Pinole City Council
February 21, 2023

CONSULTING SERVICESAGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF PINOLE AND
[NAME OF CONSULTANT]
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of Pinole (“City”) and (“Consultant”) (together sometimes referred to as the “Parties”) as of , 20 (the “Effective Date”) in Pinole, California.

Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.

1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on , and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A by that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.

1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a professional manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession.

1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.

1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.

Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant an amount not to exceed , for all work set forth in Exhibit A and all reimbursable expenses incurred in performing the work. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant’s proposal regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.

ATTACHMENT C
188 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.

Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.

2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
▪ Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.;
▪ The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; ▪ A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
▪ At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense;
▪ The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A;
▪ The Consultant’s signature.

2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant.

2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.

2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever 189 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.

In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.

2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the following fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B.

2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified in Exhibit B, and shall not exceed ($ ). Expenses not listed in Exhibit B are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.

2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes.

2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date.

2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.

Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in Exhibit C, and only under the terms and conditions set forth therein.

Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any services under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance specified herein and maintain that insurance throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant’s bid or proposal. Consultant shall be fully responsible for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors or other agents.

4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant in the amount required by applicable law. The requirement to maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance may be waived by the City upon 190 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

written verification that Consultant is a sole proprietor and does not have any employees and will not have any employees during the term of this Agreement.

4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.

4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) per occurrence and FOUR MILLION DOLLARS ($4,000,000) aggregate, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement.

4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 (most recent edition) covering comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition) covering any auto (Code 1), or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired (code 8) and nonowned autos (Code 9). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.

4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a. The Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance shall cover on an occurrence basis.
b. City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds for liability arising out of work or operations on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant. Coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as CG 20 10 11 85, or both CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01.
c. For any claims related to this Agreement or the work hereunder, the Consultant’s insurance covered shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and non-contributing. d. The policy shall cover inter-insured suits and include a “separation of Insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately. e. Consultant agrees to give at least 30 days prior written notice to City before coverage is canceled or modified as to scope or amount
191 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.

4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence or claim covering the Consultant’s errors and omissions.

4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement.
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work.
c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work under this Agreement. d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.

4.4 All Policies Requirements.

4.4.1 Submittal Requirements. Consultant shall submit the following to City prior to beginning services:
a. Certificate of Liability Insurance in the amounts specified in this Agreement; and
b. Additional Insured Endorsement as required for the General Commercial and Automobile Liability Polices.

4.4.2 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.

4.4.3 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Insurance obtained by the Consultant shall have a self-insured retention or deductible of no more than ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000).

4.4.4 Wasting Policies. No policy required herein shall include a “wasting” policy limit (i.e. limit that is eroded by the cost of defense).

4.4.5 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from Consultant by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be 192 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are covered as additional insured on all coverages.

4.4.7 Excess Insurance. If Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums specified herein, City shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant.

4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option: 1) obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; 2) order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or 3) terminate this Agreement.

Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND C ONSULTANT’S R ESPONSIBILITIES.

5.1 General Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officials, officers, employees, agents, subcontractors and subcontractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys’ fees and other related costs and expenses. Contractor shall defend, at Contractor's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Contractor shall reimburse City and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Contractor's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by City or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Contractor's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, 193 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor. This Section 5.1 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.

5.2 PERS Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.

6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.

7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.

7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and 194 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.

7.5 Pinole Business License. Consultant shall obtain a City of Pinole business license according to the terms of Title 5 of the City of Pinole Municipal Code and deliver to City proof of such business license prior to beginning work under this Agreement. Work under this Agreement cannot begin until the City receives proof that Consultant has obtained a City of Pinole business license.

7.6 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.

Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.

Section 8. TERMINATION ANDMODIFICATION.

8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant.

In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement.

8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall be specified in writing by the City. Consultant understands and agrees that if City issues such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized 195 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

by the City, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period.

8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties.

8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique professional competence, experience, and specialized professional knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the personal reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the City.

8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall included, but not be limited to, the following:

8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;

8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;

8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or

8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work.

Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.

9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and 196 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties.

9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement.

9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement.

Section 10 MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS.

10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.

10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Contra Costa or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement.
197 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.

10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall endeavor to prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.

10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.

Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.

Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.

Consultant will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, City’s Conflict of Interest Code (on file in the City Clerk’s Office). It is incumbent upon the Consultant or Consultant’s firm to notify the City pursuant to section 10.10 Notices of any staff changes relating to this Agreement. a. In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, all officers, employees and/or agents of Consultant(s), unless as indicated in Subsection b., will be performing a very limited and closely supervised function, and, therefore, are unlikely to have a conflict of interest arise. No disclosures are required for any officers, employees, and/or agents of Consultant, except as indicated in Subsection b.

Initialed by City Attorney’s Office
198 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

b. In accomplishing the scope of services of this Agreement, Consultant(s) will be performing a specialized or general service for the City, and there is substantial likelihood that the Consultant’s work product will be presented, either written or orally, for the purpose of influencing a governmental decision. As a result, the following Consultant(s) shall be subject to the Disclosure Category “1-5” of the City’s Conflict of Interest Code:

10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.

10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by who shall act as the City’s representative. All
correspondence shall be directed to or through or his or her designee.

10.10 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to:

Any written notice to City shall be sent to:

10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the City, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation.

10.12 Integration; Incorporation. This Agreement, including all the exhibits attached hereto, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. All exhibits attached hereto are incorporated by reference herein.

10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. 199 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF PINOLE CONSULTANT
Andrew Murray, City Manager [NAME, TITLE]
Consultant’s City of Pinole Business
License #:_
Attest:

Heather Bell, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

Eric S. Casher, City Attorney
200 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
.
201 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

EXHIBIT B

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND HOURLY FEES
202 of 560
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Pinole and
[DATE]

EXHIBIT C

CITY-FURNISHEDFACILITIES
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. 203 of 560
CITY COUNCIL REPORT 9K
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO

DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY OF PINOLE AND SATELLITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL $1.2 MILLION LOAN FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 811 SAN PABLO

AVENUE AND APPROVING AN APPROPRIATION OF THE TOTAL
LOAN AMOUNT OF $3.2 MILLION FROM THE HOUSING FUND’S

UNRESTRICTED AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement between the City of Pinole and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (“SAHA”) for property located at 811 San Pablo Avenue (the “Property”) to increase a City loan by $1,200,000 (to a total of $3,200,000) and reduce the annual interest rate from 3% to 0% to develop the Property with 33 units of affordable housing. Additionally, staff recommends a total budget allocation of $3,200,000 from the Housing Fund’s unrestricted/available fund balance for this purpose.

BACKGROUND
The City of Pinole (“City”) and SAHA entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) dated July 6, 2021 to develop a 0.60-acre vacant lot at 811 San Pablo Avenue (“Property”) with 33 units of affordable housing. The Property is owned by the City as Housing Successor to the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency. The City agreed to provide a $1,180,000 purchase loan (the appraised value of the Property) and a $2,000,000 construction loan from Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds (“Housing Funds”). The appropriation for the $2,000,000 204 of 560
City Council Report
Meeting Date: February 21, 2023 2
Construction Loan has not yet been appropriated from the Housing Fund’s unrestricted available fund balance.

Since executing the DDA, SAHA has secured nearly all development financing (see Table 1) and is positioned to obtain building permits and begin construction by June 2023. On January 9, 2023, SAHA requested an additional $1,200,000 in loan financing from the City and an interest rate reduction from 3% to 0%. The funds will close a final financing gap and keep the Property’s operating cash flow positive for 20 years as required by State and County financing sources.

The request is due to escalating development and borrowing costs. Since SAHA’s estimates from 2020, total development costs have increased by 35% and hard construction costs have increased by 21%. The largest cost increases are construction loan interest (138%) and a new $1,600,000 operating deficit reserve required by other funding sources.

Table 1
Permanent Financing Sources
811 San Pablo Avenue
Source Amount
4% Federal Tax Credit Equity $13,374,120
Sponsor Loan - Certificated State Credits $2,045,367
City of Pinole (Land Purchase Loan) $1,180,000
City of Pinole (Construction Loan) $3,200,000
County HOME $2,636,280
Developer Fee $100,000
GP Equity $1,154,682
HCD Veterans Housing and Homelessness
Prevention Program (VHHP)
$7,848,120
Construction Loan - Tax Exempt Bond $15,295,723
Construction Loan - Taxable $3,715,868
Total $50,550,160
SAHA has also applied for a Home Depot Veteran Housing Grant for $800,000. If awarded, the grant will be used for solar panels, furnishings, and utility connection fees. This would not offset any other financing sources. 205 of 560
City Council Report
Meeting Date: February 21, 2023 3

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The following reasons support Staff’s recommendation for City Council to approve SAHA’s request:
• The additional $1,200,000 in loan funds and the interest rate reduction will ensure that construction begins by June 2023, which is necessary to meet construction timeline and cash flow requirements of other financing sources. • If the City denies the request, SAHA risks losing other financing, resulting in significant project delay or failure.
• The City Purchase and Construction Loans will provide an affordable housing subsidy of approximately $133,000 per residential unit (9% of total development cost). The City’s housing consultant RSG finds this reasonable based on comparable projects in the region and their experience underwriting affordable housing projects throughout the State.
• If the City does not spend Housing Funds in a timely manner, it will have what is known as “excess surplus” that needs to be transferred to a local housing agency for expenditure on affordable housing. Based on current projections, and assuming no use of remaining Housing Funds before 2026, providing an additional $1,200,000 from the Housing Find to the SAHA project will help ensure that the City will likely not incur an “excess surplus” issue prior to 2026. See Table 2, below.
• Providing additional loan funds to SAHA will help ensure that 33 units of housing for very-low and low income households are under construction in starting in June of 2023 while at the same time allow the City to thoughtfully distribute remaining Housing Funds to other affordable housing projects. As a part of Program 6 in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element the City will be developing a Housing Fund Policy. The policy will set priorities and goals for the use of affordable housing funds in the City as well as investigate the creation of an in-lieu fee as an additional alternative to the City’s inclusionary housing requirement.
206 of 560
City Council Report
Meeting Date: February 21, 2023 4
Table 2
Permanent Financing Sources Excess Surplus and City/SAHA Loan Options Assuming No Use of Remaining Housing Funds Before 2026
811 San Pablo Avenue
SAHA Loan Scenario Date of Excess
Surplus Incurred,
Assuming No Use
of Remaining
Housing Funds
Excess Surplus
Amount
Deadline to
Spend/Encumber
Excess Surplus
Before
Transferred
$3.2 million loan
(staff recommendation)
6/30/26 $785,000 6/30/29
$2.0 million loan to SAHA
(current agreement)
6/30/24 $12,000 (likely
mitigated by
administration
costs)
6/30/27
$0 to SAHA
(project fails)
6/30/23 $1,800,000 6/30/26
The purchase loan and construction loan will be repaid annually from residual receipts, and the balance will be due at the end of a 55-year term. The interest rate reduction from 3% to 0% represents a reduction in interest income of $1.2 million over 20 years (when most affordable housing projects are refinanced) or $3.3 million over 55 years. However, staff believes the above benefits outweigh the reduction in interest income.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approving SAHA’s request will result in a total distribution of $3,200,000 from the restricted Housing Fund’s available fund balance and up to $3.3 million in reduced interest payments over 55 years. There is additional de minimis City Attorney and staff costs to prepare an amendment to the DDA.

The Housing Fund balance is approximately $5.7 million. It will grow to an estimated $6.5 million by June 2023. SAHA’s request to increase the $2,000,000 construction loan from the City by $1,200,000 will bring the total loan request to $3,200,000. If a $3.2 million loan is provided to SAHA, and an estimated $825,000 is reserved for future administrative costs, the Housing Fund will have approximately $2.5 million remaining to assist other affordable housing projects. This is enough to make a significant contribution to create additional affordable housing in Pinole. 207 of 560
City Council Report
Meeting Date: February 21, 2023 5
If SAHA’s request is not approved and/or the project fails, the City may need to give up some Housing Funds to a local housing agency as “excess surplus” for not spending funds in a timely manner.

ATTACHMENTS
A- Resolution
B- First Amendment to the Development and Disposition Agreement 208 of 560
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

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

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND SATELLITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSOCIATES (SAHA) FOR ADDITIONAL $1.2 MILLION LOAN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 811 SAN PABLO AVENUE AND A TOTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION OF $3,200,000 FROM THE HOUSING FUND’S UNRESTRICTED

AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Pinole (the “City”) is the owner of certain property located at 811 San Pablo Avenue in the City of Pinole, California, County Assessor’s Parcel Number 402-166-030 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property was purchased by the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole (the “Agency”) with low- and moderate-income housing funds in accordance with Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.).; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021 the City and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) (the “Developer”) entered a Disposition and Development Agreement (the “DDA”) that sets forth the terms and conditions under which the City will convey the Property to the Developer; and
WHEREAS, under the DDA the City agrees to provide a $1,180,000 purchase loan (the appraised value of the Property) in the form of a residual receipts loan and a $2,000,000 construction loan from the City’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the “Housing Fund”) to assist with costs related to the construction of the Project for the development of 33 units of very-low and low-income housing at the Property (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the appropriation for the originally approved $2,000,000 construction loan has not yet been appropriated from the Housing Fund’s unrestricted available fund balance; and
WHEREAS, since executing the DDA, SAHA has secured nearly all development financing and is positioned to obtain building permits and begin construction by June 2023 as required by State and County financing sources; and
WHEREAS, since development estimates from 2020, total development costs for the Project have increased by 35% and hard construction costs have increased by 21% with the largest cost increases being construction loan interest (138%) and a new $1,600,000 operating deficit reserve required by other funding sources; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2023, SAHA requested an additional $1,200,000 in loan financing from the City, bringing the total construction loan to $3,200,000, and has also

ATTACHMENT A
209 of 560
requested an interest rate reduction from 3% to 0% in order to close a final financing gap and keep the Project’s operating cash flow positive for 20 years as required by State and County financing sources; and
WHEREAS, the additional $1,200,000 in loan funds and the interest rate reduction will ensure that the construction of the Project begins by June 2023, which is necessary to meet construction timeline and cash flow requirements of other financing sources; and WHEREAS, the total City purchase and construction loans willprovide an affordable housing subsidy of approximately $133,000 per residential unit (9% of total development cost) which is reasonable based on comparable projects in the region; and WHEREAS, if the City does not spend Housing Funds in a timely manner, it will have what is known as “excess surplus” that needs to be transferred to a local housing agency for expenditure on affordable housing and based on current projections, and assuming no use of remaining Housing Funds before 2026, providing an additional $1,200,000 from the Housing Fund to the SAHA project will ensure that the City will likely not incur an “excess surplus” issue prior to 2026; and
WHEREAS, if SAHA’s request is not granted they risk losing other financing, resulting in significant project delay or failure; and
WHEREAS, the disposition and development of the Property pursuant to the amended DDA will be of benefit to the community by helping to ensure that 33 units of housing for very-low and low income households are under construction starting in June of 2023 while at the same time allow the City to thoughtfully distribute remaining Housing Funds to other affordable housing projects.

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

Section 1: Declares the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated by this reference.

Section 2: Approves the First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement between the City of Pinole and SAHA increasing the construction loan by $1.2 million to a total construction loan of $3,200,000 and reducing the interest rate on the construction loan from 3% to 0% for the construction of the Project.

Section 3: Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement, with such changes as may be approved by the City Attorney, and to take all actions and execute all documents necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

Section 4: Authorizes a budget appropriation of $3,200,000 from the Housing Fund’s unrestricted/available fund balance for the loan to SAHA. 210 of 560
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pinole held on the 21st day of February, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 21st day of February, 2023
____________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
211 of 560
5301293.1 1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PINOLE AND SATELLITE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSOCIATES
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), amending that certain Disposition and Development Agreement (as amended, the “DDA”) dated July 6, 2021, by and between the City of Pinole, a California municipal corporation (the “City”) and Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Developer”) is made as of February 21, 2023. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment have the meaning set forth in the DDA.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain property located at 811 San Pablo Avenue in the City of Pinole, California, County Assessor’s Parcel Number 402-166-030 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property was purchased by the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pinole with low- and moderate-income housing funds in accordance with Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2021 the City and the Developer entered into the DDA, which sets forth the terms and conditions under which the City will convey the Property to the Developer; and
WHEREAS, under the DDA the City agreed to provide a Two Million Dollar ($2,000,000) Construction Loan from Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds to assist with costs related to the construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested and the City has agreed to provide additional financing in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) and the City has agreed to increase the Construction Loan to Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,200,000); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City lower the rate on the Construction Loan from 3% to 0% and the City has agreed to make changes to the City Documents to reflect the reduction in the interest rate to 0%; and NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the City and the Developer hereby agree to amend the DDA as follows:

Section 1. Recital H is hereby revised in its entirety as follows:
.

ATTACHMENT B
212 of 560
5301293.1 2
H. The City has also agreed to provide a loan in the amount of Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,200,000) (the “Construction Loan”) to the Developer to assist with costs related to the construction of the Project.

Section 2. Under Article I Section 1 of the DDA, the definition of “Construction Loan” is revised as follows:
“Construction Loan” means the Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollar ($3,200,000) loan to be provided to the Developer from low- and moderate-income funds held by the City.

Section 3. Section 2.2.B.3.a. is hereby amended as follows (strike-through is deletion and underline is addition):
a. The Developer has obtained all financing commitments necessary to construct, own and operate the Project, upon terms reasonably acceptable to the Developer, including the Purchase Loan from the City in the amount of One Million One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($1,180,000) and the Construction Loan in the amount of not to exceed Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,200,000) pursuant to the Loan Agreement, and (i) all conditions to the release and expenditure of the initial draw of funds described in the approved Financing Plan as the source of construction financing for the Project have been met or will be met upon conveyance of the Property to the Developer and that such funds will be available upon conveyance of the Property, (ii) all approvals permits, and authorizations which are conditioned upon conveyance will be received promptly after conveyance, and (iii) all construction financing (including draws subsequent to the initial draw of funds) will be available upon conveyance of the Property to the Developer subject to all lender-required conditions to the release of draws subsequent to the initial draw.

Section 4. Section 5.2 is hereby amended as follows (strike-through is deletion and underline is addition):

5.2 Construction Loan. The City hereby agrees to provide the Construction Loan in the form of a note in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,200,000). Simple interest will accrue on the outstanding principal balance of the Construction Loan at a per annum rate of interest equal to three percent (3%) zero percent (0%) (or such interest rate as is necessary to meet the requirements of the tax investor), commencing on the Close of Escrow.
213 of 560
5301293.1 3
Section 5. The City Documents attached in form only as Exhibits to the DDA will be revised upon execution to reflect the terms of this Amendment.

Section 6. All other terms and conditions under the DDA remain in full force and effect.

SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
214 of 560
5301293.1 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

City of Pinole,
a California municipal corporation
By:

Andrew Murray
City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
Heather Bell, CMC

REVIEWED AS TO FORM
By: _________________________
City Attorney
Eric Casher
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates,
a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation
By: ______________________
Susan Friedland
215 of 560

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
9L

DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ROXANE STONE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: PLACEMENT OF LIENS FOR DELINQUENT UNPAID WASTE

COLLECTION CHARGES FALLING DELINQUENT BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER AND DECEMBER 2022, CONSIDERED AT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 2, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the placement of liens for the purpose of collecting outstanding payments for garbage collection services pursuant to PMC Section 8.08.110 (b) and (c).

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Section 8.08 of the Pinole Municipal Code, an administrative hearing was held on February 2, 2023, regarding unpaid garbage collection services that fell delinquent between September and December 2022. No parties attended the hearing to protest the charges. The administrative hearing was the final step in the process to collect the delinquencies, prior to Council approval to place the liens on the subject properties to recover the full amount owed, including delinquent charges and administrative fees.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Pinole receives an administrative recovery charge for each lien at the time of tax settlement or payment of the lien. There are 122 properties on which liens are being imposed, representing a total of $58,244.80 in delinquent service charges. The total administrative recovery fee is $60 per lien; a portion of which is remitted to Contra Costa County. The administrative recovery fees are $7,320.00; the total lien amount including recovery fees are $50,924.89.

Following approval by Council, a revised list will be provided to the City Clerk for recording, removing properties where accounts have been brought current since the publication of this report.

ATTACHMENT
A: Resolution
216 of 560

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PINOLE, CALIFORNIA, PLACING LIENS

ON PROPERTIES SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNTY OF CONTRA

COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS

UNPAID WASTE COLLECTION CHARGES FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CONDUCTED FEBRUARY 2, 2023
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Pinole, Chapter 8.08, Section 8.08.090, subscription to garbage collection service is required for all premises in the City of Pinole, and the premises described in Exhibit "A" located in the City of Pinole, County of Contra Costa, State of California, were provided with garbage collection services as required by PMC, Chapter 8.08; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.08.110, the owners of said premises were notified in writing of their requirement to subscribe to and make payment for garbage collection services as provided in said Code Section; and WHEREAS, the owners of the premises failed to make payment for garbage collection services as required (collection charges fell delinquent between September and December 2022); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.08.110, a hearing was held on February 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, as a result thereof, the City of Pinole has incurred expenses for delinquent collection charges and administrative costs as enumerated in Exhibit "A"*, which amounts remain unpaid.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 8.08.110 of the Municipal Code of the City of Pinole, the City Council of the City of Pinole does hereby place a lien against said premises for the amounts as described above and as applicable to each specific premise identified as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, by this reference, incorporated herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution with the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, California.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21ST day of February 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on this 21st day of February 2023.
_________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
* Exhibit A is not included as an attachment to this resolution that is posted on the City website or disseminated as part of the City Council Agenda Packet. The names of the individuals are confidential until the liens are recorded and become public record. 217 of 560

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
12A
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LILLY WHALEN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF “JUST CAUSE” EVICTION REGULATIONS AND

PROVIDE POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO CITY STAFF

RECOMMENDATION
Receive an overview presentation of “just cause” eviction regulations and possibly provide direction to City staff.

BACKGROUND
The City Council requested a future City Council
agenda item to learn more about just cause
eviction regulations.
”Just cause” – also known as “good cause” or
“for cause” – eviction laws are tenant
protections that prevent evictions and promote
housing stability by limiting the causes for
which a landlord can (1) evict a tenant or (2)
refuse to renew a tenant’s lease when the
tenant is not at fault or in violation of any law.

The allowable “causes” for eviction are
separated into “at-fault” just causes and “nofault” just causes.

Just cause laws aim to benefit low-income tenants by:
• Protecting renters from evictions for no fault of their own. • Delivering a sense of stability to tenants.
• Discouraging renters from self-evicting when they receive eviction notices from landlords.
• Empowering tenants experiencing poor living conditions, discrimination, or other illegal landlord behavior to advocate for improvements with landlords or file complaints without fear of retaliation.
• In some cases, protecting tenants from unreasonable rent increases.

At-Fault
Just Cause
No-Fault
Just Cause
Limited Set
of Causes
Evict Due to
Evict Due to
Tenant’s
Actions
Limited Set
of Causes to
Evict Due to
Landlord's
Actions
218 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 2
Just cause laws can be enacted at federal, state, or local levels. Currently, no federal just cause laws exist. However, five states across the country have implemented just cause legislation: New Jersey, California, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington. New Jersey was the first state to pass such renter protections (in 1974), and Washington is the most recent (in 2021).

Just cause legislation enacted by state and local jurisdictions typically includes three core Components: (1) the definition of the legal grounds for eviction, (2) the placing of limits on rent increases, and (3) the enhancement of written notice requirements. This background section provides an overview of the tenant/landlord relationship in California and background on tenant protections at the state, regional, and local level.

Landlord/Tenant Relationship in California
General Information About Landlords and Tenants. A landlord is a person or entity that owns a rental unit. The landlord rents the rental unit to another person, called a tenant, for the tenant to live in. The tenant obtains the right to the exclusive use and possession of the rental unit during the rental period. Sometimes, the landlord is called the owner, and the tenant is called a resident. A rental unit is an apartment, house, duplex, condominium, accessory dwelling unit (ADU), room, or other structure or part thereof that a landlord rents to a tenant to live in. Because a tenant uses the rental unit to live in, it is called a residential rental unit or dwelling unit. Often, a landlord will retain a rental agent or property manager to manage their rental property. The agent or property manager is compensated by the landlord to represent the landlord's interests. In some instances, the tenant will deal with the rental agent or property manager on behalf of the landlord. In other instances, the tenant will deal directly with the landlord. For example, a tenant can work directly with the agent or property manager to resolve problems with the rental unit.

Rental Agreements and Leases. Before a tenant can rent a rental unit, the landlord and tenant must enter into a rental agreement or lease. A "lease" generally refers to a written agreement while a "rental agreement" generally includes both oral and written agreements. However, these terms are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.

The tenant’s right to use and possess the landlord’s rental unit is called a tenancy. The rental agreement includes the terms and conditions that will govern the tenancy, including the length of the tenancy, the amount of the rent, the timing when the rent payments are due, and the amount of the security deposit.

Fixed Term and Periodic Tenancies. Whether the parties choose an oral or written agreement, either agreement must address the length of the tenancy or rental period.

There are two types of tenancies, a tenancy for a fixed term and a tenancy for a periodic term. Fixed-term tenancies are tenancies that last for a set amount of time and have a defined expiration date, such as six months or one year. It is important to understand that the tenant is bound by the agreement until the agreement expires, which means that the tenant must pay the rent and perform all of the tenant's obligations under the agreement during the entire tenancy. There are some advantages to having a fixed-term tenancy. 219 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 3
For instance, the landlord cannot raise the tenant's rent during the tenancy, unless the rental agreement expressly allows rent increases. Also, the landlord cannot terminate the tenancy while the rental agreement is in effect unless the tenant breaches a term in the rental agreement (for example, the tenant fails to pay rent, damages the property, or commits illegal activity on the premises). A fixed-term tenancy gives the tenant the security of a long-term agreement at a known cost.

Periodic tenancies are tenancies that continue for successive periods until the landlord or tenant gives the other party proper notification that they want to end the tenancy.

Examples of periodic tenancies are tenancies that run from week to week or month to month. A periodic-term tenancy does not state the total number of weeks or months that the rental agreement will be in effect. The tenant can continue to live in the rental unit as long as the tenant continues to pay rent and the landlord does not provide proper notice of termination in a manner provided by law. If a tenant is protected by just cause eviction protections, a landlord cannot ask a tenant to leave for no reason even during a monthto-month tenancy.

Highlighted Additional Landlord-Tenant Provisions
• Application fee. Landlords in California may charge a nonrefundable application fee that is no greater than their actual out-of-pocket costs for things such as screening services and the reasonable value of time spent by the landlord or an agent in obtaining information about the applicant. The application screening fee cannot exceed $30, adjusted annually with an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
• Security deposit. California landlords can charge no more than two months' rent as a security deposit for unfurnished rentals. For furnished rentals, the maximum security deposit increases to three months' rent. State law does not require landlords to pay interest on security deposits. However, local laws could require interest. Landlords have 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises to provide the tenant with an itemized statement indicating the amount of and use of the security deposit and to return any remaining portion of the security deposit.
• Disclosures. Under state law, California landlords must disclose specific information to tenants (usually in the lease or rental agreement), such as whether the gas or electricity in the tenant's rental also serves other areas and information about toxic mold if the landlord knows that mold on the property exceeds exposure limits or poses a threat to the tenant's health.
• Paying rent. Landlords are not required to give tenants a rent payment grace period. Rent is due on the date specified in the lease or rental agreement, and a landlord can consider it late if it is not paid on that date. However, if the lease or rental agreement gives the tenant a grace period for paying rent, the landlord must 220 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 4
honor it, and cannot consider rent to be late until after the grace period has passed.

Any late fee must be a reasonable estimate of the cost that the landlord incurs because the rent is late (for example, any interest or collection costs), and the lease or rental agreement must include specific information about late fees. • Late rent. When a tenant is late with rent, the landlord cannot file an eviction suit until the landlord has given the tenant a properly written and served three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The three days does not include Saturdays, Sundays, and other judicial holidays. If the tenant does not pay the rent owed or move out within those three days, the landlord can file an eviction lawsuit. • Withholding rent. California landlords are legally required to offer and maintain habitable rentals. Tenants may withhold rent, move out without notice, sue the landlord, call state or local health inspectors, or exercise the right to "repair and deduct" if a landlord fails to take care of important repairs, such as a broken heater.

First, the defect must be a serious one that the tenant has attempted— unsuccessfully—to have the landlord fix. The tenant can then fix the problem (either on their own or by hiring a handyperson) and deduct the cost from rent.

However, the tenant cannot spend more than one month's rent on the repair, and the tenant cannot have used the repair and deduct remedy twice already in the past 12 months. The tenant must also adhere to any local rules regarding the repair and deduct remedy.
• Termination and Eviction. See section below for information on the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019
The “Tenant Protection Act of 2019”, or Assembly Bill (AB) 1482, is effective in California January 1, 2020 through January 1, 2030. AB 1482 requires landlords to have a “just cause” to evict a tenant who has lived in a rental for 12 months or longer. The law applies both to month-to-month and longer-term leases and a “just cause” distinguishes between two different categories of evictions: “at-fault” and “no-fault”. Each of these categories of “just cause” limit the causes for which a landlord can evict a tenant, require noticing to the tenant, and in some cases, require the landlord to allow the tenant to correct a breach prior to eviction or compensate the tenant for relocation expenses.

At-fault evictions are due to tenant’s actions (e.g., failure to pay rent). No-fault evictions are when the eviction is beyond the tenant’s control (e.g., landlord would like to move into the unit). Additionally, AB 1482 contains rent cap provisions. It limits annual rent increases to the lower of no more than 5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living for the region in which the property is located, or 10%. 221 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 5
The following provides an overview of the different categories of just cause evictions under AB 1482 in addition to the types of properties covered under and exempted from the law.
• At-fault evictions. In the case of an at-fault eviction, a landlord must serve the tenant with a 3-day written notice to allow the tenant to correct, or “cure” any of the “at fault” causes in Figure 1 before evicting. Additional "at fault" causes involve tenant behavior that is at odds with California's laws for tenant behavior (known as "statutory causes"). These types of “at-fault” causes do not require the landlord to allow the tenant to correct, or “cure” prior to eviction. Statutory “at-fault” causes are provided in Figure 2. No relocation compensation is required of the landlord to the tenant under an “at-fault” eviction.

• Fails to pay the rent on time
• Breaks the lease or rental agreement and will not fix the problem (like keeping a cat when pets are not allowed)
• Damages the property, bringing down the value (commits "waste")
• Becomes a serious nuisance by disturbing other tenants and neighbors even after being asked to stop
• Refuses to sign a new lease that is similar to the old lease • Assigns or sublets in violation of the lease
Figure 1: Curable “at-fault” causes to evict tenant under AB 1482 (landlord must allow tenant to correct before eviction) • Refusal to allow a lawful entry
• Failing to move out after giving the landlord a notice to terminate • Using the unit for an unlawful purpose (illegal activity like drug dealing, or zoning code violations like operating a business) • Failing to move out after the landlord has terminated the tenant's employment, agency, or license (in the case of for resident managers and maintenance or cleaning staff)
Figure 2: Statutory “at-fault” causes to evict tenant under AB 1482 (landlord can proceed with eviction process)
222 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 6
• “No-fault” evictions. In the case of a no-fault eviction the landlord must compensate the tenant for relocation expenses. The compensation is one month's rent and can be in the form of waiving the last month's rent or making a payment to the tenant. The landlord does not have to pay relocation compensation if the tenant's behavior caused the government to issue the abatement order. “No-fault” causes for evictions are listed in Figure 3.
• Exemptions. There are some property types and situations that are exempt from provisions of AB 1482. Overarching, tenancies where none of the tenants have resided in the unit for 12 months or more are exempt. The law does not provide any tenant protection for short term occupancies of less than one year. Specifically, the following in Figure 4 are exempted from both rent control and just cause restrictions in California state law.
• An owner's or relative's intent to occupy the unit (provided that the lease contains a notice of that possibility).
• The landlord's planned withdrawal of the unit from the rental market.
• Notice from the government to vacate based on the need to address a violation of health or safety or other codes, or any other court or administrative order that requires vacating the unit. • The planned demolition or substantial remodeling of the unit.

Substantial remodeling does not include cosmetic upgrades, but does include replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least 30 days.

Figure 3: “No-fault” causes to evict tenant under AB 1482 (landlord must compensate tenant for relocation expenses) 223 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 7
Additionally, some properties are exempt from just cause requirements but not rent control under AB 1482 (see Figure 5).
• Tenancy of less than 12 months
• Deed restricted affordable housing
• Duplex where the owner occupied one of the units during the beginning of the tenancy and remains in occupancy
• Multi-family residences whose certificates of occupancy were issued in the last 15 years
• Properties that are already subject to a local rent control and just cause ordinance
• Dormitories owned and operated by schools
• Transient and tourist hotel occupancy
• Non-owner occupied single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums owned by individuals, family trusts, or limited liability companies so long as the LLC does not have any corporate members.

Figure 4: AB 1482 Exemptions from Just Cause Evictions and Rent Control
• Owner-occupied housing where the tenant and owner share bathroom or kitchen facilities. Must be the owner's principal residence.
• Single-family, owner-occupied properties. This includes residences in which the owner-occupant rents no more than two units or bedrooms. The rented units or bedrooms can be accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units.

Figure 5:Exemptions from Just Cause Evictions only in AB 1482
224 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 8
Eviction Process
A landlord must meet many legal requirements before they can ask for a court order that says their tenant must move out. The process includes the steps outlined in Figure 6.

Figure 6: General Eviction Process in California
The judge makes a decision. If the landlord wins, they can ask the judge for papers that tell the sheriff to evict the tenants. The sheriff will post a Notice to Vacate and the tenant has time to move out. The landlord is not allowed to evict the tenants. A landlord is not allowed to turn off the power or other utilities, remove outside windows or doors, lock a tenant out, or throw out belongings to get their tenant to move out. If they do, the landlord may have to pay the tenant a penalty.

The tenant has a few days to file a response in court. If the tenant doesn't respond by the deadline, the landlord can file papers asking a judge to decide the case without their input. If the tenant does respond, either side can ask for a trial where a judge or jury will decide.

The Landlord starts an eviction case in court. If the tenant doesn't do what the Notice says by the deadline, the landlord can file an eviction case (called an unlawful detainer). The landlord must have a copy of the court papers delivered (served) to the tenant.

The landlord gives the tenant a written Notice to do something by a deadline.

For example, a Notice might say to fix a problem or move out by a certain date. The deadlines can be very short, like 3 days, or months. 225 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 9
According to the Eviction Lab1, a Princeton University team of researchers, students, and website architects who publish nationwide eviction data, in 2018 2% of renter householders were threatened with evictions in Contra Costa County. There were approximately 7.7 eviction filings per day that year, for a total of 2,800 filings total. In Pinole, the data shows that in 2018 there was only one eviction filing in the City. Figure 7 below shows a graph from the Eviction Lab comparing the eviction filing rate in Pinole and Contra Costa County to the national average from 2000 through 2018 (the latest data year).

Figure 7: Eviction Filing Rate from 2000-2018 in Pinole, Contra Costa compared to Nationwide Average
COVID Tenant Protection Programs
The California COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act and the COVID-19 Rental Housing Recovery Act protected renters impacted financially as a result of COVID-19 through March 31, 2022. From October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022, the law required any landlord wanting to evict a tenant for failing to pay rent as a result of COVID-19 hardship to first apply for rental assistance before proceeding with an eviction lawsuit.

Similar to many communities during the onset of the pandemic, Contra Costa County enacted a temporary eviction moratorium for certain residential tenants for nonpayment of rent due to COVID-19 hardships in addition to other issues, and a moratorium on certain residential rent increases through September 30, 2021. Pinole similarly enacted an urgency ordinance regarding a temporary eviction moratorium in that was in effect through May 2020. Most residents of Contra Costa County are no longer protected by an eviction moratorium.
1 www.evictionlab.org
226 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 10
Pinole’s Current Rental Stock and Tenant Protection Programs Pinole’s Rental Stock. According to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, in 2021 Pinole’s housing inventory was 7,169 units. Single-family detached units comprised the largest percentage of housing stock, of approximately 70%, with 5,056 units. Multifamily housing made up 20% with 1,461 units. Single-family attached (e.g., townhome, condominium) housing made up approximately 9% of the housing stock with 616 units. See Figure 8.

Most of Pinole’s housing stock is composed of owner-occupied, detached single-family homes (69%) followed by renter-occupied, detached single-family homes (16%).

Analyzing the tenure split of the various housing building types reveals that 81% of detached single-family homes were owner occupied. Multifamily housing was predominantly renter occupied (80%). See Figure 9. The most common unit size for renter-occupied units in Pinole is two-bedroom units (39%), followed by three-bedroom units (28%).

Single-family
detached
71%
Multi-family housing
20%
Single-family
attached (condo,
townhome)
9%
Other
0%
Figure 8: Pinole's Housing Stock, 2021
Single-family detached Multi-family housing Single-family attached Other 227 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 11
In terms of household income levels of rental units, of the City’s rental stock in 2018, a total of 260 units (comprising 13% of total renter-occupied housing stock) were occupied by extremely-low income households, with annual gross incomes in 2018 under $34,850 for a family of four. A total of 380 units, or 19% of the renter-occupied housing stock, were occupied by very low-income households, with annual gross incomes in 2018 under $58,100 for a family of four. Finally, a total of 315 units, or 16% of the renter-occupied housing stock, were occupied by low-income households, with annual gross incomes in 2018 under $89,600 for a family of four.

With regard to rental prices, in 2020, the median rental price in Pinole was $1,997. This is a 30% increase from the 10-year low of $1,538 in 2015. In 2018 approximately 48% of all renters in the City were paying more than 30% of their income on housing, which is considered “overpayment.” This includes 205 extremely low-income households, 310 very low-income households and 215 low-income households that year.

Pinole regulates rental units under the Residential Health and Safety Rental Inspection Program. The City also performs substandard housing inspections pursuant to AB 838.

Other than protections provided in state-wide protections under AB 1482, Pinole has not adopted local regulations that would provide just eviction or rent cap protections for tenants.

Residential Health and Safety Rental Inspection Program. The City of Pinole requires that rental units in the City be inspected to meet habitability and safety standards. The intent is to ensure that rental stock is maintained and compliant with City codes and requires an inspection once every three years to ensure compliance with all applicable City ordinances or other laws relating to housing, including the substandard housing provisions of the Housing Code. A business license must also be maintained for each property used for rental purposes.
383 active business licenses for a total of 1,020 rental units are on file in the City. Of those units, 15 properties contain five rental units or more, 12 contain quadplexes (four rental units), four contain triplexes (three rental units), 11 contain duplexes and 333 are for single-family homes. It is estimated that multifamily housing in the City totaled 1,461 units 81%
18% 19%
80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Single-family detached Multi-family housing
Number of Units
Housing ype
Figure 9: Pinole Tenure by Housing Type, 2021
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
228 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 12
in 2021, and therefore, there are a number of units that may not be up-to-date with business license and/or inspection requirements. The rental inspection program has had varying levels of attention paid to it over the years, and staff recognizes that a database of rental units, with up-to-date information regarding business license and inspection status, in addition to public outreach is needed to make the program successful. With new permit and project technology coming online in the summer of 2023, in addition to onboarding of new key staff positions such as Building Official and Building Inspector I/II, staff anticipates that the rental inspection program will become up-to-date and more robust starting in the FY23/24 fiscal year.

Substandard Housing Inspection. California AB 838 provides a process to address tenant complaints of substandard building conditions and provides right of entry to the City to enter and inspect and direct correction. AB 838 requires the City conduct an inspection of property when it receives a complaint of a lead hazard violation or substandard building condition to determine whether the conditions are substandard. If a substandard condition is found, the City must prepare an inspection report and provide free, certified copies of the inspection report and citations issued, if any, to the complaining tenant and to all potentially affected tenants, residents, and occupants. A “substandard” building condition under AB 838 are conditions that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants and includes but is not limited to inadequate sanitation, structural hazards, nuisances, faulty weather protection, fire hazards, buildings unsafe under applicable fire or building codes.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The following provides three different options for City Council to consider with respect to a discussion regarding tenant protections in the City.

1. Rely on existing State Law AB 1482. The City could continue to rely on state law for renter protection. The City could enhance resources available online by adding information to the City’s website about AB 1482. Additionally, implementation of Program 20 (Displacement Prevention/Housing Mobility) in the 6th Cycle Housing Element will involve meeting/workshops to inform residents and landlords of sources of income protection and state rent control laws such as AB 1482. Through this program the City will also coordinate outreach efforts to inform landlords and tenants of recent changes to state law that prevent source of income discrimination, including allowance of housing choice vouchers (HCVs) to establish a renter’s financial eligibility.

2. Adopt existing State Law AB 1482. In addition to the enhanced notification/information about tenants rights as described in option 1 above, the City could consider adopting an ordinance that mirrors the protections in AB 1482. The goal of adopting the regulations of AB 1482 into the City’s Municipal Code via an Ordinance would be to provide additional local protections to tenants and extend the protections granted by AB 1482 beyond 2030 (the year AB 1482 will sunset unless amended by the State Legislature). The Ordinance could be relied upon as an affirmative defense in a court proceeding for an unlawful detainer and may be the basis of civil 229 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 13
litigation brought by a tenant. The City would not be enforcing the Ordinance, since it is not involved in the unlawful detainer process. Therefore, there would be no additional staff effort required associated with implementing the Ordinance other than providing notification to the community.

3. Adopt stronger protections than State Law AB 1482. The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 does not replace local just cause eviction laws that provide tenants greater protection. The City could consider adopting just cause eviction regulations that are more protective for tenants than State law. Some examples from other jurisdictions include:
• A 2022 ballot measure in Oakland expanded just cause eviction standards to include protections for tenants in recreational vehicles, tiny homes, and newly constructed homes. In addition, the measure prohibits no-fault evictions for children and educators during the school year, as well as prohibiting an eviction on the basis of a tenant failing to sign a new lease.
• A 2023 ordinance adopted in Los Angeles includes a "Universal Just Cause" policy which applies protections to all tenants, a provision that ensures no tenant will be evicted for falling behind a small amount on rent, and a relocation assistance policy for renters facing large rental increases. Finally, roommates and pets who were adopted during the pandemic and otherwise not noted on a tenant's lease and without a landlord's approval may remain in place for another year.

In addition to establishing just causes for eviction, ordinances also include relocation assistance components and noticing requirements. Additionally, while often tied to a rent control ordinance, some cities in California have established a just cause ordinance without a rent control program in place. For example, for tenants who rent their unit for a minimum of two years in San Diego, landlords are limited to just cause reasons for eviction. Unlike rent control, just cause eviction ordinances can cover the entire rental market including units built after 1995, single-family homes, and duplexes.

There are a number of questions City Council may want to consider in studying more protective just cause eviction regulations, including the following:
• When should just-cause eviction protections apply? What types of units and landlords (e.g. small vs. large) should be regulated in this way? • What should qualify as a just cause for eviction? What grounds should be included as just or un-just causes for eviction? What circumstances should allow an owner to evict tenants in order to convert their units to another use? • What are the costs of just-cause eviction protections? These types of protections can increase the cost of evictions for landlords, and also limit landlords’ control over an important aspect of their ownership rights. Such regulations, therefore, may make investment in the stock to which the protections apply less 230 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 14
appealing, potentially having a negative effect on the growth and quality of the housing stock in a jurisdiction. This may be especially relevant in smaller jurisdictions where many rentals are in smaller buildings that may also be owneroccupied or have non-professional landlords who may be ill-equipped to manage tenant relationships.

Additionally, depending on the type of regulations desired there could be associated financial costs to the City for staff (legal and otherwise) time to establish, monitor, enforce and report on a program.
• Should there be additional penalties for landlords who fail to comply with just cause eviction requirements? Some jurisdictions impose civil or criminal penalties on landlords who violate just cause policies. In California, landlords may have to pay relocation costs for tenants being evicted for personal use, substantial renovations, or condo conversion. In many jurisdictions, landlords may have to pay damages and attorneys fees to wrongfully evicted tenants. Requiring landlords to compensate tenants being evicted without cause can also serve to discourage landlords from taking such actions while at the same time helping to mitigate the burden imposed on tenants.
• What other procedural protections are available? Many jurisdictions adopt other forms of procedural and substantive eviction protections that are not part of any just cause program. Procedural protections may include notice requirements, discovery rights, and the right to a jury trial. Substantive defenses to eviction available in some jurisdictions include retaliation, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and violation of applicable consumer protection statutes.

Other dedicated affordable housing actions (in the form or programs or Ordinances) to prevent or mitigate displacement of existing tenants due to escalating rents can include the following:
• Minimum lease term ordinances, like Mountain View’s, require longer-term leases for renters as opposed to month-to-month.
• Stand-alone locally required relocation assistance ordinances for “no-fault” evictions (i.e., in order for landlord to move in, or if landlord is renovating) have been adopted by some communities.
• Foreclosure assistance program (financial or otherwise) for homeowners when they are at risk of foreclosure (may be provided by federal grant funding) may avoid tenant displacement.
• Rental repair and rehabilitation programs provide funding or other assistance that help landlords with repairs and rehabilitation of rental housing, which avoids tenant displacement.
• Source of income non-discrimination ordinances outlaw discrimination based on sources of income, which is defined to encompass all sources of lawful income 231 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 15
including rental assistance programs administered by public entities or nonprofits.

Source of income nondiscrimination laws can help protect families that receive rental assistance from displacement both by stabilizing their right to remain in their current housing and by providing them more opportunities to find housing in their communities if they need to move.

Next Steps
If City Council desires to engage further on this topic, staff recommends Council give direction to staff in the following manner:
• Conduct stakeholder outreach/consultation. This could include the following:
o Engage all landlords (rental license holders) and tenants in city in a survey o Convene a meeting with landlord association (East Bay Rental Housing Association and/or others)
o Convene a meeting with local real estate professionals o Convene a meeting with Bay Area Legal Aid, ECHO Housing, Eviction Defense Center, Tenants Together, Centro Legal de la Raza • Return to Council with more information verifying and clearly defining the identified problem and identifying possible actions to address the problem Resources for Renters
Tenants facing eviction or other issues may be entitled to free help from one of these organizations:
• Bay Area Legal Aid – 510-250-5270
• Centro Legal de la Raza – 510-437-1554
• Eviction Defense Center (for residents of West County) – 510-452-4541 • Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (for residents aged 60+) – 925-609-7900

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to receiving this presentation.

ATTACHMENTS
None
232 of 560

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
12B
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MARKISHA GUILLORY, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RECEIVE THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022/23 SECOND QUARTER (MID-YEAR) FINANCIAL REPORT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZING BUDGET AMENDMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Second Quarter (“Mid-Year”) Financial Report and adopt a resolution authorizing related budget adjustments.

BACKGROUND
The City operates on an annual budget cycle. Through the budget, the City Council approves revenue estimates and authorizes City staff to expend the City’s limited financial resources. The City Council adopts an original budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, then makes adjustments to the budget throughout the year to reflect changes in expected revenues and to increase or decrease expenditures to address changes in policy or operational priorities.

As one of the many activities that the City undertakes to help ensure its financial soundness, staff provides quarterly financial reports on the City’s budget condition.

Following the conclusion of the second quarter of the fiscal year, staff conducts a second quarter/mid-year budget review.

The mid-year review provides an in-depth assessment of the City’s revenues and expenditures during the first half of the fiscal year (July through December). It helps determine whether the City is on track to meet the budget for the fiscal year or if adjustments are necessary. It also includes a projection of the fiscal year end results, which serves as the starting point for the development of next year’s budget and the long-term financial forecast.

It is important to note that Pinole, like other communities, has been and continues to be impacted by the fiscal and health effects of COVID-19 and its subsequent variants.

Fiscal impacts have been identified and noted in this mid-year report where applicable. 233 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 2

REVIEW & ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the City’s budget results through second quarter, from July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022. City revenues and expenditures are mostly on track with original budgeted amounts. Staff does recommend some budget adjustments, which are discussed within this report and in Attachment A. Additionally, staff has included two items for the City Council’s consideration for funding on page 14.

General Fund Analysis
General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014) revenues and expenditures are mostly on track with original budgeted amounts.

The originally adopted FY 2022/23 General Fund budget included $28.1 million in revenues, $29 million in expenditures, and $883,662 use of unassigned fund balance (residual, unrestricted funds) to fund several new critical positions as well as several Council-directed initiatives.

The FY 2022/23 budget is primarily a status quo budget, meaning that it does not include any major changes to City programs or services. It does include the following noteworthy items:
• Increases in staffing to respond to key community priorities and organizational needs, including additional Police Officers and capital project staff; • One-time special projects, such as:
o Active Transportation Plan;
o Brandt Court improvements;
o City Hall planting/landscaping improvements;
o Communication and engagement consulting;
o Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) consulting;
o Emergency power for critical facilities;
o Fleet-wide replacement of Police in-car MDC computers; o Installation of high-capacity trash bins;
o Legislative advocacy consulting;
o Municipal broadband planning;
o Non-capital recommendations of Beautification Ad Hoc Committee; o On-call consultants for capital projects;
o Recycled water master planning; and
o Weatherization/energy efficiency program.
• A “vacancy savings factor;” and
• The appropriation of the City’s remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to the General Fund to backfill the City’s loss of general revenue due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The revised FY 2022/23 budget includes $28.1 million in revenues, $29.2 million in expenditures, and $1.1 million use of unassigned fund balance. 234 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 3
As of the mid-year, the City is projecting to end FY 2022/23 with total revenues of $28.1 million, expenditures of $29.5 million (including recommended mid-year adjustments), and use of fund balance of $1.4 million. With mid-year budget adjustments, the General Fund unassigned fund balance is projected to be $9.2 million at the end of the fiscal year. The table below summarizes the General Fund budget.

General Fund Revenue (including Measure S 2006 and 2014) The City Council authorized revenues in the amount of $28,111,479 in the original FY 2022/23 General Fund budget, including Measure S 2006 and 2014. General Fund actual revenues through the second quarter of FY 2022/23 totaled $13,744,141, 49% of the amended budget. Staff does not recommend any adjustments to General Fund revenues as actuals are on track with original budgeted amounts. The table below summarizes the General Fund budgeted revenues.

Sales Tax
Sales tax is the City’s largest general revenue stream, representing 43% of total ongoing General Fund revenues. For the second quarter, sales tax collected, including Measure S funds, were $3,705,182, 39% of the amended budget. There is typically a delay in the timing of sales tax receipts. Despite the ongoing economic impacts of COVID-19, sales tax receipts remained stable. Even with rising prices due to inflation, consumer spending in the fuel and restaurant categories were up. Spending in the general consumer goods slowed with electronic stores experiencing the sharpest declines within this category.

