3 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total LAURA NAKAMURA 5 4,488 417 4,910 56.04%
TIM MCGALLIAN 7 3,461 383 3,851 43.96%
Total Votes 12 7,949 800 8,761
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 16 8,943 971 9,930 / 16,449 60.37%
Precincts Reported: 20 of 20 (100.00%)
CITY OF CONCORD, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 5 (Vote for 1) Page: 17 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
81 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
EDITH "PATTI" BARSOTTI 34 22,771 1,982 24,787 77.37%
D'MARCO J. ANTHONY 24 6,169 1,057 7,250 22.63%
Total Votes 58 28,940 3,039 32,037
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 71 35,420 4,014 39,505 / 71,827 55.00%
Precincts Reported: 109 of 109 (100.00%)
CITY OF CONCORD, TREASURER (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total CAROLYN WYSINGER 8 5,733 329 6,070 37.18%
GABRIEL QUINTO 7 5,433 288 5,728 35.09%
VANESSA WARHEIT 10 4,254 262 4,526 27.73%
Total Votes 25 15,420 879 16,324
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 15 11,196 735 11,946 / 17,376 68.75%
Precincts Reported: 15 of 15 (100.00%)
CITY OF EL CERRITO, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 2)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DION BAILEY 6 5,434 344 5,784 42.26%
CHRIS KELLEY 5 4,002 239 4,246 31.02%
PAMELA VARGAS 4 2,001 176 2,181 15.93%
WILLIAM "BILL" HENDERSON 1 1,331 144 1,476 10.78%
Total Votes 16 12,769 903 13,688
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 11 8,189 640 8,840 / 17,031 51.91%
Precincts Reported: 19 of 19 (100.00%)
CITY OF HERCULES, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 2)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total STEVE WOEHLEKE 5 4,917 291 5,213 51.32%
KERRY HILLIS 4 4,636 303 4,943 48.67%
Total Votes 9 9,554 594 10,157
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 5 7,493 548 8,046 / 11,477 70.11%
Precincts Reported: 13 of 13 (100.00%)
TOWN OF MORAGA, MEMBER, TOWN COUNCIL - FULL TERM (Vote for 2) Page: 18 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
82 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
DAVID SHAPIRO 3 4,549 267 4,819 72.29%
KENDALL W. LANGAN 2 1,699 146 1,847 27.71%
Total Votes 5 6,248 413 6,666
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 5 7,493 548 8,046 / 11,477 70.11%
Precincts Reported: 13 of 13 (100.00%)
TOWN OF MORAGA, MEMBER, TOWN COUNCIL - SHORT TERM (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total BRIANNE ZORN 23 3,656 180 3,859 24.40%
SEAN TRAMBLEY 31 3,373 264 3,668 23.19%
LARA E. DELANEY 34 3,289 213 3,536 22.36%
MIKE MENESINI 22 1,824 148 1,994 12.61%
MARK ROSS 11 1,699 98 1,808 11.43%
MICHAEL R AYERS 37 779 135 951 6.01%
Total Votes 158 14,620 1,038 15,816
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 171 15,564 1,133 16,868 / 25,827 65.31%
Precincts Reported: 83 of 83 (100.00%)
CITY OF MARTINEZ, MAYOR (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total JAY HOWARD 58 1,745 102 1,905 57.76%
NAKENYA ALLEN 14 1,315 64 1,393 42.24%
Total Votes 72 3,060 166 3,298
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 81 3,464 204 3,749 / 5,905 63.49%
Precincts Reported: 31 of 31 (100.00%)
CITY OF MARTINEZ, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 1 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DEBBIE MCKILLOP 10 2,064 108 2,182 50.28%
BEN THERRIAULT 21 2,032 105 2,158 49.72%
Total Votes 31 4,096 213 4,340
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 38 4,529 246 4,813 / 6,878 69.98%
Precincts Reported: 26 of 26 (100.00%)
CITY OF MARTINEZ, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1) Page: 19 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
83 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
HUGH HENDERSON 2 895 163 1,060 54.00%
RACHELLE "SHELLY"
FITZGERALD 0 818 85 903 46.00%
Total Votes 2 1,713 248 1,963
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 2 1,897 281 2,180 / 4,798 45.44%
Precincts Reported: 13 of 13 (100.00%)
CITY OF OAKLEY, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 2 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SHANNON SHAW 5 1,615 164 1,784 89.60%
Total Votes 5 1,806 180 1,991
Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total
ADAM MICHAEL GERHART WRITE-IN 0 190 16 206 10.35%
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 6 2,371 294 2,671 / 5,861 45.57%
Precincts Reported: 17 of 17 (100.00%)
CITY OF OAKLEY, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total LATIKA MALKANI 3 5,418 258 5,679 23.56%
BRANDYN IVERSON 5 4,444 269 4,718 19.58%
JANET RILEY 4 4,299 258 4,561 18.92%
ALEX DREXEL 6 3,361 216 3,583 14.87%
STUART HOUSE 2 3,098 202 3,302 13.70%
SUNIL RAJARAMAN 3 2,065 190 2,258 9.37%
Total Votes 23 22,685 1,393 24,101
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 9 10,100 686 10,795 / 15,049 71.73%
Precincts Reported: 18 of 18 (100.00%)
CITY OF ORINDA, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 3)
Page: 20 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
84 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
CAMERON SASAI 6 3,008 202 3,216 19.38%
ANTHONY L. TAVE 0 2,985 172 3,157 19.02%
NORMA MARTINEZ-RUBIN 4 2,428 175 2,607 15.71%
DEBBIE LONG 0 2,250 170 2,420 14.58%
JUSTIN MARTINEZ 2 2,167 158 2,327 14.02%
PETER MURRAY 1 1,862 163 2,026 12.21%
RAFAEL MENIS 3 770 68 841 5.07%
Total Votes 16 15,470 1,108 16,594
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 7 6,310 522 6,839 / 12,172 56.19%
Precincts Reported: 15 of 15 (100.00%)
CITY OF PINOLE, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SHANELLE SCALES-PRESTON 28 8,059 730 8,817 26.82%
DIONNE ADAMS 27 7,088 593 7,708 23.45%
ANGELICA LOPEZ 22 6,065 680 6,767 20.59%
WOLF CROSKEY 18 5,023 572 5,613 17.07%
SONJA SHEPHARD 14 3,521 410 3,945 12.00%
Total Votes 109 29,775 2,989 32,873
Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total
IVELINE D. POPOVA WRITE-IN 0 19 3 22 0.07%
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 53 14,120 1,617 15,790 / 39,503 39.97%