General Fund (including
Measure S 2006 and 2014)
FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 28,111,479 $ 28,111,479 $ 28,111,479 $ 13,744,141 49% $ 28,111,479 Expenditures 28,995,141 29,183,934 301,000 29,484,934 13,541,743 46% 29,484,934 Net surplus/deficit (883,662) (1,072,455) (301,000) (1,373,455) $ 202,399 (1,373,455) Beginning Fund Balance 10,613,156 10,613,156 10,613,156 10,613,156 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,729,494 $ 9,540,701 $ 9,239,701 $ 9,239,701 Category FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
% of Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Property Taxes $ 4,776,626 $ 4,776,626 $ 4,776,626 $ 2,978,073 62% 4,776,626 $ Sales and Use Taxes 4,582,095 4,582,095 4,582,095 1,775,159 39% 4,582,095 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 200 2,451,000 2,451,000 2,451,000 965,019 39% 2,451,000 Sales and Use Taxes - Measure S 201 2,451,000 2,451,000 2,451,000 965,004 39% 2,451,000 Utility Users Tax 1,934,150 1,934,150 1,934,150 1,022,128 53% 1,934,150 Franchise Taxes 786,790 786,790 786,790 232,129 30% 786,790 Other Taxes: TOT 440,000 440,000 440,000 217,775 49% 440,000 Other Taxes: Business License 412,500 412,500 412,500 108,177 26% 412,500 Intergovernmental Taxes 2,215,948 2,215,948 2,215,948 1,099,865 50% 2,215,948 Public Safety Charges 1,405,108 1,405,108 1,405,108 131,311 9% 1,405,108 Total Other Revenue 549,640 549,640 549,640 178,098 32% 549,640 Revenue Total: 22,004,857 22,004,857 - 22,004,857 9,672,737 44% 22,004,857 Transfer In from Section 115 Trust 2,016,612 2,016,612 2,016,612 - 0% 2,016,612 Transfer In from ARPA Fund 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,071,404 100% 4,090,010 Revenue/Sources Total: $ 28,111,479 $ 28,111,479 $ - $ 28,111,479 $ 13,744,141 49% 28,111,479 $ 235 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 4
Property Tax
Property tax is the City’s second largest revenue stream. For the second quarter, total property tax revenue was $2,978,073, 62% of the amended budget. It is comprised of four segments – secured, unsecured, supplemental, and transfer tax. The largest segment is secured property tax. It is received in three installments in December (55%), April (40%), and June of each year (5%). Secured property tax revenue includes the basic 1% property tax of $2,949,175 and the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) of $1,490,951. This is revenue that has resulted from the dissolution of the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency and represents the shift from the Agency receiving tax increment revenue to the various taxing entities receiving the tax revenue. The RPTTF revenue will convert to “normal” property tax revenue when all of the former Agency’s outstanding debt is paid off and the Successor Agency is formally dissolved. Dissolution is currently expected to occur sometime after the final debt service payment in FY 2023/24.

All Other General Fund Revenue
Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) is levied on telecommunication, electricity, gas, and mobile telephones. For the second quarter, UUT revenues collected were $1,022,128, 53% of the amended budget. The amount collected is consistent with the timing of receipts.

Franchise Tax is levied on gas, electricity, cable, and refuse. For the second quarter, revenues collected were $232,129, 30% of the amended budget. The amount collected is consistent with the timing of receipts.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), also known as the “hotel tax,” is levied on persons staying 30 days or less in a motel or lodging facility within City limits. For the second quarter, revenues collected were $217,775, 49% of the amended budget. The amount collected is consistent with the timing of receipts.

Business License Tax is assessed on all businesses doing business within City limits.

For the second quarter, revenues collected were $108,177, 26% of the amended budget. The bulk of this revenue is typically received in January during the annual license renewal process.

Intergovernmental Taxes is comprised of the Motor Vehicle License Fee (VLF), which is the City’s share of motor vehicle license fees levied, collected, and apportioned by the State. This category also includes the Homeowners Property Tax Relief, which is a reimbursement from the State to offset loss of property tax for the state-imposed homeowner exemption. This revenue is received in two equal installments. For the second quarter, revenue collected was $1,099,865, 50% of the amended budget. The second installment will be received in June 2023.

Public safety charges are received for dispatch services provided to the cities of Hercules and San Pablo under an Intergovernmental Service Sharing agreement. The 236 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 5
revenue is received on a quarterly basis. The payments were received in January and are therefore not reflected in this mid-year report.

Other revenues include permits, fees, fines and forfeitures, rental income, proceeds from the sale of property, investment income, and grants. All revenues in this category totaled $178,098, 32% of the amended budget. The timing of receipts for revenues in this category varies.

The transfer in comes from the Section 115 Trust to offset the increase in pension costs in the General Funds. The amount of the transfer will be based on total expenditures at year-end. In addition, the General Fund budget includes a transfer in of $4,090,010 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund. This is the remaining balance of the City’s ARPA allocation which will be used to backfill the loss of revenue caused by the economic impacts of the pandemic.

General Fund Expenditures (including Measure S 2006 and 2014) The City Council authorized expenditures in the amount of $28,995,141 in the original FY 2022/23 General Fund budget. The revised budget was increased to $29,183,934.

The amended budget proposes $29,484,934 in General Fund expenditures. General Fund actual expenditures through the second quarter of totaled $13,541,743, 46% of the amended budget. The table below summarizes the General Fund budgeted expenditures.

Actuals in most of the expenditure categories were at or below 50%. Those that were above 50% are discussed below.
• Materials and Supplies were 76% of the amended budget primarily due to purchases of fuel and safety clothing and supplies.
• Debt Service expenditures were 100% of the amended budget due to the payment of the annual debt service for the 2006 pension obligation bonds. • Other Financing Uses/Transfers Out were at 60% of the amended budget due to the transfer of funds from the General Fund to other funds, including the transfer to the General Reserve Fund ($650,925), City Street Fund ($250,000), Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund ($250,000), and Equipment Reserve Fund ($85,000).

Category FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Salaries & Wages $ 11,492,312 $ 11,462,312 $ 11,462,312 $ 5,446,291 48% 11,462,312 $ Benefits 7,496,535 7,496,535 7,496,535 3,684,577 49% 7,496,535 Professional/Admin Services 4,253,726 4,282,075 105,000 4,387,075 1,582,038 36% 4,387,075 Other Operating 286,311 286,311 120,000 406,311 148,572 37% 406,311 Materials and Supplies 229,200 229,200 229,200 174,700 76% 229,200 Interdepartmental Charges (689,039) (689,039) 6,000 (683,039) 95,630 -14% (683,039) Asset/Capital Outlay 3,258,109 3,448,553 70,000 3,518,553 577,966 16% 3,518,553 Debt Service 596,107 596,107 596,107 596,045 100% 596,107 Other Financing Uses/Transfe 2,071,880 2,071,880 2,071,880 1,235,925 60% 2,071,880 Expenditure Total: $ 28,995,141 $ 29,183,934 $ 301,000 $ 29,484,934 $ 13,541,743 46% $ 29,484,934 237 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 6
In addition to the summary of expenditures by category, a summary of expenditures by department is provided below.

Most departmental spending was at or below 50% for the second quarter. Those that were above 50% are discussed below.
• City Attorney expenditures were at 55% of the amended budget because the reimbursements (credits) from other City departments for legal services were not processed until January. Reimbursements are processed in the month following the end of each quarter.
• Non-Departmental expenditures were at 72% of the amended budget due to the payment of the annual debt service for the 2006 pension obligation bonds and transfers out to other funds.
• Fire Department expenditures were at 53% of the amended budget primarily due to materials and supplies, and other operating expenses that fluctuate throughout the fiscal year.

General Fund revenues and expenditures are on target with budgeted amounts as expected at this point in the fiscal year. However, staff recommends several General Fund budget adjustments to fund some operational needs. The proposed adjustments, totaling $301,000, are as follows:
• Professional Services ($105,000) –
o Increase Finance budget by $95,000 for consulting work on the development of the budget and long-term financial plan, and an actuarial study on the City’s pension costs and Section 115 Trust; o Increase Community Development - Code Enforcement budget by $10,000 as there has been an increase in cases that need a show cause hearing prior to the City being able to conduct abatement; • Interdepartmental Charges ($6,000) –
o Increase Public Works budget by $6,000 for its share of the community development permit software;
• Asset/Capital Outlay ($190,000) –
Department FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
City Council $ 176,396 $ 188,396 $ 188,396 $ 88,717 47% 188,396 $ City Manager 615,943 615,943 615,943 258,816 42% 615,943 City Clerk 586,347 586,347 586,347 221,140 38% 586,347
City Treasurer 8,662 8,662 8,662 3,909 45% 8,662
City Attorney 321,057 321,057 321,057 175,971 55% 321,057 Finance Department 632,747 632,747 95,000 727,747 308,043 42% 727,747 Human Resources 768,472 768,472 768,472 324,398 42% 768,472 Non-Departmental 3,629,942 3,629,942 3,629,942 2,597,667 72% 3,629,942 Information Technology 102,600 102,600 102,600 - 0% 102,600 Police Department 10,535,459 10,535,459 10,535,459 5,117,969 49% 10,535,459 Fire Department 5,514,428 5,514,428 50,000 5,564,428 2,928,611 53% 5,564,428 Public Works 5,099,752 5,267,545 146,000 5,413,545 1,282,394 24% 5,413,545 Community Development 527,464 536,464 10,000 546,464 135,576 25% 546,464 Community Services 475,872 475,872 475,872 98,532 21% 475,872 Expenditure Total: $ 28,995,141 $ 29,183,934 $ 301,000 $ 29,484,934 $ 13,541,743 46% 29,484,934 $ 238 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 7
o Increase Public Works budget by $140,000 for attorney costs and settlement of Fernandez Park project ($120,000) and park tree maintenance ($20,000); and
o Increase Fire budget by $50,000 for Station 74 upgrades, which was authorized in the FY 2021/22 budget, but the work was not completed that year.

Overall, the General Fund has sufficient resources to continue to fund the City’s ongoing operations as well as some one-time items. As mentioned above, the General Fund unassigned fund balance is projected to be $9.2 million at the end of this fiscal year. The City also maintains a separate General Reserve Fund which maintains a balance equal to 50% (six months of expenditure coverage) of total ongoing General Fund expenditures. The current balance is $8.9 million.

Other Funds Analysis
The following analysis provides explanations of the financial activity for select nongeneral funds with substantial financial activity. Attachment A includes detailed financial information for all funds.

Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax Fund (Fund 200)
The Gas Tax Fund accounts for revenue from State excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel sales (referred to as the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA)) as well as revenue from the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) (referred to as the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)). Gas Tax Fund resources are restricted for use in the construction and maintenance of public streets. These funds support both annual operating and capital projects. For the second quarter, revenues were $437,883, 44% of the amended budget. Expenditures, including encumbrances, were $295,482, 25% of the amended budget. Actual expenditures are low due to the timing of capital projects. Staff recommends a $50,000 expenditure increase for citywide pavement marking and striping ($30,000) and pothole repair ($20,000).

Gas Tax Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 1,003,271 $ 1,003,271 $ 1,003,271 $ 437,883 44% $ 1,003,271 Expenditures 1,144,557 1,144,557 50,000 1,194,557 281,372 25% 1,210,731 Net surplus/deficit (141,286) (141,286) (50,000) (191,286) $ 156,510 (207,460) Beginning Fund Balance 729,304 729,304 729,304 729,304
Ending Fund Balance $ 588,018 $ 588,018 $ 538,018 $ 521,844 239 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 8
Public Safety Augmentation Fund (Fund 203)
The Public Safety Augmentation Fund (PSAF) accounts for monies allocated by the County Auditor-Controller under Proposition 172 from the statewide 0.5% sales tax based on a share of statewide taxable sales. These funds are used exclusively for public safety personnel costs. For the second quarter, revenues were $81,839, 47% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $99,046, 26% of the amended budget, and are low due to vacant positions.

Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (206)
The Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) accounts for funds received from the County under AB 3229, which enacted the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program, through which the City receives $100,000 annually. In addition to the $100,000 annual payment, the City receives a Growth Allocation payment. The funds are used to partially offset officer personnel costs. For the second quarter, revenues were $146,789, 93% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $111,067, 61% of the amended budget.

NPDES Storm Water Fund (Fund 207)
The NPDES Storm Water Fund accounts for assessments collected by the County via property tax bills and provided to the City for stormwater programs pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, a federally mandated program. Assessments are levied at $35 per Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU).

Revenues are typically received in December, April, and June through property tax assessments. For the second quarter, revenue was $5,580, 2% of the amended budget. The first property tax installment is received in the third quarter. Expenditures were $149,922, 44% of the amended budget.

Public Safety Augmentation Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 172,766 $ 172,766 $ 172,766 $ 81,839 47% $ 172,766 Expenditures 387,365 387,365 387,365 99,046 26% 387,365 Net surplus/deficit (214,599) (214,599) - (214,599) $ (17,207) (214,599) Beginning Fund Balance 517,190 517,190 517,190 517,190
Ending Fund Balance $ 302,591 $ 302,591 $ 302,591 $ 302,591 Supplemental Law Enforcement
Services Fund
FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 158,327 $ 158,327 $ 158,327 $ 146,789 93% $ 158,327 Expenditures 111,067 111,067 111,067 68,052 61% 111,067 Net surplus/deficit 47,260 47,260 - 47,260 $ 78,737 47,260 Beginning Fund Balance 372,015 372,015 372,015 372,015
Ending Fund Balance $ 419,275 $ 419,275 $ 419,275 $ 419,275 240 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 9
Recreation Department Fund (Fund 209)
The Recreation Department Fund accounts for funds received from fees for participation in recreational programs. The recreation programs of the Community Services Department have been and continue to be impacted by the pandemic. These programs have operated on a limited basis to comply with health and safety guidelines. For the second quarter, revenues were $186,831, 33% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $780,598, 41% of the amended budget. The Recreation Department Fund budget includes transfers in from the General Fund and Measure S 106 Fund, which will be transferred later in the fiscal year based on actual need. Staff recommends a net $69,780 revenue decrease due to lower than projected participation in the various programs and facility rentals. Staff also recommends a net $175,781 expenditure increase mostly for unexpected HVAC system repair and maintenance at the Senior Center.

Building & Planning Fund (Fund 212)
The Building & Planning Fund accounts for funds received from fees and permits for building and planning services. Fees are collected to recover the cost primarily related to inspections and plan checks performed. The second quarter, revenues were $510,819, 11% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $927,780, 40% of the amended budget. Staff recommends a net $2,539,897 revenue decrease. This is due to applications for two big development projects not being pulled in this fiscal year (but anticipated for next fiscal year) plus the effect the fee study changes have had on larger projects. Staff also recommends a net $83,899 expenditure decrease, which includes a decrease for salary savings due to position vacancies ($301,396); and an increase for the carryover of the budgets (authorized last fiscal year) for the community development permit system ($192,497) and permit technician backfill to assist with building permits backlog ($25,000).

NPDES Storm Water Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 253,422 $ 253,422 $ 253,422 $ 5,580 2% 253,422 Expenditures 336,938 336,938 336,938 149,922 44% 253,422 Net surplus/deficit (83,516) (83,516) - (83,516) $ (144,343) - Beginning Fund Balance (38,938) (38,938) (38,938) (38,938) Ending Fund Balance $ (122,454) $ (122,454) $ (122,454) $ (38,938) Recreation Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.

Projected
Year-End
Revenues
Program Revenue $ 558,000 $ 558,000 $ (69,780) $ 488,220 $ 186,831 $ 488,220 Transfers In 675,831 675,831 675,831 - 1,600,108
Total Revenues 1,233,831 1,233,831 (69,780) 1,164,051 186,831 2,088,328 Expenditures 1,918,034 1,918,034 175,781 2,093,815 780,598 2,093,815 Net surplus/deficit (684,203) (684,203) 106,001 (929,764) $ (593,767) (5,487) Beginning Fund Balance 5,488 5,488 5,488 5,488
Ending Fund Balance $ (678,716) $ (678,716) $ (924,277) $ 0 241 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 10
Refuse Management Fund (Fund 213)
The Refuse Management Fund accounts for resources received from the City’s franchise waste hauler, Republic Services, from a monthly fee imposed under AB 939 on all residential customers in Pinole. These revenues are restricted to programs and activities that promote recycling of solid waste and source reduction. For the second quarter, revenues were $31,009, 47% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $62,029, 37% of the amended budget.

Solid Waste Fund (Fund 214)
The Solid Waste Fund accounts for funds received from Republic Services from a monthly fee it assesses on customer rates for solid waste services. These funds are set aside for future solid waste capital projects and for a rate stabilization fund. For the second quarter, revenue was $211,999, 58% of the amended budget.

Expenditures were $140,274, 21% of the amended budget.

Rate Stabilization Fund (Fund 216)
The Rate Stabilization Fund was created to account for the excess revenues from the solid waste post collection contract with Republic Services. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the surplus funds, generated from prior years’ rate increases, are set aside to offset year-over-year rate fluctuations; thereby, leveling the annual rates paid by consumers.

Per Resolution 2013-91, the City was required to establish a rate stabilization fund, separate from the Solid Waste Fund (214), for the excess revenues collected.

Building and Planning Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 4,828,448 $ 4,828,448 $ (2,539,897) $ 2,288,551 $ 510,819 11% 2,288,551 $ Transfers In - - - - - 0% -
Total Revenues $ 4,828,448 $ 4,828,448 $ (2,539,897) $ 2,288,551 $ 510,819 11% 2,288,551 Expenditures 2,410,793 2,410,793 (83,899) 2,326,894 927,780 40% 2,326,894 Net surplus/deficit 2,417,655 2,417,655 (2,455,998) (38,343) $ (416,961) (38,343) Beginning Fund Balance (532,755) (532,755) (532,755) (532,755) Ending Fund Balance $ 1,884,900 $ 1,884,900 $ (571,098) $ (571,098) Refuse Management Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 66,060 $ 66,060 $ 66,060 $ 31,009 47% $ 66,060 Expenditures 167,825 167,825 167,825 62,029 37% 167,825 Net surplus/deficit (101,765) (101,765) - (101,765) $ (31,020) (101,765) Beginning Fund Balance 150,843 150,843 150,843 150,843
Ending Fund Balance $ 49,078 $ 49,078 $ 49,078 $ 49,078 Solid Waste Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 368,000 $ 368,000 $ 368,000 $ 211,999 58% $ 368,000 Expenditures 682,778 682,778 682,778 140,274 21% 682,778 Net surplus/deficit (314,778) (314,778) - (314,778) $ 71,725 (314,778) Beginning Fund Balance 2,063,224 2,063,224 2,063,224 2,063,224 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,748,446 $ 1,748,446 $ 1,748,446 $ 1,748,446 242 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 11
Revenue from the Fund 214 will be received later in the fiscal year. There are no budgeted expenditures for FY 2022/23.

Measure J Fund (Fund 215)
The Measure J Fund accounts for special sales tax revenues collected by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and reapportioned to the cities for local street projects. The City must submit a checklist each year to confirm compliance with a Growth Management Program in order to receive these funds. Estimates of annual funding are provided by the CCTA, and jurisdiction allocations are based on a formula that considers both population and road mileage. For the second quarter, revenues were $19,111, 5% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $85,823, 13% of the amended budget. Actual expenditures are low due to the timing of capital projects.

Staff recommends a $5,000 expenditure increase for the streetlight software subscription previously deducted from CCTA’s payment to the City.

American Rescue Plan Act Fund (Fund 217)
The American Rescue Plan Act Fund accounts for the $4,605,009 allocated to the City from the federal government from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021. In July 2022, the City received the second installment of its total allocation. The remaining funds are budgeted to be transferred to the General Fund to backfill for the loss of revenue during the pandemic.

Growth Impact Fund (276)
The Growth Impact Fund accounts for development fees collected to mitigate the impact of new development. Specifically, it provides for the expansion, design, Rate Stabilization Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 190 1% $ 15,380
Expenditures - - - - 0% -
Net surplus/deficit 15,000 15,000 - 15,000 $ 190 15,380 Beginning Fund Balance 199,959 199,959 199,959 199,959
Ending Fund Balance $ 214,959 $ 214,959 $ 214,959 $ 215,339 Measure J Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 390,848 $ 390,848 $ 390,848 $ 19,111 5% $ 390,848 Expenditures 639,880 639,880 5,000 644,880 85,823 13% 644,880 Net surplus/deficit (249,032) (249,032) (5,000) (254,032) $ (66,711) (254,032) Beginning Fund Balance 2,325,449 2,325,449 2,325,449 2,325,449 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,076,417 $ 2,076,417 $ 2,071,417 $ 2,071,417 American Rescue Plan Act Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 2,302,505 $ 2,302,505 $ 2,302,505 $ 2,302,505 100% $ 2,302,505 Expenditures 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 100% 4,090,010 Net surplus/deficit (1,787,505) (1,787,505) - (1,787,505) $ (1,787,505) (1,787,505) Beginning Fund Balance 1,787,505 1,787,505 1,787,505 1,787,505 Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
243 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 12
construction, or upgrade to facilities, roadways, and equipment. The City collects impact fees for police, fire protection, municipal, community, wastewater, roadways, and drainage. For the second quarter, impact fee revenue was $16,042. There were no expenditures.

Housing Assets for Resale Fund (285)
The Housing Assets for Resale Fund accounts for activities associated with administering housing programs of the former Pinole Redevelopment Agency, use of Housing Set Aside funds, and the provision of affordable housing within the community. Revenue from the repayment of a loan will be received from the Successor Agency later in the fiscal year. For the second quarter, expenditures were $54,099, 15% of the revised budget.

Lighting and Landscape District Fund (Fund 310)
The Lighting and Landscape District Fund accounts for assessments to property owners to maintain median lighting and landscaping within the Pinole Valley Road North and South areas. Revenue is received in December, April, and June with property tax payments. For the second quarter, revenue was $28,741, 45% of the amended budget. Expenditures were $29,756, 48% of the amended budget.

Capital Project Funds
City Street Improvement (Fund 325)
The City Street Improvements Fund accounts for an annual $250,000 transfer from Measure S 2014 for street improvement projects. Additionally, it accounts for various federal, state, and other grants for road projects. Grant revenue is received on a Growth Impact Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.

FY 2021/22
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 1,608,476 $ 1,608,476 $ (1,115,476) $ 493,000 $ 16,042 $ - 1% $ 493,000 Expenditures 58,000 58,000 58,000 - - 0% 58,000
Net surplus/deficit 1,550,476 1,550,476 (1,115,476) 435,000 $ 16,042 $ - 435,000 Beginning Fund Balance 2,701,825 2,701,825 2,701,825 2,701,825 Ending Fund Balance $ 4,252,300 $ 4,252,300 $ 3,136,824 $ 3,136,824 Housing Assets for Resale Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 917,883 $ 917,883 $ 917,883 $ 13,020 1% $ 917,883 Expenditures 327,475 388,685 388,685 59,099 15% 388,685 Net surplus/deficit 590,408 529,198 - 529,198 $ (46,079) 529,198 Beginning Fund Balance 7,746,133 7,746,133 7,746,133 7,746,133 Ending Fund Balance $ 8,336,541 $ 8,275,331 $ 8,275,331 $ 8,275,331 Landscape and Lighting District
Fund
FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 63,911 $ 63,911 $ 63,911 $ 28,741 45% $ 63,911 Expenditures 62,125 62,125 62,125 29,756 48% 62,125
Net surplus/deficit 1,786 1,786 - 1,786 $ (1,015) 1,786 Beginning Fund Balance 43,110 43,110 43,110 43,110
Ending Fund Balance $ 44,896 $ 44,896 $ 44,896 $ 44,896 244 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 13
reimbursement basis, after expenditures are incurred. For the second quarter, revenues were $437,760, 27% of the amended budget. Expenditures, including encumbrances were $445,334, 26% of the amended budget. Actual expenditures are low due to the timing of capital projects.

Arterial Streets Rehabilitation (Fund 377)
The Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund accounts for an annual $250,000 transfer from Measure S 2014 for street rehabilitation projects. For the second quarter, expenditures, including encumbrances, were $88,897, 11% of the revised budget.

Actual expenditures are low due to the timing of capital projects.

Enterprise Funds
Sewer Enterprise Fund (Fund 500)
The Sewer Enterprise Fund accounts for fees charged to residents and businesses for sewer utilities. Fees are used to operate the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves the Pinole and Hercules areas. Revenues are received with the property tax payments in December, April, and June. For the second quarter, revenues were $4,219,761, 50% of the amended budget. Expenditures, including encumbrances, were $3,482,517, 31% of the amended budget. Staff recommends a total $130,000 expenditure increase for the sludge removal project ($30,000), sanitary sewer overflow mitigation project ($70,000), and air release valve replacements ($30,000).

City Street Improvement Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 1,651,210 $ 1,651,210 $ 1,651,210 $ 437,760 27% $ 1,698,462 Expenditures 1,706,213 1,706,213 1,706,213 445,334 26% 1,706,213 Net surplus/deficit (55,003) (55,003) - (55,003) $ (7,574) (7,751) Beginning Fund Balance 1,552,990 1,552,990 1,552,990 1,552,990 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,497,987 $ 1,497,987 $ 1,497,987 $ 1,545,239 Arterial Streets Rehabilitation
Fund
FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 100% $ 250,000 Expenditures 810,312 810,312 810,312 88,897 11% 250,000 Net surplus/deficit (560,312) (560,312) (560,312) $ 161,103 - Beginning Fund Balance 49,887 49,887 49,887 49,887
Ending Fund Balance $ (510,425) $ (510,425) $ (510,425) $ 49,887 Sewer Enterprise Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 8,366,176 $ 8,366,176 $ 8,366,176 $ 4,219,761 50% $ 8,366,176 Expenditures 11,258,624 11,258,624 130,000 11,388,624 3,482,517 31% 11,401,581 Net surplus/deficit (2,892,448) (2,892,448) (130,000) (3,022,448) $ 737,244 (3,035,405) Beginning Fund Balance 22,228,477 22,228,477 22,228,477 22,228,477 Ending Fund Balance $ 19,336,029 $ 19,336,029 $ 19,206,029 $ 19,193,072 245 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 14
Cable Access TV Fund (Fund 505)
The Cable Access TV Fund accounts for revenue received from cable franchise fees, video production and broadcast charges, and Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access fees. PEG access fees are designated for equipment purchases.

Transfers from the General Fund also help support the operating costs. For the second quarter, revenues were $91,481, 17% of the amended budget. The major revenue sources are received one month after the close of the previous quarter.

Expenditures were $238,501, 37% of the amended budget.

Information Systems Fund (Fund 525)
The Information Systems Fund is an internal service fund used to account for activities that provide technology goods or services to other City funds and departments on a cost-reimbursement basis. For the second quarter, indirect cost allocations (reimbursements received from other City departments for information technology services) were $473,552, 26% of the amended budget. Expenditures, including encumbrances were $827,146, 45% of the amended budget. Staff recommends a $341,600 increase to indirect cost allocations and to expenditures to carry forward the budget allocation authorized in FY 2021/22 for the community development software project ($326,828), citywide zoom subscription ($7,372), and first installment for the new City website ($7,400).

The FY 2022/23 budget and actual revenue, expenditures, and ending fund balance for each City fund is listed in Attachment A.

Additional Items for City Council Consideration
In addition to the budget adjustments recommended above, staff recommends that the City Council consider allocating funds to the following critical projects.

1. TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE TENNENT AVENUE CORRIDOR Cable Access TV Fund FY 2022/23
Original Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
% of Revised
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Revenues $ 374,928 $ 374,928 $ 91,481 24% 374,928 $
Transfers In 160,124 160,124 - 0% 277,080
Total Revenue $ 535,052 $ 535,052 $ 91,481 17% 652,008
Expenditures 646,780 646,780 238,501 37% 646,780
Net surplus/deficit (111,728) (111,728) $ (147,020) $ 5,228 Beginning Fund Balance (5,227) (5,227) (5,227)
Ending Fund Balance $ (116,956) $ (116,956) $ 0
Information Technology Fund FY 2022/23
Original
Budget
FY 2022/23
Revised
Budget
Proposed
Adjustments
FY 2022/23
Amended
Budget
FY 2022/23
YTD Actuals
w/ Encumb.
% of
Amended
Budget
Projected
Year-End
Expenditures 1,482,335 1,482,335 341,600 1,823,935 827,146 45% 1,823,935 Indirect Cost Allocations (1,482,335) (1,482,335) (341,600) (1,823,935) (473,552) 26% (1,823,935) Net surplus/deficit 0 0 - 0 353,595 0
Beginning Fund Balance - - - -
Ending Fund Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
246 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 15
On November 1, 2022, Council received information on traffic safety issues on the Tennent Avenue corridor. The City retained a traffic consultant (CSW-ST2) to conduct a traffic study that involved a speed survey, traffic counts that include vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle, evaluation of current circulation patterns, and community input, which included a meeting with representatives of St. Joseph, to formulate recommendations for traffic safety improvements. Based upon site observation, collision history, and traffic volume, the consultant analyzed several traffic calming safety measures in addition to all way stop control. These included roundabouts, raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, high visibility striping, refuge islands, and a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB). These measures are consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s guidance for improving safety.

Based on this analysis, the consultant and City staff identified the following potential traffic safety improvements for two intersections on the Tennent Avenue corridor.

Tennent Avenue and Pear Street
• Bulb outs at all the corners which will require removal of several parking stalls to increase visibility;
• High visibility crosswalks and pavement markings on all legs; and • High visibility yield road signs.

Tennent Avenue and Plum Street
• Bulb outs at all the corners which will require removal of several parking stalls to increase visibility;
• A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB);
• High visibility crosswalks and pavement markings on all legs; and • High visibility yield road signs.

The estimated cost of the above recommended improvements at Tennent Avenue and Pear Street is $440,000, of which 10% is design. The estimated cost of the recommended improvements at Tennent Avenue and Plum Street is $520,000, of which 10% is design. These cost estimates include drainage improvements and road reconstruction and a contingency and cost escalation for construction in 2023.

Due to budget constraints, City staff and the consultant are recommending the following options as immediate improvements.

Tennent Avenue and Pear Street
• Striped bulb outs with soft bollards on the circumference at all corners (existing parking stall markings will be removed);
• High visibility crosswalks and pavement markings on all legs; and • High visibility yield road signs.

Tennent Avenue and Plum Street
• Striped bulb outs with soft bollards on the circumference at all corners (existing parking stall markings will be removed);
247 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 16
• A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB);
• High visibility crosswalks and pavement markings on all legs; and • High visibility yield road signs.

The estimated cost of the above options is $110,000, which includes design and a 10% contingency.

2. PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING MODERNIZATION
The project is under Facilities in the Capital Improvement Plan (Project #FA2301) to be funded over three years starting in FY 2023/24. However, due to the age of the building and significant maintenance costs, staff recommends that the funding ($100,000) be allocated in the current fiscal year to complete some of the improvements, including new flooring, light fixtures, and others.

Next Steps
The FY 2022/23 Third Quarter Financial Report will be presented to the City Council in May 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT
In this FY 2022/23 Mid-Year Budget Report, staff recommends budget adjustments as summarized below and described in detail in Attachment A. • Net increase in General Fund (Fund 100) expenditures of $111,000. • Net increase in Measure S 2006 Fund (Fund 105) expenditures of $50,000. • Net increase in Measure S 2014 Fund (Fund 106) expenditures of $140,000. • Net increase in Gas Tax Fund (Fund 200) expenditures of $50,000. • Net decrease in Recreation Fund (Fund 209) revenues of $69,780; net increase in expenditures of $175,781.
• Net decrease in Building and Planning Fund (Fund 212) revenues of $2,539,897; net decrease in expenditures of $83,899.
• Net increase in Measure J Fund (Fund 215) expenditures of $5,000. • Net decrease in Parkland Dedication Fund (Fund 275) of $1,293,134. • Net decrease in Growth Impact Fee Fund (Fund 276) of $1,115,476. • Net increase in Sewer Enterprise Fund (Fund 500) expenditures of $130,000. • Net increase in Information Systems Fund (Fund 525) expenditures of $341,600, offset by an increase in indirect cost allocations (reimbursements) of $341,600.

Additionally, if the City Council authorizes funding for the Traffic Safety Improvements on the Tennent Avenue Corridor project and the Public Safety Building Modernization project, the use of the General Fund unassigned fund balance will increase by the authorized amount.
248 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023 17

ATTACHMENTS
A – FY 2022/23 Mid-Year (Second Quarter) Financial Report Summary by Fund B – Resolution
Exhibit A: Amendments to the Budget and Program of Services 249 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
4,776,626 4,776,626 4,776,626 2,978,073 2,978,073 (1,798,553) 62% 4,776,626 4,582,095 4,582,095 4,582,095 1,775,159 1,775,159 (2,806,936) 39% 4,582,095 2,451,000 2,451,000 2,451,000 965,019 965,019 (1,485,981) 39% 2,451,000 2,451,000 2,451,000 2,451,000 965,004 965,004 (1,485,996) 39% 2,451,000 1,934,150 1,934,150 1,934,150 1,022,128 1,022,128 (912,022) 53% 1,934,150 786,790 786,790 786,790 232,129 232,129 (554,661) 30% 786,790 852,500 852,500 852,500 325,952 325,952 (526,548) 38% 852,500 440,000 440,000 440,000 217,775 217,775 (222,225) 49% 440,000 412,500 412,500 412,500 108,177 108,177 (304,323) 26% 412,500 2,215,948 2,215,948 2,215,948 1,099,865 1,099,865 (1,116,084) 50% 2,215,948 40,000 40,000 40,000 12,362 12,362 (27,638) 31% 40,000
47,026 47,026 47,026 - - (47,026) 0% 47,026
68,700 68,700 68,700 32,336 32,336 (36,364) 47% 68,700
28,000 28,000 28,000 40,105 40,105 12,105 143% 28,000
43,194 43,194 43,194 13,251 13,251 (29,943) 31% 43,194
36,000 36,000 36,000 15,475 15,475 (20,525) 43% 36,000
22,050 22,050 22,050 8,589 8,589 (13,461) 39% 22,050
1,405,108 1,405,108 1,405,108 131,311 131,311 (1,273,797) 9% 1,405,108 150,000 150,000 150,000 (5,122) (5,122) (155,122) -3% 150,000 89,896 89,896 89,896 43,983 43,983 (45,913) 49% 89,896
18,674 18,674 18,674 11,055 11,055 (7,619) 59% 18,674
5,100 5,100 5,100 3,916 3,916 (1,184) 77% 5,100
1,000 1,000 1,000 2,148 2,148 1,148 215% 1,000
22,004,857 22,004,857 - 22,004,857 9,672,737 - 9,672,737 (12,332,119) 44% 22,004,857 2,016,612 2,016,612 - 2,016,612 - - (2,016,612) 0% 2,016,612 4,090,010 4,090,010 - 4,090,010 4,071,404 4,071,404 (18,606) 100% 4,090,010 28,111,479 28,111,479 - 28,111,479 13,744,141 - 13,744,141 (14,367,337) 49% 28,111,479 170,496 182,496 182,496 88,717 88,717 93,779 49% 182,496 615,943 615,943 615,943 258,816 258,816 357,127 42% 615,943 586,347 586,347 586,347 221,140 221,140 365,207 38% 586,347 8,662 8,662 8,662 3,909 3,909 4,753 45% 8,662
321,057 321,057 321,057 175,971 175,971 145,086 55% 321,057 583,740 583,740 583,740 305,685 305,685 278,055 52% 583,740 (262,683) (262,683) (262,683) (129,715) (129,715) (132,968) 49% (262,683) 627,847 627,847 95,000 722,847 305,009 305,009 417,838 42% 722,847 [1] 768,472 768,472 768,472 324,398 324,398 444,074 42% 768,472 961,955 961,955 961,955 765,697 765,697 196,258 80% 961,955 4,060,779 4,072,779 95,000 4,167,779 2,143,657 - 2,143,657 2,024,122 51% 4,167,779 4,892,111 4,892,111 4,892,111 2,501,567 57,081 2,558,648 2,333,463 52% 4,892,111 1,538,502 1,538,502 1,538,502 543,452 543,452 995,050 35% 1,538,502 2,169,105 2,169,105 2,169,105 1,201,852 1,950 1,203,802 965,303 55% 2,169,105 4,212,704 4,212,704 4,212,704 2,252,312 2,252,312 1,960,392 53% 4,212,704 12,812,422 12,812,422 - 12,812,422 6,499,183 59,031 6,558,214 6,254,208 51% 12,812,422 736,363 736,363 6,000 742,363 213,783 213,783 528,580 29% 742,363 [2] 212,969 212,969 212,969 44,365 44,365 168,604 21% 212,969 611,147 611,147 611,147 334,105 334,105 277,042 55% 611,147 539,309 539,309 539,309 147,919 147,919 391,390 27% 539,309 2,099,788 2,099,788 6,000 2,105,788 740,172 - 740,172 1,365,616 35% 2,105,788 77,192 77,192 77,192 35,000 35,000 42,192 45% 77,192
253,452 262,452 10,000 272,452 45,854 45,854 226,598 17% 272,452 [3] 176,820 176,820 176,820 54,722 54,722 122,098 31% 176,820 507,464 516,464 10,000 526,464 135,576 135,576 390,888 26% 526,464 454,022 454,022 454,022 98,532 98,532 355,490 22% 454,022 454,022 454,022 - 454,022 98,532 - 98,532 355,490 22% 454,022 596,107 596,107 596,107 596,045 596,045 62 100% 596,107 1,353,880 1,353,880 1,353,880 650,925 650,925 702,955 48% 1,353,880 21,884,462 21,905,462 111,000 22,016,462 10,864,090 59,031 10,923,121 (11,093,341) 50% 22,016,462 NOTES:
[1] Increase budget for professional services for the development of the budget and long-term financial plan and pension actuarial study. [2] Increase budget for share of community development permit software. [3] Increase budget for Code Enforcement hearing officer for remainder of the fiscal year. Uptick in cases that need a show cause hearing prior to City being able to conduct abatement.

Division: 111- City Manager Total:

Division: 231- Fire Total:

Total Public Safety:

Public Works Total:

Community Development Total:

Expenditure Total:

Division: 114- City Attorney Total:

Division: 113- City Treasurer Total:

Community Services Total:

Debt Service:

Operating Transfer Out:

Division: 465- Code Enforcement Total:

Division: 466- Economic Development Total:

Division: 551- Recreation Administration Total:
314- Franchise Taxes
312- Sales and Use Taxes
313- Utility Users Tax
Other Tax/Transient Occupancy Tax
312- Sales and Use Taxes-Meas S 2006
312- Sales and Use Taxes-Meas S 2014
Other Tax/Business License
Division: 117- General Government Total:

Division: 115- Finance Department Total:

Division: 341- Administration/Engineering Total:

Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Division: 343- Facility Maintenance Total:

Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:

Division: 461- Planning Total:
323- State Grants
332- Permits
Sources Total:
341- Review Fees
342- Other Fees
343- Abatement Fees
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
General Fund (including Measure S 2006 and 2014)
Revenue
311- Property Taxes
315- Other Taxes
324- Other Grants
321- Intergovernmental Taxes
351- Fines and Forfeiture
361- Public Safety Charges
370- Interest and Investment Income
381- Rental Income
383- Reimbursements
384- Other Revenue
392- Proceeds from Sale of Property
Fund: 100- General Fund
Division: 221- Police Operations Total:

Revenue Total:

Total Administrative:
399- Pension Trust 115 Transfer
Expenditures
Division: 116- Human Resources Total:

Division: 222- Police Support Services Total:

Division: 223- Dispatch WBCC Total:

Division: 112- City Clerk Total:

City Attorney Services
City Attorney Indirect Cost Allocations
399- ARPA Fund Transfer
Division: 110- City Council Total:

ATTACHMENT A
250 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
2,450 2,450 2,450 1,367 1,367 1,083 56% 2,450
1,718,135 1,718,135 1,718,135 718,961 718,961 999,174 42% 1,718,135 727,182 727,182 50,000 777,182 405,776 405,776 371,406 52% 777,182 [4] 2,447,767 2,447,767 50,000 2,497,767 1,126,104 - 1,126,104 1,371,663 45% 2,497,767 5,900 5,900 5,900 - - 5,900 0% 5,900
2,450 2,450 2,450 1,667 1,667 783 68% 2,450
102,600 102,600 102,600 - - 102,600 0% 102,600
110,950 110,950 - 110,950 1,667 - 1,667 109,283 2% 110,950 110,000 110,000 110,000 37,269 37,269 72,731 34% 110,000 107,606 107,606 107,606 55,837 55,837 51,769 52% 107,606 574,542 574,542 574,542 270,524 270,524 304,018 47% 574,542 792,148 792,148 - 792,148 363,630 - 363,630 428,518 46% 792,148 296,518 296,518 296,518 31,553 3,245 34,798 261,720 12% 296,518 627,512 714,675 714,675 32,988 32,988 681,687 5% 714,675 1,298,025 1,328,655 1,328,655 90,769 370,756 461,525 867,130 35% 1,328,655 418,460 418,460 418,460 2,382 2,382 416,078 1% 418,460
359,449 409,449 140,000 549,449 10,529 10,529 538,920 2% 549,449 [5] 2,999,964 3,167,757 140,000 3,307,757 168,221 374,001 542,222 2,765,535 16% 3,307,757 20,000 20,000 20,000 - - 20,000 0% 20,000
20,000 20,000 - 20,000 - - - 20,000 0% 20,000
7,000 7,000 7,000 - - 7,000 0% 7,000
4,850 4,850 4,850 - - 4,850 0% 4,850
10,000 10,000 10,000 - - 10,000 0% 10,000
21,850 21,850 - 21,850 - - - 21,850 0% 21,850
- - - - - - 0% -
3,944,912 4,112,705 140,000 4,252,705 533,517 374,001 907,518 3,345,187 21% 4,252,705 718,000 718,000 718,000 585,000 585,000 133,000 81% 718,000 4,662,912 4,830,705 140,000 4,970,705 1,118,517 374,001 1,492,518 3,478,187 30% 4,970,705 28,995,141 29,183,934 301,000 29,484,934 13,108,711 433,032 13,541,743 15,943,191 46% 29,484,934 (883,662) (1,072,455) (301,000) (1,373,455) 635,430 (433,032) 202,398 (1,575,853) -15% (1,373,455) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 10,613,156 10,613,156 10,613,156 10,613,156 10,613,156 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 9,729,494 9,540,701 9,239,701 11,248,586 9,239,701 - - - 19,125 19,125 19,125 0% 38,250
- - - - 19,125 - 19,125 19,125 0% 38,250
650,925 650,925 650,925 650,925 650,925 - 100% 650,925
650,925 650,925 - 650,925 670,050 670,050 19,125 103% 689,175 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 8,192,602 8,192,602 8,192,602 8,192,602 8,192,602 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 8,843,527 8,843,527 8,843,527 8,862,652 8,881,777 - - - - - - 0% -
- - - - - - - - 0% -
85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 - 100% 85,000
85,000 85,000 - 85,000 85,000 - 85,000 - 100% 85,000
120,000 120,000 120,000 39,434 - 39,434 80,566 33% 120,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 - - 80,000 0% 80,000
5,000 5,000 5,000 - - 5,000 0% 5,000
205,000 205,000 - 205,000 39,434 - 39,434 165,566 19% 205,000 (120,000) (120,000) (120,000) 45,566 - 45,566 165,566 -38% (120,000) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 241,166 241,166 241,166 241,166 241,166 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 121,166 121,166 121,166 286,732 121,166 NOTES:
[4] Increase budget for Fire Station 74 maintenance and updates. [5] Increase budget for attorney fees and settlement of Fernandez Park restroom project ($120,000), and public tree maintenance program ($20,000). 399- Transfer In Total:

Revenue Total:
392- Sale of Property
Sources Total:

Expenditures
399- Transfers In Total:

Fund: 160 - Equipment Reserve
General Fund and Measure S Expenditure Total:

Expenditure Total:

Division: 115- Finance Department Total:

Expenditures
Division: 118- Information Systems Total:

Division: 221- Police Operations Total:

Total Administrative:

Division: 222- Police Support Services Total:

Total Public Safety:

Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Community Services Total:

Fund: 105 - Measure S -2006
Division: 343- Facility Maintenance Total:

Division: 344- NPDES Storm Drain Total:

Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:

Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:

Division: 461- Planning Total:

Expenditures Total:

Community Development Total:

Sewer Collections Total:

Public Works Total:

Division: 461- Planning Total:

Division: 552- Senior Center Total:

Division: 553- Tiny Tots Total:

Equipment Reserve Net Results:

Sub-Total:

Fund: 150 - General Reserve
General Reserve Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Division: 554- Youth Center Total:

General Fund and Measure S Net Results:
370- Interest and Investment Income
Operating Transfer Out:

Division: 110- City Council Total:

Expenditures
Division: 221- Police Operations Total:

Division: 115- Finance Department Total:

Division: 231- Fire Total:

Fund: 106 - Measure S-2014
Expenditures Total:

Division: 341- Admin/Engineering Total:

Division: 231- Fire Total:
251 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
990,635 990,635 990,635 435,327 435,327 (555,308) 44% 990,635 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,139 1,139 (3,861) 23% 5,000
7,636 7,636 7,636 1,417 1,417 (6,219) 19% 7,636
1,003,271 1,003,271 - 1,003,271 437,883 - 437,883 565,388 44% 1,003,271 - - - 2,064 14,110 16,174 (16,174) 0% 16,174
1,144,557 1,144,557 50,000 1,194,557 279,308 279,308 915,249 23% 1,194,557 [6] 1,144,557 1,144,557 50,000 1,194,557 281,372 14,110 295,482 899,075 25% 1,210,731 (141,286) (141,286) (191,286) 156,510 (14,110) 142,401 333,687 -74% (207,460) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 729,304 729,304 729,304 729,304 729,304 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 588,018 588,018 538,018 885,815 521,844 3,175 3,175 3,175 475 475 (2,700) 15% 3,175
36,816 36,816 36,816 - - (36,816) 0% 36,816
- - - - - - 0% -
39,991 39,991 - 39,991 475 - 475 39,516 1% 39,991
26,000 26,000 26,000 8,781 8,781 17,219 34% 26,000
26,000 26,000 - 26,000 8,781 - 8,781 17,219 34% 26,000
13,991 13,991 13,991 (8,306) (8,306) (22,297) -59% 13,991 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 164,881 164,881 164,881 164,881 164,881 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 178,872 178,872 178,872 156,575 178,872 170,266 170,266 170,266 81,339 81,339 (88,927) 48% 170,266 2,500 2,500 2,500 500 500 (2,000) 20% 2,500
172,766 172,766 - 172,766 81,839 - 81,839 (90,927) 47% 172,766 387,365 387,365 387,365 99,046 99,046 288,319 26% 387,365 387,365 387,365 - 387,365 99,046 - 99,046 288,319 26% 387,365 (214,599) (214,599) (214,599) (17,207) (17,207) 197,392 8% (214,599) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 517,190 517,190 517,190 517,190 517,190 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 302,591 302,591 302,591 499,983 302,591 45,000 45,000 45,000 10,567 10,567 (34,433) 23% 45,000
1,500 1,500 1,500 253 253 (1,247) 17% 1,500
46,500 46,500 - 46,500 10,821 - 10,821 (35,679) 23% 46,500 21,059 21,059 21,059 4,822 4,822 16,237 23% 21,059
21,059 21,059 - 21,059 4,822 - 4,822 16,237 23% 21,059
25,441 25,441 25,441 5,998 5,998 (19,443) 24% 25,441
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 251,826 251,826 251,826 251,826 251,826 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 277,267 277,267 277,267 257,825 277,267 156,727 156,727 156,727 146,120 146,120 (10,607) 93% 156,727 1,600 1,600 1,600 669 669 (931) 42% 1,600
158,327 158,327 - 158,327 146,789 - 146,789 (11,538) 93% 158,327 111,067 111,067 111,067 68,052 68,052 43,015 61% 111,067 111,067 111,067 - 111,067 68,052 - 68,052 43,015 61% 111,067 47,260 47,260 47,260 78,737 78,737 31,477 167% 47,260
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 372,015 372,015 372,015 372,015 372,015 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 419,275 419,275 419,275 450,752 419,275 NOTES:
[6] Increase budget for Citywide pavement marking/striping ($30,000) and pothole repair program ($20,000).

Fund: 200 - Gas Tax Fund
Expenditures Total:

Traffic Safety Fund Net Results:

Fund: 206 - Supplemental Law Enforcement Svc Fund
Fund: 205 - Traffic Safety Fund
Revenue Total:

Sup Law Enforce Svc Fund Net Results:
351- Fines and Forfeitures
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Expenditures
370- Interest and Investment Income
383- Reimbursements
342- Other Fees
381- Rental Income
384- Other Revenue
321- Intergovernmental Taxes
370- Interest and Investment Income
Division: 227- Police Grants Total:
370- Interest and Investment Income
Public Safety Augmentation Fund Net Results:

Fund: 203 - Public Safety Augmentation Fund
Expenditures Total:

Fund: 201 - Restricted Real Estate Maintenance Fund
Restricted Real Estate Maint Fund Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Revenue Total:

Gas Tax Fund Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Expenditures
Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Expenditures
Division: 341- Admin and Engineering Total:

Division: 343- Facility Maintenance Total:
323- State Grants
Expenditures
Division: 227- Police Grants Total:

Expenditures
Division: 221- Police Operations Total:
321- Intergovernmental Taxes
370- Interest and Investment Income
252 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
253,272 253,272 253,272 5,915 5,915 (247,357) 2% 253,272 150 150 150 (335) (335) (485) -224% 150
253,422 253,422 - 253,422 5,580 - 5,580 (247,842) 2% 253,422 12,005 12,005 12,005 - - 12,005 0% 12,005
324,933 324,933 324,933 149,922 149,922 175,011 46% 241,417 336,938 336,938 - 336,938 149,922 - 149,922 187,016 44% 253,422 (83,516) (83,516) (83,516) (144,343) (144,343) (60,827) 173% - Fund Balance July 1, 2022 (38,938) (38,938) (38,938) (38,938) (38,938) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 (122,454) (122,454) (122,454) (183,281) (38,938) 70,268 70,268 7,000 77,268 8,899 8,899 (68,370) 12% 77,268 [7] 216,130 216,130 (49,080) 167,050 79,802 79,802 (87,248) 48% 167,050 [8] 172,021 172,021 (33,482) 138,539 48,666 48,666 (89,873) 35% 138,539 [9] 17,855 17,855 (13,068) 4,787 6,103 6,103 1,316 127% 4,787 [10] 7,560 7,560 7,560 5,113 5,113 (2,447) 68% 7,560
63,500 63,500 19,000 82,500 38,140 38,140 (44,361) 46% 82,500 [11] 10,316 10,316 10,316 - - (10,316) 0% 10,316
350 350 (150) 200 110 110 (90) 55% 200 [12]
558,000 558,000 (69,780) 488,220 186,831 - 186,831 (301,388) 38% 488,220 675,831 675,831 675,831 - - (675,831) 0% 1,600,108
1,233,831 1,233,831 (69,780) 1,164,051 186,831 - 186,831 (977,219) 16% 2,088,328 - - - 3,648 3,648 (3,648) 0% -
694,990 694,990 18,860 713,850 253,720 7,229 260,949 452,901 37% 713,850 [13] 579,673 579,673 135,470 715,143 261,173 261,173 453,970 37% 715,143 [14] 174,421 174,421 714 175,135 77,241 77,241 97,894 44% 175,135 [15] 247,067 247,067 (5,146) 241,921 71,995 71,995 169,926 30% 241,921 [16] 74,116 74,116 500 74,616 18,586 18,586 56,030 25% 74,616 [17] 126,917 126,917 26,983 153,900 81,981 81,981 71,919 53% 153,900 [18] 14,200 14,200 14,200 3,870 3,870 10,330 27% 14,200
6,650 6,650 (1,600) 5,050 1,156 1,156 3,894 23% 5,050 [19] 1,918,034 1,918,034 175,781 2,093,815 773,369 7,229 780,599 1,313,216 37% 2,093,815 (684,203) (684,203) 106,001 (929,764) (586,538) (7,229) (593,767) 335,997 64% (5,487) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 5,488 5,488 5,488 5,488 5,488 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 (678,716) (678,716) (924,277) (581,050) 0 NOTES:
[7] Increase budget for field usage based on actuals and revenue expected from upcoming spring sports. [8] Decrease Senior Center revenue budget due to net lower than projected revenue from facility rental and program fees. [9] Decrease Tiny Tots revenue budget due to lower than projected program fees. [10] Decrease Youth Center revenue budget due to lower than projected youth camp fees, facility rental, and other contributions. [11] Increase Swim Center revenue budget due to projected increase in swim fee revenue. [12] Decrease Tennis revenue budget due to tennis rentals continuing to decline. [13] Increase Recreation Admin expenditure budget for Director travel/training and office furniture, holiday tree and decorations which were not originally budgeted. [14] Increase Senior Center expenditure budget for unexpected HVAC system repair and maintenance. [15] Increase Tiny Tots expenditure budget for HVAC service. [16] Decrease Youth Center expenditure budget for lower program costs due to lower participation. [17] Increase Day Camp expenditure for bank fees related to RecDesk online registration system. [18] Increase Swim Center expenditure budget for professional services, RecDesk admin fees, and utilities. [19] Decrease Tennis expenditure budget for lower utility costs.

Expenditures
Fund: 207 - NPDES Storm Water Fund
Division: 559- Tennis Total:

Division: 551- Recreation Administration Total:

Revenue Total:
321- Intergovernmental Taxes
370- Interest and Investment Income
Division: 557- Swim Center Total:

Division: 558- Memorial Hall Total:

Division: 553- Tiny Tots
Division: 554- Youth Center
Division: 555- Day Camp
Division: 557- Swim Center
Division: 559- Tennis
Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Division: 344- NPDES Storm Drain Total:

Recreation Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

NPDES Storm Water Fund Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Fund: 209 - Recreation Fund
Division: 558- Memorial Hall
Division: 551- Recreation Administration
Division: 552- Senior Center
Division: 552- Senior Center Total:

Division: 553- Tiny Tots Total:

Division: 554- Youth Center Total:

Division: 555- Day Camp Total:

Expenditures
Division: 117- General Government Total:

Sources Total
Operating Transfers in:
253 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
225,000 225,000 225,000 - - (225,000) 0% 225,000
2,427,800 2,427,800 (1,876,417) 551,383 164,335 164,335 (387,048) 30% 551,383 [20] 1,020,000 1,020,000 41,242 1,061,242 274,813 274,813 (786,429) 26% 1,061,242 [20] 1,036,000 1,036,000 (704,722) 331,278 72,336 72,336 (258,942) 22% 331,278 [20] 19,600 19,600 19,600 - - (19,600) 0% 19,600
87,048 87,048 87,048 402 402 (86,646) 0% 87,048
- - - 2,408 2,408 2,408 0% -
7,000 7,000 7,000 (3,476) (3,476) (10,476) -50% 7,000
6,000 6,000 6,000 - - (6,000) 0% 6,000
4,828,448 4,828,448 (2,539,897) 2,288,551 510,819 - 510,819 (1,777,733) 22% 2,288,551 - - - - - - 0% -
4,828,448 4,828,448 (2,539,897) 2,288,551 510,819 - 510,819 (1,777,733) 22% 2,288,551 1,183,849 1,183,849 1,183,849 547,180 547,180 636,669 46% 1,183,849 [21] 1,226,944 1,226,944 (83,899) 1,143,045 380,000 600 380,600 762,445 33% 1,143,045 [22] 2,410,793 2,410,793 (83,899) 2,326,894 927,180 600 927,780 1,399,114 40% 2,326,894 2,417,655 2,417,655 (2,455,998) (38,343) (416,361) (600) (416,961) (378,618) 1087% (38,343) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 (532,755) (532,755) (532,755) (532,755) (532,755) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 1,884,900 1,884,900 (571,098) (949,116) (571,098) 60,060 60,060 60,060 30,975 30,975 (29,085) 52% 60,060
6,000 6,000 6,000 34 34 (5,966) 1% 6,000
66,060 66,060 - 66,060 31,009 - 31,009 (35,051) 47% 66,060 167,825 167,825 167,825 62,029 62,029 105,796 37% 167,825 167,825 167,825 - 167,825 62,029 - 62,029 105,796 37% 167,825 (101,765) (101,765) (101,765) (31,020) (31,020) 70,745 30% (101,765) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 150,843 150,843 150,843 150,843 150,843 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 49,078 49,078 49,078 119,823 49,078 - - - - - - 0% -
8,000 8,000 8,000 2,386 2,386 (5,614) 30% 8,000
360,000 360,000 360,000 209,613 209,613 (150,387) 58% 360,000 368,000 368,000 - 368,000 211,999 - 211,999 (156,001) 58% 368,000 257,778 257,778 - 257,778 41,548 98,726 140,273 117,505 54% 257,778 425,000 425,000 425,000 - - 425,000 0% 425,000
682,778 682,778 - 682,778 41,548 98,726 140,273 542,505 21% 682,778 (314,778) (314,778) (314,778) 170,451 (98,726) 71,725 386,503 -23% (314,778) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 2,063,224 2,063,224 2,063,224 2,063,224 2,063,224 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 1,748,446 1,748,446 1,748,446 2,233,675 1,748,446 382,848 382,848 382,848 17,445 17,445 (365,403) 5% 382,848 8,000 8,000 8,000 1,667 1,667 (6,333) 21% 8,000
390,848 390,848 - 390,848 19,111 - 19,111 (371,737) 5% 390,848 - - - - - - 0% -
186,999 186,999 186,999 66,682 66,682 120,317 36% 186,999 450,881 450,881 5,000 455,881 19,141 19,141 436,740 4% 455,881 [23] 2,000 2,000 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 2,000
639,880 639,880 5,000 644,880 85,823 - 85,823 559,057 13% 644,880 (249,032) (249,032) (5,000) (254,032) (66,711) (66,711) 187,321 26% (254,032) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 2,325,449 2,325,449 2,325,449 2,325,449 2,325,449 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 2,076,417 2,076,417 2,071,417 2,258,737 2,071,417 NOTES:
[20] Decrease budget as applications for two large development projects are being deferred to FY 2023/24. The decreases are partially offset by revenue that will be collected from payments that were deferred until the user fee study was completed; the analysis to determine amounts owed are in progress. [21] Increase budget for climate action plan and sustainability fellow. [22] Decrease budget for salary savings due to vacancies ($301,696); Increase budget for community development software system ($204,960) and permit technician backfill to assist with building permits backlog $25,000).
[23] Increase budget for street light software subscription.

Division: 461- Planning Total:

Division: 462- Building Inspection Total:

Expenditures
Division: 346- Waste Reduction Total:

Expenditures
Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Measure C and J Fund Net Results:

Expenditures
323- State Grants
370- Interest and Investment Income
323- State Grants
370- Interest and Investment Income
383- Reimbursements
324- Other Grants
370- Interest and Investment Income
Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:

Expenditures
Revenue Total:

Division: 117- General Government Total:

Division: 343- Facility Maintenance Total:

Division: 341- Administration/Engineering Total:

Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Revenue Total:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Fund: 215 - Measure C and J Fund
Solid Waste Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Expenditures Total:

Building & Planning Net Results:

Fund: 213 - Refuse Management Fund
Refuse Management Fund Net Results:

Fund: 214 - Solid Waste Fund
323- State Grants
384- Other Revenue
332- Permits
341- Review Fees
342- Other Fees
344- Impact Fees
370- Interest and Investment Income
Expenditures Total:

Revenue Total:

Fund: 212 - Building & Planning
Operating Transfers In:

Sources Total
343- Abatement Fees
351- Fines and Forfeiture
254 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
- - - 190 190 190 0% 380
15,000 15,000 15,000 - - (15,000) 0% 15,000
15,000 15,000 - 15,000 190 - 190 (14,810) 0% 15,380
- - - - - - 0% -
15,000 15,000 15,000 190 190 (14,810) 0% 15,380
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 199,959 199,959 199,959 199,959 199,959 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 214,959 214,959 214,959 200,149 215,339 2,302,505 2,302,505 2,302,505 2,302,505 2,302,505 - 100% 2,302,505 2,302,505 2,302,505 - 2,302,505 2,302,505 - 2,302,505 - 100% 2,302,505 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 - 100% 4,090,010 4,090,010 4,090,010 - 4,090,010 4,090,010 - 4,090,010 - 100% 4,090,010 (1,787,505) (1,787,505) (1,787,505) (1,787,505) (1,787,505) - 100% (1,787,505) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 1,787,505 1,787,505 1,787,505 1,787,505 1,787,505 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 - - - - -
- - - 8 8 8 0% 8
- - - - 8 - 8 8 0% 8
58,231 58,231 58,231 16,348 16,348 41,883 28% 33,000
58,231 58,231 - 58,231 16,348 - 16,348 41,883 28% 33,000 (58,231) (58,231) (58,231) (16,340) (16,340) 41,891 28% (32,992) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 57,576 57,576 57,576 57,576 57,576 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 (655) (655) (655) 41,236 24,584 - - - 2,255 2,255 2,255 0% 2,255
- - - - 2,255 - 2,255 2,255 0% 2,255
- - - - - 0% -
- - 2,255 2,255 2,255 0% 2,255
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 35,590 35,590 35,590 35,590 35,590 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 35,590 35,590 35,590 37,845 37,845 1,293,134 1,293,134 (1,293,134) (0) - - 0 0% [24]
- - - - - - 0% -
1,293,134 1,293,134 (1,293,134) (0) - - - 0 0% -
- - - - - - 0% (22,653)
1,293,134 1,293,134 (1,293,134) (0) - - - 0 0% 22,653
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 (22,653) (22,653) (22,653) (22,653) (22,653) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 1,270,480 1,270,480 (22,654) (22,653) (0) 1,608,476 1,608,476 (1,115,476) 493,000 13,414 13,414 (479,585) 3% 493,000 [25] - - - 2,627 2,627 2,627 0% -
1,608,476 1,608,476 (1,115,476) 493,000 16,042 - 16,042 (476,958) 3% 493,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 - - 58,000 0% 58,000
58,000 58,000 - 58,000 - - - 58,000 0% 58,000
1,550,476 1,550,476 1,550,476 16,042 16,042 (418,958) 1% 435,000 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 2,701,825 2,701,825 2,701,825 2,701,825 2,701,825 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 4,252,300 4,252,300 4,252,300 2,717,866 3,136,824 NOTES:
[24] Remove budget as there are no development projects that are subject to parkland dedication rules. [25] Decrease budget as applications for two large development projects are being deferred to FY 2023/24.

Fund: 276 - Growth Impact Fund
Revenue Total:

Growth Impact Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:
344- Impact Fees
370- Interest and Investment Income
344- Impact Fees
370- Interest and Investment Income
Expenditures Total:

Expenditures
Division: 344- NPDES Storm Drain Total:

Expenditures
Division: 221- Police Operations Total:

Expenditures Total:

CASp Certification and Training Fund Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Parkland Dedication Fund Net Results:

Asset Seizure-Adjudicated Fund Net Results:

Fund: 226 - CASp Certification and Training Fund
Expenditures Total:

Revenue Total:

Revenue Total:

Fund: 275 - Parkland Dedication Fund
Fund: 216 - Rate Stabilization Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Rate Stabilization Fund Net Results:

Fund: 217 - American Rescue Plan Act Fund
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

American Rescue Plan Act Fund Net Results:
370- Interest and Investment Income
383- Reimbursements
322- Federal Grants
370- Interest and Investment Income
342- Other Fees
Fund: 225 - Asset Seizure-Adjudicated Fund
Expenditures
399- Transfers Out
255 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
50,000 50,000 50,000 5,237 5,237 (44,763) 10% 50,000
- - - - - - 0% -
867,883 867,883 867,883 7,783 7,783 (860,100) 1% 867,883 917,883 917,883 - 917,883 13,020 - 13,020 (904,863) 1% 917,883 53,436 53,436 53,436 24,253 24,253 29,183 45% 53,436
274,039 335,249 335,249 34,846 34,846 300,403 10% 335,249 327,475 388,685 - 388,685 59,099 - 59,099 329,586 15% 388,685 590,408 529,198 529,198 (46,079) (46,079) (575,277) -9% 529,198 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 7,746,133 7,746,133 7,746,133 7,746,133 7,746,133 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 8,336,541 8,275,331 8,275,331 7,700,054 8,275,331 56,411 56,411 56,411 28,741 28,741 (27,670) 51% 56,411
7,500 7,500 7,500 - - (7,500) 0% 7,500
63,911 63,911 - 63,911 28,741 - 28,741 (35,170) 45% 63,911 32,315 32,315 32,315 18,216 18,216 14,099 56% 32,315
29,810 29,810 29,810 11,541 11,541 18,269 39% 29,810
62,125 62,125 - 62,125 29,756 - 29,756 32,369 48% 62,125 1,786 1,786 1,786 (1,015) (1,015) (2,801) -57% 1,786
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 43,110 43,110 43,110 43,110 43,110 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 44,896 44,896 44,896 42,094 44,896 15,000 15,000 15,000 - - (15,000) 0% -
15,000 15,000 - 15,000 - - - (15,000) 0% -
15,055 15,055 15,055 1,303 1,303 13,752 9% (983)
15,055 15,055 - 15,055 1,303 - 1,303 13,752 9% (983)
(55) (55) (55) (1,303) (1,303) (1,248) 2369% 983
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 (983) (983) (983) (983) (983) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 (1,038) (1,038) (1,038) (2,286) (0) 60,000 60,000 60,000 - - 60,000 0% 60,000
10,000 10,000 10,000 - - 10,000 0% 10,000
70,000 70,000 - 70,000 - - - 70,000 0% 70,000
(70,000) (70,000) (70,000) - - 70,000 0% (70,000)
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 541,649 541,649 541,649 541,649 541,649 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 471,649 471,649 471,649 541,649 471,649 - - - - - 0% -
97,747 97,747 97,747 146,416 146,416 48,670 150% 146,416 1,303,463 1,303,463 1,303,463 42,760 42,760 (1,260,703) 3% 1,303,463 - - - - - - 0% -
- - - (1,417) (1,417) (1,417) 0% (1,417)
1,401,210 1,401,210 - 1,401,210 187,760 - 187,760 (1,213,450) 13% 1,448,462 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 100% 250,000
1,651,210 1,651,210 - 1,651,210 437,760 437,760 (1,213,450) 27% 1,698,462 1,706,213 1,706,213 1,706,213 97,798 347,536 445,334 1,260,879 26% 1,706,213 1,706,213 1,706,213 - 1,706,213 97,798 347,536 445,334 1,260,879 26% 1,706,213 (55,003) (55,003) - (55,003) 339,962 (347,536) (7,574) 47,429 14% (7,751) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 1,552,990 1,552,990 1,552,990 1,552,990 1,552,990 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 1,497,987 1,497,987 1,497,987 1,892,952 1,545,239 322- Federal Grants
323- State Grants
324- Other Grants
Revenue Total:

Sources Total:

Operating transfers in Total:

Expenditures
Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Division: 343- Facility Maintenance Total:

Fund: 324 - Public Facilities Fund
Public Facilities Fund Net Results:

Pinole Valley Caretaker Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

City Street Improvements Net Results:

Expenditures
Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:
351- Fines and Forfeiture
Expenditures
Division: 347- Landscape & Lighting PVR North Total:

Division: 348- Landscape & Lighting PVR South Total:

Expenditures
Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:
383- Reimbursements
Fund: 325 - City Street Improvements
Division: 464- Housing Administration Total:

Expenditures
Division: 461- Planning Total:

Revenue Total:
370- Interest and Investment Income
393- Loan/Bond Proceeds
384- Other Revenue
Fund: 285 - Housing Land Held for Resale
Expenditures Total:

Expenditures Total:

Fund: 310 - Lighting & Landscape Districts
Housing Land Held for Resale Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Lighting & Landscape Districts Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Fund: 317 - Pinole Valley Caretaker Fund
321- Intergovernmental Taxes
383- Reimbursements
381- Rental Income
Revenue Total:
256 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
189,758 189,758 189,758 - - (189,758) 0% 189,758
- - - 24 24 24 0% -
189,758 189,758 - 189,758 24 - 24 (189,734) 0% 189,758
189,758 189,758 189,758 - - 189,758 0% 189,758
189,758 189,758 - 189,758 - - - 189,758 0% 189,758
- - - 24 24 24 0% -
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 25,236 25,236 25,236 25,236 25,236 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 25,236 25,236 25,236 25,260 25,236 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - 100% 250,000
250,000 250,000 - 250,000 250,000 - 250,000 - 100% 250,000 810,312 810,312 810,312 61,674 27,223 88,897 721,415 11% 250,000 810,312 810,312 - 810,312 61,674 27,223 88,897 721,415 11% 250,000 (560,312) (560,312) - (560,312) 188,326 (27,223) 161,103 721,415 -29% - Fund Balance July 1, 2022 49,887 49,887 49,887 49,887 49,887 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 (510,425) (510,425) (510,425) 238,213 49,887 8,266,176 8,266,176 8,266,176 4,210,799 4,210,799 (4,055,377) 51% 8,266,176 100,000 100,000 100,000 8,962 8,962 (91,038) 9% 100,000 - - - - - - 0% -
- - - - - - 0% -
- - - - - - 0% -
8,366,176 8,366,176 - 8,366,176 4,219,761 - 4,219,761 (4,146,415) 50% 8,366,176 - - - 12,957 12,957 (12,957) 0% 12,957
6,229,371 6,229,371 60,000 6,289,371 2,137,404 113,994 2,251,398 4,037,973 36% 6,289,371 [26] 3,417,629 3,417,629 70,000 3,487,629 528,796 255,131 783,928 2,703,702 22% 3,487,629 [27] 1,611,624 1,611,624 1,611,624 434,235 434,235 1,177,389 27% 1,611,624 11,258,624 11,258,624 130,000 11,388,624 3,113,392 369,125 3,482,517 7,906,107 31% 11,401,581 (2,892,448) (2,892,448) (130,000) (3,022,448) 1,106,369 (369,125) 737,243 3,759,691 -24% (3,035,405) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 22,228,477 22,228,477 22,228,477 22,228,477 22,228,477 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 19,336,029 19,336,029 19,206,029 23,334,846 19,193,072 - - - - - - 0% -
- - - - - - 0% -
- - - - - - - - 0% -
- - - 175,727 1,113 176,839 (176,839) 0% 175,727
- - - - 175,727 1,113 176,839 (176,839) 0% 175,727
- - - (175,727) (1,113) (176,839) (176,839) 0% (175,727) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 1,658,044 1,658,044 1,658,044 1,658,044 1,658,044 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 1,658,044 1,658,044 1,658,044 1,482,317 1,482,317 NOTES:
[26] Increase budget for sludge removal ($30,000) and the air release valve replacement project (CIP #SS2102) ($30,000). [27] Increase budget for sanitary sewer overflow mitigation.

Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund Net Results:

Fund: 500 - Sewer Enterprise Fund
Revenue Total:

Park Grants (Measure WW) Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Operating transfers in Total:
370- Interest and Investment Income
Fund: 503 - Plant Expansion Fund
Sewer Enterprise Fund Net Results:

Expenditures Total:

Expenditures Total:

Division: 117- General Government Total:

Division: 644- WPCP Equipment/Debt Service Total:

Division: 641- Sewer Treatment Plant/Shared Total:

Division: 642- Sewer Collections Total:

Expenditures
Division: 643- Sewer Projects/Shared Total:

Plant Expansion Fund Net Results:
370- Interest and Investment Income
383- Reimbursements
392- Proceeds from Sale of Property
384- Other Revenue
370- Interest and Investment Income
383- Reimbursements
Division: 342- Road Maintenance Total:

Sources Total:

Expenditures
Revenue Total:

Fund: 377 - Arterial Streets Rehabilitation Fund
Fund: 327 - Park Grants (Measure WW)
323- State Grant
363- Sewer Enterprise Charges
Expenditures
Division: 345- Park Maintenance Total:

Expenditures
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:
257 of 560
Projected
Year-End Notes
City of Pinole, CA For FY2022/23 Period Ending: 12/31/22 Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
Original
Budget Revised Budget YTD Actual Encumbrances
Amended
Budget Total
Percent
Used
Proposed
Adjustments
52,972 52,972 52,972 9,772 9,772 (43,200) 18% 52,972
316,956 316,956 316,956 81,709 81,709 (235,247) 26% 316,956 - - - - - - 0% -
5,000 5,000 5,000 - - (5,000) 0% 5,000
374,928 374,928 - 374,928 91,481 - 91,481 (283,447) 24% 374,928 160,124 160,124 - 160,124 - - (160,124) 0% 277,080
535,052 535,052 535,052 91,481 - 91,481 (443,571) 17% 652,008 444,432 444,432 444,432 163,190 163,190 281,242 37% 444,432 4,642 4,642 4,642 21 21 4,621 0% 4,642
197,707 197,707 197,707 75,290 75,290 122,417 38% 197,707 646,780 646,780 - 646,780 238,501 - 238,501 408,279 37% 646,780 (111,728) (111,728) (111,728) (147,020) - (147,020) (35,292) 132% 5,228 Fund Balance July 1, 2022 (5,227) (5,227) (5,227) (5,227) (5,227) Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 (116,956) (116,956) (116,956) (152,248) 0 - - - - - - - 0% -
- - - - - - - - 0% -
1,482,335 1,482,335 341,600 1,823,935 476,009 351,137 827,146 996,789 45% 1,823,935 [28] 1,482,335 1,482,335 341,600 1,823,935 476,009 351,137 827,146 (996,789) 45% 1,823,935 (1,482,335) (1,482,335) (341,600) (1,823,935) (473,552) (473,552) 1,350,383 26% (1,823,935) [28] 0 0 - 0 2,458 351,137 353,595 - 0% 0
Fund Balance July 1, 2022 - - - - -
Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 - - 0 2,458 0
1,140,017 1,140,017 1,140,017 (151,600) (151,600) (1,291,617) -13% 570,008 1,140,017 1,140,017 - 1,140,017 (151,600) - (151,600) (1,291,617) -13% 570,008 40,000 40,000 40,000 39,117 39,117 883 98% 50,000
2,016,612 2,016,612 2,016,612 - - 2,016,612 0% 2,016,612 2,056,612 2,056,612 - 2,056,612 39,117 39,117 (2,017,495) 2% 2,066,612 (916,595) (916,595) (916,595) (190,717) (190,717) 725,878 21% (1,496,604) Fund Balance July 1, 2022 16,045,223 16,045,223 16,045,223 16,045,223 16,045,223 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 2023 15,128,628 15,128,628 15,128,628 15,854,505 14,548,619 250,000 250,000 250,000 171,210 171,210 (78,790) 68% 250,000 - - - (5,240) (5,240) (5,240) 0% -
- - - - 0% -
5,000 5,000 5,000 - - (5,000) 0% 5,000
255,000 255,000 - 255,000 165,970 - 165,970 (89,030) 65% 255,000 227,378 227,378 227,378 109,344 109,344 118,034 48% 227,378 227,378 227,378 - 227,378 109,344 109,344 (118,034) 48% 227,378 27,622 27,622 27,622 56,626 56,626 (207,064) 205% 27,622 NOTES:
[28] Increase budget to carry forward the budget allocation authorized in FY 2021/22 for the community development software project ($326,828), citywide Zoom subscription ($7,372), and the first installment for the new City website $7,400).

Expenditures
Expenditures
314- Franchise Taxes
Fund: 505 - Cable Access TV
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund Net Results:

Fund: 750 - Recognized Obligation Retirement Fund
Expenditures
Division: 463- Successor Agency to RDA Total:
392- Proceeds from Sale of Property
393- Loan/Bond Proceeds
311- Property Taxes
370- Interest and Investment Income
Pension Fund Net Results:

Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Indirect cost allocations Total:

Information Systems Net Results:

Fund: 700 - Pension Fund
Transfers Out Total:

Division: 115- Finance Total:
370- Interest and Investment Income
Revenue Total:

Expenditures Total:

Operating transfers in Total:

Sources Total
365- Cable TV Charges
370- Interest and Investment Income
384- Other Revenue
Expenditures
Division: 119- Cable Access TV Total:

Division: 121- Cable Access-Contract Services Total:

Division: 120- Cable Access-Community Services Total:

Division: 118- Information Systems Total:
399- Operating Transfers In
Sources Total:

Fund: 525 - Information Systems
Cable Access TV Net Results:

Expenditures Total:
258 of 560
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
WHEREAS, the City Council did adopt a Budget for City Operations by Resolution number 2022-46 on June 21, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Director has presented proposed
recommendations for amendment of the Adopted Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget as part of a Mid-Year Budget Review at the regular City Council Meeting held on February 21, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered these recommended changes, as to the matter of the City budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has solicited public input on the proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating and Capital Budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pinole as follows:

Amendments to the budget and program of services for the City of Pinole for Fiscal Year 2022/23 commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023 are hereby approved and adopted, as set forth in Exhibit A (herein incorporated).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced, passed and adopted on this 21st day of February, 2023.
______________________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk

ATTACHMENT B
259 of 560
FY 2022/23 Mid-Year Adjustments EXHIBIT A
General Fund (Fund 100)
Expenditures $111,000
Measure S 2006 Fund (Fund 105)
Expenditures $50,000
Measure S 2014 Fund (Fund 106)
Expenditures $140,000
Gas Tax Fund (Fund 200)
Expenditures $50,000
Recreation Fund (Fund 209)
Revenue -$69,780
Expenditures $175,781
Building and Planning Fund (Fund 212)
Revenue -$2,539,897
Expenditures -$83,899
Measure J Fund (Fund 215)
Expenditures $5,000
Parkland Dedication Fund (Fund 275)
Revenue -$1,293,134
Growth Impact Fee Fund (Fund 276)
Revenue -$1,115,476
Sewer Enterprise Fund (Fund 500)
Expenditures $130,000
Information Systems Fund (Fund 525)
Indirect Cost Allocations -$341,600
Expenditures $341,600
260 of 560

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2023
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SANJAY MISHRA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF CITY OF PINOLE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY

PLAN (LRSP)
___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution approving the City of Pinole Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), attached.

BACKGROUND
A LRSP is a mechanism through which local governments identify roadway safety issues in their jurisdictions and recommend countermeasures. In the future, a LRSP (or its equivalent) will be required for a jurisdiction to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) funds.

In July 2020, staff submitted a grant application to Caltrans for funding to develop a LRSP for the City of Pinole. The maximum amount of grant funding available is calculated based on population, roadway centerline miles, and lane miles. Based on the formula, the maximum LRSP funding amount available to the City of Pinole is $40,000. LRSP grant regulations state that Caltrans will provide funding for 90% of the total cost and require that the applicant match the remaining 10% with local funds. On October 2, 2020, Caltrans staff informed City staff that Pinole’s grant application was selected for funding in an amount of $40,000, with a local match requirement of $4,445. Subsequently a Master Agreement and a Program Supplemental Agreement for the LRSP project was executed with Caltrans.

The City, with the assistance of a consultant, TJKM, has developed LRSP for Pinole.

A LRSP is developed through a standard methodology primarily driven by the history of collisions between cars and other cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the community. The proposed LRSP identifies the City’s “most vulnerable intersections” based on past collision data as well as community input and recommends countermeasures for these intersections involving the “5 E’s” of highway safety – engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies.
12C
261 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023

Community Engagement/Outreach
Community engagement and outreach was an important part and requirement of the development of the LRSP. City staff performed public notification and outreach using its social media platforms Facebook and Nextdoor, as well as the City Manager’s Administrative Reports, Traffic and Pedestrian Safety (TAPS) committee meetings, and the City website. A project website was created at www.pinolelrsp.com to solicit public input through a survey and interactive map in which the public could identify locations of various safety concerns and provide comments, review other public input, review collision history data, see project updates, and review the draft LRSP.

Key stakeholders included in the community engagement and outreach were City staff, the City of Pinole Police Department, West Contra Costa Unified School District, TAPS, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and City of Pinole residents.

Two virtual stakeholder meetings were held, on December 15, 2021 and February 6, 2023, to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The past five years of collision history (2015-2019) was collected and evaluated for City roadways. Due to COVID, the collision data for the years 2020 and 2021 were considered unreliable and were not included as part of this analysis per Caltrans guidance. Based on the collision data analysis and the stakeholder working group input, the LRSP addresses multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) challenge areas such as bicyclists, intersections, pedestrians, distracted driving, and aggressive driving. The LRSP provides a list of countermeasures for priority intersections and roadways segments based on collision analysis and the feedback from City staff, other stakeholders, and the public. Non-engineering strategies were also developed through stakeholder and public input with City staff.

The engineering countermeasures in the plan also coincide with HSIP funding requirements. Table 4 of the LRSP lists the top eight identified high-collision intersections along with the types of collisions. Table 5 lists the collision rate of the top eight identified high-collision corridors along with the number of Fatal and Severe Injury (F+SI) collisions and total collisions. Table 13 is a list of countermeasures recommended.

The LRSP should be updated every five years to remain eligible for state and federal funding. Following adoption of the LRSP, staff intend to submit grant funding applications to obtain funds for identified safety improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact for adopting the proposed LRSP. The Council had previously approved a not to exceed amount of $40,000 to complete this task. 262 of 560
City Council Report
February 21, 2023

ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution
B: City of Pinole Local Roadway Safety Plan
263 of 560

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PINOLE, COUNY OF

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING LOCAL ROADWAY

SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a data driven process that provides the framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads while contributing to the success of the state Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); and WHEREAS, the LRSP is being created for the purpose of complying with new state and federal grant funding requirements related to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); and
WHEREAS, the LRSP has been developed through the coordinated efforts of City of Pinole staff and consultants, stakeholder working group meetings, and input from the public through a series of public virtual engagements and a public review period; and
WHEREAS, based on five years of collision history (2015‐2019) analysis and stakeholder working group input, the LRSP creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, recommend safety projects, and countermeasures; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP will serve not only as a requirement for grant fund eligibility but also a blueprint for addressing traffic safety issues throughout the community across the “5 E’s” of highway safety – engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies; and WHEREAS, the LRSP is a living documents that should be updated every five years to remain eligible for state and federal funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pinole hereby adopts the Local Roadway Safety Plan detailed in Attachment B.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pinole City Council held on the 21st day of February 2023 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

264 of 560
I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted on the 21st day of February 2023
_____________________________
Heather Bell, CMC
City Clerk
265 of 560

CITY OF PINOLE

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 15, 2023

ATTACHMENT B
266 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | i

CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 What is an LRSP? ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Process ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Safety Partners ...........................................................................................................................................................11

3. Existing Planning Efforts ........................................................................................................................................14

4. Collision Data and Analysis ...................................................................................................................................19 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................21 Collision Data Analysis Results .........................................................................................................................21 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................45

5. Emphasis Areas .........................................................................................................................................................46 The 4 E's of Traffic Safety ....................................................................................................................................46 Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Pinole ....................................................................................47 Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas ..............................................................48

6. Countermeasure Selection ....................................................................................................................................55 Identification of Countermeasures .................................................................................................................55 Countermeasure Toolbox ...................................................................................................................................55

7. Viable Safety Projects .............................................................................................................................................59

8. Implementation and Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................64 Implementation ......................................................................................................................................................64 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................66 LRSP Update ............................................................................................................................................................66 267 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | ii

FIGURES
Figure 1. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting ..................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. City of Pinole LRSP Project Website ................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Comments Received via Interactive Map ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 5. Public Comments on Traffic Safety by Location ............................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Injury Collisions in the City of Pinole (2015-2019)........................................................................ 20 Figure 7. Collisions by Severity (2015-2019)...................................................................................................... 21 Figure 8. Five Year Collision Trend ........................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 9. Intersection vs Roadway Collisions – All Collisions ...................................................................... 23 Figure 10. Collision Type – All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions ........................................................................ 23 Figure 11. Violation Categories: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................................. 24 Figure 12. Motor Vehicle Involved with: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................. 24 Figure 13. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions ............................................................... 25 Figure 14. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................................. 25 Figure 15. Time of Day: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................................................. 26 Figure 16. F+SI Collisions: Roadway Segment vs. Intersection ................................................................... 26 Figure 17. Severe Injury Collisions (2015-2019) ............................................................................................... 27 Figure 18. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Location (2015-2019) .......................................................... 28 Figure 19. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Violation Category (2015-2019) ...................................... 28 Figure 20. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Severity (2015-2019) ........................................................... 29 Figure 21. F+SI Roadway Collisions: Collision Type vs Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ........ 29 Figure 22. F+SI Roadway Collisions: Collision Type vs Mode (2015-2019)............................................ 30 Figure 23. F+SI Roadway Collisions: Collision Mode vs Lighting (2015-2019)..................................... 30 Figure 24. F+SI Intersection Collisions: Collision Type vs Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)... 31 Figure 25. F+SI Intersection Collisions: Collision Type vs Mode (2015-2019) ...................................... 31 Figure 26. F+SI Intersection Collisions: Collision Mode vs lighting (2015-2019)................................. 32 Figure 27. City of Pinole Broadside Collisions (2015-2019) ......................................................................... 35 Figure 28. City of Pinole Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2019)........................................................................ 36 Figure 29. City of Pinole Unsafe Speed Collisions (2015-2019).................................................................. 37 Figure 30. City of Pinole DUI Collisions (2015-2019) ...................................................................................... 38 Figure 31. City of Pinole Severity Index ............................................................................................................... 40 Figure 32. City of Pinole High Injury Network ................................................................................................... 42 268 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | iii
TABLES
Table 1. City of Pinole Commute to Work Census Data ................................................................................ 10 Table 2. Collisions by Severity and Facility Type .............................................................................................. 22 Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 11 ....................................................................................................... 39 Table 4. High Injury Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 43 Table 5. High Injury Corridors ................................................................................................................................. 44 Table 6. Existing Programs Summary ................................................................................................................... 47 Table 7. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 49 Table 8. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 50 Table 9. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 51 Table 10. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 52 Table 11. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 53 Table 12. Emphasis Area 6 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 54 Table 13. Countermeasures selected for the City of Pinole ......................................................................... 56 Table 14. List of Viable Safety Projects ................................................................................................................ 61 Table 15. List of Potential Funding Sources ....................................................................................................... 64

APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Community Feedback Comments
Appendix B Summary of Planning Documents
Appendix C Extended list of High Injury Intersections Ranking Appendix D Consolidated High Injury Collision Database
Appendix E LRSM Excerpt
Appendix F Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix G B/C Ratio Calculations
269 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Pinole’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures to enhance safety for all modes of transportation for ages and abilities. The LRSP identified safety patterns throughout the City, developed a toolbox of countermeasures to address them, and proposed projects to improve safety at key locations. The plan used data-driven collision analysis of local roadways to identify transportation safety improvement needs, including pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety improvements. Input from stakeholders and the community played a key role in the development of the LRSP.

The LRSP takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance document that can be a source of information and ideas. The LRSP should be viewed as a living document that can be updated to reflect changing local needs and priorities. The development of the LRSP was funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and is a requirement for the City of Pinole to be eligible to receive federal funding for local roadway safety improvement projects in the future. This document summarizes an analysis of collisions that occurred in City of Pinole, identifies highinjury locations, and recommends countermeasures at each of these high-risk locations.

GOALS OF THE LRSP
The City and Consultant prepared the goals of the LRSP:
 Goal 1: Identify and analyze road safety issues from a systemic perspective and recommend improvements
 Goal 2: Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety through the application of proven effective countermeasures
 Goal 3: Coordinate the actions of key stakeholders to implement road safety improvements and Emergency response in the City of Pinole
 Goal 4: Continually seek funding for safety improvements  Goal 5: Ensure that all safety improvements are made in a fair and equitable manner for all residents of the City of Pinole

PROCESS
The City and Consultant followed the FHWA six step LRSP development process to develop the City's LRSP:
 Develop plan goals and objectives
 Analyze collision data
 Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
 Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies  Prioritize countermeasures/projects
270 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 2
 Prepare the LRSP

COLLISION DATA
Collision data was obtained for a five-year period from 2015 to 2019 from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the University of California at Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping Service (TIMS). For the purpose of this report the data was analyzed for a five-year period from 2015 to 2019 from Transportation Injury Mapping Service's Traffic Collision Database.

COLLISION TREND
Key findings on patterns and trends:
 A total of 311 collisions occurred between 2015 and 2019.  9 collisions resulted in severe injuries, 15 resulted in a visible injury, 48 resulted in a complaint of pain injury, and 239 resulted in PDO collisions. No fatalities are reported.  The year 2015 had highest number of collisions with 92 collisions, and 2019 had the lowest number of collisions with 39 collisions.
 The highest number of injury collisions occurred within 250 feet of an intersection (84%).  Rear-end and sideswipe collisions, each accounted for 31% of total collisions. 33% of broadside collisions resulted into F+SI collisions.
 Unsafe speed accounted for 24% of all collisions, followed by improper turning (21%).  Most of the F+SI collisions occurred between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.,  54% of all collisions were motor vehicle involved with other motor vehicles followed by motor vehicle involved with a parked motor vehicle (25%), and fixed objects (12%).  There were a total of 16 bicycle and pedestrian collisions during the study period, of which 7 were bicycle and 9 pedestrian collisions.

HIGH RISK LOCATIONS
The collision analysis was performed on all City streets. The corridors were ranked to show the top 8 high-collision intersections and top 8 high-collision roadway segments. 271 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 3
Key findings of identifying high-risk intersections are as follows:
 There were a total of 26 injury collisions that occurred at the intersection  6 collisions led to F+SI
 The intersection of Appian Way and Fitzgerald Drive had the highest number of injury collisions overall (7)
Key findings of identifying high-risk roadway segment are as follows:
 There were a total of 37 injury collisions that occurred on the roadway segments  7 collisions led to F+SI collisions
 Pinole Valley Road between San Pablo Avenue to Collins Avenue had the highest number of injury collisions with 10, followed by San Pablo Avenue between Oak Ridge Road to Pinole Valley Road with seven injury collisions

EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the LRSP that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within the City of Pinole. The six emphasis area identified for the City of Pinole are:

A. Improve Intersection Safety
B. Reduce Nighttime Collisions
C. Reduce Unsafe Speed Collisions
D. Reduce Broadside (T-bone) Collisions
E. Reduce Automobile Right-of-Way Violations
F. Improve Pedestrian Safety

VIABLE SAFETY PROJECTS
A set of nine safety projects were created for the high-risk intersections and roadway segments.  Project 1: Signalized Intersections (Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation), Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists))
 Project 2: Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections (Install advance stop bar before crosswalk, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.), Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection))
 Project 3: Safety at Unsignalized Intersections (Add intersection lighting (NS.I.), Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB))  Project 4: Citywide Signal Upgrade
 Project 5: Citywide Street light Inventory
272 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 4
 Project 6: Roadway Segments (Add Segment Lighting, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers)
 Project 7: Roadway Segments (Install centerline rumble strips/stripes, Install edge-lines and centerlines, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB))  Project 8: Roadway Segments (Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes), Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features))
 Project 9: Citywide Regulatory and Warning Sign Inventory

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service-related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Pinole implement the selected projects in high-collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated. 273 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 5
Report Organization
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
The Introduction describes what an LRSP is and details the study area. It also summarizes the systemic approach involved in preparing the LRSP and goal and objectives of the plan.

CHAPTER 2 – SAFETY PARTNERS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
Involvement of safety partners is critical in the success of the LRSP. For the City of Pinole, this included the City Department Staff from Public Works, the City of Pinole Police Department, West Contra Costa Unified School District, City of Pinole Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee, and City of Pinole residents. This chapter summarizes the public outreach involvement of the stakeholders in the LRSP process.

CHAPTER 3 – EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes City and regional planning documents and projects that are relevant to the LRSP. It ensures that the recommendations of the LRSP are in line with existing goals, objectives, policies, or projects.

CHAPTER 4 – COLLISION DATA AND ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the collision data analysis approach and presents preliminary as well as detailed collision analysis and findings in the study area.

CHAPTER 5 – EMPHASIS AREAS
This chapter identifies the top six emphasis areas for the City and the safety strategies for each.

CHAPTER 6 – COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION
This chapter identifies the engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based off of approved countermeasures from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 4 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas.

CHAPTER 7 – SAFETY PROJECTS
This chapter summarizes the list of viable safety projects applicable to the high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with the cost for implementation and their benefit cost ratio.

CHAPTER 8 – IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This chapter summarizes the process of implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and future updates.
274 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 6

1. INTRODUCTION
What is an LRSP?
The LRSP is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of F+SI collisions for all modes. The LRSP creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, recommend safety projects, and countermeasures. It facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can qualify for HSIP funding. The LRSP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends, and community needs and priorities.

Process
The City and Consultant followed the FHWA LRSP development process to develop the City's LRSP. The systemic approach in preparing the LRSP involves the following steps:
 Develop plan goals and objectives
 Analyze collision data
 Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
 Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies  Prioritize countermeasures/projects
 Prepare the LRSP
275 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 7
Goals and Objectives
GOAL 1: IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE ROAD SAFETY ISSUES FROM A SYSTEMIC

PERSPECTIVE AND RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS
Objective 1: Determine where, when, and how F+SI collisions occur in the City of Pinole using the data-driven Systemic Safety Analysis process and implement appropriate and proven countermeasures.

Objective 2: Improve roadway planning, design, operations, and connectivity to enhance safety and mobility for users of all ages and abilities.

Objective 3: Implement traffic calming strategies on residential streets to discourage speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors.

Objective 4: Ensure that all recommended improvements are consistent with City, County, State, and Federal plans (such as, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan).

GOAL 2: IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY THROUGH THE

APPLICATION OF PROVEN EFFECTIVE COUNTERMEASURES
Objective 1: Identify safety concerns and hot spots in the City of Pinole where bicycle and pedestrian collisions occur and address them with appropriate and effective engineering countermeasures.

Objective 2: Conduct educational programs to educate bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists about the importance of sharing the public right-of-way safely. This can be accomplished through afterschool programs, police department initiatives, or other public/privately sponsored initiatives.

Objective 3: Improve the safety and efficiency of sidewalks, walkways, and crossings by eliminating hazards and minimizing conflicts with vehicular traffic.

Objective 4: Prioritize improvements that promote Safe Routes to School efforts or are located near schools.
276 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 8
GOAL 3: COORDINATE THE ACTIONS OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS TO IMPLEMENT ROAD

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE IN THE CITY OF PINOLE Objective 1: Coordinate efforts between Public Works, the Sheriff Department, the Fire Department, and the EMS agencies to ensure a coherent approach to traffic safety issues, including:
 Implementation of safety improvements
 Public education on safely traveling in the public right-of-way, regardless of mode  Enforcement of traffic safety laws in the public right-of-way  Minimizing impacts to emergency response times
Objective 2: Collaborate with local, regional, and state partners to identify and address traffic safety issues, and ensure a coordinated response.

GOAL 4: CONTINUALLY SEEK FUNDING FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Objective 1: Ensure that the LRSP complies with HSIP guidelines to apply for funding for identified countermeasures.

Objective 2: Provide a prioritized list of improvements that will serve as a guide for City investments and grant applications.

Objective 3: Continually seek funding sources to implement engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response solutions to road safety issues in the City of Pinole.

GOAL 5: ENSURE THAT ALL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE IN A FAIR AND

EQUITABLE MANNER FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF PINOLE Objective 1: Where feasible, conduct community outreach to inform residents about upcoming safety enhancements and solicit their input.

Objective 2: Provide a forum for residents to lodge complaints about traffic safety, as well as for City officials to respond to such complaints.

Objective 3: Ensure that equity is a primary factor in selecting where to make traffic safety improvements.
277 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 9
Study Area
The City of Pinole is located in the Contra Costa County, California. It covers a total approximate area of 18 square miles. The City’s estimated population is approximately 19,022 (US Census 2020).

The study area is mapped in Figure 1 on the following page.

Figure 1. Study Area
According to five-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)12019 from the U.S.

Census, 73.6 percent of City of Pinole commuters get to work by driving alone, versus 73.7 percent

1American Community Survey (ACS) 2019
https://data.census.gov/table?q=Pinole+city,+California&t=Transportation&tid=ACSDT5Y2019.B08141 278 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 10
statewide. The second most common method of commuting to work in Pinole is Carpool at 10.7 percent. The different modes of transportation used by City of Pinole residents to commute to work are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. City of Pinole Commute to Work Census Data
Commute to Work City of Pinole California
Drive Alone 73.6% 73.7%
Carpool 10.7% 10.1%
Public Transportation 9.8% 5.1%
Walked 1.3% 2.6%
Work from Home 3.4% 5.9%
Other 1.2% 2.6%
279 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 11

2. SAFETY PARTNERS
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRSP. For City of Pinole, these include City staff, the City of Pinole Police Department, West Contra Costa Unified School District, City of Pinole Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Committee, and City of Pinole residents. A virtual Stakeholder meeting was conducted on December 15, 2021 to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group.

Figure 2. Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting
This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website with an interactive platform.

The interactive map was used to solicit input from City of Pinole residents and stakeholders outside the confines of traditional meetings.
280 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 12
Figure 3. City of Pinole LRSP Project Website
In total, 407 comments were received through the project website for City of Pinole LRSP of which 382 comments were received using the interactive map. Pinole Valley Road received the most comments, with the main concerns being pedestrian safety, and speeding. The comments received via the interactive map are shown in Figure 4, and summarized in Figure 5. In Figure 4, each dot and line represents a comment provided by a community member.

Figure 4. Comments Received via Interactive Map
281 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 13
Figure 5. Public Comments on Traffic Safety by Location Note: Top 8 corridors with most comments are included in this chart. Top 10 categories are named and remaining all categories are included in ‘other’. Category was chosen based on the primary issue listed in the comment. Each comment was assigned to the major road if at an intersection.

The community comments collected through Interactive map platform is included in Appendix A.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Pinole Valley Rd San Pablo Ave Appian Way Simas Ave
Tennent Avenue Henry Ave Wright Ave Marlesta Rd
282 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 14

3. EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for the City of Pinole LRSP. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the LRSP vision, goals, and E's strategies (Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)) are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation projects, and non-infrastructure programs for the City. The documents reviewed are listed below:

1. City of Pinole General Plan (2010)

2. City of Pinole Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy (2008)

3. City of Pinole Three Corridors Specific Plan (2010) Updated (2018)

4. Old Town Pinole Parking & Pedestrian Safety Study (2020)

5. Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2021/22 – 2025/26)

6. City of Pinole Operating Budget (2020-2021)

7. Contra Costa Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (2018)

8. CCTA Transportation Expenditure Plan (2020)

9. CCTA Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2017)

10. Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020)

11. West County Action Plan (2017)

12. West Contra Costa High-Capacity Transit Study (2017) The following sections include brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the development of the LRSP. A more detailed list of relevant policies and projects is listed in Appendix B.

CITY OF PINOLE GENERAL PLAN (2010)
The General Plan presents a vision to make Pinole a sustainable community where the citizens act as stewards for the environment, the economy, and the social equality of the community, preserving Pinole's historic past, while maintaining a healthy economy for all members of the community now and in the future. The plan's Circulation and Transportation Element provides the data concerning existing and future conditions on a factual basis for community goals, policies, and implementing actions for existing and proposed roadway improvements and other transportation needs. These goals and policies inform City's Local Roadway Safety Plan to improve roadway safety for active transportation users while encouraging users to choose walking, bicycling, and transit as a mode of transportation in Pinole.
283 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 15

CITY OF PINOLE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING
POLICY (2008)
The City of Pinole Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy aims to improve the livability of our neighborhoods and minimize adverse impacts of vehicular traffic on residential and pedestrian safety streets through a system of education, enforcement, and engineering. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy has been designed to ensure that each neighborhood with a demonstrated traffic problem has access to neighborhood traffic calming measures. This document suggests various countermeasures to elevate street safety in Pinole neighborhoods.

CITY OF PINOLE THREE CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN (2010)
UPDATED (2018)
The City of Pinole Three Corridors Specific Plan is a regulatory and economic development tool that local government uses to implement their General Plan and to guide development in a welldefined sub-area of the community. While the General Plan is the primary guide for growth and development within Pinole, this Specific Plan seeks to establish a direct connection between the City of Pinole's General Plan and economic and revitalization opportunities within the three Specific Plan corridors. An overall goal is the orderly development of three project area(s) – San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way – consistent with the City's General Plan and, more specifically, with the community's vision developed through the Specific Plan public outreach process.

OLD TOWN PINOLE PARKING & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
STUDY (2020)
The purpose of this study is to develop recommendations for Old Town Pinole to utilize parking more effectively and improve pedestrian safety within the study area. The study goal is also to enhance the connection between Old Town Pinole and the SF Bay Trail while fostering the small town design elements that make Old Town Pinole unique will enhance the experience of those walking in Old Town Pinole. The safety element of this document recommends pedestrian safety improvements within the Old Town Pinole and highlights the scope of the further safety study.
284 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 16
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FY 2021/22 – 2025/26)
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a multi-year planning tool used to identify and implement the City’s capital needs over the upcoming five-year period. The CIP aligns the needs with appropriate funding, scheduling, and implementation. This document is a working blueprint for building and sustaining publicly funded physical infrastructure. These improvements influence Pinole's built and natural environment and help guide the trajectory of future growth or change.

CITY OF PINOLE OPERATING BUDGET (2020-21)
The Operating Budget is the complete budget used to finance all the day-to-day operations and obligations of the City. The budget includes general government administration and operations, debt service, capital expenditures, and transfer payments for a particular fiscal year. The fiscal year 2020-21 operating budget of the City of Pinole illustrates City's financial capabilities with ongoing and future expenditures. This budget also addresses the budget impact due to the COVID-19 situation.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN
PLAN (2018)
Revised in 2018, the Contra Costa Countywide Bike and
Pedestrian Plan entails new policies, best practices and standards developed over the last decade as well as newly-adopted local active transportation plans. This plan highlights the need of increased interest and support for walking and bicycling. The plan also includes the pedestrian and bicycle collision density, design for pedestrian facilities, pedestrian priority area, level of traffic stress for bicycle users, and existing and proposed bicycle facilities. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety improvements and strategies to be recommended in the City's Local Road Safety Plan.
285 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 17

CCTA TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN (TEP)
(2020)
The 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan is a carefully curated set of solutions designed to bring Contra Costa's transportation system into the future by moving more people efficiently, encouraging mode shift, and promoting shared mobility options for all. The TEP is intentionally designed to be equitable across the entire County, based on population. This plan reflects the current progress of transportation projects in Contra Costa County and the commitment to pursuing transportation policies, planning, and investments.

CCTA COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2017)
The 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) provides the policy framework and steps necessary for the CCTA to achieve its vision. It includes an analysis of challenges and opportunities; a definition of the vision, goals, and strategies; and defines how the CTP will be carried out through a Long-Range Transportation Investment Program and an Implementation Program, with defined responsibilities and a schedule of activities.

The CTP outlines the various strategies for addressing
transportation and growth management issues within Contra Costa County.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES (2020)
The Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) are provided to aid in the preparation of traffic analysis for project applicants and staff. The purpose of this document is to establish a uniform approach, methodology, and toolset to evaluate the impacts of land-use decisions and related
transportation projects on the County's transportation system.

This is a living document and is updated periodically to reflect newly acquired data and relevant policies. Capital Road Improvement and Complete Streets policies mentioned in this document will serve as a reference while developing a City's Local Road Safety Plan.
286 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 18
WEST COUNTY ACTION PLAN (2017)
The purpose of the West County Action Plan is for each
Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) to work cooperatively to establish overall goals, set performance measures for designated Routes of Regional Significance, and outline a set of projects, programs, measures, and actions that will support the achievement of the Multi-modal
Transportation Service Objectives. Action Plans are required to be prepared by the RTPC for each subarea of Contra Costa County (West, Central, East, Lamorinda, and the Tri-Valley).

CCTA is responsible for funding this effort, and for
coordinating and knitting together the Action Plans from each RTPC into the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).