Precincts Reported: 50 of 50 (100.00%)
CITY OF PITTSBURG, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ALICE E. EVENSON 41 10,699 1,094 11,834 100.00%
Total Votes 41 10,699 1,094 11,834
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 53 14,120 1,617 15,790 / 39,503 39.97%
Precincts Reported: 50 of 50 (100.00%)
CITY OF PITTSBURG, CITY CLERK (Vote for 1)
Page: 21 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
85 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
NANCY PARENT 43 10,737 1,079 11,859 100.00%
Total Votes 43 10,737 1,079 11,859
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 53 14,120 1,617 15,790 / 39,503 39.97%
Precincts Reported: 50 of 50 (100.00%)
CITY OF PITTSBURG, TREASURER (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SUE NOACK 8 6,312 412 6,732 29.04%
ZAC SHESS 10 5,422 485 5,917 25.53%
ZHANNA THOMPSON 9 4,036 263 4,308 18.59%
BILL BANKERT 7 2,851 358 3,216 13.87%
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ 3 1,692 193 1,888 8.15%
ANDREI OBOLENSKIY 6 966 145 1,117 4.82%
Total Votes 43 21,280 1,856 23,179
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 27 13,463 1,270 14,760 / 23,049 64.04%
Precincts Reported: 29 of 29 (100.00%)
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 2) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ANDREW J. KALINOWSKI 20 9,314 775 10,109 100.00%
Total Votes 20 9,314 775 10,109
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 27 13,463 1,270 14,760 / 23,049 64.04%
Precincts Reported: 29 of 29 (100.00%)
CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, TREASURER (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total EDUARDO MARTINEZ 23 9,511 785 10,319 39.20%
SHAWN DUNNING 22 7,033 612 7,667 29.12%
NATHANIEL "NAT" BATES 17 6,611 702 7,330 27.84%
MARK WASSBERG 7 854 148 1,009 3.83%
Total Votes 69 24,009 2,247 26,325
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 72 25,404 2,443 27,919 / 57,945 48.18%
Precincts Reported: 106 of 106 (100.00%)
CITY OF RICHMOND, MAYOR (Vote for 1)
Page: 22 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
86 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
ANDREW BUTT 4 1,733 184 1,921 50.00%
CESAR ZEPEDA 3 1,753 165 1,921 50.00%
Total Votes 7 3,486 349 3,842
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 7 3,784 403 4,194 / 8,616 48.68%
Precincts Reported: 26 of 26 (100.00%)
CITY OF RICHMOND, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 2 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DORIA D. ROBINSON 8 1,015 122 1,145 39.62%
OSCAR GARCIA 4 770 125 899 31.11%
COURTLAND CORKY BOOZÉ 3 736 107 846 29.27%
Total Votes 15 2,521 354 2,890
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 16 2,684 395 3,095 / 8,505 36.39%
Precincts Reported: 17 of 17 (100.00%)
CITY OF RICHMOND, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 3 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total SOHEILA BANA 2 3,919 270 4,191 67.40%
JAMIN PURSELL 3 1,868 156 2,027 32.60%
Total Votes 5 5,787 426 6,218
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 5 6,336 494 6,835 / 12,417 55.05%
Precincts Reported: 20 of 20 (100.00%)
CITY OF RICHMOND, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DAVID E. "DAVE" HUDSON 26 11,613 1,159 12,798 48.64%
SABINA ZAFAR 6 6,895 401 7,302 27.75%
DINESH B. GOVINDARAO 4 5,637 568 6,209 23.60%
Total Votes 36 24,145 2,128 26,309
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 37 25,777 2,311 28,125 / 49,271 57.08%
Precincts Reported: 86 of 86 (100.00%)
CITY OF SAN RAMON, MAYOR (Vote for 1)
Page: 23 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
87 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
MARK ARMSTRONG 6 4,114 427 4,547 59.23%
SARA LASHANLO 2 2,932 196 3,130 40.77%
Total Votes 8 7,046 623 7,677
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 9 8,058 727 8,794 / 14,110 62.32%
Precincts Reported: 22 of 22 (100.00%)
CITY OF SAN RAMON, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 2 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MARISOL RUBIO 8 3,579 246 3,833 64.25%
HEIDI KENNISTON-LEE 1 1,976 156 2,133 35.75%
Total Votes 9 5,555 402 5,966
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 9 6,589 505 7,103 / 12,507 56.79%
Precincts Reported: 28 of 28 (100.00%)
CITY OF SAN RAMON, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 4 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MATT FRANCOIS 50 16,842 927 17,819 36.25%
CINDY EISLEY SILVA 42 15,298 832 16,172 32.90%
LAURA PATCH 25 8,201 564 8,790 17.88%
BRIAN O'TOOLE 17 5,717 644 6,378 12.97%
Total Votes 134 46,058 2,967 49,159
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 88 31,073 2,283 33,444 / 49,007 68.24%
Precincts Reported: 61 of 61 (100.00%)
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL (Vote for 2) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total RONALD CASSANO 63 20,254 1,193 21,510 100.00%
Total Votes 63 20,254 1,193 21,510
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 88 31,073 2,283 33,444 / 49,007 68.24%
Precincts Reported: 61 of 61 (100.00%)
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, TREASURER (Vote for 1)
Page: 24 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
88 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
GREGORY R LORENZ 1 275 46 322 22.90%
JERRY SLAVONIA 1 262 52 315 22.40%
CHRISTINE CHARTIER 1 258 49 308 21.91%
JEFFERY C. EORIO 0 228 19 247 17.57%
GARTH B. HOBDEN 0 198 16 214 15.22%
Total Votes 3 1,221 182 1,406
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1 507 76 584 / 778 75.06%
Precincts Reported: 1 of 1 (100.00%)
DIABLO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, DIRECTOR (Vote for 3) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ASHLEY PORTER 7 3,270 346 3,623 29.39%
J. KEVIN GRAVES 10 2,917 335 3,262 26.46%
BRYON GUTOW 8 2,927 317 3,252 26.38%
LEONARD D. WOREN 5 1,913 274 2,192 17.78%
Total Votes 30 11,027 1,272 12,329
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 17 5,346 734 6,097 / 10,280 59.31%
Precincts Reported: 15 of 15 (100.00%)