WEST CONTRA COSTA HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STUDY (2017)
West Contra Costa High-Capacity Transit Study to
evaluate options for expanding transit capacity and
creating a more robust transit network. The results of the study are intended to serve as a resource for the West
Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee
(WCCTAC), the cities, the County, and transit agencies to determine which projects should be advanced for further study, with consideration given to costs, funding
opportunities, and consistency with local plans and policies. It provides WCCTAC with the information necessary to determine and advance the most promising HCT alternatives to benefit a wide range of people and trip types in West County.
287 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 19

4. COLLISION DATA AND ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the results of the collision analysis of collisions that have occurred in the City of Pinole between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019, as part of the LRSP. This chapter includes the following sections:
 Data Collection
 Collision Data Analysis
 Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Analysis
 Geographic Collision Analysis
 High Injury Network
 Summary
The LRSP focuses on systemically identifying and analyzing traffic safety issues and recommends appropriate safety improvements. The chapter starts with an analysis of the collisions of all severity for the City of Pinole, including Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. Further on, a detailed analysis was conducted for fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions that have occurred on the City’s roadways. After this data was segregated, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted based on factors such as collision severity, type of collision, primary collision factor, lighting, weather and time of the day. Figure 6 illustrates all the injury collisions that have occurred in the City of Pinole from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019.
288 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 20
Figure 6. Injury Collisions in the City of Pinole (2015-2019) 289 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | i
Data Collection
Collision data helps understand different factors that might be influencing collision patterns and various factors leading to collisions in a given area. For the purpose of this analysis, a five-year jurisdiction-wide collision data, from 2015 to 2019 was retrieved from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Collisions that occurred on state routes were excluded for this analysis. The collision data was analyzed and plotted in ArcMap to identify high-risk intersections and roadways segments.

Collision Data Analysis Results

COLLISION ANALYSIS BY SEVERITY
There were a total of 311 collisions
reported City-wide from 2015 to 2019.

Out of these, 239 collisions (77 percent)
were PDO collisions, 48 collisions (15
percent) led to complaint of pain injury
and 15 collisions (5 percent) led to a
visible injury. There were 9 F+SI (fatal
and severe injury) collisions, 9 collisions
(3 percent) led to a severe injury and 0
collisions led to a fatality. Figure 7
illustrates the classification of all
collisions based on severity.

The analysis first includes a comparative evaluation between all collisions and F+SI collisions, based on various factors including but on limited to the collision trend, primary collision factor, collision type, facility type, motor vehicle involved with, weather, lighting, and time of the day.

Further on, a comprehensive analysis is conducted for only F+SI collisions. F+SI collisions cause the most damage to those affected, infrastructure and the aftermath of these collisions lead to great expenses for jurisdiction administration. The LRSP process thus focuses on these collision locations to proactively identify and counter their respective safety issues.

The collision data was segregated by facility type, i.e. based on collisions occurring on intersections and roadway segments. For the purposes of the analysis, a collision was designated to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it. The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table Figure 7. Collisions by Severity (2015-2019)
Fatal

0.0%
Severe
Injury
3% Visible Injury
5%
Complaint of
Pain
15%
Property
Damage
Only (PDO)
77%
290 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 22
Table 2. Collisions by Severity and Facility Type
Collision Severity Roadway Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 0 0 0
Severe Injury 3 6 9
Visible Injury 4 11 15
Complaint of Pain 6 42 48
Property Damage Only (PDO) 36 203 239
Total 49 262 311
TREND
For all collisions, the number of reported collisions decreased from 2015 to 2019. The highest number of collisions (92 collisions) were observed in 2015 and the lowest number of collisions (39) were observed in 2019. A total of 9 F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions occurred in the City of Pinole during the study period. They were observed to be the lowest (0 collision) in 2018 and 2019, and the highest in 2016 (4 collisions). Figure 8 illustrates the five-year collision trend for all collisions, F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions and also PDO collisions.

Figure 8. Five Year Collision Trend
3 4 2 0 0
92 68
63 49
39 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
F+SI Property Damage Only (PDO) Total
291 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 23
ROADWAY SEGMENT VS. INTERSECTION
When evaluating the roadway geometry, it was
observed that the majority of collisions occurred at
intersections. In the City of Pinole, 84% of all
collisions (262 collisions) occurred at intersections
whereas 16% (49 collisions) occurred on roadway
segments. This classification by facility type can be
observed in Figure 9.

COLLISION TYPE
Considering all collisions, the most commonly occurring collision type was rear end collisions (31 percent), and sideswipe collisions (31 percent). The collision type for F+SI collisions are noticeably different. For F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions, the most commonly occurring collision type was vehicle/pedestrian collisions (33 percent) and broadside (or T-bone) collisions (33%) in which the side of one vehicle is hit by the front or back of another vehicle. Figure 10 illustrates the collision type for all collisions as well as F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions.

Figure 10. Collision Type – All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Considering all collisions, the most common violation category was observed to be unsafe speed (24 percent) and improper turning collisions (21 percent). For F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions automobile right of way (22 percent), unsafe speed (22 percent) and driving under influence (22 percent) was observed to be the violation categories. Figure 11 illustrates the violation category for all collisions and F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions. 3%
31% 31%
14%
13%
1%
3% 2% 0%
11% 11%
33%
11%
0%
33%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Total F+SI
Roadway
Segment
16%
Intersection
84%
Figure 9. Intersection vs Roadway
Collisions – All Collisions
292 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 24
Figure 11. Violation Categories: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

MOTOR-VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
Considering all collisions, 54 percent of the collisions occurred between two motor vehicles. The remaining collisions include motor vehicle involved with parked vehicles (25 percent) and fixed object (12 percent). For F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions, 44 percent of the collisions involved another motor vehicle, 33 percent involved a pedestrian and 11 percent involved a fixed object/other object. Figure 12 illustrates the percentage for all collisions as well as F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions.

Figure 12. Motor Vehicle Involved with: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

LIGHTING
For collisions of all severity, 54 percent of collisions have occurred in daylight and 38 percent of collisions have occurred in the dark on streets with street lights. For F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions, collision lighting conditions follows a similar trend, with 67 percent of collisions having 4%
24%
2%
4%
21%
8%
1% 0%
5%
30%
22% 22%
0% 0% 0%
22%
11% 11% 11%
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
DUI Unsafe
Speed
Wrong Side
of Road
Unsafe
Lane
Change
Improper
Turning
Automobile
Right of
Way
Pedestrian
Right of
Way
Pedestrian
Violation
Traffic
Signals and
Signs
Other
Total F+SI
1% 3%
54%
1%
25%
2% 0%
12%
0% 1%
33%
44%
0%
11%
0% 0%
11%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Total F+SI
293 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 25
occurred in daylight and 33 percent of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights.

Figure 13 illustrates the lighting condition for all collisions and F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions.

Figure 13. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

WEATHER
For all collisions, 82 percent of the collisions have occurred during clear weather conditions. For F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions similar trends have been observed, with 89 percent of the collisions having occurred during clear weather conditions. Figure 14 illustrates the percentage distribution of weather conditions during occurrence of collisions of all severity as well as F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions.

Figure 14. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions

TIME OF THE DAY
For collisions of all severity, maximum number of collisions have occurred between 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (8 percent) and the minimum number of collisions have occurred between 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. (1 percent). For all F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions, maximum number of collisions have been observed to occur between 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Figure 15 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during the day for all collisions as well as F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions.
54%
3%
38%
2% 3%
67%
0%
33%
0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights Other Total F+SI
82%
10% 6% 2%
89%
11%
0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clear Cloudy Raining Other
Total F+SI
294 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 26
Figure 15. Time of Day: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY (F+SI) COLLISIONS
This section describes a detailed collision analysis
performed for F+SI (fatal and severe injury)
collisions occurring at roadway segments and
intersections in the City of Pinole. Of the total 9
F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions that
occurred during the study period, 3 collisions (33
percent) occurred on roadway segments and 6
collisions (67 percent) occurred at intersections.

This distribution is illustrated in Figure 16.

Figure 17 illustrates the F+SI (fatal and severe
injury) collisions that occurred in the jurisdiction in the study period. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Total F+SI
Roadway
Segment
33%
Intersection
67%
Figure 16. F+SI Collisions: Roadway Segment
vs. Intersection
295 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 27
Figure 17. Severe Injury Collisions (2015-2019)

COLLISION TYPE AND LOCATION TYPE
For fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common collision type was broadside and vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Broadside collision types that led to a fatal or severe injury more commonly occurred on roadways, while vehicle/pedestrian collision types that led to a fatal or severe injury more commonly occurred at intersections. Figure 18 shows fatal and severe injury collisions locations as well as the collision type.
296 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 28
Figure 18. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Location (2015-2019)

VIOLATION CATEGORY AND LOCATION TYPE
For fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common collision type was DUI collisions, unsafe speed collisions and automobile right of way collisions. DUI and unsafe speed F+SI collisions occurred only at intersection and automobile right of way F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions occurred only at roadways. Figure 19 shows fatal and severe injury collisions as well as the location type and violation category.

Figure 19. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Violation Category (2015-2019)

TIME OF DAY AND LOCATION TYPE
For fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, collisions have been observed to occur in the afternoon/evening hours between 3-9 pm. Figure 20 shows fatal and severe injury collisions as well as the location type and time of day.
0% 0%
22%
0%
11% 11% 11% 11% 11%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Vehicle/Pedestrian Roadway Intersection
0% 0%
22%
11%
0% 0%
22% 22%
0% 0%
11% 11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
DUI Unsafe Speed Automobile Right
of Way
Pedestrian Right of
Way
Pedestrian
Violation
Traffic Signals and
Signs
Roadway Intersection
297 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 29
Figure 20. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Severity (2015-2019)

ROADWAY COLLISION TYPE VS PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
For roadway fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common primary collision factor automobile right of way collisions, which resulted in 2 fatal and severe collisions. Figure 21 shows fatal and severe injury collisions as well as the collision type and primary collision factor.

Figure 21. F+SI Roadway Collisions: Collision Type vs Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)

ROADWAY COLLISION TYPE VS MODE
For roadway fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common collision type was broadside that involved another motor vehicle. Figure 22 shows fatal and severe injury roadway collision types as well as mode.
1 1 1
1 2
2 1
0 1
2 3
4 1-3 am 3-6 am 6-9 am 9 am - 12 pm 12-3 pm 3-6 pm 6-9 pm 9 pm-12 am Roadway Intersection
2 1
0 1
2 3
Automobile Right of Way Pedestrian Right of Way
Broadside Vehicle/Pedestrian
298 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 30
Figure 22. F+SI Roadway Collisions: Collision Type vs Mode (2015-2019) Roadway Collision Mode vs Lighting
For roadway fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common collision mode was other motor vehicle. Figure 23 shows fatal and severe injury roadway collision mode as well as lighting conditions.

Figure 23. F+SI Roadway Collisions: Collision Mode vs Lighting (2015-2019)

INTERSECTION COLLISION TYPE VS PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR For intersection fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common primary collision factor was DUI and unsafe speed, which resulted in 2 fatal and severe collisions each. Figure 24 shows fatal and severe injury collisions as well as the collision type and primary collision factor. 2 1
0 1
2 3
Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle
Broadside Vehicle/Pedestrian
1 1
1 0
1 2
3 Daylight Dark - Street Lights
Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle
299 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 31
Figure 24. F+SI Intersection Collisions: Collision Type vs Primary Collision Factor (2015- 2019)

INTERSECTION COLLISION TYPE VS MODE
For intersection fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common collision type was vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Figure 25 shows fatal and severe injury collision mode as well as the collision type.

Figure 25. F+SI Intersection Collisions: Collision Type vs Mode (2015-2019)

INTERSECTION COLLISION MODE VS LIGHTING
For intersection fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions, the most common collision mode was pedestrians or other motor vehicles. Figure 26 shows fatal and sever injury collisions mode as well as lighting conditions.
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
2 3
DUI Unsafe Speed Pedestrian Violation Traffic Signals and Signs Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Vehicle/Pedestrian 2 1 1 1 1
0 1
2 3
Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Other Object 300 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 32
Figure 26. F+SI Intersection Collisions: Collision Mode vs lighting (2015-2019) 2 1 1
1 1
0 1
2 3
Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Other Object Daylight Dark - Street Lights
301 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 33

GEOGRAPHIC COLLISION ANALYSIS
This section describes a detailed geographic collision analysis performed for injury collisions occurring at roadway segments and intersections in the City of Pinole. The above collision analysis was used to identify four main collision factors that highlight the top trends among collisions in Pinole. These four collision factors were identified to be broadside collisions, pedestrian collisions, unsafe speed collisions and DUI collisions.

Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions, also known as T-bone collisions, occur when the side of one vehicle is hit by the front or back of another vehicle. For F+SI collisions in the City of Pinole, 33 percent of collisions were broadside collisions. Figure 27 shows the distribution of broadside collisions throughout the City of Pinole between 2015 and 2019. Appian Way, Pinole Valley Road and San Pablo Avenue have a higher concentration of broadside collisions, compared to other Pinole roads.

Pedestrian Collisions
For F+SI collisions in the City of Pinole, 33 percent of collisions were pedestrian collisions. Figure 28 shows the distribution of pedestrian collisions throughout the City of Pinole between 2015 and 2019. Fitzgerald Drive, Tennent Avenue and Oak Ridge Road have a higher concentration of pedestrian collisions, compared to other Pinole roads. The Office of Traffic Safety ranked Pinole 91th out of 102 similarly sized cities with high levels of pedestrian collisions (one being the highest, or worst)2
.

Unsafe Speed Collisions
For F+SI collisions in the City of Pinole, 22 percent of collisions were unsafe speed collisions.

Figure 29 shows the distribution of unsafe speed collisions throughout the City of Pinole between 2015 and 2019. Appian Way, Fitzgerald Drive, and San Pablo Avenue have a higher concentration of unsafe speed collisions, compared to other Pinole roads. The Office of Traffic Safety ranked Pinole 90th out of 102 similarly sized cities with high levels of speed related collisions (one being the highest, or worst)3
.

DUI Collisions
For F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collisions in the City of Pinole, 22 percent of collisions were due to driving under the influence (DUI) violations. Figure 30 shows the distribution of DUI collisions

2 California Office of Traffic Safety. (2018). Office of Traffic Safety Rankings 2018. https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2018&wpv-wpcfcity_county=Pinole&wpv_filter_submit=Submit 3 California Office of Traffic Safety. (2018). Office of Traffic Safety Rankings 2018. https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2018&wpv-wpcfcity_county=Pinole&wpv_filter_submit=Submit 302 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 34
throughout the City of Pinole between 2015 and 2019. San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road and Sarah Drive have a higher concentration of DUI collisions, compared to other Pinole roads. The Office of Traffic Safety ranked Pinole 78th out of 102 similarly sized cities with high levels of alcohol involved collisions (one being the highest, or worst)4 .

4 California Office of Traffic Safety. (2018). Office of Traffic Safety Rankings 2018. https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2018&wpv-wpcfcity_county=Pinole&wpv_filter_submit=Submit 303 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 35
Figure 27. City of Pinole Broadside Collisions (2015-2019) 304 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 36
Figure 28. City of Pinole Pedestrian Collisions (2015-2019) 305 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 37
Figure 29. City of Pinole Unsafe Speed Collisions (2015-2019) 306 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 38
Figure 30. City of Pinole DUI Collisions (2015-2019)
307 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 39

COLLISION SEVERITY WEIGHT
A collision severity weight was used to identify the high severity collision network, using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by converting each collision to an equivalent number of property damage only (PDO) collisions. The EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost. These EPDO scores are calculated using a simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 11 application. The weights used in the analysis are shown below in Table 3. The mentioned EPDO score is derived from the crash costs defined in Table 7-1 of Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. The adjusted 2022 dollar amount of crash costs is mentioned in the Appendix D of Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (version 1.6).

Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 11
Collision Severity EPDO Score
Fatal and Severe
Injury Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the same score for all F+SI collisions regardless of location.

The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision patterns, such as location hot-spots. The weighted collisions for the City of Pinole were geolocated onto Pinole’s road network. Figure 31 shows the location and geographic concentration of collisions by their EPDO score.
308 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 40
Figure 31. City of Pinole Severity Index
309 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 41

HIGH INJURY NETWORK
Following the detailed collision analysis, the next step was to identify the high-risk roadway segments and intersections in the City of Pinole. The methodology for scoring the high injury locations is the same method as used in the severity weight section. Figure 32 shows the top 8 high-collision roadway segments, and top 8 high-collision intersections. This high collision network has a total of 48 injury collisions and 9 F+SI collisions, which represents 65 percent of injury collisions and 100 percent of F+SI collisions in Pinole and only about 6 percent of Pinole’s roadway network.

For the purposes of the high collision network analysis, intersections include collisions that occurred within 250 feet of it and roadways include all collisions that occurred along the roadway except for collisions that occurred directly at an intersection, or collisions that are assigned a 0 value in distance from intersection value column in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).
310 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 42
Figure 32. City of Pinole High Injury Network
311 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 43

INTERSECTION RANKING
Eight intersections were identified as high injury intersections. There were a total of 6 F+SI collisions that occurred at these intersections. The intersection of Appian Way and Fitzgerald Drive has the highest EPDO score.

Table 4 lists the EPDO score of the top 8 identified high-collision intersections along with the type of collisions and the number of F+SI collisions that occurred at these locations. The extended list of High Injury Intersections is included in the Appendix C.

Table 4. High Injury Intersections
ID Intersection Total
Collisions
F+SI
Collisions
Broadside
Collisions
Veh/Ped
Collisions
Unsafe
Speed
Collisions
DUI
Collisions
EPDO
Score
1 Appian Way and Fitzgerald
Dr
7 1 2 1 2 0 201
2 San Pablo Ave and Tennent
Ave
4 1 1 1 0 1 193
3 Appian Way and Canyon Dr
and Tara Hills
4 1 0 1 2 0 183
4 Appian Way and Marlesta Rd 3 1 2 1 0 0 177
5 Pinole Valley Rd/ Tennent
Ave and Ellerhorst St
3 1 1 0 0 1 177
6 Walter Ave and San Pablo
Ave
1 1 0 0 1 0 165
7 Fitzgerald Dr and Best Buy
Parking Lot
2 0 0 1 0 0 17
8 San Pablo Ave and Del
Monte
2 0 0 0 1 0 12
312 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 44

ROADWAY SEGMENT RANKING
Eight corridors were identified as high injury corridors. There was a total 7 F+SI collisions on these corridors. The corridor with the highest amount of F+SI collisions is Pinole Valley Road with 3 F+SI collisions.

Table 5 lists the collision rate of the top eight identified high-collision corridors along with the number of F+SI collisions and total collisions.

Table 5. High Injury Corridors
ID Corridors Total F+SI Broadside Veh/
Ped
Unsafe
Speed
DUI Length
(miles)
EPDO
Score
Collisions
A Pinole Valley Rd: San Pablo Ave to
Collins Ave
10 3 3 1 4 1 1.9 547
B San Pablo Ave: Oak Ridge Rd to
Pinole Valley Rd
7 1 0 0 2 3 0.3 211
C San Pablo Ave: Golden Gate Park
to Del Monte Dr
3 1 2 0 1 0 0.3 177
D Tara Hills: Kilkenny Way to Appian
Way
2 1 0 1 2 0 0.3 171
E Walter Ave: North Terminus to San
Pablo Ave
1 1 0 0 1 0 0.1 165
F Fitzgerald Dr: Jovita Ln to Appian
Way
7 0 0 2 0 0 0.6 52
G Appian Way: San Pablo Ave to
Michael Dr
6 0 1 0 4 0 1.0 36
H Tennent Ave: Buena Vista Dr to
Plum St
1 0 1 0 0 0 0.3 11
313 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 45
Summary
For F+SI collisions in the City of Pinole, 33 percent of collisions were broadside collisions. This calls for evaluating broadside collisions along the high injury network and other locations throughout the City with similar characteristics. Improvements at these location may consist of improved signal hardware/larger signal heads, provide protected left turn phase, convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted), raised medians at the approach to intersections and others.

For F+SI collisions in the City of Pinole, 33 percent of collisions were pedestrian collisions. This calls for evaluating pedestrian conditions along the high injury network and throughout the City with similar characteristics that are highly unsafe for pedestrians. Improvements at these locations can include reducing pedestrian crossing distances, installing high visibility crosswalks, installing pedestrian refuge islands, installing RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacons), and installing bulb outs.

In addition, TJKM also evaluated collisions near Railroad Avenue and at the rail-grade crossing.

These collision reports were provided by City of Pinole Police Department. Based on report description, it is recommended for City to team up with applicable railroad operator agency to identify the countermeasures for the collisions on or near railroad. The Intersection of Tennent Avenue and Railroad Avenue is near the railroad crossing. The City has secured funding to complete preliminary engineering and design to improve the crossing conditions at the Tennent Avenue and railroad crossing which includes new flashlight signal assembly, improving pavement markings, adding rolled curbs and paved sidewalks.

The next steps include identifying strategies corresponding to the 4 Es of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education and EMS) to comprehensively make the roadways of the City of Pinole safer for all modes of transportation.
314 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 46

5. EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the LRSP that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within Pinole. Emphasis areas help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to reduce collisions occurring at the high injury locations. They can include (but not be limited to):
specific collision types, human behaviors, facility types, and specific locations or corridors.

This chapter summarizes the top six emphasis areas identified for Pinole. These emphasis areas were derived from the consolidated high injury collision database (Appendix D) where top injury factors were identified by combing the data manually. The high injury collision database contains only collisions occurring at the high injury intersections or along the high injury corridors. Along with findings from the data analysis, stakeholder input was also considered to refine the emphasis areas specific to Pinole.

The following are the identified emphasis areas –
 Improve Intersection Safety
 Reduce Nighttime Collisions
 Reduce Unsafe Speed Collisions
 Reduce Broadside Collisions
 Reduce Automobile Right-of-Way Violations
 Improve Pedestrian Safety
The 4 E's of Traffic Safety
LRSP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating “4 E’s of traffic safety”:

Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements.

Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure-to-yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.

To improve safety, education efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement. Additionally, education efforts can supplement enforcement to improve the efficiency of each. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address the most pertinent violations and high-risk locations until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented, addressed under Engineering improvements and countermeasures. Similarly, Emergency Medical Services entails 315 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 47
strategies around supporting organizations that provide rapid response and care when responding to collisions causing injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting then to facilities.

Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Pinole
The City of Pinole has established programs and initiatives implementing safety strategies corresponding to the 4 E’s of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this memorandum can supplement these existing programs and concentrate on high injury collision locations and crash types. These initiatives are summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Existing Programs Summary
Program/Document Description E’s
Addressed
City of Pinole
Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Policy (2008)
The objective of the City of Pinole Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy is to improve the livability of our neighborhoods and to minimize adverse impacts of vehicular traffic on residential and pedestrian safety streets through a system of education, enforcement, and engineering.

Education,
Enforcement
, Engineering
Old Town Pinole Parking
& Pedestrian Safety Study
The safety element of this document contains recommendations for pedestrian safety improvements within Old Town Pinole.

Engineering
Contra Costa Countywide
Bike and Pedestrian Plan
(2018)
Details bicycle and pedestrian improvements on County significant corridors. Includes many detailed priority bike and pedestrian projects
Engineering
Contra Costa County
Vision Zero
The County is in the process of developing a Plan to address severe and fatal collisions on County-owned roadways. The implementation strategy will include engineering, education, and/or enforcement measures
Engineering,
Education,
Enforcement
, EMS
City of Pinole Police
Department
The City of Pinole Police Department strives to enforce traffic laws throughout Pinole by concentrating on roads with the highest violations.

Enforcement
City of Pinole Traffic and
Pedestrian Safety
Commission
The Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Commission (TAPS) is dedicated to protecting the citizens and pedestrians of Pinole. Discussions are encouraged regarding a multimodal transportation plan as several other cities in the county have adopted a similar plan to help secure grants for pedestrian safety and improved transportation.

Engineering,
Education,
316 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 48
Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas This section presents collision data analysis of collision type, collision factors, facility type, roadway geometries, and party level data, analyzed for the various emphasized areas. Emphasis areas were determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on F+SI injury collisions. Pinole experienced a total of 47 collisions at high injury network locations during the 2015-2019 study period, including nine F+SI collisions. The data presented below in each emphasis area is based on these collisions.

Each emphasis area is accompanied by comprehensive programs, policies and countermeasures to reduce collisions on City roads in that specific emphasis area. It will provide the basis by which the countermeasure toolbox is developed for each identified high-risk location.

Note: Engineering countermeasures are based on the Caltrans LRSM and are used in HSIP calls for projects. They are categorized as follows:
 S = Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
 NS = Non-Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
 R = Roadway Segments Countermeasures
An excerpt of the Caltrans LRSM providing additional details on each countermeasure is included in Appendix E.
317 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 49
EMPHASIS AREA 1 – INTERSECTION SAFETY
The City of Pinole experienced a total 47 reported injury collisions on the high injury network. 35 (74 percent) of these collisions occurred at intersections, including 6 fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only intersection injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Pinole, followed by strategies to make these locations safer (Table 7).
33%
Fatal and Severe Injury
involved a pedestrian
43%
Unsafe speed collisions
31%
Rear end collisions
Table 7. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions at intersections.

Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor traffic law violations right-of-way violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections.

Number of
tickets issued.

Police
Department
Engineering
 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)  S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
Number of
intersections
improved.

City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
EMS vehicle
response
time.

City/ Health
Department
318 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 50
EMPHASIS AREA 2 – NIGHTTIME COLLISIONS
The City of Pinole experienced a total 47 reported injury collisions on the high injury network. 18 (38 percent) of these collisions occurred at nighttime, including 3 fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only nighttime injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Pinole, followed by strategies to make these locations safer (Table 8).
66%
Fatal and Severe Injury
were DUI collisions
28%
Automobile right of way
collisions
22%
Hit object collisions
Table 8. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur at nighttime Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding and the larger risk of collisions during the nighttime.

Number of
outreach
events and
safety
campaigns.

City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor collisions that occur at nighttime.

Number of
citations
issued
Police
Department
Engineering
 S01, Add intersection lighting
 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size and number
 S10, Install flashing beacon as warning
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 R01, Add segment lighting
 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
locations
improved.

City
EMS
Improve resource deployment for emergency responses at collision sites.

EMS vehicle
response
time.

City/ Health
Department
319 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 51
EMPHASIS AREA 3 – UNSAFE SPEED COLLISONS
The City of Pinole experienced a total 47 reported injury collisions on the high injury network. 15 (47 percent) of these collisions were unsafe speed collisions, including 2 fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following are major findings based on unsafe speed injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Pinole followed by strategies to make these locations safer (Table 9).
67%
Rear end collisions
40%
Collisions occurred
on Appian Way
27%
Hit and run collisions
Table 9. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that are a result of unsafe speed.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe speed and its dangers.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor unsafe speed. Number of tickets issued.

Police
Department
Engineering
 S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers  R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
 R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 Decrease width of travel lanes.
 Simplify turn configurations.
 Decrease curb radius of intersections.

Number of
locations
improved.

City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time.

City/ Health
Department
320 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 52
EMPHASIS AREA 4 – BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
The City of Pinole experienced a total 47 reported injury collisions on the high injury network. 11 (23 percent) of these collisions were broadside collisions, including 3 fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only broadside injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Pinole, followed by strategies to make these locations safer (Table 10).
64%
Automobile right of
way collisions
64%
Occurred at an
intersection
27%
Occurred on Pinole
Valley Rd
Table 10. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of fatal and severe injury broadside collisions.

Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations.

Number of
citations
and/or
warnings
issued.

Police
Department
Engineering
 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)  S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)  NS03, Install signals
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections Number of
locations
improved to
mitigate
night-time
collisions.

City
EMS
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

EMS vehicle
response time
at night.

City/ Health
Department
321 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 53
EMPHASIS AREA 5 – AUTOMOBILE RIGHT OF WAY COLLISONS
The City of Pinole experienced a total 47 reported injury collisions on the high injury network. 10 (21 percent) of these collisions were automobile right of way violations, including 2 fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only automobile right of way injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Pinole, followed by strategies to make these locations safer (Table 11).
80%
Involved another
motor vehicle
35%
Broadside collisions
30%
Occurred on Fitzgerald
Drive
Table 11. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of automobile right of way collisions.

Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns.

City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at locations with most automobile right of way collisions.

Number of
citations
issued
Police
Department
Engineering
 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
 S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)  S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
 S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)  NS03, Install signals
 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections  NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Number of
locations
improved.

City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
EMS vehicle
response
time.

City/ Health
Department
322 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 54
EMPHASIS AREA 6 – PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
The City of Pinole experienced a total 47 reported injury collisions on the high injury network. 7 (15 percent) of these collisions were pedestrian collisions, including 3 fatal and severe injury (F+SI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only pedestrian injury collisions that occurred on the high injury network in the City of Pinole, followed by strategies to make these locations safer (Table 12).
57%
involved a pedestrian
crossing in a crosswalk
at intersection
43%
Occurred at nighttime
43%
Occurred on Fitzgerald
Drive
Table 12. Emphasis Area 6 Strategies
Objective: To reduce the number of fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions Strategies Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets and social media.

Number of
education
campaigns.

City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
 Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations especially near schools and downtown
Number of
citations
issued.

Police
Department
Engineering
 S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
 NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
 NS21PB/R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing
 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)  High-visibility ladder crosswalks
 Mid-block curb extension
 In-road yield sign for pedestrian crossing at crosswalk  The City should apply for HSIP pedestrian set aside funds every two years
Number of
locations
improved.

City
EMS
Improve resource deployment for emergency responses at collision sites.

EMS vehicle
response time.

City/ Health
Department
323 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 55

6. COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION
Identification of Countermeasures
Upon the identification of high-risk locations and Emphasis Areas, the next step was to identify appropriate safety countermeasures. The Caltrans LRSM provides 82 countermeasures, of which 20 are eligible in the current HSIP call for signalized intersections, 24 for un-signalized intersections, and 38 for roadway segments. The LRSM provides guidance on where to apply the countermeasures, including the crash types each countermeasure would address, and a Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for each countermeasure. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) CMF Clearinghouse and published research papers were reviewed by the project team to gain additional insight on CRFs and effectiveness of specific countermeasures.

The project team conducted a thorough review of the high-injury locations (intersections and roadway segments) using aerial photography and Google Maps Street View software. Crash characteristics of all collisions occurring on the High Injury Network were considered. After combining the physical and collision characteristics, the project team developed a table of preliminary countermeasures that address each of the six identified Emphasis Areas. The table was refined by selecting up to six countermeasures for each high-risk location that were most commonly recommended among all Emphasis Areas. By doing this, the project team was able to identify countermeasures with the greatest opportunity for systemic implementation.

Countermeasure Toolbox
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based on approved countermeasures from the Caltrans LRSM used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the CIP (Capital Improvement Program). Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the four E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas. The countermeasure toolbox in Appendix F details the draft countermeasures for each high-risk location and emphasis area, separated by intersections and roadway segments.

While not all of these countermeasures will be included in the resulting safety projects, they are included to give the City a toolbox for implementing future safety improvements through other means, such as the CIP.

Table 13 provides a description of each countermeasure appropriate for City of Pinole along with the CRF, federal funding eligibility, and opportunity for systemic implementation. An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the recommendations tables, is included as Appendix E.
324 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 56
Table 13. Countermeasures selected for the City of Pinole Code Countermeasure
Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
S01 Add intersection
lighting Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium S02
Improve signal
hardware: lenses, backplates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number
Includes New LED lighting, signal back
plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the
back plates, or visors to increase signal
visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of
the signal heads, or additional signal
heads.
15% 90% Very High
S03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases,
red, yellow, or
operation)
Includes adding phases, lengthening
clearance intervals, eliminating or
restricting higher-risk movements, and
coordinating signals at multiple locations.
15% 50% Very High
S07
Provide protected left
turn phase (left turn
lane already exists)
Left turns are widely recognized as the
highest-risk movements at signalized
intersections. Providing Protected leftturn phases for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly
improve the safety for left-turn
maneuvers by removing the need for the
drivers to navigate through gaps in
oncoming/opposing through vehicles
30% 90% High
S09
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
Adding clear pavement markings can
guide motorists through complex
intersections. When drivers approach and
traverse through complex intersections,
drivers may be required to perform
unusual or unexpected maneuvers
10% 90% Very High
S12 Install raised median on
approaches (S.I.)
Raised medians next to left turn lanes at
intersections offer a cost effective means
for reducing crashes and improving
operations at higher volume intersections
25% 90% Medium
S16
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from
signal)
Signalized intersections that have a
significant crash problem and the only
alternative is to change the nature of the
intersection itself. Roundabouts can also
be very effective at intersections with
complex geometry and intersections with
frequent left-turn movements.

Varies 90% Low
S20PB
Install advance stop
bar before crosswalk
(Bicycle Box)
Signalized Intersections with a marked
crossing, where significant bicycle and/or
pedestrians volumes are known to occur.
15% 90% Very High
NS01 Add intersection
lighting (NS.I.) Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium NS06
Install/upgrade larger
or additional stop
signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory
signs
Additional regulatory and warning signs
at or prior to intersections will help
enhance the ability of approaching
drivers to perceive them.
15% 90% Very High
325 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 57
Code Countermeasure
Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
NS11
Improve sight distance
to intersection (Clear
Sight Triangles)
Unsignalized intersections with restricted
sight distance and patterns of crashes
related to lack of sight distance where
sight distance can be improved by
clearing roadside obstructions without
major reconstruction of the roadway.
20% 90% High
NS15
Create directional
median openings to
allow (and restrict) leftturns and u-turns
(NS.I.)
Crashes related to turning maneuvers
include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and
sideswipe (involving opposing left turns)
type crashes. If any of these crash types
are an issue at an intersection, restriction
or elimination of the turning maneuver
may be the best way to improve the
safety of the intersection.
50% 90% Medium
NS21PB
Modify signal phasing
to implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Intersections with signalized pedestrian
crossing that have high turning vehicles
volumes and have had pedestrian vs.
vehicle crashes.
60% 90% Very High
NS22PB
Install Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated
flashing lights and additional signage
that enhance the visibility of marked
crosswalks and alert motorists to
pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular
flash pattern that is similar to emergency
flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are
installed at unsignalized intersections
and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
35% 90% Medium
R01 Add Segment Lighting Provision of lighting along roadways. 35% 100% Medium R14
Road Diet (Reduce
travel lanes from 4 to 3
and add a two way
left-turn and bike
lanes)
Areas noted as having a higher frequency
of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end
crashes with traffic volumes that can be
handled by only 2 free flowing lanes.

Using this strategy in locations with
traffic volumes that are too high could
result in diversion of traffic to routes less
safe than the original four-lane design.
30% 90% Medium
R21
Improve pavement
friction (High Friction
Surface Treatments)
Improving the skid resistance at locations
with high frequencies of wet road crashes
and/or failure to stop crashes
55% 100% High
R22
Install/Upgrade signs
with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or
warning)
Additional or new signage can address
crashes caused by lack of driver awareness
or compliance of roadway signing.
15% 90% Very High
R26
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
Includes the addition of dynamic speed
warning signs (also known as Radar Speed
Feedback Signs)
30% 100% High
R27
Install delineators,
reflectors and/or object
markers
Installation of delineators, reflectors
and/or object markers are intended to
warn drivers of an approaching curve or
15% 90% Very High
326 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 58
Code Countermeasure
Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
fixed object that cannot easily be
removed.

R28 Install edge-lines and
centerlines
Any road with a history of run-off-road
right, head-on, opposite-directionsideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment -install where
the existing lane delineation is not
sufficient to assist the motorist in
understanding the existing limits of the
roadway. Depending on the width of the
roadway, various combinations of edge
line and/or center line pavement
markings may be the most appropriate.
25% 100% Very High
R30 Install centerline
rumble strips/stripes
Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be
used on virtually any roadway – especially
those with a history of head-on crashes.
20% 100% High
R31 Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes
Shoulder and edge line milled rumble
strips/stripes should be used on roads
with a history of roadway departure
crashes.
15% 100% High
R35PB
Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
(with enhanced safety
features)
Roadway segments with no controlled
crossing for a significant distance in highuse midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Flashing
beacons, curb extensions, medians and
pedestrian crossing islands and/or other
safety features should be added to
complement the standard crossing
elements.
35% 90% Medium
R37PB
Install Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated
flashing lights and additional signage
that enhance the visibility of marked
crosswalks and alert motorists to
pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular
flash pattern that is similar to emergency
flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are
installed at unsignalized intersections
and mid-block pedestrian crossings
35% 100% Medium
* Code: S - Signalized intersection improvements
NS - Non-signalized intersection improvements
R - Roadway segment improvements
327 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 59

7. VIABLE SAFETY PROJECTS
This chapter summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for the City of Pinole LRSP. The next step after the identification of high-risk locations, emphasis areas and applicable countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all high-risk roadway segments and intersections.

Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2022 LRSM from Caltrans, where:
 S refers to improvements at signalized locations,
 NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and  R refers to improvements at roadway segments.

The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2022). The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A total of five safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, City staff input, and stakeholder/community input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-injury locations safer.

Table 14 lists the safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with total base planning level cost (2022 dollar amounts) estimates and the resultant preliminary Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio. The “Total Benefit” estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. This “Total Benefit” is divided by the “Total Cost per Location” estimates for the proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2022).

Appendix G lists the detailed methodology to calculate B/C Ratio, as well as the complete cost, benefit and B/C Ratio calculation spreadsheet.

These safety projects were chosen based on the previously completed collisions analysis, which was used to identify main collision attributes that were found to be leading factors of fatal and severe collisions in City of Pinole. These collision factors are shown below, as well as viable safety projects that can help address these factors.
328 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 60
Broadside Collisions represented the 14% collisions of all severity and a significant percentage of F+SI collisions (33%). Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include improving signal timing, installing raised pavement markers, installing intersection lighting, improving pavement friction, installing/upgrading larger stop signs or other intersection regulatory/warning signs, and installing flashing beacons as advance warning.

Pedestrian Collisions made up 33% of F+SI collisions as well as 3% of all injury collisions. Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include installing advance stop bar before crosswalk, modifying signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) and installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB).

Unsafe speed was the most common violation type among all injury collisions (24%), as well as the most common violation causing F+SI collisions (22%). Viable safety projects to help address these violations include installing raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection), improving signal timing, installing flashing beacons as advance warning, installing/upgrading signs with new fluorescent sheeting, installing dynamic/variable speed warning signs.

DUI Collisions: DUI violations represented a significant portion of F+SI collisions (22%) and 4% of all injury collisions. Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include upgrading/installing signs with new fluorescent sheeting; installing edge line and centerline; adding intersection lighting, and improving intersection pavement markings.

The next step in the process after safety projects is to prepare HSIP applications. TJKM has provided a service to prepare grant ready material for one pedestrian set aside HSIP Cycle 11 application for City of Pinole. However, it should be noted that while the LRSP projects were based on high-injury locations, HSIP applications can expanded to include many locations across the City. HSIP is a competitive grant funding source based on a benefit/cost analysis. The benefit value is calculated automatically based on crash data document by law enforcement and standard cost data. The cost of some measures may adversely impact the benefit to cost ratio making the grant application less competitive for funding.
329 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 61
Below is the list of identified projects for the City of Pinole, with a preliminary cost estimate for each location and the resulting benefit-cost ratio of the project (the title of each countermeasure is located in a separate table below). The cost per location includes construction costs, Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), environmental reporting costs, construction engineering costs, and a 10% contingency in 2022 dollars. Construction costs are based on industry standards in the Bay Area and TJKM’s knowledge and experience of the area. Our team is consistently updating our unit prices to match current construction costs.

Table 14. List of Viable Safety Projects
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location Total Cost B/C Ratio
Project #1: Signalized Intersections (Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation), Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists)) Appian Way and Fitzgerald Dr S02 S03 $13,790
$183,792 27.00
San Pablo Ave and Tennent Ave S03 $8,610
Appian Way and Canyon Dr and Tara
Hills S02 S03 $53,410
Pinole Valley Road/ Tennent
Ave/Ellerhorst St S02 S03 $81,060
San Pablo Ave and Pinole Valley Rd S03 $8,610
San Pablo Ave and Pinon Ave/Appian
Way S03 S07 $9,702
Pinole Valley Rd and Estates Ave S03 $8,610
Project #2: Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections (Install advance stop bar before crosswalk, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.), Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)) Appian Way and Fitzgerald Dr S20PB $68,243
$514,548 12.19
San Pablo Ave and Tennent Ave S20PB $60,459
Appian Way and Canyon Dr and Tara
Hills S20PB S12 $62,734
Pinole Valley Road/ Tennent
Ave/Ellerhorst St S12 $95,312
Fitzgerald Dr and Best Buy Parking Lot S20PB S09 $47,222 San Pablo Ave and Pinole Valley Rd S20PB S12 S09 $103,858 Pinole Valley Rd and Estates Ave S20PB S09 $76,720
Project #3: Safety at Unsignalized Intersections (Add intersection lighting (NS.I.), Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB))
Walter Ave and San Pablo Ave NS01 NS06 NS22PB $238,455
$879,830 10.90
Pinole Valley Rd and Simas Ave NS06 NS22PB $144,725
Pinole Valley Rd and Wright Ave NS01 NS06 NS22PB $241,815 Pinole Valley Rd and Rafaela St NS06 $4,865
Wright Ave and Carol St NS06 $6,195
Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave NS01 NS06 NS22PB $235,515 Simas Ave and Moraga Dr NS06 $8,260
Project #4: Citywide Signal Upgrade
Citywide Signalized Intersections S02 - - -
Project #5: Citywide Street light Inventory
Citywide Intersections and Roadway
Segments S01 NS01 R01 - - -
330 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 62
Project #6: Roadway Segments (Add Segment Lighting, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers) Pinole Valley Rd: San Pablo Ave to Collins
Ave R22 R27 R01 $1,198,179
$1,469,474 18.41
San Pablo Ave: Oak Ridge Rd to Pinole
Valley Rd R22 R27 $17,981
San Pablo Ave: Golden Gate Park to Del
Monte Dr R22 R27 $9,198
Tara Hills: Kilkenny Way to Appian Way R22 R27 $11,588
Walter Ave: North Terminus to San Pablo
Ave R22 R27 R01 $88,613
Fitzgerald Dr: Jovita Ln to Appian Way R22 R27 $44,050
Appian Way: San Pablo Ave to Michael
Dr R22 R27 $77,344
Tennent Ave: San Pablo Ave to Pinole
Valley Rd R22 R27 $22,523
Project #7: Roadway Segments (Install centerline rumble strips/stripes, Install edge-lines and centerlines, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB))
Pinole Valley Rd: San Pablo Ave to Collins
Ave R30 R37PB $339,794
$914,375 23.18
San Pablo Ave: Oak Ridge Rd to Pinole
Valley Rd R28 $19,194
San Pablo Ave: Golden Gate Park to Del
Monte Dr R28 $6,591
Tara Hills: Kilkenny Way to Appian Way R28 $22,764
Walter Ave: North Terminus to San Pablo
Ave R30 R28 $3,511
Tennent Ave: San Pablo Ave to Pinole
Valley Rd R30 R28 R37PB $522,522
Project #8: Roadway Segments (Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes), Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features))
Pinole Valley Rd: San Pablo Ave to Collins
Ave R26 $236,845
$1,483,510 10.82
San Pablo Ave: Oak Ridge Rd to Pinole
Valley Rd R14 $360,675
Tara Hills: Kilkenny Way to Appian Way R14 $211,750
Fitzgerald Dr: Jovita Ln to Appian Way R14 R26 R35PB $447,440 Appian Way: San Pablo Ave to Michael
Dr R26 $226,800
Project #9: Citywide Regulatory and Warning Sign Inventory Citywide Roadway Segments R22 - - -
Project #10: Pedestrian Set-aside (Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)) Tennent Ave (at Plum St & Pear St) R37PB $248,300 $248,300 - Notes: CM – countermeasure. B/C ratio is the dollar amount of benefits divided by the cost of the countermeasure. 331 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 63

COUNTERMEASURE NAME
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) R01 Add Segment Lighting
R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines
R30 Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
S01
S02
Add intersection lighting
Improve signal hardware: lenses, mounting, size, and number S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S20PB Install advance stop bar before crosswalk
332 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 64

8. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This chapter describes the steps the City may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the City. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce F+SI collisions in the coming years.

Implementation
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, and enforcement related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Pinole implement the selected projects in highcollision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future CIP. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be reevaluated.

Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. (See Table 15 below).

Table 15. List of Potential Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated Call
for Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Active
Transportation
Program
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission,
MTC
~$450
million per
cycle (every
two years)
2022 Engineering,
Education
Can be used for most
active transportation
related safety projects
as well as education
programs. Funding
available through
Caltrans or MTC
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans 2024 Engineering Most common grant
source for safety
projects
333 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 65
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated Call
for Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Office of Traffic
Safety Grants
California
Office of Traffic
Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes January
31st annually
Education,
Enforcement,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available to
address various
components of traffic
safety
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic
Growth
Council and
Dept. of
Housing and
Community
Development
~$405
million
2022 Engineering,
Education
Must be connected to
affordable housing
projects; typically
focuses on
bike/pedestrian
infrastructure/progra
ms
Urban Greening California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$28.5 million 2022 Engineering Focused on
bike/pedestrian
infrastructure and
greening public
spaces
Local Streets and
Road
Maintenance and
Rehabilitation
CTC
(distributed to
local agencies)
$1.5 billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed by
formula
Engineering Typically pays for road
maintenance type
projects
RAISE Grant USDOT ~$1 billion 2022 Engineering Typically used for larger infrastructure
projects
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources
Board
~$19.5
million
TBD; most
recent call in
2020
Engineering,
Education
Targets projects that
will increase
transportation equity
in disadvantaged
communities
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Strategic
Growth
Council
~$90 million TBD; most
recent call in
2020
Engineering Funds community-led
projects that achieve
major reductions in
greenhouse gas
emissions in
disadvantaged
communities
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A)
USDOT $200k - $50
million
2022 Engineering Two types of SS4A
grants available:

Action Plan Grants
and Implementation
Grants
For HSIP Cycle 11, one pedestrian set aside application was submitted by the City of Pinole for RRFB at two unsignalized intersections.

The City of Pinole has planned roadway safety improvement of installation of Traffic Signal Control at the intersection of Appian Way and Marlesta Road. In addition, the City is working closely with Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to secure funding to install smart signals at various major arterials.
334 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | 66
Monitoring and Evaluation
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E-strategies continuously.

Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensure the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help make decisions needed for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.

After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
 Number of F+SI collisions
 Number of police citations
 Number of public comments and concerns
Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions doesn’t decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other observations, as mentioned above. The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area.

LRSP Update
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the E’s strategies’ progress and implementation.
335 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | Appendix

APPENDICES
336 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | A
APPENDIX A. LIST OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK COMMENTS
337 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 778dxw9wwt73 1 POINT (‐122.290922 38.005368) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Tennent Ave free right turn from SPA to Tennant Ave is dangerous for  pedestrians Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 778dxw9wwt73 2 POINT (‐122.285638 37.996686) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Congestion getting onto East Bound I‐80.  Metering lights cause onramp traffic to back‐up to Pinole Valley Road. Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety 4aah7l8ezj79 4 POINT (‐122.286011 37.997003) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy The Cal trans light for the I‐80 signs are burnt‐out. Motor Vehicles  Lighting 9vza3ihm77la 5 POINT (‐122.302286 37.99515) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Canyon Dr BIKES: Left turns to Tara Hills Dr. are extremely dangerous anddifficult to merge left beforehand across the two lanes of traffic. There needs to be a true bike lane starting at the highway off‐ramp that does NOT include sewer grates, and ways to make protected crossings and left turns safely. Also needs true bike access around the gas station with a dedicated bike lane for at least the block before the McDonald's.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
9vza3ihm77la 6 POINT (‐122.298317 38.004146) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave This spot seems safe enough. I have seen a car vs. pedestrian fatality there, but it was basically suicide by truck, not the fault of road design.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
9vza3ihm77la 7 POINT (‐122.298317 38.004146) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave This spot seems safe enough. I have seen a car vs. pedestrian fatality there, but it was basically suicide by truck, not the fault of road design.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
9vza3ihm77la 7 POINT (‐122.293628 38.004264) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Buy an easement, clear this landowner's debris off the road, and create a real bike lane with adequate visibility for cars to see bikes on this blind curve.

Bicycle  Visibility
9vza3ihm77la 7 POINT (‐122.293628 38.004264) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Buy an easement, clear this landowner's debris off the road, and create a real bike lane with adequate visibility for cars to see bikes on this blind curve.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
7e7487vow7s3 8 POINT (‐122.285939 37.996741) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy It is difficult when making right turn to see oncoming traffic. If individuals are speeding there is very little time for correction and may result in an accident.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
7e7487vow7s3 8 POINT (‐122.285939 37.996741) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy It is difficult when making right turn to see oncoming traffic. If individuals are speeding there is very little time for correction and may result in an accident.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
8gov2uba7ry9 9 POINT (‐122.299344 38.001699) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd High speeds coming from the I‐80 direction at all hours of the day. The intersection of Appian and Marlesta is significantly dangerous for both drivers coming from MarlestA onto Appian and especially for dangerous those walking and crossing the intersection. Everyone ways drive 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit. It's especially concerning since children who attend Pinole Junior just a couple of blocks away use it as a main thoroughfare.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
8gov2uba7ry9 9 POINT (‐122.299344 38.001699) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd High speeds coming from the I‐80 direction at all hours of the day. The intersection of Appian and Marlesta is significantly dangerous for both drivers coming from MarlestA onto Appian and especially for dangerous those walking and crossing the intersection. Everyone ways drive 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit. It's especially concerning since children who attend Pinole Junior just a couple of blocks away use it as a main thoroughfare.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
8gov2uba7ry9 9 POINT (‐122.299344 38.001699) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd High speeds coming from the I‐80 direction at all hours of the day. The intersection of Appian and Marlesta is significantly dangerous for both drivers coming from MarlestA onto Appian and especially for dangerous those walking and crossing the intersection. Everyone ways drive 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit. It's especially concerning since children who attend Pinole Junior just a couple of blocks away use it as a main thoroughfare.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
338 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 8gov2uba7ry9 9 POINT (‐122.299344 38.001699) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd High speeds coming from the I‐80 direction at all hours of the day. The intersection of Appian and Marlesta is significantly dangerous for both drivers coming from MarlestA onto Appian and especially for dangerous those walking and crossing the intersection. Everyone ways drive 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit. It's especially concerning since children who attend Pinole Junior just a couple of blocks away use it as a main thoroughfare.

Pedestrian  Visibility
8gov2uba7ry9 10 POINT (‐122.29938 38.001821) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd High speeds coming from the I‐80 direction at all hours of the day. The intersection of Appian and Marlesta is significantly dangerous for both drivers coming from MarlestA onto Appian and especially for dangerous those walking and crossing the intersection. Everyone ways drive 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit. It's especially concerning since children who attend Pinole Junior just a couple of blocks away use it as a main thoroughfare.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
8gov2uba7ry9 10 POINT (‐122.29938 38.001821) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd High speeds coming from the I‐80 direction at all hours of the day. The intersection of Appian and Marlesta is significantly dangerous for both drivers coming from MarlestA onto Appian and especially for dangerous those walking and crossing the intersection. Everyone ways drive 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit. It's especially concerning since children who attend Pinole Junior just a couple of blocks away use it as a main thoroughfare.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
3i3cx4pxl3d7 11 POINT (‐122.290822 38.005533) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Tennent Ave People driving recklessly and running the red lights through Old  town Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation 3i3cx4pxl3d7 11 POINT (‐122.290822 38.005533) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Tennent Ave People driving recklessly and running the red lights through Old  town Motor Vehicles  Speeding7ive6pbx6wd3 12 POINT (‐122.300528 38.00429) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Third Street Sidewalk ends, crosswalk uncontrolled and people come over a blind crest in the Western direction often accelerating from the light at high speed. It would be nice to have a full sidewalk or at least a crosswalk with a light.

Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
7ive6pbx6wd3 13 POINT (‐122.305169 38.004504) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Sunnyview Dr Many signal light posts in Pinole are installed directly in the middle of the narrow sidewalk, forcing people in wheelchairs and parents with strollers into the street as there is no other way around. These poles should be relocated to the dirt behind the sidewalk and the sidewalks widened Pedestrian  Intersection Safety
9g4kim2d34j7 16 POINT (‐122.314351 38.004248) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr Wish this stretch of San Pablo was more pedestrian friendly. Longer cross walk times and reduced speed limits. We like to walk fromNob HIll Rd to San Pablo and then cross San Pablo to the shore line. It's always pretty intimidating, especially with small children and elderly people who don't walk that fast.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
9g4kim2d34j7 17 POINT (‐122.316604 38.002765) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr People drive extremely fast along San Pablo. The crossing time for pedestrians to get across the road is very short. Kids and older folks should be able to access the bay trail from the Nob Hill area safely! On this stretch of San Pablo Ave I would like to see wider side walks, longer crossing times, protected bike lanes, and more public transit. Pinole is a great place to live. Let's prioritize walking, biking, public transit and other options that are healthy and good for the environment. Thanks! Pedestrian  Speeding
339 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 9g4kim2d34j7 17 POINT (‐122.316604 38.002765) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr People drive extremely fast along San Pablo. The crossing time for pedestrians to get across the road is very short. Kids and older folks should be able to access the bay trail from the Nob Hill area safely! On this stretch of San Pablo Ave I would like to see wider side walks, longer crossing times, protected bike lanes, and more public transit. Pinole is a great place to live. Let's prioritize walking, biking, public transit and other options that are healthy and good for the environment. Thanks! Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
9g4kim2d34j7 17 POINT (‐122.316604 38.002765) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr People drive extremely fast along San Pablo. The crossing time for pedestrians to get across the road is very short. Kids and older folks should be able to access the bay trail from the Nob Hill area safely! On this stretch of San Pablo Ave I would like to see wider side walks, longer crossing times, protected bike lanes, and more public transit. Pinole is a great place to live. Let's prioritize walking, biking, public transit and other options that are healthy and good for the environment. Thanks! Pedestrian  Bicycle Safety
9g4kim2d34j7 17 POINT (‐122.316604 38.002765) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr People drive extremely fast along San Pablo. The crossing time for pedestrians to get across the road is very short. Kids and older folks should be able to access the bay trail from the Nob Hill area safely! On this stretch of San Pablo Ave I would like to see wider side walks, longer crossing times, protected bike lanes, and more public transit. Pinole is a great place to live. Let's prioritize walking, biking, public transit and other options that are healthy and good for the environment. Thanks! Bicycle  Speeding
9g4kim2d34j7 17 POINT (‐122.316604 38.002765) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr People drive extremely fast along San Pablo. The crossing time for pedestrians to get across the road is very short. Kids and older folks should be able to access the bay trail from the Nob Hill area safely! On this stretch of San Pablo Ave I would like to see wider side walks, longer crossing times, protected bike lanes, and more public transit. Pinole is a great place to live. Let's prioritize walking, biking, public transit and other options that are healthy and good for the environment. Thanks! Bicycle  Pedestrian Safety
9g4kim2d34j7 17 POINT (‐122.316604 38.002765) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr People drive extremely fast along San Pablo. The crossing time for pedestrians to get across the road is very short. Kids and older folks should be able to access the bay trail from the Nob Hill area safely! On this stretch of San Pablo Ave I would like to see wider side walks, longer crossing times, protected bike lanes, and more public transit. Pinole is a great place to live. Let's prioritize walking, biking, public transit and other options that are healthy and good for the environment. Thanks! Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
6bd9g2iwf6va 18 POINT (‐122.28601 37.996721) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Traffic signal/irrigation boxes obstruct clear of sight Motor Vehicles  Visibility 6bd9g2iwf6va 19 POINT (‐122.285917 37.996495) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Traffic signal/irrigation control obstructs line of site of pedeatrians Motor Vehicles  Visibility 9g4kim2d34j7 16 POINT (‐122.314351 38.004248) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Del Monte Dr Wish this stretch of San Pablo was more pedestrian friendly. Longer cross walk times and reduced speed limits. We like to walk fromNob HIll Rd to San Pablo and then cross San Pablo to the shore line. It's always pretty intimidating, especially with small children and elderly people who don't walk that fast.

Pedestrian  Speeding
340 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7zm4xwt9l487 22 POINT (‐122.289114 38.006615) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Pinole Valley Rd Its very dangerous to cross pinole valley road at SP ave ( as apedestrian) heading west.  The drivers trying to turn left from SP ave onto PV road dont notice pedestrians, and the drivers turning right onto SP ave from PV barely stop for the light.  Very dangerous for walkers.  Also, (not as important)  Rafaela is a short cut to by pass that light  ( formotorists heading east) at commute times.  They rarely look when they zip down Rafaela and make a quick left on John St to get to SP ave.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
2yo73jn7cgs2 23 POINT (‐122.286602 37.997543) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Drivers roll through the lights without looking for pedestrians or  bicycles at this location. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 2yo73jn7cgs2 23 POINT (‐122.286602 37.997543) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Drivers roll through the lights without looking for pedestrians or  bicycles at this location. Pedestrian  Bicycle Safety 2yo73jn7cgs2 23 POINT (‐122.286602 37.997543) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Drivers roll through the lights without looking for pedestrians or  bicycles at this location. Bicycle  Pedestrian Safety 2yo73jn7cgs2 23 POINT (‐122.286602 37.997543) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Drivers roll through the lights without looking for pedestrians or  bicycles at this location. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 2yo73jn7cgs2 24 POINT (‐122.264991 37.980285) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave Drivers fail to look to the right when they come to the stop sign. They only look to the left to look for cars. I have almost been hit many, many times as I am walking in this area. Typically, I don’t trust the cars so I walk up further on Wright and walk behind the cars.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
2yo73jn7cgs2 25 POINT (‐122.271257 37.980909) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Savage Ave It would be nice if speed bumps can be put in this general location. Many children are getting out of vehicles to get into the school. Parents have stopped their cars and they don’t always have 100%control of their children. This bend in the road, coming from Savage Ave. towards the school, is a speed demon’s delight.

Pedestrian  School Safety
2yo73jn7cgs2 25 POINT (‐122.271257 37.980909) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Savage Ave It would be nice if speed bumps can be put in this general location. Many children are getting out of vehicles to get into the school. Parents have stopped their cars and they don’t always have 100%control of their children. This bend in the road, coming from Savage Ave. towards the school, is a speed demon’s delight.

Pedestrian  Speeding
2yo73jn7cgs2 26 POINT (‐122.285044 37.99088) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Ramona St When drivers are stopped at this intersection, they often don’t look to the right to see if someone is about to cross the road. Students cross here and they are at risk.

Pedestrian  Curve Unsafe
2ul2y3cle3ra 27 POINT (‐122.299193 38.001681) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way This crosswalk should be lit up for when a pedestrian needs to cross the street. It is a wide, busy street and as a pedestrian I don't feel safe crossing the street pushing my baby with a stroller. Also, I walk my son from soccer practice from Pinole Middle to my home on Marlesta and Appian Way is very dark at dawn. There needs to bemore light post along Appian Way from the middle school all theway to San Pablo Ave.

Pedestrian  Lighting
3na88w28anf6 28 POINT (‐122.308006 38.005208) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Meadow Ave Can we have markers illuminating the crosswalk or flashing lights so  people can cross safely? Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 3na88w28anf6 29 POINT (‐122.303396 38.00442) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Madrone Ave Can we have illuminated markers or flashing lights to help people  cross safely? Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 3na88w28anf6 30 POINT (‐122.29932 38.001717) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd  Can we have illuminated markers or flashing lights to help people  cross safely? This one is probably the most dangerous/urgent Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety4oa64meh2sf4 32 POINT (‐122.286771 38.000734) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars traveling at 45‐55 mph in a school zone causing accidents more than 2/3 times a year. From Hwy 80 to downtown Pinole on Tennant Ave.

Pedestrian  Speeding
6ni2ygv2cpl8 33 POINT (‐122.285904 37.99659) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd‐ Near Eastshore Fwy Limited sight distance when turning right onto Pinole Valley Road  from Pinole Valley Road exit ramp off I‐80E. Motor Vehicles  Visibility 341 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6ni2ygv2cpl8 34 POINT (‐122.285759 37.995704) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Driveway out of Trader Joe's Shopping Center onto Pinole ValleyRoad is very steep, impeding good traffic flow in and out of parking lot.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
27ac26i9o7b8 36 POINT (‐122.283726 37.98679) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Johanna Court EXCESSIVE SPEEDING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA OF PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BETWEEN SHEA DRIVE, GRANADA COURT, AND SIMAS AVENUE Motor Vehicles  Speeding
73vzt9is2a96 38 POINT (‐122.291572 37.999643) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Oak Ridge Rd Henry Avenue traffic in both directions often does not come to near a complete stop and occasionally stop signs are run at speeds of 25+ mph.  This is not an exaggeration.  Rolling at 2 mph with eye contact is NOT what I am describing and what most folks do and I'm ok with that if not the letter of the law.  It's the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.  Add speed bumps on both sides of Henry? Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
73vzt9is2a96 38 POINT (‐122.291572 37.999643) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Oak Ridge Rd Henry Avenue traffic in both directions often does not come to near a complete stop and occasionally stop signs are run at speeds of 25+ mph.  This is not an exaggeration.  Rolling at 2 mph with eye contact is NOT what I am describing and what most folks do and I'm ok with that if not the letter of the law.  It's the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.  Add speed bumps on both sides of Henry? Pedestrian  Speeding
73vzt9is2a96 38 POINT (‐122.291572 37.999643) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Oak Ridge Rd Henry Avenue traffic in both directions often does not come to near a complete stop and occasionally stop signs are run at speeds of 25+ mph.  This is not an exaggeration.  Rolling at 2 mph with eye contact is NOT what I am describing and what most folks do and I'm ok with that if not the letter of the law.  It's the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.  Add speed bumps on both sides of Henry? Bicycle  Stop Sign Violation
73vzt9is2a96 38 POINT (‐122.291572 37.999643) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Oak Ridge Rd Henry Avenue traffic in both directions often does not come to near a complete stop and occasionally stop signs are run at speeds of 25+ mph.  This is not an exaggeration.  Rolling at 2 mph with eye contact is NOT what I am describing and what most folks do and I'm ok with that if not the letter of the law.  It's the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.  Add speed bumps on both sides of Henry? Bicycle  Speeding
73vzt9is2a96 38 POINT (‐122.291572 37.999643) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Oak Ridge Rd Henry Avenue traffic in both directions often does not come to near a complete stop and occasionally stop signs are run at speeds of 25+ mph.  This is not an exaggeration.  Rolling at 2 mph with eye contact is NOT what I am describing and what most folks do and I'm ok with that if not the letter of the law.  It's the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.  Add speed bumps on both sides of Henry? Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
73vzt9is2a96 38 POINT (‐122.291572 37.999643) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Oak Ridge Rd Henry Avenue traffic in both directions often does not come to near a complete stop and occasionally stop signs are run at speeds of 25+ mph.  This is not an exaggeration.  Rolling at 2 mph with eye contact is NOT what I am describing and what most folks do and I'm ok with that if not the letter of the law.  It's the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.  Add speed bumps on both sides of Henry? Motor Vehicles  Speeding
6r8s3hxh8m78 40 POINT (‐122.288147 38.00744) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Avenue/ John St I recently had to use west cat on Sam Pablo Ave and change keysthe west at stop has absolutely  No lighting the trees are all over grown . It is very dark and unsafe . Lights need to be added immediately.

Pedestrian  Lighting
28aff33f7ce9 42 POINT (‐122.295785 38.007469) N Primrose Lane  Primrose Lane opening this right of way between cul‐de‐sacs for pedestrian/bike access would allow much safer and shorter routes across the neighborhood into downtown Pinole, without needing to bike on San Pablo Ave.

Bicycle  Pedestrian Safety
342 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 28aff33f7ce9 42 POINT (‐122.295785 38.007469) N Primrose Lane  Primrose Lane opening this right of way between cul‐de‐sacs for pedestrian/bike access would allow much safer and shorter routes across the neighborhood into downtown Pinole, without needing to bike on San Pablo Ave.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
28aff33f7ce9 43 POINT (‐122.285861 38.008867) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Would be great to continue a safe bike route here Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 28aff33f7ce9 44 POINT (‐122.288864 38.008153) N Charles Ave Charles Ave possible connection between bike paths here?  Anything to get off  San Pablo Ave which does not feel safe for bikes anywhere. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 3av8u2h4bxl3 45 POINT (‐122.302306 37.993768) Y I80 I80/Appain Way Used to be I80 west lane before 2nd bridge built. Traffic  backs up on Tara Hills as most drivers use curb lane to make right turn on to Appian. Then drivers jockey for lane position on Appian. Ideally lane can be added to Appian as I80W entry. But painting I80W only suggestion on curb lane on Appian and I80E/Appian suggestion onTara Hills would improve traffic flow.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
3av8u2h4bxl3 45 POINT (‐122.302306 37.993768) Y I80 I80/Appain Way Used to be I80 west lane before 2nd bridge built. Traffic  backs up on Tara Hills as most drivers use curb lane to make right turn on to Appian. Then drivers jockey for lane position on Appian. Ideally lane can be added to Appian as I80W entry. But painting I80W only suggestion on curb lane on Appian and I80E/Appian suggestion onTara Hills would improve traffic flow.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
7iel9gig6u93 47 POINT (‐122.29848 38.00402) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Appian Way Drivers coming up Pinon towards San Pablo, there is a winding road curves becomes a blind spot right before the stoplight.  Drivers turning left from Appian way onto San Pablo Avenue, can't see drivers from Pinon until really late.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
7iel9gig6u93 47 POINT (‐122.29848 38.00402) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Appian Way Drivers coming up Pinon towards San Pablo, there is a winding road curves becomes a blind spot right before the stoplight.  Drivers turning left from Appian way onto San Pablo Avenue, can't see drivers from Pinon until really late.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
7iel9gig6u93 47 POINT (‐122.29848 38.00402) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Appian Way Drivers coming up Pinon towards San Pablo, there is a winding road curves becomes a blind spot right before the stoplight.  Drivers turning left from Appian way onto San Pablo Avenue, can't see drivers from Pinon until really late.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
8ae34666ryw4 48 POINT (‐122.31315 38.010473) N San Francisco Bay Trail  San Francisco Bay Trail LACK OF ENFORCEMENT ANYWHERE.THE 4 E's = ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT Motor Vehicles  Enforcement
8ae34666ryw4 48 POINT (‐122.31315 38.010473) N San Francisco Bay Trail  San Francisco Bay Trail LACK OF ENFORCEMENT ANYWHERE.THE 4 E's = ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT Bicycle  Enforcement
8ae34666ryw4 48 POINT (‐122.31315 38.010473) N San Francisco Bay Trail  San Francisco Bay Trail LACK OF ENFORCEMENT ANYWHERE.THE 4 E's = ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT Pedestrian  Enforcement
3yx9ye8cuz26 49 POINT (‐122.299194 38.001696) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd pedestrian crosswalk. The actual speed limit is 35, drivers constantly speed above 50. It’s very dangerous people cannot cross here Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
8k3e4ux3zh96 50 POINT (‐122.28407 37.987394) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Dangerous speeding traffic in Residential Area on Pinole Valley Road between Shea Drive, Granada Court and Simas Avenue Bicycle  Speeding 8k3e4ux3zh96 50 POINT (‐122.28407 37.987394) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Dangerous speeding traffic in Residential Area on Pinole Valley Road between Shea Drive, Granada Court and Simas Avenue Pedestrian  Speeding 343 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 9f9mcf8w7778 57 POINT (‐122.299358 38.001697) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd This area is super dangerous the speed limit is 35mph drivers constantly speeding above 50mph. There are tons of people that ride the bus from here and there are also children. If you are a pedestrian even if you try to cross the street at the crosswalk cars do not stop because of speeding. The sidewalks are super skinnyhere and no one in their right mind would ride a bike around. It would be nice to have a roundabout here that way pedestrians can cross, cars wouldn't speed as fast and the city could plant trees in the center of the roundabout to add a little bit more character.

Pedestrian  Intersection Improvement
9f9mcf8w7778 57 POINT (‐122.299358 38.001697) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd This area is super dangerous the speed limit is 35mph drivers constantly speeding above 50mph. There are tons of people that ride the bus from here and there are also children. If you are a pedestrian even if you try to cross the street at the crosswalk cars do not stop because of speeding. The sidewalks are super skinnyhere and no one in their right mind would ride a bike around. It would be nice to have a roundabout here that way pedestrians can cross, cars wouldn't speed as fast and the city could plant trees in the center of the roundabout to add a little bit more character.

Pedestrian  Speeding
9f9mcf8w7778 57 POINT (‐122.299358 38.001697) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd This area is super dangerous the speed limit is 35mph drivers constantly speeding above 50mph. There are tons of people that ride the bus from here and there are also children. If you are a pedestrian even if you try to cross the street at the crosswalk cars do not stop because of speeding. The sidewalks are super skinnyhere and no one in their right mind would ride a bike around. It would be nice to have a roundabout here that way pedestrians can cross, cars wouldn't speed as fast and the city could plant trees in the center of the roundabout to add a little bit more character.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
87epx7pla9p3 58 POINT (‐122.297727 37.988411) N Appian Way Appain Way Sidewalk access is constantly overgrown by weeds making it nearly inaccessible for pedistrians to safely utilize and in some cases totally inaccessible to those using wheelchairs, walkers etc.Telephone poles add to this.

Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
87epx7pla9p3 59 POINT (‐122.293025 38.00471) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Referred to as Shale (Shell) Hill.  This might be in the CIP, but funding was never identified.  There is no passable pedestrian walkway, nor is it safe for a bicyclists because it is also on a curve.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
87epx7pla9p3 59 POINT (‐122.293025 38.00471) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Referred to as Shale (Shell) Hill.  This might be in the CIP, but funding was never identified.  There is no passable pedestrian walkway, nor is it safe for a bicyclists because it is also on a curve.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
344 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 2rj7j4ufk9l6 60 POINT (‐122.285728 37.996634) Y I80 I80/Pinole Valley Rd First , the useless signage that I have already emailed cal trans on regarding the two lanes accessing south bound I80. Better surface/lane marking would improve things as well. Two, for theamount of usage this intersection gets, both morning and late afternoon/evening, it needs to have a dedicated right turn lane for I‐ 80 north bound and some solution that will help traffic to movemore efficiently and with less cluelessness by drivers. Ideally the entrances to both jack in the box and chevron would be accessible by estates drive only. I’ve had people make right turns across the front end of my car when they get tired of waiting in line to access the freeway on ramp. You also need to somehow make it impossible, or at least glaringly obvious, that the outer left turn lane does not go straight, when, and if, they actually utilize that lane but disregard the signage.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
2rj7j4ufk9l6 60 POINT (‐122.285728 37.996634) Y I80 I80/Pinole Valley Rd First , the useless signage that I have already emailed cal trans on regarding the two lanes accessing south bound I80. Better surface/lane marking would improve things as well. Two, for theamount of usage this intersection gets, both morning and late afternoon/evening, it needs to have a dedicated right turn lane for I‐ 80 north bound and some solution that will help traffic to movemore efficiently and with less cluelessness by drivers. Ideally the entrances to both jack in the box and chevron would be accessible by estates drive only. I’ve had people make right turns across the front end of my car when they get tired of waiting in line to access the freeway on ramp. You also need to somehow make it impossible, or at least glaringly obvious, that the outer left turn lane does not go straight, when, and if, they actually utilize that lane but disregard the signage.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
2rj7j4ufk9l6 61 POINT (‐122.288198 38.002362) Y Tennet Avenue Tennet Avenue/Peach Street The intersection of PVR and tenant needs re‐painting. Drivers seem to believe that the right turn from PVR  to PVR is a two lane turn lane. Very scary when a big suv turns left in the outer lane, and there are cars parked on PVR, so the suv swerves into your path, or you.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
2rj7j4ufk9l6 62 POINT (‐122.280602 37.984809) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Surface needs repainting, more obvious signage that only one ofthose lanes goes straight. Accident waiting to happen. Better yet, take a cue from Richmond and make it a two lane road with a center lane for turns. Then plant some trees or something, it’s really ugly there.

Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
2rj7j4ufk9l6 62 POINT (‐122.280602 37.984809) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Surface needs repainting, more obvious signage that only one ofthose lanes goes straight. Accident waiting to happen. Better yet, take a cue from Richmond and make it a two lane road with a center lane for turns. Then plant some trees or something, it’s really ugly there.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
2rj7j4ufk9l6 62 POINT (‐122.280602 37.984809) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Surface needs repainting, more obvious signage that only one ofthose lanes goes straight. Accident waiting to happen. Better yet, take a cue from Richmond and make it a two lane road with a center lane for turns. Then plant some trees or something, it’s really ugly there.

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
345 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Speeding
7ii2ulg8uxx8 65 POINT (‐122.271177 37.980953) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars come at high speed westbound near school, around blind corner.  Families use that area for pick up of students for nearby school with no crosswalk or signs for cars to slow.

Pedestrian  School Safety
7ii2ulg8uxx8 65 POINT (‐122.271177 37.980953) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave Cars come at high speed westbound near school, around blind corner.  Families use that area for pick up of students for nearby school with no crosswalk or signs for cars to slow.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
7ii2ulg8uxx8 65 POINT (‐122.271177 37.980953) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars come at high speed westbound near school, around blind corner.  Families use that area for pick up of students for nearby school with no crosswalk or signs for cars to slow.

Pedestrian  School Safety
7ii2ulg8uxx8 65 POINT (‐122.271177 37.980953) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave Cars come at high speed westbound near school, around blind corner.  Families use that area for pick up of students for nearby school with no crosswalk or signs for cars to slow.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
7ii2ulg8uxx8 66 POINT (‐122.286356 37.997725) Y I80 I80/Pinole Valley Rd Cars blow through red light often, resulting in accidents Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation 7ii2ulg8uxx8 66 POINT (‐122.286356 37.997725) Y I80 I80/Pinole Valley Rd Cars blow through red light often, resulting in accidents Motor Vehicles  Speeding7ii2ulg8uxx8 67 POINT (‐122.280652 37.984773) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/Simas Ave cars driving eastbound on Pinole Valley Road from the left turn lane (turning to Simas) instead drive straight, causing dangerous situations with cars in lane designated to go straight.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Bicycle Safety
3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
346 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Speeding
3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Bicycle Safety
3co8y62idu87 63 POINT (‐122.280489 37.9848) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave/ Simas Ave Speeding on Pinole Valley Rd has always been an issue. I walk this street twice a day. Between Simas and Wright Ave the speeding has increased even in the school zone. I have witnessed cars going over the speed limit and cars passing other cars into oncoming traffic. On the corner of Pinole Valley Rd and Savage Ave there is a cross walk that cars rarely low down for. I’ve seen a dead deer, raccoons and most recently the valley resident peacock hit by speeding cars.

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
7ii2ulg8uxx8 68 POINT (‐122.277963 37.987667) N Colusa St Colusa St high speed endangering children playing in the street Pedestrian  School Safety 7ii2ulg8uxx8 69 POINT (‐122.279696 37.990016) N Colusa St Colusa St cars travel at high speed around corners and with cars parked on  each side, the space to pass is limited, and dangerous Pedestrian  Speeding7ii2ulg8uxx8 70 POINT (‐122.279139 37.989161) N Colusa St Colusa St camper parked on street, creating blind corner for cars traveling  west on Lucas unable to see speeding cars coming south on Colusa. Motor Vehicles  Visibility 8an2rjf6va6a 71 POINT (‐122.286426 37.997482) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Vally Rd Traffic back up, lights out of sync between CalTrans and signal maintenance Motor Vehicles  Lighting 8an2rjf6va6a 72 POINT (‐122.301525 37.997295) Y Appian Way Appain Way/Maan Drive School traffic and parking, Motor Vehicles  School Safety 8an2rjf6va6a 73 POINT (‐122.263246 37.978701) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Vally Rd Speed Motor Vehicles  Speeding 8an2rjf6va6a 74 POINT (‐122.30873 37.99051) N Fitzgerald Rd  Fitzgerald Rd  Speed Motor Vehicles  Speeding9cv8dpl7hsb6 75 POINT (‐122.29845 38.004257) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Pinole Ave Vehicles driving north on Appian Way, fail to yield to vehicles making a left from Pinion onto San Pablo Ave. Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe 8366ega4alk3 76 POINT (‐122.279684 37.983888) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd People speeding right through cross walk as I’m crossing w my baby.

Every day this happens. It’s terrifying. Maybe we can add flashing lights or something?? Pedestrian  Speeding
8366ega4alk3 78 POINT (‐122.279295 37.983854) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Sarita Court Suggestions of no parking on the corner of sarita where the stop sign is. Cars park there and block the view of the sidewalk andpeople who are crossing street. Safety hazard when turning blindly.

Pedestrian  Visibility
9xvy6ueb88f3 79 POINT (‐122.301442 37.992464) N Appian Way Appain Way/ I80 Time of light needs to be changed at this intersection. At the exact same time light turns red the other is green. It should be a couple seconds  before changing green to avoid accidents due to peoplerunning red lights.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
347 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6hnv33gmj2y3 80 POINT (‐122.285736 37.99559) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Estates Avenue Traffic in right lane of PVR stopped up by traffic in Trader Joe's parking, plus backup of traffic waiting at the light to turn left onto Estates.  PVR becomes essentially one lane at that point, PVR traffic sometimes backing up onto PVR exit from eastbound I80 Motor Vehicles  Road too Narrow
6hnv33gmj2y3 81 POINT (‐122.286447 37.997663) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Morning commute traffic from westbound I80 bombing through the  intersection at Pinole Valley Rd to continue westbound on I80 Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety 6hnv33gmj2y3 82 POINT (‐122.286 37.996715) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Some kind of utility box obstructs view of traffic approaching on  Pinole Valley Road Motor Vehicles  Visibility 6hnv33gmj2y3 83 POINT (‐122.301326 37.992707) N Appian Way Appain Way/ I80 Afternoon commute traffic eastbound on I80 blowing through the  intersection to continue eastbound on I80 Motor Vehicles  Speeding6hnv33gmj2y3 84 POINT (‐122.285713 37.995101) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Estates Avenue  Jaywalking, Pinole Valley Road between Estates and Pinole Valley  High School, all times of the day Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 6hnv33gmj2y3 85 POINT (‐122.285561 37.992993) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Commercial vehicle double parking on PVR to make deliveries to  businesses in that strip Motor Vehicles  Large Trucks 6hnv33gmj2y3 85 POINT (‐122.285561 37.992993) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Commercial vehicle double parking on PVR to make deliveries to  businesses in that strip Pedestrian  Large Trucks 6hnv33gmj2y3 86 POINT (‐122.314988 37.986684) N Richmond Parkway  Richmond Parkway  Afternoon commute: extremely late merge from Richmond Parkway  into lane for on ramp to eastbound I80 Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety4ix8lt9pai3a 88 POINT (‐122.308085 38.004335) N Meadow Avenue  Meadow Avenue Cars come off of San Pablo fast and there is no stop sign whereMeadow and Meadow meet. We live on the corner and cars come tearing through there.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
37vyp98xch24 89 POINT (‐122.286487 37.997574) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Please consider adding a several second delay between light changes. This would be especially effective between the ramp exiting hwy 80 west and the left turn arrow from PV Road to theentrance ramp to how 80 west.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
8r7urx7pyw9a 90 POINT (‐122.286555 38.000249) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Hendry Ave The speed driven at this point is far above the posted limit‐ many times 45‐50 mph ‐ causing many bad accidents on Pinole Valley Rd. School speed limits are not observed and the turning right lane at Henry Ave. creates confusion and cars vie for a place going to one lane on PVR.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
8r7urx7pyw9a 90 POINT (‐122.286555 38.000249) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Hendry Ave The speed driven at this point is far above the posted limit‐ many times 45‐50 mph ‐ causing many bad accidents on Pinole Valley Rd. School speed limits are not observed and the turning right lane at Henry Ave. creates confusion and cars vie for a place going to one lane on PVR.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
3ex7anp6xmv4 91 POINT (‐122.271623 37.986243) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/Moraga Dr We live at 2601 Moraga Drive a corner house at the intersection of Simas Ave and Moraga Dr  and is now a 4 way stop for approximately 10 years. When this neighborhood was originally built it was not.  I assume the 4 way stop was added to slow vehicle traffic down but this has only increased problems as a lot of drivers either ignore the stop signs completely or the speed up after making a quick stop or speed quickly to a stop. This causes a lot of vehicle traffic noise for all the homes within the intersection area that wasn't present before the 4 way stop was put in. The 4 way stop has done little to aid in vehicle traffic obeying the residential speed limit and certainly isn't monitored by police traffic enforcement. I would ask that the 2 stop signs on Simas Ave. beremoved so traffic can resume unimpeded reducing traffic noise levels and the constant rapidly slowing down and speeding up ofthose vehicles that do actually stop.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
348 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 3ex7anp6xmv4 91 POINT (‐122.271623 37.986243) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/Moraga Dr We live at 2601 Moraga Drive a corner house at the intersection of Simas Ave and Moraga Dr  and is now a 4 way stop for approximately 10 years. When this neighborhood was originally built it was not.  I assume the 4 way stop was added to slow vehicle traffic down but this has only increased problems as a lot of drivers either ignore the stop signs completely or the speed up after making a quick stop or speed quickly to a stop. This causes a lot of vehicle traffic noise for all the homes within the intersection area that wasn't present before the 4 way stop was put in. The 4 waystop has done little to aid in vehicle traffic obeying the residential speed limit and certainly isn't monitored by police traffic enforcement. I would ask that the 2 stop signs on Simas Ave. beremoved so traffic can resume unimpeded reducing traffic noise levels and the constant rapidly slowing down and speeding up ofthose vehicles that do actually stop.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
3ex7anp6xmv4 91 POINT (‐122.271623 37.986243) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/Moraga Dr We live at 2601 Moraga Drive a corner house at the intersection of Simas Ave and Moraga Dr  and is now a 4 way stop for approximately 10 years. When this neighborhood was originally built it was not.  I assume the 4 way stop was added to slow vehicle traffic down but this has only increased problems as a lot of drivers either ignore the stop signs completely or the speed up after making a quick stop or speed quickly to a stop. This causes a lot of vehicle traffic noise for all the homes within the intersection area that wasn't present before the 4 way stop was put in. The 4 waystop has done little to aid in vehicle traffic obeying the residential speed limit and certainly isn't monitored by police traffic enforcement. I would ask that the 2 stop signs on Simas Ave. beremoved so traffic can resume unimpeded reducing traffic noise levels and the constant rapidly slowing down and speeding up ofthose vehicles that do actually stop.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
3ig9faw8wbj4 92 POINT (‐122.261106 37.981424) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/ Carol St Kids being hit by cars who do not stop. Constant Speeding. Pedestrian  Speeding 3ig9faw8wbj4 93 POINT (‐122.261185 37.981272) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/ Carol St Cars don't stop. Need to traffic countermeasures. Motor Vehicles  Speeding 3ig9faw8wbj4 93 POINT (‐122.261185 37.981272) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/ Carol St Cars don't stop. Need to traffic countermeasures. Pedestrian  Speeding 3ovo3xtr3se4 94 POINT (‐122.303475 38.006797) Y Bay View Farm Rd Bay View Farm Rd/ Hemleb Court Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  Traffic speeds up to approximately 50mph between Sunnyview Drive and Hemleb Court on Bay View Farm Road.  Cars regularly make 'donuts' where Belfair Drive intersects Bay View Farm Road on this stretch of the street.   We need traffic bumps or something similar to promote safety and to protect animals, people and other drivers.  Gathering signatures to start the process  to request traffic bumps is not a safe option during the COVID outbreak.Sincerely,Laurie Mason Motor Vehicles  Speeding
349 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 3ovo3xtr3se4 94 POINT (‐122.303475 38.006797) Y Bay View Farm Rd Bay View Farm Rd/ Hemleb Court Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  Traffic speeds up to approximately 50mph between Sunnyview Drive and Hemleb Court on Bay View Farm Road.  Cars regularly make 'donuts' where Belfair Drive intersects Bay View Farm Road on this stretch of the street.   We need traffic bumps or something similar to promote safety and to protect animals, people and other drivers.  Gathering signatures to start the process  to request traffic bumps is not a safe option during the COVID outbreak.Sincerely,Laurie Mason Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
3ovo3xtr3se4 94 POINT (‐122.303475 38.006797) Y Bay View Farm Rd Bay View Farm Rd/ Hemleb Court Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  Traffic speeds up to approximately 50mph between Sunnyview Drive and Hemleb Court on Bay View Farm Road.  Cars regularly make 'donuts' where Belfair Drive intersects Bay View Farm Road on this stretch of the street.   We need traffic bumps or something similar to promote safety and to protect animals, people and other drivers.  Gathering signatures to start the process  to request traffic bumps is not a safe option during the COVID outbreak.Sincerely,Laurie Mason Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
3ovo3xtr3se4 94 POINT (‐122.303475 38.006797) Y Bay View Farm Rd Bay View Farm Rd/ Hemleb Court Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  Traffic speeds up to approximately 50mph between Sunnyview Drive and Hemleb Court on Bay View Farm Road.  Cars regularly make 'donuts' where Belfair Drive intersects Bay View Farm Road on this stretch of the street.   We need traffic bumps or something similar to promote safety and to protect animals, people and other drivers.  Gathering signatures to start the process  to request traffic bumps is not a safe option during the COVID outbreak.Sincerely,Laurie Mason Pedestrian  Speeding
3ovo3xtr3se4 94 POINT (‐122.303475 38.006797) Y Bay View Farm Rd Bay View Farm Rd/ Hemleb Court Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  Traffic speeds up to approximately 50mph between Sunnyview Drive and Hemleb Court on Bay View Farm Road.  Cars regularly make 'donuts' where Belfair Drive intersects Bay View Farm Road on this stretch of the street.   We need traffic bumps or something similar to promote safety and to protect animals, people and other drivers.  Gathering signatures to start the process  to request traffic bumps is not a safe option during the COVID outbreak.Sincerely,Laurie Mason Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
3ovo3xtr3se4 94 POINT (‐122.303475 38.006797) Y Bay View Farm Rd Bay View Farm Rd/ Hemleb Court Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  Traffic speeds up to approximately 50mph between Sunnyview Drive and Hemleb Court on Bay View Farm Road.  Cars regularly make 'donuts' where Belfair Drive intersects Bay View Farm Road on this stretch of the street.   We need traffic bumps or something similar to promote safety and to protect animals, people and other drivers.  Gathering signatures to start the process  to request traffic bumps is not a safe option during the COVID outbreak.Sincerely,Laurie Mason Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
350 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 8b3jwu8sa4b7 95 POINT (‐122.289149 38.006573) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ San Pablo Ave Traffic light at San Pablo and Pinole Valley should have a left turn arrow.  Traffic can back up on San Pablo waiting for cars to turn and often, on‐going traffic must stop to allow for left turns.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
8b3jwu8sa4b7 96 POINT (‐122.288282 38.002245) Y Tennet Avenue Tennet Avenue/ Pinole Valley Rd Traffic is backed up at the traffic light on Pinole Valley Road at Tennent.  During peak dismissal times for the elementary school, the light does not allow for enough cars to leave the school's parking lot, thus backing traffic inside and outside the school.  Can we get a right turn only lane on Tennent (turning right into the school) and have the lights adjusted to a longer green for those exiting the school.  Times of excess traffic is between 2:20 and 2:40 pm M, T, Thur, F).  Wednesday dismissal is at 1:45 to 2:00.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
8b3jwu8sa4b7 96 POINT (‐122.288282 38.002245) Y Tennet Avenue Tennet Avenue/ Pinole Valley Rd Traffic is backed up at the traffic light on Pinole Valley Road at Tennent.  During peak dismissal times for the elementary school, the light does not allow for enough cars to leave the school's parking lot, thus backing traffic inside and outside the school.  Can we get a right turn only lane on Tennent (turning right into the school) and have the lights adjusted to a longer green for those exiting the school.  Times of excess traffic is between 2:20 and 2:40 pm M, T, Thur, F).  Wednesday dismissal is at 1:45 to 2:00.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
8b3jwu8sa4b7 97 POINT (‐122.286783 37.998056) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Traffic lights between Henry and I‐80 are not synced to allow for ease of traffic getting onto I‐80 East.  Those cars turning left under the freeway can block the path of those cars going straight andthose trying to enter I‐80 going west.  Lights should be synced.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
8b3jwu8sa4b7 97 POINT (‐122.286783 37.998056) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Traffic lights between Henry and I‐80 are not synced to allow for ease of traffic getting onto I‐80 East.  Those cars turning left under the freeway can block the path of those cars going straight andthose trying to enter I‐80 going west.  Lights should be synced.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
3ig9faw8wbj4 92 POINT (‐122.261106 37.981424) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/ Carol St Kids being hit by cars who do not stop. Constant Speeding. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 83lkg7tz86s6 98 POINT (‐122.261178 37.981256) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/ Carol St Everyone speeds up and rolls this stop sign in both directions .  There have been numerous crashes right after this sign coming from Pinole valley road .  I live right by this sign and watch cars do it everyday .

Pedestrian  Speeding
83lkg7tz86s6 98 POINT (‐122.261178 37.981256) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/ Carol St Everyone speeds up and rolls this stop sign in both directions .  There have been numerous crashes right after this sign coming from Pinole valley road .  I live right by this sign and watch cars do it everyday .

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
3nt2nnx7hk8a 99 POINT (‐122.258742 37.983236) Y Wright Ave Wright Avenue/Victor Street This stop sign is ignored by too many. Something too encourage people not to fly through it. i have 2 kids at 2435 wright ave. & it's a little scary how fast some people drive through. thank you! Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
4m647cx9wr7a 100 POINT (‐122.285633 37.993467) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  massive traffic jam on schooldays on Pinole Valley rd in front of  Trader Joe shopping center Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation6yzu4w3ap347 101 POINT (‐122.3017 38.003929) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ 4th Avenue People go extremely fast on our street to cut around the traffic light on appian  and San Pablo. We would like a speed bump put in on 4th, close to where it meets San pablo Motor Vehicles  Speeding
351 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 94jm3bzd99x6 102 POINT (‐122.280666 37.98479) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave In the 5 years we’ve lived here I have seen numerous people usethe left turn lane to go straight heading towards Pinole Valley Park. Also witnessed several cars fail to stop at all. In one incident, I witnessed a young driver swerve around several cars in the right lane, into the left turn lane, run the stop sign and continue straight, ending up in the oncoming traffic lane headed straight for me. Thankfully, he went to the correct lane just in time. Clearer signs/road markings, and possibly a stop light could help.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
94jm3bzd99x6 102 POINT (‐122.280666 37.98479) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave In the 5 years we’ve lived here I have seen numerous people usethe left turn lane to go straight heading towards Pinole Valley Park.

Also witnessed several cars fail to stop at all. In one incident, I witnessed a young driver swerve around several cars in the right lane, into the left turn lane, run the stop sign and continue straight, ending up in the oncoming traffic lane headed straight for me. Thankfully, he went to the correct lane just in time. Clearer signs/road markings, and possibly a stop light could help.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
94jm3bzd99x6 103 POINT (‐122.273359 37.981426) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars travel well over the 25mph school zone when children are present. I’ve nearly been rear ended several times when pulling into a parking spot to pick up my child, even though I always signal. My child has only been at this school for five months and I can’t count how many times it’s happened. Cars also often drive well over the posted 35mph at all times of the day/night.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
94jm3bzd99x6 103 POINT (‐122.273359 37.981426) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars travel well over the 25mph school zone when children are present. I’ve nearly been rear ended several times when pulling into a parking spot to pick up my child, even though I always signal. My child has only been at this school for five months and I can’t count how many times it’s happened. Cars also often drive well over the posted 35mph at all times of the day/night.

Pedestrian  School Safety
98ije3v32f68 104 POINT (‐122.285317 37.988837) N Shea Dr  Shea Dr Red zone needs to be repainted on Shea and Pinole Valley Road. Pinole High parents park in red zone prior to end of school andblock cars from being able to turn right, so traffic backs up hill and congests area.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
98ije3v32f68 104 POINT (‐122.285317 37.988837) N Shea Dr  Shea Dr Red zone needs to be repainted on Shea and Pinole Valley Road. Pinole High parents park in red zone prior to end of school andblock cars from being able to turn right, so traffic backs up hill and congests area.

Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
98ije3v32f68 105 POINT (‐122.285538 37.996435) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Traffic backs up at the east bound hwy 80 on ramp in the mornings Mon‐Fri, when the metering lights are on and when Pinole ValleyHigh lets out. Can this corner be made into a free right to alleviate the congestion? Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
98ije3v32f68 106 POINT (‐122.270185 37.981463) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Savage Ave Can we get lighted crosswalks at the crosswalk by Savage Dr? People driving southbound, coming around turn by Ellerhorst Elem. have difficulty seeing people trying to cross.

Pedestrian  Lighting
98ije3v32f68 107 POINT (‐122.268047 37.981513) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Can we get a lighted crosswalk in front of park for children trying to  cross? Pedestrian  Lighting 98ije3v32f68 108 POINT (‐122.266449 37.981211) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave Can we get a lighted crosswalk for people trying to cross into south end of park by baseball field? Need better visibility and advanced notice for people trying to cross over Pinole Valley Rd.

Pedestrian  Lighting
352 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 98ije3v32f68 108 POINT (‐122.266449 37.981211) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave Can we get a lighted crosswalk for people trying to cross into south end of park by baseball field? Need better visibility and advanced notice for people trying to cross over Pinole Valley Rd.

Pedestrian  Visibility
6962cb9g9n6a 109 POINT (‐122.280267 37.984753) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley St/Simas Ave crossing pinole valley road to go to the dog park is treacherous.  the speed limit is 35.  many cars do not stop for pedestrians.  i don't understand why you have so many traffic lights by the high school and a lower speed limit when older children cross there.  whereyoung children cross to go to the park, soccer or baseball fields cars go speeding without restraint.  it is more common for a car not to slow down or stop for pedestrians than have a car with a courteous driver.   please reduce the speed limit and put more stop signs to make crossing easier.  thank you.

Pedestrian  Speeding
6962cb9g9n6a 109 POINT (‐122.280267 37.984753) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley St/Simas Ave crossing pinole valley road to go to the dog park is treacherous.  the speed limit is 35.  many cars do not stop for pedestrians.  i don't understand why you have so many traffic lights by the high school and a lower speed limit when older children cross there.  whereyoung children cross to go to the park, soccer or baseball fields cars go speeding without restraint.  it is more common for a car not to slow down or stop for pedestrians than have a car with a courteous driver.   please reduce the speed limit and put more stop signs to make crossing easier.  thank you.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6cw74c7sxb9r 111 POINT (‐122.286688 37.989118) N Shea Dr  Shea Dr This has 3‐way traffic with 2 stop signs at the intersection of Shea Dr. & Avis Way.  The traffic driving up hill on Shea Dr. does NOT have a stop sign.  The traffic going downhill on Shea Dr. fails to stop at the stop sign 8+ times out of 10.  This is extremely dangerous as there are children walking to both Stewart Elementary School & Pinole Valley High School.  The Our Saviour Lutheran Church is located on Avis Way so there is more much more traffic than just residential.  I can’t tell you how many times cars coming up Shea Dr. that are turning left on to Avis Way (no stop sign) have had to slam on their brakes or barely miss being hit by people running the Stop Sign on Shea Dr. at Avis Way.  I live on Avis Way and have watched car after car run this stop sign for hours at a time.  This is very dangerous! Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
6cw74c7sxb9r 111 POINT (‐122.286688 37.989118) N Shea Dr  Shea Dr This has 3‐way traffic with 2 stop signs at the intersection of Shea Dr. & Avis Way.  The traffic driving up hill on Shea Dr. does NOT have a stop sign.  The traffic going downhill on Shea Dr. fails to stop at the stop sign 8+ times out of 10.  This is extremely dangerous as there are children walking to both Stewart Elementary School & Pinole Valley High School.  The Our Saviour Lutheran Church is located on Avis Way so there is more much more traffic than just residential.  I can’t tell you how many times cars coming up Shea Dr. that are turning left on to Avis Way (no stop sign) have had to slam on their brakes or barely miss being hit by people running the Stop Sign on Shea Dr. at Avis Way.  I live on Avis Way and have watched car after car run this stop sign for hours at a time.  This is very dangerous! Pedestrian  Curve unsafe
353 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6cw74c7sxb9r 111 POINT (‐122.286688 37.989118) N Shea Dr  Shea Dr This has 3‐way traffic with 2 stop signs at the intersection of Shea Dr. & Avis Way.  The traffic driving up hill on Shea Dr. does NOT have a stop sign.  The traffic going downhill on Shea Dr. fails to stop at the stop sign 8+ times out of 10.  This is extremely dangerous as there are children walking to both Stewart Elementary School & Pinole Valley High School.  The Our Saviour Lutheran Church is located on Avis Way so there is more much more traffic than just residential.  I can’t tell you how many times cars coming up Shea Dr. that are turning left on to Avis Way (no stop sign) have had to slam on their brakes or barely miss being hit by people running the Stop Sign on Shea Dr. at Avis Way.  I live on Avis Way and have watched car after car run this stop sign for hours at a time.  This is very dangerous! Pedestrian  Speeding
6zy4u87lxz78 112 POINT (‐122.29931 38.001766) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way Cars driving too fast. No stop light. Not pedestrian safe because cars drive so fast. No middle space as you're crossing the streets. No bike lanes.

Pedestrian  Speeding
6zy4u87lxz78 112 POINT (‐122.29931 38.001766) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way Cars driving too fast. No stop light. Not pedestrian safe because cars drive so fast. No middle space as you're crossing the streets. No bike lanes.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6zy4u87lxz78 112 POINT (‐122.29931 38.001766) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way Cars driving too fast. No stop light. Not pedestrian safe because cars drive so fast. No middle space as you're crossing the streets. No bike lanes.

Pedestrian  Lighting
6zy4u87lxz78 113 POINT (‐122.2993 38.002581) Y Nob Hill Nob Hill/Appian Way  There is little to no lighting right here. The turn is too sharp and  short. We need some type of middle grass lane here. Motor Vehicles  Lighting 6zy4u87lxz78 114 POINT (‐122.30566 38.002497) Y Nob Hill Nob Hill Ave/ Sunny View Dr  It's a bit unsafe right here to turn right. Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe 6zy4u87lxz78 115 POINT (‐122.305291 38.004655) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Not safe for bikes. We need bike lanes! Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 23z84w4ke8v3 116 POINT (‐122.289059 38.006561) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd Pedestrian crossing SPA unsafe with right turn vehicles heading towards Hercules.Vehicles spreading eastward towards Hercules.

Bicycle  Curve unsafe
23z84w4ke8v3 117 POINT (‐122.287743 38.007551) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Red light running.Speeding traffic both directions.Right turn green light on John Street only functions in the am hours.

Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation
23z84w4ke8v3 117 POINT (‐122.287743 38.007551) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Red light running.Speeding traffic both directions.Right turn green light on John Street only functions in the am hours.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
23z84w4ke8v3 117 POINT (‐122.287743 38.007551) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Red light running.Speeding traffic both directions.Right turn green light on John Street only functions in the am hours.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
3dc6wj9j7lp3 118 POINT (‐122.266338 37.981085) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave Crosswalk from Simas to the Pinole Valley Park should have  Reflector dots/buttons. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety3dc6wj9j7lp3 119 POINT (‐122.264683 37.98005) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Wright Ave Crosswalk from Wright Ave to the Pinole Valley Park should have reflector dots/buttons on pavement. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 3fsz84rm434d 120 POINT (‐122.267593 37.98158) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Monte Verde Dr There is no street sign at the intersection of Pinole Valley Road and Monte Verde Drive.  Also, the crosswalk from Monte Verde Drive to Pinole Valley Park needs reflectors in the pavement.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
3fsz84rm434d 120 POINT (‐122.267593 37.98158) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Monte Verde Dr There is no street sign at the intersection of Pinole Valley Road and Monte Verde Drive.  Also, the crosswalk from Monte Verde Drive to Pinole Valley Park needs reflectors in the pavement.

Pedestrian  Lighting
3fsz84rm434d 121 POINT (‐122.264493 37.982614) N Carol St  Carol St  Raised sidewalk at 3718 Carol Street  due to roots. Pedestrian  Pavement Condition 354 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7lg279rm8no3 122 POINT (‐122.286299 37.997483) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ I80 when NB on PVR at the intersection of Hwy 80 ‐ the light for the turn onto WB 80 ‐ you can't see what color the light is when the morning sun is hitting the light. So, when the cars come off EB 80 exit to PVR ‐  ‐ this is setting up a dangerous situation Motor Vehicles  Lighting
34tpw4cps866 123 POINT (‐122.294784 38.003964) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Alvarez Ave on Sampablo and Alvarez cross‐section, we need a traffic light. drivers never stop for pedestrians. Pedestrian  Lighting 6pw2nxn6ybe6 124 POINT (‐122.285262 37.988867) Y Shea Dr  Shea Dr At the end of the Pinole High School day, parents line up to pick up their children at the turn right lane at the corner of PV Road & Shea. This blocks and back ups vehicle traffic. Can the city post a "no parking" during these pick up time? Motor Vehicles  School Safety
9zp7k2con6c9 125 POINT (‐122.299344 38.001657) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way  High speed traffic both ways do not stop for pedestrians!  sidewalks  narrow, overgrown by weeds do not give any protection. Pedestrian  Pavement Condition 9zp7k2con6c9 125 POINT (‐122.299344 38.001657) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way  High speed traffic both ways do not stop for pedestrians!  sidewalks  narrow, overgrown by weeds do not give any protection. Pedestrian  Speeding 7ro9dty3omx7 126 POINT (‐122.282019 37.996726) Y Ponderosa Trail Ponderosa Trail/ Faria Ave Traffic coming downhill on Faria to intersection with PonderosaTrail, due to the blind spot, driver coming up from Faria making left turn into Ponderosa often miss fast traffic coming down the hill.

Recommend a stop sign be installed on Faria at the intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
7ro9dty3omx7 126 POINT (‐122.282019 37.996726) Y Ponderosa Trail Ponderosa Trail/ Faria Ave Traffic coming downhill on Faria to intersection with PonderosaTrail, due to the blind spot, driver coming up from Faria making left turn into Ponderosa often miss fast traffic coming down the hill.

Recommend a stop sign be installed on Faria at the intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
7d7o7n2mvy96 127 POINT (‐122.271475 37.986289) Y Moraga Dr Moraga Dr/Simas Ave This intersection needs a crosswalk as it is used by kids going to  Ellerhorst via Amber Schwartz Park. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 6io486i624j7 128 POINT (‐122.302297 37.995304) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr The signal phasing keeps getting changed and it is dangerous. When Appian has the red the Tara Hills leg should get the green followed by the Canyon leg. When it is reverse and Canyon goes first youcannot see red light runners due to the topography of the intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation
6io486i624j7 128 POINT (‐122.302297 37.995304) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr The signal phasing keeps getting changed and it is dangerous. When Appian has the red the Tara Hills leg should get the green followed by the Canyon leg. When it is reverse and Canyon goes first youcannot see red light runners due to the topography of the intersection.