TOWN OF DISCOVERY BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, DIRECTOR (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total ANN MARIE JOHNSON 3 3,870 241 4,114 57.64%
JIM BRADY 6 2,689 328 3,023 42.36%
Total Votes 9 6,559 569 7,137
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 9 7,817 694 8,520 / 14,504 58.74%
Precincts Reported: 18 of 18 (100.00%)
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 2 (Vote for 1)
Page: 25 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
89 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
ALEXANDRA AQUINO-FIKE 2 1,954 107 2,063 25.83%
SARAH A. GOUGH 2 1,948 104 2,054 25.71%
CASSANDRA ROSE DUGGAN 0 1,571 92 1,663 20.82%
GAIL FELDMAN 2 1,194 54 1,250 15.65%
MIKE LOGAN 4 916 38 958 11.99%
Total Votes 10 7,583 395 7,988
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 4 3,153 188 3,345 / 4,322 77.39%
Precincts Reported: 4 of 4 (100.00%)

KENSINGTON POLICE PROTECTION & COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, DIRECTOR (Vote for 3)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total JULIE MARIE STEIN 3 2,277 115 2,395 31.06%
DANIEL LEVINE 2 2,122 106 2,230 28.92%
JIM WATT 3 1,892 113 2,008 26.04%
JANICE KOSEL 2 1,022 54 1,078 13.98%
Total Votes 10 7,313 388 7,711
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 4 3,153 188 3,345 / 4,322 77.39%
Precincts Reported: 4 of 4 (100.00%)
KENSINGTON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, DIRECTOR (Vote for 3) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total GREG HASLER 2 1,384 88 1,474 52.55%
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG 0 1,252 79 1,331 47.45%
Total Votes 2 2,636 167 2,805
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 2 3,168 228 3,398 / 4,725 71.92%
Precincts Reported: 7 of 7 (100.00%)
MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 1 (Vote for 1)
Page: 26 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
90 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
STEVEN MICHAEL DANZIGER 4 2,045 120 2,169 63.02%
VINCE DELL' AQUILA 1 1,185 87 1,273 36.98%
Total Votes 5 3,230 207 3,442
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 5 3,664 257 3,926 / 5,622 69.83%
Precincts Reported: 14 of 14 (100.00%)
MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 3 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MIKE ROEMER 2 1,751 100 1,853 50.86%
MICHAEL DONNER 0 1,689 101 1,790 49.14%
Total Votes 2 3,440 201 3,643
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 2 3,899 253 4,154 / 5,717 72.66%
Precincts Reported: 6 of 6 (100.00%)
MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 4 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total DELANO DOSS 18 7,231 619 7,868 32.03%
MARIE BOWMAN 8 5,893 397 6,298 25.64%
STEVE HILL 5 5,077 338 5,420 22.07%
TARA SHAIA 7 2,591 261 2,859 11.64%
ANN CARGO ZIFF 4 1,935 179 2,118 8.62%
Total Votes 42 22,727 1,794 24,563
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 21 10,504 942 11,467 / 22,662 50.60%
Precincts Reported: 26 of 26 (100.00%)
RODEO-HERCULES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, DIRECTOR (Vote for 3) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MARGUERITE YOUNG 17 17,026 898 17,941 72.20%
MARK SEEDALL 7 6,270 632 6,909 27.80%
Total Votes 24 23,296 1,530 24,850
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 25 28,954 2,088 31,067 / 47,665 65.18%
Precincts Reported: 83 of 83 (100.00%)
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, WARD 3 (Vote for 1) Page: 27 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
91 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
APRIL CHAN 2 2,171 188 2,361 44.87%
MATT TURNER 6 1,328 172 1,506 28.62%
CORINA N. LOPEZ 3 1,251 141 1,395 26.51%
Total Votes 11 4,750 501 5,262
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 12 5,822 639 6,473 / 10,843 59.70%
Precincts Reported: 12 of 12 (100.00%)
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, WARD 7 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total CHERYL SUDDUTH 4 3,848 183 4,035 69.32%
JEFFERY D. WINTER 3 1,634 149 1,786 30.68%
Total Votes 7 5,482 332 5,821
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 7 6,332 429 6,768 / 13,012 52.01%
Precincts Reported: 29 of 29 (100.00%)
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 5 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total JOEL YOUNG 61 24,204 2,081 26,346 57.93%
ALFRED TWU 27 17,804 1,303 19,134 42.07%
Total Votes 88 42,008 3,384 45,480
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 105 50,770 4,338 55,213 / 106,769 51.71%
Precincts Reported: 178 of 178 (100.00%)
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, AT LARGE (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total MILAN "PETE" PETROVICH 0 46 5 51 54.26%
LARRY ENOS 0 42 1 43 45.74%
Total Votes 0 88 6 94
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 0 97 6 103 / 170 60.59%
Precincts Reported: 1 of 1 (100.00%)
BYRON BETHANY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 1 (Vote for 1)
Page: 28 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
92 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
PATT YOUNG 24 10,135 910 11,069 53.47%
MARIAH LAURITZEN 29 8,429 1,173 9,631 46.53%
Total Votes 53 18,564 2,083 20,700
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 60 22,053 2,618 24,731 / 54,391 45.47%
Precincts Reported: 86 of 86 (100.00%)
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION 1 (Vote for 1) Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 559 271,002 18,966 290,527 75.64%
No 405 78,466 14,713 93,584 24.36%
Total Votes 964 349,468 33,679 384,111
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,270 34,816 394,094 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 1 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total No 679 237,616 22,888 261,183 69.14%
Yes 296 105,871 10,417 116,584 30.86%
Total Votes 975 343,487 33,305 377,767
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,270 34,816 394,094 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 26 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total No 797 291,635 26,366 318,798 83.47%
Yes 182 55,760 7,185 63,127 16.53%
Total Votes 979 347,395 33,551 381,925
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,270 34,816 394,094 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 27 (Vote for 1)
Page: 29 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
93 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Yes 585 246,928 20,205 267,718 69.55%
No 401 103,126 13,709 117,236 30.45%
Total Votes 986 350,054 33,914 384,954
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,273 34,803 394,084 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 28 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total No 645 234,033 22,645 257,323 67.75%
Yes 324 111,443 10,719 122,486 32.25%
Total Votes 969 345,476 33,364 379,809
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,273 34,803 394,084 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 29 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total No 620 186,902 21,494 209,016 54.23%
Yes 365 163,664 12,395 176,424 45.77%
Total Votes 985 350,566 33,889 385,440
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,273 34,803 394,084 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 30 (Vote for 1)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 589 256,033 19,671 276,293 72.12%
No 398 92,386 14,017 106,801 27.88%
Total Votes 987 348,419 33,688 383,094
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 1,008 358,273 34,803 394,084 / 701,969 56.14% Precincts Reported: 1,265 of 1,265 (100.00%)
PROPOSITION 31 (Vote for 1)
Page: 30 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
94 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Yes 2 287 54 343 58.73%
No 1 196 44 241 41.27%
Total Votes 3 483 98 584
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 3 502 103 608 / 1,054 57.69%