Pedestrian  Lighting
6io486i624j7 128 POINT (‐122.302297 37.995304) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr The signal phasing keeps getting changed and it is dangerous. When Appian has the red the Tara Hills leg should get the green followed by the Canyon leg. When it is reverse and Canyon goes first youcannot see red light runners due to the topography of the intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
6io486i624j7 128 POINT (‐122.302297 37.995304) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr The signal phasing keeps getting changed and it is dangerous. When Appian has the red the Tara Hills leg should get the green followed by the Canyon leg. When it is reverse and Canyon goes first youcannot see red light runners due to the topography of the intersection.

Pedestrian  Red Light Violation
6io486i624j7 128 POINT (‐122.302297 37.995304) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr The signal phasing keeps getting changed and it is dangerous. When Appian has the red the Tara Hills leg should get the green followed by the Canyon leg. When it is reverse and Canyon goes first youcannot see red light runners due to the topography of the intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
355 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6io486i624j7 128 POINT (‐122.302297 37.995304) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr The signal phasing keeps getting changed and it is dangerous. When Appian has the red the Tara Hills leg should get the green followed by the Canyon leg. When it is reverse and Canyon goes first youcannot see red light runners due to the topography of the intersection.

Pedestrian  Speeding
6io486i624j7 129 POINT (‐122.299205 38.001708) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way We are on the list to get a pedestrian activated signal installed and it needs to happen. There should not be an uncontrolled crossing across six lanes of traffic on a grade.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
82cty8et9sia 130 POINT (‐122.285723 37.995601) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd The design of the parking lot at the Pinole Valley Shopping Center is terrible. The driveway at PVR@Estates should be made and exit only with the driveway at the other end enter only, and the flow of the parking lot needs to be improved as it is impossible to get in and out without having to wait through many signal cycles Motor Vehicles  Road too Narrow
8ix69nk4hwr9 131 POINT (‐122.293729 38.004204) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Erosion ‐ no shoulder for bikes on this blind corner Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7pi2niu7ab68 132 POINT (‐122.298662 38.003747) N Appian Way Appain Way I live in the neighborhood and like to walk as much as possible. I have frequent issues when trying to cross the street at that intersection. Cars driving down Appian way making a left hand turn on to San Pablo are NOT watching for pedestrians. The light should have a delay so that pedestrians can safely cross without risk from cars turning left.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
7pi2niu7ab68 132 POINT (‐122.298662 38.003747) N Appian Way Appain Way I live in the neighborhood and like to walk as much as possible. I have frequent issues when trying to cross the street at that intersection. Cars driving down Appian way making a left hand turn on to San Pablo are NOT watching for pedestrians. The light should have a delay so that pedestrians can safely cross without risk from cars turning left.

Pedestrian  Lighting
7pi2niu7ab68 133 POINT (‐122.292191 38.003888) Y Oak Ridge Rd Oak Ridge Rd/School St I was hit by a car in while walking in the crosswalk by a car turning left from Oak Ridge. It was dark, and the lighting at the cross walk is poor. Better lighting would make it safer and easier for cars to see pedestrians. Also ‐ the car that hit me did not stop. I was shocked by the whole thing, but fortunately not injured.

Pedestrian  Lighting
84tze6eek9o6 134 POINT (‐122.288681 38.006175) Y Rafaela Street Rafaela Street/ Pinole Valley Rd  There needs to be a red painted blocked off no parking area of a  minimum of 2 car lengths at the corner of Rafaela Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition 84tze6eek9o6 135 POINT (‐122.288672 38.006255) Y Rafaela Street Rafaela Street/ Pinole Valley Rd Emerging from Rafaela Street and attempting to head left or right onto Pinole Valley Road has the sight line severely blocked by cars parked on the east side of PVR at the corner of RS. There needs to be at least 2 spaces blocked off in red so that one may see cars flying around a blind curve. The odds of getting T‐boned are huge and both physical and financial harm are quite inevitable, regardless of one's safe approach inching out. The loss of 2 parking spaces is of minimal concern, while preserving life + financialsecurity is the HIGHEST priority! I have driven for 58 years with no ticket on my record, nor have I hit anyone, yet that record will come to a crashing end soon, NOT due to any malfeasance on my part. It's truly an accident waiting to happen! Please solve the problem with a simple coat of paint and get important priorities in order. 64 seniors coming and going from Pinole Grove Housing make this a well traveled corner and others have remarked about its scary aspect.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
356 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7xn3x4smo7m3 136 POINT (‐122.28874 38.006178) Y Rafaela Street Rafaela St/ Pinole Valley Rd The view of oncoming traffic on Pinole Valley Road as one emerges from Rafaela Street to turn onto PVR is constantly obscured due to cars parking right up to the corner, especially SUV's and tinted windows, as the corner coming around is nearly a blind one withspeeders. The east side curb on PVR at the RS corner needs to have a red no parking area painted for a minimum of 2 spaces in order to eradicate the problem. The odds of getting T‐boned are HUGE, regardless of the care taken in creeping out, as the view is blocked, likely resulting in an accident through no fault of a driver emerging slowly from Rafaela Street to get at least a minimum view before proceeding. With cars parked right on the corner, it's often impossible to not have a close call or get hit.  64 residents coming and going from Pinole Grove Housing means that the corner is usually busy. A loss of 2 parking spots pales in comparison to the potential loss of a life or permanent maiming, let alone the financial loss.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
7xn3x4smo7m3 136 POINT (‐122.28874 38.006178) Y Rafaela Street Rafaela St/ Pinole Valley Rd The view of oncoming traffic on Pinole Valley Road as one emerges from Rafaela Street to turn onto PVR is constantly obscured due to cars parking right up to the corner, especially SUV's and tinted windows, as the corner coming around is nearly a blind one withspeeders. The east side curb on PVR at the RS corner needs to have a red no parking area painted for a minimum of 2 spaces in order to eradicate the problem. The odds of getting T‐boned are HUGE, regardless of the care taken in creeping out, as the view is blocked, likely resulting in an accident through no fault of a driver emerging slowly from Rafaela Street to get at least a minimum view before proceeding. With cars parked right on the corner, it's often impossible to not have a close call or get hit.  64 residents coming and going from Pinole Grove Housing means that the corner is usually busy. A loss of 2 parking spots pales in comparison to the potential loss of a life or permanent maiming, let alone the financial loss.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
8s227og7akk4 137 POINT (‐122.271608 37.986268) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/ Moraga Dr People are going 50 mph down Simas Ave and running the stop sign  on Simas Ave and Moraga Ave. Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation 8s227og7akk4 137 POINT (‐122.271608 37.986268) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/ Moraga Dr People are going 50 mph down Simas Ave and running the stop sign  on Simas Ave and Moraga Ave. Motor Vehicles  Speeding 6vyw8vy2ngf8 139 POINT (‐122.301288 37.997337) N Appian Way Appain Way  Elementary and middle school location. Cars speed by on Appian  Way. Need traffic slowing during school pickup/drop off. Motor Vehicles  Speeding6vyw8vy2ngf8 139 POINT (‐122.301288 37.997337) N Appian Way Appain Way  Elementary and middle school location. Cars speed by on Appian  Way. Need traffic slowing during school pickup/drop off. Motor Vehicles  School Safety 6vyw8vy2ngf8 139 POINT (‐122.301288 37.997337) N Appian Way Appain Way  Elementary and middle school location. Cars speed by on Appian  Way. Need traffic slowing during school pickup/drop off. Motor Vehicles  Speeding6vyw8vy2ngf8 139 POINT (‐122.301288 37.997337) N Appian Way Appain Way  Elementary and middle school location. Cars speed by on Appian  Way. Need traffic slowing during school pickup/drop off. Motor Vehicles  School Safety 6vyw8vy2ngf8 140 POINT (‐122.298765 37.99556) N Canyon Dr  Canyon Drive Residential street at bottom of hill. Many families with young children live there. There is also a park. Cars speed down the street.  Speed bumps needed Motor Vehicles  Speeding
357 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6vyw8vy2ngf8 140 POINT (‐122.298765 37.99556) N Canyon Dr  Canyon Drive Residential street at bottom of hill. Many families with young children live there. There is also a park. Cars speed down the street.  Speed bumps needed Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
7ye2bdj3nuf9 142 POINT (‐122.287882 38.007342) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/John St This is a major crossing for pedestrians to the WestCat bus stop.  I regularly observe cars blowing the red light as they are driving south down San Pablo Ave.

Pedestrian  Red Light Violation
7ye2bdj3nuf9 143 POINT (‐122.28902 38.006549) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd With the opening of the East Bay Coffee shop, parking cars, pedestrians and jay walkers are crossing San Pablo Ave in heavytraffic.  Cars turning north (right) onto San Pablo Ave from Pinole Vally Road make the turn quickly into the cross walk.  This hascreated a very unsafe intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
7ye2bdj3nuf9 143 POINT (‐122.28902 38.006549) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd With the opening of the East Bay Coffee shop, parking cars, pedestrians and jay walkers are crossing San Pablo Ave in heavytraffic.  Cars turning north (right) onto San Pablo Ave from Pinole Vally Road make the turn quickly into the cross walk.  This hascreated a very unsafe intersection.

Pedestrian  Curve unsafe
8td68bze28p8 145 POINT (‐122.300639 37.99341) Y I80 I80/ Appain Way Very dangerous blockage of view by cars parked on Pinole Valleyroad at corner of Rafaela Street! View is blocked 3‐5 days eachweek by SUV's and trucks with tinted windows so that cars flying around a blind corner may not be seen until it's too late! Eveninching out is no protection! The spot nearest the corner could be saved, but the 2nd‐3rd spots behind it need to be painted RED! Every resident at Pinole Grove Housing I've spoken with has commented on the terror experienced. A mere can of paint would prevent any mayhem! Please act soon! Easy solution doable and losing two spots is better than losing two lives! Motor Vehicles  Visibility
8td68bze28p8 145 POINT (‐122.300639 37.99341) Y I80 I80/ Appain Way Very dangerous blockage of view by cars parked on Pinole Valleyroad at corner of Rafaela Street! View is blocked 3‐5 days eachweek by SUV's and trucks with tinted windows so that cars flying around a blind corner may not be seen until it's too late! Eveninching out is no protection! The spot nearest the corner could be saved, but the 2nd‐3rd spots behind it need to be painted RED! Every resident at Pinole Grove Housing I've spoken with has commented on the terror experienced. A mere can of paint would prevent any mayhem! Please act soon! Easy solution doable and losing two spots is better than losing two lives! Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
8td68bze28p8 145 POINT (‐122.300639 37.99341) Y I80 I80/ Appain Way Very dangerous blockage of view by cars parked on Pinole Valleyroad at corner of Rafaela Street! View is blocked 3‐5 days eachweek by SUV's and trucks with tinted windows so that cars flying around a blind corner may not be seen until it's too late! Eveninching out is no protection! The spot nearest the corner could be saved, but the 2nd‐3rd spots behind it need to be painted RED! Every resident at Pinole Grove Housing I've spoken with has commented on the terror experienced. A mere can of paint would prevent any mayhem! Please act soon! Easy solution doable and losing two spots is better than losing two lives! Motor Vehicles  Visibility
358 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 8td68bze28p8 145 POINT (‐122.300639 37.99341) Y I80 I80/ Appain Way Very dangerous blockage of view by cars parked on Pinole Valleyroad at corner of Rafaela Street! View is blocked 3‐5 days eachweek by SUV's and trucks with tinted windows so that cars flying around a blind corner may not be seen until it's too late! Even inching out is no protection! The spot nearest the corner could be saved, but the 2nd‐3rd spots behind it need to be painted RED! Every resident at Pinole Grove Housing I've spoken with has commented on the terror experienced. A mere can of paint would prevent any mayhem! Please act soon! Easy solution doable and losing two spots is better than losing two lives! Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
29x2kkn3tl36 147 POINT (‐122.302306 37.995364) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr  Red light runners every single day of the week. Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation 29x2kkn3tl36 148 POINT (‐122.301908 37.994044) N I80 I80/ Appain Way People come off the ramp onto Appian Way and then cross over three lanes to go to Safeway directions, often coming close to crashing into people because they are in a hurry.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
2lw3g3d9kkw6 150 POINT (‐122.279811 37.98414) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd The stretch of road between the  Simas stop sign and EllenhorstSchoolis like a raceway, especially Fri‐Sat. Traffic does NOT stop at the crosswalk for pedestrians, cars and motorcycles driving unsafely and at excessive speeds Pedestrian  Speeding
7dx7ubw72ni3 151 POINT (‐122.288716 38.006162) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Vally Rd/Rafaela St Extremely dangerous intersection as one attempts to emerge from Rafaela Street onto Pinole Valley Road due to parked cars, often SUV's with tinted windshields blocking the view south, so that inching out offers ZERO protection from getting T‐boned. One marked off parked spot needs to be painted (red?) The second spot from the corner would provide a safe view. I have detailed photos and diagrams to prove my point and show my solution. Please contact me to provide evidence. Physical and financial harm await any driver due to no fault of their own, yet they'd be cited! Joel Kuechle (510) 529‐4979 [email protected]. Every day=another possible calamity. One lost parking spot is better than a lost life or maiming. Please reply! Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
7dx7ubw72ni3 151 POINT (‐122.288716 38.006162) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Vally Rd/Rafaela St Extremely dangerous intersection as one attempts to emerge from Rafaela Street onto Pinole Valley Road due to parked cars, often SUV's with tinted windshields blocking the view south, so that inching out offers ZERO protection from getting T‐boned. One marked off parked spot needs to be painted (red?) The second spot from the corner would provide a safe view. I have detailed photos and diagrams to prove my point and show my solution. Please contact me to provide evidence. Physical and financial harm await any driver due to no fault of their own, yet they'd be cited! Joel Kuechle (510) 529‐4979 [email protected]. Every day=another possible calamity. One lost parking spot is better than a lost life or maiming. Please reply! Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
7yhi7j49jcv3 152 POINT (‐122.302473 37.995165) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr People are making a right turn on RED from Tara Hill Dr to Appian way. A bright lighted sign would be helpful in getting the driver's attention Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
7yhi7j49jcv3 152 POINT (‐122.302473 37.995165) Y Tara Hills Dr Tara Hills Dr/Canyon Dr People are making a right turn on RED from Tara Hill Dr to Appian way. A bright lighted sign would be helpful in getting the driver's attention Motor Vehicles  Lighting
359 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7yhi7j49jcv3 153 POINT (‐122.294696 37.997838) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Ridgecrest Rd Drivers are not always stopping at the Three‐way stop. I have had to be extra careful of non‐stopping drivers.  Maybe a stopsign warning sign 200‐300 feet would alert the driver and hopefully get a positive reaction. I have seen many times drivers make a right onto Henry Ave from Ridgecrest without stopping, I would hate to be the person crossing the street Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
7yhi7j49jcv3 153 POINT (‐122.294696 37.997838) Y Henry Ave Henry Ave/Ridgecrest Rd Drivers are not always stopping at the Three‐way stop. I have had to be extra careful of non‐stopping drivers.  Maybe a stopsign warning sign 200‐300 feet would alert the driver and hopefully get a positive reaction. I have seen many times drivers make a right onto Henry Ave from Ridgecrest without stopping, I would hate to be the person crossing the street Pedestrian  Speeding
3f8vw33j2a74 154 POINT (‐122.291617 38.006609) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/Park St Drivers traveling northbound on Tennent ave. often do not see pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk from Park st. towards Fernandez park. I have almost been hit two times while legally crossing in the crosswalk and have seen dozens of cars completely roll through the stop sign without looking left. I think it’s because drivers are bad at three way stops, four way stops they look both ways, but for some reason at three way stops they don’t look left/right. I suggest better signage for pedestrians with a button to trigger flashing lights, like many towns/cities have.

Pedestrian  Speeding
3f8vw33j2a74 154 POINT (‐122.291617 38.006609) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/Park St Drivers traveling northbound on Tennent ave. often do not see pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk from Park st. towards Fernandez park. I have almost been hit two times while legally crossing in the crosswalk and have seen dozens of cars completely roll through the stop sign without looking left. I think it’s because drivers are bad at three way stops, four way stops they look both ways, but for some reason at three way stops they don’t look left/right. I suggest better signage for pedestrians with a button to trigger flashing lights, like many towns/cities have.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
29ep2c23i9f3 155 POINT (‐122.288178 38.00408) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Pedestrian Safety Issue: Limited visibility for pedestrians/bikers crossing the street from the Pinole Creek Bridge side. Cars speeding down Pinole Valley Road add to this concern.

Pedestrian  Speeding
29ep2c23i9f3 155 POINT (‐122.288178 38.00408) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Pedestrian Safety Issue: Limited visibility for pedestrians/bikers crossing the street from the Pinole Creek Bridge side. Cars speeding down Pinole Valley Road add to this concern.

Pedestrian  Visibility
4sn7psp7vbi7 156 POINT (‐122.289997 38.00424) N Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave No stop sign to allow families to cross the street safely or flashing lights to let speeding cars know there are kids in the crosswalk. It’s so close to the school and I’ve personally have had close encounters with speeding cars while trying to cross.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
4sn7psp7vbi7 156 POINT (‐122.289997 38.00424) N Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave No stop sign to allow families to cross the street safely or flashing lights to let speeding cars know there are kids in the crosswalk. It’s so close to the school and I’ve personally have had close encounters with speeding cars while trying to cross.

Pedestrian  Speeding
2hu6886xex87 157 POINT (‐122.270208 37.981354) Y San Pablo Ave Savage Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd  Speeding traffic at crosswalk to PV Park Pedestrian  Speeding 2hu6886xex87 158 POINT (‐122.308003 38.005169) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Uncontrolled Crosswalk makes crossing the street very dangerous Pedestrian  Speeding 2hu6886xex87 159 POINT (‐122.298553 38.004345) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave Southbound Pinion needs its own through light, northbound Appian  left turn lane is uncontrolled Pedestrian  Lighting 2hu6886xex87 159 POINT (‐122.298553 38.004345) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave  Southbound Pinion needs its own through light, northbound Appian  left turn lane is uncontrolled Motor Vehicles  Lighting 6s9tar3hd93a 160 POINT (‐122.285795 37.994288) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Lord help anyone trying to get out of this center if anything happens Pedestrian  Speeding 360 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6s9tar3hd93a 160 POINT (‐122.285795 37.994288) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Lord help anyone trying to get out of this center if anything happens Motor Vehicles  Speeding 3euu9rtd9bf4 161 POINT (‐122.308037 38.005238) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Meadow Ave A lot of times drivers don’t see pedestrians  crossing the street here.  A crosswalk alert system would be great here. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety3euu9rtd9bf4 162 POINT (‐122.299351 38.001685) Y Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Road/Appian Way This crosswalk needs lights. Or maybe even a stop sign at this intersection, people drive entirely too fast on this stretch of Appian way. I’ve nearly been hit more than once crossing the street here.

Pedestrian  Speeding
4r4uwl7bbl33 163 POINT (‐122.266025 37.982201) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/Remuda Way Making this intersection a 3‐way stop sign. There has been accidents due to poor visibility when making a left turn onto Simas Ave.

Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
4r4uwl7bbl33 163 POINT (‐122.266025 37.982201) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/Remuda Way Making this intersection a 3‐way stop sign. There has been accidents due to poor visibility when making a left turn onto Simas Ave.

Pedestrian  Curve unsafe
64v9rg926v27 164 POINT (‐122.264968 37.980188) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave The stop sign is  constantly neglected.Cars drive above the speed limit (circa 60 mph) emanating from this intersection heading out of town towards Alhambra.A few individuals use this intersection as well  as the nearby parking lot of the soccer field to spin donuts or to  have slideshow activities.  Because this location is in the heart of the valley, the toxic smoke completely blocks 100% of the visibility.  Also, the toxic smoke enters into the nearby homes creating a toxic environmental hazard.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
64v9rg926v27 165 POINT (‐122.280675 37.984808) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave The intersection of Pinole  Valley Road and Simas has a left turn only lane.  Cars continually use the left lane to continue straight on Pinole Valley Road creating a very hazardous condition as two cars must merge into one lane, in thee intersection and creates a  hazard for the vehicle that has thee right of way.   Similarly, the car that does not have the right of way is forced to move into the oncoming  traffic lane.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
64v9rg926v27 166 POINT (‐122.285744 37.996702) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/I80 The two lanes that merge into  three lanes heading towards the two freeway entrances is not very clear for many motorists. Dotted stripe through the intersection is not very visible.  Cars still battle for the center lane through the underpass.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
669tdd2m32z8 167 POINT (‐122.298568 38.004386) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave Adjust traffic light to delay Eastbound traffic (hill and blind spot) from merging into oncoming traffic going westbound and turning left onto San Pablo Ave.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
669tdd2m32z8 168 POINT (‐122.298154 38.004168) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Move the bus stop further down to the next block. Bus is obstructing visibility for oncoming traffic (numerous collisions) merging from San Pablo Ave. and Appian Way heading North.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
669tdd2m32z8 168 POINT (‐122.298154 38.004168) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Move the bus stop further down to the next block. Bus is obstructing visibility for oncoming traffic (numerous collisions) merging from San Pablo Ave. and Appian Way heading North.

Transit Visibility
3y9ddk2fls44 169 POINT (‐122.283001 38.002507) Y Alice Way  Alice Way/Henry Ave  Cars running through store sign. Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation3y9ddk2fls44 170 POINT (‐122.281762 38.003608) N Alice Way  Alice Way  Cars parking on corners block view around winding roadways Motor Vehicles  Visibility 3y9ddk2fls44 171 POINT (‐122.282992 38.001872) N Henry Ave Henry Ave Cars driving too fast on downhill around winding road often around  service vehicles Motor Vehicles  Speeding 3y9ddk2fls44 172 POINT (‐122.286703 38.00005) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Traffic back ups during commute Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 3y9ddk2fls44 173 POINT (‐122.286262 37.998288) N Pinole Valley Rd  Near Pinole Valley Rd  Line to Starbucks backs up but trying to prevent patrons going in  this way makes no sense. This is the main access for Pinole citizens Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 3y9ddk2fls44 174 POINT (‐122.286712 38.000134) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Traffic bAckip during commit hours Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 3y9ddk2fls44 175 POINT (‐122.289649 37.998897) N Henry Ave Henry Ave Increased traffic on this road since Sprouts opened. Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 3y9ddk2fls44 176 POINT (‐122.294537 37.997848) N Henry Ave Henry Ave Drivers running stop sign Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation 361 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 3y9ddk2fls44 178 POINT (‐122.293583 38.006673) N Buena Vista Dr  Buena Vista Dr People come from Emma and turn right onto Alice without stopping. There is. Curve so they cannot see oncoming cars. Lots of near misses.

Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
8vs869rub4n3 179 POINT (‐122.285627 37.995215) N Fraser Court  Pinole Valley Rd Between school letting and commuters coming from San Pablo dam road the traffic is horrible. Just about everyone blocks the intersection Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
93cpm2bt9th6 180 POINT (‐122.29076 38.005537) Y Estates Ave  Sab Pablo Ave/ Tennent Ave Pedestrians crossing north (toward Tina’s) from this corner are in the blind spot (caused by roof support at corner of windshield) of vehicles turning left from Tennant (by antlers) into northbound San Pablo Ave.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
93cpm2bt9th6 180 POINT (‐122.29076 38.005537) Y Estates Ave  Sab Pablo Ave/ Tennent Ave Pedestrians crossing north (toward Tina’s) from this corner are in the blind spot (caused by roof support at corner of windshield) of vehicles turning left from Tennant (by antlers) into northbound San Pablo Ave.

Pedestrian  Curve unsafe
2mc62nle7a49 182 POINT (‐122.289099 38.006601) Y Victor St  Pinole Valley Rd/ San Pablo Ave  Patrons running across the street and motorists attempting to park  in front of or near East Bay Coffee Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 2mc62nle7a49 183 POINT (‐122.289099 38.006484) Y Diablo Ct  Pinole Valley Rd/ San Pablo Ave Motorists rushing and patrons leaving East Bay Coffee in attempts to get to their vehicles parked across the street, in front of or nearby.  Sometimes while haphazardly walking with hot coffee and cell phone.  Dangerous intersection.

Pedestrian  Traffic Congestion
23zy2fc3wrw3 184 POINT (‐122.294925 38.006925) Y Quinan St  Summit Dr/ Buena Vista Dr No one stops at this stop sign when coming from summit to Buenavista, and many coming from Buenavista come very fast and cut the corner when entering Summit. I suggest a speed bump on the summit drive segment, two or three car‐lengths west of the Buenavista intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
23zy2fc3wrw3 184 POINT (‐122.294925 38.006925) Y Helena Ct Summit Dr/ Buena Vista Dr No one stops at this stop sign when coming from summit to Buenavista, and many coming from Buenavista come very fast and cut the corner when entering Summit. I suggest a speed bump on the summit drive segment, two or three car‐lengths west of the Buenavista intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
9zf9ce2km8i9 185 POINT (‐122.268163 37.988166) Y Shawn Dr  Tamalpais Dr/Mendocino Dr  People commonly run the stop sign. Both streets have considerable  traffic. Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation9zf9ce2km8i9 186 POINT (‐122.268257 37.990689) Y Goularte Dr Goularte Dr/Mendocino Dr People run the stop sign on Mendocino often. This is the main entrance to this major housing development, and the traffic on Goulart moves at a higher speed.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
9zf9ce2km8i9 186 POINT (‐122.268257 37.990689) Y Goularte Dr Goularte Dr/Mendocino Dr People run the stop sign on Mendocino often. This is the main entrance to this major housing development, and the traffic on Goulart moves at a higher speed.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
7ib7vp6m2cra 189 POINT (‐122.291575 38.006549) Y Tennet Avenue Tennant Ave/ Park St  Whole road is bumpy & needs to be repaved and smooth. Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition 7ib7vp6m2cra 189 POINT (‐122.291575 38.006549) Y Tennet Avenue Tennant Ave/ Park St  Whole road is bumpy & needs to be repaved and smooth. Pedestrian  Pavement Condition 7ib7vp6m2cra 189 POINT (‐122.291575 38.006549) Y Tennet Avenue Tennant Ave/ Park St  Whole road is bumpy & needs to be repaved and smooth. Bicycle  Pavement Condition 7ib7vp6m2cra 190 POINT (‐122.290335 38.004766) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Pear St Whole road is bumpy & needs to be repaved and smooth. Was paved in 2020 & I see no difference! Still bumpy and feels like ur off roading. Roads need to be straight and smooth.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
7ib7vp6m2cra 190 POINT (‐122.290335 38.004766) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Pear St Whole road is bumpy & needs to be repaved and smooth. Was paved in 2020 & I see no difference! Still bumpy and feels like ur off roading. Roads need to be straight and smooth.

Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
7ib7vp6m2cra 190 POINT (‐122.290335 38.004766) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Pear St Whole road is bumpy & needs to be repaved and smooth. Was paved in 2020 & I see no difference! Still bumpy and feels like ur off roading. Roads need to be straight and smooth.

Bicycle  Pavement Condition
7ib7vp6m2cra 191 POINT (‐122.28571 37.995634) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Potholes in this intersection. Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition 7ib7vp6m2cra 191 POINT (‐122.28571 37.995634) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Potholes in this intersection. Pedestrian  Pavement Condition 7ib7vp6m2cra 191 POINT (‐122.28571 37.995634) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Potholes in this intersection. Bicycle  Pavement Condition 7ib7vp6m2cra 192 POINT (‐122.285685 37.996662) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Again road is bumpy with potholes. Don’t understand why Pinole roads are bumpy and not smooth as other cities (Walnut Creek for example) Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
362 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7ib7vp6m2cra 192 POINT (‐122.285685 37.996662) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Again road is bumpy with potholes. Don’t understand why Pinole roads are bumpy and not smooth as other cities (Walnut Creek for example) Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
7ib7vp6m2cra 192 POINT (‐122.285685 37.996662) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Again road is bumpy with potholes. Don’t understand why Pinole roads are bumpy and not smooth as other cities (Walnut Creek for example) Bicycle  Pavement Condition
6ba4y6opk2k6 193 POINT (‐122.276051 37.985689) N Simas Ave Simas Ave Many vehicles rush through this stop sign without stopping. There is a daycare on Simas and I walk everyday morning at 8am and evening at 5:30pm to drop off and pick up my children. There are numerous instances where the vehicles drive past without stopping. I was almost hit twice while walking across the street within the parameters of the street walking lines. Please put a blinking stop sign here.

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
6ba4y6opk2k6 194 POINT (‐122.270093 37.981367) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light or timed street light for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Lighting
6ba4y6opk2k6 194 POINT (‐122.270093 37.981367) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light or timed street light for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Speeding
6ba4y6opk2k6 194 POINT (‐122.270093 37.981367) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light or timed street light for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6ba4y6opk2k6 195 POINT (‐122.268015 37.981482) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Monte Verde Dr This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light along the walking paint for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Lighting
6ba4y6opk2k6 195 POINT (‐122.268015 37.981482) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Monte Verde Dr This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light along the walking paint for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Speeding
6ba4y6opk2k6 195 POINT (‐122.268015 37.981482) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Monte Verde Dr This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light along the walking paint for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6ba4y6opk2k6 196 POINT (‐122.266493 37.981153) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light along the walking paint for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Lighting
6ba4y6opk2k6 196 POINT (‐122.266493 37.981153) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light along the walking paint for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Speeding
363 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6ba4y6opk2k6 196 POINT (‐122.266493 37.981153) Y Simas Ave Simas Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd This is a highly footed traffic area for walkers, joggers and those going to the park. The vehicles crossing Pinole Valley Road often drive too fast and do not stop even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross. Please put in a flashing light along the walking paint for pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
7ms8rtp7mfx8 197 POINT (‐122.299327 38.001664) N Appian Way Appain Way This area needs flashing lights or something to alert drivers someone needs to cross. I've witnessed multiple people almost get hit here.

Pedestrian  Lighting
7ms8rtp7mfx8 198 POINT (‐122.302143 37.993501) N Appian Way Appain Way Something needs to be done to protect this guardrail from having cars hit it and go off onto the freeway. Over the years it's happened numerous times and just fixed back the way it was before someone hit it.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
8esa7ycn8r76 199 POINT (‐122.285856 37.996838) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  People from the right straight line merging into turning lane Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe 8esa7ycn8r76 200 POINT (‐122.287752 37.989841) N Shea Dr  Shea Dr  Stop sign needed for kids to cross Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 2j47fxg2tw77 201 POINT (‐122.28325 37.986611) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd A large pickup‐truck with trailer is consistently parked here with an additional trailer a few houses down from this location.  Trailers are often times filled with junk.  Other than giving the neighborhood a trashy look obscure the view for people trying to enter traffic safely.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
2j47fxg2tw77 201 POINT (‐122.28325 37.986611) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd A large pickup‐truck with trailer is consistently parked here with an additional trailer a few houses down from this location.  Trailers are often times filled with junk.  Other than giving the neighborhood a trashy look obscure the view for people trying to enter traffic safely.

Motor Vehicles  Large Trucks
4t3ukz7yzl63 202 POINT (‐122.28666 38.00467) N Fraser Court  Fraser Court If Linda Heights needs to be evacuated in an emergency, this gate should be able to be opened REMOTELY from the Pinole Dispatch center providing an additional pathway to safety.

Pedestrian  Pavement Condition
4vb6kox2pyb8 204 POINT (‐122.285741 37.996961) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd The on‐/off‐ramps intersection is not efficient. It is the choke‐point and causes back‐up all the way to Ramona during some parts of the day. Need a right‐turn lane onto EB 80. Better signage/lane striping for getting into the two left turn lanes to WB 80 from one lane. Drivers don’t always understand there are two left‐turn lanes and don’t go through the intersection when one lane is full (and one open).

Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
4vb6kox2pyb8 204 POINT (‐122.285741 37.996961) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd The on‐/off‐ramps intersection is not efficient. It is the choke‐point and causes back‐up all the way to Ramona during some parts of the day. Need a right‐turn lane onto EB 80. Better signage/lane striping for getting into the two left turn lanes to WB 80 from one lane. Drivers don’t always understand there are two left‐turn lanes and don’t go through the intersection when one lane is full (and one open).

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
4vb6kox2pyb8 205 POINT (‐122.285774 37.995608) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Estates Ave Left turn pocket to Estates Ave fills up. One problem is that drivers often don’t pull forward far enough, thus drivers can’t get into the left turn pocket and wait in the though‐lane, backing it up. Can you add signage that tells drivers to pull forward in the left turn pocket? Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
4vb6kox2pyb8 205 POINT (‐122.285774 37.995608) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Estates Ave Left turn pocket to Estates Ave fills up. One problem is that drivers often don’t pull forward far enough, thus drivers can’t get into the left turn pocket and wait in the though‐lane, backing it up. Can you add signage that tells drivers to pull forward in the left turn pocket? Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
4vb6kox2pyb8 206 POINT (‐122.286486 37.997745) Y Pinole Valley Rd  Pinole Valley Rd  The red‐light running through‐out the city is out of control. Need to  crack down. Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation 364 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 4vb6kox2pyb8 207 POINT (‐122.284907 37.988841) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Granagda Ct Need to eliminate the new left‐turn pockets to Shea and Granada. These lanes take up too much road width. There is no shoulder and the through traffic is too close to pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
6hkm7ndf9xg3 209 POINT (‐122.283016 37.994249) N Estates Ave  Estates Ave There is a light pole but no street light at this point on Estates Ave. There is a speed bump close to it. Having a street light on theelectric pole will make it easier to see the speed bump.

Motor Vehicles  Lighting
6hkm7ndf9xg3 209 POINT (‐122.283016 37.994249) N Estates Ave  Estates Ave There is a light pole but no street light at this point on Estates Ave. There is a speed bump close to it. Having a street light on theelectric pole will make it easier to see the speed bump.

Motor Vehicles  Visibility
69l8e2wkl9xa 210 POINT (‐122.298493 38.004317) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave There are no turn lights and we live in the area off of Piñon. We almost get hit everytime we drive straight onto Appian so please put in a turn light arrow in both directions on the Appian, Piñon axis. There is one on San Pablo in both directions but the Piñon Appian drive is risking our lives daily.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
69l8e2wkl9xa 210 POINT (‐122.298493 38.004317) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Ave/San Pablo Ave There are no turn lights and we live in the area off of Piñon. We almost get hit everytime we drive straight onto Appian so please put in a turn light arrow in both directions on the Appian, Piñon axis. There is one on San Pablo in both directions but the Piñon Appian drive is risking our lives daily.

Pedestrian  Lighting
4gt6bk8jad44 211 POINT (‐122.264987 37.98026) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave NO ONE stops at this stop sign at the corner of Wright Avenue and PV Road. Very dangerous for pedestrians crossing the street here because it is a blind corner.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
2o9jxz7dcx39 212 POINT (‐122.285726 37.995749) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Very poorly designed intersection with many people ignoring traffic laws to yield to uphill traffic and not turn left towards I‐80 in front of traffic coming downhill on Estates. All directions continuously block intersection/run red lights, etc and do not utilize the middle lane under I=80 for left turn, instead blocking the intersection Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation
2o9jxz7dcx39 212 POINT (‐122.285726 37.995749) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Very poorly designed intersection with many people ignoring traffic laws to yield to uphill traffic and not turn left towards I‐80 in front of traffic coming downhill on Estates. All directions continuously block intersection/run red lights, etc and do not utilize the middle lane under I=80 for left turn, instead blocking the intersection Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
2o9jxz7dcx39 212 POINT (‐122.285726 37.995749) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Very poorly designed intersection with many people ignoring traffic laws to yield to uphill traffic and not turn left towards I‐80 in front of traffic coming downhill on Estates. All directions continuously block intersection/run red lights, etc and do not utilize the middle lane under I=80 for left turn, instead blocking the intersection Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
2o9jxz7dcx39 213 POINT (‐122.265381 37.98035) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd constant stop sign runners, if area were more frequently patrolled and up Wright ave at Carol St., same thing. Ticketing income would triple if stop sign runs and speeders were tagged.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
2o9jxz7dcx39 214 POINT (‐122.301025 37.991931) Y I80 I80/Appain Way People not realizing both right lanes turn onto I‐80 and trying to cut you off making the Fitzgerald left turn and pushing into the far right I‐80 entrance land, there are two lanes for this.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
2o9jxz7dcx39 215 POINT (‐122.277733 37.993458) N Ponderosa Trail Ponderosa Trail more trespassing than traffic. .our HOA had the curb at top of Ponderosa Trail painted red to avoid loiterers there and we arealways seeing people parked up there, not just to quickly enjoy the sunset, but eating, doing whatever, and dumping their trash & fast food garbage on our HOA property.

Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
99mkf6cn7fz3 216 POINT (‐122.284057 37.98735) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Too much speeding.   Have witnessed drivers going past cars on the right side of the road near the sidewalk, while speeding down Pinole Valley Road and running the Red Lights.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
365 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 99mkf6cn7fz3 218 POINT (‐122.259505 37.980467) N Doidge Ave Doidge Ave Speeding and running the Stop Sign Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation99mkf6cn7fz3 218 POINT (‐122.259505 37.980467) N Doidge Ave Doidge Ave Speeding and running the Stop Sign Motor Vehicles  Speeding 99mkf6cn7fz3 218 POINT (‐122.259505 37.980467) N Doidge Ave Doidge Ave Speeding and running the Stop Sign Motor Vehicles  Speeding99mkf6cn7fz3 219 POINT (‐122.260906 37.984169) N Victor St  Victor St  Too much speeding on Wright Avenue.   Cars not stopping for Stop  Signs Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation 99mkf6cn7fz3 220 POINT (‐122.275076 37.986182) N Diablo Ct  Diablo Ct  Speeding Motor Vehicles  Speeding99mkf6cn7fz3 221 POINT (‐122.283974 38.009555) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  Too much speeding and cutting in and out of traffic without regard  for the other cars Motor Vehicles  Speeding 8wl878dnw7b8 223 POINT (‐122.292689 38.006618) N Quinan St  Quinan St  No traffic related concern but road needs to be repaved, rough  pavement. Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition 8wl878dnw7b8 224 POINT (‐122.285959 37.996548) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/I80 Right turn NEEDS to be a “NO TURN ON RED” I have seen too many accidents here due too the fact at traffic turning right into Pinole valley rd exiting I‐80 E cannot see oncoming traffic from the left side of Pinole valley Rd.

Motor Vehicles  Curve Unsafe
8fi8bee7wop6 225 POINT (‐122.301475 37.9973) Y Appian Way Appian Way/ Mann Drive The addition of WCMS to pinole middle school has created traffic congestion.  We need help reworking the turn signal to Mann Dr and adding crosswalks closer to the school Motor Vehicles  School Safety
8fi8bee7wop6 225 POINT (‐122.301475 37.9973) Y Appian Way Appian Way/ Mann Drive The addition of WCMS to pinole middle school has created traffic congestion.  We need help reworking the turn signal to Mann Dr and adding crosswalks closer to the school Motor Vehicles  Lighting
7iv6mhh6rlc4 226 POINT (‐122.285511 37.995942) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  No bike lanes, lots of cars pulling in and out of shopping areas  without checking for bikes Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7iv6mhh6rlc4 227 POINT (‐122.286006 37.99718) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Difficult and dangerous to navigate on a bike Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7iv6mhh6rlc4 228 POINT (‐122.287366 38.001516) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  No bike lane, only one travel lane and cars often parked on the curb  forcing bikes into the travel lane Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7iv6mhh6rlc4 229 POINT (‐122.288159 38.004499) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Cars going fast, cars parked in shoulder forcing bikes into the travel  lane Bicycle  Speeding 7iv6mhh6rlc4 229 POINT (‐122.288159 38.004499) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Cars going fast, cars parked in shoulder forcing bikes into the travel  lane Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7iv6mhh6rlc4 230 POINT (‐122.28794 38.007316) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/John St  No bike lane Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7iv6mhh6rlc4 231 POINT (‐122.286181 38.008343) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  No bike lane, this is practically a highway with wide lanes and cars  traveling at high speeds Bicycle  Speeding 7iv6mhh6rlc4 231 POINT (‐122.286181 38.008343) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  No bike lane, this is practically a highway with wide lanes and cars  traveling at high speeds Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7iv6mhh6rlc4 232 POINT (‐122.279678 38.011713) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  Extremely narrow bike lane often with debris, this is practically a  highway with wide lanes and cars traveling at high speeds Motor Vehicles  Road too Narrow 7iv6mhh6rlc4 232 POINT (‐122.279678 38.011713) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  Extremely narrow bike lane often with debris, this is practically a  highway with wide lanes and cars traveling at high speeds Motor Vehicles  Speeding 7iv6mhh6rlc4 233 POINT (‐122.298628 37.986998) N Appian Way Appian Way  cars parked in shoulder forcing bikes into the travel lane Bicycle  Speeding7iv6mhh6rlc4 233 POINT (‐122.298628 37.986998) N Appian Way Appian Way  cars parked in shoulder forcing bikes into the travel lane Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7r8eh79328n8 234 POINT (‐122.301784 37.997486) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr There is so much foot and car traffic here due to two schools at the same site. There needs to be crosswalks put in across from the entries into the school on Mann Dr. There also needs to be moreparking available along appian way. There is a huge congestion and safety issue here.

Pedestrian  School Safety
7r8eh79328n8 234 POINT (‐122.301784 37.997486) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr There is so much foot and car traffic here due to two schools at the same site. There needs to be crosswalks put in across from the entries into the school on Mann Dr. There also needs to be moreparking available along appian way. There is a huge congestion and safety issue here.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
46v49672tud8 235 POINT (‐122.303612 37.998062) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr  Should not allow cars turning left into driveway from Mann ‐ should  be one way traffic into school driveway Motor Vehicles  School Safety 46v49672tud8 236 POINT (‐122.302433 37.997557) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr  Need a crosswalk and consistent timed crossing for pedestrians, cars on Mann, and cars coming out of school driveway Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety8m9344atn2r8 237 POINT (‐122.28205 37.985858) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Speeding/drag racing Motor Vehicles  Speeding 366 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6k8i2agw6ha3 238 POINT (‐122.260168 37.978155) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Speeding, cars passing each other by crossing over the double yellow line, this is a major bike and pedestrian route and people are at risk,  property damage resulting from vehicle accidents, large industrial size trucks use this small country road that is not designed to handle the heavy loads causing the ground to shudder as they go by resulting in property damage to the homes adjacent to the street.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
6k8i2agw6ha3 238 POINT (‐122.260168 37.978155) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Speeding, cars passing each other by crossing over the double yellow line, this is a major bike and pedestrian route and people are at risk,  property damage resulting from vehicle accidents, large industrial size trucks use this small country road that is not designed to handle the heavy loads causing the ground to shudder as they go by resulting in property damage to the homes adjacent to the street.

Motor Vehicles  Indusrial Safety
6k8i2agw6ha3 238 POINT (‐122.260168 37.978155) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Speeding, cars passing each other by crossing over the double yellow line, this is a major bike and pedestrian route and people are at risk,  property damage resulting from vehicle accidents, large industrial size trucks use this small country road that is not designed to handle the heavy loads causing the ground to shudder as they go by resulting in property damage to the homes adjacent to the street.

Motor Vehicles  Large Trucks
97pln2uj3gv6 239 POINT (‐122.284787 37.988641) N Helena Ct Helena Ct Huge safety concern. There is a utility pole in the middle of the sidewalk. It blocks wheelchairs users and they cannot access the sidewalk cutout. This obstacle causes the wheelchair user to have to drive in the street.

Pedestrian  Visibility
97pln2uj3gv6 240 POINT (‐122.28485 37.989361) N Estrella Ct  Estrella Ct Dangerous safety concern regarding accessibility for wheelchairusers. There is a utility pole in the middle of the sidewalk. This obstacle results in the wheelchair user having to drive in the street and not being able to access the sidewalk cutout.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
97pln2uj3gv6 240 POINT (‐122.28485 37.989361) N Estrella Ct  Estrella Ct Dangerous safety concern regarding accessibility for wheelchairusers. There is a utility pole in the middle of the sidewalk. This obstacle results in the wheelchair user having to drive in the street and not being able to access the sidewalk cutout.

Pedestrian  Visibility
67jhi3p7z7sa 241 POINT (‐122.289988 38.004299) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Plum St There is a school on Plum street, it is very busy during mornings and afternoon. Cars DO NOT stop for the parents or kids. There needs to be a stop sign or flashing lights installed to help pedestrians cross the street. Cars speed down Tennent, something needs ti be donein order to prevent a horrible accident from happening. This area also needs to be policed in the mornings. The parentsdisregard the No Left turn and tickets need to be issued. This causes a bigger traffic jam with parents not following the No left turn on Plum during morning and afternoon hours of school.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
67jhi3p7z7sa 241 POINT (‐122.289988 38.004299) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Plum St There is a school on Plum street, it is very busy during mornings and afternoon. Cars DO NOT stop for the parents or kids. There needs to be a stop sign or flashing lights installed to help pedestrians cross the street. Cars speed down Tennent, something needs ti be donein order to prevent a horrible accident from happening.

This area also needs to be policed in the mornings. The parentsdisregard the No Left turn and tickets need to be issued. This causes a bigger traffic jam with parents not following the No left turn on Plum during morning and afternoon hours of school.

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
367 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 67jhi3p7z7sa 241 POINT (‐122.289988 38.004299) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Plum St There is a school on Plum street, it is very busy during mornings and afternoon. Cars DO NOT stop for the parents or kids. There needs to be a stop sign or flashing lights installed to help pedestrians cross the street. Cars speed down Tennent, something needs ti be donein order to prevent a horrible accident from happening. This area also needs to be policed in the mornings. The parentsdisregard the No Left turn and tickets need to be issued. This causes a bigger traffic jam with parents not following the No left turn on Plum during morning and afternoon hours of school.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
67jhi3p7z7sa 241 POINT (‐122.289988 38.004299) Y Tennet Avenue Tennent Ave/ Plum St There is a school on Plum street, it is very busy during mornings and afternoon. Cars DO NOT stop for the parents or kids. There needs to be a stop sign or flashing lights installed to help pedestrians cross the street. Cars speed down Tennent, something needs ti be donein order to prevent a horrible accident from happening. This area also needs to be policed in the mornings. The parentsdisregard the No Left turn and tickets need to be issued. This causes a bigger traffic jam with parents not following the No left turn on Plum during morning and afternoon hours of school.

Pedestrian  Stop Sign Violation
72o6jo9l7jtf 243 POINT (‐122.308652 37.995403) N Shawn Dr  Shawn Dr Please put a stop sign at Kildare Way and Shawn Dr. Shawn Dr. and Kildare Way is very dangerous for pedestrians to cross because cars are speeding on Shawn Dr. from both directions. There is also a hill that tops at the next intersection (Cornelius Dr. and Shawn Dr.) and when at the corner of Kildare Way and Shawn Dr, you are not able to see the incoming car because the hill creates a blind spot. By the time you notice the car, it is too late since that block is so short and people speed down that short hill. Cars also speed on Shawn Dr. coming from the corner of Tara Hills and Shawn Dr. By the time they reach Shawn Dr. and Kildare Way,cars have reached high speeds and since there are some bushy trees from homes, you are not able to see the car until you have stepped into the street. Having a stop sign will protect the pedestrians, pets and other drivers crossing Shawn Dr. My neighbor’s dog got run over on that intersection. Please put a stop sign at Kildare and Shawn.

Pedestrian  Speeding
368 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 72o6jo9l7jtf 243 POINT (‐122.308652 37.995403) N Shawn Dr  Shawn Dr Please put a stop sign at Kildare Way and Shawn Dr. Shawn Dr. and Kildare Way is very dangerous for pedestrians to cross because cars are speeding on Shawn Dr. from both directions. There is also a hill that tops at the next intersection (Cornelius Dr. and Shawn Dr.) and when at the corner of Kildare Way and Shawn Dr, you are not able to see the incoming car because the hill creates a blind spot. By the time you notice the car, it is too late since that block is so short and people speed down that short hill. Cars also speed on Shawn Dr. coming from the corner of Tara Hills and Shawn Dr. By the time they reach Shawn Dr. and Kildare Way,cars have reached high speeds and since there are some bushy trees from homes, you are not able to see the car until you have stepped into the street. Having a stop sign will protect the pedestrians, pets and other drivers crossing Shawn Dr. My neighbor’s dog got run over on that intersection. Please put a stop sign at Kildare and Shawn.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
72o6jo9l7jtf 245 POINT (‐122.308779 37.99546) Y Shawn Dr  Shawn Dr/Kildare Way Please put a stop sign at the corner of Kildare way and Shawn Dr. Cars speed coming from both directions on Shawn Dr.   There is also a blind spot at this intersection because you are not able to see the cars coming from Cornelius and Shawn Dr. since the hill tops off at that intersection. By the time you see the car, it is too late and it’s already almost halfway down the block. There are bushy trees on the other direction of Shawn Dr. so you are not able to see the cars coming from Tara Hills on Shawn Dr. My neighbor’s pet got run over at Kildare Way and Shawn Dr. Please make this corner safe for residents and pets. Please put a stop sign at Kildare Way and Shawn Dr.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
72o6jo9l7jtf 245 POINT (‐122.308779 37.99546) Y Shawn Dr  Shawn Dr/Kildare Way Please put a stop sign at the corner of Kildare way and Shawn Dr. Cars speed coming from both directions on Shawn Dr.   There is also a blind spot at this intersection because you are not able to see the cars coming from Cornelius and Shawn Dr. since the hill tops off at that intersection. By the time you see the car, it is too late and it’s already almost halfway down the block. There are bushy trees on the other direction of Shawn Dr. so you are not able to see the cars coming from Tara Hills on Shawn Dr. My neighbor’s pet got run over at Kildare Way and Shawn Dr. Please make this corner safe for residents and pets. Please put a stop sign at Kildare Way and Shawn Dr.

Pedestrian  Speeding
873b8yxj4t7a 246 POINT (‐122.30268 38.001618) N Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Rd  More street lighting on Marlesta Rd as it is very poor Motor Vehicles  Lighting 873b8yxj4t7a 246 POINT (‐122.30268 38.001618) N Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Rd  More street lighting on Marlesta Rd as it is very poor Pedestrian  Lighting 873b8yxj4t7a 247 POINT (‐122.306625 38.002599) Y Patrick Dr Patrick Dr/ Nob Hill Ave More street lighting and STOP signs on Nob Hill Pedestrian  Lighting 32sfy49fo9m9 248 POINT (‐122.303085 37.997833) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr Pinole Middle School + West County Mandarin School: dangerous conditions particularly in morning when children are arriving at school.  Heavy traffic, motorists in a hurry, poor visibility.  Area needs traffic calming urgently Pedestrian  Speeding
32sfy49fo9m9 248 POINT (‐122.303085 37.997833) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr Pinole Middle School + West County Mandarin School: dangerous conditions particularly in morning when children are arriving at school.  Heavy traffic, motorists in a hurry, poor visibility.  Area needs traffic calming urgently
Pedestrian  Visibility
32sfy49fo9m9 248 POINT (‐122.303085 37.997833) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr Pinole Middle School + West County Mandarin School: dangerous conditions particularly in morning when children are arriving at school.  Heavy traffic, motorists in a hurry, poor visibility.  Area needs traffic calming urgently Pedestrian  School Safety
369 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 32sfy49fo9m9 248 POINT (‐122.303085 37.997833) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr Pinole Middle School + West County Mandarin School: dangerous conditions particularly in morning when children are arriving at school.  Heavy traffic, motorists in a hurry, poor visibility.  Area needs traffic calming urgently Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
32sfy49fo9m9 249 POINT (‐122.301868 37.997537) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr  Pinole Middle: Dangerous area with many children on foot.  Needs  traffic calming Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety32sfy49fo9m9 249 POINT (‐122.301868 37.997537) N Mann Dr  Mann Dr  Pinole Middle: Dangerous area with many children on foot.  Needs  traffic calming Pedestrian  School Safety 7hx8pib76hw4 250 POINT (‐122.280163 37.984315) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  no bike lane or safe way for bicyclists to traverse the narrow  roadway. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7hx8pib76hw4 250 POINT (‐122.280163 37.984315) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  no bike lane or safe way for bicyclists to traverse the narrow  roadway. Bicycle  Road too Narrow7hx8pib76hw4 251 POINT (‐122.277183 37.982412) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  no shoulder for bicyclists. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7hx8pib76hw4 251 POINT (‐122.277183 37.982412) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  no shoulder for bicyclists. Bicycle  Road too Narrow 7hx8pib76hw4 252 POINT (‐122.264163 37.979282) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  vegetation overgrown and not safe for bicyclists to pass without  riding in the roadway. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7hx8pib76hw4 253 POINT (‐122.270645 37.981057) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  why does the bike lane just stop?  There are no bike lane markings  at all east to the city limits. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7hx8pib76hw4 254 POINT (‐122.293283 38.00421) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  the blind roadway is very unsafe for bicyclists and there's no bike  lane or shoulder. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7hx8pib76hw4 255 POINT (‐122.314837 38.003129) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  hillside falling onto and over the sidewalk.  Makes it unsafe for  pedestrians to use the sidewalk. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety7hx8pib76hw4 256 POINT (‐122.306058 38.004827) N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  neglected service access panels on the sidewalk.  It's not flat and is  a significant trip hazard. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety8tc832s9zcm8 257 POINT (‐122.285696 37.994281) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd People making unprotected lefts out of the parking lot.  This should probably be a right turn only out of the parking lot and or if lefts are wanted to be allowed you probably need a light here.

Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
8tc832s9zcm8 258 POINT (‐122.285526 37.993161) N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Unprotected lefts out of the parking lot.  This also should be a right  turn only out of the parking lot. Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe 8tc832s9zcm8 259 POINT (‐122.273701 37.987425) N Tamalpais Dr Tamalpais Dr People go zooming up and down this part of Tamalpais sometimes going about 35‐40 mph despite this being a residential neighborhood.  I've seen a few near misses.  Wondering if a speed bump or two might be helpful.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
9zg6der37zr9 260 POINT (‐122.265004 37.980147) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave  No one ever stops at this stop sign and it’s right near a park Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation9voz4dri4s99 262 POINT (‐122.289457 38.006383) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd  I think it would be really helpful to have a crosswalk here for the  path! Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 8nt3nf92ind7 263 POINT (‐122.28907 38.006442) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd Because there is no turn lane here or at Tennent Avenue, peoplecoming down to Pablo Avenue from Hercules speed around this corner to get in front of cars coming up the hill toward Hercules. I have almost been hit in this crosswalk over a dozen  times. One gentleman decided to park and get out and curse me out for being in the crosswalk when I had the light. People do not pay attention and they are always speeding. If there is anyway to make a designated turn lane here or at Tennett Avenue on San Pablo Ave., it would greatly reduce the amount of quick turns people make without looking for pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Pedestrian  Speeding
370 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 8nt3nf92ind7 263 POINT (‐122.28907 38.006442) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd Because there is no turn lane here or at Tennent Avenue, peoplecoming down to Pablo Avenue from Hercules speed around this corner to get in front of cars coming up the hill toward Hercules. I have almost been hit in this crosswalk over a dozen  times. One gentleman decided to park and get out and curse me out for being in the crosswalk when I had the light. People do not pay attention and they are always speeding. If there is anyway to make a designated turn lane here or at Tennett Avenue on San Pablo Ave., it would greatly reduce the amount of quick turns people make without looking for pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6r8efo7nee48 264 POINT (‐122.28914 38.006584) Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd  A left turn arrow on to Pinole Valley Road from San Pablo would be  nice. Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety4ob3dua2scc9 265 POINT (‐122.310899 38.000538) Y  Marlesta Rd Local Road/ Marlesta Rd This area needs better school zone safety. People often speed  through the stop signs. Motor Vehicles  Speeding 4ob3dua2scc9 265 POINT (‐122.310899 38.000538) Y  Marlesta Rd Local Road/ Marlesta Rd This area needs better school zone safety. People often speed  through the stop signs. Motor Vehicles  School Safety 4ob3dua2scc9 266 POINT (‐122.29935 38.001667) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd This area needs a safer way for pedestrians to cross. Possibly traffic light for when some is there to safely make it. Theirs often people speeding down the hill.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
4ob3dua2scc9 266 POINT (‐122.29935 38.001667) Y Appian Way Appian Way/Marlesta Rd This area needs a safer way for pedestrians to cross. Possibly traffic light for when some is there to safely make it. Theirs often people speeding down the hill.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
8zf9nal6dzr9 267 POINT (‐122.25755 37.981936) Y Doidge Ave Doidge Ave/Victor St  People always run these stop signs. There are a lot of young  children in this neighborhood and it’s a safety concern. Motor Vehicles  School Safety 8zf9nal6dzr9 267 POINT (‐122.25755 37.981936) Y Doidge Ave Doidge Ave/Victor St  People always run these stop signs. There are a lot of young  children in this neighborhood and it’s a safety concern. Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation8zf9nal6dzr9 268 POINT (‐122.265012 37.980134) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave  People always run the stop signs here on PV Road and Wright Ave both coming from the backroads and coming from town. Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation8zf9nal6dzr9 268 POINT (‐122.265012 37.980134) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave  People always run the stop signs here on PV Road and Wright Ave both coming from the backroads and coming from town. Motor Vehicles  School Safety 4tm3uf87lf86 270 POINT (‐122.271753 37.985247) Y Alhambra Way Alhambra Way/ Moraga Dr  There is no stop sign at this intersection which means right of way is  confusing and potentially dangerous. Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety 4tm3uf87lf86 271 POINT (‐122.268912 37.981543) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Monte Vista Dr I would recommend another pedestrian crosswalk here as many go to the fields from here and cross PVR here which is dangerous given the speed of the cars on PVR.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
4tm3uf87lf86 272 POINT (‐122.267942 37.981487) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Monte Vista Dr I would suggest a Stop Sign here to slow down the traffic on PVR. Given how popular this park is there is a lot of pedestrian foot traffic and children and the cars on PVR go much too fast to stop.

Pedestrian  Speeding
4tm3uf87lf86 272 POINT (‐122.267942 37.981487) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Monte Vista Dr I would suggest a Stop Sign here to slow down the traffic on PVR. Given how popular this park is there is a lot of pedestrian foot traffic and children and the cars on PVR go much too fast to stop.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
4tm3uf87lf86 273 POINT (‐122.271933 37.980804) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd At the end of Adobe Road is the dog park so a lot of foot traffic. However, there are a few dangerous aspects of this intersection. There is no sidewalk on the Firehouse/Adobe Road side of PVR. So if you're walking you have to cross PVR here which is difficult. Could there be a pedestrian cross walk here? Or a sidewalk built? Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
9bo2ra3gl9v6 274 POINT (‐122.264378 37.979595) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars don’t stop at stop signs, speeding Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation9bo2ra3gl9v6 274 POINT (‐122.264378 37.979595) Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Cars don’t stop at stop signs, speeding Motor Vehicles  Speeding 371 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6cv4nd8bfh98 275 POINT (‐122.264735 37.98035) y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave Curbs need to be red just in first half‐ block as children & Pedestrians frequently cross to head to out ball field, soccer field & climbing structure parks, so when cars are parked it’s hard to see; cars coming down Doidge must pull way out to see due to angle and parked cars. Highly recommend WestCat Bus 16 easily resume old patterns: go up Doidge here at West junction of Wright and Doidge, to again circle around at top of loop and come down Victor St for equity and ease of those in many blocks riding bus east of Wright. It’s more equitable, makes shorter walks for those with groceries… and there’s less traffic on Doidge than Wright.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6cv4nd8bfh98 276 POINT (‐122.258771 37.983233) y Wright Ave Wright Ave/Victor St Traffic ignores stop sign here Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation6cv4nd8bfh98 276 POINT (‐122.258771 37.983233) y Wright Ave Wright Ave/Doidge Ave Traffic ignores stop sign here, speeding Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 629ti2nkw6x7 1 N Sunnyview Court  Sunnyview Court  Unsafe for bicyclists Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 8sll8ck6ols3 2 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd from San Pablo to Alhambra. Cycling safety is a major concern. Perhaps lanes much like on Castro Ranch road. Green lanes and pylons for riders. Also, a stop sign at the corner of PVR and Collins Dr at Elmhurst Elementary.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
22wru8sc6awf 3 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Fitzgerald Dr and Appain Way people run the red lights. Pinole  Valley Rd ‐ people having been going at least 50mph or greater. Motor Vehicles  Speeding 22wru8sc6awf 3 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Fitzgerald Dr and Appain Way people run the red lights. Pinole  Valley Rd ‐ people having been going at least 50mph or greater. Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation 4aah7l8ezj79 4 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Speeding here is out of control.  The noise from the speeders echoes throughout the valley because this is next to the hill.  Need traffic calming and/or enforcement.  We also need a noise ordinance to curb the intentionally loud engines.

Motor Vehicles  Enforcement
4aah7l8ezj79 4 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Speeding here is out of control.  The noise from the speeders echoes throughout the valley because this is next to the hill.  Need traffic calming and/or enforcement.  We also need a noise ordinance to curb the intentionally loud engines.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
4aah7l8ezj79 5 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
The school and city made a mistake in the design of this segment of the road.  The traffic lane to too close to the sidewalk.  There is no shoulder.  The residents cant even put their garbage out at thecurb.  Consider eliminating the left turn lane to Shea Drive.

Motor Vehicles  Road too Narrow
9vza3ihm77la 6 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Sharrows are not safe enough for bikes on this stretch of road. Bikes need the dedicated lane to continue, and green paint is needed in the block approaching the freeway so that cars know to expect bikes.

Bicycle  Intersection Safety
9vza3ihm77la 6 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Sharrows are not safe enough for bikes on this stretch of road. Bikes need the dedicated lane to continue, and green paint is needed in the block approaching the freeway so that cars know to expect bikes.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
9vza3ihm77la 7 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave and Belmont Way This is an absolute death trap for cyclists in both directions. Cars are going too fast for us to not have a dedicated bike lane both directions.There are several pedestrian crossings where pedestrian crossing lights should be added that can be activated with a button press.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
372 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 9vza3ihm77la 7 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave and Belmont Way This is an absolute death trap for cyclists in both directions. Cars are going too fast for us to not have a dedicated bike lane both directions.There are several pedestrian crossings where pedestrian crossing lights should be added that can be activated with a button press.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
9vza3ihm77la 8 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
These two bike/ped path sections need to be connected more safely across San Pablo Ave. A crosswalk with distinctive paving and/or pedestrian‐activated crossing lights would increase trail usage on both sides and help businesses by enabling another safe crossing through downtown.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
9vza3ihm77la 8 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
These two bike/ped path sections need to be connected more safely across San Pablo Ave. A crosswalk with distinctive paving and/or pedestrian‐activated crossing lights would increase trail usage on both sides and help businesses by enabling another safe crossing through downtown.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
9vza3ihm77la 9 N Rail Road Ave  Rail Road Ave
This stretch isn't terrible for bikes because of the low traffic, but I think it would help downtown if the road from the EBRPD bridge and path looked a bit more appealing and welcoming into town.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
7e7487vow7s3 10 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
This area needs traffic humps. There are always cars speeding down this stretch of road and these humps  are a cost effective way to slow them.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
4om66buj4u84 11 N Marlen Court  Marlen Court
Speed. In the early AM and late PM, there are vehicles that aredriving way too fast to be within speed limits ‐ especially near Ellerhorst Elementary. There have been multiple crashes on multiple houses on this street due to speed in the past. Recommend more stop signs to slow the traffic down.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
7ive6pbx6wd3 12 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
This section of San Pablo is a defacto freeway because our freeways are clogged due to lack of available public transit. I would love to see all of San Pablo reduced to one lane of motor vehicle traffic in each direction with guarded bike lanes on each side and light rail or dedicated bus lanes in the center.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
7ive6pbx6wd3 13 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Appian Way Let's bring Pinole into a sustainable future not dependent on motor vehicles by converting some of our fast, dangerous 2 lane roads into slower moving streets with bike lanes. Offer public transit that works and give people alternatives to driving like safe lanes for commuting by bike.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
2xnf2s7d6ps6 14 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
All of San Pablo. There are tons of potholes, there aren’t sidewalks on both sides of the roads in some areas. It’s impossible to ride on the street if you’re a on a bicycle. Bike lanes are necessary Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
3o28zat2p3g8 15 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Appian Way It is difficult for both cars and pedestrians to distinguish when it is ok to cross/pass. Perhaps making the cross‐walk light up when apedestrian is crossing to increase visibility would be helpful.

Pedestrian  Visibility
3o28zat2p3g8 15 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Appian Way It is difficult for both cars and pedestrians to distinguish when it is ok to cross/pass. Perhaps making the cross‐walk light up when apedestrian is crossing to increase visibility would be helpful.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
36njo6kzp6k4 16 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave  No bike lane, no sidewalk, no shoulder. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 36njo6kzp6k4 16 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave  No bike lane, no sidewalk, no shoulder. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 36njo6kzp6k4 17 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Simas Ave  Unprotected walking path Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety36njo6kzp6k4 18 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Terrible path/trail conditions. Unsafe, usually sketchy people  hanging out Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 373 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 4i8tgz9m6e37 19 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Helena Ct for cyclists, this is incredibly dangerous as the lane narrows in such a way that it cannot accommodate both a car and a bike. It narrows on a curve. Putting in a green bike lane to tell cars that bikes can use the entire lane might be helpful. This wasn't a problem before the PVHS work.

Bicycle  Curve unsafe
4i8tgz9m6e37 19 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Helena Ct for cyclists, this is incredibly dangerous as the lane narrows in such a way that it cannot accommodate both a car and a bike. It narrows on a curve. Putting in a green bike lane to tell cars that bikes can use the entire lane might be helpful. This wasn't a problem before the PVHS work.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
4i8tgz9m6e37 20 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
for cyclists, coming from the light at the library, this is dangerous because it is narrow before the first sharrow appears. Cars do not expect bikes to be in the lane.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
4i8tgz9m6e37 20 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
for cyclists, coming from the light at the library, this is dangerous because it is narrow before the first sharrow appears. Cars do not expect bikes to be in the lane.

Bicycle  Road too Narrow
2yo73jn7cgs2 21 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Walkers cross near the fire station to get to Adobe Road. A pedestrian crosswalk should be put in this area. It might also slow down the traffic that’s headed towards the elementary school.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
2yo73jn7cgs2 21 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Walkers cross near the fire station to get to Adobe Road. A pedestrian crosswalk should be put in this area. It might also slow down the traffic that’s headed towards the elementary school.

Pedestrian  School Safety
6hp4923sya96 22 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd This intersection continues to be extremely dangerous for pedestrians. Cars that turn left from SPA (coming from Hercules) onto PVA and cars turning on to SPA from PVA often do not see pedestrians.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6hp4923sya96 23 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Pinole Valley Rd traffic speeds down the hill from Hercules and the intermittent stop light does not seem to help. Also, fast traffic on SPA going up the hill.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
2ul2y3cle3ra 24 N Appian Way Appain Way  In need of more light posts for pedestrians to walk safely once it  gets dark. Cars drive too fast down this road. Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety2ul2y3cle3ra 24 N Appian Way Appain Way  In need of more light posts for pedestrians to walk safely once it  gets dark. Cars drive too fast down this road. Pedestrian  Lighting 6e4h7c6s4w28 25 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd People seem to forget this is a neighborhood where old people live  they use it as a shortcut to get to Hercules Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety 69sm7yg94aj4 26 Y Simas Ave  Simas Ave/Moraga Dr
Kids often cross the street here to go through Amber Schwartz Park on their way to Ellerhorst Elementary School. There is a stop sign but no crosswalk. Please paint a crosswalk.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
69sm7yg94aj4 26 Y Simas Ave  Simas Ave/Moraga Dr
Kids often cross the street here to go through Amber Schwartz Park on their way to Ellerhorst Elementary School. There is a stop sign but no crosswalk. Please paint a crosswalk.

Pedestrian  School Safety
69sm7yg94aj4 27 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd There is no bike lane on this side of Pinole Valley road, yet it is the  route many students take to the high school. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 69sm7yg94aj4 28 N Shea Dr  Shea Dr  This area is not bike friendly although it is the main route from  Pinole Valley to the junior high school and shops on Fitzgerald. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 3lw7ksy4xko4 29 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
bike lane and car traffic lanes suddenly narrow and merge together with no warning ‐ suprising both the car driver and the bicyclist if they happen to be adjacent to one another at the point where this narrowing occurs.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
3lw7ksy4xko4 29 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
bike lane and car traffic lanes suddenly narrow and merge together with no warning ‐ suprising both the car driver and the bicyclist if they happen to be adjacent to one another at the point where this narrowing occurs.

Bicycle  Road too Narrow
374 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7w7sxv4c7fo9 31 Y Shea Dr  Shea Dr/ Pinole Valley Rd  Dangerous speeding traffic on Pinole Valley Road in both directions  between Shea Drive and Simas Avenue! Motor Vehicles  Speeding83kge643lwh6 32 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Helena Ct  Speed limit is 35 mph.  Please reduce the speed to 25 mph for  safety of the residents. Motor Vehicles  Speeding 3zf44722as98 34 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Collis Ave Speeding. After the stop sign at simas cars accelerate all the way down pinole valley til about the dog park. Perhaps another stop sign would slow them down.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
3zf44722as98 34 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/ Collis Ave Speeding. After the stop sign at simas cars accelerate all the way down pinole valley til about the dog park. Perhaps another stop sign would slow them down.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
7iel9gig6u93 35 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  No bike path or sidewalk Pedestrian  School Safety 7iel9gig6u93 35 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  No bike path or sidewalk Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 9f9mcf8w7778 36 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave This area is not good for pedestrians or bike riders there are no bike lanes and the sidewalks are extremely skinny. Cars speed down this road constantly despite the police speed signs they try to put every day. This city needs more walkable bike‐friendly locations that bring people into town maybe something that connects better to the bay trail Pedestrian  School Safety
9f9mcf8w7778 36 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
This area is not good for pedestrians or bike riders there are no bike lanes and the sidewalks are extremely skinny. Cars speed down this road constantly despite the police speed signs they try to put every day. This city needs more walkable bike‐friendly locations that bring people into town maybe something that connects better to the bay trail Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
7ii2ulg8uxx8 37 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  From bridge to Marlin Court and past (both directions) is like a  racetrack, resulting in many accidents Pedestrian  School Safety 7ii2ulg8uxx8 37 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  From bridge to Marlin Court and past (both directions) is like a  racetrack, resulting in many accidents Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 37vyp98xch24 39 Y Lucas Ave Lucas Ave/Ramona St Ramona St gets a lot of through traffic. Vehicles travel much to fast in this residential area (well over 25 mph). There are many walkers, runners, dog walkers, children, etc.   here every day. I'd like to see a couple of stop signs or speed bumps as well as some speed limitsignage.

Pedestrian  School Safety
37vyp98xch24 39 Y Lucas Ave Lucas Ave/Ramona St
Ramona St gets a lot of through traffic. Vehicles travel much to fast in this residential area (well over 25 mph). There are many walkers, runners, dog walkers, children, etc.   here every day. I'd like to see a couple of stop signs or speed bumps as well as some speed limitsignage.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
37vyp98xch24 40 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
All of the street markings/painting along Estates Drive needs to be redone. The speed bumps are nearly impossible to see as are anylane markings or stops at intersections! Motor Vehicles  Pavement Condition
9h2pd7e3ikv4 41 Y Tennet Avenue Tennet Ave/San Pablo Ave Speed!  Cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles!  From the Pinole Valley/Tennent split to San Pablo Ave, there is nothing to slowdown the traffic.  We live on Tennent and I sometimes clock different vehicles (my own "research") up to over 40mph.  It's dangerous (church/school crossings, fire station, bikes, etc.) and noisy.  It's also hard on the road, itself, which was finally mostly smoothed out, recently (our mini‐"earthquakes" have subsided some since vehicles at least aren't hitting potholes as they rush to beat the signal at San Pablo).  Seriously, it would greatly enhance safety AND quality of life in our little Old Town‐‐make it less like a freeway! Motor Vehicles  Speeding
9h2pd7e3ikv4 42 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Charles Ave  Speed!  Such a narrow road‐‐even mitigated by a stop sign‐‐on  which the speed limit is only a weak suggestion! Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation9h2pd7e3ikv4 42 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/ Charles Ave  Speed!  Such a narrow road‐‐even mitigated by a stop sign‐‐on  which the speed limit is only a weak suggestion! Motor Vehicles  Speeding 375 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 9h2pd7e3ikv4 43 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
Speed!  I understand that it's a major thoroughfare.  And there IS traffic mitigation (signals/electronic signage).  But I, as I shepherd my grandkids across the road to the Park, and my husband, who crosses to get to the Senior Center, are amazed at how so many cars have to brake heavily to stop or accelerate quickly when the light turns, in a big hurry to get through the Old Town area.  One feels the frustration.  Don't know the answer.  But it doesn't feel safe...

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
3ig9faw8wbj4 44 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Need for bike path/road share Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 2td4v8x8khb6 45 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  Hazardous road for walking and biking (narrow sidewalk and no  bicycle lane) Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 2td4v8x8khb6 45 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  Hazardous road for walking and biking (narrow sidewalk and no  bicycle lane) Pedestrian  School Safety 3ovo3xtr3se4 46 N Bay Farm Rd  Bay Farm Rd  Speeding traffic and cars making 'donuts' where the rubber tires  squeal and create clouds of smoke over the houses. Motor Vehicles  Donuts 8e4o7gga3949 47 N Tara Hills Dr Tara Hill Dr Very high speed traffic at all times of day. Intersection of Kildare and Tara Hills Drive used for spinning donuts. Not a safe situation when school is in session at Shannon School.

Motor Vehicles  Donuts
6tl2foa92mk4 48 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Downer St  At the entersection of Downer Street and Pinole Valley Road! Every day I see so many cars not stopping at any of the stop signs! Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation 79pdj9fk63ut 49 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Monte Verde Dr Cars do not stop at all at these crosswalks across pinole valley road right near the park and soccer field where many children and pedestrians need to cross. I have almost been hit several timeswalking my dog. We need to install flashing crosswalk lights or at least put up more reflective xwalk signs for drivers.

Pedestrian  Speeding
79pdj9fk63ut 49 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Monte Verde Dr Cars do not stop at all at these crosswalks across pinole valley road right near the park and soccer field where many children and pedestrians need to cross. I have almost been hit several timeswalking my dog. We need to install flashing crosswalk lights or at least put up more reflective xwalk signs for drivers.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
77n9emu7y7y9 50 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Cars that are going to or from San Pablo Dam Road drive way over the speed limit on this stretch of road and don't pay attention to the pedestrian crosswalks. This is especially dangerous becausethere are lots of elementary school aged and younger children who are crossing the street either to get to Ellerhorst Elementary or to get to Pinole Valley Park.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
77n9emu7y7y9 51 N Doidge Ave Doidge Ave
Cars drive way over the speed limit on this residential street, and the majority of cars don't even stop at the stop signs, they just briefly slow down.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
9twf6wbt2is9 52 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
extremely large trucks travel through this corridor to bypass the I80. This is creating seismic activity and creating dangerous situations for elementary school and high school along this route. Prospose limiting large semi trailers to certain tonnage along this route. Posting signs or speed bumps will help slow down the traffic as well.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
9twf6wbt2is9 52 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
extremely large trucks travel through this corridor to bypass the I80. This is creating seismic activity and creating dangerous situations for elementary school and high school along this route. Prospose limiting large semi trailers to certain tonnage along this route. Posting signs or speed bumps will help slow down the traffic as well.

Motor Vehicles  Large Trucks
376 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 98ije3v32f68 53 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave Area has had a problem with vehicles doing "donuts"/"sideshows"on Pinole Valley Road from Wright Ave to Taper Court. Problem has been reported repeatedly and is on‐going for the last few years. Can we get dips or speed bumps put in?
Motor Vehicles  Speeding
98ije3v32f68 53 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd/Wright Ave Area has had a problem with vehicles doing "donuts"/"sideshows"on Pinole Valley Road from Wright Ave to Taper Court. Problem has been reported repeatedly and is on‐going for the last few years. Can we get dips or speed bumps put in? Motor Vehicles  Donuts
3bf22c8rd6h4 54 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Direction: N/B PVR starting at the signal South of the E/B HY 80 on ramp. There are 2 left turn lanes getting onto W/B Hy80 and onelane going thru the intersection. During busy traffic, cars approaching the intersection (before the signal) are all trying to get into their desired lanes. Cars in the right lane, speeding up to get into the left turn lanes, and cars in the left lane trying to get into the single lane to go through the intersection. There is no transition space for either lanes. There is also a solid white line between the left lanes and the single lane, which is illegal to cross but people have to do it because there is no transition. 2nd issue is cars caught in the left turn lanes who really want to go thru the intersection, will go straight from the left turn lane to continue N/B PVR. Since the right lane phases out into the left lane, there is a natural conversion of the cars in the one lane North of the freeway overpass.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
3bf22c8rd6h4 54 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Direction: N/B PVR starting at the signal South of the E/B HY 80 on ramp. There are 2 left turn lanes getting onto W/B Hy80 and onelane going thru the intersection. During busy traffic, cars approaching the intersection (before the signal) are all trying to get into their desired lanes. Cars in the right lane, speeding up to get into the left turn lanes, and cars in the left lane trying to get into the single lane to go through the intersection. There is no transition space for either lanes. There is also a solid white line between the left lanes and the single lane, which is illegal to cross but people have to do it because there is no transition. 2nd issue is cars caught in the left turn lanes who really want to go thru the intersection, will go straight from the left turn lane to continue N/B PVR. Since the right lane phases out into the left lane, there is a natural conversion of the cars in the one lane North of the freeway overpass.

Motor Vehicles  Curve unsafe
7t9vbz7gm4t8 55 Y Wright Ave Wright Ave/Victor St
Speeding is out of control.  It is not uncommon to see people exceeding 50mph in this unregulated stretch of Wright Ave between Victor and Doidge.  Recently a woman lost control of her car, totaled her car and 2 others parked and did almost $4k damage to my truck.There needs to be stop signs at Towns Ct and Marcas where they intersect with Wright Ave.  There are stop signs at all similarintersections on Doidge.  I feel that this would slow people down and make it safer for my kids, me, and my neighbors who walk frequently.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
377 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7t9vbz7gm4t8 55 Y Wright Ave Wright Ave/Victor St
Speeding is out of control.  It is not uncommon to see people exceeding 50mph in this unregulated stretch of Wright Ave between Victor and Doidge.  Recently a woman lost control of her car, totaled her car and 2 others parked and did almost $4k damage to my truck.There needs to be stop signs at Towns Ct and Marcas where they intersect with Wright Ave.  There are stop signs at all similarintersections on Doidge.  I feel that this would slow people down and make it safer for my kids, me, and my neighbors who walk frequently.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
7lg279rm8no3 56 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
the two stop lights ... at Estrella and Shea on Southbound PVR are lined up such that the line of sight leads the driver to "see" the first light ‐ but not realize that there is a second light until driver is right up on it. The drivers coming down Shea on a green light are in jeopardy of people running the red light on SB PVR.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
7lg279rm8no3 56 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
the two stop lights ... at Estrella and Shea on Southbound PVR are lined up such that the line of sight leads the driver to "see" the first light ‐ but not realize that there is a second light until driver is right up on it. The drivers coming down Shea on a green light are in jeopardy of people running the red light on SB PVR.

Motor Vehicles  Red Light Violation
8zt9vl2ww8t6 57 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
Crossing the street is very dangerous and driving is to this don’t make since cars don’t stop for people crossing the street need a light somebody gonna get hurt Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
8zt9vl2ww8t6 57 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
Crossing the street is very dangerous and driving is to this don’t make since cars don’t stop for people crossing the street need a light somebody gonna get hurt Pedestrian  Speeding
3kgs8zrb24x9 58 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  cars don’t stop don’t make since somebody gonna get hurt need a light Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 3kgs8zrb24x9 58 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  cars don’t stop don’t make since somebody gonna get hurt need a light Pedestrian  Speeding 9zp7k2con6c9 59 Y Appian Way  Appian Way/Mann Dr
Cars are coming down AND up the hill with very high speed. Unsafe for pedestrians, children and animals. Many pedestrian accidents in the past, including fatal.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
9zp7k2con6c9 59 Y Appian Way  Appian Way/Mann Dr
Cars are coming down AND up the hill with very high speed. Unsafe for pedestrians, children and animals. Many pedestrian accidents in the past, including fatal.

Pedestrian  Speeding
7d7o7n2mvy96 60 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Pinole Valley Road needs better bike lanes on each side to support  kids riding to Ellerhorst Elementary and to Pinole Valley High School Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 7d7o7n2mvy96 61 N Simas Ave Simas Ave  Simas Ave needs better bike lanes to support kids (and others)  riding to school and around town. Bicycle  School Safety 7d7o7n2mvy96 61 N Simas Ave Simas Ave  Simas Ave needs better bike lanes to support kids (and others)  riding to school and around town. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 8ix69nk4hwr9 62 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  speeding Motor Vehicles  Speeding7ye2bdj3nuf9 63 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave The south bound lane on San Pablo Ave, including the railroad bridge, is a major source of speeding vehicles coming into downtown Pinole, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians, parking cars, and bicycles. There needs to be some significant traffic calming devices included into the construction of the replacement bridge.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
378 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 7ye2bdj3nuf9 63 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
The south bound lane on San Pablo Ave, including the railroad bridge, is a major source of speeding vehicles coming into downtown Pinole, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians, parking cars, and bicycles. There needs to be some significant traffic calming devices included into the construction of the replacement bridge.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
6cu4sft3jmz4 64 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Traffic using Tennent/Pinole Valley Rd from San Pablo Ave to and from I‐80 on and off ramps poses a risk to cyclists and pedestrians when drivers disregard speed limits. Increasingly, those drivers appear when there is a traffic accident on I‐80 and drivers usePinole Valley Rd/Tennent as an alternate route to the next on/off ramps or San Pablo Valley Rd to continue their travel. There are also frequent backups from I‐80 onto Pinole Valley Rd. at the Eastbound offramp ‐‐ whether or not there is an accident on the freeway.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
6cu4sft3jmz4 64 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Traffic using Tennent/Pinole Valley Rd from San Pablo Ave to and from I‐80 on and off ramps poses a risk to cyclists and pedestrians when drivers disregard speed limits. Increasingly, those drivers appear when there is a traffic accident on I‐80 and drivers usePinole Valley Rd/Tennent as an alternate route to the next on/off ramps or San Pablo Valley Rd to continue their travel. There are also frequent backups from I‐80 onto Pinole Valley Rd. at the Eastbound offramp ‐‐ whether or not there is an accident on the freeway.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
6cu4sft3jmz4 65 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  See prior comment about regular traffic backups fro I‐80 Eastbound  at the Pinole Valley Rd. offramp toward Pinole Valley. Ugh! Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 8vr3tbv3yga8 66 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  PINOLE VALLEY ROAD BETWEEN SHEA DRIVE AND SIMAS AVENUE. Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 8vr3tbv3yga8 67 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  SPEEDING TRAFFIC IN BOTH DIRECTIONS Motor Vehicles  Speeding 4zu3wwp3i6f9 68 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  It is difficult for people on bicycles to safely pass through here. A  dedicated bike lane would help. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 4zu3wwp3i6f9 69 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  A dedicated bike lane would be helpful here. Bicycle  Bicycle Safety 3y82dfl83ap9 71 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Although there is a crosswalk here, drivers still fly through it even when my small children and I are clearly waiting to cross. It often appears that they don’t even see us. There have also been timeswhen one car has stopped to let us by, and a car goes around them on the right shoulder to drive straight through the crosswalk. It’s quite dangerous and would benefit from a traffic light or a blinking crosswalk light.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
3y82dfl83ap9 71 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Although there is a crosswalk here, drivers still fly through it even when my small children and I are clearly waiting to cross. It often appears that they don’t even see us. There have also been timeswhen one car has stopped to let us by, and a car goes around them on the right shoulder to drive straight through the crosswalk. It’s quite dangerous and would benefit from a traffic light or a blinking crosswalk light.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
7wr84fmc8nm4 72 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave  Speeding on San Pablo Avenue specially in afternoon rush hour has  become dangerous. Motor Vehicles  Speeding 7l6b9t3uea93 73 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Traffic is horrendous trying to get out of the valley and backs up from PVHS to I80.  Should there be a wildfire in the valley, people won't be able to get out!  I talked with a city official and they said it would only cost $500k to add another lane near Taco Bell to widen a way out onto 180.  I feel if the city is asking for citizen's input on roads/traffic they need to address which are of highest safety concern.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
379 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 4cv4xtc8gdm8 74 N Appian Way Appian Way
Elementary and middle school located here. The speed and quantity along along Appian Way during school drop‐off and pick‐up hours is intense. Aside from a couple of signs (which are hidden behind trees), there is little to protect young children walking to school. In addition, with the planned development at Doctor's Medical Center, the traffic situation will only worsen. More traffic controls ‐‐ such as radar detectors, speed bumps, additional crosswalks ‐‐ are needed.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
4cv4xtc8gdm8 74 N Appian Way Appian Way
Elementary and middle school located here. The speed and quantity along along Appian Way during school drop‐off and pick‐up hours is intense. Aside from a couple of signs (which are hidden behind trees), there is little to protect young children walking to school. In addition, with the planned development at Doctor's Medical Center, the traffic situation will only worsen. More traffic controls ‐‐ such as radar detectors, speed bumps, additional crosswalks ‐‐ are needed.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
4cv4xtc8gdm8 75 N Canyon Dr  Canyon Dr
Cars come very quickly down Canyon Drive. While the top of the hill has some white markings to slow cars, there is nothing once cars pass the stop sign. This is a residential neighborhood with children and a park. Speed bumps or similar control measures are needed.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
4cv4xtc8gdm8 75 N Canyon Dr  Canyon Dr
Cars come very quickly down Canyon Drive. While the top of the hill has some white markings to slow cars, there is nothing once cars pass the stop sign. This is a residential neighborhood with children and a park. Speed bumps or similar control measures are needed.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
2bk3vsc4f2w8 76 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinle Valley Rd  The shrubbery and utility box blocks the view of oncoming traffic  when making a right hand turn from E/B 80 onto PVR. Motor Vehicles  Visibility 2zuo6kmp3776 77 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinle Valley Rd
Left lane dividing into two left turn lanes to drive into 80W ‐ have better signage and ground paint that the left lane feeds into two left turning lanes. This will prevent significant backup that occurs on the left lane on Pinole Valley Rd.

Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
2zuo6kmp3776 77 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinle Valley Rd
Left lane dividing into two left turn lanes to drive into 80W ‐ have better signage and ground paint that the left lane feeds into two left turning lanes. This will prevent significant backup that occurs on the left lane on Pinole Valley Rd.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
2zuo6kmp3776 78 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Repaint stop sign line on Pinole Valley Rd at Wright Ave. Also  improve pedestrian sidewalk along Pinole Valley Park to Wright Ave Pedestrian  Pavement Condition 4r4uwl7bbl33 79 N Remuda Way  Remuda Way Left turn traffic here has terrible line of sight. Traffic will speed down southbound Simas and is difficult to see traffic going northbound on Simas Ave.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
4r4uwl7bbl33 79 N Remuda Way  Remuda Way
Left turn traffic here has terrible line of sight. Traffic will speed down southbound Simas and is difficult to see traffic going northbound on Simas Ave.

Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
4r4uwl7bbl33 79 N Remuda Way  Remuda Way
Left turn traffic here has terrible line of sight. Traffic will speed down southbound Simas and is difficult to see traffic going northbound on Simas Ave.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
4r4uwl7bbl33 80 N Shea Dr  Shea Dr
Traffic making a left turn can backup this street when school is out. Make this section NO PARKING. and have a dedicated Left Turn lane.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
4r4uwl7bbl33 80 N Shea Dr  Shea Dr
Traffic making a left turn can backup this street when school is out. Make this section NO PARKING. and have a dedicated Left Turn lane.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
380 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 64v9rg926v27 82 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Dr
The 25 mph speed  limit while students are present is constantly is constantly violated. Also, speeding above the speed limit when students are not present.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
93cpm2bt9th6 83 N Henry Ave Henry Ave  Need crosswalk to connect trail, and traffic calling for downhill  traffic. Motor Vehicles  School Safety 93cpm2bt9th6 83 N Henry Ave Henry Ave  Need crosswalk to connect trail, and traffic calling for downhill  traffic. Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety23zy2fc3wrw3 84 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave These existing flashing lights are helpful, but this is still dangerous because cars from southwest direction are fast and don’t alwaysstop. Want a full stoplight with pedestrian activation.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
23zy2fc3wrw3 84 N San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave
These existing flashing lights are helpful, but this is still dangerous because cars from southwest direction are fast and don’t alwaysstop. Want a full stoplight with pedestrian activation.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
667pb6b3e6k7 85 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Dr  Oversized pickup trucks with large trailers attached filled with 'junk'  obscure view for safely entering traffic from driveways Motor Vehicles  Visibility 667pb6b3e6k7 85 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Dr  Oversized pickup trucks with large trailers attached filled with 'junk'  obscure view for safely entering traffic from driveways Motor Vehicles  Large Trucks 9ou48ljs9soa 86 N Simas Ave Simas Ave  many drivers going way too fast through here Motor Vehicles  Speeding 3bab3xfw3jm4 87 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Biking along this road is near impossible and dangerous due to the high speeds of vehicles and how close they get to bicyclists. A more obvious and protected bike lane is needed here to connect the Pinole Valley neighborhood to Old Town Pinole and the Bay Trail’s bike path.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
4p2rfl439s96 88 N Simas Ave Simas Ave
Cross walk is subject to fast drivers who are not always payingattention. there is a home daycare on this corner. I think we should have a flashing lights to get drivers attention when crossing the street.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
4p2rfl439s96 88 N Simas Ave Simas Ave
Cross walk is subject to fast drivers who are not always payingattention. there is a home daycare on this corner. I think we should have a flashing lights to get drivers attention when crossing the street.

Pedestrian  Speeding
8esa7ycn8r76 89 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  No yeilding, blocking intersection Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety 8esa7ycn8r76 89 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  No yeilding, blocking intersection Pedestrian  Traffic Congestion 8esa7ycn8r76 90 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  People from the left lane drifting into the right lane Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety 6ha7w4vme6d9 91 N Appian Way Appian Way
Students from both West County Mandarin School (elementary aged kids) and Pinole Middle School are using this cross walk to get to school in the mornings and in the afternoons. Cars are oftenspeeding on Appian Way. There should be flashing pedestrian cross walk lights here and more obvious signage that kids are crossing at this intersection. I also think the left turn from Appian onto Mann Drive should be a no left turn during school morning traffic hours, so that families are forced to do the a one way loop by driving further down Appian Way, turning left onto Marlesta, left on McDonald, and right onto Mann Drive. This would help alleviate congestion and unsafe driving practices.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
381 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue 6ha7w4vme6d9 91 N Appian Way Appian Way
Students from both West County Mandarin School (elementary aged kids) and Pinole Middle School are using this cross walk to get to school in the mornings and in the afternoons. Cars are oftenspeeding on Appian Way. There should be flashing pedestrian cross walk lights here and more obvious signage that kids are crossing at this intersection. I also think the left turn from Appian onto Mann Drive should be a no left turn during school morning traffic hours, so that families are forced to do the a one way loop by driving further down Appian Way, turning left onto Marlesta, left on McDonald, and right onto Mann Drive. This would help alleviate congestion and unsafe driving practices.

Motor Vehicles  Pedestrian Safety
6ha7w4vme6d9 92 N Appian Way Appian Way
A traffic barrier should go up on Appian Drive between the cross‐directional lanes to prevent illegal and dangerous u‐turns from the middle of the street. Frequently during the Pinole Middle School morning traffic hours (when the left turn lane onto Mann Drive is backed up), I have seen cars pass the intersection, then stop traffic in the middle of the road to flip a u‐turn and go back up Appian Way to make a right turn onto Mann Drive. This is so unsafe and also creates congestion on Appian Way. Some kind of barrier preventing middle of the road u‐turns would be so helpful here.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
4vb6kox2pyb8 93 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  ALL of Pinole Valley Road should be 25‐30 MPH speed limit.  We  need to get the speeding under control. Motor Vehicles  Speeding2dz9djc2ja4a 94 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Difficult merging conditions especially when there is queuing. Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety 2dz9djc2ja4a 95 N Rail Road Ave  Rail Road Ave  Unsafe crossing conditions Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety2dz9djc2ja4a 96 N Rail Road Ave  Rail Road Ave  Difficulty crossing railroad crossing due to poor visibility and no  crossing controls. Motor Vehicles  Visibility 7np3uz7olu26 97 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd Drivers come through way too quickly in both directions cutting from the San Pablo Dam Road to the 80 freeway. They are drivingover the speed limit and don't stop at the crosswalks by PinoleValley Park. There are a lot of elementary school students who walk to school or home, and it is very unsafe.

Motor Vehicles  Speeding
7np3uz7olu26 97 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Drivers come through way too quickly in both directions cutting from the San Pablo Dam Road to the 80 freeway. They are drivingover the speed limit and don't stop at the crosswalks by PinoleValley Park. There are a lot of elementary school students who walk to school or home, and it is very unsafe.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
7np3uz7olu26 98 Y Wright Ave Wright Ave/Victor St  Drivers speed down Wright and don't stop at the stop sign. Motor Vehicles  Speeding7np3uz7olu26 98 Y Wright Ave Wright Ave/Victor St  Drivers speed down Wright and don't stop at the stop sign. Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation 2ak9hag2r9i3 99 Y Appian Way Appian Way/Mann Dr
Parents picking up their kids are making illegal u‐turns past the Appian/Mann intersection on the Appian hill to get to both schools. Cars are double parked and making u‐turns on Mann because of picking up kids. Kids running out between double parked cars and cars driving through isn’t safe for children. I can’t even drive down Mann to get to my own house without waiting in a line of jammedcars. It’s very frustrating and unsafe.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
37gzm7iea9e7 100 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave  Heavy traffic most days, on and out of trader Joe's parking lot Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 729x38yim288 101 N Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Rd  Speeding, school traffic, Motor Vehicles  Speeding 729x38yim288 101 N Marlesta Rd  Marlesta Rd  Speeding, school traffic, Motor Vehicles  School Safety 43jmu3vo4rhy 103 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Ave  Traffic back up when school is letting out Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion 9bo2ra3gl9v6 105 N Doidge Ave Doidge Ave  Speeding problems Motor Vehicles  Speeding 382 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue Email 1 N Appian Way Appian Way
Hi there, I just found out today (closing date for comments) about the traffic safety program. I'm sure other parents at Pinole Middle and West County Mandarin School have similar concerns about traffic safety at the school campus. It is important for the city to be aware of this issue because child safety is extremely important Motor Vehicles  School Safety
Email 2 Y I80
Concerns not addressed about drivers being able to quickly, safely evacuate ‐ see state evaluation sent 18 months‐two years ago. Also daily jams to get onto I‐80, either direction, increase collision danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, new or distracted drivers in area near I‐80 intersections. These are ongoing priorities that have not yet been successfully addressed; they need full attention that involves various agencies‐ CalTrans, WestCat bus stops, etc.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
Email 3 Y I80
Concerns not addressed about drivers being able to quickly, safely evacuate ‐ see state evaluation sent 18 months‐two years ago. Also daily jams to get onto I‐80, either direction, increase collision danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, new or distracted drivers in area near I‐80 intersections. These are ongoing priorities that have not yet been successfully addressed; they need full attention that involves various agencies‐ CalTrans, WestCat bus stops, etc.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
Email 4 Y I80
Concerns not addressed about drivers being able to quickly, safely evacuate ‐ see state evaluation sent 18 months‐two years ago. Also daily jams to get onto I‐80, either direction, increase collision danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, new or distracted drivers in area near I‐80 intersections. These are ongoing priorities that have not yet been successfully addressed; they need full attention that involves various agencies‐ CalTrans, WestCat bus stops, etc.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
Email 5
Thank you for your efforts. My wife, kids and myself are avid bike riders and pedestrians here in Pinole. We love walking down town and riding to nearby cities for events and dining. We can definitely use safer routes to get around.

Email 6 Y Need update in signage, traffic cameras at dangerous intersections,  speed monitors, and bumps to force slowdown.

Email 7 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
The intersection of Pinole Valley Road & Estates is especially a mess when PV High lets out in the afternoon. There is gridlock with cars coming out of the shopping center, cars driving down Pinole Valley Road and cars trying to turn from Estates. It is dangerous and time consuming. A fire engine or ambulance would not be able to get through the area in an emergency. Tickets should be issued. Perhaps U‐Turns should not be allowed during that time.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Improvement
Email 8 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
The intersection of Pinole Valley Road & Estates is especially a mess when PV High lets out in the afternoon. There is gridlock with cars coming out of the shopping center, cars driving down Pinole Valley Road and cars trying to turn from Estates. It is dangerous and time consuming. A fire engine or ambulance would not be able to get through the area in an emergency. Tickets should be issued. Perhaps U‐Turns should not be allowed during that time.

Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
383 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue Email 9
Concerns ‐ to help increase pedestrian safety at intersections: 1) accessible pedestrian signals (APS) should be considered at allmajor intersections 2) consider "no right on red" at intersections where vehicle/ped conflict occurred in the crosswalks 3) curb cuts should not be installed on the diagonal ‐ each line of travel should have it's own ramp ‐ this is especially important for people who are blind and visually impaired as well as for those who use wheelchairs 4) tactile warning surfaces should be at all corners (truncateddomes) 5) the principles of universal design should be used at all times to make Pinole more ped friendly and walkable Email 10
Instead of only focusing on car collisions, I'd like to see the city focus on making it safer for pedestrians, including children, to be able to safely walk to school/the park/shops etc.

Email 11 Bike lanes please!!!Email 12 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave To whom it may concern, There’s a very dangerous corner at 5th Ave. and San Pablo. Cars are aloud to park in front of 1149 SanPablo Ave. all the way to the corner of 5th Ave. making it difficult to make a left or right turn onto San Pablo Ave. In front of 1139 there is a red curb painted to prohibit parking in that spot. Is it possible to paint the red curb in front of 1149 San Pablo Ave. and remove the paint in front of 1139 San Pablo Ave.? That way it will allow drivers to see East bound oncoming traffic.

Email 13Email 14 N Appian Way Appian Way
High traffic during the usual commutes and school drop offs andpick up is a concern. Often there is a line of cars not moving but is not understood by those trying to get on the freeways or major streets. There seems to be more speeding on those and surrounding streets especially by young drivers.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
Email 15 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
The lights that were installed on PV Rd. after the HS completion are atrocious. Getting down PV rd. is a slog. You ruined a good road. You also caused speeding to increase as people no longer have to stop at the former stop sign and, due to the capricious lights,they(me, too) speed up to make the next one if it's green. Lastly, there is NO enforcement of speeding on PV. Rd. A speed gun is not enforcement. What do the police do? Motor Vehicles  Traffic Congestion
Email 16 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
The lights that were installed on PV Rd. after the HS completion are atrocious. Getting down PV rd. is a slog. You ruined a good road. You also caused speeding to increase as people no longer have to stop at the former stop sign and, due to the capricious lights,they(me, too) speed up to make the next one if it's green. Lastly, there is NO enforcement of speeding on PV. Rd. A speed gun is not enforcement. What do the police do? Motor Vehicles  Speeding
Email 17 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
The lights that were installed on PV Rd. after the HS completion are atrocious. Getting down PV rd. is a slog. You ruined a good road. You also caused speeding to increase as people no longer have to stop at the former stop sign and, due to the capricious lights,they(me, too) speed up to make the next one if it's green. Lastly, there is NO enforcement of speeding on PV. Rd. A speed gun is not enforcement. What do the police do? Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
384 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue Email 18 Y Sarah Drive Sarah Drive
Sarah Drive stop signs are notoriously ignored. As younger families continue to populate these older neighborhoods, it's important to enforce the existing signage and speed limits that are commonlyignored. I would recommend installing raised intersections or speed humps/cushions with cutaways in the middle to continue to promote bike riding.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
Email 19 Y Sarah Drive Sarah Drive
Sarah Drive stop signs are notoriously ignored. As younger families continue to populate these older neighborhoods, it's important to enforce the existing signage and speed limits that are commonlyignored. I would recommend installing raised intersections or speed humps/cushions with cutaways in the middle to continue to promote bike riding.

Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
Email 20 Y Sarah Drive Sarah Drive
Sarah Drive stop signs are notoriously ignored. As younger families continue to populate these older neighborhoods, it's important to enforce the existing signage and speed limits that are commonlyignored. I would recommend installing raised intersections or speed humps/cushions with cutaways in the middle to continue to promote bike riding.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Safety
Email 21 Y Sarah Drive Sarah Drive
Sarah Drive stop signs are notoriously ignored. As younger families continue to populate these older neighborhoods, it's important to enforce the existing signage and speed limits that are commonlyignored. I would recommend installing raised intersections or speed humps/cushions with cutaways in the middle to continue to promote bike riding.

Bicycle  Bicycle Safety
Email 22 Y Sarah Drive Sarah Drive
Sarah Drive stop signs are notoriously ignored. As younger families continue to populate these older neighborhoods, it's important to enforce the existing signage and speed limits that are commonlyignored. I would recommend installing raised intersections or speed humps/cushions with cutaways in the middle to continue to promote bike riding.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
Email 23 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Pinole's roads have fallen into disrepair in several locations. the most noticeable and quickest fix would be to improve the signage and painting up to State standards. Many signs aren't visible due to foliage. Some signs are weathered to the point of not being adequate. The road painting is terrible in many locations ‐ Lines have disappeared, markings on speed bumps are missing, and in some cases too many signs. Thank you Motor Vehicles  Stop Sign Violation
Email 24 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Pinole's roads have fallen into disrepair in several locations. the most noticeable and quickest fix would be to improve the signage and painting up to State standards. Many signs aren't visible due to foliage. Some signs are weathered to the point of not being adequate. The road painting is terrible in many locations ‐ Lines have disappeared, markings on speed bumps are missing, and in some cases too many signs. Thank you Motor Vehicles  Intersection Improvement
Email 25 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
Excessive and dangerous speeding traffic on Pinole Valley Road between Shea Drive, Granada Court, and Simas Avenue in both directions since last year 2020 when the City of Pinole replaced the Stop Signs at Shea Drive and Granada Court with Traffic Lights that are always on Green and a higher speed limit from 25 mph to 35 mph that everybody now exceeds when the City turned this once safe neighborhood into a racetrack and freeway for no good reason! And the City put the people who live here on Pinole Valley Road at risk and in harm's way for a life‐threatening disaster here every day because there are no longer any traffic safeguards orrestrictions or police enforcement! Motor Vehicles  Speeding
385 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue Email 26 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Driver are going to fast on PVR Motor Vehicles  SpeedingEmail 27 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Driver are going to fast on PVR Motor Vehicles  SpeedingEmail 28 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Driver are going to fast on PVR Motor Vehicles  SpeedingEmail 29 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd I urge to you expand your Local Road Safety Plan to consider not only collision history, but current dangerous driver behaviors that present a potential for future accidents. Vehicles race at high speed down Pinole Valley Road; and while the added traffic lights in front of Pinole Valley High School have helped that situation somewhat, it still happens frequently enough to be of concern. An added annoyance is the noise from unmufflered vehicles and motorcycles travelling at high speed. Two areas of ongoing concern are the red‐ light violations at the westbound Pinole Valley Road freeway exit (onto Pinole Valley Road), and the intersection of Fitzgerald Drive and Appian Way. Vehicles turning left from Fitzgerald Drive onto Appian Way ignore the red light and keep proceeding forward andturning left. How about installing a camera at these locations and issuing fines for violations? Finally, if the City has any authority for traffic and parking behavior in the Trader Joe's shopping center, it's time to cite vehicles (including commercial delivery vehicles) that are double‐parked, parked in red‐marked areas, and blocking traffic. I have had numerous close‐calls and near‐collisions trying to get around a delivery truck or private van/SUV blocking the 2‐lane south entrance/exit of the shopping center. The worst spot is in the area of Jamba Juice. Vehicles regularly park right in the cross‐walk, blocking the path of wheelchair users.