MEASURE R - KNIGHTSEN TOWN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT - MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 18 of 18 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 4 2,200 101 2,305 81.28%
No 0 485 46 531 18.72%
Total Votes 4 2,685 147 2,836
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 4 3,156 188 3,348 / 4,322 77.46%

MEASURE I - KENSINGTON POLICE PROTECTION AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT - MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 4 of 4 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Bonds No 0 68 4 72 55.81%
Bonds Yes 0 56 1 57 44.19%
Total Votes 0 124 5 129
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 0 132 5 137 / 180 76.11%

MEASURE G - LIVERMORE VALLEY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT - 55% (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 7 of 7 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Bonds Yes 44 14,243 742 15,029 62.65%
Bonds No 40 8,190 729 8,959 37.35%
Total Votes 84 22,433 1,471 23,988
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 87 23,767 1,587 25,441 / 37,024 68.71%
MEASURE J - WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT - 55% (Vote
for 1)
Precincts Reported: 49 of 49 (100.00%)
Page: 31 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
95 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Bonds Yes 69 6,194 382 6,645 52.60%
Bonds No 80 5,426 483 5,989 47.40%
Total Votes 149 11,620 865 12,634
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 157 12,088 902 13,147 / 20,887 62.94%
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 4 845 109 958 62.78%
No 1 483 84 568 37.22%
Total Votes 5 1,328 193 1,526
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 5 1,386 197 1,588 / 2,561 62.01%

MEASURE L - CROCKETT COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT -
MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 4 of 4 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 14 6,903 551 7,468 56.58%
No 11 5,124 597 5,732 43.42%
Total Votes 25 12,027 1,148 13,200
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 27 13,481 1,271 14,779 / 23,049 64.12%

MEASURE M - CITY OF PLEASANT HILL -
MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 29 of 29 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 10 5,480 392 5,882 69.24%
No 1 2,385 227 2,613 30.76%
Total Votes 11 7,865 619 8,495
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 11 8,200 641 8,852 / 17,031 51.98%

MEASURE N - CITY OF HERCULES -
MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 19 of 19 (100.00%)
Page: 32 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM
MEASURE K - MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - 55% (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 88 of 88 (100.00%)
96 of 113
Candidate Party Early InPerson
Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Yes 51 19,722 1,143 20,916 65.05%
No 34 10,172 1,031 11,237 34.95%
Total Votes 85 29,894 2,174 32,153
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 88 31,062 2,282 33,432 / 49,007 68.22%
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 28 14,139 1,223 15,390 58.81%
No 39 9,709 1,032 10,780 41.19%
Total Votes 67 23,848 2,255 26,170
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 72 25,427 2,443 27,942 / 57,945 48.22%

MEASURE P - CITY OF RICHMOND -
MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 106 of 106 (100.00%)
Candidate Party Early InPersonVote By Mail Election Day Total Yes 61 12,568 1,190 13,819 64.28%
No 51 6,417 1,212 7,680 35.72%
Total Votes 112 18,985 2,402 21,499
Early In-Perso Vote By Mail Election Day Total
Times Cast 114 20,122 2,554 22,790 / 41,105 55.44%

MEASURE Q - CITY OF BRENTWOOD -
MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 65 of 65 (100.00%)
Page: 33 of 33 12/1/2022 2:58:11 PM

MEASURE O - CITY OF WALNUT CREEK -
MAJORITY (Vote for 1)
Precincts Reported: 61 of 61 (100.00%)
97 of 113

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 10E
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: HEATHER BELL, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM

RECOMMENDATION

1. By minute order, approve the 2022 Mayoral Rotation Schedule.

2. Adopt Resolution Appointing Mayor & Mayor Pro Tem

BACKGROUND
The City Council has a long-standing tradition, approved by resolution, to select a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem on a rotation basis, prioritized by receipt of the highest votes in the prior election.

On October 19, 2010, Resolution 2010-87 was adopted by the City Council, approving the current succession procedures. The rotation schedule is determined based on the number of votes received by each member in the prior election.

Resolution 2010-87 requires the City Clerk to prepare and maintain a current mayoral rotation schedule, recording the mayoral ascension, following each Municipal election. The proposed rotation schedule, based on the 2022 Municipal Election of officers is contained as Attachment C. Staff is requesting Council approval by minute order.

It is the Council’s discretion to appoint the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem pursuant to the current Rotation Schedule.

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

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of Appointment of Mayor & Mayor ProTem
B. Resolution 2010-87
C. Proposed 2022 Mayoral Rotation Schedule
D. Approved 2020 Mayoral Rotation Schedule for Reference 98 of 113

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-87 regarding procedures for selecting the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem each year; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has maintained a Mayoral List in accordance with Resolution No. 2010-87; and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 2010-87, when the office of Mayor is vacated for any reason, the Mayor Pro Tem listed on the then-current Mayoral List shall succeed to the office of Mayor; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Salimi’s one-year term as Mayor is expiring and Mayor Salimi will be vacating the office of Mayor; and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 2010-87, Mayor Pro Tem Murphy shall succeed to the office of Mayor, and vacate the office of Mayor Pro Tem; and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 2010-87, when the office of Mayor Pro Tem is vacated for any reason, the next Council Member listed on the then-current Mayoral List shall succeed to the office of Mayor Pro Tem; and
WHEREAS, per the procedure laid out in Resolution No. 2010-87, Council Member Toms is the next Council Member listed, and therefore shall succeed to the office of Mayor Pro Tem;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pinole voted as documented below, and does hereby appoint the aforementioned officers to the offices of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem also serve as the Chair and Vice Chair of the Pinole Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to administer the Oath of Office to the new officers.

99 of 113

ATTACHMENT A
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 6th day of December 2022.
___________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

100 of 113
RESOLUTION 2010-87

PROCUEDURES FOR SELECTING MAYOR & MAYOR PRO TEM
REAFFIRMATION OF THE MAYORAL ROTATION SCHEDULE APPROVED IN 2003 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 3211 on February 6, 1996 concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 3285 on December 17, 1996, concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 109-2000 on February 15, 2000, concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted Resolution 179-2003, amending the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole adopted a minute order action on January 19, 2009 concerning the procedure for selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pinole intends to adopt a single resolution to ratify the actions and reaffirm the former procedure (Resolution 109-2000) for selection of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore; NOW, therefore, the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby resolve as follows:

It is in the best interest of the City of Pinole that the councilmembers that shall serve as Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore are selected by the City Council annually according to a system of succession that permits the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to gain sufficient experience prior to assuming their respective offices. It is appropriate to base such succession on rotation, seniority and election results in accordance with the following:

1. Mayoral List. The City Clerk shall maintain a Mayoral List in accordance with this Resolution.

The City Clerk shall update the Mayoral List for Council affirmation, following each council election and council vacancy that occurs. The Mayoral List in effect as of the adoption date of this Resolution is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

2. Succession Generally, When a position on the Mayoral List is vacated for any reason, except as otherwise provided in this Resolution, the next councilmember listed on the Mayoral List shall succeed to the vacant position in accordance with the Mayoral List and this Resolution.