Motor Vehicles  School Safety
Email 30 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
I urge to you expand your Local Road Safety Plan to consider not only collision history, but current dangerous driver behaviors that present a potential for future accidents. Vehicles race at high speed down Pinole Valley Road; and while the added traffic lights in front of Pinole Valley High School have helped that situation somewhat, it still happens frequently enough to be of concern. An added annoyance is the noise from unmufflered vehicles and motorcycles travelling at high speed. Two areas of ongoing concern are the red‐ light violations at the westbound Pinole Valley Road freeway exit (onto Pinole Valley Road), and the intersection of Fitzgerald Drive and Appian Way. Vehicles turning left from Fitzgerald Drive onto Appian Way ignore the red light and keep proceeding forward andturning left. How about installing a camera at these locations and issuing fines for violations? Finally, if the City has any authority for traffic and parking behavior in the Trader Joe's shopping center, it's time to cite vehicles (including commercial delivery vehicles) that are double‐parked, parked in red‐marked areas, and blocking traffic. I have had numerous close‐calls and near‐collisions trying to get around a delivery truck or private van/SUV blocking the 2‐lane south entrance/exit of the shopping center. The worst spot is in the area of Jamba Juice. Vehicles regularly park right in the cross‐walk, blocking the path of wheelchair users.

Motor Vehicles  Improper Parking
386 of 560
Respondent ID # Lat Long Intersecti on? (Y/N) Major Road Name  Comment Received  Mode  Pertinent Issue Email 31 Y Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd
I urge to you expand your Local Road Safety Plan to consider not only collision history, but current dangerous driver behaviors that present a potential for future accidents. Vehicles race at high speed down Pinole Valley Road; and while the added traffic lights in front of Pinole Valley High School have helped that situation somewhat, it still happens frequently enough to be of concern. An added annoyance is the noise from unmufflered vehicles and motorcycles travelling at high speed. Two areas of ongoing concern are the red‐ light violations at the westbound Pinole Valley Road freeway exit (onto Pinole Valley Road), and the intersection of Fitzgerald Drive and Appian Way. Vehicles turning left from Fitzgerald Drive onto Appian Way ignore the red light and keep proceeding forward andturning left. How about installing a camera at these locations and issuing fines for violations? Finally, if the City has any authority for traffic and parking behavior in the Trader Joe's shopping center, it's time to cite vehicles (including commercial delivery vehicles) that are double‐parked, parked in red‐marked areas, and blocking traffic. I have had numerous close‐calls and near‐collisions trying to get around a delivery truck or private van/SUV blocking the 2‐lane south entrance/exit of the shopping center. The worst spot is in the area of Jamba Juice. Vehicles regularly park right in the cross‐walk, blocking the path of wheelchair users.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Improvement
Email 32 Y Appian Way Appian Way
I recall when pedestrians pressed walk buttons (e.g., Appian Way and Sarah Drive) it also activated bird chirps to alert motorists of crossing pedestrians. Bird chirp alerts should be reactivated for major pedestrian crosswalks.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
Email 33 Y Sarah Drive Sarah Drive
I recall when pedestrians pressed walk buttons (e.g., Appian Way and Sarah Drive) it also activated bird chirps to alert motorists of crossing pedestrians. Bird chirp alerts should be reactivated for major pedestrian crosswalks.

Pedestrian  Pedestrian Safety
Community Meeting 1 Y Appian Way Appian Way/Tara Hills Dr An eastbound right turn lane should be dedicated for traffic merging  to WB I‐80 to avoid conflict between traffic at the intersection.

Motor Vehicles  Intersection Improvement
Community Meeting 2 N Add traffic calming projects on residential streets. Motor Vehicles  Speeding Community Meeting 3 N Pinole Valley Rd Pinole Valley Rd  Add bike lane on northbound side of roadway on Pinole Valley Road  between Shea Dr and Simas Ave.  Bicycle  Bicycle Safety Community Meeting 4 Y Marlesta Rd Marlesta Rd/Kildare Wy Improve Traffic Safety near Shannon Elementary school especially  at Kildare and Marlesta intersection Pedestrian  School Safety Community Meeting 5 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/John St On San Pablo Avenue there have been more accidents, including apedestrian vehicle accident at Pinole Valley Rd., a powered pole hit in front of my house, a  vehicle rear ender at John Street, vehicle collisions at Fernandez Ave. and at John Street intersections, a tree knocked over near John Street, street poles at Fernandez corner by a vehicle, etc. I have been documenting these photos since San Pablo Avenue is "out of control," Motor Vehicles  Intersection Improvement
Community Meeting 6 Y San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave/Pinole Valley Rd Add left turn arrow at San Pablo/Pinole Valley Road intersections  and readjust yellow‐red timings.  Motor Vehicles  Signal Improvement 387 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | B
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS
388 of 560
8 Table 1: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Document Highlights
City of Pinole General Plan (2010)
 Goal CE.1: Reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage the use of public transit.
 Goal CE.2: Achieve a coordinated regional and local
transportation system that minimizes traffic congestion and efficiently serves users.
 Goal CE.3: Provide timely input and effective means (as appropriate) of programming street and highway
improvements to maintain the objective peak hour level of service without detrimentally impacting community character or commercial activity.
 Goal CE.4: Establish programs to support sidewalk, trail and street enhancements, where feasible.
 Goal CE.5: Provide adequate parking and loading facilities while encouraging alternative means of transportation.
 Goal CE.6: Reduce the amount of peak hour automobile
congestion on city streets, as appropriate.
 Goal CE.7: Support bicycle use as a mode of transportation by enhancing infrastructure to accommodate bicycles and riders. • Policy CE 7.1: Enhance the City's bikeway network
through the use of Class I, II and III bikeways.
• Policy CE 7.2: Establish standards for new development and redevelopment projects to support bicycle use.
• Policy CE 7.3: Establish a network of multi-use paths to facilitate safe and direct off-street bicycle and
pedestrian travel.
• Policy CE 7.4: Establish bicycle safety as a priority through ongoing public education.
 Goal CE.8: Provide a safe network of well-maintained pedestrian walkways throughout Pinole that encourages walking as a form of non-motorized transportation.
• Policy CE 8.1: Require development to provide
pedestrian walkways that are safe, interconnected and
accessible by all members of the community
• Policy CE 8.2: Encourage the community to take
advantage of Pinole's pedestrian facilities and
recreational opportunities and increase non-motorized
modes of transportation.
389 of 560
9 Document Highlights
• Policy CE 8.3: Design access ways to school facilities that will ensure public safety.
• Policy CE 8.4: Encourage the location of basic shopping and services within walkable distances to residential
areas.

City of Pinole Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Policy (2008)
Goals
 Reduce the speed of vehicles on residential streets, with demonstrated speeding problems, to levels consistent with speeds on more typical City of Pinole residential streets.  Increase safety by reducing demonstrated accident patterns on impacted residential streets to levels consistent with those of typical City of Pinole residential streets.
 Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood educational programs, which address residential traffic problems.
 Implement· selective enforcement actions in neighborhoods with demonstrated or perceived traffic-related problems.  Eliminate, or discourage, non-local, cut-through traffic on residential streets.

The following measures support the implementation of program goals:
 Encourage citizen participation throughout the Program by seeking the input of affected residents and non-resident property owners through neighborhood meetings, written
communication, and open forum opportunities with Traffic Committee and with City Council.
 Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times caused by the implementation of neighborhood traffic calming
measures.
 Limit the potential for shifting traffic problems from one residential neighborhood to another when implementing traffic calming measures.
 Respond to complaints in a timely manner.

Recommended Traffic Calming Tools:
 Higher Visibility Crosswalks
 Entrance Treatment
 Speed Humps
 Curb Extensions or Chokers (Bulb-Outs)
 Traffic Circles
 Roundabout
390 of 560
10 Document Highlights
 One-Way Streets
 Median Barriers
 Semi-Diverted or Half Closures
 Diagonal Diverters
 Cul-de-sac or Street Closure
 Traffic Calming Signs
City of Pinole Three Corridors
Specific Plan (2010) updated (2018)
Goals
 To facilitate the transition of the San Pablo, Pinole Valley Road, and Appian Way corridors so that they complement the land uses and development pattern planned for the corridors
through the implementation of this specific plan
 To maintain and improve vehicular traffic circulation within the Specific Plan Areas to safely and efficiently move both local and through traffic to its destination
 Accommodate future demand for circulation by all modes of transportation
 To implement traffic calming techniques in specific areas to improve traffic and pedestrian safety
 To create attractive urban streetscapes with design and amenities that are visually compatible with and enhance planned private development pursuant to this specific plan, and that support pedestrian use and outdoor activities
Policies
 The City will implement a comprehensive plan for a coordinated street circulation system that will provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within and through the Specific Plan Areas.
 All future roadway and intersection improvements will consider pedestrian and traffic safety first and foremost. Modifications to the standards, regulations, and/or guidelines contained herein are permitted in those instances where safety is at issue.  The City will implement traffic calming measures, as designated in this Specific Plan, to facilitate the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment throughout the Specific Plan Area in general, and in specified pedestrian-oriented retail, mixed-use and residential development areas along San Pablo Avenue.  The City will continue to oversee circulation system
improvements within the Specific Plan Areas that is capable of 391 of 560
11 Document Highlights
adequately accommodating a reasonable increase in future traffic demands
 The City will discourage through traffic and truck traffic for those roadway segments that are not designed to handle such traffic
 The City will employ measures that will discourage through traffic on local streets
 The City will ensure that there are clear rights-of-way for safe passage of pedestrians and bicyclists using San Pablo Avenue, Pinole Valley Road and Appian Way
 The City will provide access for people who are disabled or impaired at all pedestrian crosswalks, and will include audible pedestrian crossing signal devices, and other appropriate safety measures at signalized pedestrian crosswalks where the City Engineer deems them appropriate
 Any future roadway and intersection improvements undertaken by the City shall be in conformance to, and consistent with, this specific plan.
 The City will continue to analyze traffic congestion and evaluate strategies to improve the efficiency of the local transportation and circulation system
Corridor 1 circulation element concepts: Sab Pablo Avenue  Strengthen bicycle connections between Old Town and Appian Way
 Strengthen pedestrian connections between Tennent Avenue by widening and making existing sidewalks continuous within the corridor, adding bike routes and paths along the corridor  Narrow San Pablo Avenue in Old Town to improve walkability Corridor 2 circulation element concepts: Pinole Valley Road  Strengthen pedestrian connections between Pinole Valley Shopping Center and the Valley (south of Interstate 80) by widening and making existing sidewalks continuous within the corridor, adding bike routes and paths along the corridor  Improve public transportation connections between the Valley (south of I-80) and the Pinole Valley Shopping Center and maximize safety through shelter, lighting, signage, and visibility  Improve and create visual and physical linkages to Pinole Valley Creek via bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and amenities and 392 of 560
12 Document Highlights
by orienting commercial uses toward the creek and to the edge of Pinole Valley Road
Corridor 3 circulation element concepts: Appian Way
 Strengthen bicycle connections along the Appian Way corridor between Old Town and the Appian Way shopping centers
 Strengthen pedestrian connections between the junior high school and the Appian Way shopping centers
Old Town Pinole Parking &
Pedestrian Safety Study (2020)
Goals
 Completing a parking study to determine parking utilization in accordance with the General Plan and in response to Old Town Pinole business concerns
 Improving pedestrian safety in arriving to their destinations in Old Town Pinole, especially from underutilized parking lots  Increasing connectivity between parking and destinations, including the Bayfront
 Enhancing Old Town Pinole's unique character as both a destination and as a pedestrian experience
Priority Pedestrian Facility Improvement Recommendations:

1. Tennent at San Pablo
• Extend sidewalk to the intersection to remove gap
Reduced corner radius
• Curb extension
• High-Vis crossing markings
• Street trees and planting
• On-street parking
• Consolidate additional driveways

2. Pinole Creek Trail and Pinole Valley Rd at San Pablo Ave • Pedestrian signal, synced with Pinole Valley
• Curb extension
• High Vis crossing markings
• Match dimensions from Fernandez Ave
• Relocate driveway to Rafaela St.

3. Bayfront Park
• 8'-10' wide Shared Use Path
• High Visibility Crossing markings
• Re-orient existing crossing
• Curb Extension
• Maintain 22'-24' wide driveway
393 of 560
13 Document Highlights
• Existing RR tracks and crossing arms
• Signage & Wayfinding Opportunity
Capital Improvement Plan (FY
2021/22 – 2025/26
Project Priority and Selection Criteria
 Consistency with community plans and policies
 Public and political support
 Sustainability
 Cost savings or revenue generation
 Project demand, determined by inventory of existing land, equipment, and facility conditions
 Economic, environmental, aesthetic or social impacts
 Public health, safety or other legal concerns
Road Projects: City Street Improvement Funding sources
 Arterial Streets Rehabilitation 377
 Rule 20A
 Gas Tax
 Measure J
Funded Projects
 Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program – road maintenance and rehabilitation.
 Pinole Valley Road Improvements – Improvements on Pinole Valley Road at completion of Pinole Valley High School
construction.
 Pinole Road Underground District – Underground utilities on Pinole Valley Road to complement the Pinole Valley High School Project
 San Pablo Avenue Bridge over BNSF Railroad – Replace San Pablo Ave bridge
 San Pablo Avenue Rehabilitation – Cold mill 2 ½ inches of asphalt concrete pavement and replace with new HMA,
reconstruct 13 curb ramps, replace damaged sidewalk and close sidewalk gap
 Installation of a HAWK at Appian and Marlesta
 Hazel Street Gap Closure – Hazel Street four-lot subdivision project roadway improvements
 Pedestrian improvements at Tennent near RXR –Improvements to Tennent Ave at the Railroad crossing to facilitate the movement of bicycles and pedestrians adjacent to vehicle traffic 394 of 560
14 Document Highlights
Contra Costa Countywide Bike and
Pedestrian Plan (2018)
Goals
 Encourage more people to walk and bicycle
 Increase safety and security for pedestrians and bicyclists  Create a safe, connected, and comfortable network of bikeways and walkways for all ages and abilities
 Increase the livability and attractiveness of Contra Costa's communities and districts
 Equitably serve all of Contra Costa's communities while ensuring that public investments are focused on projects with the greatest benefits
Objectives
 Increase the share of trips made by walking and bicycling in Contra Costa
 Reduce the rate of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries per capita
 Increase the number of miles of low-stress bikeways in Contra Costa
 Increase the number of jurisdictions in Contra Costa with bicycle, pedestrian, or active transportation plans
 Integrate complete street principles and best practices into Authority funding and design guidance
Low-Stress Bikeway (Class I) facilities in Pinole:
 Along Pinole Creek north of I-80 (Existing)
 Along Pinole Creek south of I-80 (Proposed)
 San Francisco Bay Trail (Proposed)
 Along San Pablo Avenue (Proposed)
 Along Appian Way (Proposed)
CCTA Transportation Expenditure
Plan (2020)
Goals
 Relieve Traffic Congestion on Highways and Interchanges  Make Bus, Ferry, Passenger Train, and BART Rides Safer, Cleaner, and More Reliable
 Provide Accessible and Safe Transportation for Children, Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities
 Improve Transportation in Our Communities
Projects
 Enhance I-80, I-580 (Richmond-San Rafael Bridge), Transit, and BART Corridor
• Improve Transit Reliability Along the I-80 Corridor
395 of 560
15 Document Highlights
• Relieve Congestion and Improve Local Access Along
the I-80 Corridor
• Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads in West County
• Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in West
County
• Improve Traffic Flow and Local Access to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Along I-580 and Richmond Parkway
• Seamless Connected Transportation Options
CCTA Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (2017)
 GOAL 1: Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes
 GOAL 2: Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy, preserve its environment and support its communities
 GOAL 3: Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle
 GOAL 4: Maintain the transportation system
 GOAL 5: Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding
Routes of Regional Significance in Pinole:
 Interstate 80
 Appian Way from San Pablo Ave to city limit
 San Pablo Avenue within the city limits
Contra Costa County
Transportation Analysis Guidelines
(2020)
Transportation Policy Framework
 Senate Bill 743 – California Environmental Quality Act  County General Plan
• Growth Management Element
• Transportation and Circulation Element
 Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
 Complete Streets
• Contra Costa County Complete Streets Principles
• Contra Costa County Complete Streets Implementation
Measures
 Vision Zero Contra Costa County
 County Ordinance Code
• Section 74-4.006 – Electric Vehicle ("EV") Charging
• Chapter 82-16 – Off-Street Parking
• Chapter 82-32 – Transportation Demand Management
• Title 9 - Subdivisions
 Contra Costa Transportation Authority
396 of 560
16 Document Highlights
• CCTA Technical Procedures
• CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• CCTA Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance West County Action Plan (2017)
Goals
 Provide efficient and effective local and regional transit services  Expand high-capacity transit in West County
 Increase use of active transportation modes
 Complete and expand the regional trail system
 Pursue and sponsor transportation demand management
programs to reduce single occupant vehicle travel
 Actively manage growth to support regional land use and transportation goals
 Improve the efficiency of highway and arterial operations  Maintain existing transportation facilities in adequate condition to provide safe and effective service
 Support and improve quality of life in communities impacted by rail transport
Actions for West County Routes of Regional Significance within the City of Pinole:
 Implement the recommendations of the Complete Streets plans that affect San Pablo Avenue
 Implement the recommendations of the Appian Way
Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study
 Implement Pinole San Pablo Avenue Bridge Replacement over BNSF Railroad – Complete Street
West Contra Costa High-Capacity
Transit Study (2017)
Goals
 Increase transit ridership by providing efficient, frequent, and reliable service
 Improve connections between transit systems and services  Expand transit in competitive corridors to new and underserved travel markets
 Protect and enhance the environment and maintain a high quality of life
 Support sustainable urban growth
 Provide equitable access for residents and businesses  Make efficient use of public financial resources
397 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | C
APPENDIX C. EXTENDED LIST OF HIGH INJURY INTERSECTIONS

RANKING IN CITY OF PINOLE
398 of 560
I‐1 San Pablo Ave and Tennet 193 Signalized
I‐2 Appian Way and Fritzgerald 183 Signalized
I‐3 Appian Way and Canyon Dr and Tara Hills 183 Signalized I‐4 Appian Way and Marlesta Rd 177 Two Way Stop Controlled I‐5 Pinole Valley Road, Tennet Ave Ellerhorst St 171 Signalized I‐6 Walter and San Pablo 165 Two Way Stop Controlled
I‐7 San Pablo Ave and Appian Way/Pinon Ave 28 Signalized I‐8 San Pablo Ave and Del Monte Dr/Belmont Wa 18 Signalized I‐9 Fitzgerald Dr and Best Buy 17 Signalized
I‐10 Appian Way and Michael Drive 12 Two Way Stop Controlled I‐11 San Pablo Ave and Fernandez Ave 12 Signalized
I‐12 San Pablo Ave and Sunnyview Dr 12 Signalized
I‐13 San Pablo Ave and Pinole Valley Road 12 Signalized I‐14 Fitzgerald Dr and KFC Driveway 12 One Way Stop Controlled I‐15 Sarah Dr and Geoffrey Ct 11 One Way Stop Controlled ID Intersection EPDO
Score Traffic Control
City of Pinole LRSP ‐ High Injury Intersection Ranking
399 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | D
APPENDIX D. CONSOLIDATED HIGH INJURY COLLISION

DATABASE
400 of 560
CASE_ID HIN ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIMHour 6869718 6869718 2015 4/13/2015 707 3/11/2015 829 8
6869722 6869722 2015 4/13/2015 707 3/10/2015 1443 14
6928141 6928141 2015 6/2/2015 707 5/9/2015 2345 23
6934070 6934070 2015 6/9/2015 707 4/27/2015 2250 22
6936250 6936250 2015 10/15/2015 707 5/15/2015 1218 12
7189422 7189422 2016 2/25/2016 707 1/27/2016 2011 20
7097553 7097553 2015 10/21/2015 707 10/8/2015 1809 18
7121523 7121523 2015 11/20/2015 707 10/7/2015 1818 18
7131881 7131881 2015 1/5/2016 707 11/22/2015 1240 12
7131882 7131882 2015 12/24/2015 707 11/25/2015 1740 17
8179452 8179452 2016 1/25/2017 707 11/8/2016 1815 18
7141244 7141244 2015 12/28/2015 707 11/21/2015 2028 20
7148105 7148105 2015 1/4/2016 707 11/5/2015 1330 13
6988028 6988028 2015 7/20/2015 707 6/2/2015 1717 17
8005917 8005917 2016 3/24/2016 707 2/27/2016 1704 17
8014853 8014853 2016 4/8/2016 707 3/15/2016 600 6
8016532 8016532 2016 4/13/2016 707 3/24/2016 832 8
8018204 8018204 2016 8/29/2016 707 4/4/2016 1720 17
8022527 8022527 2016 4/21/2016 707 3/9/2016 1405 14
8037499 8037499 2016 5/17/2016 707 4/25/2016 1807 18
8067599 8067599 2016 7/5/2016 707 3/31/2016 1018 10
8054456 8054456 2016 6/17/2016 707 5/12/2016 1716 17
7159792 7159792 2015 3/4/2016 707 12/18/2015 1516 15
8101439 8101439 2016 8/17/2016 707 7/3/2016 700 7
8110253 8110253 2016 8/31/2016 707 7/30/2016 2142 21
8110285 8110285 2016 8/31/2016 707 7/31/2016 2100 21
8112104 8112104 2016 8/31/2016 707 8/5/2016 2242 22
8115007 8115007 2016 9/1/2016 707 7/30/2016 1914 19
8172629 8172629 2016 11/29/2016 707 9/28/2016 1757 17
8160712 8160712 2016 11/29/2016 707 9/8/2016 1654 16
8172457 8172457 2016 11/23/2016 707 10/14/2016 1025 10
8124920 8124920 2016 9/21/2016 707 9/13/2016 2032 20
8179220 8179220 2016 12/9/2016 707 10/28/2016 1523 15
8087431 8087431 2016 7/25/2016 707 7/11/2016 1506 15
8189170 8189170 2016 1/10/2017 707 11/20/2016 217 2
8192557 8192557 2016 12/22/2016 707 10/15/2016 1834 18
8201460 8201460 2017 3/29/2017 707 3/5/2017 406 4
8316110 8316110 2017 3/3/2017 707 2/10/2017 2145 21
8324971 8324971 2017 3/20/2017 707 3/2/2017 1910 19
8333049 8333049 2017 4/3/2017 707 3/13/2017 1808 18
8394245 8394245 2017 6/28/2017 707 6/8/2017 932 9
8394320 8394320 2017 6/22/2017 707 6/9/2017 2119 21
8395856 8395856 2017 7/10/2017 707 5/1/2017 1410 14
8401052 8401052 2017 7/31/2017 707 6/10/2017 1259 12
8733814 8733814 2018 12/5/2018 707 10/19/2018 1553 15
8757533 8757533 2018 12/17/2018 707 11/21/2018 2356 23
90611633 90611633 2017 12/6/2017 9320 11/30/2017 750 7
401 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
OFFICER_IDREPORTING_DISTRICT DAY_OF_WCHP_SHIFT POPULATION CNTY_CITY SPECIAL_CO 349 3 5 3 707 0
349 2 5 3 707 0
207 6 5 3 707 0
379 1 5 3 707 0
377 5 5 3 707 0
349 3 5 3 707 0
207 4 5 3 707 0
358 3 5 3 707 0
214/381 7 5 3 707 0
341 PINOW 3 5 3 707 0
219 2 5 3 707 0
216 PINOL 6 5 3 707 0
213 4 5 3 707 0
2051333 2 5 3 707 0
377 BAY 6 5 3 707 0
2171388 BAY 2 5 3 707 0
214 4 5 3 707 0
369 1 5 3 707 0
P380 3 5 3 707 0
213 1 5 3 707 0
213 4 5 3 707 0
213380 4 5 3 707 0
349 5 5 3 707 0
217 BAY 7 5 3 707 0
P375 6 5 3 707 0
379 7 5 3 707 0
202 5 5 3 707 0
375 6 5 3 707 0
211 3 5 3 707 0
377 BAY 4 5 3 707 0
217 BAY 5 5 3 707 0
214 2 5 3 707 0
217 BAY 5 5 3 707 0
213 1 5 3 707 0
375 7 5 3 707 0
388 RAY 6 5 3 707 0
202 7 5 3 707 0
214 5 5 3 707 0
214 4 5 3 707 0
375 1 5 3 707 0
332 4 5 3 707 0
210 5 5 3 707 0
210 BAY 1 5 3 707 0
332 6 5 3 707 0
384 5 5 3 707 0
201 3 5 3 707 0
18525 4 1 3 707 1
402 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
BEAT_TYPECHP_BEAT_CITY_DIVIS CHP_BEAT_BEAT_NUMBER PRIMARY_RD 0 0 0 2 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 TENNENT AV
0 0 0 3 APPIAN WAY
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WAY
0 0 0 2 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 3 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 1 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 2 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 2 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 1 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 WALTER AV
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 3 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 2 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 1 TENNENT AV
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 2 APPIAN WAY
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 1 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 2 PINOLE VALLEY RD
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 1 TENNENT AV
0 0 0 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 3 APPIAN WY
0 0 0 3 FITZGERALD DR
0 0 0 1 TARA HILLS DR
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
0 0 0 1 SAN PABLO AV
4 S 2 901 PINOLE VALLEY RD
403 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTIONINTERSECTIONTJKM_INT COLLISION_PCF_CODE_ RAMONA AV 654 N N N 2 ‐
SAN PABLO AV 75 S N Y 3 ‐
MICHAEL DR 363 S N N 4 ‐
TENNENT AV 19 N N Y 2 ‐
CANYON DR 15 S N Y 4 ‐
ESTATES AV 472 S N N 2 ‐
FITZGERALD DR 0 Y Y 2 ‐
DEL MONTE DR 104 E N Y 4 ‐
TENNENT AV 37 W N Y 3 ‐
FITZGERALD DR 1490 0 Y Y 3 ‐
ELLERHORST ST 218 S N Y 2 ‐
COLLINS AV 20 N N Y 3 ‐
ESTATES AV 487 S N N 3 ‐
DOWNER ST 34 S N Y 4 ‐
SAN PABLO AV 168 N N Y 2 ‐
CANYON DR 0 Y Y 4 ‐
JOVITA LN 853 E N N 3 ‐
MARLESTA RD 0 Y Y 2 ‐
SARAH DR 219 S N Y 4 ‐
APPIAN WY 0 Y Y 4 ‐
OAK RIDGE RD 279 W N N 3 ‐
FERNANDEZ AV 96 E N Y 4 ‐
ESTATES AV 471 S N N 4 ‐
PINOLE VALLEY RD 0 Y Y 4 ‐
TARA HILLS DR 75 S N Y 4 ‐
MARLESTA RD 0 Y Y 4 ‐
FITZGERALD DR 0 Y Y 4 ‐
DEL MONTE DR 15 W N Y 4 ‐
APPIAN WY 687 W N N 3 ‐
MICHAEL DR 13 S N Y 4 ‐
MARLESTA RD 21 S N Y 4 ‐
FITZGERALD DR 1501 24 W N Y 4 ‐
SAN PABLO AV 159 S N Y 4 ‐
ESTATES AV 67 N N Y 4 ‐
OAK RIDGE LN 282 E N N 4 ‐
COLLINS SCHOOL 220 S N Y 4 ‐
OAKRIDGE AV 30 E N Y 4 ‐
FITZGERALD DR 1550 7 W N Y 4 ‐
KFC DRWY 22 E N Y 4 ‐
PINOLE VISTA 300 W N N 4 ‐
FITZGERALD DR 0 Y Y 4 ‐
APPIAN WY 388 W N N 4 ‐
APPIAN WY 157 W N Y 2 ‐
DEL MONTE DR 415 E N N 2 ‐
FERNANDEZ AV 70 E N Y 4 ‐
TENNENT AV 0 Y Y 4 ‐
I‐80 70 W N Y 4 ‐
404 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
PCF_VIOL_ PCF_VIOLAPCF_VIOL_ HIT_AND_RTYPE_OF_CMVIW PED_ACTIOROAD_SURROAD_CON 10 21950 A N G B C B H
9 21801 B N D G A A H
5 21650 1 N ‐ ‐ A A H
1 23152 A N B C A A H
3 22350 N C C A A H
9 21804 A N D C A A H
12 21453 A N D C A A H
9 21804 A N D C A A H
0 21760 C M B G A A H
10 21950 A F G B B A H
1 23152 N C E A A H
3 22350 N E I A A H
8 22107 N D C A A H
3 22350 N C C A A H
3 22350 M E I A A H
12 21453 A M B C A A H
18 N A I A A H
11 21950 B N G B B A H
3 22350 N C C A B H
8 22107 F D C A A H
8 22107 N A I A A H
3 22350 N C C A A H
9 21804 A N D C A A H
12 21453 A N D C A A H
3 22350 N C C A A H
9 21802 A N D C A A H
12 21453 A N A C A A H
3 22350 M C C A A H
10 21950 A N G B C A H
3 22350 A N ‐ C A A H
9 21802 A N D C A B H
9 21804 A N H C A A H
3 22350 F C C A B H
3 22350 N C C A A H
1 23152 N E I A A H
5 21460 A N A C A B H
1 23152 A N E I A B H
22 N G B B A H
9 21801 A N H C A A H
7 21658 A N E ‐ A A H
3 22350 N B C A B H
9 21804 B N E G A A H
3 22350 N G B A A H
9 21804 N D C A A H
3 22350 F C C A A H
12 21453 A F G BBBH
3 22350 N C C A A H
405 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
ROAD_CONLIGHTING CONTROL_ CHP_ROADPEDESTRIA BICYCLE_ACMOTORCYCTRUCK_ACCNOT_PRIVA ‐ A A 0Y Y
‐ AD 0 Y Y
‐ C‐ 0 Y Y
‐ CA 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y Y
‐ AA 0 Y Y
‐ BD 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y Y
‐ C A 0Y Y
‐ CD 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ CA 0 Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ A D 0Y Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y
‐ CA 0 Y Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ A A 0Y Y
‐ AD 0 Y Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ CA 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y
‐ CA 0 Y
‐ C D 0Y Y
‐ CD 0 Y Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ CD 0 Y Y
‐ AD 0 Y
‐ AD 0 Y Y
‐ AA 0 Y
‐ C A 0Y Y
‐ AA 0 Y
406 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
ALCOHOL_ STWD_VEHCHP_VEHTYCOUNT_SE COUNT_VISCOUNT_COCOUNT_PE COUNT_PE COUNT_BIC A 1100010
L 4010000
L 4001000
Y ‐ ‐  1 1 0 0 0 0
A 1001000
A 7100000
‐ ‐  1 0 0 0 0 0
‐ 002000
‐ 99 0 1 0 0 0 0
YA 1010010
YA 1101000
A 1010000
A 1020000
A 1001000
A 7100000
‐ 001000
‐ ‐  0 1 0 0 0 0
A 1100010
A 1001000
Y D 22 0 0 1 0 0 0
A 1010000
A 7002000
A 1001000
A 7002000
A 1001000
D 22 0 0 1 0 0 0
C 2001000
YA 1001000
A 1010010
C 2001000
A 1001000
YA 8001000
YA 8003000
D 22 0 0 1 0 0 0
YA 1001000
‐ ‐  0 0 1 0 0 0
YA 1001000
A 1001010
C 6002000
A 1001000
A 1001000
L 4001000
A 1100000
A 1100000
Y‐ 001000
YA 1001010
H 13 0 0 1 0 0 0
407 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
COUNT_BICCOUNT_MCCOUNT_MCPRIMARY_RSECONDARLATITUDE LONGITUDE 0 0 0 ‐  ‐
1 0 0 ‐  ‐
1 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
1 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
1 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 1 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐
0 0 0 ‐  ‐  37.9977 ‐122.28663
408 of 560
CASE_ID
6869718
6869722
6928141
6934070
6936250
7189422
7097553
7121523
7131881
7131882
8179452
7141244
7148105
6988028
8005917
8014853
8016532
8018204
8022527
8037499
8067599
8054456
7159792
8101439
8110253
8110285
8112104
8115007
8172629
8160712
8172457
8124920
8179220
8087431
8189170
8192557
8201460
8316110
8324971
8333049
8394245
8394320
8395856
8401052
8733814
8757533
90611633
COUNTY CITY POINT_X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.285 37.99257
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.291 38.00537
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.299 37.98897
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.291 38.00558
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.302 37.99525
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.286 37.99429
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.3 37.99156
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.316 38.003
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.291 38.00548
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.306 37.99105
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.288 38.00166
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.279 37.98327
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.286 37.99425
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.288 38.00295
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.312 38.0049
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.302 37.99529
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.308 37.99079
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.299 38.00175
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.3 37.9911
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.3 37.99156
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.294 38.00416
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.29 38.0061
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.286 37.99429
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.288 38.00211
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.302 37.99511
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.299 38.00175
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.3 37.99156
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.316 38.00284
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.303 37.99169
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.299 37.98992
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.299 38.00169
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.305 37.99129
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.299 38.00376
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.286 37.99576
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.292 38.00478
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.288 38.00165
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.293 38.00436
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.302 37.99143
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.302 37.99149
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.304 37.99151
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.3 37.99156
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.302 37.99148
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.303 37.99538
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.315 38.00344
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.29 38.00607
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.291 38.00555
CONTRA COSTA PINOLE ‐122.286 37.99738
409 of 560
Local Roadway Safety Plan | E
APPENDIX E. LRSM EXCERPT
410 of 560
3/30/2018 Local Roadway Safety - (Version 1.4)
Version 1.6
April 2022
411 of 560

Document History
Version 1.0: 4/20/2012
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance developed the first version of the Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.0) in 2012 to support the Cycle 5 HSIP call-for-projects.

Version 1.1: 4/26/2013
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 5, Caltrans updated Appendix B: “Table of Countermeasures and Crash Reduction Factors” to better clarify text in “Where to use”, “Why it works”, and “General Qualities” for several of the countermeasures included in the original manual.

No other changes were made to the Local Roadway Safety Manual as part of Version 1.1 Version 1.2: 03/10/2015
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 6, Caltrans made minor updates to the text of the document as needed for achieving consistency with overall Caltrans local HSIP guidance documents. The following sections were updated: 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2, and Appendix B, E, F & G.

Version 1.3: 04/29/2016
Caltrans made updates to the text of the document as needed in the following sections: 4.2, 5.1 and Appendix B.

Version 1.4: 06/08/2018
3/30/18 - Caltrans made updates to the crash costs in Appendix D, some of the website links in Appendix G, and some other texts of the document.
6/8/18 - Countermeasure S22 (“Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)”) is added.

Version 1.5: April 2020
Caltrans added a few more countermeasures (e.g. Pedestrian Scramble, Install Separated Bike Lanes, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections, and Curve Shoulder widening), renumbered the countermeasures and updated the crash costs in Appendix D.

Version 1.6: April 2022
For Cycle 11 Call-for-projects, Countermeasure S04 (Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches) was deleted and Countermeasure NS05mr (Convert intersection to mini-roundabout) added. The HSIP Funding Eligibility was changed to 90% except for S03, of which the HSIP Funding Eligibility stays at 50%. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated.

Future Updates:

In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls-for-Projects’ Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | i 412 of 560

Table of Contents
Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction and Purpose...................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities .................................................. 3

1.2 Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety..................................................................................... 4

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem...............................................................................................5

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification......................................................................... 6

1.6 Implementation Approaches ........................................................................................................ 7

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies.................................................................................10

1.8 Summary of information in this Document................................................................................11

2. Identifying Safety Issues......................................................................................................................15

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases ................................................................................................16

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)...........................................................................18

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports.................................................................................................19

2.4 Observational Information..........................................................................................................19

2.5 Public Notifications .....................................................................................................................20

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices.........................................................................................................20

2.7 Exposure Data .............................................................................................................................21

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits.................................................................................22

3. Safety Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................23

3.1 Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................................................................23

3.2 Qualitative Analysis.....................................................................................................................25

4. Countermeasure Selection ..................................................................................................................28

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors ..........29

4.2 List of Countermeasures .............................................................................................................30

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects .............................................................................36

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements...............................................36

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements ...................................................38

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio ...............................................................................................................38

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements ..........................39

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements..............................................................................40

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures........................................................................40

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................40

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations ............................................................41

7. Evaluation of Improvements...............................................................................................................42 Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Process ................................................................................................43 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures .....................................................................................44 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized ...............................................................................47 S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) ............................................................................................. 47 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number .................. 47 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) ..................................................................... 48 S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems....................................................................................................... 49 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | ii 413 of 560

50 55
60 65
70 75
S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) ....................................... 49 S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists).............................................................................

S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)....................................................................................................

S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted).................................................................................................. 50 S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) .......................................................................... 51 S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.).................................................................................................... 51 S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................. 52 S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) ................................................................................................................ 52 S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches................................................................................................ 53 S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) ...................................... 53 S15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)......................................................................................................... 54 S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads .......................................................................................................... 55 S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)................................................................................................................................. 56 S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble............................................................................................................................................... 56 S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)..................................................................................... 57 S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) ......................................................... 57 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized........................................................................58 NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) .............................................................

NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) ...........................................................................................................

NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ......................................................

NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) .............................................................................................................................. 58 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) ........................................................................... 58 NS03, Install signals ............................................................................................................................................................ 59 NS04, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop)....................................................................................... 59 NS05mr, Convert intersection to mini-roundabout.......................................................................................................... 60 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs...................... 61 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections .................................................................................... 62 NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) .............................................................................................. 62 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches..................................................................................................... 63 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)............................................................................. 63 NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) .......................................................................... 64 NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches........................................................................................... 64 NS15, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) ................................. 65 NS16, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) ................................................................................................... 66 NS17, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.).................................................................................................................................... 67 NS18, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) ............................................................................................ 67 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) .............................................................................................................. 68 NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)........................................... 68 NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) ................. 69 NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)........................................................................................... 69 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures........................................................................................................71 R01, Add Segment Lighting................................................................................................................................................. 71 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone.......................................................................... 71 R03, Install Median Barrier................................................................................................................................................. 72 R04, Install Guardrail .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 R05, Install impact attenuators .......................................................................................................................................... 73 R06, Flatten side slopes ...................................................................................................................................................... 73 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail ................................................................................................................. 74 R08, Install raised median .................................................................................................................................................. 74 R09, Install median (flush) .................................................................................................................................................

R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing......................................................................................................................... 75 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | iii 414 of 560

R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes .................................................................................................................... 76 R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) ......................................................................................................................... 76 R13, Add two-way left-turn lane ........................................................................................................................................ 77 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) ........................................................ 77 R15, Widen shoulder........................................................................................................................................................... 78 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) ................................................................................................................. 78 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) ........................................................................................................ 79 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve......................................................................................................................................... 80 R19, Improve curve superelevation................................................................................................................................... 80 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic................................................................................................................. 81 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................ 81 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) .................................................... 82 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves ............................................................................................................... 83 R24, Install curve advance warning signs.......................................................................................................................... 83 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) ........................................................................................... 84 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs......................................................................................................... 84 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers .............................................................................................. 85 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines .............................................................................................................................. 86 R29, Install no-passing line................................................................................................................................................. 87 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes .................................................................................................................... 87 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes....................................................................................................................... 88 R32PB, Install bike lanes..................................................................................................................................................... 88 R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 89 R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) ............................................................................ 89 R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) .............................................................. 90 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing ......................................................................................................................... 91 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)............................................................................................. 91 R38, Install Animal Fencing ................................................................................................................................................ 92 Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”...................................................................................93 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations.....................................................................................97 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS ..............................98 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................99 Appendix G: References............................................................................................................................100 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | iv 415 of 560

Foreword
Why was this manual developed?
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance’s goal in developing this manual is to maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in Caltrans’ statewide, data-driven call-for-projects.

This goal is complicated by California’s wide variety of local agencies, roadway types, and project types, including: rural vs. urban, low-volume vs. high-volume, and intersection vs. roadway segment vs. network-wide. This variety makes it difficult to administer a single program and provide one set of guidelines that meets the needs of all California’s local roadway owners and users. Many of California’s local agencies are also challenged by the lack of a basic safety analysis framework and analysis tools specifically designed for local roadway managers with widely varying responsibilities and safety training.

Currently, there is a vast range of safety documents, program guidance, and analysis tools with a wide variety of complexity and applications. Without clear and simple safety guidance for locals, many agencies take a ‘reactive’ approach to safety, even when research has shown ‘proactive’ safety analysis of roadways is more effective in making system-wide safety improvements.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety provides national leadership in identifying, developing, and delivering safety programs and products to local governments to improve highway safety on local and rural roads.1 In 2010, FHWA published a set of three manuals designed specifically for rural road owners; Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Road Safety Information Analysis.2 These manuals present a simple, data driven safety analysis framework for rural agencies across the nation. These manuals, in conjunction with Caltrans’ ongoing short-term research and development contract with the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a unique opportunity for Caltrans to pursue development of this document as a mirror of FHWA’s new Manuals for Local Rural Road Owners. Much of the wording, formatting and references from these FHWA manuals have been directly incorporated into this manual for California’s local road owners. Individual references to the FHWA manuals have not been included; instead these documents are intended to be referenced on a wholesale basis.

With FHWA’s and SafeTREC’s support and expertise, Caltrans was able to expedite the completion of this manual and can now offer California’s local agencies a new tool intended to provide focused roadway safety information in one manual.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 1 416 of 560

1. Introduction and Purpose
The information in this document is geared towards local road managers and other practitioners with responsibility for operating and maintaining local roads, regardless of safety-specific highway training.

The primary goal of this document is to provide an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. For novice practitioners, the concepts and framework will be new, while experienced safety practitioners may find this manual to be mostly review. In both cases, the manual will provide the practitioners with a good understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure HSIP safety funding during Caltrans calls-for-projects.

It’s expected that novice and experienced practitioners will utilize this manual to help position their local agency to better compete in future Caltrans’ calls-for-projects for safety programs. Inexperienced local roadway practitioners are also a target audience for this manual to gain exposure to the basic concepts that make up a proactive safety analysis of a local agency’s roadway network.

The intent of this manual is to focus on key safety activities that every local agency should conduct on an annual basis (or as established by the agency) with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction. This manual defines this overall process as a “proactive safety analysis” approach to roadway safety. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM), documents a very similar process and refers to it as the “Roadway Safety Management Process.” While the process in this document is similar and suggests the same primary elements, the HSM goes into significantly more detail, focuses more on scientific and mathematical equations behind the process, and intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall processes to be applied by individual agencies across the nation. In contrast, this manual attempts to streamline the discussion; and make accommodations for the more novice safety practitioners, provide an adequate understanding of the process to complete an initial safety analysis of their roadway network, and instruct them on how to prepare applications that will compete well in Caltrans’ statewide calls-for-projects. In general, this manual is intended to follow the research and methodologies presented in the HSM; however, to support Caltrans’ statewide calls-forprojects process, it is important to note this manual deviates from the HSM in areas related to countermeasure selection and benefit / cost calculations. The logic behind these deviations is explained at the specific topic sections.

This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including:
maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency’s traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 2 417 of 560

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities California’s local roads are managed by more than 600 local agencies, including: cities, counties, and tribal governments. These local roads vary from flat multi-lane urban arterials to rural gravel roads in mountainous areas. California local agencies invest extensive resources on roadway safety every year, yet many roadways operate with outdated or insufficient safety features. A portion of these roadways even lack basic signing, pavement markings, alignment, and traffic control devices. Limited funding often prevents agencies from constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinder local agencies’ accurate evaluation of their roadway network safety issues, which is more preventable.

Many small California local agencies are challenged by a lack of crash data. Without data, they have no way to identify High Crash Concentration Locations (HCCLs) or high risk roadway features, which can leave them “flying blind” with respect to the safety of their overall roadway network. Without data and analysis results, local officials may overreact when a tragic crash occurs, resulting in resources being spent in areas that will not maximize the overall application of safety funds. In conjunction with the collision mapping and analysis tools developed by UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, this document helps ensure all California local agencies have direct access to data on fatal and injury crashes within their jurisdictions and the analysis tools to effectively assess and prioritize future safety projects.

1.2 Safe System Approach
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Under IIJA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C §148), is a core federal-aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The IIJA emphasizes the “safe system approach”:

Safe system approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)).

FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 3 418 of 560

to reduce crash severity and save lives. FHWA encourages States to prioritize safety in all Federal-aid investments and in all appropriate projects, using not only HSIP funding but also other Federal-aid funding.

The IIJA emphasizes the importance of vulnerable road user ( non-motorized road user) safety in the HSIP by adding a definition for vulnerable road users, creating a vulnerable road user special rule, and requiring States to develop and update a vulnerable road user safety assessment. All of these provisions address the increasing number of fatalities involving vulnerable road users on U.S. roads. It is imperative that States consider the needs of all road users as part of the HSIP. Investment in highway safety improvement projects that promote and improve safety for all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, aligns with the IIJA and will help Build a Better America. States and other funding recipients should prioritize projects that maximize the existing right-of-way for accommodation of non-motorized modes and transit options that increase safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System approach and improve safety for vulnerable road users.

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s HSIP safety funding intended for local roadway safety improvements. This funding primarily comes to the state through two federal programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—a federal-aid program focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP)—a federal aid and state funded program focused on improving safety and the overall use of non-motorized, active transportation modes of travel. Under SAFETEA-LU, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3) was established to focus on addressing rural road safety needs but in MAP-21 and FAST, it is now a ‘special rule’ under HSIP that if triggered, directs that a certain amount of HSIP funds will need to be allocated for those rural roads that meet the definition.

Caltrans’ administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans’ overall data-driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans’ project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call-for-Projects Process is provided in Appendix A.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 4 419 of 560

Many State Departments are also actively engaged in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Caltrans developed the SHSP in a cooperative process with local, State, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive plan that established statewide goals, objectives, integrated the five E’s of traffic safety— engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. This manual directly supports many of the emphasis areas of the California SHSP. Local agencies are encouraged to participate in ongoing SHSP update efforts and can find more information on the SHSP at the following website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/shsp.

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) The state-funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) was established in 2016. The intent of the SSARP was to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications. Late 2019, the program was evolved to Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) so that the focus is not just engineering solutions but also include safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, Education and emergency response.

The state funding for the LRSP/SSARP program is made available by exchanging the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds.

For more information, please visit the LRSP/SSARP webpage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem
Approximately 3,000 people die in California traffic crashes every year, representing nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of these fatalities occur on local roadways, while only forty-three percent occur on the California State Highway System. A comparison of rural and urban roadways shows that local rural roadways have fatality rates 2 to 3 times higher than urban roadways per vehicle miles traveled. Based on these statistics, the total annual cost of local roadway fatal crashes to California is over $6 billion, while only $100 million is available annually in HSIP safety funds.

These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 5 420 of 560

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification
Safety issues are identified on local roadways through a wide range of approaches. Although no single approach works best for all local agencies, some are far more effective at improving long-term roadway safety. Many agencies, often larger ones, have staff whose full-time job is dedicated to roadway safety; allowing them to focus on safety initiatives, be trained in the latest safety research, and have access to safety analysis data, tools and procedures. These agencies often utilize a ‘proactive’ approach to analyze their roadway network and identify safety issues.

At the same time many agencies, often the smaller ones, lack the financial ability to dedicate large portions of their staff resources to analyze safety issues and their staff has limited access to roadway safety training, safety expertise, and the latest safety analysis tools and procedures. Unfortunately, this can often result in identifying their safety issues in ‘reaction’ to tragic events.

The following is a basic outline of the differences in proactive vs. reactive identification approaches used by local agencies:

Reactive Approach
For this document, an agency is considered to be utilizing a reactive approach to roadway safety if they primarily identify safety improvements in reaction to:
• Recent crashes triggering safety investigations
• Specific crash concentrations triggering safety investigations • Stakeholder identification of locations with safety issues and requests for improvements • New funding becoming available
Crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort. They may also miss many opportunities to effectively utilize low-cost, systemic type improvements. This document encourages local agencies to adopt a more proactive approach to their roadway safety.

Proactive Approach
An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways:
• One-time, network-wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. • Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 6 421 of 560

similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. In addition, even though a spot location improvement may be based on ‘past’ crashes, agencies making improvements based on countermeasures with proven crash reduction factors at their highest crash locations often have the best chance of proactively reducing future crashes.

This document encourages safety practitioners to pursue a proactive approach and routinely analyze the safety of their roadway networks to yield the best overall safety results.

1.6 Implementation Approaches
When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. The safety practitioner should consider which implementation approach to utilize. Typical approaches include:
• Systemic Approach
• Spot Location Approach
• Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches, as documented in Sections 2 and 3 of this manual.

Systemic Approach
The Systemic Approach is primarily based on application of proven safety countermeasures at multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Implementation of the Systemic Approach is generally based on ‘system-wide’ crash data with the estimates of the impacts being made in terms of benefits measured in traffic crash reduction and deployment cost. Identified locations experiencing high levels of crashes and locations with similar geometric features can be treated systemically with low-cost, proven safety countermeasures. Note: The term “Systemic” used throughout in this manual is often exchanged with the term “Systematic” in many national safety documents and research studies. In general, safety practitioners will find these terms interchangeable. This manual uses “Systemic” to match the new HSM and the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse.

Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor:
crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor’s pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left-turn phase of signalized intersections with 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 7 422 of 560

existing left-turn pockets: severe crashes may not have occurred at each of the left-turn movements, but with minor changes to the signal hardware and signing, all or many of a city’s unprotected left-turn phases can be protected with one safety project. • Crash type prevention. By focusing on a predominant crash type, an agency can address locations that have not experienced significant numbers of these types of crashes, but have similar characteristics or conditions as existing HCCLs. The resulting B/C ratios for these types of projects will be less than if only HCCLs are included; but by using low-cost countermeasures and including as many high crash locations as possible, the resulting B/C ratios should still be high enough to allow agencies to proactively address locations that have not experienced high numbers of these types of crashes. For urban areas, projects improving pedestrian crossings can be good examples of the Systemic Approach. By applying the countermeasures systemically, the agency can often justify these projects based on relatively high B/C ratios, even though some of the improvement locations have not experienced enough crashes to yield moderate-to-high B/C ratios on their own. • Cost-effectiveness. Implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more cost-effective approach to addressing system-wide safety issues. Even though this approach does not address all (or total) safety issues for a given location, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be an agency choosing to install rumble stripes along an entire corridor for equal or less money than realigning a small portion the roadway to fix a single curve. • Reduced data needs. The Systemic Approach can be used without a detailed crash history for specific locations, thereby reducing data needs. For example, consider a long rural corridor, which includes a section that passes through an Indian Reservation: Even if there is no documented crash data for the portion of the corridor that passes through the reservation, the entire limits can be treated with the same low-cost improvements. As long as there are sufficient past crashes documented for the entire corridor, the project will still have a reasonably high B/C ratio.