3. Succession to Mayor, When the office of Mayor is vacated for any reason, the Mayor Pro Tempore listed on the then-current Mayoral List shall succeed to the office of Mayor.

4. Succession to the Office of Mayor Pro Tempore. When the office of Mayor Pro-tempore is vacated for any reason, the next councilmember listed on the then-current Mayoral List shall succeed to the office of Mayor Pro Tempore.
1 ATTACHMENT B
101 of 113

5. Placement of the Outgoing Mayor on the Mayoral List. The name of the outgoing Mayor shall be placed at the end of the Mayoral List, unless the outgoing Mayor is re-elected (in that election year), in which case, Section 6 shall apply.
6, Placement of Newly Elected Councilmembers on the Mayoral List. The names of the highest vote getters among newly elected councilmembers (incumbent or non-incumbent) shall be placed on the Mayoral List after incumbent councilmembers in order of most votes received, but before the outgoing Mayor unless the outgoing mayor is re-elected at the same election, in which case the outgoing Mayor shall also be placed on the list in order of votes received.

7. Placement on the Mayoral List of Non-Incumbent Councilmembers Newly Elected or Appointed to Fill Vacancies. Non-incumbent councilmembers newly elected or appointed to fill vacancies on the City Council shall be placed last on the Mayoral List, but above the outgoing Mayor, if any, at the time the vacancy is filled,

8. Councilmembers’ Right to Decline the Offices of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. Councilmembers may decline to succeed to the office of Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore pursuant to the Mayoral List and this Resolution. When a councilmember so declines to succeed to such office, such office shall pass to the next councilmember listed on the Mayoral List that is eligible pursuant to this Resolution to succeed to such office.

The names of councilmembers that so decline to succeed to the office of Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore shall be placed on the Mayoral List immediately following the name of the councilmember that succeeds to such office, notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution.

9. Removal of Mayor by Council Vote, Councilmembers that have succeeded to the office of Mayor in accordance with the Mayoral List and this Resolution may be removed from that office by a majority vote of the full Council. Such removed Mayor shall be treated the same as an outgoing Mayor for purposes of the Mayoral List and this Resolution.

This resolution supercedes Resolutions 3211 and 3285, 109-2000, and 179-2003, and any prior minute order actions, which are hereby repealed and of no further force or effect.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED this 19th day of October 2010, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Banuelos, Fujita, Long, Murray, Swearingen NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Patricia Athenoui1lMC
City Clerk
2 102 of 113
EXHIBIT A to Resolution 2010-87

MAYOR ROTATION LIST
October 19, 2010 — Current Status

LONG SWEARINGEN MURRAY FUJITA BANUELOS
(2nd place vote (2nd highest (Outgoing Mayor Served 1/2 year Appointed August recipient in vote recipient in 12/2008, & term as Mayor in 18, 2008, fill Feb 08 in Nov 4, 2008 highest vote May 2008, when vacancy from Vacancy Election- recipient in Horton resigned Horton’s Council /Recall 1 time switch Nov 4, 2008 as Mayor resignation
Election) with Murray Election) 7/21/08
per 1/13/2009
minute order
December December December December December
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2011-2012 2012-2013
POST NOVEMBER 2, 2010 ELECTION
SWEARINGEN MURRAY New member New member 2 NEWLY New member (2nd highest vote (Outgoing Highest vote 2nd Highest vote ELECTED 3rd Highest vote getter in recipient in Nov4, Mayor in getter in 2010 getter in 2010 MEMBERS FROM 2010 election —will never 2008 Election- 12/2008, & election Election NOVEMBER 2012 ascend to Mayor unless re I time switch with highest vote Term Dec Term Dec 2010- ELECTION ADDED elected in Nov 2012 as 1st Murray per recipient in 2010-Dec 2014 Dec 2014 TO CHART FOR or 2nd highest 1/13/2009 minute Nov 4, 2008 ROTATION Term Dec 2010-Dec 2014 order Election) BEGINNING
DECEMBER 2014
December December December December December
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
3 103 of 113
2022 MAYORAL ROTATION LIST
Procedure Approved by Resolution 2010-87;
Pursuant to the 2020 Election and Proposed for the 2022 Election results Received Accepted by the City Council:

MURPHY TOMS SASAI TAVE
FUTURE

ROTATION

DETERMINED
Established by highest
# of votes in
11/3/2020 Election
Established by 2nd highest
# of votes in 11/3/2020
Election
Established by
highest # of votes in
11/8/2022 Election
Established by 2nd
highest # of votes in
11/8/2022 Election
By the highest votes
received in the
November 2024
Election
Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term:
12/2020 – 12/2024 12/2020 – 12/2024 12/2022-12/2026 12/2022-12/2026 12/2024-12/2028 Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term:

December December December December December
2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2028
2022 MAYORAL ROTATION SCHEDULE
2 NEWLY ELECTED

MEMBERS FROM
NOVEMBER 2022

ELECTION ADDED

TO CHART FOR

ROTATION

BEGINNING
DECEMBER 2024

ATTACHMENT C
104 of 113
2020 MAYORAL ROTATION LIST
Procedure Approved by Resolution 2010-87;
Pursuant to the 2020 Election

MARTINEZ-RUBIN SALIMI MURPHY TOMS TAVE
FUTURE

ROTATION

DETERMINED
Established by highest
# of votes in
11/6/2018 Election
Established by 2nd highest
# of votes in 11/6/2018
Election
Established by
highest # of votes in
11/3/2020 Election
Established by 2nd
highest # of votes in
11/3/2020 Election Elected 11/6/2018
By the highest votes
received in the
November 2024
Election
Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term: Office Term:
12/2018 – 12/2022 12/2018 – 12/2022 12/2020 – 12/2024 12/2020 – 12/2024 12/2018 – 12/2022 12/2024-12/2028 Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term: Mayor Term:

December December December December Only as needed December 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 upon vacancy 2024-2025 2020 MAYORAL ROTATION SCHEDULE
2 NEWLY ELECTED

MEMBERS FROM
NOVEMBER 2020

ELECTION ADDED

TO CHART FOR

ROTATION

BEGINNING
DECEMBER 2022

ATTACHMENT D
105 of 113
CITY COUNCIL 13A
REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: HEATHER BELL, CITY CLERK

ANDREW MURRAY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: NOMINATE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE ON BOARDS AND

SUBCOMMITTEES

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the City Council nominate Council Members to serve as City representatives on specific boards and subcommittees in 2023. The City Council will have the opportunity to approve the nominations at the next City Council meeting, on December 20, 2022.

BACKGROUND
City Council Members serve as representatives of the City on the boards of numerous joint powers authorities and other regional bodies. Council Members also serve on subcommittees that the City Council creates from time to time.

The Pinole City Council’s practice has been to make appointments of Council Members to serve as representatives on various external boards and Council subcommittees on an annual basis, in December, in coordination with the appointment of a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, and because some appointments are based on mayorship. Revisions to the list are also made throughout the year in accordance with Council action and to reflect creation of new committees and/or appoint new representatives. The City Clerk maintains the most recent version of the list.

State law requires that each city publish a list of these councilmanic assignments. This is referred to as the Council Committee Assignment List.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Attached find a list of the various joint powers authorities and other regional bodies to which the City Council appoints a Council Member to serve as a representative, as well as the Council subcommittees that the Council has created over time. Staff has pre-populated the draft 2023 appointment list based on the standard mayoral succession and 2022 assignments (the 2022 appointment list is attached for 106 of 113
City Council Report – 13A
December 6, 2022 2
reference). Note that Council created the following new subcommittees in 2022, which are listed in the draft 2023 appointment list:

Item 19. Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Ad Hoc Subcommittee The Mayor will lead a discussion during which the Council will review the list, discuss and make nominations or reaffirm the currently assigned Council members to each body. Staff will make changes to the draft 2023 appointment list based on Council nominations at the December 6, 2022 Council meeting and disseminate a revised list with a resolution for approval by the City Council at the next City Council meeting.

Following approval of the list, a copy will be provided to the Council and to the respective boards and outside agencies and uploaded on the City Council webpage.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action.

ATTACHMENT
A. 2022 Council Committee Assignment List
B. Draft 2023 Council Committee Assignment List
107 of 113
1 2022 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Revised & Approved:

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES AND OTHER INTERAGENCY REGULATORY BODIES OF

WHICH THE CITY IS A MEMBER

1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG)
Meetings: Spring General Assembly, / Fall General Assembly Dates TBD Delegate Attendance Mandatory at the 2 Annual Assembly Meetings Ex. Board meets 3rd Thursdays @ 7 p.m. in Jan., Mar., July, Sept. & Nov.

Contact: Clerk of the Board: Fred Castro (415) 820-7913 Delegate: Toms Alternate: Murphy
NOTE: Membership Reinstated in FY 2015- Approved September 2015

2. MARIN CLEAN ENERGY (MCE)
Meetings: 3rd Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Darlene Jackson, Board Clerk and Executive Assistant (415) 464-6032 Delegate: Murphy Alternate: Toms

3. PINOLE / HERCULES WASTEWATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: Quarterly meetings required by the original agreement - currently conduct monthly meetings on 1st Thursday at 8:30 a.m.

Location: Location alternates between cities
Delegates: Tave/Toms Alternate: Murphy

4. WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (WCCIWMA, “RECYCLEMORE”)
Meetings: Meets monthly – 2nd Thursday at 7:00 p.m.

Location: San Pablo City Hall Council Chambers, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo Contact: 510-215-3125 Executive Director: Peter Holtzclaw Delegate: Tave Alternate: Murphy

5. WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WCCTAC) Meetings: Meets monthly - Last Friday of every month from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.

Location: El Cerrito City Hall
Contact: Staff Person: 510-210-5933, 510-210-5931
Delegate: Martinez-Rubin Alternate: Murphy

6. WESTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (“WESTCAT”)
Meetings: 2nd Thursday monthly at 6:30 p.m. (amended 5/6/09) Location: Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street
Contact: Staff: Mica McFadden - 724-3331 ex. 113
Delegate: Martinez-Rubin/Toms Alternate: Murphy

ATTACHMENT A
108 of 113
2 VOLUNTARY INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION BODIES OF WHICH THE CITY IS A MEMBER

7. BAYFRONT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Meetings: TBA
Location: Varies
Delegate: Toms

8. CONTRA COSTA MAYORS CONFERENCE
Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Delegate: (Mayor) Salimi (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy

9. EAST BAY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
Meetings: 4th Thursday of every other month, except August & December Board Meeting 6:30 p.m. / General Membership: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Dawn Abrahamson, (925) 989-5674
Delegate: (Mayor) Salimi (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy

10. WEST COUNTY MAYORS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
Meetings: 4th Thursday, monthly at 8:30 a.m.

Location: Rotational: Jan – June (Hercules) July – December (Richmond) Contact: Hercules – Lori Martin
Delegate: (Mayor) Salimi: (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

11. FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Meetings: Meet Quarterly/As Needed
Delegates: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem & City Treasurer
Contact: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, & City Clerk Created: (Res. 2005-15)

12. COMMITTEE ON MEMORIALS
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Murphy
Created: November 1, 2016

13. MUNICIPAL CODE AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Tave

14. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Attendees: Toms/Martinez-Rubin
109 of 113
3 15. TAPS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION INTERVIEW AD-HOC

SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Attendees: Tave/Murphy

16. PARTICIPANTS IN FORMATION PROCESS OF EAST BAY WILDFIRE PREVENTION

AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Contacts: Toms/Murphy

17. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY/OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE (with Design Review Board)
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Martinez-Rubin/Toms

18. TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Murphy/Tave
Created: October 19, 2021

19. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Tave/Toms
Created: November 1, 2022
110 of 113
1 2023 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS - DRAFT FOR REVIEW
Scheduled for Council review and discussion at 12/6 Council meeting and final approval at 12/20 Council meeting.

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES AND OTHER INTERAGENCY REGULATORY BODIES OF

WHICH THE CITY IS A MEMBER

1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG)
Meetings: Spring General Assembly, / Fall General Assembly Dates TBD Delegate Attendance Mandatory at the 2 Annual Assembly Meetings Ex. Board meets 3rd Thursdays @ 7 p.m. in Jan., Mar., July, Sept. & Nov.

Contact: Clerk of the Board: Fred Castro (415) 820-7913 Delegate: Toms Alternate: Murphy
NOTE: Membership Reinstated in FY 2015- Approved September 2015

2. MARIN CLEAN ENERGY (MCE)
Meetings: 3rd Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Darlene Jackson, Board Clerk and Executive Assistant (415) 464-6032 Delegate: Murphy Alternate: Toms

3. PINOLE / HERCULES WASTEWATER SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: Quarterly meetings required by the original agreement - currently conduct monthly meetings on 1st Thursday at 8:30 a.m.

Location: Location alternates between cities
Delegates: Tave/Toms Alternate: Murphy

4. WEST CONTRA COSTA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (WCCIWMA, “RECYCLEMORE”)
Meetings: Meets monthly – 2nd Thursday at 7:00 p.m.

Location: San Pablo City Hall Council Chambers, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo Contact: 510-215-3125 Executive Director: Peter Holtzclaw Delegate: Tave Alternate: Murphy

5. WEST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WCCTAC) Meetings: Meets monthly - Last Friday of every month from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.

Location: El Cerrito City Hall
Contact: Staff Person: 510-210-5933, 510-210-5931
Delegate: Martinez-Rubin Alternate: Murphy

6. WESTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (“WESTCAT”)
Meetings: 2nd Thursday monthly at 6:30 p.m. (amended 5/6/09) Location: Pinole Council Chambers, 2131 Pear Street
Contact: Staff: Mica McFadden - 724-3331 ex. 113
Delegate: Martinez-Rubin/Toms Alternate: Murphy

ATTACHMENT B
111 of 113
2 VOLUNTARY INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION BODIES OF WHICH THE CITY IS A MEMBER

7. BAYFRONT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Meetings: TBA
Location: Varies
Delegate: Toms

8. CONTRA COSTA MAYORS CONFERENCE
Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Delegate: (Mayor) Salimi Murphy (Mayor Pro Tem) MurphyToms

9. EAST BAY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
Meetings: 4th Thursday of every other month, except August & December Board Meeting 6:30 p.m. / General Membership: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Rotational locations
Contact: Dawn Abrahamson, (925) 989-5674
Delegate: (Mayor) Salimi Murphy (Mayor Pro Tem) MurphyToms

10. WEST COUNTY MAYORS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
Meetings: 4th Thursday, monthly at 8:30 a.m.

Location: Rotational: Jan – June (Hercules) July – December (Richmond) Contact: Hercules – Lori Martin
Delegate: (Mayor) Salimi Murphy: (Mayor Pro Tem) Murphy Toms

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE PINOLE CITY COUNCIL

11. FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE:

Meetings: Meet Quarterly/As Needed
Delegates: Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem & City Treasurer
Contact: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, & City Clerk Created: (Res. 2005-15)

12. COMMITTEE ON MEMORIALS
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Murphy
Created: November 1, 2016

13. MUNICIPAL CODE AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Toms/Tave

14. PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEW AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Attendees: Toms/Martinez-Rubin
112 of 113
3 15. TAPS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION INTERVIEW AD-HOC

SUBCOMMITTEE
(limited duration / specific focus)
Attendees: Tave/Murphy

16. PARTICIPANTS IN FORMATION PROCESS OF EAST BAY WILDFIRE PREVENTION

AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Contacts: Toms/Murphy

17. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY/OLD TOWN DESIGN GUIDELINE REVIEW AD-HOC SUBCOMMITTEE (with Design Review Board)
(limited duration / specific focus)
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Martinez-Rubin/Toms

18. TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Murphy/Tave
Created: October 19, 2021

19. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
Meetings: TBD
Attendees: Tave/Toms
Created: November 1, 2022
113 of 113